LA FRAGMENTACIÓN: EL NÚMERO Y LA CALIDAD DE LOS PARTIDOS

Managers and academics have recognized knowledge as a key source of competitive advantage (Grant, 1997). Knowledge is a potentially significant resource to the organization as it may possess valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable characteristics particularly if it has a tacit dimension (Hall and Sapsed, 2005). The ever increasing importance of knowledge in contemporary society calls for a shift in our thinking concerning innovation in research organizations, be it technical innovation, product or process innovation, strategic or organizational innovation. It raises questions about how organizations create new knowledge and, more importantly, how they transfer new knowledge. Innovation, which is a key form of organizational knowledge creation, cannot be sufficiently explained in terms of information processing or problem solving.

University

of Cape

Town

69

Innovation can be better understood as a process in which the organization creates and defines problems and then actively develops new knowledge to solve them (Nonaka, 1994: 14).

Davenport and Marchand (1999: 2) suggest that: ‘‘whilst knowledge management does involve information management, beyond that it has two distinctive tasks: to facilitate the creation of new knowledge and to manage the way people share and apply it’’. In Nonaka et al.’s (2000) unified model of knowledge creation, knowledge is described as dynamic, since it is created in social interactions amongst individuals and organizations. Knowledge is context specific, as it depends on a particular time and space. Without being put into context, it is just information, not knowledge. Information becomes knowledge when it is interpreted by individuals and given a context and anchored in the beliefs and commitments of individuals (Nonaka et al., 2000).

This view of knowledge is also shared by Davenport et al. (1998: 43). It has further been suggested that knowledge that is new to an organization has to either be invented internally, or acquired from external sources. Nonaka et al. (2000) identify seven processes to manage knowledge assets:

knowledge generation;

knowledge codification;

knowledge application;

knowledge storing;

knowledge mapping;

knowledge sharing; and knowledge transfer.

These processes are based on an understanding that knowledge is dynamic in nature, and on this basis they provide guidelines of how to use, transfer, share, develop, and renovate the knowledge assets of an organization (Wiig, 1997).

KM and IC management is dependent on managerial understanding of these factors and how they relate to the bigger picture. A good internal structure, expressed through the strategies,

University

of Cape

Town

70

processes and culture of an organization, is one that is flexible but supportive of the ideas propounded by employees. The organizational structure should respond just as effectively to external pressures. For example, Davenport and Marchand (1999), claims that hierarchical structures become deficient in turbulent environments. In contrast, structures determined by core competencies can adapt to chaotic external pressures more easily. Such competencies should be flexible to meet new customer demands or expectations (Nonaka et al.2000). Byrne (2001) asserts that excessive bureaucracy can stifle innovation because of, for example, the amount of time it takes to approve every idea. Bureaucracy can inhibit spontaneity and experimentation and thus threaten the innovation process. It was however asserted that flexible structures encourage better internal communications and a more change friendly climate where ideas and knowledge are shared freely. In addition, it has been suggested that there is a need to establish relationship between people and the structures of an organization, between individual knowledge and organizational knowledge (Bryn, 2001). Employees must be sufficiently motivated to share knowledge, through incentives.

Byrne (2001) argues that the organizational structure should play a part in the encouragement of knowledge sharing. He contends that motivation is a key facilitator of loyalty and trust amongst employees and eventually fosters continuous learning. Further theories about organizational culture favour the evolution of a community of practice where social interaction of employees cultivates a knowledge sharing culture based on shared interests, thus encouraging idea generation and innovation Leadership is an inherent part of organizational culture, and leadership is an organizational responsibility. Emphasis should be placed on the value of institutional leadership, to create the structures, strategies and systems that facilitate innovation and organizational learning. Many organizations employ information technology (IT) in one form or another to manage their knowledge. It is primarily used to store and transfer explicit forms of knowledge. However, IT is not just about computers. Tools such as video-conferencing may also be useful for the transmission of tacit knowledge as it is, in crude terms, a form of socialization (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Capturing tacit knowledge and then storing it in repositories is vital for effective KM. Many organizations have developed

University

of Cape

Town

71

sophisticated methods for storing their IC, including patenting knowledge assets to protect trade secrets. Edvinsson (2000) contends that such tools such as the Internet are merely enablers and that the true asset of an organization is the brainpower of its workforce. He stresses that it is the IC of an organization that is the key to success (Edvinsson, 2000). Thus, KM is not just about databases or information repositories.

“In computer systems the weakest link has always been between the machine and humans because this bridge spans a space that begins with the physical and ends with the cognitive”

(McCampbell et al., 1999: 174).

University

of Cape

Town

72