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

Albena Antonova and Anandasivakumar Ekambaram
influence knowledge management on individual and organizational level. In this regard, this paper will
discuss how individuals build knowledge and become experts, and identify different knowledge
management processes on organizational level. This discussion will also include identification <strong>of</strong> main
KM processes and a description <strong>of</strong> corporate processes that are enabled by SG.
The paper will first present a <strong>the</strong>oretical overview <strong>of</strong> issues related to KM and SG. Followed by this
presentation, we shall describe <strong>the</strong> connection between KM and SG. This description will incorporate
both <strong>the</strong> individual dimension <strong>of</strong> KM and <strong>the</strong> organizational dimension <strong>of</strong> KM with respect to SG. The
following discussion will provide recommendations for developing or adopting SG for KM purposes.
Finally, conclusion will wind up <strong>the</strong> whole discussion.
2. Theoretical overview
Here, we shall first present <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> knowledge and KM processes. In this regard, we shall look
at individual knowledge and organizational knowledge processes. And <strong>the</strong>n, we shall provide a
<strong>the</strong>oretical description <strong>of</strong> SG.
2.1 Knowledge, knowledge management and knowledge management processes
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> popular definitions <strong>of</strong> knowledge is given by Davenport et al (1998, p. 5). They say:
“knowledge is a fluid mix <strong>of</strong> framed experience, values, contextual information and expert
insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and
information [...]¨.
Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> authors point out that information can be transformed to knowledge by means <strong>of</strong>
comparison, consequences, connections and conversations.
According to Popper (1999), knowledge is only “expectation or assumption about <strong>the</strong> reality, acquired
trough number <strong>of</strong> trial and errors experiences”.
Bellini et al. (2008) state that <strong>the</strong> creation, diffusion and application <strong>of</strong> knowledge are situated, and
hence <strong>the</strong> knowledge is heavily influenced by <strong>the</strong> context <strong>of</strong> practice. Therefore, proper understanding
and appropriate application <strong>of</strong> knowledge is important. The focus on context points out <strong>the</strong> necessity
to perceive and study various kinds <strong>of</strong> situations – several <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m can be complex.
Personal experience and method <strong>of</strong> trial and errors represent substantial component <strong>of</strong> knowledge
acquisition. The issues <strong>of</strong> context specificity, sticky knowledge and personal experiences that are
mentioned above lead to a categorization <strong>of</strong> knowledge: tacit and explicit knowledge. Tiwana (1999)
says that tacit knowledge is context-specific, personal knowledge that is difficult to formalize, record,
or articulate; it is stored in <strong>the</strong> heads <strong>of</strong> people. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> explicit knowledge is <strong>the</strong>
component <strong>of</strong> knowledge that can be codified and transmitted in a systematic and formal language;
for example in <strong>the</strong> form <strong>of</strong> documents, databases, web pages, emails, charts, etc. A number <strong>of</strong>
components <strong>of</strong> knowledge are listed by Tiwana (1999) including intuition, ground truth, judgment,
experience, values, assumptions, beliefs, and intelligence. The author suggests that knowledge
management must approach all <strong>the</strong>se components.
As we have seen in <strong>the</strong> above description, <strong>the</strong>re is not one single definition <strong>of</strong> knowledge
management that can be suitable for all contexts. This situation is due to <strong>the</strong> complex nature <strong>of</strong>
knowledge and its intrinsic character. The various definitions <strong>of</strong> knowledge management provided by
researchers and practitioners however focus generally on <strong>the</strong> ability <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company to adopt a unified
approach to increase value from knowledge resources, in such a way to realize gains and increase
performance <strong>of</strong> knowledge assets. In this regard, we would like to present <strong>the</strong> following definition to
support our general view <strong>of</strong> KM with respect to this paper: KM is
“[...] a business optimization strategy that identifies, selects, organizes, distills, and
packages information essential to <strong>the</strong> business <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company in a way that improves
employee performance and corporate competitiveness” (Bergeron, 2003).
2.1.1 A. Individual knowledge and expertise
One <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> main goals <strong>of</strong> KM processes in organizations is to support individuals to develop <strong>the</strong>ir
expertise within a shorter period <strong>of</strong> time. Experts perform more efficiently than novices, and <strong>the</strong>y
29