Bridging the gap from the general to the specific by linking knowledge management to business process

A phenomenon common to almost all fields is that there is a gap between theory and practical implementation. However, this is a particular problem in knowledge management, where much of the literature consists of general principles written in the context of a ‘knowledge world’ that has few, if any, references to how to carry out knowledge management in organisations. In this chapter, we put forward the view that the best way to bridge this gap between general principles and the specific issues facing a given organisation is to link knowledge management to the organisation’s business processes. After briefly reviewing, and rejecting alternative ways in which this gap might be bridged, the chapter goes on to explain the justification for, and the potential benefits and snags of, linking knowledge management to business processes. Successful and unsuccessful examples are presented. We concentrate especially on the issues of establishing what knowledge is relevant to an organisation at present, the need for organisational learning to cope with the inevitable change, and the additional problems posed by the growing internationalisation of operations. We conclude that linking knowledge management in terms of business processes is the best route for organisations to follow, but that it is not the answer to all knowledge management problems, especially where different cultures and/or cultural change are involved.

Group perceptions of knowledge management

This paper reports preliminary results of a project investigating how staff in UK organisations perceive knowledge management in their organisation as a group. The group setting appears to be effective in surfacing opinions and enabling progress in both understanding and action to be made. Among the findings thus far are the importance of the knowledge champion role and the state of the “knowledge management life cycle” in each organisation, and continuing confusion between knowledge, information and mechanisms.

Using a simulation model for knowledge elicitation and knowledge management

The work reported in this paper is part of a project simulating maintenance operations in an automotive engine production facility. The decisions made by the people in charge of these operations form a crucial element of this simulation. Eliciting this knowledge is problematic. One approach is to use the simulation model as part of the knowledge elicitation process. This paper reports on the experience so far with using a simulation model to support knowledge management in this way. Issues are discussed regarding the data available, the use of the model, and the elicitation process itself. © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Knowledge management sans frontières

Knowledge management is a topic that crosses borders of various kinds, such as those between departments, between organisations or between countries. In this paper we will consider various issues relating to knowledge management, in the context where more than one department/organisation/country is involved. To do this, we place an emphasis on knowledge management as a process, rather than as an organisational system or, worse, as a piece of technology. This process involves trust, negotiation—and indeed some technological support. In this paper we wish to introduce the concept of ‘triangles of trust’, and to focus on where ‘the top meets the bottom’ in terms of knowledge management and organisational learning. Partial examples will be offered in support of our views, but no full and complete examples—knowledge management simply is not well enough understood or documented for that yet. Our overall conclusion is that there is no one best way to “do” knowledge management, but there are principles that ought to be applied.

Knowledge management research and practice:visions and directions

This editorial paper outlines key directions for knowledge management research and practice. The editorial team presents the results from a small survey of academics and practitioners about the present and future of knowledge management, and the editors include their own informed views on how this journal can help promote scholarly inquiry in the field.

Comparing knowledge management between organisations:searching for good practice

This paper reports ongoing work that is attempting to find out ‘what is good practice for knowledge management’. The data we have to analyse this issue is 109 maps of knowledge (on knowledge management) which were built during 18 group workshops with 152 people from 15 different organisations. The maps contain data on the aspirations and action plans which UK managers have to improve knowledge management practices in their organisation. So far we have attempted a number of approaches to analysing this data, both inductive and deductive, but we still feel there is more to be learned from the rich data set we have. The paper presents a flavour of the work we have done, have considered doing, and have resisted doing. The aim of the paper is to stimulate debate on the strengths of our analyses and, more importantly, on amassing views of how it can be further strengthened, and the difficulties and dilemmas which might need to be overcome.

Knowledge management: a review of the field and of OR's contribution

This paper examines the field of knowledge management (KM) and identifies the role of operational research (OR) in key milestones and in KM's future. With the presence of the OR Society journal Knowledge Management Research and Practice and with the INFORMS journal Organization Science, OR may be assumed to have an explicit and a leading role in KM. Unfortunately, the origins and the evidence of recent research efforts do not fully support this assumption. We argue that while OR has been inside many of the milestones there is no explicit recognition of its role and while OR research on KM has considerably increased in the last 5 years, it still forms a rather modest explicit contribution to KM research. Nevertheless, the depth of OR's experience in decision-making models and decision support systems, soft systems with hard systems and in risk management suggests that OR is uniquely placed to lead future KM developments. We suggest that a limiting aspect of whether OR will be seen to have a significant profile will be the extent to which developments are recognized as being informed by OR.