This paper reviews the contention by Wilson (2002) that the term knowledge management, despite its vogue, remains a meaningless and empty term that is best dropped from common usage in business.
Wilson’s goal in labeling knowledge management as “nonsense” was to highlight the fact that because knowledge management describes a process that does not exist and is not humanly possible to achieve, continued usage of the term in the business realm created unnecessary confusion and wasted work effort. In the review, the paper shows that knowledge management becomes legitimate once applied as a specific organizing tool to effectively impart an organization’s full body of knowledge to any given problem or issue within the business.
Since its inaugural use in 1986, the term knowledge management has consistently and stubbornly resisted a clear definition (Wilson, 2002). The reason for this, according to Professor Emeritus T.D. Wilson (2002), remains the inherent contradiction of the term. Wilson’s (2002) scathing critique The Nonsense of Knowledge Management, argued vehemently that knowledge itself fundamentally cannot be managed, given that it is a personal internal mental process unique to each individual (Wilson, 2002).
In Wilson’s (2002) words, “knowledge involves the mental processes of comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in the mind, however much they involve interaction with the world outside the mind, and interaction with others” (Wilson, 2002).
Wilson’s goal in labeling knowledge management as “nonsense” was to highlight the fact that because knowledge management describes a process that does not exist and is not humanly possible to achieve, continued usage of the term in the business realm created unnecessary confusion and wasted work effort (Wilson, 2002). Wilson’s critique argued that knowledge management should be dropped from the canon of business terminology and replaced with a term that actually made sense (Wilson, 2002).
Wilson’s (2002) criticism found support from several high profile management consultants (Wilson, 2002). Karl Erik Sveiby (2001) openly discredited the term on his own website when he stated “I don’t believe knowledge can be managed” (Sveiby, 2001). Peter Drucker also forcefully rejected the viability of the term when he said: “You can’t manage knowledge.
Knowledge is between two ears, and only between two ears” (Kontzer, 2001). This paper will discuss the fact that though the terms knowledge and information are often used interchangeably, they are not synonyms (Wilson, 2002). This is the element of knowledge management that remains obstinately confusing and unclear.
Information, in Wilson’s (2002) understanding, refers to “everything outside the mind,” more clearly defined as data (Wilson, 2002). Data is open property available to all stakeholders in any given business task, and can be manipulated, used, and shared as needed. However, once that information enters the mind of each individual stakeholder, it becomes her property alone, unique to her individual method of intellectual processing.
In Wilson’s words, “knowledge built from the messages can never be exactly the same as the knowledge base from which the messages were uttered…[thus] data and information may be managed, and information resources may be managed, but knowledge (i.e., what we know) can never be managed, except by the individual knower and, even then, only imperfectly” (Wilson, 2002).
Wilson (2002) also drolly pointed out that knowledge management, touted as creating a pool of employee know-how, freely and harmoniously shared for the benefit of all stakeholders, is “predicated upon a Utopian idea of organizational culture…whatever businesses claim about people being their most important resource, they are never reluctant to rid themselves of that resource (and the knowledge it possesses) when market conditions decline” (Wilson, 2002).
More recently, Harsh (2009) narrows the definition and focus of knowledge management, renames it “knowledge reusability,” and proposes a model whereby knowledge can be captured, processed, and shared through a reusability model similar to that employed by software developers (Harsh, 2009).
The term knowledge management contains a significant degree of relevance in the information technology industry, wherein IT managers use knowledge management as a process term that refers specifically to the exchange of tactile software knowledge which successive generations of developers share and build upon (Harsh, 2009). Using Nonaka and Takeuchi’s 1995 model, Harsh (2009) breaks knowledge down into the micro term “tacit knowledge” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
This refers to the “knowledge residing in people’s brains,” and argues that the “knowledge of an organization changes with time [and] effective knowledge of an organization may be increased through the reuse of knowledge” (Harsh, 2009). In the same manner that software knowledge is standardized, reused and shared, “knowledge reuse may be defined as systematic application of existing artifacts” (Harsh, 2009).
Stakeholders can gain access to tacit knowledge through the “transformation of tacit [knowledge] into explicit knowledge” (Harsh, 2009) Examples of accessible reusable knowledge made explicit in the workplace, according to Harsh (2009), include “speaking to somebody, writing a document, drawing a figure, giving a presentation, or teaching” (Harsh, 2009). Harsh (2009) argues that reusable knowledge “boosts our confidence about the use of the available knowledge at a particular time.
Reusable knowledge will set an environment of mutual trust among the experimenters and the replicators” (Harsh, 2009). Problems arise however when one considers the social and environmental nature of tacit knowledge itself, firstly, how much of the knowledge in his own head will any employee share, and how much awareness of this knowledge does any employee have (Wilson, 2002)?
In Wilson’s (2002) description, tacit knowledge, being under the purview of an individual consciousness, is “an inexpressible process” by design (Wilson, 2002).
Knowledge management appears to have relevance in the software realm, however, it refers to a highly specialized form of implicit knowledge, “that which we take for granted in our actions, and which may be shared by others through common experience or culture,” namely, the culture of software development (Wilson, 2002). While knowledge management has applications in that industry, outside of that industry, the nonsense sticker remains firmly affixed (Wilson, 2002).
The SystemsWiki Knowledge Management (n.d.) blog offers a thoughtful and shrewd critique of the controversy surrounding knowledge management, namely, as it highlights the fact that “information, knowledge, and wisdom are more than simply collections” (Knowledge Management, n.d.). Viewed out of context, none of these disembodied parts mean anything. It is only when they are brought together into a recognizable pattern that they began to show their value to the organization.
As the SystemsWiki states, “when a pattern relation exists amidst the data and information, the pattern has the potential to represent knowledge. It only becomes knowledge, however, when one is able to realize and understand the patterns and their implications” (Knowledge Management, n.d.).
Essentially then, knowledge management becomes more directly and easily understood as the sharing of patterns, patterns which repeat over time and have a regular and quantifiable impact on some element of an organization’s internal or external function. These patterns tend to be “self-contextualizing. That is, the pattern tends, to a great extent, to create its own context rather than being context dependent to the same extent that information is.
A pattern which represents knowledge also provides, when the pattern is understood, a high level of reliability or predictability as to how the pattern will evolve over time, for patterns are seldom static. Patterns which represent knowledge have a completeness to them that information simply does not contain” (Knowledge Management, n.d.).
Prior manifestations of knowledge management, the type which Wilson (2002) rails against, have missed this fundamental distinction (Wilson, 2002). Knowledge and information remain irrevelevant and inapplicable until they are placed in a context which serves a specific function, be it growth, efficiency, or the like.
Where knowledge management is concerned, according to the SystemsWiki blog (2009), another crucial and fundamental misunderstanding occurs in perception (Knowledge Management, n.d.). Thus far, there has been “a focus on Knowledge Management not as a means, but as an end in itself,” whereas to be of use to a company, knowledge management must be thought of as “one of many cooperating means to an end, not the end in itself” (Knowledge Management, n.d.).
Knowledge management’s merit lies in “the effectiveness with which the managed knowledge enables the members of the organization to deal with today’s situations and effectively envision and create their future” (Knowledge Management, n.d.). Effective knowledge management thereby deploys the whole body of knowledge accumulated over time, similar to its value in software development.
As the SystemsWiki (2009) aptly points out, “without on-demand access to managed knowledge, every situation is addressed based on what the individual or group brings to the situation with them,” at that particular moment in time, which can lead to backlogs, stalemates, and most importantly, the dreaded time wasting enterprise of reinventing the wheel (Knowledge Management, n.d.). The understanding and insight offered by the SystemsWiki (2009) offers some form of an antidote to the nonsense (Knowledge Management, n.d.).
In conclusion, knowledge management does have practical value and application to an organization, if and when it is understood as an organizing tool. Certain agreement remains with Wilson (2002); the term does become nonsensical when applied generally, given that individual tacit knowledge cannot be downloaded, at least not yet (Wilson, 2002).
Useful knowledge management can quickly and efficiently deploy the full body of accumulated knowledge within an organization to bear on any given problem, and that remains its core value and worth.
References
Harsh, O. K. (2009). Three Dimensional Knowledge Management and Explicit Knowledge Re-use. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 10 (2), 1-5.
Knowledge Management: Emerging Perspectives. The Systems Wiki. Web.
Kontzer, T. (2001). Management legend: trust never goes out of style. Call Center Magazine. n.p.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynasties of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sveiby, K. E. (2001). Frequently asked questions. Web.
Wilson, T. D. (2002). The nonsense of knowledge management. Information Research, 8(1), 1-21.