KM Framework and models

The literatures of knowledge Management have defined many ways in which KM in organization could be managed and implemented. Nonaka (1991) came up with a SECI (Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization) framework of “Knowledge creation”.

Socialization: the sharing of tacit knowledge between individuals through the joint activities are been concentrated on.

Externalization: the expression of tacit knowledge in the publicly comprehensible forms.

Combination: the conversion of explicit knowledge into more complex sets of explicit knowledge: communication, dissemination, systematization of explicit knowledge.

Internalization: this is the integration of externalized knowledge into tacit knowledge on individuals or organization scale.

According to Nonaka (1991), the spiral resulting from the exchange of tacit and explicit knowledge across different organizational levels lead the key to knowledge creation and re-creation.

(Earl, 2001). Came up with 7 school’s of knowledge management model. According to Earl( 2001). organization existence depends on these features TECHNOCRATIC, ECONOMIC and BEHAVIORAL. The Technocratic was divided into 3 schools as “systems”, “cartographic” and “engineering”, this has to do more with the Information Technology. In engineering school, it captures how re engineering is used in the processes of the transfer of knowledge flows in an organization activity. An example according to A. Gonnan (1998) is the consultancy practice on learning and improvement from knowledge reuse, recognizing that assignments and their component tasks or processes are often repeatable.

(Earl, 2001).The systems school still have to do with IT, it studies the expert knowledge and used in the knowledge bases so that organization can use the information. Internalization is the based on IT infrastructures. This justifies Nonaka (1991) model “Internalization”. Example according to M. J. Earl (1994) is the data-base built by Shorko Films to capture all second-by-second transactional data from a distributed process control system.

In the economic, which has the commercial school did not fit into the Nonaka (1991). SECI model. The commercial school deals with maximization of profit. It focus on “exploitation” of knowledge than “exploration” of knowledge according to M. J. Earl (2001). For example. A consultant can sell its intellectual knowledge to an organization to make income, i.e knowledge exploitation.

Earl (2001). in the behavioral, the organizational school have to do with how an organization shared, stored, interacted and exchange of information with in it environment “knowledge communities”. This agrees Nonaka (1991) SECI model. According to Hansen et al. 1999 combines both “codified knowledge “ and “personalized knowledge” strategies. Here their exist form of “socialization”, this school has the full integration of the Nonaka (1991) SECI framework.

Earl(2001). In strategic school sees how knowledge management can be used as competitive strategy by an organization i.e knowledge capability. An example is the Buckman Laboratories where knowledge is seen as a source of differentiation as well as a necessity in the specialty chemicals business.

In conclusion, Nonka (1991) in his SECI framework was give an outline and they are bounded. He didn't go further to simplify its framework. But Earl (2001) was more specific with his views about the 7 schools model. Some of the schools in Earl (2001) where able to fit into the SECI framework showing some forms of agreement with the SECI although not all.

References

• Earl, M. J. (2001).Knowledge management strategies: Towards taxonomy. Journal of Management Information Systems/ Summer 2001, vol.18, No. 1, pp.215-233.
• Earl, M. J. (1994)The new and old business process redesign. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 3, 1 (1994), 5-22.
• Gannon, A.(1998) Knowledge management at Hewlett Packard. Knowledge Management, 3, 1, (December/January 1998), 14-17.
• Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. The knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Data, Information and Knowledge

There have been these misunderstanding, misuse and trying to distinguish between data, information and Knowledge. However, different writers and authors came up with the ideas that the use of data, information and knowledge depends on the end user.

Data
Different scholars came up with definitions of data. According to Harris (1996) and Avison and Fitzgerald (1995) they have similar views about data as "the lowest level of known fact and unstructed fact".

Davenport and Prusak (1998) defines data as essential raw material for the creation of information.

Data can be defined as raw and unprocessed fact.
Example: In Nokia organization the defective records of manufactured phones in the production process is data. The records from the process are raw .

The above example justifies Davenport and Prusak definition of data.


Information.
Information according to Harris(1996) are sorted, grouped, analyzed, and interpreted data. Marshall(1997) and Davenport and Prusak(1998) have similar views on information, i.e information to some persons can be knowledge and vice-vase.

For example, if Nokia phone organization takes record of all there monthly sales(data) and put it down in a processed form as (information) charts or graphs. These charts or graphs will help Nokia organization to have the knowledge on when to invest more on their products to certify
there customers demand against the coming season and for a common man it could be an information or data.Therefore, Information are processed data.

Knowledge
Many authors has the word knowledge as not been static, it is interchanged for information.
Davenport et al. (1998) sees knowledge as information combine with context, experience, interpretation, and reflection. Marshall (1997) views knowledge as understanding, interpreting and applying information to a specific work function.

In Practice

Using the above example to illustrate, when Nokia organization have knowledge of their customers demand, meaning they have been able to use the experience and understanding of the past to interpret, reflect and predict for the future business plan. Here, knowledge will come to play because it will help the organization or company to have a competitive advantage over others in the next season.



References

• Avison, D.E and Fitzgerald, G. (1995) Information Systems Development: methodlogies,techonologies, tool, 2nd edn,McGraw-Hill, London.
• Davenprt, T.H, Delong, D.w and Beer, M.C. (1998) 'Successful Knowledge Management projects', Sloan Management Review, 39(2): 43-57
• Davenport, T.H and Prusak, L. (1998) Working knowledge, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, MA.
• Harris, D.B (1996) 'Creating a Knowledge Centric Information Technology Enviroment', Technology in Education Institute, http://www.dbharris.com/ckc.htm , 15 September.
• Marshall, L. (1997) 'Facilitating Knowledge Management and Knowledge Sharing. New Opportunities for Information professionals, Online, Vol 21 No5, Pp 92-98.