SUPPORTING STRUCTURES ASSIGNED TO HELP MANAGE KNOWLEDGE

The reviewed literature as depicted in Chapter Two indicated that Defence Departments globally have developed structures assigned to managing their knowledge (Girard, 2008). Literature further articulate why knowledge management is critical to Defence Department, for instance in Canada. In the literature also discussed is the institutions complexity, high consequence of error, capital- intensive, and how knowledge dependant and also national security orientated are the defence departments; and also how critical is for having structures to manage their knowledge capital.

Malaysian military has invested lot of money in standards and framework that will help incorporate knowledge creation, KM processes, technology and applications conducted in the military environment (Manuri and Yacoob, 2011). Their Defence Department was faced by challenges and threat of globalisation and the advance of information and communication technology (ICT). As a result, the Malaysian Armed Forces saw the need to have thinking soldiers; that is, people who are innovative and creative to fight digital warfare, which present and future wars will be all about.

Not only has literature review exposed the importance of knowledge management structures in military by playing a valuable role in leveraging existing knowledge but also exposed the importance of converting new knowledge into action (Gauvin, McIntyre and Waruszki 2003; Alberts, Garstka and Stein 2000; US Army 2008; Walter 2002). Literature has equally revealed the value of KM in the private sector, business and NGOs (Ichijo and Kohlbacher, 2006).

Although it is clear through literature that other progressive military institutions invest greatly in knowledge management and have supporting KM structures in place, the findings established that the Department of Defence (RSA) does not have KM strategy and thus lacking supporting structures to manage its knowledge management and practices. This fact is further elaborated and testified in the following sub topics following investigation into supporting structures assigned to help manage knowledge practices at the Department of Defence.

5.2.1 Attention to knowledge management practices in DOD

In as far as the importance of knowledge management practices in DOD is concerned and the efforts taken to implementing KM practices, literature review as well as reviewed documents has identified the necessity of military organisations to focus their attention on knowledge management practices and strategise on channeling their knowledge to maximise their intellectual capital (Lord 2010; Santamaria 2002; Lepak 2009; Manuri and Yacoob, 2011). Among progressive military organisations as depicted in document review that reaffirm knowledge management as the means to supporting their Army’s Strategy and have effective KM implementation are US military, the biggest military in the world, Malaysian Armed Forces, Canadian Military, Australian Army, Sri Lanka Army, and Singapore Armed Forces; and this extends to Japan Armed Forces. This is a clear indication that indeed international military community is taking seriously its knowledge capital (Alberts, Garstka and Stein 2000; Dahanayake 2012).

Knowledge management in the Department of Defence RSA is not structured, developed or supported. The department does not have a structure to manage its knowledge. There is no professional unit mandated to manage the intellectual capital of the organisation since knowledge management practices and KM as phenomenon are not that well known, understood or given attention to, and this is proven by the survey. The survey indicated 25% of the respondents stating that yes KM as a phenomenon is being spoken about most of the time in their sections while 61% revealed that only sometimes KM is spoken or given attention if anything in their sections. And then there was 16% that revealed that they have never ever heard of such a practice. If at all DOD RSA was robust in KM most respondents would have no problem in understanding or talking about it. To further prove the above opening statement 51% of the respondents were saying they do not practice knowledge management practices but have heard about it and it is known to them, while 21% of respondents stated that they practice knowledge management on their own.

Furthermore document analysis and interviews also indicated the lack of structured framework in the Department of Defence in dealing with knowledge management. On the issue of knowledge concept, interviewees were given brief background of the meaning of knowledge management and 66% indicated that indeed they have heard of knowledge management and have to some extend read about it. This group was aware of the difference between knowledge management and information management. However they said they are not privy to how the concept is practiced on a full scale, though they have practiced it informally themselves in managing their own knowledge and that of the business or organisation from current and previous lives. They confirmed that indeed

Participants reported that indeed there were isolated knowledge management practices in the organisation although they were embedded. They have mentioned meetings, reports, Conventional Service Writing (CSW) Standard Working Procedures (SWP) and sharing of information on Lotus Notes as some of the practices they can associate with knowledge management.

34% of participants in interviews admitted to not knowing anything about knowledge management and that the concept was new to them although they have heard and have practiced some form of information management; and that they knew of information managers duties since they have information managers assisting them with the management of their business or organisational information they need to do their tasks. As such no knowledge practices were run according to them in their organisation or sections.

They mentioned institutionalising of knowledge as a non-starter since they do not even practice knowledge management and since their knowledge is tacit and explicit to their own advantage and will.

Document analysis from published documents, annual reports, articles, papers, and acts was made to establish Defence decisions or resolutions that addresses skills management and knowledge management in particular. The document analysis revealed that there was no existence of knowledge management framework in the DOD. There were embedded efforts from some policies in the Department of Defence to have some form of KM practices and those include creation of knowledge, retention and skill development. Although there are no policies to enhancing the general knowledge capacity of the department, this meaning that there are no sustainable and reliable means to developing intellectual capital in the Department. This also compromises the executive intent to developing the human resource capability and achieving excellence on organisational goals.

5.2.2 Method of managing knowledge in the Department

There is no knowledge without someone being able to manage it (De Giovanni 2009; Gottschalk 1999). Perrin (2012) argues that to better understand how knowledge management matures it is important to look at those who are in charge of implementing projects or initiatives related to KM, the knowledge managers. According to Gurteen (1999) to create knowledge sharing culture a specialist or dedicated team needs drive idea and encourage people to work together more effectively.

The survey revealed opinions from staff indicating what they thought would be an ideal point of responsibility in as far as managing their knowledge is concerned. 65% of the respondents indicated that they would prefer that a dedicated team or professional structure is involved in managing their hard earned intellectual capital. Of all respondents 7% said it can be managed through ad-hoc task team. Twenty-five percent revealed that it can be self-driven/managed, while 2.3% stated none at all. As such the survey showed that majority of staff wanted a dedicated team to manage their knowledge.

5.2.3 Importance of knowledge management policy and its adoption in DOD

Greater organisational effectiveness, problem solving, decision-making, and innovation are contingent on the quality of knowledge available for formulating prudent organisational policies (Tongchuay and Praneetpolgrang, 2008). Organisations commonly receive criticism for their ineffective policy formulation to improve the quality of knowledge, partly because they operate within challenging and highly complex dynamic environments (Labedz, Cavaleri and Berry, 2011). NASA (2009) has come with the Initiative Roadmap calling for uniform knowledge management policies and standards to be implemented across the Federal Government. These policies will define under what circumstances, with whom, and how Federal workers should share knowledge.

According to the survey and interviews there was no formal knowledge management policy in the department since majority (86%) of the officials in the department believed knowledge management policy needs to be a priority. Furthermore because respondents said yes indeed managing knowledge needs to be prioritised and necessary policy should be in place to guide such practice, while 5% of the respondents said no it is not necessary to make legal framework and neither is it important to manage knowledge. Some respondents (9%) were undecided on the matter.

Document analysis through published annual reports, articles, and acts also revealed that there was no documentation or resolution in the Department of Defence that addresses the question of knowledge management policy. As such this indicates that knowledge management policy was not in the current plans of the department since it is not institutionalised. If not in the plans then it means this important policy is overlooked in the department if not bypassed. These developments give many answers to existence of knowledge management in the department.

5.2.4 Environment suitability

By environment suitability the researcher is referring to supporting systems or space to successful knowledge management practices. The question sought to establish the ability, suitability and sustainability of the space or environment, people, and culture which will support sharing of knowledge. Reference is made to the office or physical space that the organisation provides to do its business. Human capital is the main asset of software organisations. Knowledge has to be preserved and leveraged from individuals to the organisation. Knowledge management has various components and multiple aspects such as socio-cultural, organisational, and technological aspects (Lindvall, Rus and Sinha,2002).

Both survey and interview established that majority of staff members in DOD thought their working environment was conducive to sharing of information and knowledge and its management, this indicated by response from 61.9% of respondents, and there was 25% of respondents who were not sure whether their environment was suitable to manage or even share knowledge. It was also interesting see through interviews and surveys a 13% of response revealing that the management of knowledge was completely impossible with the kind of space they do business in.

5.3 EXISTENCE OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT