Dollars Follow Scholars

How important is Knowledge Management for businesses?

How important is Knowledge Management for businesses?

Knowledge is a philosophical concept defined by Plato as a belief supported by an account or an explanation (Blair, 2002). Under the context of knowledge-view of an organization, the definition suggests that knowledge comes from firm’s increased ability to make use and sense of available information to create value for the shareholders (Leiponen, 2006). There has been a significant growth in the knowledge-based school of thought, which suggests that generating and retention of knowledge can have positive effects on the firm’s performance (Di Mattia & Scott, 1999). To manage this intangible asset to leverage firms for benefits is considered to be its core capability. Knowledge management (KM) has been aimed at capturing, integrating and using existing organizational knowledge and consequently creating a knowledge asset that can be a source of sustained competitive advantage in the long run (Brooking, 1999; Havens & Knapp, 1999). The revolution in the KM came with the rise of technology and there has been a misconception of linking IT with KM although it just facilitates the process (Papers4you.com, 2006).

The literature has divided knowledge into two major categories depending upon its nature to be codified for the use in a KM system. The structured and systematic knowledge that can be described in formal language and easily communicated and shared through formal means qualify for the explicit knowledge type (Elizabeth, 2001). It has been established that such knowledge is easy to codify in the form of databases and is seen as a base resource because of its inherent nature of easy imitation by other organizations. The other form of knowledge which has gained tremendous importance is the automatic collective behavior and is called tacit knowledge (Richard et al, 2001). Tacit knowledge, according to Sajjad et al (2005), comprises of mental models, values, beliefs, assumptions and perceptions which are deeply entranced into the intellectual capital of an organization. It has been suggested that tacit knowledge is faced with an apparent dichotomy i.e. the feature of inimitability that make it a source of sustained competitive advantage also makes it hard to capture and share within the organization to gain the potential benefits.

]]>

Therefore it can be concluded that the elusive asset of knowledge, where provides an organization with capability to undermine competition also proves to be a challenge to leverage itself (Papers4you.com, 2006). Any organization should not only look at the ‘best practices’ in the field but should customize each approach to its own unique culture and requirements to be able to successfully use KM.

References:

Blair, D.C. (2002), “Knowledge management: hype, hope, or help?”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 53(12), 1019-1028

BROOKING, Annie (1999), “Corporate Memory: Strategies for Knowledge Management”, Intellectual Capital Series London: International Thomson Business

Di Mattia, S. & Scott, I. A. (1999), “KM: hope, hype or harbinger?”, Library Journal, 15 September, 122(15), p. 33

Elizabeth A. Smith, (2001), “The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace”, Journal of Knowledge Management; Volume: 5 Issue: 4; 2001 Research Paper

Havens, C. & Knapp, E. (1999), “Easing into Knowledge Management, Strategy and Leadership”, 27(2), p. 4

Leiponen, Aija (2006), “Managing Knowledge for Innovation: The Case of Business-to-Business Services”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, May2006, Vol. 23 Issue 3, p238-258

Papers For You (2006) “P/M/440. Tools of knowledge management”, Available from http://www.coursework4you.co.uk/sprtmgt8.htm [22/06/2006]

Papers For You (2006) “P/M/325. Knowledge management: definition of the concept”, Available from Papers4you.com [21/06/2006]

Richard T. Herschel, Hamid Nemati, David Steiger (2001), “Tacit to explicit knowledge conversion: knowledge exchange protocols”, Journal of Knowledge Management; Volume: 5 Issue: 1; 2001 Research paper

Sajjad M. Jasimuddin, Jonathan H. Klein, Con Connell (2005), “The paradox of using tacit and explicit knowledge: Strategies to face dilemmas”, Management Decision; Volume: 43 Issue: 1; 2005 Conceptual paper

Source: ArticlesBase.com

Plato’s Theory of Forms and knowledge

Plato’s Theory of Forms and knowledge

According to the theory of form and knowledge hypothesized by Plato, all objects that shape our experiences are particular things that are just but forms. In this case, people talk about beauty-this dress is beautiful-in this case, people only see things which are beautiful but they have never seen beauty. Basically, this indicates that more than one thing can be beautiful hence beauty can be termed as a property that can be possessed by more than one object. From this, Plato argued that there is a universal property that is usually shared by many things and hence the knowledge of forms. This implies that the form of beauty is manifested in more than one object. Plato argued therefore that, since this form is shared by many things or objects in the world; there is something which is beauty. This something which is beauty is the form of beauty hence the knowledge of forms.

From this basis, Plato argued that forms usually exist autonomously of certain objects since if all the beautiful objects in the world are destroyed; beauty would remain in its form. In this case therefore, certain things participate in the forms but in the real sense exist autonomously. Basically, when talking about the aspect of knowledge when using the theory of forms; Plato indicated that particular things will have a quality Y -that is have the quality of beauty- and not Y that is have no qualities of beauty. This depends on observers and situations or times. A beautiful dress in the year 1990 may not be beautiful in the year 2011 and hence time factor is very essential. Additionally, some aspects of beauty of an object may not be the same to another observer. In this case therefore, it is said that an object or a thing is, any more than it is not what is said by some other people that it is. According to Plato, since specific things are what they are- for example beautiful-only comparatively or fleetingly; there is no knowledge of them. This is because the concept of knowledge requires more durableness and confidence.  In this case, knowledge is all about truth according to Plato that is about what is but not what is not.

]]>

In this respect, when differentiating beautiful items; the form of beauty is always beautiful under all circumstances at all times and to all viewers. This implies that, the form of beauty can not be beauty and not beauty but purely beautiful. In this case, people can acquire the knowledge of the forms through reason but not experience as people can not experience forms but they have their knowledge through reason. Another example is length where we say that something is long but we can not experience length. In such a case knowledge can be acquire through reasoning but not through experience as indicated by Plato in his theory of forms.

Plato argued that knowledge is perfect meaning that it does not talk about the truth and the false at the other side. The difference between forms and objects it that, forms can not be experienced and are separate from particular objects and are shared by different objects. In this case, an opinion is not knowledge as it is not a real aspect and it is not ignorance. According to Plato if something is not real then it is false but there are some things that are Y and not Y meaning that there are there between. Plato said that there is something between truths and ignorance and that something is opinion.  In this case that which people have opinions about is not equal to that people have truth about. In this respect, Plato argued that knowledge relates to the aspects of forms but opinions to the aspects of senses. Forms are real as they can not be destroyed even if all objects that share the same form are destroyed. This indicates that knowledge which is equated to forms is real as it talks about what exists and can not be destroyed.

Plato argued that knowledge is acquired through two ways where the first way involves those people who are taught arithmetic, astronomy, and geometry (dianoia) while the second one is through philosophical arguments and dialectic. In this case, people trained through the former way must learn the latter in order to be considered to have fully acquired knowledge. According to him, in order to get the knowledge of forms ones mind should be separated from the world of senses meaning that reasoning is the best way of acquiring knowledge.

The theory of Forms and knowledge has been criticized by many philosophers who state that the form of certain objects can change over time but the truth usually doesn’t change. In this respect, the form of a book in terms of size may change when the book is burned but the truth of the book doesn’t change. This implies that Plato confused a quality about knowledge with a quality about the object of truth (knowledge). In this case, there is no need for the specific thing or form to equally match knowledge as there can be other distinctions like; knowledge is truth and can be justified while opinion can be false as it can be disapproved.

According to Hume, there is nothing like nous as depicted by Plato and that reason can only reveals logical truths but not insights or methodical truths. In this respect if there is nothing like nous as Hume claims, then how would Plato explain how it works? Additionally, Plato indicates that knowledge must be certain as it can not be false. He stated that people can have certainty of forms and hence know them as they do not change; but they can not have certainty of specific objects of sense experience. However, it can be argued that knowledge does not require certainty but only justification.

Source: ArticlesBase.com