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

Tiit Elenurm
The comparison <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mechanistic and organic organisation was introduced already 50 years ago
(Burns and Stalker 1961). The matrix that combines <strong>the</strong> dimension <strong>of</strong> mechanistic versus organic
organisations with <strong>the</strong> dimension <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> product-focused versus service-focused organisation (Nurmi
1999) can reveal <strong>the</strong> strategic context <strong>of</strong> applying knowledge management and to discuss knowledge
management prerequisites. The matrix helps to differentiate knowledge management focus in
industrial organisations, bureaucratic organisations and organisations where <strong>the</strong> strategic focus is on
creating and commercializing new know-how or combining different types <strong>of</strong> knowledge to <strong>of</strong>fer a
tailor-made solution to specific clients. The industrial organisation processes material inputs and
optimises <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> different resources for producing products. Never<strong>the</strong>less, innovating products or
moving to new markets is not <strong>the</strong> main challenge <strong>of</strong> this organisation type. The core competence <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> know-why organisation is related to understanding changing markets and client needs. It is
different from <strong>the</strong> know-how organisation, where <strong>the</strong> core competence is built around developing new
products and technologies that can be commercialised ei<strong>the</strong>r by selling <strong>the</strong> intellectual property or by
implementing innovative products or technologies. The bureaucratic organisation can be efficient if it
serves <strong>the</strong> needs <strong>of</strong> stakeholders by following routines in a reliable and transparent way. The servicefocus
<strong>of</strong> such an organisation, however, is limited to avoiding mistakes and minimizing <strong>the</strong> turbulent
influence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> environment on relatively stable procedures.
Large international corporations have <strong>of</strong>fered many examples <strong>of</strong> advanced knowledge management
systems but <strong>the</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> knowledge management in small firms and in networks <strong>of</strong> such firms has
in recent years also become a topical research issue (Valkokari and Helander 2007). Understanding
prospects <strong>of</strong> knowledge management in small and medium-sized enterprises is especially relevant to
a country such as Estonia, where <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> large corporations founded on local capital is limited,
but where many innovative start-up enterprises with internationalisation ambitions were created after
Estonia joined <strong>the</strong> <strong>European</strong> Union. At <strong>the</strong> same time, Estonia has become a location for subsidiaries
<strong>of</strong> Nordic and o<strong>the</strong>r international corporations, where relations between <strong>the</strong> headquarters and foreign
subsidiaries are shaping knowledge management practices. During <strong>the</strong> period <strong>of</strong> rapid societal and
economic changes an important factor influencing <strong>the</strong> knowledge management agenda is <strong>the</strong>
dilemma <strong>of</strong> exploiting <strong>the</strong> “windows <strong>of</strong> opportunity” for rapid business gains versus developing an
organisation directed by <strong>the</strong> vision <strong>of</strong> sustainable competitiveness. Studies <strong>of</strong> knowledge
management practices in emerging economies (Pillania 2008) suggest that more top management
support for aligning knowledge management with strategy is needed. One knowledge management
development challenge is how to avoid <strong>the</strong> premature and formal use <strong>of</strong> knowledge management
tools and how to develop clear priorities and a common understanding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prerequisites for
implementing advanced knowledge management solutions if and when <strong>the</strong>se support <strong>the</strong> strategy <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> organisation. Studying and discussing perceptions <strong>of</strong> knowledge management prerequisites in <strong>the</strong>
action learning framework is not only a tool for training and understanding motivation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
stakeholders involved, but also a way for shaping <strong>the</strong> participative culture and developing human
resources for inter-firm collaboration.
3. Studying knowledge management prerequisites in <strong>the</strong> action learning
framework
Social constructivism as a research approach allows researchers to obtain insights into complex
contexts <strong>of</strong> organisations (Saunders et al. 2003). We have used ratings <strong>of</strong> knowledge management
prerequisites as a way to understand how members <strong>of</strong> an organisation or a learning community
construct <strong>the</strong>ir understanding <strong>of</strong> knowledge management. Perceptions <strong>of</strong> knowledge management
prerequisites are analyzed with <strong>the</strong> help <strong>of</strong> a list <strong>of</strong> statements that reflect some essential knowledge
management practices and tools related to <strong>the</strong>se practices. The list reflects s<strong>of</strong>t and hard
prerequisites for socialisation and codification. The principles essential for personal knowledge
sharing and <strong>the</strong> tools for technology-based networking are included. Master’s students that have
participated in knowledge management courses have assessed <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> each from 10
knowledge management prerequisites for <strong>the</strong>ir organisation. Our research also applied <strong>the</strong> action
learning for qualitative research by forming teams <strong>of</strong> students that had to use knowledge
management prerequisite assessments as an input for creating a knowledge management
development vision for an organisation represented in <strong>the</strong> team. Evert Gummesson (2000) treats
action research/action science as <strong>the</strong> most advanced step in <strong>the</strong> qualitative research compared to
interviews and observations.
In <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> running knowledge management training courses since 2001, we have asked
participants to rank knowledge management prerequisites according to <strong>the</strong>ir importance to <strong>the</strong>
277