As I mentioned in the introductory post, each of my posts will discuss three knowledge management related articles. This week I read two theoretical km articles and one research article:
- What's your strategy for managing knowledge by M. Hansen, N. Nohria, & T. Tierney
- Wikis as a knowledge management tool by T. Grace
- Knowledge risk management: a framework by P. Massingham
The first article I chose was the Knowledge risk management article by Massingham because it related to another topic I'm interested in, which is intergovernmental relations in emergency management. I actually wrote my capstone paper on that when I was an undergrad, so I felt like this article would be a good one to start reading for class. In this article, Massingham talks about knowledge management as it applies to risk management and the emerging field of (you guessed it) knowledge risk management. Here Massingham makes the case that older decision tree methods are not the best way to handle risky organizational decisions and instead suggests a different KRM model based upon a study of the Australian Department of Defence. The article goes on to detail the Royal Australian Navy's KRM approach that utilizes a Hazard Risk Index (HRI) to identify levels of risk like a traditional decision tree, but supplements the HRI with "accredited individuals known as Competent Authorities (CAs) to manage the risk. Pairing the HRI and the CAs together to manage risk, the paper notes "is an excellent [way] to reduce cognitive error by aligning RM with competency." However, Massingham does note that the number of "technical decisions makes it difficult for individuals to prioritize risks" as well as the fact that "individuals don't perceive risk in the precise logic of decision theory." With that in mind, Massingham develops a "decision support tool" to help "provide a solution to the problem of cognitive restraints." This is where the knowledge management portion comes in, this model that Massingham devises is grounded in knowledge management. Part of the weakness of RAN's risk management approach is the subjectivity in risk assessment and lack of prioritization. Massingham proposes the utilization of a "knowledge score" as opposed to a "risk score" because it "better differentiates amongst the risk factor," and "aims to increase objectivity in risk assessment by focusing individuals on the bigger picture of the KNOWLEDGE necessary to manage the risk event" as opposed to the risk event itself.
This article was pretty in depth, so it took me reading it, processing and then re-reading it to feel like I understood it well enough to discuss, but it had great table graphics of risk matrices that helped. Overall it was very interesting, however as Massignham observed, this paper's biggest weakness is that it is based on a single case study and the KRM field is very new so much research is still needed. Also the size of the Australian department of defence must be relatively small, so it would be interesting to see Massingham's KRM theory applied to another country's department of defense that is larger and more active. Regardless, if the knowledge score is not something that pans out in research, the six items it would be based on, necessary qualifications level (NQL), length of time to learn (TTL), degree of complexity (DOC), receiver's transfer capacity (RTA), risk management motivation (RMM) and risk management capability (RMC) deserve more investigation.
The next article I read was slightly related to the Massingham KRM article. What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge by Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney focuses less on how organizations use knowledge to influence their risk management and more on how organizations manage their knowledge. Specifically, the writers looked at the strategies of consulting companies because the success of their entire business could hinge on how they choose to manage their knowledge. The article goes on to explain how consulting companies like Ernst & Young employ a "codification strategy" that relies heavily on the efficient reuse of knowledge, whereas companies like Bain use a "personalization strategy" that depends on person-to-person contact. The efficiency of the codification strategy allows consulting companies to take in more business and obviously more profit. However, if you're a client that is looking for something more, well, personalized then you would want a consulting company that uses the personalization strategy. One thing the writers did mention, was that companies should pick one method or the other. They cite CSC Index as a company that attempted to employ both which caused many problems. For example even though the market increased 20% from 1994 to 1996, CSC Index lost $50 million in revenue, which later led to them folding into their parent company." I enjoyed learning about the different km strategies and the examples used made this article super easy to understand, which is always nice. The other thing I was thinking about while reading this was about what kind of jobs there could be for information professionals in km. But as the writers mentioned, analysis and IT support is vital for companies that use the codification strategy. So where there's people with information needs there are information professionals!
- Knowledge risk management: a framework by P. Massingham
The first article I chose was the Knowledge risk management article by Massingham because it related to another topic I'm interested in, which is intergovernmental relations in emergency management. I actually wrote my capstone paper on that when I was an undergrad, so I felt like this article would be a good one to start reading for class. In this article, Massingham talks about knowledge management as it applies to risk management and the emerging field of (you guessed it) knowledge risk management. Here Massingham makes the case that older decision tree methods are not the best way to handle risky organizational decisions and instead suggests a different KRM model based upon a study of the Australian Department of Defence. The article goes on to detail the Royal Australian Navy's KRM approach that utilizes a Hazard Risk Index (HRI) to identify levels of risk like a traditional decision tree, but supplements the HRI with "accredited individuals known as Competent Authorities (CAs) to manage the risk. Pairing the HRI and the CAs together to manage risk, the paper notes "is an excellent [way] to reduce cognitive error by aligning RM with competency." However, Massingham does note that the number of "technical decisions makes it difficult for individuals to prioritize risks" as well as the fact that "individuals don't perceive risk in the precise logic of decision theory." With that in mind, Massingham develops a "decision support tool" to help "provide a solution to the problem of cognitive restraints." This is where the knowledge management portion comes in, this model that Massingham devises is grounded in knowledge management. Part of the weakness of RAN's risk management approach is the subjectivity in risk assessment and lack of prioritization. Massingham proposes the utilization of a "knowledge score" as opposed to a "risk score" because it "better differentiates amongst the risk factor," and "aims to increase objectivity in risk assessment by focusing individuals on the bigger picture of the KNOWLEDGE necessary to manage the risk event" as opposed to the risk event itself.
This article was pretty in depth, so it took me reading it, processing and then re-reading it to feel like I understood it well enough to discuss, but it had great table graphics of risk matrices that helped. Overall it was very interesting, however as Massignham observed, this paper's biggest weakness is that it is based on a single case study and the KRM field is very new so much research is still needed. Also the size of the Australian department of defence must be relatively small, so it would be interesting to see Massingham's KRM theory applied to another country's department of defense that is larger and more active. Regardless, if the knowledge score is not something that pans out in research, the six items it would be based on, necessary qualifications level (NQL), length of time to learn (TTL), degree of complexity (DOC), receiver's transfer capacity (RTA), risk management motivation (RMM) and risk management capability (RMC) deserve more investigation.
The next article I read was slightly related to the Massingham KRM article. What's Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge by Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney focuses less on how organizations use knowledge to influence their risk management and more on how organizations manage their knowledge. Specifically, the writers looked at the strategies of consulting companies because the success of their entire business could hinge on how they choose to manage their knowledge. The article goes on to explain how consulting companies like Ernst & Young employ a "codification strategy" that relies heavily on the efficient reuse of knowledge, whereas companies like Bain use a "personalization strategy" that depends on person-to-person contact. The efficiency of the codification strategy allows consulting companies to take in more business and obviously more profit. However, if you're a client that is looking for something more, well, personalized then you would want a consulting company that uses the personalization strategy. One thing the writers did mention, was that companies should pick one method or the other. They cite CSC Index as a company that attempted to employ both which caused many problems. For example even though the market increased 20% from 1994 to 1996, CSC Index lost $50 million in revenue, which later led to them folding into their parent company." I enjoyed learning about the different km strategies and the examples used made this article super easy to understand, which is always nice. The other thing I was thinking about while reading this was about what kind of jobs there could be for information professionals in km. But as the writers mentioned, analysis and IT support is vital for companies that use the codification strategy. So where there's people with information needs there are information professionals!
The last article I read was Wikis as a knowledge management tool by Grace. This article was pretty brief and straightforward. Grace talks about how many companies are starting to utilize wikis so that employees can easily edit and share knowledge. After reading the Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney article this article made me wonder if companies that use the codification strategy also use wikis to aid in their task of reusing knowledge. Of course, we've all heard the doubts about user edited wikis like Wikipedia, so there are also drawbacks to using wikis, which Grace mentions in the article as well. Of course, nothing is perfect, but if used appropriately and with close oversight, wikis can be a great resource for companies.
References
Grace, T. P. L. (2009). Wikis as a knowledge management tool. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 64-74.
Hansen, M., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (2000). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge. The knowledge management yearbook, 2001, 55-69.
Massingham, P. (2010). Knowledge risk management: a framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 464-485.
Hara, N. (2009). Communities of practice: Fostering peer-to-peer learning and informal knowledge sharing in the work place (Vol. 13). Springer.
Massingham, P. (2010). Knowledge risk management: a framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 464-485.
Polanyi, M., & Sen, A. (1983). The tacit dimension (pp. 21-25). Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
Thanks for sharing your reading experience of the Massingham article, particularly your analysis of the “decision support tool.” I haven’t read that particular article yet but from your description, it struck me as relevant to a hotly contested oral history situation. Boston College was subpoenaed and forced to turn over oral histories it had with IRA members to government authorities. The oral histories contained information regarding violent and controversial actions conducted by individuals as members of the IRA. A new article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education attributed the debacle to “grand ambitions undermined by insular decision-making and careless oversight” (McMurtrie, 2014).* It seems much of the project’s administration and management was done secretly and insularly. I wonder if the project directors could have better assessed risk using a “risk score” method as well as their institutional expertise (competent authorities) and knowledge for handling the risk as you suggest Massingham proposes.
ReplyDelete* The article, as of today, was still available to the public at http://chronicle.com/article/Secrets-From-Belfast/144059/ .
Thanks for sharing that article, it was really interesting. Sad, but certainly cautionary. I agree though, BC, Moloney, & McIntyre definitely could've used a better method to make their decision to pursue those oral histories.
DeleteDon't be afraid! I promise none of us really knows what we're doing, either-- we're all learning together.
ReplyDeleteYou tackled a lot of readings in this post and I'm pretty impressed, too. I'm REALLY interested in the idea of wikis and community information-sharing, so I think that's the next piece I read.
The idea that method of organizing information has a huge interplay with the utility of knowledge is really important. After all, if we aren't keeping our method simple and understandable, the users-- people, the reason we're doing all of this-- won't be able to get to it. Good start!
Thanks, I felt much better after getting my first post out of the way! I'm interested in community information sharing as well, but instead of wikis I'm more interested in social media. As if you couldn't tell from Twitter!
Delete