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

Stefanie Dannemann
However, what would happen, if <strong>the</strong> elements <strong>of</strong> knowledge exchange were limited to people and
organizational processes - and <strong>the</strong>re was no or limited technology available to facilitate this
exchange?
We live in <strong>the</strong> era <strong>of</strong> communication and information technology (IT). People are used to receiving
instant information, are up-to-date with <strong>the</strong> latest tools and gadgets, and know how to use <strong>the</strong>se tools
to process information. Knowledge processes usually evolve from inside <strong>the</strong> human who is
accustomed to specific cultural behavior, which aims to increase use <strong>of</strong> information across a group or
community. Recently, <strong>the</strong>re has been an increasing tendency to use social media and new
technologies in human information exchange. This lures us into forgetting that knowledge is
something that we “construct” first in our mind and only later share in conversations or written
statements. We tell "stories", with a specific skill where <strong>the</strong> narrator draws <strong>the</strong> audience into a good
story. Izuzi (2007) has blogged that “<strong>the</strong> way a story is told counts. Previous knowledge and
internalization ability in <strong>the</strong> audience counts. Not to mention <strong>the</strong> action taken or lesson learned from
<strong>the</strong> story itself.”
Would it be easier to implement Knowledge Management practices and culture in an organization if
we first focused on <strong>the</strong> human exchanges and intentionally put less emphasis on <strong>the</strong> search and use
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> best technology for knowledge exchange? Or would we first focus on finding <strong>the</strong> “right”
technology and <strong>the</strong>n train people to use it, facilitating <strong>the</strong> change in communication culture? What are
<strong>the</strong> factors which make people share and trigger <strong>the</strong>m to exchange knowledge, to change peoples’
disinclinations to enthusiasm for communication? In my opinion, <strong>the</strong>se can be external influences and
enticements, such as remuneration, recognition and job promotion. But <strong>the</strong> most successful factor to
initiate a knowledge sharing culture is to simply make people comfortable with sharing <strong>the</strong>ir
knowledge with o<strong>the</strong>rs, regardless <strong>of</strong> technology. I would even argue that imposing a new technology
and tools might not always be <strong>the</strong> best choice as a primary tool to achieve knowledge sharing.
There are several knowledge management models that describe <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> managing <strong>the</strong>
knowledge flow in an organization. Some refer to knowledge as being mechanistic and socially
constructed (Nonaka and Hedlund, 1993), some see knowledge as a strategic source <strong>of</strong> competitive
advantage (Kogut and Zander, 1996), and o<strong>the</strong>rs describe it as a framework for leadership,
organizational structure, and IT infrastructure. They see it as a learning process which is an important
foundation for knowledge management strategy in an organization. (Stankosky and Baldanza, 2001).
While Knowledge Management models have evolved over time, it is still difficult to translate KM into
practical activities to be executed in an organization.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) state that <strong>the</strong> main element <strong>of</strong> knowledge transfer is <strong>the</strong> ‘implicit’
knowledge <strong>of</strong> a person, and its processing and expression into ‘explicit’ knowledge that makes it
accessible and useful to o<strong>the</strong>rs. The authors point out that western philosophy is focusing too hard
on <strong>the</strong> management <strong>of</strong> external knowledge which can be measured and articulated, while personal
convictions, values and intuitions are ignored.
None<strong>the</strong>less, all KM models show that communication ultimately depends on human contact and
interaction, regardless <strong>of</strong> technology in use. Any communication process needs at least one “sender”
and one “receiver” and at least one “channel or medium”.
So what are various ways <strong>of</strong> stimulating interest and comfort with sharing knowledge face-to-face, and
how can we ensure that knowledge sharing becomes a part <strong>of</strong> an employee’s own pr<strong>of</strong>essional
responsibilities in <strong>the</strong> workplace? First <strong>of</strong> all, <strong>the</strong>re is a need for communal trust, respect and honesty.
The best way to build <strong>the</strong>se values between two or more people in a workplace is to cultivate a
regular exchange <strong>of</strong> opinions, even confrontations, in which problems, situations or events can be
discussed. These can be in a form <strong>of</strong> staff development dialogues, regular team meetings or c<strong>of</strong>fee
meetings, as long as this exchange also includes an update on issues from all participants.
Knowledge sharing should be a part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> working culture and collaborative problem-solving is a
building block that should be encouraged.
Several techniques can be applied to keep <strong>the</strong> exchange ongoing in an organization, department or
team. Two I find useful are “wall <strong>of</strong> problems” and “usability testing”. Both encourage involvement <strong>of</strong>
all participants. The “wall <strong>of</strong> problems” invites people to share problems and <strong>of</strong>fer <strong>the</strong>ir skills in
collective troubleshooting. Problems are posted on a wall (poster) and team members are asked to
1104