KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MATURITY

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction

“Why is it that a concept [knowledge management] so powerful has not delivered what it was supposed to?” (Kazimi, Dasgupta and Natarajan, 2004:01). Without substantial proof that knowledge management adds profound value to organizations, the importance and sufficient commitment to embark on knowledge management will continue to be underplayed (Kazimi, Dasgupta and Natarajan, 2004). According to Armistead and Meakins (2002:49), the value of knowledge “results from the way in which it is used in the firm’s processes in the production of products and services. Firms gain advantage from using the capabilities that arise from knowledge assets in ways which are difficult for others to imitate or replicate, as well as the intellectual property associated with the assets”.
In essence, knowledge and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) fulfil somewhat similar functions in an organization with both containing a non-quantifiable value to an organization. Value calculation is done with much difficulty or cannot be calculated at all (Armistead and Meakins, 2002). According to Laudon and Laudon (2004), this non-quantifiable value of knowledge refers to an ability to positively affect the efficiency and effectiveness of other resources. However, Laudon and Laudon (2004:315) emphasise that “as knowledge becomes a central productive and strategic asset, (as Drucker predicted in 1970), organizational success increasingly “also” depends on the ability to produce, gather, store, and disseminate knowledge”. It is therefore the ability to manage knowledge successfully and not per se “only knowledge” that drives the efficiency and effectiveness of other resources.

The complexity of knowledge

In an organizational sense, the problem with aligning knowledge and strategy is not only rooted in the complexity of knowledge, but also in the sharing of knowledge. As far back as 1958, Polanyi (1958) struggled with the concept of sharing knowledge. Polanyi (1958:49) argued that: ‘The successful performance of a skill depends on the observance of a set of rules which are not known as such to the person following them’. This notion later led Polanyi (1966:04) to come to the conclusion that the problem with knowledge sharing is that ‘we know more than we can tell’. Gertler (2003:77), also struggling with the idea that the dimension of knowledge exists in the background of our consciousness, argues in similar vein that ‘when the skilled performer attempts to describe or explain their performance to an unskilled pupil, they must first try to develop their own awareness of all of the key components of success before they can attempt to communicate these to their student’.

The strategic importance of knowledge

Skyrme (2000:62) is of the opinion that knowledge and other forms of ‘intellectual capital’ can be considered ‘hidden assets’. Zack (1999) argues that organizations gain competitive advantage by successfully excluding competitors from valuable resources. Unfortunately, according to Zack (1999), organizations struggle to sustain these advantages primarily due to competitors developing substitute resources, and/or imitating such resources. Zack (1999) maintains that due to the uniqueness of knowledge it is extremely difficult if not impossible to imitate knowledge, especially context-specific tacit knowledge.
In agreement with this, Teece (1998) argues that the ability to build, utilize and protect knowledge assets that are difficult to imitate, is one way of sustaining competitive advantage. Zack (1999:127) goes on to argue that ‘to acquire similar knowledge, competitors have to engage in similar experiences. However, acquiring knowledge through experience takes time, and competitors are limited in how much they can accelerate their learning merely through greater investment’. Zack (1999:126) is therefore of the opinion that: ‘by having superior intellectual resources, an organization can understand how to exploit and develop their traditional resources better than competitors’, and continues: ‘Therefore, knowledge can be considered the most important strategic resource’.

The role knowledge plays in the formulation of strategy

As a point of departure in assessing the role knowledge plays in strategy formulation, it is imperative to start off by looking at strategy from a holistic business perspective. Mintzberg and Lampel (1999:28), reflecting on the different ways of formulating strategy, conclude that: ‘the field of strategy management should seek an understanding of its own evolution. But it must do so without adopting a pseudoscientific theory of change. It may be that the development of strategic management is at odds with the assumed development in evolutionary biology. This assumes a succession of species, with one often replacing another’.
The same authors later continue: ‘the schools of strategy represent a line of descent through the history of the field, but this may not be a descent by replacement’. What Mintzberg and Lampel (1999) are proposing is not to upset the apple cart for every new management fad/mindset. Rather than focusing on the differences in opinion/methodologies with regard to strategy formulation, strategists should redirect their attention towards what in particular makes business and strategy work. According to Pearce and Robinson (2005), the goal of all organizations is to supply value to internal and external stakeholders. Stakeholders are more than simply owners or shareholders of the organization. Stakeholders include owners, shareholders, suppliers, customers and especially employees (refer to Figure 2.2: Providing stakeholders with value).

The Future of strategy formulation

What Porter proposed was not a ‘descent by replacement’ of the old military concept of drawing a synthesis. In order to be successful, strategists still need to know more about their own capabilities and competencies, and the external forces they face, than their competition does. Even though it remains an open-ended question as to what specifically strategy will comprise of in future, strategy will continue to be built upon knowledgeable reasoning. Possibly this can be attributed to knowledge being the only strategic resource that cannot be consumed by the strategy formulation process. As Zack (1999:128) argues: ‘Unlike traditional physical goods that are consumed as they are used, providing decreasing returns over time, knowledge provides increased returns as it is used. The more it is used the more valuable it becomes, creating a self-reinforcing cycle’. As Mintzberg and Lampel (1999) point out, strategy needs to evolve on a path of descent where new strategic insight is integrated with existing methodologies. As the environment changes and business evolves, knowledge will continue to affect and/or even alter the way strategy is perceived.

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MATURITY FROM A STRATEGIC/MANAGERIAL :

• PERSPECTIVE
• GLOSSARY
• 1. Definitions
• 2. Abbreviations
• CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND AIM OF THE RESEARCH
  • 1.1 Introduction
  • 1.2 Background to the problem
    • 1.2.1 Aim
    • 1.2.2 Objectives of research
  • 1.3 Research methodology
  • 1.4 Limitations
  • 1.5 Assumptions
  • 1.6 Contribution to the fields of knowledge management
  • 1.7 Overview of Chapters
    • 1.7.1 Chapter 1: Introduction
    • 1.7.2 Chapter 2: Knowledge as a strategic corporate resource
    • 1.7.3 Chapter 3: Knowledge management issues, policies and strategies
    • 1.7.4 Chapter 4: Knowledge and knowledge management maturity
    • 1.7.5 Chapter 5: Determining the value of knowledge management
    • 1.7.6 Chapter 6: Methodology to assess knowledge management maturity
    • 1.7.7 Chapter 7: Study of the knowledge management maturity of South African Industry
    • 1.7.8 Chapter 8: Conclusion

• CHAPTER 2: KNOWLEDGE AS A STRATEGIC CORPORATE RESOURCE
  • 2.1 Introduction
    • 2.1.1 Aim
    • 2.1.2. Scope
  • 2.2 The complexity of knowledge
  • 2.3 The strategic importance of knowledge
  • 2.4 The role knowledge plays in the formulation of strategy
    • 2.4.1 The role played by knowledge in the evolution of strategy
    • 2.4.2 The Role of knowledge in assessing the organization’s environments
    • 2.4.3 The Future of strategy formulation
  • 2.5 Summary
• CHAPTER 3: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ISSUES, POLICIES AND STRATEGIES
  • 3.1 Introduction
    • 3.1.1 Aim
    • 3.1.2 Scope
  • 3.2 Definition of knowledge management
  • 3.3 Knowledge management in relation to business strategy
  • 3.4 Issues of knowledge management
    • 3.4.1 Knowledge management is expensive
    • 3.4.2 Effective management of knowledge requires hybrid solutions of people and technology
    • 3.4.3 Knowledge management is highly political
    • 3.4.4 Knowledge management requires knowledge managers
    • 3.4.5 Knowledge management benefits more from maps than from models
    • 3.4.6 Sharing and using of knowledge are often unnatural acts
    • 3.4.7 Knowledge management means improving knowledge work processes
    • 3.4.8 Knowledge access is only the beginning
    • 3.4.9 Knowledge management never ends
    • 3.4.10 Knowledge management requires a knowledge contract
  • 3.5 Strategies to govern efficient and effective knowledge management
  • 3.6 The Creation of knowledge domains
  • 3.7 Summary
• CHAPTER 4: KNOWLEDGE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MATURITY
  • 4.1 Introduction
    • 4.1.1 Aim
    • 4.1.2 Scope
  • 4.2 The Evolution of knowledge management
  • 4.3 Criteria to determine the organization’s knowledge management orientation
  • 4.4 Formulation of a holistic knowledge management maturity model
    • 4.4.1 Phase 1: ICT and Information management enablers for knowledge management
    • 4.4.2 Phase 2: Deciding on knowledge management issues
    • 4.4.3 Phase 3: The formulation of an organization-wide knowledge management policy
    • 4.4.4 Phase 4: Formulating knowledge management strategy/strategies
    • 4.4.5 Phase 5: Implementation of knowledge management strategies
    • 4.4.6 Phase 6: Ubiquitous knowledge
    • 4.4.7. The next phase – The future
  • 4.5 Summary
• CHAPTER 5: DETERMINING THE VALUE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
  • 5.1 Introduction
    • 5.1.1 Aim
    • 5.1.2 Scope
  • 5.2 Knowledge management in relation to business strategy and innovation
  • 5.3 Criteria to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization
  • 5.4 How to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of knowledge management from an organizational
  • perspective
  • 5.5 The value of knowledge management in relation to knowledge maturity
  • 5.6 Summary
• CHAPTER 6: METHODOLOGY PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MATURITY OF AN ORGANISATION
  • 6.1 Introduction
    • 6.1.1 Aim
    • 6.1.2 Scope
  • 6.2 Methodology to measure the knowledge management maturity of an organization
  • 6.3 Formulation of a knowledge management maturity assessment questionnaire
  • 6.4 Methodology to empirically test the knowledge management maturity of organizations
  • 6.5 Summary
• CHAPTER 7: A STUDY OF THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MATURITY OF SOUTH AFRICAN INDUSTRY
  • 7.1 Introduction
    • 7.1.1 Aim
    • 7.1.2 Scope
  • 7.2. The handling of data
  • 7.3 Analysis of the knowledge management maturity of organizations, viewed from within a holistic managerial/strategic perspective
    • 7.3.1 ICT Management
    • 7.3.2 Information management
    • 7.3.3 Knowledge management issues (principles), policies and strategy
    • 7.3.4 Implementation of knowledge management
    • 7.3.5 Ubiquitous knowledge
  • 7.4 Knowledge management maturity according to organizational size
  • 7.5 Knowledge management maturity as a function of different managerial levels
  • 7.6 Knowledge management maturity as a function of different managerial levels within different
  • organizational sizes
  • 7.7 Assessment of the knowledge management maturity per industry grouping
  • 7.8. Summary of the major findings with regard to the knowledge management maturity of South
  • African industry
• CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • 8.1 Introduction
  • 8.2 Summary of methodology used
  • 8.3 Main findings of the research
  • 8.4 Anomalies and surprising results
  • 8.5 Larger relevance of the study (gaps and uncertainties)
  • 8.6 Recommendations regarding further research
• Appendix A:
  • Knowledge Management Maturity Assessment Matrix (KMMAM)
  • Appendix B:
  • Knowledge Management Maturity Assessment Questionnaire (KMMAQ)
  • Appendix C
  • Knowledge Management Maturity Rating System (KMMRS)
  • Appendix D
  • Knowledge Management Maturity Findings
  • REFERENCES

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT MATURITY FROM A STRATEGIC/MANAGERIAL PERSPECTIVE