Knowledge management models and schools of thought

After getting familiar with the concept of knowledge management the question is how can knowledge management be used in an organizatio? What kind of techniques must be used to utilize knowledge management? Professor Woodman mentioned in class several time the following scenario: Suppose you are recruited as a knowledge manager at a company and you meet a director in the lift and asks you 'So what is this knowledge management all about?' By now we are able to give a definition of what KM is but if he asks 'Ok then, how do you think we can apply all these in the organization?' That's where KM models and schools of thought come into the picture.

KM models

As there are various definitions about knowledge management, there are also various models. Each model is proposed according to the view and philosophy of the author.

The most famous model is the SECI model by Nonaka and Takeuchi. In a few words, Nonaka and Takeuchi believe that (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) knowledge is created dynamically and has to be processed effectively.

Picture taken from www.12manage.com

As you can see, SECI supports that knowledge creation is a spiral process and not linear or circular. Knowledge is created through 4 processes. Socialization, Externalization, Combination and Internalization.

'Even though, the SECI model is probably the most famous knowledge management model, it doesn't mean that it is the best or that all the others are wrong. In fact some criticise the SECI model and support that it is flawed (Gourlay, 2006).' McAdam and McCreedy wonder if it is right to categorize data as tacit and explicit only (McAdam & McCreedy, 1999) and Gourlay supports that (Gourlay, 2006) not only tacit and explicit knowledge can be created but, the type of the created knowledge is based on the kind of behavior that will lead to knowledge creation.

KM Schools of thought

Probably the most famous school of thought in KM is Earl's 7 schools system. Earl noticed that (M. Earl, 2001) organizations realized the potentials of using knowledge management but the problem was they didn't know where to start from so Earl concluded that some sort of models/frameworks were needed.

Picure taken from Earl M. - Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy

As you can see in the above diagram Earl proposed the 7 schools system (with the 7 schools divided into 3 branches) and each school has different aim, focus and philosophy so according to the organization's needs a school of thought can be selected as a framework.

It is important to note that (M. Earl, 2001) no school is the best or any school is better than another but they are all different and work in a different way. Moreover, it is possible that two or more schools of thought can be used in an organization at the same time, so one school does not exclude the presence of the other. Finally, Earl points out that it is possible more schools excist, so this framework is not an absolut one, but it could be expanded in the future.

A different school of thought

An example of a different school of thought is the 5-tier knowledge management hierarchy.

Picture taken from Richard C. Hicks, Ronald Dattero and Stuart D. Galup. - The five-tier knowledge management hierarchy

The 5TKMH is based on (Hicks, Dattero, Galup, 2006) the knowledge hierarchy paradigm and expands it with 2 more levels. The 5TKMH includes the technocratic and commercial schools from Earl's taxonomy.

A lot more schools of thought are out there without anyone being right or wrong. There purpose is to provide a framework on how to be effective with knowledge management. As we have seen, Earl commented (M.Earl,2001) that there might be more schools he missed while he was doing his research and (Hicks, Dattero, Galup, 2006) said that they include the two out of three branches in Earl's schools.

So, as a conclusion, (McAdam & McCreedy, 1999) 'models must be treated with caution. They are useful so long as they are critiqued to understand the underlying assumptions in the representation, rather than accepting them as objective representations of reality.' There is no right or wrong way to go, there is only the need to identify which model will help you stay on the right path.

References

Earl M. (2001). Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems. 18,(1),p.215-233.

Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation: A Critique of Nonaka's Theory. Journal of Management Studies. 43.

McAdam R. and McCreedy S. (1999). A critical review of knowledge management models. The Learning Organization: An International Journal. 6, (3),p.91-101.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company, New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Richard C. Hicks, Ronald Dattero and Stuart D. Galup. (2006). The five-tier knowledge management hierarchy. JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT. 10,(1),p.19-31.

.