This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.
System is the process of human dealing with the world (Checkland and Scholes, 1999).
Reisman (1979) viewed systems as a set of resources organised to perform a particular task so as to attain desired results. The resources include personnel, materials, facilities and information. So system thinking is the systematic way of thinking and focusing on the dynamic interaction and managing knowledge by individuals and the environment within which they operates (Reisman and Orall, 2005). Knowledge management can be linked to a system whereby one exchanges its available resources with its surroundings (Reisman, 1979). However the openness and dynamism of the system is because of the human existence (Reisman and Orall, 2005) required in the process of enquiry (Checkland and Scholes, 1999). There have been many definition of knowledge management but in this perspective, Hansen et al. (1999) viewed KM as a concept embedded with integrated move towards identifying, capturing, retrieving, sharing and evaluating the information assets of a business enterprise. These assets could be the workers un-capture tacit expertise and experiences, databases, documents, policies and procedures.
So the two fundamental forms of system thinking, “hard” and “soft” are the crucial intellectual distinction of a system (Checkland and Scholes, 1999). Reisman and Orall (2005) claim that hard system thinking and soft system thinking are complementary whereby both are applicable at different stages of solving managerial problems. In dealing with either ill/well-defined problem within an organisation SST is the prerequisite for addressing managerial issues whiles the HST is often required in the latter stages of solving the problem (Reisman and Orall, 2005). Thus the former plays the major role in identifying and defining the right problem whiles the latter solves that problem the right way. Therefore an organisation's ability to deal with growth depends on how knowledge is managed.
Formerly organisations view knowledge in the traditional way whereby knowledge was considered as information and document that can be managed as objects. It was also regarded as little more than the sharing of documents and information on the intranet or through global databases (Cheuk, 2007). But knowledge is indicated by Nonaka (1994) as existing only in human brain turns to be information when stored in a computer, nevertheless when transferred to another person it becomes knowledge (Hicks, et al., 2006). Hence until information is processed by human minds to become knowledge, information is of little or no value (Ash, 1998). Infield (1997) claim that the processing of knowledge involves organising, structuring and filtering of facts and data to produce contextual information suitable for a specific community of users. The individuals' attitudes and experiences as well as the working environment affect the transformation process. Moreover the whole process becomes valid based on the fact that the information and knowledge leads to an informed decision or action (Ref). Knowledge and learning is not a linear process but involves system thinking. And a “root definition” that captures the purpose of a good system involves input, transformation and output (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).
On the other hand, Guthrie (2000) viewed knowledge management as “the management of the intellectual capital controlled by the company”. According to Edvinsson (1997) the Skandia, a major insurance company defined intellectual capital as “the possession of knowledge, applied experience, organisational technology, customer relationships, and professional skills that provides Skandia with a competitive edge in the market”. Stewart (1997) identified human, structural, social and customer capital as the operational elements within the framework of intellectual capital. Social Capital reciprocally
However Nonaka (1994) argued that the ability for an organisation to become competitive in the dynamic business environment depends on the educational background, professional training and creativity of the knowledge workers and motivation from the leadership. Employees' are willingly to share information and experiences with each other when there is a supportive environment promoting the organisation's knowledgebase which also fosters teamwork (Rezgui, 2007). Kennedy (2005) argue that the dynamic business environment resulting from human activities makes it vital for organisations not to work as individuals but as part of a team or community who share a common meaning or understanding in achieving a task of every situation. So the creation of strong social ties and relationships is found among members of the communities who have common history and culture. This helps organisation to manage to bridge social capital to gain access to critical resources (Rudie, 1994)
Rastogi (2002) claim that in fact knowledge is the quintessential resource available to enterprises which can provide value creation in this capricious and highly competitive business environment and those who fail to effectively utilise their intellectual capital may decline or die in their operating industry. Citing example despite the rich pool of resources, IBM's precipitate decline during the late 1980s. The root cause of IBM's downfall was its failure to respond quickly to the smaller and cheaper computers from their competitors that challenged its mainframes. Thus failure to counter earlier by using their knowledgebase capital to create client-server computing and shift from centralized processing that was losing sales in the market (Kehoe, 1995). On the other hand Kotter (1996) claim that organisations that perform poorly are attributable to complacent managers that resist innovation and such organisation is characterised by poor communications, lack of vision and strategy and employees disempowerment.
According to Cheuk (2007) managing knowledge in an organisation must begin with building/creating community of practices and virtual teams which provides a platform to facilitate genuine dialogue between staffs. Citing example, the British Council has adopted an overall business strategy contend/focus on knowledge management in its worldwide offices. The strategy break up the barrier of sharing relatively little contact between the UK and overseas staff to more collaborative shared documents using the website. This was achieved through social networking whereby its global leaders shares project implementation between managers in different regions/countries. So knowledge management processes encompass business processes, people and technology through which knowledge is created and captured, shared and transferred, embedded and used, measured and valued (Collin, 1999). Therefore knowledge is a firm's most powerful engine of production (Marshall, 1965).
Information and communication technology which is identified as a means of sharing and managing knowledge is capable of penetrating into boundaries of various organisation (Coe and Bunnell, 2003). Teigland (2000) base on research conducted in internet communities' claim that individuals within such communities that exhibited the characteristics of communities of practice may interact but physically have never met.
However Roberts (2007) claim that the rapid technological change which is transforming the competitive landscape of the business environment is making communities of practice complex. The traditional community of practice used to be a slow community which requires a degree of trust and mutual understanding to develop overtime. But in this modern era, groups may emerge and dissolve quickly depending on the organisation of the individuals. But despite the difficulty in developing and sustaining the communities of practice, some organisations take important role in the creation of and transfer of knowledge (Roberts, 2005).
Lindkvist (2005) cited example in the film industry, whereby individuals come together to temporarily achieve a particular project which is to create a film and disperse. These individuals mutually share, repertoire and transfer knowledge which provide opportunities for new members to learn and overtime become full participants. So in thses current business environment, membership of a community of practice is been sustain since its seen to be vital in the lives of certain workers (Robers, 2007).
Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that community of practice emerges when an organisation set up a team assigned for a particular project, the team members then begin to interact with each other by way of sharing knowledge. As a result of their interaction and way of living, the table below characterises the human activities in a community of practice. So the management's contribution is to facilitate the development of the community of practice.
However the pattern has changed over recent years. According to Wenger et al. (2002) managers of organisations have developed the interest in sustaining communities of practice as being part of the knowledge management strategies to bring about value creation and performance improvement (Lesser and Storck, 2001). In support of this, Smends and Alvesalo (2003) based on research concluded that communities of practice has hugely influenced the transfer of knowledge and information in virtual organisations.
Hence improving the effectiveness and efficiency in knowledge-intensive work requires the way in which people search for knowledge, learn from it and use it to solve problems with other people in organisations through sophisticated technologies (Cross et al., 2001). According to Wasserman and Faust (1998) it will be more suitable for an organisation to adopt a social network approach whereby every company is characterized as a set of relations among them. Thus identify the individuals as actors/nodes and the relations as the ties of social or relational network. The opportunity to interact and foster relationships between individuals in organisation relies on the physical and social distances (Zupan and Kase, 2007).
In support of these Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) claim that building a collaborative relationship can add social capital to the people and the organisation as a whole. Similarly, authors such as (Laury, 1987; Coleman, 1988) claim that the focal point of social capital is relationship, which are the main resources for social actions. In this context, the authors viewed social capital as “the resources embedded in social networks of relationships”. So the actor's social relation or access to other people lies on the structural dimension or network which its effect glow from the information, influence and solidarity it makes available to actor (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Thus social capital emcompass both a network and the assets that can be assembled during the network (Burt, 1992). Social capital also affects the economic performance of firms (Baker, 1990), geographic regions and countries (Putnam, 1995).Therefore social capital is recognised as acting as an engine for the sharing, continuous learning, innovation and adaptation to market opportunities (Peredo, 2003)
According to Blair-Lay (2001) “who you know often has a real deal to do with what you come to know”. Hence members belonging to a particular network can gain access to information and opportunities. However the structural dimension shapes the actions of the individuals within that community (Bourdieu, 1977). Individual culture also affects how knowledge is shared therefore inculcating the element of trust (Dasgupta and Gupta, 2009), effective communication to catch and examine ideas among the employees (Fliaster and Spiess, 2007) and care in organisational relationships (Krogh, 1998) would stimulate the creation of knowledge and innovation. Equally, collaborative innovation is greater among organisations that share knowledge with its suppliers and usually gain the advantage in delivering customer value (Mei and Nie, 2007). In support of this, Rastogi (2000) stated that “social capital (SC) of a firm denotes the orientation of its people to collaborate spontaneously and with commitment in support of its business goals”. So social capital equally affects both human capital and knowledge management whiles providing support for the firm's intellectual capital.
Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) considered the structural, relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital in their quest of the role of social capital in the creation of intellectual capital, stating that the three clusters are highly interrelated. This is illustrated in the diagram below.
According to Coleman (1998) structural dimension is concern with properties of the social system and its pattern of linkage whereby the existence of network created for a purpose benefits other purposes. On the other hand, relational dimension depicts the sort of personal relationships people have developed with each other in regards to respect and friendship which influences their behaviour (Cranovetter, 1992). In support of this, McKenzie and Winkelen (2004) stated that the key components in this cluster is the issue of trust and trustworthiness demonstrated in one's obligations and expectations and encouraging identification with norms. This ties is built through social interactions.
Furthermore Cicourel (1973) viewed cognitive dimension a s resources that provides shared representation through shared language, codes narrative and common etiquette. Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) continue to argue that the cognition dimension of social capital influences the actor's ability to combine knowledge to create intellectual capital .
Chapman (2002) argue that in order to deal with organisational complexity, soft system methodology must be employed to holistically view problem situations. In support of this, Checkland (1999) stated that SSM approach also complements strategic framework which focuses on achieving clearer understandings towards performance improvements and control of change-related issues.
While individual thinking and reflection is legitimate (Checkland and Holwell, 1998), Jacobs (2004) suggested that wider involvement of actors is a crucial prerequisite for effective improvement initiatives. However Jacobs (2004) stated that the best way of tackling organisational problem is through system thinking whereby managers, customers, groups and partners share ideas to solve problems viewing the “feedbacks” as well. And this can be achieved through continuous learning. Users of soft system methodology can use a conceptual model of depicting a ‘problem situation' such as a ketch of “rich pictures” (Pidd, 2003).
The conceptual model which supports ordered questioning through rich picture is also the focal point of organisational improvement (Wilson, 2001). Checkland (1999) stated that “a rich picture is not simply an isolated brainstorming exercise, but an aid to analysing a problem situation through ordered thinking and reflection”. On the other hand, ‘root definitions' evolve from the rich pictures through which actors think of ‘making sense' out of (Pidd, 2003) in tackling problem situations to better ‘explore the real-world situation' of conceptual models (Checkland and Holwell, 1998).
Kaufmann and Schneider (2004) stated that researchers have developed various models which are capable of measuring and managing intellectual capitals. Some of the models were constructed for external reporting purposes whiles others are meant to control the intangible resources within a firm. According to Kaufmann and Schneider the model constructors were based on four schools of thoughts. The first school by (Edvinsson, 1997; Edvinsson and Malone, 1997) about Skandia Navigator suppose that transforming human capital to structural capital should be the primary responsibility of the management. The authors advocated for providing supplementary information to the annual financial report while focusing on agents within the firm. The second school is based on a developed model known as the Intangible Asset Monitor by Sveiby (1997) which provides strategic information of a firm regarding growth, renewal, efficiency, stability, and risk relating to each category of intangibles such as employee competence, internal and external structures. Kaufmann and Schneider (2004) emphasize the use of this model by many companies such as Celmi of Sweden.
The third school is the model Stewart (1997) advocated for known as Calculated Intangible Value which is centred on quantifying the excess return on tangible assets (ROA) in terms of human, customer and structural intellectual assets, so that the reports generated can be compared to other firms. The Balanced Scorecard model developed by Kaplan and Norton (2004) is the fourth school of thought. This involves sets of financial and non-financial measures to indicate four perspectives including financials, customers, internal process and learning and growth. According to Kaufmann and Schneider (2004) the four perspectives holistically provides the strategic way of measuring company performance which goes beyond the financial perspective. Kaplan and Norton (2006) re-emphasize that the scorecard provides a management system which assist in the clarification of the organisation's vision and strategy.
Collin (1999) argued that knowledge-base management reflects the use of knowledge to improve upon the efficiency of customer service rather than physical resource. Knowledge shared promotes innovation or design of new products, the process of manufacturing and delivering them (Armistead et al., 1999). Collin (1999) argue that “processes are no longer only operational” but include strategic processes that serves as the keystone to the operational activities such as the human resource management and the information systems. And moreover business process re-engineering (BPR) which involved the movement of material from the upstream to the downstream has shifted to the process flow of people and information.
McKern (1996) claim that powerful forces such as globalisation, changes in consumer demands, new technology, changing economic and political structures is continually affecting business processes and human resource strategy and that organisation are beginning to reckon their employees as the only sustainable competitive advantage they possess (Black and Synan, 1997). Also the shortening of products life cycle intensifies the pressure for innovation (Dasgupta and Gupta, 2009).
However managing knowledge in an organisation requires the ability to protect and utilize existing knowledge resources as well as facilitating the mobilization and expansion of other new knowledge resources. The knowledge resources are obtained from managing the tacit knowledge residing in the human mind explicitly (Duffy, 2000) by separating it from the knowledge workers (Kreiner, 2002).
Kikoski and kikoski (2004) argued that the keystone for an organisation success is by creating suitable condition that encourages and promotes individuals to verbalize their optimum tacit knowledge. This results in problem solving and the creation of new knowledge bringing about continuous improvement in business procedures leading to innovation of new products and better customer services (Alwis and Hartmann, 2008).
Adler, P.S. and Kwon, S.W. (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 17-40.
Alwis, R.S. and Hartmann, E. (2008) The use of tacit knowledge within innovative companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 133-147.
Ash, J. (1998) Managing knowledge gives power, Communication world, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 75-7.
Armistead, C.G., Pritchard, J-P. and Machin, S. (1999) Strategic business process management for organisational effectiveness, Long Range Planning, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 96-106.
Baker, W. (1990) Market networks and corporate behaviour, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96, pp. 589-625.
Blair-Loy, M. (2001) Its not just what you know: technical knowledge, rainmaking and gender among finance executives, Research in Sociology of Work, Vo. 10, pp. 51-84.
Black, D.H. and Synan, C.D. (1997) The learning organisation: the sixth discipline, Management Accounting, London, Vol. 75, No. 10, pp. 70-72.
Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Burt, R.S. (1992) Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chapman, J. (2002) System Failure: Why Governments Must learn to Think Differently, Demos: London.
Checkland, P. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: A 30 Year Retrospective, Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester, pp. A1 - A66.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998) Information Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field, Wiley: Chichester.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley: Chichester.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Cheuk, B. (2007) Social Networking Analysis: Its application to facilitate knowledge transfer, Business Information Review, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 170-176.
Cicourel, A.V. (1973) Cognitive sociology, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, pp. 95-120.
Coe, N.M. and Bunnel, T.G. (2003) “Spatializing” knowledge communities: towards a conceptualisation of transnational innovation networks, Global Network, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 437-456.
Colin, A. (1999) Knowledge management and process performance, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 143-154.
Contu, A. and Willmott, H. (2003) Re-embedding situatedness: the importance of power relations in learning theory, Organisation Sceince, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 283-296.
Cross, R., Parker, A., Parker, A. and Borgatti, S.P. (2002) Knowing what we know: supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks, Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 30, No.2, pp. 100-120.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P. and Parker, A. (2002) Making invisible work visible: using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration, California Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 25-46.
Dasgupta, M. and Gupta, R.K. (2009) Innovation in Organisations: A Review of the Role of Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management, Global Business Review, Vo. 10, No. 2, pp. 203-224.
Duffy, J. (2000) Knowledge management: to be or not to be?, Information Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 64-67.
Edvinsson, L. (1997) Developing intellectual capital at Skandia, Longe Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 366-73.
Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M.S. (1997) Intellectual Capital: Realizing your Company's True Value by Finding its Hidden Brainpower, Harper Business, New York.
Fliaster, A. and Spiess, J. (2007) Knowledge Mobilization Through Social Ties: The Cost-Benefit Analysis, Schmalenbach Business Review, (January) Vol. 60, pp. 99-117.
Granovetter, M.S. (1992) Networks and organisations: Structure, form and action, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Guthrie, J. (2000) Intellectual capital review: measurement, reporting and management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1, No.1, pp.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Kierney, T. (1999) White papers on knowledge management, Gartner Group. [Online] Available at: http://www.uky.edu/~gmswan3/575/KM_tiers.pdf [Accessed on 06/03/10].
Hicks, R.C., Dattero, R. and Galup, S.D. (2006) The five-tier knowledge management hierarchy, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Infield, N. (1997) Capitalising on knowledge, Information World Review, Vol. 130, pp. 22.
Jacobs, B. (2004) Using Soft Systems Methodology for Performance Improvement and Organisational Change in the English National Health Services, Journal of Contingencies and Crises Management, Vol. 12, No.4, pp. 138-149.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1996) Translating Strategy into Action: The Balanced Scorecard, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (2004) Measuring the strategic readiness of intangible assets, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 3, pp. 52-63.
Kaufmann, L. and Schneider, Y. (2004) Intangibles: a synthesis of current research, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 366-388.
Kehoe, L. (1995) Gerstner's Strategy Examined for Returning IBM to Profitability, Financial Times Syndication. [Online] available at: http://www.taborcommunications.com/archives/1594.html [Accessed on 12/03/10].
Kennedy, B. (2005) A cystems approach to training and complexity, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 509-521.
Kikoski, CK. and kikoski, J.F. (2004) The Inquiring Organisation:, Tacit Knowledge, Conversation, and Knowledge Creation Skills for 21st-Century Organisations, Praeger, Westport, CT and London.
Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Chang, Harvard Business School Press: Boston Massachusetts.
Kreiner, K. (2002) Tacit knowledge management: the role of artifacts, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 112-123.
Krogh, G.V. (1998) Care in Knowledge Creation, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3: pp. 133.
Lindkvist, L. (2005) Knowledge communities and knowledge collectivities: a typology of knowledge work groups, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp. 1189-210.
Loury, G. (1987) Why should we care about group inequality? Social Philosophy & Policy, Vol. 5, pp. 249-271.
Marshall, A. (1965) Principles of economics. 1st Edition, London: Macmillan.
Martensson, M. (2000) A critical review of knowledge management as management tool, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 204-216.
McKern, B. (1996) Building management performance for the 21st century, Practising Manager, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 13-18.
McKenzie, J. and van Winkelen, C. (2004) Understanding the Knowledgeable Organisation: Nurturing Knowledge Competence, International Thomson: London.
Mei, S. and Nie, M. (2007) Relationship between Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Characteristics, Absorptive Capacity and Innovation: An Empirical Study of Wuhan Optoelectronic Cluster, The Business Review, Cambridge, Vol.7, No. 2, pp. 154-161.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social Capital, intellectual capital and the organisational advantage, Academy of Management, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nonaka, L. (1994) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization Science, Vol.5, No. 1, pp. 14-37.
Peredo, A.M. (2003) Nothing thicker than blood? Commentary on ‘help one another, use one another: toward an anthropology of family business. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 397-400.
Pidd, M. (2003) Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, John Wiley: Chichester.
Putnam, R.D. (1995) Bowling alone: America's declining social capital, Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, pp. 65-78.
Rastogi, P.N. (2000) Knowledge management and intellectual - the virtual reality of competitiveness, Human Systems Management, Vol. 19, No. 1
Rastogi, P.N. (2002) Knowledge management and intellectual capital as a paradigm of value creation, Human Systems Management, Vol. 21, pp. 229-240.
Reisman, A. (1979) Systems Analysis in Health-Care Delivery, Lexington Books , Lexington, MA.
Reisman, A. and Oral, M. (2005) Soft Systems Methodology: A Context within a 50-Year Retrospective of OR/MS, Interfaces, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 164-178.
Rezgui, Y. (2007) Knowledge System and Value Creation: An Action Research Investigation, Industrial Management and Data System, Vol. 107, No. 2, pp. 166-182.
Roberts, J. (2003) Limits of Communities of Practice, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 623-639.
Roos, J., Roos, G., Dragonetti, N.C, Edvinsson, L. (1997) Intellectual Capital: Navigating in the New Landslape, Houndmills: Macmillan.
Rudie, I. (1994) Visible Women in East Coast Malay Society, Universitesforlaget, Oslo.
Stewart, T.A (1997) Intellectual Capital - The New Wealth of Organisations, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997) The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-based Assets, Barrett-Kohler, San Francisco.
Teigland, R. (2000) Communities of practice in a high-technology firm. In Birkinshaw, J. and Hagstrom, P. (Eds), The Flexible Firm: Capability Management in Network Organisation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wasserman, S., Faust, K. (1998) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, M.A.
Wilson, B. (2001) Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model Building and Its Contribution. Wiley: Chichester.
Zupan, N. and Kase, R. (2007) The role of HR actors in knowledge network, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 28, No. 3/4, pp. 243-259.