Reshaping business and the world by leveraging knowledge intangibles
University of Edinburgh (ALKaME) KM Research Group
Hello all,
I lead the ALKaME (Active Learning Knowledge and Management Environments) Research Group at the University of Edinburgh. We have been doing some intense research in the KM field over the last three years and would like to share some of our work. Recent papers include:
'Are we stuck with Knowledge Management: A Case for Strategic Knowledge Resource Development'
'Scaling the fractal plain: A general view of Knowledge Management'
'Introducing the Knowledge-Core' a new model to challenge the KM field'
We also have two major case studies being made available in the next month:
'Knowledge at the new frontier: A case study of KM in emerging markets within Quintiles Project Services (Singapore)'
'The Core of the matter: A critical case study of the Knowledge-Core applied in Jargon PLC' (anonymised MNC case study).
Our latest area of research is centred on measuring KM using a new model developed through our research.
We have a recently launched a commercially orientated site at www.alkame.eu.com, but we are more interested in sharing and getting feedback from the wider KM community. So the following links will bypass this site and I hope that you find them interesting enough to get in touch to tell us your views.
Our blog: http://theknowledgecore.wordpress.com/ Points of view and elements of ongoing research
Recent research papers: http://edinburgh.academia.edu/DavidGriffiths/Papers
Twitter: kcoreresearch
Email: d.a.griffiths@ed.ac.uk
Hope to hear from you...
David
Tags: Knowledge, Management, research
Views: 43
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Healy on -
HI David,
I am just up the road from you in Aberdeen.
Knowledge management is of great interest to me. Your papers seem to suggest knowledge is elusive and canot iteslf be captured, but we can see antecedents to the creating of knowledge and the real measure of our knowledge is in the innovations ( new stuff) we produce.....I hope I have that right.
I think most people like me who are interested in how we collect and apply knowledge to the benefit of the business are still looking for the "how to ". Do you have something specific on that? I am wondering is this the same question as "how do we make employees more innovative?" since the measure of knowledge management is the new stuff we produce??
Mike
-
Permalink Reply by David Griffiths on -
Hi Mike,
Aberdeen...just proves that this is a small world! Good question by the way...
This is something I tackled in an early paper. I demonstrated through a large meta-analysis that too much of the KM modelling literature speaks to aspects of KM 'know what' but little addresses KM 'know how' - SECI is a really good example of this. In response I developed the K-Core, a strategic management PIAT (Participatory Integrated Assessment Tool) that examines the interconnected human and technology processes that combine to form KM. Through it I can not only bring visibility to the knowledge footprint of an organisation, but I can also find the blockages within the process flows that inhibit aspects of KM, such as innovation. In doing so I can transform the 'what' into a solution through 'how'. This is achieved by using a 500 point evidence based maturity tool that models and cross-references KM process to signpost drivers for organisational market value – based on a generic IC value taxonomy (I'm outlining these drivers in my next blog).
To explain a little further...
I have two new case studies coming out in the next month or so that detail the K-Core enquiry process and some of the inner workings of the tool. To give you a flavour I looked at innovation linked to an organisational strategy requirement for improved service to clients within a pharmaceutical MNC. The sector is highly competitive and the need for innovation within their service offerings was core to their value proposition. The problem was that strategically the message was being heard, but innovative practice was dormant within the organisation. It's difficult distil the causal roots of the issue in short response, but part of the reason was this: The organisation operated as a Machine Bureaucracy and key aspects of knowledge acquisition, storage and sharing were missing from Standard Operating Procedures. Therefore staff, who were used to direction, were not capturing and expanding upon valuable knowledge solely because they weren't told to. Furthermore it wasn't reflected in their job description, rewards structure or appraisal process. So, cutting a long story short, looking at human process under the lens of the organisational typology, there was no motivation to innovate. Couple this with a communication issue linked with the strategic plan, with key aspects of strategy failing to make it into departmental business goals, and you start to get an idea of why innovation was stagnating.
The tool I've created provides a maturity model that shows the strengths and weaknesses of organisational technology/human processes. It is driven by the need to address the 'know how' issue that seems to breed dissatisfaction within our field. The organisation concerned received Key Recommendations for improvement along with an implementation framework and a report on their knowledge footprint. Giving them 'know-what' and the 'know-how' to put it right.
More case studies of this process being used in Europe and Asia will be coming out as the year progresses. So in a long winded way I guess that I'm trying to say that, yes, I have found a way to address the issue of 'why don't we innovate'. I'm actually presenting a workshop on this at KM Asia later this year and also at KM forums in Australia – presentations etc. will be available in November.
Hope this answers your question...and you'll have to let me know if you are ever in Edinburgh
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Healy on
-
David,
My area of expertise is Human Resources.
I see many models suggesting they can track a person's motivations, psychological makeup and other stuff which would provide some kind of profile for hiring an innovative person. The true test of these things is in the trials and post trial evaluations.
It would be interesting to learn about the results of your trials.
Interesting comment " I have found a way to address the issue of 'why don't we innovate'" I guess what everyone will want to know is " what will motivate us/help us innovate?". The whole employee engagement argument is about getting people to give more discretionary effort. Providing information( data) systems and structures etc which provide the tools and support which frees people to innovate is good.............presuming they are in the mood to do so
-
Permalink Reply by David Griffiths on
-
Again, good and fair points...
It sounds as if we are coming at this from the same angle. I come from a learning and development/community of practice background, which is grounded in human process (systems) thinking.
Basically I have looked at the interface between technology and people to try and determine what types of stimulus are necessary to drive the four key functions of KM. I started by looking at the organisation as a collective - Mintzberg typology based research - and how that typology culture influences the group and individual as they interact with organisational strategic goals. This led me to everything from organisational structure, physical workplace structure, technology usability, HR reward systems; leadership images, HR strategy and policy...the list is long.
What I've then tried to do is bring that together in a strategic management tool...what I've found is that organisations that use it are surprised at the depth and scope of motivational processes and their impact on KM outcomes. Too often the focus is on the technology, when we all know that it is people that make it work.
© 2012 Created by Mary Adams.
