Last updated: February 27, 2019
Topic: ArtDesign
Sample donated:

 `In the current environment knowledge and its effective management are central to gaining competitive advantage` Discuss Knowledge management of the organization detonate an ideal knowledge-sharing environment—that is, one in which the correct information would be naturally accessible to the appropriate individuals and one in which all corporate knowledge would be captured and accessible in an organized and intuitive manner.“KM is the set of business processes that capture and provide access to this collective experience.

In economic terms, KM represents the “production technology” for such firms whose core product is business knowledge itself”. Elie Ofek, Miklos Sarvary, 2001.An important goal of knowledge management systems is to give competitive advantage by giving decision makers (from the highest level to the lowest level) the needed insight into patterns and trends that affect their domain. In fact, a broad-based KMS environment challenges decision makers to assess changing times more thoroughly. Such an environment permits decision makers to tailor their information and associated knowledge requirements by discriminating according to user-defined criteria.For most companies, information and its interconnected knowledge that is analyzed, shared, and acted upon is what provides the competitive advantage organizations need.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The tools an organization employs for the management of technology, for bringing the right resources to the right people, establishes whether or not information and its related knowledge makes a difference of the order of magnitude companies are seeking. The development of knowledge management systems that fit organizational needs and can acclimatize to changes in the organization is a vital issue.Selecting and implementing the right technology for the organization takes a thorough understanding of the nature of the business, its organizational structure, its culture, and the way management works. That is why those who assist organizations to choose their knowledge direction must look at the organization holistically. Optimizing functions and streamlining processes to build up appropriate company knowledge requires a thorough understanding of the processes, functions, and technology in place. This knowledge is then eagerly available for use by company decision makers. Today, this generally means extending knowledge to a company’s trading partners (i.e.

, customers and suppliers). From this wide-ranging perspective, a KM operating mode centers on managing internal and external information and resultant knowledge in a practical manner to create a competitive advantage that is associated to a company’s business objectives and its considerable goals.Managers constantly spent much of their time on information processing, generally defined, according to Mintzberg (1983) now often do so interceded by technology in the figure of executive information systems, groupware, video-conferencing, and the like. Organizations have been seen in the past as types of information processing (Galbraith, 1973) and now have gathered technocratic descriptors like ‘networked’, ‘knowledge based’, and ‘virtual’ as telecommunications in particular have been deployed to synchronize remote workers or share information across enterprises.             Business processes gradually more are information-systems dependent and are being ‘re-engineered’ ( Davenport and Short, 1990; Hammer, 1990), partly by asking, what can IT permit us to do which was not probable before in terms of time compression, co-ordination, integration, mechanization, and communication? And entrepreneurs are turning to the information and information service sectors as their probable arenas for profit-making. This new strain might be called ‘infopreneurs’ (Earl, 1993).

Though, there is strong correlation between information management and knowledge management.Davenport and Prusak (1998) put it, ‘effective knowledge management cannot take place without extensive behavioral, cultural and organizational change. .

. . Technology alone won’t make a person with expertise share with others.

Technology alone won’t get an employee who is uninterested in seeking knowledge to hop onto a keyboard and searching or browsing’ (pp. 141–2).An enhanced capability to gather data creates a demand for more and better information. Updates on the development of change or of any corporate effort—either discrete projects or ongoing completion of business objectives—must be generated more frequently to satisfy the lately empowered user’s desire for quality information. To match the needs of this environment, a knowledge management tool is requisite to capture and deploy the constantly growing and changing body of knowledge the corporation possesses.In order to set up a knowledge management system that the complete organization can use to communicate change, a company must concurrently impose both a loose structure and strict standards on the information that populates the system.

In addition, corporate leaders must realize that one tool cannot be used to manage all knowledge; individuals must be expectant to maintain a constant person-to-person exchange of information.Knowledge managers help the administrator in maintaining the system policies. EIS (Executive Information System) is on top of the system and it will assist in smooth functioning, better backup policies, disaster recovery, security etc.

A well-designed knowledge management system grows organically. That is, individual users, rather than system architects, build upon the system’s contents. Subject matter experts must be responsible for their knowledge areas and act as content filters and editors. Finally, knowledge is distinct not only as explicit information about systems, processes, and business data, but also as corporate messages and missions.  (Dave Duray, Matthias Vering, 2001)Certainly, it is certainly possible to say that every business is an information business. Managers constantly spent much of their time on information processing, generally defined, according to Mintzberg ( 1983) now often do so interceded by technology in the figure of executive information systems, groupware, video-conferencing, and the like.

Organizations have been seen in the past as types of information processing (Galbraith, 1973) and now have gathered technocratic descriptors like ‘networked’, ‘knowledge based’, and ‘virtual’ as telecommunications in particular have been deployed to synchronize remote workers or share information across enterprises.“Incorporating technologies into the firm’s knowledge inventory presents opportunities to switch technologies over time, thus enhancing organizational flexibility”. (Kent D. Miller, 2002)Information management can yield strategic gains and suggesting where opportunities can be found. Typically they provide frameworks for analysis. Kantrow argued this in a rather crusading abstract way in 1980 and it was oblique by the early 1980s articles on IT and competitive advantage (Porter and Millar, 1985).

There is self-effacing attention to technology in the mainstream business strategy literature and in the MIS or information management field, the last fifteen years or so have seen substantial interest in strategy, particularly information systems strategy formulation. This is not astounding. The IT function has to grapple with far from inconsequential problems in constructing information systems strategic plans.

Unavailability or poor clearness of business plans and strategies, low awareness of IT capabilities, rapid business and ecological change, weak managerial contribution, and a plethora of implementation problems are amongst the problems identified by McFarlan ( 1981), Galliers ( 1991), Earl ( 1993)–and others.If every business is an information business, maybe it is unhelpful to think of a business strategy and an IT strategy. Perhaps they must be one: an integrated information business strategy. Here business strategy becomes a declaration of intent about the future, much as advanced by Hamel and Prahalad (1994) and Hamel (1996). More than this, however, the business threats and opportunities posed by IT and information resources more widely are addressed and worked out in the strategy-making process. So the future becomes a precise vision of the information age.Making choices often entails, as Nelson and Winter have pointed out (1982:65-71), a process linking deliberation.

Activities within firms involve the deliberations and information processing that is necessary for firms to decide the actions they will take and also to react to unfolding events as decisions are implemented. While orthodox analysis provides powerful pro-positions about nature of the choices which maximize a firm’s objective function, these are suitable only if the deliberative process has successfully discovered and implemented the most favorable choice.The nature of these deliberative activities which allow firms to make and implement decisions are the generation and fusion of knowledge (tacit and explicit) and the collection and transmission of information and data concerning to that knowledge for the purpose of making choices and responding to relating events as these choices are implemented.“Tacit knowledge is ‘knowing how’ while explicit knowledge is ‘knowing that’” Roy Lubit, 2001Buckley and Carter 1996 suggested that there are three problems which must be overcome in the organizational design of a business process team. One arises from the allocation of information, when one member of the team can have access to knowledge or information that would aid another member. The second is organization, since there is frequently interaction or complementarily between actions that are the responsibility of different individuals. That is to say, as the choice made for one action can affect the value to the firm of the choice made for another action.

While activities are complementary, it may be significant to ensure that the deliberative choices are made mutually so as to optimize the generally gains from trade for the firm. The final problem is motivation: of ensuring that the individual members of the entrepreneurial team each perform their individual activities in pursuit of the shared interests of the team, rather than in their own individual interests. These organizational problems are mainly acute in a multinational firm, where team members are geologically separated and where they may also have differences in tacit knowledge and cultural background.In summary, the following economic conception of a business process: a set of complementary deliberative (entrepreneurial) choices linking the collection and synthesis of knowledge for the generation of gains from trade. High complementarily between activities provides a natural definition of the activities which comprise a given process. (Hammer and Champy’s).

When complementarily is low between activities, then they are separable into distinct processes, for which coordination is less significant.  Work Cited A´ngel Cabrera, William C. Collins and Jesu´ s F. Salgado Determinants of individual engagementin knowledge sharing Int. J. of Human Resource Management 17:2 February 2006 245–264Buckley, P.

J. and Carter, M.J. (1996) ‘The Economics of Business Process Design: Motivation, Information and Coordination Within the Firm’ , International Journal of the Economics of Business ,3 : 5-25 .Dave Duray, Matthias Vering, The E-Business Workplace: Discovering the Power of Enterprise Portals; Wiley, 2001Davenport T. H., and Short J.

E. ( 1990), “‘The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology, and Business Process Redesign'”, Sloan Management Review, 31, 4: 11-21Earl M. J.

( 1993), “‘Experiences in Strategic Information Systems Planning'”, MIS Quarterly, 17, 1: 1-24Elie Ofek,  Miklos Sarvary, Leveraging the Customer Base: Creating Competitive Advantage Through Knowledge Management Science, Vol. 47, No. 11 (Nov., 2001), pp. 1441-1456Galbraith J. ( 1973), Designing Complex Organisations (Reading, Mass.: AddisonWesley).Galliers R.

D. ( 1991), “‘Strategic Information Systems Planning: Myths, Reality and Guidelines for Successful Implementation'”, European Journal of Information Systems, 1, 1: 55-64Hamel G. ( 1996), “‘Strategy as Revolution'”, Harvard Business Review, 74, 4, JulyAug.: 69-71Hamel G. and Prahalad C.

K. ( 1994), “‘Competing for the Future'”, Harvard Business Review, 72, 4, July-Aug.: 122-8Hammer M. ( 1990), “‘Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate'”, “Harvard Business Review”, July-Aug.: 68, 4: 104-12Hammer, M., and Champy, J. (1993) Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution, London: Nicholas Brealey.

Kent D. Miller Knowledge Inventories And Managerial Myopia, Strat. Mgmt. J., 23: 689–706 (2002)McFarlan F. W.

( 1981), “‘Problems in Planning the Information System'”, Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct.: 142-50Mintzberg H. (1983), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.C. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Porter M. E. ( 1980), Competitive Strategy ( New York: Free Press) Porter M. E.  and Millar M. E. ( 1985), “‘How Information Gives you Competitive Advantage'”, Harvard Business Review, July-Aug.: 149-60Roy Lubit, “tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Management: The keys To Sustainable Competitive Advantage” Organizational Dynamics, Vol 29, NO 4, 2001