You are currently browsing Ares Casai's articles.
I understand Mr. Wilson’s disgust with management fads – I feel the same way when I hear people babbling about different buzzwords. Most of the time these principles are not understood by the people who preach and use them. I am inclined to think that Mr. Wilson’s vitriolic essay against Knowledge Management is driven less by an actual desire to urge against Knowledge Management than it is by a desire to squash the mindless managers who spout KM garbage. Judging by his rhetoric, he feels a good deal of disgust toward this kind of person, and he makes no attempt to soften the blow or let KM proponents down easily.
My initial reaction to his arguments is to say that he is arguing against the ineffective and often ignorant way that KM has been applied and used. Managers are no different from other people: they have a tendency to overuse and misuse something that they like. Wilson’s arguments however, do not, as he says, preclude any sort of KM operation. Many of the other fads that have emerged and disappeared over the last twenty years are not completely dead – TQM, for example, has simply entered the collective consciousness. It is no longer talked about so much because its worth is understood and it is used where appropriate without the need for preaching. It is entirely possible that the same will be true of KM in 15 years.
Ares Casai
As a follow-up to our class discussion and mdg10’s post “Downside to KM?” from earlier today, I’d like to introduce some Organizational Behavior ideas to the debate. Perhaps some of you have taken, or are taking a class on this subject. I welcome criticisms and responses, as hopefully this will stir up some conversation.
Our friend mdg10 has made an exceptionally valid point, and I quote, “knowledge management can be a great tool but one that should not be overused.” I would suggest a different limitation on knowledge sharing, however. Rather than restricting the amount of usage, I would urge caution on who is sharing knowledge.
There are a good number of factors that determine whether or not a company is going to suffer from the problems described by mdg10. The broad category into which most of these factors fall is called company culture. If the company culture is “we do what we have to, we do a good enough job, and we go home,” then there will be very little innovation. Knowledge sharing may stifle what little innovation there would be in any case. In this instance, the knowledge sharing may be detrimental. If the employees view the job and just that, a job, and no more, they will not be likely to worry much about innovation. If there is high turnover, there may not be time for people to get comfortable enough to begin innovating. However, companies with these problems obviously have things they should deal with before they start to worry about knowledge sharing. In these cases, a basic change to the company’s identity is necessary, and knowledge sharing will neither make nor break the company.
On the other hand, a company culture that encourages innovation can really benefit from knowledge sharing. If the culture is, “We want to be the best at everything. If it takes a little longer, that’s ok, because we want the product to be as good as possible,” then innovation should occur no matter what. If the employees are proud of the company and value their jobs and reputations there, then knowledge sharing can be a powerful tool that will spur innovation. As each employee builds off the others around them, really good ideas and techniques can emerge.
Knowledge management will not fix a company with serious culture problems, and it may in fact cause more problems than benefits. In that argument, mdg10 is absolutely correct. I would suggest, though, that a well-managed company with motivated employees ought to have no outside restrictions on sharing knowledge. Their high-quality employees will use it effectively.
Ares Casai
