Task-Based Knowledge Management

In modern organizations, the major role of knowledge management is supporting knowledge work. The concept of knowledge work assumes not only task performance, but also the review and evaluation of the work done in order to understand and learn from the experience. Knowledge work relies on a body of knowledge to support processes that address both the performance of work and the intellective aspects of the work activity (Zuboff, 1988). In this sense knowledge management becomes one of the most important mechanisms in implementing such support. In this article we present task-based knowledge management (TbKM) as an alternative approach to knowledge management (KM).

A Social Network Perspective on Knowledge Management

Social networks—the sets of relations that link individuals and collectives—have implications for the speed and effectiveness with which knowledge is created and disseminated in organizations Both social networks and knowledge management (KM) are complex, multifaceted phenomena that are as yet imperfectly understood. Not unsurprisingly, our understanding of the interface between the two is similarly imperfect and evolving. There are, however, a number of foundational concepts upon which existing thought converges as well as a body of emerging research that offers practical and conceptual guidance for developing the kind of network best suited for managing different kinds of knowledge. In this article, we introduce rudimentary network concepts, briefly recapitulate KM and organizational learning concepts related to networks, and then explore some of the interfaces between social networks and KM.

Secure Knowledge Discovery in Databases

Knowledge management (KM) systems are quite diverse, but all provide increased access to organizational knowledge, which helps the enterprise to be more connected, agile, and effective. The dilemma faced when using a KM system is to balance the goal of being knowledge-enabled while being knowledge-secure (Cohen, 2003; Lee & Rosenbaum, 2003).

Organizational Structure

For many decades, organization scientists have paid considerable attention to the link between knowledge and organization structure. An early contributor to these discussions was Max Weber (1922), who elaborated his concepts of professional bureaucracy. History shows a multitude of other descriptions and propositions which depict knowledge-friendly organization structures such as the ‘organic form’ for knowledge-intensive innovation promoted by Burns and Stalker (1961), professional bureaucracies and adhocracies described by Mintzberg (1983), and the brain metaphor for organization structure (Morgan, 1986). Discussions on such knowledge­friendly organization structures led to many neologisms including the flexible, intelligent, smart, hypertext, N-form, inverted, network, cellular, or modular organization.

Organisational Storytelling

In this article we consider some of the ways in which narrative approaches might contribute towards a better understanding of organisational knowledge management. The telling of stories has a long, rich, and varied tradition, stretching back hundreds of years. In the study of organisations, storytelling can be seen as part of a wider field of enquiry, Organisational Discourse, which seeks to ascribe meaning to social exchanges within organisations (Grant, Hardy, Oswick, & Putnam, 2004; Grant & Hardy, 2003). Narratives have been explicitly identified (Wensley, 1998; Denning, 2000; Ward & Sbarcea, 2001) as one of the ways in which knowledge might be exchanged in organisational settings, but only limited consideration has been given to the ways in which storytelling approaches can increase our understanding of the creation and dissemination of knowledge in organisations. In this article we reflect on what we might learn from the application of narrative processes, particularly organisational storytelling, and from narrative content, particularly organisational narrative knowledge, to assess the place of such storytelling in KM.

Mathematical Knowledge Management

Mathematical knowledge is significantly different from other kinds of knowledge. It is abstract, universal, highly structured, extraordinarily interconnected, and of immense size. Managing it is difficult and requires special techniques and tools.

Learning Networks and Service-Oriented Architectures

The value of knowledge assets in creating competitive advantage and subsequently wealth through innovation has never been greater (Teece, 1998). It is increasingly being acknowledged that the resources and the competencies developed within the organisation as well as the mechanisms for building up and reconfiguring these competencies is the only defence against a fierce competition (Penrose, 1959; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997). However, the nature of knowledge production has changed dramatically over the last years. According to Gibbons et al. (1994), the knowledge production has moved from mode 1 to mode 2. The new mode: • requires transdisciplinary approaches • is characterised by heterogeneity of skills • is context-sensitive involving an intense interaction between producers and users of knowledge

Learning in Organizations

In work life, socially based learning occurs all the time. We learn from interactions between peers, genders, functional groups, and across hierarchies, and it happens in ways not normally recognized as learning (Jordan, 1993). Therefore, use of the term “social” learning reflects that organizations, organizational units, and work groups are social clusters, as are study groups and task groups, and thus learning occurs in a social context.

Knowledge Sharing Barriers

To ensure continued existence, an organization must develop ways to share the knowledge that is possessed within that organization with the people who need, or who will need, that knowledge. This critical organizational task transcends departmental boundaries and is a necessary element for the maintenance of every organizational function. Improving the efficiency of knowledge sharing is a highly desirable goal because it offers a promise of compounded returns as the organization works harder and smarter. As business practices have developed over the last few decades, knowledge workers have developed a variety of mechanisms and routines to share knowledge, but these have not yet been well studied. Specifically, the barriers to knowledge sharing remain somewhat elusive.

Knowledge Organizations

An important endeavor within the field of knowledge management (KM) is to better understand the nature of knowledge organizations. These are variously called knowledge-based organizations, knowledge-centric organizations, knowledge-intensive organizations, knowledge-oriented organizations, and so forth. One approach to doing so is to study the characteristics of specific organizations of this type such as Chaparral Steel (Leonard-Barton, 1995), Buckman Labs, World Bank, or HP Consulting (O’Dell, 2003). A complementary approach is to study various frameworks that have been advanced for systematically characterizing the elements, processes, and relationships that are found in knowledge organizations. Here, we examine three such frameworks that are representative of the variety in perspectives that have been advocated for understanding the nature of knowledge organizations. These frameworks share a view that sees knowledge as a key organizational asset that enables action. However, they differ in emphases (e.g., asset vs. action) and constructs.