Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 4, December 2008

Toward A Knowledge Management Body Of Knowledge (KMBOK): A Philosophical Discourse In KM Concepts And Ideas

Donovan A. McFarlane, The Donovan Society LLC

ABSTRACT:

Theories of cognition and meta-theoretical frameworks provide important areas for exploring some of the theoretical underpinnings of knowledge management practice.  Two areas of theory are explored as potential fruitful for incorporation to knowledge management theory and practice.  Extended cognition, based predominantly on the work of Andy Clark, is presented as relevant to KM, and social constructionism is developed as similarly relevant.  Connections between extended cognition and social constructionism are developed, with implications for KM identified and briefly explored.  Existing KM theory is compared, with particular emphasis on the work of John Nosek’s ‘group cognition’.

Keywords: Knowledge management, Meta-theory, Extended cognition, Social constructionism, Andy Clark, John Nosek

1.         The Need For Clarification And Directionality

Ikujiro Nonaka is credited as having developed the idea of “knowledge management” in a 1991 Harvard Business Review article. The field of knowledge management has enjoyed a luxury that most disciplinary studies and branches of management science and practice have not had the privilege to embrace. It has developed in an era where all the positive driving forces are in place to enrich and support its rationale, theories, ideas, and philosophy. At the same time, this rapid development without having suffered the heavy scrutiny and criticisms that other branches of studies have undergone has created some rich bases for debates and thoughts, especially in the philosophy of knowledge management practices and ideas as they are used in developing practical frameworks for organizational systems, processes, and structures.

Furthermore, the exponential growing interests and development of ideas in project management occurring simultaneously with knowledge management as an increasingly merging field has brought about reasonable considerations as to relevance and precedence in organizational leadership process: Is knowledge management part of the project management process or is project management part of the knowledge management process? The author of this paper finds these two branches of management to be overlapping in their ideas and applicability to modern industry: project management requires managing knowledge, and knowledge management is essentially what the project management process entails, whether it is managing what Bohlander and Snell (2007) call human capital – teams and individuals, or managing systematic structures, processes, and ideas, what Ichijo and Nonaka (2007) call knowledge management, or simply leading through expert power.

According to Clark (2004), what we call knowledge management today is mainly based upon the ideas of the "spiral process" theory of knowledge creation. This idea was put forward by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) who believe that knowledge creation is based upon a spiral movement between explicit and tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge includes both conceptual and sensory information, in addition to images that are used to make sense of something (Clark, 2004). According to Noble (1996), tacit knowledge refers to knowledge that is intuitive, bodily, interpretive, ambiguous, nonlinear and difficult to reduce to a scientific equation, while explicit knowledge describes knowledge that is formal, unambiguous, systematic, falsifiable and scientific. According to Stillwell (2008), tacit knowledge is characterized by “analogue” qualities – parallel processing of continuous complex variables, while explicit knowledge shows the discrete discontinuities characteristic of “digital” processing as explained by Nonaka, 1994. While much of the meanings of tacit and explicit knowledge have been deliberated and settled by various scholars and authors, there are still philosophical issues and pragmatic questions when it comes down to really describing knowledge management in consideration of the theories of knowledge and definition of what we call “knowledge” as have plagued philosophers and epistemologists alike over several centuries. This can be reiterated in the concepts of information and knowledge economies as deliberated below by the author of this paper. However, Stillwell (2008) clarifies Nonaka’s aim: “For Nonaka, what matters is the practice, the doing, the embodiment of knowledge. An organization can amplify and crystallize individuals’ tacit knowledge in a process that allows them to experience deeper understanding. Nonaka holds that it is important to explore the potential that knowledge holds. His spiral process describes disciplined practices that make tacit knowledge independent and available to restructure the organizational knowledge context.” (p. 19).

Knowledge Management Body Of Knowledge (KMBOK)

Today’s organizations are actively engaged in the creation of knowledge as a value-adding process, and this process requires managing created knowledge through effective project management process. Thus, implying a mastery of what Bohlander and Snell (2007) call the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK). According to Haas School of Business Dean, William A. Hasler, "Creating and disseminating knowledge is critically important to a firm's long-term productivity. The best competitors are firms that are most adept in diffusing the key knowledge of their employees throughout the organization.” (Haas School of Business, 1997; p. 1). The important question here is: How are firms able to create and disseminate knowledge if they are not able to fully comprehend and map out what can astutely be called a “Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)?” Furthermore, what constitutes a KMBOK, and how does this change overtime with internal and external factors impacting organizational performance, growth, and success? In addition, those actively espousing ideas and propounding practices and theories in the field of knowledge management must reflect carefully on the idea of competitive knowledge, core knowledge competence, distinctive knowledge competence, and how the firm or organization should approach developing and identifying these as core pull and push factors in their quest for competitive advantage. McFarlane (2008) conceptualizes this idea in the following way: “The knowledge worker is the core factor in organizational knowledge flow, and organizational knowledge flow helps determine the degree to which leaders and managers can effectively mold knowledge inputs into harnessing a collaborative strategy for developing competitive advantage.” (p. 1). Thus, answers surrounding these questions seem to rest on how organizations uniquely structure themselves around the knowledge worker, and the degree of knowledge possessed by knowledge workers that determine and influence organizational capability.

While the idea of knowledge management body of knowledge (KMBOK) is a great and plausible one, a burning question is: What are the criteria or requirements for formulating or establishing such a body of knowledge within modern and emerging organization frameworks via global platforms? The answer is best developed by making reference to knowledge management’s most closely related sister-field: project management and its body of knowledge. The project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) formulates the entire integrative framework of skills, tools, and knowledge that managers need to effectively and efficiently achieve project goals and objectives in order to accomplish organizational mission. The project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) has been described by Gray and Larson (2008), and Mentz, King, Thong, Leo, and Mataev (2005) as consisting of integration management, scope management, time management, cost management, quality management, human resources management, communication management, risk management, and procurement management. Mentz, et al (2008), also describe the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK) as the Project Management Treatise of Protocol (PMTOP), which they define as “the sum of knowledge within the profession of project management, which is generally accepted” (p. 9). Furthermore, they explain that by “generally accepted” means that the knowledge and practices described are applicable to most projects most of the time, and that there is widespread consensus about their value and usefulness in the project management process. Thus, we should examine the idea of knowledge management body of knowledge (KMBOK) from this perspective, especially as far as “generally accepted” principles come into play.

There needs to be scholarly propositions, debates, and then acceptance and conformance regarding what fundamentally constitutes KMBOK. From an examination of the PMBOK, it will become evident that all the nine knowledge areas of project management seem highly likely applicable to knowledge management in all its facets. Thus, integration management, scope management, time management, cost management, quality management, human resources management, communication management, risk management, and procurement management are all plausible components of a KMBOK. However, this is where an issue of inter-and-overlapping connections is readily recognized. Project management and knowledge management are interconnected in both theoretical and practical ways that the same bodies of knowledge are equally emphasized and utilized in process. Thus, the idea that a project manager is really a knowledge manager – managing human capital along with other productive inputs and information becomes concretized within extant literature. According to the founder of knowledge management Ikujiro Nonaka, “"If companies could become more aware of the process themselves, it could become the management paradigm of the next century.” However, it will take more than awareness for knowledge management to become the management paradigm of the next century given the revolving questions and issues emerging and evident in philosophical discourse here undertaken.

The KMBOK Model: Modeling Knowledge Management

Figure 1 below represents the Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge (KMBOK) as visualized by Professor Donovan A. McFarlane. In this model, professor McFarlane takes an integrative-systems approach towards the development of the Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge (KMBOK). Two essential processes are relevant for organizational survival in today’s volatile and hypercompetitive marketplace and marketspace: organizational learning and competitive intelligence. These two processes or core and distinctive processes, as governed and determined by the nature and structures of organization, among other factors, are the result of effective grasp of knowledge – its development, dissemination, and effective leadership for value creation within organizations. In order to accomplish these and develop competitive advantage and market leadership, organizations must have unique knowledge systems knowledge (KSK) which can only be gained from possessing relevant knowledge, management, communication, computer and other support systems that coordinate information, knowledge, and learning; (intelligence collectively) across organizational units, processes, and structural platforms.

Knowledge systems are the core requirements for organizing, controlling, and collaborating across systems of people, structures, and processes (organizational system, structure, & process knowledge – OSSPK) in order to develop organizational capability through establishing and having grasp of valuable project management body of knowledge (PMBOK), while determining the type of leadership and managerial knowledge (LMK) required to effectively guide the organization, accomplish its mission and goals, while meeting macroenvironmental and microenvironmental challenges to secure opportunities for growth, survival, competitive advantage, and market leadership. The Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge Model thus communicates the relevant requirements for competing in a global economy driven by information and knowledge. The KMBOK combines leadership, organizational, managerial, communications and information systems knowledge to create effective knowledge systems for overall organizational leadership. How organizations utilize knowledge systems to promote organizational learning and adaptability, and acquire competence intelligence will determine their success in dealing with the many issues and challenges they face in the global economy, thereby affecting contemporary strategies and future survival.

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Figure 1: The Knowledge Management Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)

Knowledge Economy Versus Information Economy

By far, the most convincing arguments and illustrations that bring to light the ideas of knowledge and information economies are found in the works of Laudon and Laudon (2004), propounding the idea of the digital firm, information highway, and service-based and information-led economy brought about by a transformation in technology and business processes. Laudon and Laudon have been a phenomenal team in charting the development of the new economy via knowledge and information systems. This approach has been further accredited by the works of Mujtaba and McFarlane, 2007; McFarlane, Britt, Weinstein, and Johnson, 2007; Johnson and Weinstein, 2004; and Bohlander and Snell, 2007. The idea of the knowledge economy is centered on one firm proposition: human capital, intellect, and knowledge are essential in order to understand the core of knowledge management functions within organizations (Afiouni, 2007; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, Marsick & Watkins, 1999; and Edvinnson & Malone, 1997; McFarlane, 2008).

When we consider that the idea of a knowledge economy centers mainly around the idea there are knowledge workers, then the idea of knowledge versus information should emerge, since we must consider the degree to which we can applicably justify referring to the economy as collectively one built around the knowledge worker. The question then is, how many of us are truly knowledge workers? According to Garavan, Morely, Gunnigle, & Collins (2001) organizations today are about adding value, and the integration of knowledge workers into knowledge management systems as an approach to management is what adds value to organizations. Thus, recognizing that human capital is the core of any knowledge-based enterprise (Bontis, 1999; 2001; and Serenko, Bontis, & Hardie, 2007) is the only viable means for characterizing organizations, and hence the economies in which they operate as knowledge systems or economies. Knowledge is what drives productivity and value, and hence the old adage: “Knowledge is Power.” It can be argued that knowledge is the power driving the modern global economy as a consequence of the roles of technology, communications, information, and education.

Given the idea that we are living in a knowledge economy, we must now ask a very important question: Are we truly living in a knowledge economy, or are we still in the information economy era? The answer to this question will vary depending on individuals’ perspectives, as well as the degree to which we conceptualize the idea of knowledge as distinguished from information. According to McFarlane (2008), the term “knowledge economy” should be used carefully and with profound philosophical refrain, since the American economy, as well as many others truly display information availability rather than knowledge. This he argues makes such economies more of what could be called an “information economy” “or what Laudon and Laudon (2004), and Johnson and Weinstein (2004) describe as a “service-based and information-led economy” than an economy characterized by a full workforce or people of knowledge” (p. 1).

McFarlane (2008) argues that while we have unprecedented amount of information available as a civilization and society, only a small percentage of our labor force or individuals can be described as having or possessing real knowledge. While McFarlane did not define “real knowledge” he seems to be making references comparable to what knowledge management guru and founder Ikujiro Nonaka describes when he states, “The West has emphasized explicit knowledge. By contrast, tacit knowledge is an Eastern concept. [The] Japanese have always emphasized their oneness in nature” (Entovation.com, 2008; p. 1). In addition, McFarlane seems to be implying the role of value-creating versus non-value creating ideas. Perhaps the best way to describe today’s economy from a human capital perspective is as a “Transitioning Economy” one caught between information and knowledge; an “information-knowledge” economy. Perhaps the clarification can be best settled by what Nonaka states in an interview with Scharmer (2000), when asked: “What is the difference between information creation and knowledge creation?” Nonaka responds by stating that, “In simple terms, information is the flow, and knowledge is the stock. Information is the flow of a message, while knowledge is created by accumulating information. Thus, information is a necessary medium or material for eliciting and constructing knowledge” (Scharmer, 2000; pp. 24-25). Nonaka further argues that another difference is that information is something passive while knowledge is proactive. This can also be seen in Nonaka’s contention that, “Knowledge is alive because it changes continuously…transferred through human interaction” (Nonaka, 1994).

Knowledge Management Leadership

Given that there is yet agreement among knowledge management scholars on what definitively and adequately constitutes generally accepted knowledge management principles (GAKMP) or a knowledge management body of knowledge (KMBOK), we can argue that knowledge management leadership is at the crossroads in its development and directionality. What constitutes effective knowledge management leadership becomes an important subject for those exploring that aspect of the field. According to Lakshman (2007), the long tradition of leadership theory and research has not addressed the role of leaders in managing information and knowledge, despite their importance to organizations, especially in the 21st century where organizations are information-and-knowledge-driven entities. This perspective is supported by Davenport, De Long, and Beers, 1998, and Hansen, Nohria, and Tierney, 1999. However, recently, several scholars have undertaken the task; for example, Bell De Tienne, Dyer, Hoopes, and Harris, 2004; Bryant, 2003; Lakshman, 2005; Politis, 2001; Viitala, 2004; Lakshman, 2007; and McFarlane, 2008. Despite the recognition of a need for knowledge management leadership approach, the literature is far from being decisive as to a best practice method emerging out of the extant research done so far. In fact, the growing literature has stress the lack of leadership support as a problem in knowledge management, thus making it a field for exploration and deliberation in the literature. Lakshman (2007) has suggested a grounded theory approach toward organizational knowledge leadership, while McFarlane (2008) stresses a leadership roles and organizational capability approach in knowledge and knowledge worker management.

According to Lakshman (2007) and Bell De Tienne (2004) leadership has been identified as a key variable in the relationship between knowledge management and organizational effectiveness by researchers. Similarly, McFarlane (2008) contends that, “effective leadership is a salient requirement in organizations where the knowledge worker is the key to developing as well as unlocking the sources and potential for sustainable competitive advantage in the knowledge economy” (p. 1). Hansen, et al (1999) believe that strategic consideration is an important facet of knowledge management leadership in organizations. Lakshman (2007) argues that the role of leaders in information and knowledge management in organizations must be established around two important factors: technology and social networks. McFarlane (2008) argues that knowledge management requires a new category of leaders known as “knowledge leaders” whose very duties and responsibilities are to develop a system of participative knowledge sharing in attempting to solve organizational problems, accomplish mission and vision, critical tasks, and manage effectively and survive crises and change” (p. 1). McFarlane (2008) sees knowledge leadership as originating with the knowledge worker intake consideration; thus a beginning process for knowledge leadership is in the recruitment and hiring of appropriately suitable workers regarding their knowledge offerings as critical to organizational needs. He states this in more implicit terms: “organizational leaders and managers must manage as knowledge leaders, they must be aware of the relationship between knowledge and those who possess it” (McFarlane, 2008; p. 1). He further supports this perspective by arguing that knowledge leaders must strive to effectively align compensation and reward systems, as well as organizational strategies and tasks with knowledge workers’ needs. The needs of knowledge workers and the ability of organizational leaders to recognize and fulfill these needs will determine leadership effectiveness applied to a more demanding and strategically vital group of workers or employees in the 21st century. Knowledge drives organizational progress and survival amidst change and competition. Figure 1 has provided us with some of the salient factors relevant to defining and developing a leadership platform for effective knowledge management across organizations.

Conclusion

Knowledge management is a strategic imperative for 21st century organizations whose success revolve around effectively developing knowledge systems capable of increasing organizational learning, flexibility, and adaptability, while providing competitive intelligence for strategy formulation and implementation to deal with problems and challenges, and crises and change in the global business environment. Organizations must carefully configure their structures, systems, and processes around an organized framework or body of tested and successful knowledge: guidelines and practices which will enhance their capabilities in all contexts. The KMBOK Model carefully maps out required systems and tools that organizations can use as a checklist to examine the expanse and complexity of their current knowledge frameworks. Knowledge frameworks will vary according to organizational requirements and also the capability of its current knowledge workers and knowledge managers-leaders; their ability to develop a realistic and practical knowledge management system for organizational growth and survival. Knowledge is the key to organizational transformation and survival in the globally competitive arena.

References

Afiouni, F. (2007). Human resources management and knowledge management: A road map toward improving organizational performance. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge; Sep 2007; 11, 2; Retrieved February 4, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global Database, St. Thomas University Electronic Library Database.

Bell De Tienne, K., Dyer, G., Hoopes, C., & Harris, S. (2004). Toward a model of effective knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 26-43.

Bohlander, G. & Snell, S. (2007). Managing human resources, 14th edition. Mason, Ohio: Thomson-Southwestern.

Bontis, N. (1999). Managing organizational knowledge by diagnosing intellectual capital: Framing and advancing the state of the field. International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 18, Nos. 5-8; pp. 433-462.

Bontis, N. (2001). Assessing knowledge assets: A review of the models used to measure intellectual capital. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 41-60.

Bryant, S.E. (2003). The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing, and exploiting organizational knowledge, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, no. 4; p. 32.

Clark, D. (2004). Ikujiro Nonaka & Hirotaka Takeuk - The knowledge spiral – 1995. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_knowledge/nonaka.html

Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W., & Beers, M.C. (1998). Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 43-57.

Edvinnson, L., & Malone, M. (1997). Intellectual capital. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

First-Ever "Knowledge Professorship" Created. Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.haas.berkeley.edu/groups/pubs/articles/nonaka.html

Garavan, T.N., Morely, M., Gunnigle, P., & Collins, E. (2001). Human capital accumulation: The role of human resource development. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25, pp. 48-68.

Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.W. (2008). Project management: The managerial process, 4e. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N., & Tierney, T. (1999). What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 106-118.

Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I., Eds. (2007). Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers. New York, NY: Oxford University press.

Ikujiro. Entovation.com. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.entovation.com/kleadmap/nonaka.htm

Johnson, W.C., & Weinstein, A. (2004). Superior customer value in the new economy: concepts and cases, Second Edition. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, LLC.

Lakshman, C. (2007). Organizational knowledge leadership: A grounded theory approach. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2007; pp. 51-75.

Lakshman, C. (2005). Top executive knowledge leadership: Managing knowledge to lead change at General Electric. Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 429-446.

Laudon, K.C., and Laudon, J.P. (2004). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm, 8th Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.

Marsick, V.J., & Watkins, K. (1999). Envisioning new organizations for learning in D. Bowd & J. Garrick, Understanding Learning at Work. London: Routledge.

McFarlane, D.A. (2008). Effectively managing the 21st century knowledge worker. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 9, No. 1, March 2008. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.tlainc.com/articl150.htm

McFarlane, D., Britt, M.M., Weinstein, A., & Johnson, W.C. (2007). Managing e-service quality and customer relationships in the new economy. Conference Proceedings for Society of Marketing Advances: San Antonio, Texas.

Mentz, G., King, B., Thong, C., Leo, D., & Mataev, M. (2005). Project Management Guide, Executive Study Manual. American Academy of Project Management & International Project Management Commission. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.projectmanagementcertification.org/managernotes/_printable.html

Mujtaba, B.G., & McFarlane, D.A. (2007). Competitive advantage and market organizations in the 21st century: Market driving or market driven. Chapter in Handbook of globalization, governance, and public administration by Ali Farazmand, and Jack Pinkowski (Eds.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Noble, B.P. (1996). "The Knowledge-Creating Company" by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, Book Review. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.strategy-business.com/press/16635507/8592

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5:1 February pp. 14-37.

Politis, J.D. (2001). The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 354-364.

Scharmer, C.O. (2000). Conversations with Ikujiro Nonaka. Reflections, Volume 2, Number 2. pp. 24 – 31. Retrieved May 7, 2008, from http://www.ottoscharmer.com/PDFs/Nonaka_interview.pdf

Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Hardie, T. (2007). Organizational size and knowledge flow: A proposed theoretical link. Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 8, No. 4, 2007; pp. 1469-1930.

Stillwell, W.D. Tacit knowledge and the work of Ikujiro Nonaka: Adaptations of Polanyi in a business context. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/TAD%20WEB%20ARCHIVE/TAD30-1/TAD30-1-pg19-23-pdf.pdf

Viitala, R. (2004). Towards knowledge leadership. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 528-544.

About the Author

Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane is the Founder and Chancellor of THE DONOVAN SOCIETY LLC (www.TheDonovanSociety.org), an academic-intellectual organization in which he holds the titles of Professor Hermes Trismegistus and Preceptor General. He currently works as an Adjunct Professor in Business Studies at City College – Fort Lauderdale, University Tutor in Business & Multidisciplinary Studies, Lynn University, Florida, and has published in various peer-reviewed journals and books.

Contact: Dr. Donovan A. McFarlane, Professor Hermes Trismegistus, THE DONOVAN SOCIETY LLC; Email: don_anthoni@yahoo.com; Website: www.thedonovansociety.org