Introduction of CoP into Knowledge Management

In Lilley et al (2004), we traced the footstep of Knowledge Management (KM), from understanding knowledge as repositories, to tacit actions, to community of practice (CoP). As repositories, knowledge can be codified and stored. These are how we first get to know ‘knowledge,’ in books and papers. As tacit actions, Nonaka (1994) and Polanyi (1966) argued that part of knowledge are not explicit. Therefore, we need to make them explicit for repositories. Also transmission and learning requires a cycle, known as the ‘knowledge spiral,’ which involves socialization as part of the process.

The tradition of learning was furthered in CoP, where development of individuals in the process of ‘knowledge spiral’ is illustrated. In CoP, work, learning, and innovation is united as one process (Brown and Duguid, 1991). Exchange of ideas is facilitated by a shared object, known as a boundary object (Bechky, 2003). Contribution of CoP is effectively to contain knowledge. Previously as a hardware, but now as shared practices.

Philosophically Speaking

Learning and exchange of ideas framed the problems and research in KM. As we can see, it was assumed learning and exchanges can take place through repositories, then it was found that socialization is necessary. Through CoP, the repository took a social form. Yet, this recurring theme is clear, a residual of the framework of epistemology (Lilley et al, 2004). In epistemology, knowledge is a mental function, where its source is ‘reason.’ Knowing is key to say one have knowledge at all. For if one does not know, then knowledge does not exist.

Views of artifacts, on the other hand, was seen as a result of knowing, where “learned proceedings can then be incorporated in equipment, procedures, accounts, patents, and other artifacts” (Lilley, 2004 quoting Schon, 1983). I challenge if artifacts do not share part of our knowledge, even if their functions remain unknown. One kind of artifact is the disruptive technology. These technologies often take on unanticipated functions in society. For example, 3.5 inch hard disks enabled the micro-computers, even though they were designed for mini-computers. Instead of people inventing the functionalities into them, they informed people of new ways of acting. They transform people.

Research Implications of Epistemology

Because of the foundation of epistemology, research in KM is moving towards the tacit and the community. More specifically, practices. A recently concept of thick description fell into this movement. Thick description refers to a text or a narrative, that essentially describe not just the practices, but the context as well. While thick description allows better understanding of a situation. I would like to propose two impracticalities.

One, impracticality of relay. This refers to the difficulty of documenting practices in thick format. While this is theoretically be done, its time consuming. Institutions can hardly effort members to document what they have done to benefit an unknowable future.

Two, impracticality of learning. It takes time to read. And new members of an institution are expected to start working quickly. This is also the importance of profession, where one is given a job with respect to a specific domain. Although he is required to communicate with other professions using a common denomination.

Rather, we need to examine other forms of knowledge, apart of simply knowing. A clear candidate is the artifacts. Without which, Japan in 19th century and China today cannot achieve such rapid modernization. Tools and artifacts supplemented the gaps in knowing. They enabled the workforce to move on quickly, the produce something better. Similarly, we used MS Words without knowing how it works. Yet, it allows us to write and produce books and papers.

Reexamining KM

I argue that KM requires reexamination of its foundation. One, it was pointed out of the importance of artifacts as part of knowledge structure. Artifacts are not just a package of knowledge. Itself is part of how we know and what we are able to do. Our work is entwined with it. Similar, our society and economy depends on it. Two, there are issues with equating knowledge with knowing. This produces some impracticalities in KM research and movements in the field.

In the reexamination of KM, we need to look at development of institutions ask some serious questions. How does information transform into knowledge? How does knowledge become actionable? What happen to knowledge after the act? How does knowledge enable our institutions?

Conclusion

I pointed out that the development of KM is essentially based on epistemology. But there are problems with assumptions in epistemology that move KM in problematic direction. That leads to misses and impracticalities. Finally, I suggested questions we ought to answer as we move forward with the field.

=========
References
Bechky, 2003. Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14, 3, 312-30.

Brown and Duguid, 1991. Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2, 1.

Mar 2008