VALORACIÓN DE RIESGOS Y DETERMINACIÓN DE CONTROLES.

Chapter 8 presents a summary of the research findings generated from this thesis and it discusses the contributions to knowledge this research has made. Following this, the chapter discusses the limitations of the research and provides suggestions for future research.

Chapter Summary 1.5

This chapter has provided an introduction to this research. The research problem, research aim, research questions and associated research objectives have been discussed. The research questions and objectives aimed to investigate how the affordances of smartphone technology can be leveraged to enhance the provision of information and facilitate knowledge retention. To achieve this, this research draws upon the use of technology by incorporating a heuristic framework, a consumer-based usability

evaluation and best practice information on safe food management (SFM) from relevant government agencies in Australia. This led to the evaluation of the influence of technology on consumers’ knowledge acquisition, knowledge retention and perceived behavioural change. Thus, this study aimed at sharing information to facilitate knowledge retention through the use of technology in an attempt to improve the food management behaviour of Australian consumers.

The contributions the research makes to the body of knowledge within information systems (IS) discipline has been discussed from the substantive, methodological and theoretical perspectives. The next chapter presents a review of the literature related to this study.

LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2

This non-systematic review was led by the research questions due to the exploratory nature of this study. The journey of the review process began with an investigation into the food safety domain in an attempt to identify gaps around the use of information and communication technologies. The identified gaps led to the focus on consumers behaviour in relation to food handling rather than food firms. With this focus on consumers, there was a need to investigate how consumer knowledge can be optimised (knowledge management) to improve their food safety behaviour. Therefore, this review is divided into four parts which comprises the major aspects of the proposed research. The four parts are concerned with food safety as the research context, information and communication technologies, consumer behaviour and an introduction to knowledge management. Thus, this chapter is divided into the following sections;

 Section 2.1 presents the body of literature that has been reviewed concerning the research context in terms of food safety using an Information Technology (IT) lens. This entails food chains, regulatory solutions to food safety issues and safe food management from a consumer perspective.

 Section 2.2 discusses the information and communication technologies (ICTs) in terms of the pervasiveness of ICT and mobile computing which includes smartphone use and food management as well as smartphone apps and usability, context of use and attributes of end-users in safe food management.

 Section 2.3 discusses consumer behaviour in relation to the context of this research. This is comprised of an introduction to consumer behaviour, communication from an information modality perspective, consumer and food information processing peculiarities, consumer food behaviour and risk communication & ICT.

 Section 2.4 discusses an introduction to data, information and knowledge and progresses by discussing information management and knowledge management (KM) concepts. Following this, it discusses knowledge optimisation as KM, based on an individual unit of analysis, by focusing on knowledge acquisition, knowledge retention and knowledge application.

21

An Introduction to Knowledge Management (KM) 2.1

This presents an overview of the literature relating to knowledge management with reference to the research context. It starts by providing an introduction to information management and knowledge management concepts. Following this, it discusses knowledge optimisation as KM based on an individual unit of analysis, by focusing on knowledge acquisition, knowledge retention and knowledge application. It then concludes with a critical reflection.

2.1.1 Information Management and Knowledge Management 2.1.1.1 Information Management

Davenport and Prusak (2000), Oppenheim et al. (2003) regard information as a message. For Davenport and Prusak (2000), information is a “message which is usually in the form of a document or an audible or visible communication” while Oppenheim et al. (2003) believe that “information that is communicated has both the intention of the sender and the expectations of the receiver to take into account”. Meadow et al. (1999), Wiig (1999), Mitchell (2000) define information with reference to data. For Meadow et al. (1999), “information has no universally accepted meaning but generally carries the connotation of evaluated, validated or useful data” while Wiig (1999) believes that information can be regarded as “facts and data organised to characterize a particular situation” but more simply, information can be defined as data made meaningful by putting it into context (Mitchell, 2000).

Information is a vague and elusive concept capable of being understood in various ways (Gourlay, 2000). Information, which some regard as explicit knowledge, can also be conceived as knowledge that can be codified and therefore more easily communicated and shared (Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002). Knowledge management (KM) writers view explicit knowledge as structured and conscious, hence it can be stored in information technology systems (Mårtensson, 2000).

Information management (IM) focuses on the “plans and activities that need to be performed to control an organisation’s records” (Place and Hyslop, 1982). However, Cronin (1985) believes that the focus of IM initiatives is often to control systematically recorded information and less on the use of these records (Bouthillier and Shearer,

2002). For Wilson (1989), IM is the management of information resources of an organisation and it involves the management of information technology.

Having defined the basic goal of IM as the “harnessing of information resources and information capabilities of an organisation in order to enable the organisation to learn and adapt to its changing environment”, Choo (2002) proposed a process model of IM which was presented as a cycle with five basic steps. These are: identification of information needs, information acquisition, information organisation and storage, information distribution and information use. Planning, organisation, coordination and control of a number of activities are all required for each of the aforementioned steps in Choo’s model. According to him, IM is key for sustaining knowledge creation and application in organisations and should lead to an ‘intelligent organisation’.

2.1.1.2 Knowledge Management

Knowledge is fluid, fuzzy, multi-faceted and multi-contextual in nature. Philosophers, scholars and practitioners have attempted to define knowledge in different ways, contexts and disciplines. One of these, is the definition offered by Prussak and Davenport (1998), that “knowledge is an interplay of fluid experiences, values, contextual information and intuition that provides a structure to evaluate and incorporate new experiences and information”. Within the Information Systems discipline; based on what the literature provides; it is clear that scholars and researchers have perceived knowledge from three different stand-points.

The first standpoint presents knowledge as a duality. This means that all knowledge is both explicit and tacit but the explicitness or tacitness is in varying proportions (Hildreth and Kimble, 2002). The more tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be externalized while the more explicit ones can be articulated, captured and stored. However, this concept views both perspectives as interwoven and that they are not mutually exclusive of each other. In line with this, Cook and Brown (1999) argue that knowledge relies on both sides of the coin. Hildreth and Kimble (2002) argue that this standpoint helps to explain the reason why some of the knowledge management initiatives have failed. This is due to the fact that when explicit knowledge is abstracted in isolation, the representation is incomplete. Hence, tacit knowledge must also be incorporated.

23

The second standpoint presents knowledge as a continuum. This means that on one end of a spectrum, explicit knowledge (codified, structured and accessible to other people) exists, tacit knowledge (semi-conscious and unconscious, residing in humans) exists on the other end while varying proportions of both types of knowledge exist in between the two extremes (Leonard and Sensiper, 1998); (Jasimuddin et al., 2005). In accordance with this, Hall and Andriani (2003); Boland et al. (1994) treat explicit and tacit knowledge as the extremes of the spectrum. This standpoint views knowledge as three different types; explicit knowledge, the mixture of both explicit and tacit knowledge and tacit knowledge, as opposed to the two types of knowledge identified within the first standpoint.

While the third standpoint, presents knowledge as a category; which is either explicit or tacit. According to Nonaka (1994), explicit knowledge is easy to articulate, can be codified, stored and transferred easily. Polanyi (1967) and Goguen (1997) believe tacit knowledge cannot be articulated whereas Nonaka (1994) and Teece (1998) argue that knowledge can be articulated, though not easily, while Huang (1997) believes that it cannot only be articulated, it can also be captured. It is worthy of note here that, when it is stated that knowledge can be captured, it is perceived that knowledge is seen as an object. When knowledge is perceived as an object, Kimble et al. (2001) and Shum (1998) argue that the supposed knowledge management is actually information resource management because the presumed knowledge has become information. Hence, within the third stand-point, there are diverse contentions and contradictions as to what explicit and tacit knowledge is and what it should be.

Moving forward, Dogan et al. (2011) recently analysed the definitions of Jashapara (2004), Prussak and Davenport (1998), Wiig (1997), Drucker (2007) using logical models. Eventually, in consonance with Jashapara’s definition, they believe that “KM is the management of knowledge as a human-centred attribute that involves a learning and transformation process considering the environmental and cultural aspects to provide competitive advantage”.

Viewing the concept of KM with the same lens as Dogan et al. (2011) portrays knowledge as contextual information which resides in human minds. Hence, it can involve a learning and transformation process while considering the environmental and cultural aspects to provide competitive advantage. However, the use of the term

“Knowledge Management” appears inappropriate since the main goal is to optimise the knowledge contained within the people in or outside an organisation (as defined by the context) through sharing and learning while considering the environmental and cultural aspects in order to provide competitive advantage. Moreover, when the unit of analysis shifts from the organisational level to the individual level, it becomes clearer that an individual’s knowledge should not be managed but optimised. In this research context, which focuses on improving consumer knowledge and possibly their behaviour on safe food management, it is therefore reasonable to adopt the term “Knowledge Optimisation” rather than “Knowledge Management”.