Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Max Erik Rohde and David Sundaram
2.2 Technological approaches for fostering knowledge-based capability
In <strong>the</strong> previous section, a number <strong>of</strong> conflicting perspectives on <strong>the</strong> objectiveness <strong>of</strong> organizational
knowledge capability, its dynamicity, its collectivity and value are portrayed. These perspectives are
reflected in alternative technological approaches to increase knowledge capabilities. In <strong>the</strong> following,
technological approaches aligning to each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> perspectives discussed above are discussed.
(1) ‘Objective’ and context focused approaches
Following an ‘objective’ understanding <strong>of</strong> knowledge, information technology is utilized to model,
engineer (Studer, Benjamins, & Fensel 1998) or represent knowledge (Mylopoulos 1981). Such
approaches, for instance, advocate and enable <strong>the</strong> codification <strong>of</strong> knowledge in a knowledge base.
However, recent knowledge management literature is increasingly disillusioned with approaches
being focused on <strong>the</strong> codification <strong>of</strong> knowledge (Davenport 2011). Many contemporary researchers
argue for systems, which appreciate <strong>the</strong> inherently tacit contexts <strong>of</strong> knowledge (Kwan &
Balasubramanian 2003; Thompson & Walsham 2004).
(2) Repository- and event-based approaches
The different perspectives on <strong>the</strong> dynamicity <strong>of</strong> organizational knowledge have resulted in different
technological responses. Knowledge as a slowly changing capability an organization can ‘possess’
requires large knowledge repositories, in which organizations ‘store’ and access <strong>the</strong> knowledge <strong>the</strong>y
have ga<strong>the</strong>red. Yet, such repositories, for instance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ‘lessons learned’ from projects, <strong>of</strong>ten exhibit
low adoption and use (von Zedtwitz 2002). As a result, many contemporary systems to support
knowledge-intensive work focus on <strong>the</strong> provision <strong>of</strong> real-time contextual information, for instance in
<strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> dashboards or personal as well as organizational information feeds (socialtext.com,
liferay.com).
(3) Personal knowledge management systems and group-based approaches
As knowledge is both seen as bound to individuals or essentially collective, technological responses
have been developed to support <strong>the</strong> individual knowledge worker as well as for <strong>the</strong> enhancement <strong>of</strong>
group coordination. So called personal knowledge management systems (PKMS) are traditionally
rooted in psychology and human computer interaction (Lansdale 1988). These systems are aligned to
enhance cognitive performances <strong>of</strong> individuals, for instance creativity or memory. Better performances
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> individual knowledge worker in turn can lead to increased organizational capabilities
(Davenport, Jarvenpaa, & Beers 1996). In alignment with an emphasis on coordination ra<strong>the</strong>r than on
<strong>the</strong> individual’s performance, group based systems (DeSanctis & Gallupe 1987) have been adopted
for enhancing knowledge-related capabilities (Alavi & Leidner 2001). Such systems can attempt to
streamline communication and decision making as well as contribute to <strong>the</strong> emergence and
stabilization <strong>of</strong> a community <strong>of</strong> individuals engaged in similar practices (Brown & Duguid 1991).
Although personal knowledge management systems and group based approaches represent different
and potentially complementary approaches to facilitate knowledge-based capabilities, <strong>the</strong>re are few
studies, which compare and contrast <strong>the</strong>se approaches directly.
(4) Technology-centric and social approaches
Some perspectives assume that more knowledge leads to increased capabilities. Likewise, a number
<strong>of</strong> technological approaches inherently assume that more technology and automation leads to
increased knowledge-related performances. Yet, it has been argued that technological systems may
inherently embed disciplinary mechanisms <strong>of</strong> surveillance and control (Doolin 1998; Sewell &
Wilkinson 1992); potentially lessening <strong>the</strong> performances <strong>of</strong> knowledge workers, who <strong>of</strong>ten perform
better when granted autonomy (Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta, & Kramer 2004). Recent studies suggest
that <strong>the</strong> requirements <strong>of</strong> knowledge-intensive work are served best by systems, which help to foster
social exchange and structures ra<strong>the</strong>r than ‘managing’ knowledge explicitly (Thompson & Walsham
2004).
The <strong>of</strong>ten fundamentally different perspectives on organizational knowledge lead not only to different
technological approaches to facilitate better knowledge-related performances but also result in
different perceptions <strong>of</strong> technology itself. Recent literature <strong>of</strong>ten favors approaches which place
context over objectified information, real-time information over extensive repositories, and social
aspects over technological mechanisms. While <strong>the</strong>se positions are grounded on solid arguments, a
number <strong>of</strong> fundamental problems can be resulting from <strong>the</strong>m:
851