Corporate Knowledge Management

Corporate Knowledge Management

Simon Phillips
Purdue University
October 2013

Corporate Knowledge Management 1

Topic: Knowledge Management in Corporate settings

Problem and Purpose: In my experience, most corporate organizations struggle with managing their
processes, value-add knowledge, and disseminating critical information to-and-from their staff. The
intent of this paper is to understand the concepts behind Organizational Learning as it relates to
Knowledge Management, some of the challenges organizations face with Knowledge Management, and
how they can use Instructional Design strategies to overcome.
Abstract: Organizations begin for the purposes of serving people or to earn revenue. In order to sustain
its purpose and remain value-add to the markets they serve, the reliance of processes, people, and
knowledge is paramount. However, based upon issues such as the structure of the company, attrition,
or communication practices, the best practices for optimizing process and intellectual property learned
do not reach all of its employees or that multiple people work on the same concept instead of
collaborating or borrowing from the work of others. With an effective Knowledge Management system
in place, learning organizations can become much more efficient and effective.

Critical Analysis:
What are Knowledge Management, Organizational Learning, and Process Improvement?
Organizations are always devised of people working together to reach specific goals. As an organization,
the need to grow, adapt, improve, and meet objectives are always in the minds of management.
However, attempting to succeed at these goals requires strategies that go above and beyond showing
up to work. Over the last three-to-four decades, organizations have been incorporating new strategies
and ways of thinking to attain their business objectives. A few of these strategies include Knowledge
Management (KM), Organizational Learning (OL), and Process Improvement (PI). Each can be viewed
independently, however, their dependency and integration should be understood for maximum benefit
to the organization. Defining these terms, we can summarize as such; what needs to be improved, how
do we create a culture to improve, and how do we retain and incorporate the learning and knowledge.
More specifically, I will break down the terms, beginning with Process Improvement. Naturally,
organizations want to get better. But what to focus on is often a challenge. Do we have the time and
can we guarantee results are often expressed. Defined by iSixSigma.com, processes are a series of
steps or actions that lead to a desired result or output which are largely affected by one or more of
the following factors: a) personnel who operate the processes; b) materials which are used as inputs
(including information); c) machines or equipment being used in the process (in process execution or
monitoring/measurement); d) methods (including criteria and various documentations used along the
process); and the work environment(www.isixsigma.com). All of these have one thing in common.
People. Therefore, to reach desired results or outputs, the people must be equipped or trained to
complete these measures.

Corporate Knowledge Management 2

These measures are often defined by the market; however developing staff to help meet these outputs
is difficult. An organization can hire the talent or train to the talent, but not always will the required
experience to obtain the objectives be met. Therefore, the organization must learn to survive.
While process improvement is deemed to be an objective for any organization, how one gets there and
sustains the knowledge learned is the true challenge. First, organizations must learn how to learn and
second, organizations need to turn that knowledge into usable pieces for the staff. This then leads us
into the concept of Organizational Learning.
In 1982, Nelson and Winter defined Org Learning as tacit knowing as a basis for individual and
organizational competence (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg.13). So, for many decades organizations have
been attempting to change their culture to learn from within. While academia and professional training
can provide methodological content, the application of that knowledge to best suit the organization
should come from within, however the capturing of that knowledge can be difficult. Within academia,
the tem Organizational Leadership was coined within the field of management science (Easterby-Smith
and Lyles, pg.24). Many of the studies and instruction were based upon information processing and
decision making in organizations. (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 26). The purpose was to help
organizations learn to adapt to changes in the environment and to provide prescriptive managerial
techniques. So, according to Easterby-Smith and Lyles, the main assumption for organizational learning
in this perspective is that knowingnot knowledgeis something that emerges from social collective
practices (pg.30). It is people that determine what needs to be learned and are the ones who interpret
into better practices within.
To elaborate, the understanding of the organizations within social learning theory of organizational
learning can be understood as communities of practice (COP). COP is founded upon an idea that
organizations are cultural, historical, and material collectives constituted by social interaction
(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 29). It is within this point that organizations fail, however, unless the
people within are capturing knowledge and act as a COP. Otherwise, this inefficiency can become the
proverbial hole in hull of the ship. Working as a COP, the processes of social interaction, which in-turn
creates the value-added knowledge, need to include informality, improvisation, collective action,
conversation, and sense making. Learning is not to acquire already known knowledge but is processes
of moving into unknown territory to face mystery. Learning is to make a journey into the land of
discovery rather than to follow an already paved road (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 29).
With this journey comes experience and the utilization of this experience amongst peers becomes the
value-added teaching component to a learned organization. Experience is primarily an active-passive
affair; it is not primarily cognitive. But the measure of the value of an experience lies in the perception
of relationships or continuities to which it leads up. It includes cognition in the degree in which it is
cumulative or amounts to something, or has meaning (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 32).
Learning and experience leads to Knowledge Management. This concept is only a few decades old
(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 14) and is considered a dynamic area of research (Easterby-Smith and
Lyles, pg. 85). With the onset of organizational changes led by Information Technology (IT) advances,

Corporate Knowledge Management 3

organizations have been able to increase their social-networks (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 83). This
network allows employees to correspond with others within the organization normally out of reach by
general proximity. With this increase in communication comes the increased transfer of knowledge. This
knowledge is considered to be an economic asset that can be codified, stored, and exchanged
between individuals within a firm (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 85).
An alternate definition of KM expressed by Reiser and Dempsey is a revolution in the way we manage
information, and the way we share and use it. KM is the creation, archiving and sharing of valued
information, expertise and insight within and across communities of people and organizations with
similar interests and needs, the goal of which is to build competitive advantageWhen people use
information to make a decision, change a viewpoint or take action, that information becomes
internalized as knowledge (Reiser and Dempsey, pg. 158). This and the perspectives of Easterby-Smith
and Lyles in tandem, drive the current Knowledge Management initiatives and the ways in which
knowledge can be viewed.
It is important to understand the core technical components of knowledge and information. There are
two opposing theories, expressed by Easterby-Smith and Lyles; the content and relational perspectives.
Each of these can drive how an organization tackles Knowledge Management and the success therefore
they derive. From a content perspective, knowledge is defined as being a predicative truth as it
prescribes what to. Knowledge is viewed as being able to be codified and stored in repositories, so that
knowledge can be shared, built upon, and retained regardless of employee turnover (Easterby-Smith
and Lyles, pg. 85). Relational writers are critical of this dominant view of knowledge and suggest that
instead of treating knowledge as being a largely cerebral and tradable entity, knowledge should be
viewed as being relative, provisional, and primarily context-bound (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 86).
Within KM, there are four types of knowledge: Explicit-knowledge that can be codified or
documented; Tacit-knowledge of experience and insight; Common-explicit knowledge that everyone
who needs to know, actually does; and Undiscovered Knowledge-knowledge yet uncovered. Tying the
types together, an organization should have a goal to turn as much tacit knowledge into explicit
knowledge; and then to turn the explicit knowledge
into common knowledge (Reiser and Dempsey, pg.
158-159).
Relating these key concepts (PI, OL, and KM), they can
be integrated into a dashboard for organizations to
visualize. Figure 1.1, places these into quadrants to
further relate the tacit information into an elicit view
(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, p. 160).
Figure 1.1

Tying the concepts together, Easterby-Smith and Lyles

expand to state that a critical study of a learning organization would fit into the organizational learning
box, and a study of the way knowledge is constructed within corporate knowledge management
systems would belong to the organizational knowledge box. Therefore, the distinction between

Corporate Knowledge Management 4

learning and knowledge, also seems fairly obvious: knowledge being the stuff (or content) that the
organization possesses, and learning being the process whereby it acquires this stuff (pg. 14).
This stuff is what an organization needs to thrive. However, these are concepts geared towards the
entire entity. So, how should on organization view individual learning as it relates to Knowledge
Management?
Differences between individual knowledge and organizational knowledge
The acquisition and transfer of knowledge ultimately rests on the individual. The knowledge needed by
each staff member is tied directly to their role within the company. Referencing the website New Trends
in Management (2013), Figure 1.2 expands this concept into a chart to visualize the connections. The
rows present the knowledge types and the columns define the parameters.

Figure 1.2
While the components of knowledge are
understood, the actual learning process and how information is retained and used is not well defined. As
expressed by Easterby-Smith and Lyles, there is a relationship between learning and the exploitation or
utilization of knowledgeyet we do not know the constructs that influence knowledge or learning
utilization (pg. 15). Measuring the process of learning as it occurs in an organization is difficult to
capture, however the sources are more easily studied. Therefore, according to Easterby-Smith and Lyles,
learning and knowledge should be viewed as independent variables (pg. 15). These sources for
individual learning can be understood through the dynamics of social networks, communities of
practice, and power structures (pg. 15).

Relating the individual to the organization is important to understand. Easterby-Smith and Lyles states
that individuals act on behalf of the organization; however this creates a conceptual separation
between individuals and an organization, making the study of individual learning more difficult. They
use a metaphor to describe the relationship: it isresembling that between soup and bowl, the soup
does not shape the bowl, and the bowl does not alter the substance of the soup (pg. 27).
Therefore, with this metaphor in mind, individual learning contains two parts, the learning of and the
acting in (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 27). Individuals can learn and socialize about the system they are
in. This can be through formal study, experience, or socialization. However, it is the intent of learner
which brings about change within a system, with the focus on intent. This can be driven by ones
individual motivation or the culture to which they subscribe. Within a culture, there is content, are
processes, and relations between the individual and the organization. Each of these is independent but
act dependently for the purposes of learning.
Figure 1.3 provides a visual of the individual-collective theories into its parts, based upon the objectives
listed in the first column and its relation to the individual and social learning forces in columns two and
three (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 34).

Corporate Knowledge Management 5

Individual Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory

Content

Individual information and knowledge about

actions to guide organizational behavior

Context specific A situated curriculum

Process

Individuals work with their cognitive

structures mirroring actions

Participation in organizational practice to become

skilled practitioners

Relation between
IndividualOrganization

Can be analytically separated and worked

upon separately (soup and bowl)

Weaved together a rope

Organizational
Concept

A system

Two understandings of context: 1) individual and

context as historically produced 2) organizational
activity as its own context
Communities of Practice
Figure 1.3

How do these concepts improve organizations?

If individuals lead organizations and are the sole contributors to learning, how does learning translate
over to tacit knowledge for organizational use? Dating back, the first authors to reference the concept
Org Learning were Cyert and March in 1963 (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 1). They suggested that an
organization could learn and knowledge could be stored over time; organizational learning processes . . .
adapts to its environment; and the firm learns from its experience. So, as an organization of individuals,
does everyone act independently? The answer is no.
Individuals act in accordance to the objectives of the company. Easterby-Smith and Lyles claim that
viewed from a social learning theoretical perspective, learning is ubiquitous and part of everyday
organizational life and work. Learning cannot be avoided; it is not a choice for or against (pg. 88). So, to
determine if learning is a choice for organizations, the answer is again no. The culture will learn, but
does it retain its learning. Easterby-Smith and Lyles expand on this concept stating that Further,
learning is not restricted to taking place inside individuals minds but as processes of participation and
interaction. In other words, learning takes place among and through other people and artifacts as a
relational activity, not an individual process of thought. This view changes the locus of the learning
process from that of the mind of individuals to the participation patterns of individual members of
organizations in which learning takes place (pg. 88). Therefore, tacit knowledge may be obtained by
individuals, but it is the explicit use of this knowledge that requires collective action. This action is very
important, because it builds into the culture and then the driving force of the company.
This force becomes a system by which all employees interact. The systems are a collection of people,
content, and processes and all the interactions amongst create knowledge. This knowledge must
therefore be managed. This management is the backbone for the concept of Knowledge Management
systems, the concept that improves organizations short and long term.

Corporate Knowledge Management 6

Knowledge Management systems now allow for an intentional collection of explicit knowledge that can
be used for the betterment of the organization. Derived of individual and organizational learning, it is
the culmination of the learning that becomes the asset. This asset, or intellectual property, should be
the source for improving its people and its processes. An organization does not need to reinvent the
wheel, so to speak. So, formalizing a KM system can allow for integral growth.
As evidence, with the integration of KM systems, a study of Xerox found that in addition to technology,
the relaxing of centralized control had allowed participants to identify with, and be committed to, their
community rather than to Xerox as a whole. They concluded that within communities, this engendered a
climate that allowed for openness, trust, and commitment (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 89).
With the formalized integration of KM systems, organizations can face issues. Learning from the
experiences of others prior to integration will be beneficial.

Which benefits and issues do organizations face when implanting a Knowledge Management system?
Early adoptions to the OL and KM methodologies produced some great wins, however from these
experiences, organizations can learn from some of the initial challenges they faced. For example, if a
central repository of elicit and tacit knowledge is to be implemented, it should be based around the
existing social structure and process of the organization. Early critiques of knowledge management
initiatives were made on the grounds that they ignore the social architecture of knowledge exchange
within organizations (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 14). However, the sharing of information amongst
select peers does not create a sustainable KM system. Perhaps these social tools are useful for capturing
innovative ideas, but how do those ideas translate into actual solutions that are transferred to all who
need to know? In a practical sense, the social perspective has adapted technologies from elsewhere
(such as Facebook) into the organizational context which enables flexible communication and sharing of
supposedly tacit knowledge between members (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 14).
But, as a draw back to the incorporation of KM to the existing social structure it show be noted that
many social groups have their own cliques and languages to communicate. The knowledge should be
plainly stated for all to interpret. rather than needing each others documentation stored on a
common database, the system designers needed to understand the logic that other designers used in
practice, such as the rationale behind the combination of specific software, hardware, and service plans
(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 87). In addition, it was noted that based on a study of an enterprise
resource planning (ERP) implementation, a lack of social capital between organizational members from
different knowledge domains made it impossible to expose and explore the different thought worlds
(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, Pg. 88).
In addition to semantics, knowledge should be presented in useful terms to avoid misinterpretation.
Easterby-Smith and Lyles mention that knowledge is always embedded and as such can only be
shared actively through social groups. Rather than knowledge, relational writers argue that the focus of
enquiry should be on the process of knowing and the capability to act (pg. 86). This knowledge should

Corporate Knowledge Management 7

be stated in a clear manner, perhaps in layman terms, and should also provide the context to which it
should be incorporated. Data in a KM system should include elicit, tacit, and contextual versions.
exchanging knowledge as if it were an economic asset via IT does not relate to the actual experience
of the use of knowledge management applications within specific contexts (Easterby-Smith and Lyles,
pg. 86).
However, translating the elicit information into tacit functions with context is difficult. Getting the
information out of employees head, especially management is the challenge. Traditionally, it is often
just expected that managers know that their claims to expertise rest on their ability to perform
(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 86) and that documenting this expertise is not easy. It is argued that
those that adopt a techno-centric perspective do not understand or appreciate the ways and the
efforts to which the enactments of some people allow for such a perspective to work (Easterby-Smith
and Lyles, pg. 86). Documenting for the sake of documenting does not always meet the needs of
learners.
As an advantage to the organization, KM systems bridge the cross-functional boundaries of job scope,
physical proximity, and culture. From a study of US Company, a manufacturer of building materials
found that the introduction of KnowMor, a knowledge management application that bridged the
different functions and locations, led to changing temporal and spatial work arrangements. They provide
an example of the Notes administrators being required to perform not only technical activities, as
previously, but also to write accounts of their actions into shared databases. Work practice changed in
that they would now point users to these entries rather than deal with requests themselvesthe new
work practices required them to perform a dual role of acting (in terms of the technical change) and
accounting self (in terms of making explicit their technical work) (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 87).
However, this alone does not miraculously help solve business issues or provide best practices.
To acquire the benefits of a true KM system, the convergence of people across the organization may
cause some issues and foresight is needed. Just because individuals work for the same company does
not mean that they will know how to work together. Easterby-Smith and Lyles state that where people
and teams have not worked together before considerable effort and resources need to be invested so as
to encourage sociability and develop an understanding and familiarity with each other. They argue that
such bonding is essential if people are to share knowledge for the public good as well as for their own
self interests. Without, it is claimed, it will lead to a mechanistic pooling of knowledge that will not
produce the knowledge integration leading to creativity and innovation that are needed in large-scale IT
projects (pg. 89). This again reinforces the need to provide context and tacit knowledge in the KM
system.
Next, just because a system is built does not mean that it will be used. Reward structures can encourage
knowledge sharing. Without, for example, it was discovered that certain staff will not participant for
selfish reasons. A case study of a global pharmaceutical firm who were in the process of
downsizingfound that sales staff horded rather than shared knowledge with graduate trainees as they
feared the trainees may become their replacements (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 89). As such, when
there is already animosity between different groups in an organization the intranet hardened existing

Corporate Knowledge Management 8

cultural cleavages in the organization rather than manufactured a sense of community. In addition,
ambitious reps did not make much use of these local forums, as they viewed their time being better
spent on career enhancing national discussion forums (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 95). This last point
may allude to the fact that non-financially rewarded employees may participate less in the KM initiative.
Another issue faced by organizations when integrating a KM system is power and politics. Since
organizations are hierarchal in nature, staff may participate in Knowledge Management akin to their
position in the company. For example, a study of US Company indicated how the IT consultants would
visibly record their work in the databases as a means to protect themselves from any blame that may
subsequently be leveled by their clients or other consultants. These will in-turn, unintentionally have a
negative effect on relationships (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 89). When it comes to mistakes made in
an organization, employees often find themselves covering their tracks especially if they were not
directly responsible for the decisions leading to said mistakes. In addition, if staff comply and provide
tacit information for their fellow employees, there may be a concern that their (positive) intentions may
be judged. While wondering who above is watching, their efforts to add value to the organization may
be subverted. The process of surveillance had the effect of simultaneously increasing the dominance of
senior management while reducing the autonomy of middle managerswhich strengthened hierarchical
control and reduced trust and co-operation. As well, if a staff member disagreed with comments
posted by senior managers, or those supporting the views of senior managers, rather than stating this
on a database they considered it better not to post their own views. Indeed this led to a homogenizing
of views that reflected those of senior management (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 94).
Continuing, it has also been reported that organizations may have to add labor or restructure the duties
of certain staff to accommodate the effectiveness of a KM system. While the benefits can out way the
negatives, for example, a study of US Company found that new work arrangements arose due to the
reliance on the use of IT to work across spatial, temporal, and functional boundaries (Easterby-Smith
and Lyles, pg.90). These were a result of the process to which users input data, attempt to provide
context to it, and ensure that the recipients understand the knowledge. These three processes are
referred to as sense making, sense giving, and sense reading.
As shown, there are clear hurdles that organizations may face when implementing KM systems. In
addition to, there are cultural myths that may affect the outcomes of success. Referenced by Reiser and
Dempsey, they provide five specific situations. KM is 1)all about knowledge storage. It is not. While
storage is an important feature of KM systems, the knowledge must be presented in tacit formats
otherwise it may lead to false interpretations of context. 2)is all about technology. While technology
may allow for scalable dissemination of knowledge, the reality is an organization needs to determine
what the solution looks like and then they should find the right tool. 3) Solutions must be huge. Not
needed. Success wills more likely result by starting small to earn a few wins and to get cultural buy-in. 4)
is about knowledge control. It is true that users should control how they present information, but it
is not about controlling the employees through knowledge. If certain information will pose a security
threat or similar, then it should restricted. 5) If you build it, they will use it. Untrue. Results will be
better if the culture is already onboard with e-learning (pg. 159-160).

Corporate Knowledge Management 9

The use of Instructional Design (ID) strategies can overcome these hurdles.
As a newer methodology to business world, Knowledge Management implementations do have some
potential drawbacks, as described. However, the benefits definitely out way the drawbacks. To increase
the likelihood of success there are strategies and tools that can be used. To begin, some of these best
practices were released just a few decades ago. The major watershed was the book The Fifth Discipline:
The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization by Senge (1990) which attracted enormous interest
particularly because companies and consultants were searching for new ideas to replace the largely
discredited concepts of corporate excellence (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 12). Minus its long-term
success, it has been reported as an excellent foundation for changing the minds and practices of
organizations.
Next is the concept of participation and who should be involved. Access to participation and power are
thus, important issues to take into account in organizational learning. Further, individuals both produce
and are products of situations mirroring access and power. This situated view of learning moves it
away from individual mind to the social sphere of interaction, activity, and practice; and this has paved
the road for another view on learning and knowledge (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 28). As an issue
discussed above, individuals (when it comes to KM) should not consider or act superior to others. Those
with more experience should embrace the ideas of others and refine as private coaching opportunities
and not in the public forum of a KM tool. To reinforce, Easterby-Smith and Lyles state that in contrast,
safe enclaves did provide opportunities for productive acting and accounting processes. Some do not
allow for Senior Managers to view content so to not create political outcomes (pg.95). This can be built
into the system by the Instructional Designer, which is heavily driven by Information Technology (IT).
Although people drive KM systems (IT) has been closely associated with the development of the great
majority of knowledge management initiatives. However, most accounts have focused on technical
aspects, while few have considered the use of it in relation to its social context (Easterby-Smith and
Lyles, pg. 83). Early creations of KM systems were very static in nature and did not allow for real-time,
blogging, or message boards postings. I believe that it is taboo in many business cultures as it is seen as
a distraction. To elaborate, they (Easterby-Smith and Lyles) claim that in the commercial arena, most
knowledge management initiatives have a strong IT focus, where knowledge is seen as being capable of
being leveraged through the development of shared databases and knowledge warehousesOver the
last decade and more a plethora of technologies have emerged that have been associated with
knowledge management; and specifically with the articulation, storage, transfer, creation, and retrieval
of knowledge(Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 84).
To reinforce the strategies behind the articulation, storage, transfer, creation, and retrieval of
information, we can refer to Reiser and Dempsey in Trends and issues in instructional design and
technology (3rd ed. 2011). Referencing Behavioral Theory, they state that learning in small chunks and
mastering each step will optimize learning. In a Knowledge Management system, content should also be
broken down into these small building blocks so learners can choose the content relevant to their needs
and shift around to find the level of content that matches. This concept should be incorporated across
the entire integration process as not to overwhelm developers and participants. Adding to this concept

Corporate Knowledge Management 10

is again a perspective from Easterby-Smith and Lyles. It starts with the neo-economic view of the
strategic value of organizational knowledge and then uses familiar IT software such as databases and
electronic conferencing to facilitate the acquisition, sharing, storage, retrieval, and utilization of
knowledge (pg. 14).
For the future, it is obvious that IT will be the driving force to develop, integrate, and sustain KM within
organizations. To understand this discipline more as it relates to Instructional Design, one should be
aware that two types of ITs that have been associated with knowledge management projects:
integrative and interactive applications (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 84). First, integrative applications
take the form of structured databases that allow employees to store and retrieve information on past
projects. They also comprise expert finders, electronic bulletin boards through to best practice reports
and working papers. Second, interactive applications take the form of email, desk-top conferencing,
and discussion forums allowing for interactions with other staff and the garnering of their views and
experiences regardless of physical location (Easterby-Smith and Lyles, pg. 84). These two concepts
converge with the Organizational Learning perspectives and include many tools that are useful for the
recording of data, elicit or tacit, focusing on the social practice of application, and contextualizing.
Figure 1.4 charts out some of the key technologies within each of the two IT types. (Easterby-Smith and
Lyles, pg. 85)
Key technologies associated with knowledge management
Integrative IT Artefacts Document management

Interactive IT Artefacts

Knowledge databases

Email

Data mining

Collaborative authoring

Electronic bulletin boards

Discussion forums Social networking tools

Knowledge repositories

Blogs

Knowledge directories (Yellow Pages)

Wikis

Expert systems

Information provision

Workflow systems

Real time interactions

IT Platforms

Incremental categorization

Groupware
Intranet
Enterprise 2.0

Figure 1.4

As a benefit to these technologies, KM systems now incorporate strategies that allow people from
across the organization, regardless of their group or location to internalize and identify with a common
way of thinking about and engaging in their product development work (Easterby-Smith and Lyles,
pg.87). This concept has traditionally been an obstacle for organizations to cohere. Resulting was the
concept of siloed practices, which is a result of the inability to effectively communicate amongst
borders. Now, with these features, organizations can centralize their Processes, Organizational Learning,
and Knowledge Management.

Corporate Knowledge Management 11

Another strategy for Instructional Designers really driving the KM movement and the ability to centralize
best practices is Enterprise 2.0 (E2). E2 is a business strategy to bring out innovation and ideas from noninnovation sources. According to the Harvard Business Review in December of 2009, Enterprise 2.0
toolswikis, tags, Twitter and other microblogs, Google-style searches, and the likeare transforming
companies innovation processesCompanies have traditionally been very specific about whos going to
do the innovating: their designers, engineers, scientists...Those people have the credentialsthe right
combination of education, experience, success, failure, and so on. More recently, companies have
allowed major users of their products to participate in the product-development process. Some
companies now say: Why stop at lead users? Why not let everyone take a crack at helping us develop a
new product, improve an existing one, or solve a vexing problem? They no longer specify who can
participate in the innovation process; they welcome all comers. Enterprise 2.0 tools are designed to help
with these more open innovation processes. This movement has been driving many organizations
towards the implementation of KM systems.
To learn more about E2, many companies are attending E2 Conferences. The E2 organization brings
forth vendors and learners wishing to learn about the enterprise technology landscape. This landscape
includes the influx of social, mobile, cloud, big data, and new software architectures. In addition, E2
provides keynote speakers from organizations such as GM, Google, Forrester Research and IBM. As
evidence to support the growing success of KM, the fact that the conferences are active and large
companies are willing to share their success stories is telling in itself.
Beyond E2, is the next evolution of web technologies called Web 2.0, according to Reiser and
Dempsey (pgs. 164-165). Like E2, which focuses on general technology strategies, Web 2.0 Instructional
Designers more than in the past are equipped with resources to help improve business outcomes. Reiser
and Dempsey continue saying that It is a more interactive, personable, and social experience (pgs.
164-165). Web 2.0 includes technology that drives tacit knowledge, as opposed to Web 1.0, which focus
more on elicit information. Within Web 2.0 there are two purposeful orientations, again according to
Reiser and Dempsey. The first is as a platform for a host of commercial, entertainments, and learning
applications to create collective intelligence the use of common data, and the rapid release of and
never fully developed applications. The second is a guiding heuristic for thinking about the Web and
networks in general (pgs. 164-165). Regardless of ones perspective, the innovations of Web 2.0 in
conjunction with the integrated strategies of E2, organizations may have little to worry about when it
comes to the hurdles that traditionally prevent successful KM integration. These technologies allow for
so many personalized options to maximize success.
When choosing amongst the vast choices of technologies within the landscape of KM, it is important to
understand the foundational components needed to design a KM system. Referencing Reiser and
Dempsey, there are three and they are interrelated: codification, collaboration, and access. Codification
is focused primarily on documenting, and storing for easy retrieval, explicit knowledge, e.g. the library
or databases. Collaboration focuses on tacit knowledge by providing vehicles for people to surface and
share what they know, e.g. Communities of Practice and Message Boards. For Access the key is to
synchronize all the knowledge into a well-defined common access strategy, where all knowledge seekers

Corporate Knowledge Management 12

can quickly find what they are looking for, and all providers can contribute (pgs. 160-161). To elaborate,
it is important that these components are continuously applied when developing a KM system. Applying
one to heavily will probably skew the results and outcomes. The content providers should understand
these structural components while focusing on including value-added knowledge.
Other key strategies, as discussed by Reiser and Dempsey, of Knowledge Management systems that
Instructional Designer should keep in mind are as follows. First, search systems should be set to user
preferences and level of detail. Not every employee needs to know everything so make it easy to find
the most relevant information. Next, search systems should modify the view in the KM by profiles, called
entitlements. This will help control the level of detail an employee can access. For example, Senior
Executives may be excluded to avoid political clashes and entry-level employees may only be entitled to
lower-level managerial content. Third, KM allows for the development of training content from all
sources in the company, not just the training department. The training departments are usually
understaffed and limited to who and what they can develop and train. So, why not let all the subjectmatter-experts (human resources) optimize the learning by providing content directly. Next, KM allows
for timely delivery of information. Most cant wait for knowledge, especially management and clientfacing staff. Knowledge should move at the speed of business so that people can serve their internal and
external clients effectively. Following, allow access of knowledge from sources outside of ones local
social network. Expanding out to other like cost-centers can rapidly reduce the speed-to-market of an
idea or best practice. An organization pays for expertise, so why do others have to reinvent the same
wheel wasting precious labour time? Last, KM can streamline work by eliminating downtime devoted
to training (pgs. 164-165). As discussed earlier, the speed-to-market for training courses is often not
fast enough. So, why not let the organization help. Providing curriculum, especially from the subjectmatter-experts directly, can be of great value to an organization.
Summary and the Future:
Within this material, I have presented information tying organizational methodologies together in
efforts to understand what they are, how they interrelate, which risks may be involved with their
implantation, and references and strategies to implement. As a developing business field, Knowledge
Management has come a long way from its roots in the mid-1900s to today. Analogous to its
development are the same principles that apply to the process of acquiring knowledge within an
organization. It begins with an idea; it is interpreted; and then applied to all aspects of the business
needing this strategy. Without an effective KM system, organizations are creating much rework, are
losing intellectual property, and are limiting their growth potential. But, in the future, alternate solutions
may help rid some of the challenges.
There is much speculation about new technologies and one in particular is the future of the World Wide
Web. As discussed, we are in the second phase, and some claim that we are moving into the third.
Called Web 3.0, a common description (Cade and Nova) is that it will be called the Semantic Web. This
position comes from a need to literally, take control of the current content. The trend now is to better
organize the content on the web into common databases through the use of semantic application
platforms (Nova, 2013).

Corporate Knowledge Management 13

Other technologies that will be driving Web 3.0 and the features available to Instructional Designers
(according to Nova, 2013) are Ubiquitous Connectivity, such as expanded network bandwidths and
mobility; Network Computing, such as shared services and cloud computing; Open Technologies, such as
APIs which allow web pages to more effectively communicate; and Open Identities which allow for
universal profiles. These new features of the web are going to be of great value to Instructional
Designers and organizations wishing to build Knowledge Management systems. The premises for each
are almost strategically paralleled.

Corporate Knowledge Management 14

References

Easterby-Smith, Mark Lyles, Marjorie A. (2011) Handbook of Organizational Learning and

Knowledge Management (2nd. Ed). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/purdue/docDetail.action?docID=10494521

E2 (2013) Retrieved from: http://www.e2conf.com/boston/index-onsite.php

iSixSigma (2013) Retrieved from: http://www.isixsigma.com/

Marquardt, Michael and Waddill, Deborah. (2013) The Power of Learning in Action. Retrieved
from: http://www.wial.org/publications/WIALauthored/ALadultLearning.pdf

McAfee, Andrew P. and Raman, Anand. (2009) Harvard Business Review. Enterprise 2.0: How a
Connected Workforce Innovates. Retrieved from: http://hbr.org/2009/12/enterprise-20-how-aconnected-workforce-innovates/ar/1

Metz, Cade (2007). PC Magazine. Web 3.0. Retrieved from

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2102852,00.asp

New Trends in Management (2013). Five Types of Organisational Knowledge. Retrieved from:
http://newtrendsinmanagement.wikispaces.com/Five+Types+of+Organisational+Knowledge

Reiser, R. A., & Dempsey, J. V. (2011). Trends and issues in instructional design and technology
(3rd. ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Senge, Peter (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
Retrieved from: http://www.nald.ca/library/research/george/fifth/fifth.pdf

Spivack, Nova (2013). Lifeboat Foundation. Web 3.0: The Third Generation Web is Coming.
Retrieved from http://lifeboat.com/ex/web.3.0