C H A PT E R 5
Knowledge “Acts”
5.1
QUESTION ASKING AND ANSWERING
Question asking and answering is a foundational process by which
what people know tacitly becomes expressed, and hence, externalized as
knowledge. To support such a view, we borrow from speech acts theory [Searle,
J., 1969] that amongst others categorizes question asking as a form of a speech
act. In adapting the theory, Hirschheim et al. [1995] describe types of speech
acts that pertain to aspects of either Knowledge Management (KM), or
Information Management (IM). For example, Boahene and Ditsa [2003] suggest that
Information Management systems target a base of expressive speech acts by
mainly supporting the recall of meaning-attribution while Knowledge Management
systems target regulative and constantive speech acts primarily to support the organization and management of dynamic complexity. They reason that IM
addresses questions such as ‘Where,’ ‘Who,’ ‘When,’ and ‘What,’ while KM
targets problems involving dynamic complexity, addressing solutions to
questions such as ‘How’ and ‘Why.’ Quigley and Debons [1999] adopted a similar
stance that considers information as texts that primarily answer ‘informative’
questions such as who, when, what, or where while knowledge is considered as
texts that answer more ‘explanatory’ or ‘meaning related’ questions such as why
or how.
5.2
POSTING CONTENT TOREPOSITORIES
Contributing content such as lessons-learned, project experiences,
and success stories is another approach
to knowledge sharing. The capturing of best practice has often been highlighted
as a form of externalized knowledge. O’Dell and Jackson [1998] point out the
importance of frameworks for classifying information.For example, they note
that Chevron and other groups organize information in their best practice
databases using the Process Classification Framework developed by APQC
(American Productivity and Quality Council) and Arthur Andersen. Through such a
framework, subunits can talk with each other more effectively via a common
vocabulary.
5.3
(RE)USING KNOWLEDGE
Desouza et al. [2006] assert that the decision to consume
knowledge can be framed as a problem of risk evaluation, with perceived
complexity and relative advantage being identified as factors relating to
intentions to “consume” knowledge. However, it is essential that the knowledge
consumer is able to reasonably frame his or her knowledge needs. Belkin et al.
[1982] found that during problem articulation, users have anomalous states of
knowledge, and they may not be able to specify their information needs
accurately. Since the publication of this seminal work legions of researchers
have worked on systems that will help people formulate effective questions that
will retrieve relevant information.McMahon et al. [2004], studying team work
involving engineering design, suggest that both codification and
personalization approaches to knowledge reuse are relevant. They recognize the
notion of information value, allowing for the matching of information to the
knowledge needs of the user. They propose that good representations of both
information characteristics and user characteristics are essential.
5.4
KNOWLEDGE-BASED
In general, decision making involves identifying alternatives,
projecting probabilities and outcomes of alternatives, and evaluating outcomes
according to known preferences and implications for stakeholders. Choo, C.
[2002] suggests that decision making activity requires the establishment of
shared meanings and the assumption of prior knowledge.
Shared meanings and purposes as well as newknowledge and
capabilities, converge on decision making as the activity leading to the
selection and initiation of action.Shared meanings, agendas, and identities
select the premises, rules, and routines that structure decision making. New
knowledge and capabilities make possible new alternatives and outcomes,
expanding the range of available organizational responses [Choo, C., 2002, p.
86]. Choo further proposes that information flows are a central process that
bridges knowledge creation and decision making activity. Information flows
continuously between sense making, knowledge creating, and decision making, so
that the outcome of information use in one mode provides the elaborated context
and the expanded resources for information use in the other modes [Choo, C.,
2002, p. 85].
Information used in one activity that results in new knowledge
will, in turn, be used to guide selection of alternatives in future tasks that
involve decision making. Codified rules and routines would be relied on to
support evaluation of alternatives and selection of action decisions. Choice of
alternatives, and decision outcomes then provide the backdrop upon which sense
making, or justification, of decision rationale occurs. Such decision
rationale, and its associated sense making can then be codified for (re)use in
other contexts, applied to future activities that draw on it to create new instances
of knowledge.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar