Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR KM - Coggle Diagram
FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR KM
-
Organizational issues
Five models of information politics can be used to characterize the politics
of the organizational context and culture. They are: (1) technocratic utopianism, (2) anarchy, (3) feudal-
ism, (4) monarchy, and (5) federalism.
In technocratic utopianism, a heavily technical approach is taken to information and knowledge management stressing categorization and the modeling of an organization’s full information assets
In the anarchy model, there is an absence of overall information management policy.
The feudalism model is based on the management of information by individual business units or functions, which define their own information needs and report only limited information to the overall corporation.
In the monarchy model, the firm’s leaders define information categories and reporting structures and may or may not share the information willingly after having collected it.
The federalism model emphasizes an approach to information management based on consensus and negotiation on the organization’s key information elements and reporting structures.
Valuing issues:
obtaining this advantage does not happen automatically—a firm has to know how to extract value from knowledge assets.
Classical theories of value focus on resource-based, largely renewable,
nature’s bounty with little concern about the role of information or knowledge.
three different types of intellectual
capital need to be considered:
Human Capital, Organizational capital and Customer Capital
All unused patents were
indexed and checked for royalty opportunities, including:
-
-
-
-
-
-
One camp predicts no future for KM, citing a number of KM failures to deliver.
Before KM, the way in which people shared knowledge was person-to-person, just-in-time, and in the context of solving a specific business problem.
With the increasingly widespread adoption of KM, knowledge management processes such as knowledge creation/capture, knowledge sharing/ dissemination, and knowledge acquisition/application have begun to form part and parcel of how organizations conduct their core business and how knowledge workers conduct their work activities in an efficient and effective manner.
A POSTMODERN KM?
Weinberger (2001) introduced the term postmodern KM to distinguish it
from traditional KM, which he views as having traditionally suffered from the
belief that we can discover ultimate truths and organize the world according
to rational principles using clever code.
Therefore, postmodern KM cannot be about management at
all because management implies external control of some definable resource.
Postmodern KM operates
within and on the basis of existing behavior patterns, mining conversation
streams and relationships automatically to incorporate structure and context
into the information human users already manipulate.
In the short term, knowledge management will continue to contribute to the
improved exploitation of the information and knowledge resources available
to the company
The introduction of KM should be viewed as a catalytic process that significantly transforms the organization—ranging from impacting individual behaviors, collaborative knowledge sharing within groups, and organizational dimensions such as culture.