Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Boundary spanning – knowledge across


Published on

Presentation of Dr Ronald Henson (DAC) during RTD on "State of Academic Disciplines"

  • Be the first to comment

Boundary spanning – knowledge across

  1. 1. BOUNDARY SPANNING – KNOWLEDGE ACROSS WORK DOMAINS THROUGH COLLABORATION “We find comfort among those who agree with us…growth among those who trust!” by Dr. Ronald M. Henson Dept. of Arts and Communication UP Manila
  2. 2. Knowledge Management (KM) <ul><li>shared practices in organization to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of knowledge ( insights and experiences ), either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational processes </li></ul><ul><li>a discipline since 1995, KM started in the fields of business administration , information systems , management , and information sciences (Alavi and Leidner, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>other fields focused on information and media , computer science , public health , and public policy </li></ul>
  3. 3. Shared Practice-based Knowledge <ul><li>&quot;know-how&quot; (tacit) - knowledge acquired through “experience of acting in the world” (Garud, 1997; Prusak, 2001), represents internalized knowledge that an individual may not be consciously aware of in accomplishing particular tasks </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;know-what&quot; (explicit) - knowledge held by an individual consciously in mental focus, a form that can easily be communicated to others (Alavi and Leidner, 2001) </li></ul>
  4. 4. KM Efforts <ul><li>on-the-job discussions </li></ul><ul><li>formal apprenticeship </li></ul><ul><li>discussion fora </li></ul><ul><li>corporate libraries </li></ul><ul><li>professional training </li></ul><ul><li>mentoring programs </li></ul><ul><li>knowledge bases, expert systems , knowledge repositories </li></ul><ul><li>group decision support systems </li></ul><ul><li>computer-supported cooperative work </li></ul>
  5. 5. KM Perspectives <ul><li>Techno-centric - focus on technology to enhance knowledge sharing and creation </li></ul><ul><li>Organizational - focus on how an organization can be designed to facilitate knowledge processes best </li></ul><ul><li>Ecological - focus on interaction of people, identity , knowledge, and environmental factors as a complex adaptive system </li></ul>
  6. 6. Intersection Modes of Analysis <ul><li>involvement in social interaction, practice, and sense-making that constitutes knowledge in organizational work </li></ul><ul><li>engagement in detached sense-making and analysis, by which situated knowledge is externalized, reified, and made explicit ( Buckland, 1991; Johnson et al., 2002; Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Weick, 1995 ) </li></ul>
  7. 7. Two Views of KM <ul><li>managing organizational practice effectively through knowledge production in a localized context of work and place of practice ( Brown & Duguid, 2000; Nonaka & Konno, 1998; Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Suchman, 1987, 1996 ). </li></ul><ul><li>successful use of information to communicate knowledge among and across distributed workgroups, knowledge being captured, codified, and transferred among people performing related-but-different work, located in different places and communities of professional practice ( Boland et al., 1994; Leibowitz, 2001; Zack, 1999 ). </li></ul>
  8. 8. Process Mode of Knowledge Production (Barbell Tress, Gunther Tress, and Gary Fry) <ul><li>Inter-disciplinary - several unrelated/contrasting academic disciplines crossing subject boundaries to create new knowledge for a common goal, e.g. bringing together disciplines from the humanities and natural sciences </li></ul><ul><li>Piaget’s Inter- is a Latin prefix which means “between, among, amid, in between, in the midst”; hence, inter-disciplinary means standing between disciplines and sharing, not transcending </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-disciplinary – 3 or more disciplines in a work paradigm, very common approach in late 20th century; used also to describe pluri- or trans-disciplinary approaches), related to multi-tasking concepts or matrix management </li></ul><ul><li>Trans-disciplinary – integration of academic fields from different unrelated disciplines and non-academic participants, e.g. crisis managers and the public, to research a common goal and create new knowledge, combining psychology and sociology with a participatory approach. </li></ul><ul><li>Trans’ derived from the Latin meaning “across, to or on the farther side of, beyond, over”. i.e. , trans-genetic ( trans- , prefix, across genes of species) sense of ‘beyond, surpassing, transcending’, sense of transferring ‘knowledge about knowledge’ across disciplines in attaining a transcendent knowledge </li></ul>
  9. 9. Discipline Defined <ul><li>“ instruction of disciples”, concerned with the practice or exercise of a disciple in contrast to ‘doctrine’ which is concerned with abstract theory or dogma </li></ul><ul><li>discipline means practice, doctrine means what is taught and thought </li></ul><ul><li>“ a department of learning or knowledge that is reified (made concrete and real) and institutional, not just abstract” </li></ul>
  10. 10. Expertise Defined <ul><li>the ability to act knowledgeably within a specific domain of application that inextricably linked to organizational knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>managing knowledge both as information-object and as process—e.g. the design of IT-based knowledge systems cannot be separated from the business processes and the consideration of how expertise will be supported (Blackler, 1995; Zack, 1999) </li></ul>
  11. 11. Boundary Spanning <ul><li>negotiation of multiple domains of knowledge other than that pertaining to their own community of professional practice, and who may only be able to articulate knowledge partially within their own domain (Hutchins, 1991; Johnson et al., 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991) </li></ul><ul><li>negotiation of expertise within a group involving a diverse set of interest groups (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995; Brown & Duguid, 2000; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994) </li></ul>
  12. 12. Boundary Spanning Requirements <ul><li>joint sense-making —a mutually-negotiated understanding of how to make sense of the local, organizational &quot;world&quot; of work and interaction (Weick, 1995) </li></ul><ul><li>combined use of tacit and explicit knowledge—and of individual and shared knowledge (Cook & Brown, 1999) </li></ul><ul><li>each type of knowledge performs a role that the others cannot </li></ul>
  13. 13. Boundary Spanning Model <ul><li>Cook and Brown Model (1999) argues on four distinct &quot;ways of knowing&quot; with various forms of knowledge that must be shared for effective organizational collaboration </li></ul>
  14. 14. The Model
  15. 15. Four (4) Forms of Knowledge <ul><li>Concepts are things an individual can know and express explicitly—these form knowledge to recognize and to codify for transfer (Cook & Brown, 1999). Conceptual knowledge such as technical expertise defines relevant domains essential for collaborative sense-making. </li></ul><ul><li>Skills are tacit knowledge that represent individual know-how (Cook & Brown, 1999), influence may be exerted by constraining the application of skills by specifying methods of investigation and analysis, as these emphasize the use of some skills while excluding others (Adams & Avison, 2003; Carlile, 2002; Markus & Bjorn-Andersen, 1987). </li></ul><ul><li>Genres are a collective form of &quot;know-how,&quot; inscribed into organizational conventions through the use of a specific language, form, or medium of communication (Cook & Brown, 1999); providing a &quot;script&quot; to determine what to do in certain, recurrent situations and communicate legitimacy, as this signals membership of the same community of practice and thus a shared worldview. </li></ul><ul><li>Stories are expressions of collective memory of success or failure (Cook & Brown, 1999), influence may be exerted through the &quot;management of meaning&quot; (Smirch & Morgan, 1982), where events and phenomena are interpreted in specific ways through stories and &quot;myths&quot; that reflect specific cultural behaviors that are valued. Definition of a relevant boundary of action defines relevant actors for these stories and thus provides a focus for explicit group knowledge. </li></ul>
  16. 16. Modes of Knowledge
  17. 17. Basic Philosophy of Collaboration <ul><li>“ no academe is an island” </li></ul><ul><li>“ unity in diversity” </li></ul><ul><li>“ knowledge outside the four walls of the classroom” </li></ul><ul><li>“ academe-industry, academe-government, academe-community linkages </li></ul>
  18. 18. Proposed Collaboration Themes for CAS: CASali, CASalo, CASama <ul><li>CASali – sali which means a joining member (multi-disciplinary) </li></ul><ul><li>CASalo - salo means a treat, a gathering (trans-disciplinary) </li></ul><ul><li>CASama – sama means a company with close link (inter-disciplinary) </li></ul>
  19. 19. Tools of Collaboration For UPM-CAS <ul><li>Contract research (trans-disciplinary/multi-disciplinary) </li></ul><ul><li>Techno-transfer (trans-disciplinary/multi-disciplinary) </li></ul><ul><li>Twinning agreements (trans-disciplinary) </li></ul><ul><li>Team research (inter-disciplinary/multi-disciplinary ) </li></ul><ul><li>Consultancy (trans-disciplinary) </li></ul>
  20. 20. Conceptual Foundations of Academic Scholarship (Boyer) <ul><li>Scholarship of Discovery - academics speak of “research”, commitment to knowledge for its own sake, freedom of inquiry in a disciplined fashion, “what is to be known, what is yet to be found?” </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarship of Integration – giving meaning to isolated facts, making connections across disciplines, placing specialization in a larger context and implications for comprehensive understanding, </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarship of Application - new intellectual understanding arising from the act of application of skills, interaction of theory and practice, academe is not only source of learning but it should play a major role </li></ul><ul><li>Scholarship of Teaching - highest form of understanding (Aristotle), four categories – the scholarship of discovery, integration, application and teaching – divide intellectual functions that are tied inseparably to each other </li></ul>
  21. 21. Key Drivers of Scholarship <ul><li>Absence of singular discipline approach to solve human concerns </li></ul><ul><li>Complexity of systems of human concerns </li></ul><ul><li>Hierarchy of systems and interfaces of mutual constraints </li></ul><ul><li>Effects of limitations of human mind on scholarship </li></ul>
  22. 22. Operational Structures for Knowledge Production <ul><li>• Open and flexible • Incentive-driven, participation of key contributors from university/non-university environments </li></ul><ul><li>• Key participants’ disciplinary, professional and cultural experts </li></ul><ul><li>• Project or initiative-driven • Preferably located in inter-institutional space </li></ul>
  23. 23. Example of Cross-Discipline Research <ul><li>Economic Growth, Radical Innovation, and Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Wolf Dieter Grossmann, Lorenz Magaard, James Barney Marsh, Peter Englert </li></ul><ul><li>Crisis Management, Image Building and Communication Design, Typhoon and Flood Mitigation – Ronald M. Henson </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear Energy, Diffusion Process, Behavioral Acceptance, Communication – Phil. Nuclear Research Institute </li></ul><ul><li>SARS Awareness Campaign, Epidemiology of SARS, Control and Prevention – UP Manila </li></ul>