Hazel Hall Senior Lecturer School of Computing Napier University, Edinburgh h.hall@napier.ac.uk

1. Hazel Hall Senior Lecturer School of Computing Napier University, Edinburgh h.hall@napier.ac.uk http://www.bim.napier.ac.uk/esis/about_us/hazel.html

2. Format of the presentation • Knowledge management “defined” • Knowledge management perspectives • Knowledge management at Napier University • Knowledge sharing

3. Knowledge management: a definition “The capabilities by which communities within an organisation capture the knowledge that is critical to them, constantly improve it and make it available in the most effective manner to those people who need it, so that they can exploit it creatively to add value as a normal part of their work”

4. Knowledge management: a definition “The capabilities by which communities within an organisation capture the knowledge that is critical to them, constantly improve it and make it available in the most effective manner to those people who need it, so that they can exploit it creatively to add value as a normal part of their work”

5. Information science Psychology Science and technology Artificial intelligence Sociology Knowledge management Information systems Business studies Computer science Strategic management Organisational science

6. Engineers Information science Librarians Military strategists Psychology Science and technology Management consultants Artificial intelligence Sociology Knowledge management Human resources managers Information systems Hardware & software vendors Business studies Computer science Accountants Charities Strategic management Organisational science

7. Contested approaches Laissez-faire Re-engineering

8. Contested approaches Laissez-faire Re-engineering 3 articulations from the literature KM1: Library and Information Science KM2: Process Engineering KM3: Organisational Theory (Davenport & Cronin, 2000)

9. KM1: “Knowledge organisation” approach Identify Acquire Classify Catalogue Organise Store internally and externally produced publications for subsequent retrieval and use

10. KM2: “Process” approach then recompile systems and resources  identify existing conceptual links, form new links Use techniques and tools to map and model “know-how”

11. KM3: “Creation” approach Provide conditions for knowledge creation so that knowledge is created and shared freely to encourage knowledge culture

12. KM1: “Knowledge organisation” approach Identify Acquire Classify Catalogue Organise Store internally and externally produced publications for subsequent retrieval and use Isn’t this just information management? Ignores “tacit”, unrecorded knowledge

13. KM2: “Process” approach then recompile systems and resources  identify existing conceptual links, form new links Use techniques and tools to map and model “know-how” Over-emphasis on the process of mapping & modelling Too little emphasis on human factors Cost of exercise

14. KM3: “Creation” approach Provide conditions for knowledge creation so that knowledge is created and shared freely to encourage knowledge culture Ignores “published” sources Dependent on personality “types” Highly reliant on personal networks

15. KM at Napier University Teaching • focused on integrated strategies • students learn about KM while “doing” KM Research: examples • communities of practice and networked learning • teledemocracy • careers guidance • advertising

16. Value of conducting research on encouraging knowledge sharing Most commonly discussed topic at KM conferences • priority area for knowledge research • priority area for companies “knowledge hoarding is power”  “knowledge sharing is valued” (Kelleher & Levene, p. 39)

17. Knowledge gaps and debates in this area • KM research questions about teams • value of organisational incentives for information sharing • casestudy evidence

18. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Conditions Infrastructure Usability Responsibilities Hard Articulation Soft Status Critical mass Communities Boundary objects

19. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Financialrewards Hard Career advancement/security as reward Soft Access to information and knowledge as reward

20. Incentives for knowledge sharing Increased pay Bonuses Stock options Rewards Financial rewards Hard Promotion Future work Career advancement/security as reward Soft Learning Innovation Access to information and knowledge as reward

21. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Financial rewards Hard Career advancement/security as reward Soft Access to information and knowledge as reward

22. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Hard Enhanced reputation as reward Soft Personal satisfaction as reward

23. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Hard Enhanced reputation as reward Gratitude Flattery Recognition Cross-hierarchy alliances Positive results of altruism Soft Personal satisfaction as reward

24. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Hard Enhanced reputation as reward Soft Personal satisfaction as reward

25. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Encourage temporary compliance Over-promote self-interest Rupture relationships Discourage risk taking Depend on personality “types” Hard Soft

26. Incentives for knowledge sharing Training & debriefings Conditions Mentoring & assisting Acquire knowledge Disseminate knowledge Responsibilities Time allocated “Copying” permitted Status Senior management buy-in Communities Leadership by example

27. Incentives for knowledge sharing Conditions Acquire knowledge Disseminate knowledge Responsibilities Status Communities

28. Incentives for knowledge sharing Training & debriefings Conditions Mentoring & assisting Acquire knowledge Disseminateknowledge Culture change imperative Responsibilities Time allocated “Copying” permitted Status Senior management buy-in Communities Leadership by example

29. Incentives for knowledge sharing Conditions Remove management levels Responsibilities Status Relegate Mask status All are contributors, experimentation is encouraged Communities

30. Incentives for knowledge sharing Conditions Responsibilities Academic research on online interactions Doctors v nurses Status Relegate Communities

31. Incentives for knowledge sharing Conditions Remove management levels Responsibilities Works against soft reward of enhanced reputation Status Relegate Mask status All are contributors, experimentation is encouraged Communities

32. Incentives for knowledge sharing Shared commitment, obligation & co-dependence  vitality & trust Conditions Responsibilities Social interaction  clique & high risk exchange Status Provide for Communities Identity  common purpose

33. Social events Common language framework Space Incentives for knowledge sharing Conditions Responsibilities Status Provide for Communities

34. Incentives for knowledge sharing Shared commitment, obligation & co-dependence  vitality & trust Conditions Responsibilities Social interaction  clique & high risk exchange Status Provide for Communities Identity  common purpose Can’t be “created”

35. Incentives for knowledge sharing Shared commitment, obligation & co-dependence  vitality & trust Strong versus weak ties Conditions Responsibilities Social interaction  clique & high risk exchange Status Provide for Communities Identity  common purpose Can’t be “created”

36. Incentives for knowledge sharing Shared commitment, obligation & co-dependence  vitality & trust Strong versus weak ties Conditions Responsibilities Social interaction  clique & high risk exchange Inhibited dissemination Status Provide for Communities Identity  common purpose Can’t be “created”

37. Incentives for knowledge sharing Shared commitment, obligation & co-dependence  vitality & trust Strong versus weak ties Conditions Responsibilities Social interaction  clique & high risk exchange Inhibited dissemination Status Provide for Communities Identity  common purpose Can’t be “created” Limits on membership

38. Incentives for knowledge sharing Infrastructure Usability Ease of use Articulation Usefulness of use is obvious Critical mass Boundary objects

39. Incentives for knowledge sharing Infrastructure Usability Ease of use Articulation Usefulness of use is obvious Critical mass Boundary objects

40. Incentives for knowledge sharing Infrastructure Usability Articulation Integration of tools with communities Critical mass Boundary objects

41. Incentives for knowledge sharing Infrastructure Usability Articulation Integration of tools with communities Critical mass Boundary objects

42. Ease of use Usefulness of use is obvious Integration of tools with communities Incentives for knowledge sharing Infrastructure Usability Articulation Critical mass Boundary objects

43. Incentives for knowledge sharing Infrastructure Usability Articulation classification schemes Critical mass repositories Boundary objects spaces and people

44. Incentives for knowledge sharing Infrastructure Usability Articulation classification schemes Ease of knowledge sharing Equal status Community ownership Exploitation of weak ties Transfer from oldies to newbies Critical mass repositories Boundary objects spaces and people

45. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Conditions Infrastructure Usability Responsibilities Hard Articulation Soft Status Critical mass Communities Boundary objects

46. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Conditions Infrastructure Usability Responsibilities Hard Articulation Soft Status Tension Critical mass Communities Boundary objects Mixed incentives

47. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Conditions Infrastructure To jump start knowledge sharing For long-term compliance To help new members of staff To encourage experimentation For cross-team working To match “expectations” of personality types For “community” benefits For distributed staff To promote moral obligation For wide dissemination

48. Incentives for knowledge sharing Rewards Conditions Infrastructure To jump start knowledge sharing For long-term compliance To help new members of staff To encourage experimentation For cross-team working To match “expectations” of personality types For “community” benefits For distributed staff To promote moral obligation For wide dissemination Knowledge is a private good Knowledge is a public good Knowledge is accessible

49. References and further work in this area Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2000). Knowledge management: semantic drift or conceptual shift?, [Online]. Available: http://www.alise.org/nondiscuss/conf00_Davenport-Cronin-paper.htm [2000, 28 January]. Davenport E. & Hall, H. (2002 in press). Organizational knowledge and communities of practice. In B. Cronin & D, Shaw (Eds.). Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. Medford NJ: Information Today. Hall, H. (2001).Input-friendliness: motivating knowledge sharing across intranets. Journal of Information Science 27(2), 139-146. Kelleher, D., & Levene, S. (2001). Knowledge management: a guide to good practice. London: British Standards Institution.