Anatomy Of Knowledge

944 views

Published on

Jobs are becoming more information intensive
Organizations are becoming repositories of knowledge (collective knowledge)
Problems are too complex – must be solved by teams
Teams need to be effective, high performing, & must minimize duplication of effort
The key to all of these issues is effective Knowledge Emergence

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
944
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
27
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Anatomy Of Knowledge

  1. 1. Anatomy of Knowledge<br />A Grounded Theory Investigation Towards a Knowledge Emergence Model for <br />High-Tech Organizations<br />by <br />Debra A Jasinski<br />August 2, 2005<br />
  2. 2. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />2<br />Overview<br />Knowledge Emergence<br />The processes, conditions, interactions, and influences surrounding the creation, conversion, sharing, transfer, and use of knowledge in organizational settings (Kakihara & Sorensen, 2002; Nonaka et al., 2001). <br />Knowledge Emergence Environment<br />The physical and social aspects of formal and informal systems conducive to knowledge creation and transfer (Kakihara & Sorensen, 2002; Nonaka et al., 2001). <br />
  3. 3. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />3<br />Overview<br />Jobs are becoming more information intensive<br />Organizations are becoming repositories of knowledge (collective knowledge)<br />Problems are too complex – must be solved by teams<br />Teams need to be effective, high performing, & must minimize duplication of effort<br />The key to all of these issues is effective Knowledge Emergence<br />
  4. 4. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />4<br />Background of Problem<br />Tacit vs. Explicit Knowledge<br />Polanyi (1958)<br />Tacit knowledge is subconscious/hard to verbalize<br />Forms the basis of explicit knowledge<br />Nontransferable<br />
  5. 5. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />5<br />Background of Problem<br />Intellectual Capital & Knowledge Management<br />Sveiby (1987)<br />Value of knowledge<br />Competitive advantage of knowledge<br />Employees whose value lies more in what they know than in their skills<br />Techniques for capturing and controlling knowledge<br />
  6. 6. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />6<br />Background of Problem<br />Knowledge Cycle & Environment<br />Nonaka, Takeuchi, Nishiguchi (1995)<br />Explicit to Tacit to Explicit knowledge transfer<br />SECI: Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization<br />Effect of work environment on knowledge cycle – “ba”<br />
  7. 7. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />7<br />Background of Problem<br />Communities of Practice<br />Wenger (1996)<br />Spontaneity & passion from common interest<br />No management influence<br />No competitive influences<br />
  8. 8. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />8<br />Problem Statement<br />There is no single, comprehensive model or instrument by which leaders and managers can establish, assess and/or develop high-tech knowledge emergence environments appropriate to their particular needs<br />Leaders/managers:<br />Must wade through collections of theories, approaches, tools, and barriers <br />From which they each must distill a method <br />To establish, assess and/or develop their KE environments<br />Because no knowledge emergence environment model or instruments currently exists<br />
  9. 9. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />9<br />Purpose of the Study<br />The objective of this study<br />The development of a high-tech KE model that will provide a systemic and comprehensive perspective from which to establish, assess and/or develop effective knowledge emergence environments.<br />
  10. 10. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />10<br />Significance of the Study<br />Differed from previous research in 3 aspects<br />The study focused exclusively on high-tech organizations. <br />The researcher examined the entire spectrum of the knowledge emergence phenomenon as opposed to the narrow focus of many previous studies. <br />Strauss and Corbin’s conditional matrix (1990) formed the framework for the study, assuring comprehensive coverage of the phenomenon from the perspectives of the individual, team, management, leadership and the intervening organizations structures. <br />
  11. 11. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />11<br />Significance to Leadership<br />Current<br />Large set of loosely related and simplified or generic proposals (Neef, 1999). <br />Issue<br />No comprehensive view of their knowledge emergence needs in order to choose between the abundance of potential solutions presented. <br />Significance<br />Provide leaders and managers with the ability to correlate knowledge attributes and methods with the existing processes and structures of their corporate environment. <br />
  12. 12. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />12<br />Theoretical Framework<br />Individuals<br />Teams<br />Management<br />Communities<br />Organizations<br />Multinational Elements<br />Leadership<br />Technology<br />
  13. 13. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />13<br />Study Framework<br />
  14. 14. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />14<br />Sampling Procedure<br />Convenience Sampling<br />Snowball Sampling<br />Purposive Sampling <br />Theoretical evolution and data saturation determined the final sample size of the study<br />
  15. 15. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />15<br />Data Collection<br />Data collection and analysis are not separate functions in grounded theory research <br />Interviewing is the predominate form of grounded theory data collection (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003; Glaser, 2004; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998).<br />
  16. 16. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />16<br />Data Analysis<br />A combination of open, axial, selective, and process coding <br />Formulation and testing of provisional hypothesis and theories<br />Study the structure of each category, the “conditional context in which a category (phenomenon) is situated” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 123).<br />Conditions: casual, intervening and contextual.<br />
  17. 17. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />17<br />Demographic Data<br />Participant demographics<br />Personal <br />Age<br />Gender<br />Education level <br />Professional <br />Position in the company<br />Number of years of high-tech experience<br />Number of years at the company<br />Corporate demographics. <br />
  18. 18. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />18<br />Presentation & Analysis of Data<br />Observations about the knowledge emergence environments<br />Influence of leadership<br />Influence of management<br />Influence of teams<br />influence of individuals<br />Influence of the organizational structure<br />Influence of communities<br />Influence of multi-national elements<br />Influence of technology<br />Other influences. <br />
  19. 19. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />19<br />Conclusions<br />Two categories of themes<br />The combined significance of each of the framework elements to knowledge emergence<br />The common characteristics of each element<br />
  20. 20. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />20<br />Theme 1<br />Management was the primary influence on knowledge emergence in large organizations.<br />The attitudes and skills of the manager were the primary elements in the effectiveness of knowledge emergence processes.<br />Management as an interpretor <br />Create clarity of goals per Bailey and Clark (2001). <br />Formal leaders were far removed from the main body of employees<br />Managers controlled the goals, success criteria, rewards. <br />Knowledge workers must be rewarded for sharing knowledge (Kyriakidou, 2004)<br />
  21. 21. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />21<br />Theme 2<br />In small organizations, the formal leadership was the primary source of knowledge emergence influence<br />Leader drove or formulated the organization’s culture (De Long & Davenport, 2003; De Long & Fahey, 2000) <br />An organization’s culture was a reflection of its leadership (Corno et al., 1999)<br />The line between formal leadership and management was nearly indistinguishable in small organizations<br />The participants spoke of leaders and managers interchangeably<br />Formal leaders were very active and visible within the organization<br />Visibility may have accounted for the close association in the small organizations <br />Close association might also have assured that management mimicked the knowledge emergence values of the leadership<br />
  22. 22. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />22<br />Theme 3<br />All significant knowledge emergence work occurred in the team environment<br />Reasons<br />The complexity of the high-tech environment<br />The nature of the problems addressed required a large variety of information <br />Success required more knowledge than any one person could provide<br />It took a team to fully develop an individual’s idea<br />Interactions<br />Combination process -- the integration of knowledge from multiple source to create new knowledge (Nonaka et al.’s, 1998, 2000) <br />The synergy that can happen in teams<br />Lack of political interference when a group works together as equals<br />
  23. 23. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />23<br />Theme 4<br />Individuals and Organizational Structures were important contributors to knowledge emergence effectiveness<br />Knowledge exists in the mind of the individual<br />In the work environment, value was not realized until the knowledge was shared and transformed into a work product<br />“Knowledge is not produced by passively perceiving individuals, but by interacting social groups engaged in particular activities” (Arthur & Parker, 2002, p. 38)<br />The organizational structure was the physical manifestation of the knowledge emergence values of the company<br />Hiring policies, reward and recognition policies, communication policies, departmentalization, and financial accounting all reflect the importance that the company placed on knowledge emergence effectiveness<br />Organizational structures could not inspire creativity or innovation<br />
  24. 24. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />24<br />Theme 5<br />Technology, Communities, & Multinational components were not significant influences on knowledge emergence<br />Ancillary to the knowledge emergence processes<br />Sometimes augmenting them, sometimes hindering them<br />Technology<br />Technology improved the efficiency of humans by removing physical constraints (Bhatt, 2001)<br />Communication tools - communication was essential to knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer<br />The use of technology was both prevalent and second nature to technical professionals<br />Communities<br />Provided opportunities to learn and exchange ideas <br />Could provide a type of intrinsic reward value such as recognition of expertise (Hisop, 2003)<br />Multinational elements <br />International counterparts were sources of cultural and political information<br />
  25. 25. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />25<br />THEMES 1 - 5<br />
  26. 26. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />26<br />Theme 6<br />There exists a commonality of attributes within each of the elements of the study framework<br />Commonality is independent of organization size or type<br />While the significance of the elements varied with organization size, the attributes within each element were remarkably consistent across most of the participants. <br />In some cases, particularly where knowledge emergence was effective, participants identified the attributes as present in their organization. <br />In other cases, participants noted the absence of the attributes. <br />
  27. 27. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />27<br />THEME 6<br />
  28. 28. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />28<br />Limitations<br />The Participants <br />The Scope<br />The Subjective Nature of the knowledge emergence process <br />
  29. 29. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />29<br />Conclusions<br />5 Themes evolved from study framework<br />Organization size was the primary data differentiator<br />Commonality of attributes is the 6th Theme<br />Attributes were independent of organization size.<br />
  30. 30. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />30<br />Leadership Implications<br />When knowledge emergence is critical or important to the success of the company<br />Knowledge emergence values were an integral part of the corporate vision<br />Knowledge emergence behaviors were evident throughout the company<br />In small organizations, knowledge emergence values emanated directly from the formal leadership and were mimicked by management<br />In large organizations, the values most directly felt by knowledge workers were those of management<br />If the manager supported knowledge emergence behaviors, then creativity and innovation could flourish<br />If the manager was primarily task-focused, then knowledge emergence was severely hindered<br />Leaders assured that knowledge work was team-oriented<br />
  31. 31. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />31<br />Leadership Implications<br />Leaders must determine how important knowledge emergence is to the long-term success of their organization<br />Leaders must assure that the appropriate level of knowledge emergence values are an integral component of the corporate values<br />Leaders must assure that the organizational structure mirrors those values, most critically at the managerial level<br />Leaders must assure that the organization supports a team-oriented structure for its knowledge work<br />
  32. 32. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />32<br />Recommendations<br />Expanded beyond the United States to determine if the models hold true internationally<br />Mid-sized organizations warrant a closer examination<br />A mixed quantitative/quantitative approach using the same framework <br />Focus groups <br />Two possible case studies<br />Examination of an effective knowledge emergence organization using the same framework encompassing a larger population of people from each framework element<br />A comparative study of an organization examining knowledge emergence effectiveness before and after application of the models developed in this study<br />
  33. 33. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />33<br />Summary<br />The findings provide high-tech leaders and manager with a familiar framework for addressing knowledge emergence in their organizations<br />Figure 2 serves as a guide for knowledge emergence in each area of focus based on organizational size and relative level of potential influence<br />Figure 3 provides a summary of common attributes for successful knowledge emergence organizations for each element of framework<br />With these two models, a leader can formulate a plan for developing the knowledge emergence effectiveness of their organization<br />
  34. 34. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />34<br />References<br />Arthur, M., & Parker, P. (2002). Technology, community, and the practice of HRM. Human Resource Planning, 38 - 46. <br />Auerbach, c., & Silverstein, L. (2003). Qualitative data. N.Y.: New York University Press. <br />Bailey, C., & Clarke, M. (2001). Managing knowledge for personal and organisational benefit. Journal of Knowledge Management, 32, 58. <br />Bhatt, G. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: Examining the interaction between technologies, techniques and people. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 68-75. <br />Corno, F., Reinmoeller, P., & Nonaka, I. (1999). Knowledge creation within industrial systems. Journal of Management & Governance, 3, 379.<br />De Long, D. W., & Davenport, T. (2003). Better practices for retaining organizational knowledge: Lessons from the leading edge. Employment Relations Today, 30, 51.<br />De Long, D. W., & Fahey, L. (2000). Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management. The Academy of Management Executive, 14, 113. <br />
  35. 35. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />35<br />References<br />Glaser, B. (2002). Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 1-32. <br />Hisop, D. (2003). The complex relations between communities of practice and the implementation of technological innovations. International Journal of innovation management, 7, 163--188.<br />Kakihara, M., & Sorensen, C. (2002). Exploring knowledge emergence: From chaos to organizational knowledge. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 5, 48. <br />Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Developing a knowledge sharing culture. Management Services, 48, 22-24. <br />Neef, D. (1999). Making the case for knowledge management: the bigger picture. Management Decision, 37, 72-78. <br />Nonaka, I., Konno, N., & Toyama, R. (2001). Emergence of "ba". In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowledge emergence: Social, technical and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.<br />
  36. 36. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />36<br />References<br />Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. N.Y.: Oxford University Press. <br />Polanyi, M. F. D. (1966). The tacit dimension. Glouchester, Ma.: Doubleday & Company, Inc. <br />Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. <br />Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. <br />Sveiby, K. E., & Lloyd, T. (1987). Managing know-how: Increase profits by harnessing the creativity in your company. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Limited. <br />Wenger, E. (1996). Communities of practice: The social fabric of a learning organization. The Healthcare Forum Journal, 39, 20.<br />
  37. 37. V2 - 4/15/2010<br />Copyright 2005@DAJasinski<br />37<br />Thank-you<br />

×