Knowledge Management Topics: Trust, Reputation, Information Sharing, & Knowledge Outsourcing

 Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Who wouldn't trust this kitteh?

Even though it's Spring Break, knowledge management waits for no person! I don't know about y'all, but I've been getting bombarded with e-mails about the UK payroll issues. If you haven't been getting the e-mails, the Cliffnotes version is this: On payday two weeks ago, UK states that there was an unfortunate error by their banking partner, PNC which led to many employees not receiving their paycheck on time. This led to me think about how it relates to what we've talked about with knowledge sharing and bounded awareness in knowledge management. So this week I picked articles related to trust and reputation in knowledge management. 

 

Knowledge Management comic strip from here.

The first article I read was Information sharing and trust during major incidents: Findings from the oil industry by Ibrahim and Allen. In light of incidents such as the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I found this article to be very relevant.  Remember the Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney's article that talked about how consulting companies save and recycle knowledge to be reused by the employees for the benefit of the company's bottom line? The bottom line in this article is about information sharing, albeit in the oil industry and not consulting companies. The fascinating thing about this article is that you would think that trust is something super important before employees feel free to share information. However, Ibrahim and Allen show that sharing information actually builds trust. Which I guess makes sense, as Melinda put it (here) that sharing information is sort of a gesture of 'good faith.' However, the cynic in me also thinks that maybe some people are fond of information sharing because it spreads the guilt around if something happens. Sort of like: "Here, now you all have the same information. If it blows up, it wasn't just me who knew and didn't say anything." Although, personally, I prefer Melinda's way of thinking, maybe it is a little bit of both?

The next article I read was Knowledge outsourcing: an alternative strategy for knowledge management by Lam and Chua. This was a case study about knowledge outsourcing and how it is currently used by an organization, in the hopes of presenting it as an alternative to knowledge management. On a knee jerk reaction, I think this is nuts. If you are going to outsource knowledge for your company, then why not just hire the people that already have the knowledge. However, after I thought about it, it does make sense in certain instances. For example, if it is a small company that does not have many technological needs, then outsourcing that help to a dedicated external tech help company would make sense.  The article presents some interesting points and while I'm open to the idea, I am still not sold that knowledge outsourcing (KO) is a viable alternative to knowledge management. The way I look at it is that in the long run, knowledge management will help a company run smoother. It's like the old adage: "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for life!"

The final article I read for this week was The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices by Lucas. This article did a complete 180 from the Ibrahim and Allen article, by saying that trust is necessary for the "transfer of best practices." Although, I think there is an important distinction between the "transfer of best practices" and "information sharing." To me, information sharing is more general in nature, whereas transfer of best practices means that over time the best of that information sharing has evolved into sound practices and is perhaps useful on a wide scale in the company.  So what Lucas is saying then is that to get these best practices, you need trust and a good reputation (Sorry Joan Jett). Which of course make complete sense and is probably why innovation driven companies like Google work so hard to cultivate trust and create positive working environments for their employees.

 

Dilbert comic strip from here.

References 

Hassan Ibrahim, N., & Allen, D. (2012). Information sharing and trust during major incidents: Findings from the oil industry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(10), 1916-1928.

Lam, W., & Chua, A. Y. (2009). Knowledge outsourcing: an alternative strategy for knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3), 28-43. 

Lucas, L. M. (2005). The impact of trust and reputation on the transfer of best practices. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 87-101. 

Coffee & Knowledge Management

After reading Kelly's post about knowledge management and social media, I decided to read Customer knowledge management via social media: the case of Starbucks by Chua and Banerjee first this week. The goal of this article was for Chua & Banerjee to study how companies utilized social media to support their customer knowledge management. Customer knowledge management (CKM) is basically feedback from a company's customers that helps the company to see if/where change is needed. This particular study focused on Starbucks, and their social media usage. For the purpose of the study, the authors broke down social media into various categories, including (p. 239): Microblogging services (Twitter); social networking services (Facebook); location-aware mobile services (4Square); and corporate discussion forum services. Chua & Banerjee found that Starbucks is successful at utilizing and extrapolating CKM from its usage of social media. 

Like Kelly, I agree that companies should be cautious with incorporating social media just because of a study. First, it is not the right call for every business. I mean, what would a funeral home company tweet about? Second, it isn't about the amount of social media services you use, it is about how well you use them. Similarly, Joe mentioned in his post on this article, that effectiveness is the keyword when it comes to corporate social media. Quality over quantity, people. 

The next article I read was Methodology for the implementation of knowledge management systems by Chalmeta and Grangel. As Joe said in his post a few days ago, this article was pretty dry, albeit very straightforward! While many of the articles I've read thus far talk about the potential benefits of companies utilizing knowledge management practices, most of those articles also mention the lack of a method of implementation. This article aims to remedy that by providing the "KM-IRIS Methodology" which the authors split into five different phases (p. 744): Identification, extraction, representation, processing, and utilization. One of the things I liked about this article's methodology was the table that clearly delineated each phase of the methodology and how they can be applied (Fig. 1, pg. 745). Chalmeta and Grangel take this method and apply it to a business enterprise, in order to show it in practice, although they do acknowledge as one of the study's limitations that it was only tested once. 

The final article I read for this week was Nimble knowledge transfer in high velocity/turbulent environments (HVTEs) by Jones and Mahon. This article is kind of a throwback to my earlier readings about knowledge risk management, and the differences between explicit and tacit knowledge. For the purpose of this paper, high velocity/turbulent has nothing to do with airplanes, but instead with decisions that have life and death consequences. This paper draws from examples and seeks  to give a KM model for these situations. In this article, Jones and Mahon argue for a better/more training for management so that there can be a greater "development of tacit knowledge and potential approaches to dealing with HVTEs (p. 784)." Although, Jones and Mahon also admit that in calmer environments, explicit knowledge would still be important. 

References 

Chalmeta, R., & Grangel, R. (2008). Methodology for the implementation of knowledge management systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 742-755. 

Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2013). Customer knowledge management via social media: the case of Starbucks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(2), 237-249.  

Jones, N. B., & Mahon, J. F. (2012). Nimble knowledge transfer in high velocity/turbulent environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 774-788.

KM in academia, disaster management, and general

The first article I read for this week, was A Tale of Two Hurricanes by Chua, which is a comparison of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita through the lens of knowledge management. I picked this article because I remember vividly the news coverage before, during, and after each storm, so to review it now ten years later with a knowledge management perspective is pretty cool. Kelly also talks about this article on her blog here. Chua starts by developing the table (pictured below, via a screenshot from my Kindle) that shows a KM framework that he uses to "identify different dimensions along which the two disasters can be compared (p. 1518)." 

The neat thing about this article, is that due to the close timeframe of the two hurricanes, the author was able to directly compare the emergency management preparation and reaction. Obviously, we all know that  the government failed on both the local and federal level to prepare residents (and the city re: levees in New Orleans) prior to Hurricane Katrina, during, and immediately afterwards. They took considerable flack in the PR department, so when Rita hit a few weeks later, everyone was jumping to prepare and help out. This unique situation then allowed Chua with clear examples of the good and bad of KM processes (Knowledge creation, reuse, & transfer) in disaster management. For instance, the distrust between local government agencies and the federal government agencies caused many problems with Hurricane Katrina, but when Hurricane Rita rolled around with the media pressure on everyone to work together, they did manage to work together much more efficiently. 

The next thing I read was the Knowledge Management entry in the Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences by Dalkir. In retrospect, I wish I had read this first or when I was struggling with the Polanyi reading. Dalkir gives a clear and concise overview of knowledge management that I think would have helped give me a better overview prior to jumping into the semester reading. Plus I like visual aids, and this article had them! For instance: 

I also liked how Dalkir had a section for emerging roles in the KM field, it reminded me of when Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney's article spoke about the importance/need for executives to embrace KM and choose a stance for the future success of their companies. Of course, some might disagree. Two of the roles that Dalkir mentioned were:    

Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) - in charge of ensuring that the company's "KM goals are in line with organizational strategies and objectives (p. 3136)." 

Chief Learning Officer (CLO) - in charge of ensuring that the company "acts like a learning organization, improving over time with the help of accumulated best practices and lessons learned (p. 3136)." 

I like the sound of these roles, and I understand why they may be needed, but I think we are a long way off from having these sort of jobs be considered necessary or normal. I think that part of the problem with getting business minded people to accept knowledge management is the nebulous nature of knowledge management. I mean, there isn't even a clear definition of knowledge management, and without a clear consensus on most things km related, the less willing executives will be to allocate company resources to km. 

The final article I read for this post is Knowledge Management and Academic Libraries by Townley. This one starts off by talking about how libraries and many other industries generate information/records on usage that they can use to organize and manage knowledge, but then fail to utilize that knowledge effectively. Which, kind of goes back to what I was saying in the last paragraph, about businesses being hesitant to explore knowledge management.  Townley takes four broad objectives from a survey by Davenport, De Long, and Beers: Create knowledge repositories; improve knowledge access; enhance the knowledge environment; and manage knowledge as an asset. Townley explains how these can be applied with academic libraries. For instance, creating a knowledge repository out of information that the library already collects would "add value to integrated library systems (p. 49)." This would lead you to the second objective of improving knowledge access, which Townley proposes Academic libraries do by creating a network of "subject specialists..from several institutions...to share experiences and learn from each other (p. 49)." Townley has a good idea, but this still seems like a costly proposal for academic libraries. As far as enhancing the knowledge environment, Townley says that in order to accomplish this, "management must generate meaningful contacts among the staff, provide resources and incentives, and praise progress (p. 50)." The final objective of managing knowledge as an asset seems pretty obvious, basically Townley recommends a review of intellectual services and making sure that the library is using them effectively. In his conclusion, Townley touches on how embracing knowledge management can "expand the role of libraries in the academic community and to result in strengthened relationships with related units, inside and outside the university (p. 54)." Which is a good point, because we are constantly hearing how libraries need to update and embrace in order to stay viable with patrons in this age of technology. While I agree with Chua, Dalkir, and Townley that knowledge management will eventually be an important part of the future success of businesses, I think that we are still a ways out from KM being considered necessary by the businesses themselves. Although, I would think that disaster or risk management agencies/businesses may come around sooner rather than later because of all the benefits that km offers them and the populations/companies they serve.

References 

Chua, A. Y. (2007). A tale of two hurricanes: Comparing Katrina and Rita through a knowledge management perspective. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1518-1528.

Dalkir, Kimiz. Knowledge Management. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences, Third Edition. Taylor and Francis: New York, Published online: 09 Dec 2009; 3129-3138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ElS3-120043816 

Townley, C. T. (2001). Knowledge management and academic libraries. College & Research Libraries, 62(1), 44-55.