Hi,
We just posted the summary and review for the article "A Research Agenda for the Relationships between Culture and Knowledge Management" by King, W.R
Please find it here
cheers
Red Auerbach, Communications Guru
19 years ago
Showing posts with label class 8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label class 8. Show all posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Wk6Class8: Culture: An Overlooked Key to Unlocking Organizational Knowledge
ARTICLE SUMMARY & REVIEW
(Wk6Class8 Post by mim-summer)
Title: Culture: An Overlooked Key to Unlocking Organizational Knowledge
Theme: This research paper focuses on the cultural dimensions of learning & knowledge and on how global organizations can manage the knowledge represented by the cultural backgrounds of their members, using a boundary spanning model.
SUMMARY
“Once people have learned to learn in a given way, it is extremely difficult to learn in any other way …. Culture reflects the way one learns” (Hall 1990, 47).
The opening quote of this paper emphasizes the cultural dimension of learning & knowledge creation. The author puts forward following basic postulates as foundations for building a framework to help global organizations in organizing the tacit dimension of knowledge hidden in the ethnic & cultural backgrounds of their members:
P1: An effective KMS not only helps in storing knowledge, it also enables flow & subjective interpretation of data & information among individuals, thereby enabling creation of new knowledge.
P2: An effective KMS should recognize both ‘Explicit’ & ‘Tacit’ dimensions of knowledge in multi-cultural environment and enable access / transfer of entire knowledge held by the organization members.
P3: In a multi-cultural scenario, for a KMS to encompass knowledge from all individuals, it should have provision for multiple schemas so as to organize and structure the knowledge embedded in individuals, in their native formats.
P4: For a KMS to effectively enable learning by individuals from different cultural backgrounds, it should either a) have culture-sensitive access mechanisms, or b) have skill-building mechanism to enable acquisition of knowledge from non-native format structures.
P5: An effective KMS in a multi-cultural organization should provide boundary spanning mechanisms and processes at the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels.
A boundary spanning model based on above postulates and operating at syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels, as proposed by Carlile, is suggested in the paper for development of social mechanisms to include different cultures in the organizational KMS. The syntactic & semantic levels which are more explicit in nature are more conducive to deployment of information technologies, whereas the pragmatic level which accounts for the culture-oriented tacit dimension completes and integrates the model for incorporating different cultures.
The paper concludes by suggesting that the basic vision of an organizational KMS accessing full range of embedded tacit knowledge can not be realized unless social mechanisms are developed to encompass the multiple cultural backgrounds of its members or the clients.
REVIEW
Even though this article focuses more on the culture-sensitive KM in global, multi-cultural organizations, still the concepts discussed are very useful and relevant even for local level organizations in NZ, which is characterized by a typically multi-cultural society.
The analysis of cultural perceptions & cognitive processes as per ‘Asian’ and ‘Western’ thoughts, the neurological discussion for mind development and the infant study references were really interesting and informative.
The article is well structured, well referenced and easy to read because of double spacing and simple language. However, certain terminologies used were difficult to understand. In nutshell, it is a very useful reading for the KM students and professionals.
Reference:
Mason, R. (n.d.). Cross-Cultural perspectives on Knowledge Management: Chapter 2: Culture: An Overlooked Key to Unlocking Organizational Knowledge. Forthcoming publication of D. Pauleen (Ed.) Libraries Unlimited.
(Wk6Class8 Post by mim-summer)
Title: Culture: An Overlooked Key to Unlocking Organizational Knowledge
Theme: This research paper focuses on the cultural dimensions of learning & knowledge and on how global organizations can manage the knowledge represented by the cultural backgrounds of their members, using a boundary spanning model.
SUMMARY
“Once people have learned to learn in a given way, it is extremely difficult to learn in any other way …. Culture reflects the way one learns” (Hall 1990, 47).
The opening quote of this paper emphasizes the cultural dimension of learning & knowledge creation. The author puts forward following basic postulates as foundations for building a framework to help global organizations in organizing the tacit dimension of knowledge hidden in the ethnic & cultural backgrounds of their members:
P1: An effective KMS not only helps in storing knowledge, it also enables flow & subjective interpretation of data & information among individuals, thereby enabling creation of new knowledge.
P2: An effective KMS should recognize both ‘Explicit’ & ‘Tacit’ dimensions of knowledge in multi-cultural environment and enable access / transfer of entire knowledge held by the organization members.
P3: In a multi-cultural scenario, for a KMS to encompass knowledge from all individuals, it should have provision for multiple schemas so as to organize and structure the knowledge embedded in individuals, in their native formats.
P4: For a KMS to effectively enable learning by individuals from different cultural backgrounds, it should either a) have culture-sensitive access mechanisms, or b) have skill-building mechanism to enable acquisition of knowledge from non-native format structures.
P5: An effective KMS in a multi-cultural organization should provide boundary spanning mechanisms and processes at the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels.
A boundary spanning model based on above postulates and operating at syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels, as proposed by Carlile, is suggested in the paper for development of social mechanisms to include different cultures in the organizational KMS. The syntactic & semantic levels which are more explicit in nature are more conducive to deployment of information technologies, whereas the pragmatic level which accounts for the culture-oriented tacit dimension completes and integrates the model for incorporating different cultures.
The paper concludes by suggesting that the basic vision of an organizational KMS accessing full range of embedded tacit knowledge can not be realized unless social mechanisms are developed to encompass the multiple cultural backgrounds of its members or the clients.
REVIEW
Even though this article focuses more on the culture-sensitive KM in global, multi-cultural organizations, still the concepts discussed are very useful and relevant even for local level organizations in NZ, which is characterized by a typically multi-cultural society.
The analysis of cultural perceptions & cognitive processes as per ‘Asian’ and ‘Western’ thoughts, the neurological discussion for mind development and the infant study references were really interesting and informative.
The article is well structured, well referenced and easy to read because of double spacing and simple language. However, certain terminologies used were difficult to understand. In nutshell, it is a very useful reading for the KM students and professionals.
Reference:
Mason, R. (n.d.). Cross-Cultural perspectives on Knowledge Management: Chapter 2: Culture: An Overlooked Key to Unlocking Organizational Knowledge. Forthcoming publication of D. Pauleen (Ed.) Libraries Unlimited.
Culture: An Overlooked Key to Unlocking Organizational Knowledge
Article Summary for Week 6 Class 8
(Group: KMx6- Fatemeh, Skalk, Bee, Lanoi, Max, Roger)
Summary:
Audience: Academics and Knowledge managers, Knowledge Management Consultants
Theme / Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to propose three ideas that would be needed to be considered when building a Knowledge Management System (KMS) for a multinational organisation.
The authors propose that learning is closely linked to Knowledge, Information and Data. Thus for effective Knowledge Management (KM) a clear understanding of how learning happens in individuals from different cultural backgrounds are important.
The authors quote research that suggests that infants learn by making distinctions; by seeing differences and by using these differences to interpret and remember experiences.
Firms that wish to operate in a multicultural environment, then the knowledge management techniques they employ should take the cultural differences into account.
Boundary spanning is suggested as an appropriate component of a KMS. Boundary spanning objects have been identified that operates at three different levels. These are syntactic; semantic and the pragmatic.
At the syntactic level are shared knowledge repositories that enable communications of fact, tasks and actions. Data interchange and data architectures are of important since these facilitate knowledge transfer. Agreed standards also come into play.
At the semantic level standardised forms and methods make clear what the differences are in meaning. The objects at the semantic level help with the translation and localisation of knowledge so that group members can understand them. Here methods of translation could be employed.
At the pragmatic level the objects with embedded knowledge are transformed so that the entire team could understand as well as members not in the team. This is very difficult to do. Since communities may have different values and power relationships, and these can not be assumed.
The authors conclude that the syntactic and semantic levels are easily changed using current information technologies. The third level boundary spanning are a challenge and would require KMS to take cognisance of the difference in power and values.
(Group: KMx6- Fatemeh, Skalk, Bee, Lanoi, Max, Roger)
Pauleen, D. (Ed.). (2006). Culture: An Overlooked Key to Unlocking Organizational Knowledge. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Knowledge Management (pp. 21-34). Westport, Conn: Libraries Unlimited.
Summary:
Audience: Academics and Knowledge managers, Knowledge Management Consultants
Theme / Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to propose three ideas that would be needed to be considered when building a Knowledge Management System (KMS) for a multinational organisation.
The authors propose that learning is closely linked to Knowledge, Information and Data. Thus for effective Knowledge Management (KM) a clear understanding of how learning happens in individuals from different cultural backgrounds are important.
The authors quote research that suggests that infants learn by making distinctions; by seeing differences and by using these differences to interpret and remember experiences.
Firms that wish to operate in a multicultural environment, then the knowledge management techniques they employ should take the cultural differences into account.
Boundary spanning is suggested as an appropriate component of a KMS. Boundary spanning objects have been identified that operates at three different levels. These are syntactic; semantic and the pragmatic.
At the syntactic level are shared knowledge repositories that enable communications of fact, tasks and actions. Data interchange and data architectures are of important since these facilitate knowledge transfer. Agreed standards also come into play.
At the semantic level standardised forms and methods make clear what the differences are in meaning. The objects at the semantic level help with the translation and localisation of knowledge so that group members can understand them. Here methods of translation could be employed.
At the pragmatic level the objects with embedded knowledge are transformed so that the entire team could understand as well as members not in the team. This is very difficult to do. Since communities may have different values and power relationships, and these can not be assumed.
The authors conclude that the syntactic and semantic levels are easily changed using current information technologies. The third level boundary spanning are a challenge and would require KMS to take cognisance of the difference in power and values.
National culture and the standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management
Article Summary for Week 6 Class 8
(Group: KMx6- Fatemeh, Skalk, Bee, Lanoi, Max, Roger)
Audience: Academics and Knowledge managers, Knowledge Management Consultants
Theme / Purpose: An examination of the effect of national culture on standardisation versus adoption of knowledge management (KM). Designing a conceptual framework for understanding the process of standardisation versus adoption of knowledge management.
In this article the authors make a compelling argument that Multinational firms face a huge challenge when it comes to knowledge management. The decision to standardise or adopt in an international business is important because it will allow the firm to be able to reduce costs and respond to local demands.
The authors use the knowledge based view of the firms which holds that knowledge resources have value when they are combined with other resources to create new competencies and capabilities leading to competitive advantage. In trying to sustain competitive advantage, the firm needs to understand the relationship between what they are trying to achieve and key business process necessary to give affect of this business strategy and what they need to know to perform well in this area.
The standardisation what the authors are talking about has to do with the way the firm does business and how it competes. The pressure of cost reduction is referred to as standardisation . The pressure to be responsive to the market is the adaption bit. If firms need to do both this is often referred to as a transnational strategy.
Studies have shown that national culture does affect a range of areas in the firm. Marketing, strategy and HR are affected by the national culture. Here the authors look at how national culture influences KM.
A list of factors affecting knowledge creation is given as well as factors affecting knowledge transfer are given.
See below for the model.
(Group: KMx6- Fatemeh, Skalk, Bee, Lanoi, Max, Roger)
Ang, Z., & Massingham, P. (2007). National culture and the standardization versus adaptation of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 5-21. doi: 10.1108/13673270710738889
Audience: Academics and Knowledge managers, Knowledge Management Consultants
Theme / Purpose: An examination of the effect of national culture on standardisation versus adoption of knowledge management (KM). Designing a conceptual framework for understanding the process of standardisation versus adoption of knowledge management.
In this article the authors make a compelling argument that Multinational firms face a huge challenge when it comes to knowledge management. The decision to standardise or adopt in an international business is important because it will allow the firm to be able to reduce costs and respond to local demands.
The authors use the knowledge based view of the firms which holds that knowledge resources have value when they are combined with other resources to create new competencies and capabilities leading to competitive advantage. In trying to sustain competitive advantage, the firm needs to understand the relationship between what they are trying to achieve and key business process necessary to give affect of this business strategy and what they need to know to perform well in this area.
The standardisation what the authors are talking about has to do with the way the firm does business and how it competes. The pressure of cost reduction is referred to as standardisation . The pressure to be responsive to the market is the adaption bit. If firms need to do both this is often referred to as a transnational strategy.
Studies have shown that national culture does affect a range of areas in the firm. Marketing, strategy and HR are affected by the national culture. Here the authors look at how national culture influences KM.
A list of factors affecting knowledge creation is given as well as factors affecting knowledge transfer are given.
See below for the model.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
