مدیریت دانش :: مزایا و محدودیت های سیستم های کامپیوتری
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|15352||2001||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7029 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : European Management Journal, Volume 19, Issue 6, December 2001, Pages 599–608
Much organisational effort has been put into knowledge management initiatives in recent years, and information and communication technologies (ICTs) have been central to many of these initiatives. However, organisations have found that levering knowledge through ICTs is often hard to achieve. This paper addresses the question of why this is the case, and what we can learn of value to the future practice of knowledge management. The analysis in the paper is based on a human-centred view of knowledge, emphasising the deep tacit knowledge which underpins human thought and action, and the complex sense-reading and sense-giving processes which human beings carry out in communicating with each other and ‘sharing’ knowledge. The paper concludes that computer-based systems can be of benefit in knowledge-based activities, but only if we are careful in using such systems to support the development and communication of human meaning.
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have become an essential component of contemporary society, not least through the growth of the Internet. However, many issues concerned with the human aspects of the use of computer-based systems remain problematic despite technological advances. An enhanced ability to collect and process data, or to communicate electronically across time and space, does not necessarily lead to improved human communication and action (Walsham, 2001). This article explores the issue of the benefits and limitations of computer systems in supporting human activity, with a specific focus on the topic of knowledge management. Knowledge has been a fashionable subject in recent years, with significant attention focussed on areas such as the key role of knowledge workers, the need to generate and share knowledge, and the creation of knowledge-intensive organisations and societies. ICTs offer many potential opportunities in these domains. For example, the Web provides a wider set of data sources than any previous technology, with a massive range of information available for easy access. Electronic communication across time and space is faster and can carry much higher bandwidth than in previous eras. So, in principle, ICTs seem to offer human beings, and the organisations for which they work, much faster, cheaper and broader sources of data and means of communication to enable them to generate and share knowledge. It is not surprising that many organisations have invested significant amounts of time and money in knowledge management initiatives over the last few years. However, the picture which is emerging is not a clear cut one in terms of the success of these initiatives. For example, McDermott (1999) noted that most companies soon find that levering knowledge through the use of ICTs is hard to achieve. Why is this the case? And what can we learn about the benefits and limitations of computer-based systems in this area which will be of value to improved future practice? The purpose of this article is to try to provide some answers to these questions, drawing on the significant amount of research and experience reported in the academic and practitioner literatures. So, this is a stock-taking exercise to some extent, but I hope that the reader will find some interesting new insights from my attempt here at synthesis.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The key thrust of this article has been to analyse the benefits and limitations of computer-based systems for knowledge management by taking a humancentred view of knowledge. This approach has emphasised the complex sense-reading and sensegiving processes which human beings carry out in communicating with each other and ‘sharing’ knowledge. McKinlay (2000) provides a quote from an interview that he conducted with the manager of a particular knowledge management initiative, which nicely summarises the role of management in supporting such processes: We have to accept that we cannot manage knowledge in the sense of hard wiring a system. We have to allow people to make their own links, to give them the techniques to allow them to construct, interact with knowledge. We can’t put in a technological fix. It’s not about finding specific answers but allowing people to problem solve, gain knowledge in unexpected ways. (p. 117) I have discussed a number of ways of going about this task in the article. With respect to communitiesof- practice, these approaches include facilitating communication between individuals through methods such as mentor relationships and special interest groups. Other contextual approaches include appropriate reward systems, and the creation of ‘safe’ enclaves for electronic debate. In inter-community knowledge-sharing, organisational translators were noted as one potentially fruitful method. With respect to inter-organisational communication, the nature and complexity of the task at hand should be carefully assessed in choosing between electronic or non-electronic media. The different bases of tacit knowledge in cross-cultural communication imply an approach to knowledge-sharing based on taking other cultures seriously, and the need for adaptation and compromise. The above summary of possible approaches, and the more detailed suggestions in the earlier material, should not be taken as a set of ‘prescriptions’ for all contexts. Each set of circumstances is different, and needs its own methods and processes. Instead of a list of answers, I would like to suggest some questions which should be taken seriously in all contexts. What are the communities-of-practice and inter-community activities which need to be supported? What types of knowledge-sharing are taking place now and what should be taking place? What are the sensereading and sense-giving activities which underpin knowledge-sharing in this context and how can they be improved? How are power relations and organisational politics affecting existing knowledge-sharing activities, and what approaches could be used to mitigate any negative consequences of this? How can ICTs be used in a beneficial way to support and facilitate improved communication and knowledge-sharing? I have deliberately put the ICT question last, since a key argument in this paper is that any consideration of the role and value of computer-based systems for knowledge management should start with the human processes involved rather than with the technology. Information and communication technologies are not the answer to improved knowledgesharing within and between people and organisations. They do not replicate or replace the deep tacit knowledge of human beings which lies at the heart of all human thought and action. Nor do they remove the need for personal relationships, which normally cannot be developed and maintained effectively solely through electronic media. Nevertheless, I do believe that computer-based systems can be of benefit to human activity if we are careful about assessing their benefits and limitations in supporting the development and communication of human meaning. I have tried to make a small contribution to such an assessment in this paper.