Samenvatting Knowledge Management in Organizations
Chapter 1: The Contemporary Importance of Knowledge and Knowledge
Management.
The central idea uniting and underpinning the vast majority of the knowledge
management literature, that it is important for organizations to manage their
workforce’s knowledge, flows from a number of key assumptions embodied in the
three quotations which open the chapter. First, Spender and Scherer’s quotation
illustrates the assumption that the end of the twentieth century witnessed an
enormous social and economic transformation which resulted in knowledge
becoming the key asset for organizations to manage.
An industrial society is characterized by an emphasis on manufacturing and
fabrication: the building of things. In a post-industrial society, which is argued to
evolve out of an industrial society, the service sector has replaced the manufacturing
sector as the biggest source of employment.
In a post-industrial society, theoretical knowledge has become the most important
type of knowledge. Theoretical knowledge represents abstract knowledge and
principles, which can be codified, or at least embedded in systems of rules and
frameworks for action. Another crucial characteristic of Bell’s post-industrial society is
that knowledge and information play a much more significant role in economic and
social life than during industrial society, as work in the service sector is argued to be
significantly more information and knowledge intensive than industrial work.
Post-industrial society = a society where the service sector is dominant and
knowledge-based goods/services have replaced industrial, manufactured goods as
the main wealth generators.
An important element of Bell’s analysis is that post-industrial societies represent an
advancement on industrial societies, as in general more wealth will be generated,
and workers individually will have better, more fulfilling jobs.
One of the main criticisms of the arguments made by knowledge society or post-
industrial society theorists, is that they typically conflate knowledge work with service
sector jobs. Not all service sector work can be classified as knowledge work,, as the
service sector is a residual employment category for all types of work which are not
either manufacturing or agricultural.
The transition from an industrial to a post-industrial knowledge economy should
produce an increase in the proportion of jobs that are knowledge intensive, and a
more general increase in the knowledge intensity of work.
Much contemporary analysis views knowledge as having substantially different
characteristics, being partial, tacit, subjective, and context-dependent.
A useful framework that helps to characterize the knowledge management literature,
and simultaneously highlight issues which are typically neglected in it, was developed
by Schultze and Stabell, which is itself based on Burell and Morgan’s sociological
paradigms framework. Due to different perspectives on epistemology in the
knowledge management literature, this is one of the dimensions in Schulze and
,Stabell’s framework. What is here labelled the objectivist perspective, Schultze and
Stabell label the epistemology of dualism, and what is here referred to as the
practice-based perspective, Schultze and Stabell label the epistemology of duality.
The second dimension relates to social order, with differences existing in the extent
to which existing social relations are regarded as consensual and unproblematic.
Two distinct perspectives are dominate. The consensus perspective is where existing
social relations are regarded as unproblematic and where challenging them is not
considered. The dissensus perspective assumes that existing social relations are
problematic and rife with conflict and that they typically reinforce power differentials
that result in exploitation.
Social order Epistemology
Duality Dualism
Dissensus
Dialogic discourse Critical discourse
Consensus
Constructivist discourse Neo-functionalist
discourse
Chapter 2: The Objectivist Perspective on Knowledge.
The term ‘objectivist’ perspective is used because this label embodies and highlights
what are here regarded as two of this perspective’s foundational assumptions: first,
that much organizational knowledge is typically considered as being objective in
characters; and, second, that such knowledge can be separated from people via
codification into the form of an object, or entity.
Knowledge is regarded as a (cognitive) entity/commodity that people possess, but
which can exist independently of people, in a codifiable form.
Knowledge can be codified, made explicit, and separated from the person who
creates, develops, and/or utilizes it. Such knowledge can exist in a number of forms
including documents, diagrams, computer systems, or embedded in physical artifacts
such as machinery or tools.
Objective knowledge can be produced. It is possible to develop a type of knowledge
and understanding that is free from individual subjectivity.
, Objectivist epistemology privileges explicit knowledge over tacit knowledge. This
relates to and flows from the previous assumption, about the possibility to produce
objective, codified knowledge.
Knowledge is regarded as a cognitive, intellectual entity.
The knowledge-based theory of the firm represents the dominant theory which
adopts the objectivist perspective on knowledge. The knowledge-based theory of the
firm, which represents a specific development from the resource-based view of the
firm, was initially articulated and developed by a number of writers including Spender.
There are two central tenets to the knowledge-based theory of the firm. First, it
assumes that knowledge which is difficult to replicate and copy can be a significant
source of competitive advantage for firms. Second, it assumes that organizations
provide a more effective mechanism than markets do for the sharing and integration
of knowledge between people.
One of the primary features of the objectivist perspective on knowledge is the
privileging of explicit/objective knowledge, which are regarded as quite separate and
distinct types of knowledge, flows from an either/or logic or binary oppositions which
is a fundamental character of this perspective.
One feature of those utilizing an objectivist epistemology is that tacit and explicit
knowledge are regarded as separate and distinct types of knowledge. Explicit
knowledge is synonymous with objective knowledge; therefore it is unnecessary to
restate in detail its characteristics. Suffice to say first that explicit knowledge is
regarded as objective, standing above and separate from both individual and social
value system; and, second, that it can be codified into a tangible form.
Tacit knowledge on the other hand represents knowledge that people possess, and
which may importantly shape how they think and act, but which cannot be fully made
explicitly. It incorporates both physical/cognitive skills and cognitive frameworks. The
main characteristics of tacit knowledge are therefore that it is personal, and it difficult,
if not impossible, to disembody and codify.
Tacit Knowledge Explicit Knowledge
Inexpressible in a codifiable form Codifiable
Subjective Objective
Personal Impersonal
Context specific Context independent
Difficult to share Easy to share
Individual Social
Explicit Conscious Objectified
Tacit Automatic Collective
Objectified knowledge = explicit group knowledge, for example a documented system
of rules, operating procedures, or formalized organizational routines.
Collective knowledge = tacit group knowledge, knowledge possessed by a group that
is not codified.
Hecker’s three types of collective knowledge:
Type of Definitio Locus Relationsh Origin Example
collective n ip to
Chapter 1: The Contemporary Importance of Knowledge and Knowledge
Management.
The central idea uniting and underpinning the vast majority of the knowledge
management literature, that it is important for organizations to manage their
workforce’s knowledge, flows from a number of key assumptions embodied in the
three quotations which open the chapter. First, Spender and Scherer’s quotation
illustrates the assumption that the end of the twentieth century witnessed an
enormous social and economic transformation which resulted in knowledge
becoming the key asset for organizations to manage.
An industrial society is characterized by an emphasis on manufacturing and
fabrication: the building of things. In a post-industrial society, which is argued to
evolve out of an industrial society, the service sector has replaced the manufacturing
sector as the biggest source of employment.
In a post-industrial society, theoretical knowledge has become the most important
type of knowledge. Theoretical knowledge represents abstract knowledge and
principles, which can be codified, or at least embedded in systems of rules and
frameworks for action. Another crucial characteristic of Bell’s post-industrial society is
that knowledge and information play a much more significant role in economic and
social life than during industrial society, as work in the service sector is argued to be
significantly more information and knowledge intensive than industrial work.
Post-industrial society = a society where the service sector is dominant and
knowledge-based goods/services have replaced industrial, manufactured goods as
the main wealth generators.
An important element of Bell’s analysis is that post-industrial societies represent an
advancement on industrial societies, as in general more wealth will be generated,
and workers individually will have better, more fulfilling jobs.
One of the main criticisms of the arguments made by knowledge society or post-
industrial society theorists, is that they typically conflate knowledge work with service
sector jobs. Not all service sector work can be classified as knowledge work,, as the
service sector is a residual employment category for all types of work which are not
either manufacturing or agricultural.
The transition from an industrial to a post-industrial knowledge economy should
produce an increase in the proportion of jobs that are knowledge intensive, and a
more general increase in the knowledge intensity of work.
Much contemporary analysis views knowledge as having substantially different
characteristics, being partial, tacit, subjective, and context-dependent.
A useful framework that helps to characterize the knowledge management literature,
and simultaneously highlight issues which are typically neglected in it, was developed
by Schultze and Stabell, which is itself based on Burell and Morgan’s sociological
paradigms framework. Due to different perspectives on epistemology in the
knowledge management literature, this is one of the dimensions in Schulze and
,Stabell’s framework. What is here labelled the objectivist perspective, Schultze and
Stabell label the epistemology of dualism, and what is here referred to as the
practice-based perspective, Schultze and Stabell label the epistemology of duality.
The second dimension relates to social order, with differences existing in the extent
to which existing social relations are regarded as consensual and unproblematic.
Two distinct perspectives are dominate. The consensus perspective is where existing
social relations are regarded as unproblematic and where challenging them is not
considered. The dissensus perspective assumes that existing social relations are
problematic and rife with conflict and that they typically reinforce power differentials
that result in exploitation.
Social order Epistemology
Duality Dualism
Dissensus
Dialogic discourse Critical discourse
Consensus
Constructivist discourse Neo-functionalist
discourse
Chapter 2: The Objectivist Perspective on Knowledge.
The term ‘objectivist’ perspective is used because this label embodies and highlights
what are here regarded as two of this perspective’s foundational assumptions: first,
that much organizational knowledge is typically considered as being objective in
characters; and, second, that such knowledge can be separated from people via
codification into the form of an object, or entity.
Knowledge is regarded as a (cognitive) entity/commodity that people possess, but
which can exist independently of people, in a codifiable form.
Knowledge can be codified, made explicit, and separated from the person who
creates, develops, and/or utilizes it. Such knowledge can exist in a number of forms
including documents, diagrams, computer systems, or embedded in physical artifacts
such as machinery or tools.
Objective knowledge can be produced. It is possible to develop a type of knowledge
and understanding that is free from individual subjectivity.
, Objectivist epistemology privileges explicit knowledge over tacit knowledge. This
relates to and flows from the previous assumption, about the possibility to produce
objective, codified knowledge.
Knowledge is regarded as a cognitive, intellectual entity.
The knowledge-based theory of the firm represents the dominant theory which
adopts the objectivist perspective on knowledge. The knowledge-based theory of the
firm, which represents a specific development from the resource-based view of the
firm, was initially articulated and developed by a number of writers including Spender.
There are two central tenets to the knowledge-based theory of the firm. First, it
assumes that knowledge which is difficult to replicate and copy can be a significant
source of competitive advantage for firms. Second, it assumes that organizations
provide a more effective mechanism than markets do for the sharing and integration
of knowledge between people.
One of the primary features of the objectivist perspective on knowledge is the
privileging of explicit/objective knowledge, which are regarded as quite separate and
distinct types of knowledge, flows from an either/or logic or binary oppositions which
is a fundamental character of this perspective.
One feature of those utilizing an objectivist epistemology is that tacit and explicit
knowledge are regarded as separate and distinct types of knowledge. Explicit
knowledge is synonymous with objective knowledge; therefore it is unnecessary to
restate in detail its characteristics. Suffice to say first that explicit knowledge is
regarded as objective, standing above and separate from both individual and social
value system; and, second, that it can be codified into a tangible form.
Tacit knowledge on the other hand represents knowledge that people possess, and
which may importantly shape how they think and act, but which cannot be fully made
explicitly. It incorporates both physical/cognitive skills and cognitive frameworks. The
main characteristics of tacit knowledge are therefore that it is personal, and it difficult,
if not impossible, to disembody and codify.
Tacit Knowledge Explicit Knowledge
Inexpressible in a codifiable form Codifiable
Subjective Objective
Personal Impersonal
Context specific Context independent
Difficult to share Easy to share
Individual Social
Explicit Conscious Objectified
Tacit Automatic Collective
Objectified knowledge = explicit group knowledge, for example a documented system
of rules, operating procedures, or formalized organizational routines.
Collective knowledge = tacit group knowledge, knowledge possessed by a group that
is not codified.
Hecker’s three types of collective knowledge:
Type of Definitio Locus Relationsh Origin Example
collective n ip to
