K now ledge and K now ledge Work

The discussion of u n d e rsta n d in g know ledge an d k n ow ledge w o rk is based on three m ain phases, nam ely the early 1960s, 1970s an d 1980s (1st Phase), d u rin g the 1990s (2nd Phase) an d the cu rren t inform ation revolution in the 2000s (3rd Phase). In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, au th o rs like Michael Polanyi, D aniel Bell an d A lvin Toffler m ad e an effort to sta rt explaining w h at k n ow ledge is all about. D uring this tim e, these au th o rs outlined the concept of know ledge, b u t d id n o t p ro v id e the pre-em inent w ay to utilise it. There w ere som e view s on "k n ow ledge" as "in fo rm atio n " and "inform ation" as "kno w led g e". There w as little d escrip tio n of w h a t know ledge w o rk actually looked like. Perhaps this is because of the active scientific m an ag em en t practice am ong w orkers at th at tim e, w here there

w as a belief th at only m anagers should d o the "th in k in g " an d w orkers w ere only there to "d o " their p a rt (see for exam ple N ew ell et al. 2002, pp. 8- 12). Follow ing T aylorism , N ew ell et al. (2002) arg u ed th at there w as no such th in g as "k n o w led g e w ork" at th at time. W orkers as m achines d id not need to k n o w an y th in g except how to com plete their ro u tin e tasks.

In the second p hase of the 1990s, au th o rs like Bell, Blackler, N onaka and colleagues, G rayson a n d O 'D ell, Sveiby, D av en p o rt an d Prusak, D rucker, Spender, G u rteen etc. discussed know ledge an d em p h asised the im portance of retain in g know ledge for the success of com pany. This is because the w o rld experienced several econom ic crises as w ell as the failure of reen g in eerin g m echanism s at th at time. Because of this, know ledge started to be considered as a crucial asset for personal, com pany an d national success. For exam ple, in relation to resource based theory an d k n o w led g e based theory, N onaka (1994), N onaka an d Takeuchi (1995), N o n ak a a n d K onno (1998), an d N onaka an d R einm oeller (2000) in tro d u ced the concept of a know ledge-creating com pany as being concerned w ith m ak in g in d iv id u al insight available for testing an d use by the com pany as a w hole. K now ledge-creating com panies constantly encourage the process w hereby personal know ledge is m ad e available to others (articulation) to extend th eir ow n tacit k n ow ledge base (internalisation). In this view , N onaka an d Takeuchi (1995) divided know ledge into "tacit know ledge", the expertise an d experience of individuals an d gro u p s, an d "explicit know ledge", the co m p an y 's rules, routines an d procedures. They fu rth er arg u ed th at the ability of the com pany to be laten t (i.e. retain its m em ory an d the potential to use it) is the key to com petitive advantage. Therefore, the role of the m anagem ent could be to p ro v id e a conceptual fram ew ork th at helps em ployees to m ake sense of inform ation, w hich they believe to be different from know ledge.

In ex p an d in g the above w ork, Blackler (1995) categorised the know ledge th at resides in the in d iv id u al or in a gro u p of w orkers into five types, as outlined here: em b rain ed - brain oriented (i.e. thinking a n d /o r cognitive abilities); em b o d ied - action oriented (i.e. docum ents; p artially explicit); en cu ltu red - co m p an y cu ltu re oriented (i.e. collective sh arin g culture); em b ed d ed - ro u tin e o riented (i.e. com pany system of technologies); encoded - in terp retatio n oriented (i.e. u n d e rstan d in g of signs an d symbols). H e fu rth er a rg u e d th at the utilisation of each of these types of know ledge d e p en d s largely on the type of com pany. They are n o t considered to be split, b u t are assum ed to be w o rk in g together. For exam ple, in d ev elo p in g new softw are, as m ost of the MSC status com panies are d o in g rig h t now , know ledge w orkers w o u ld norm ally start w ith cognitive abilities, in term s of w h at co m p u ter p ro g ram m e should be used. This is th en follow ed by docu m en tin g to-do lists, an d the sharing of know ledge w ith in a sm all g ro u p in o rd er to com plete the task. Once the task is done, its k n ow ledge will becom e ro u tin e an d interpretation- oriented. H ow ever, there is still a challenge for the researcher to explore exactly h o w these com panies m anage a n d /o r utilise these types of know ledge effectively. F u rth er discussions on findings related to this issue are p resen ted in C h ap ters 6 an d 7.

Ultim ately, k n o w led g e is definitely a d riv in g force for the g ro w th of business activities an d of the nation (Blackler, 1995; D av en p o rt an d Prusak, 1998; G rayson a n d O 'D ell, 1998; N onaka, 1994; S pender, 1996; Sveiby, 1997). For exam ple, k n ow ledge has been p ro v ed to be a source of business success, as in the M cKinsey C o n su ltan ts' C om pany, M icrosoft an d K odak (Sveiby, 1997). These com panies encourage a n d p ro v id e incentives for those w h o share k n ow ledge an d perform m ore, no m atter w h at background the w ork ers have (i.e. clerk, officers, m iddle m an ag em en t and top m anagem ent). These exam ples analysed know ledge as the basic force for stren g th en in g com petitiveness an d a survival factor for the tw enty-first

century. In this reg ard , the accum ulation of know ledge is im p o rtan t for later use an d therefore the real essence of know ledge sh o u ld be filtered w ith in a com pany.

To dissem inate this know ledge, based on the sam e review as above, know ledge m an ag em en t is seen as the m ost crucial task contributing to w ard s m axim ising know ledge w ith in the com pany. H ence, the u n d e rstan d in g of know ledge w o rk as a strategic resource is p ertin en t for the concept of m an ag in g know ledge w orkers. K now ledge w o rk d u rin g this tim e w as k n o w n as "w o rk w hich u sed m ore b rain th an h an d s" (H orribe, 1999). This k n o w led g e w o rk w as very different from p ro d u ctio n w o rk such as th at do n e in a factory (Drucker, 1998). In relation to this, Sveiby (1997) highlighted th at k n ow ledge w ork w o u ld norm ally start from the know ledge com panies w ho use different principles, such as su p p o rtin g or n o t su p p o rtin g k n ow ledge sharing activities, an d have a k n o w led g e- focused strategy, co m p ared w ith the industrial p aradigm . For instance, from know led g e-b ased perspective, people, know ledge a n d custom ers are considered as rev en u e generators an d therefore as the focus of the business (see for exam ple Table 2.2).

Table 2.2

T he Principles of the Knowledge O rganisation Item Seen w ithin an industrial

paradigm , or from an industrial perspective

Seen w ithin a know ledge paradigm , or from a know ledge perspective People Cost generators or resources Revenue generators

M anager's power base Relative level in organisation's hierarchy

Relative level of knowledge Power struggle Physical labourers versus capitalists Knowledge workers versus

managers

Main task of management Supervising subordinates Supporting colleagues

Information Control instrument Tool for communication, resource Production Physical labourers processing

physical resources to create tangible products

Knowledge workers converting knowledge into intangible structures

Information flow Via organizational hierarchy Via collegial networks

Primary form of revenues Tangible (money) Intangible (learning, new ideas, new customers, R&D)

Production bottlenecks Financial capital and hum an skills Time and knowledge

Manifestation of production Tangible products (hardware) Intangible structures (concepts and software)

Production flow Machine-driven, sequential Idea-driven, chaotic Effect of size Economy of scale in production

process

Economy of scope of networks Customer relations One way via markets Interactive via personal networks Knowledge A tool or resource among others The focus of business

Purpose of learning Application of new tools Creation of new assets Stock market values Driven by tangible assets Driven by intangible assets Economy Of diminishing returns Of both increasing and

diminishing returns Source: Sveiby, K.E. (1997: p. 27)

F urtherm ore, by h av in g a know ledge-focused strategy, a com pany has a different w ay of practising its know ledge w ork. M cKinsey C onsultants' com pany, according to Sveiby (1997), p rovides a good exam ple of how know ledge w o rk can operate well. Such com panies appreciate their know ledge w ork ers an d allow th em to p roduce w h atev er they think is good for the com pany. A t the sam e tim e, they appreciate team -based w ork m ore th an in d iv id u al efforts. In fact, according to Sveiby (1997), know ledge w ork is arg u ed to be m ore effective an d efficient in sm all com panies, like m ost of the MSC statu s com panies, th an in larger com panies. Being a small "tightly-knit fam ily", everyone know s w h a t is going on, an d w ho is responsible for w hat, w h en w o rking as a team . This en vironm ent discourages any u n h ealth y com petition am ong w orkers, as the perform ance ev alu atio n is do n e based on the w hole team rath e r th an on an individual w orker.

In the c u rre n t inform ation age of the 3rd phase, the critical evaluation and the need to retain k n ow ledge an d leverage it for the success of com pany in achieving a sustainable com petitive ad v an tag e in the know ledge-based econom y has becam e the m ain concern, an d has been stu d ied extensively by m any researchers. By differentiating betw een d ata an d inform ation, D av en p o rt a n d P ru sak (2000: p. 5) defined know ledge as originally com ing from data, w hich on analysis becom es inform ation an d hence becom es know ledge. K now ledge consists of a fluid mix of fram ed experience, values, contextual inform ation an d experts' insight th at provides a continuous fram ew o rk for evaluating an d incorporating n ew experiences an d inform ation.

In addition, D av en p o rt an d P ru sak (2000) also em phasised th at know ledge originates from a n d is ap p lied to the m inds of those "in the know " (i.e. w orkers in the com pany). H ow ever, they fu rth er arg u ed th a t in a com pany, know ledge is n o t only em b ed d ed in h u m an m inds, d o cu m en ts or repositories, b u t also in the co m p an y 's routines, processes, practices, and norm s. F u rth er to this w ork, Beijerse (2000) po in ted o u t th a t know ledge is the factor w ith w hich en trep ren eu rs can distinguish them selves from their com petitors. This know ledge is characterised by the a m o u n t of inform ation, the capacity an d attitu d e req u ired to function, achieve, an d to be accessible w ith in a com pany. In agreem ent w ith this, P robst et al. (2000) arg u ed th at k n ow ledge is the w hole body of cognitions an d skills th at individuals u se to solve problem s. It includes theories an d practices as well as everyday rules an d instruction for action. K now ledge is based on data and inform ation, b u t unlike these, it is alw ays b o u n d to individuals. It is constructed by individuals, an d represents their beliefs ab o u t causal relationships.

Follow ing the sam e concept, Bollinger an d Sm ith (2001) tried to describe know ledge as the u n d erstan d in g , aw areness, or fam iliarity of the individual acquired th ro u g h study, investigation, observation or experience over a course of time. Sim ilar to Sveiby (1997) an d G rayson and O 'D ell (1998), T soukas an d V ladim irou (2001) indicate th a t know ledge is definitely influenced by actions, to "learn new things" an d "u n lea rn old things". It is an in d iv id u a l's ow n in terp retatio n of inform ation based on personal experience, skills, an d com petencies. This m eans th at w hen som ebody needs to finish his or her thesis u sing a com puter, the person needs to learn h o w to use M icrosoft W ord effectively an d m u st be p rep a red to forget (i.e. unlearn) som e techniques a n d /o r know ledge a b o u t using a typew riter.

O ne of the o th er im p o rtan t contributions to th e u n d e rsta n d in g of know ledge d u rin g this phase com es from N ew ell et al. (2002). U sing the stru ctu ral an d processual perspectives on the w o rk do n e by N onaka (1994), S pender (1996) an d Blackler (1995), they agreed th at k n ow ledge can be d iv id ed into tw o categories. Firstly, know ledge is a n "object" a n d /o r a "th in g " th at is static an d requires the in d iv id u al's personal initiative to w ork for it in o rd er to possess it. Secondly, k n ow ledge is k n o w n as a "process" an d occurs via daily activities an d ju st h ap p en s w ith o u t anyone noticing, such as d u rin g friendly conversation, reading, w atching television, w alk in g etc. Both types of know ledge are considered valuable for the co m p an y 's success. The first m ean in g urg es k n o w led g e w orkers to appreciate their life-long learning activities, and could be related , to a great extent, to the organisational learning theory (Senge, 1995). The second m eaning, alerting the com pany to value its tacit k n o w led g e m ore, has become the m ost im p o rtan t direction for the conduct of the c u rre n t study.

In this direction, fu rth er efforts are needed to encourage the process of transition from tacit to explicit an d finally useful know ledge for the co m p an y 's benefits, as described by N onaka (1994) an d N onaka and Takeuchi (1995). W ith reg ard to the know ledge w ork of this type, New ell et al. (2002: p. 98) p o in ted o u t th at "...k n o w led g e w o rk is best conducted in 'o rg an ic' an d inform al settings, w ith egalitarian cultures an d w here horizontal, as o p p o sed to vertical, com m unication dom inates". This show s th at k n ow ledge w o rk in this era is different from trad itio n al w o rk (i.e. o p eratin g w ork) as discussed d u rin g the 1960s, 1970s an d 1980s. It has been