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

Mahmoud Moradi, Mohammad Rahim Ramazanian and Sayyed Maisam Momeni
and <strong>the</strong> role on knowledge maps in this model, <strong>the</strong> appropriate one will be selected to map
organizational knowledge based on bullet points in EFQM model. In order to verify <strong>the</strong> presented
model, a case study is used in <strong>the</strong> Shipyard Industry. Finally, we discuss lessons learned from
industrial case study.
2. Knowledge Map and KM Processes
A knowledge map is generally a visual representation <strong>of</strong> 'knowledge about knowledge' ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>of</strong>
knowledge itself (Haun 2002; Eppler 2001; Wexler 2001). It basically helps to detect <strong>the</strong> sources <strong>of</strong>
knowledge and structure <strong>of</strong> knowledge by representing <strong>the</strong> elements and structural links <strong>of</strong> application
domains. According to Grey (1999), a knowledge map is a navigation aid to explicit and tacit
knowledge, illustrating how knowledge flows throughout an organization. The knowledge map
portrays <strong>the</strong> sources, flows, constraints and terminations <strong>of</strong> knowledge within an organization.
Knowledge mapping helps to understand <strong>the</strong> relationships between knowledge stores and dynamics.
Effective KM requires an organization to identify, generate, acquire, diffuse, and capture <strong>the</strong> benefits
<strong>of</strong> knowledge that provide a strategic advantage to that organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
defined <strong>the</strong> most cited four processes <strong>of</strong> organizational knowledge creation. They defined processes
as: Socialization, Externalization, Combination, and Internalization. Socialization is <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong>
transferring tacit knowledge between individuals. Externalization is <strong>the</strong> process in which <strong>the</strong> person
turns <strong>the</strong>ir tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge through documentation, verbalization, etc.
Combination is <strong>the</strong> process where new explicit knowledge is created through <strong>the</strong> combination <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r
explicit knowledge. Internalization is <strong>the</strong> process in which an individual internalizes explicit knowledge
to create tacit knowledge. Davenport and Prusak (1998), Alavi and Leidner (2001) identify four
practical knowledge processes: knowledge generation (Creation and acquisition), knowledge
codification (storing), knowledge transfer (sharing), and knowledge application (use).
knowledge codification is <strong>the</strong> process by which explicit knowledge is detached from its source and put
in a state in which it can easily be transferred via different media, such as s<strong>of</strong>tware or books.
According to definition <strong>of</strong> knowledge map it mainly deals with explicit knowledge as ‘knowledge about
knowledge’. Hence it can be consider as a convenient tool for knowledge combination and knowledge
codification processes. As a result knowledge map help to integrating and storing <strong>of</strong> organizational
knowledge.
3. Types <strong>of</strong> Knowledge Maps
Even though a knowledge map has a clear usage in KM process, however, it is not easily
recognizable by <strong>the</strong> map users what kind <strong>of</strong> knowledge map to choose, since many types <strong>of</strong>
knowledge maps can be and are applied for making visible organizational tacit knowledge. A visual
description <strong>of</strong> knowledge flows in a given situation can, for example, be descriptive, with <strong>the</strong> purpose
<strong>of</strong> assessing <strong>the</strong> knowledge domain or prescriptive with <strong>the</strong> intention <strong>of</strong> instruction map users on how
to apply knowledge (Jetter et al 2006). This section briefly presents five commonly known types <strong>of</strong>
knowledge maps and will compare <strong>the</strong>m by <strong>the</strong>ir characteristics in table 1.
Hierarchical knowledge map, so-called concept maps (Novak and Gowin 1984) provide one model for
<strong>the</strong> hierarchical organization <strong>of</strong> knowledge: top-level concepts are abstract with few characteristics.
Concepts on <strong>the</strong> level below have detailed individual traits <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> super concept. The propositions
between concepts can represent any type <strong>of</strong> relations as ”is part <strong>of</strong>”, ”influences”, ”can determine”,
etc. A similar approach is radial knowledge map or mind map (Buzan and Buzan 1996) which consists
<strong>of</strong> concepts that are linked through propositions. However, it has radially organized. Networked
knowledge map is also called causal map which is defined as a technique ”for linking strategic
thinking and acting, helping make sense <strong>of</strong> complex problems, and communicating to oneself and
o<strong>the</strong>rs what might be done about <strong>the</strong>m” (Buzan and Buzan 1996). This approach is normally served
for systematizing knowledge about cause and effects. Knowledge source map (Eppler 2001) is a kind
<strong>of</strong> organizational charts that does not describe functions, responsibility and hierarchy, but expertise. It
helps to detect experts in a specific knowledge domain. The last one, knowledge flow map (Eppler
2001) represents <strong>the</strong> order in which knowledge resources are and should be used ra<strong>the</strong>r than a map
<strong>of</strong> knowledge.
669