Paul H. J. Hendriks

Many rivers to cross: from ICT to knowledge management systems

Several applications of information and communication technology (ICT) have gained considerable popularity as instruments for knowledge management. Some authors even seem to equate knowledge management with the introduction of specific ICT applications (intranets, groupware, etc.). However, the relationship between ICT and knowledge is no less problematic. Organizational knowledge and ICT refer to distinct sets of conceptions and establishing their relationship is far from trivial. The question then is how to assess the relationship between ICT and knowledge management. Several variables to be considered when answering this question have been identified in the literature: the enabling role of ICT for knowledge processes, the state of the ICT infrastructure, the level of knowledge required for using ICT, other user considerations, etc. However, a more encompassing perspective connecting these individual variables seems to be lacking. The aim of the present paper is to correct this. It argues that five dimensions determine the potential value of ICT applications for knowledge management. These dimensions are summarized in the following question. How and when will ICT, in interplay with other knowledge management measures (dimension 5), help knowledge (dimension 2) as a dynamic (dimension 4), institutional and action-related resource (dimension 3) realize its strategic potential (dimension 1)? The main argument in this paper is that, unless all five dimensions are addressed together, no satisfactory assessment of the status of an ICT application as a potential tool for knowledge management is feasible. Each of these dimensions is of a complex, multidimensional nature. The identification of the five dimensions is therefore only a first step. It needs a follow-up in the form of an elaboration of each dimension. This paper provides the groundwork for such an elaboration.

Secrets of the beehive: Performance management in university research organizations

This article explores how universities have implemented research performance systems. It considers how researchers working as managers assume the responsibility for research groups, and how they deal with managerial pressures from higher levels of management and outside forces. Drawing on in-depth interviews with research managers, we discuss how this particular responsibility is shaping up in their practices and perceptions. This article shows how role ambivalence enables research managers to view stricter performance requirements as being both problematic and challenging. These managers engage in alternative ways of moulding and legitimizing their activity by negotiating its terms and conditions with the universities and researchers alike. The notion of resilient compliance is put forward to convey the idea that research managers’ ambivalence regarding prevalent pressures is subsequently reconciled by introducing new organizing elements into the workplace. We argue that because a focus on agency appears lacking in analyses of performance management in universities, academics’ power to deal with potentially adverse situations imposed by managerialism has been largely underestimated.

Reconsidering the definition of a spatial data infrastructure

The great interest in spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) has led to a wealth of SDI definitions in SDI debates. The article aims to contribute to both theory-oriented and practice-oriented SDI research by providing a critical re-examination of the SDI literature. Ashbys formal theory of regulation, which sees infrastructures as regulatory devices, is used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of several SDI definitions. This exercise shows how debates of the SDI objectives and the roles of users get caught in mantraps and also opens the door for a way out of this confusion by distinguishing between functional and adoption objectives. It also highlights the emphasis on technological components in the SDI definitions, which sidestep the importance of structural and human resource components in SDI.

Connecting knowledge to management: the case of academic research.

Drawing on in-depth interviews with research managers, this paper argues that academic research management is ideologically close to knowledge management. The research followed a grounded theory approach. This method appears particularly suited for this inquiry, due to the absence of a dominant theoretical framework, the consequent need for extra theorizing, and the appeal to develop a theoretical account that relies on the most privileged sources of this knowledge, namely research managers. The data analysis shows that competing conceptualizations of knowledge and associated management models provide the playground for academic research management. Owing to the impact of cultural and behavioural aspects in the dynamics of knowledge creation, shaping collectively crafted courses of action—rather than managing them—aptly represents the essence of academic research management.

An organizational learning perspective on GIS

The organizational value of GIS has been studied in several ways, including their use as decision support systems and their potential as the integrating backbones for the organizational information systems. A valuable new perspective emerges when GIS are considered as a means for enhancing organizational learning (OL). OL refers to the learning activities of individuals and groups within an organization, especially with respect to the competitive environment, the state of the organizational system and the products and processes of the organization. GIS can influence the way in which OL occurs. GIS can also affect to what extent OL occurs. A model is developed to assess the value of GIS for OL. An evaluation of GIS based on this model shows that GIS offer, in varying degrees, facilities and conceptions to enhance OL. However, GIS lack specific facilities attuned to the requirements of OL, such as specific querying functions and group-based facilities for dealing with conflicting interpretations. An empirical case study of an environmental consultancy firm is presented to support the argument.

The organisational impact of knowledge-based systems: a knowledge perspective

Abstract The fact that knowledge-based systems (KBS) may have considerable impact when introduced into an organisation is beyond dispute. The assessments of this impact in the literature, however, are not satisfactory. They overlook the main discriminating characteristic of KBS, i.e. the fact that KBS claim to store and handle knowledge. The article explores ways for bringing ‘knowledge’ into discussions of the impact of KBS. A knowledge perspective is developed which does justice to the impact of KBS on both articulated and tacit knowledge at the strategic, tactical and operational level. Possible applications of this perspective are explored with illustrations from an empirical investigation of KBS in 17 organisations.

Do smarter systems make for smarter organizations

This article explores the role of knowledge-based systems (KBS) in knowledge management (KM). KM is considered an umbrella term, incorporating various issues related to the value of knowledge as a production factor. This study assesses three research themes which together address the main object of KM. First, how do the introduction and utilization of KBS affect the organizational core competencies? Secondly, is the knowledge content of products and services affected by KBS? Thirdly, how do these systems affect job quality? The results of an empirical investigation in 24 knowledge-intensive, commercial organizations show that KBS usually have a positive impact on organizational competencies. They reveal that KBS may both threaten and enhance the knowledge content of certain tasks. They also show that, in general, the introduction of KBS leads to a slight decrease in job quality.

Rethinking the liaisons between Intellectual Capital Management and Knowledge Management

Intellectual Capital Management (ICM) and Knowledge Management (KM), two highly popular topics in current management discussions, are often bracketed together. The common understanding of ICM is that concepts of measurement, reporting and valuation most distinctively define this perspective, whereas KM connects debates about organizational knowledge with possibilities and limitations of management. That raises the question of how the management focus on knowledge in KM discussions is connected to the valuation and measurement approaches of ICM. An extensive review of the literature shows that knowledge plays a background role in Intellectual Capital (IC) measurement discussions. Referral to knowledge as an intangible asset appears more rhetorical than based on in-depth understanding of what knowledge as an organizational resource or capability is or is not. More particularly, the predominant view of knowledge in IC measurement discussions is a neo-functionalist, possession approach, even if flow elements of knowledge are used to supplement stock elements. Critical understanding of knowledge, for instance, as practice-based dispute, are virtually absent from the ICM discussions. What the blind spots identified in the review highlight is that ICM and KM discussions, which are presently mostly developed in isolation, should set up more meaningful and elaborated liaisons than are currently established. Two important areas for building such liaisons include (1) the perusal of the contextual, possibly disputed and power-related nature of knowledge in relation to measurement and (2) developing a systematic approach to understanding what measuring or not measuring does to organizational knowledge.

Envisioning knowledge-based systems impacts: a groupware facilitated simulation approach

Abstract Various studies show that the introduction of knowledge-based systems (KBS) in a corporate environment may have far-reaching organizational impacts. What impacts are expected is one of the aspects to consider when assessing the plausibility of a proposed KBS application. Standard methods for evaluating potential KBS applications, however, primarily focus on technical considerations, their attention to potential organizational impacts, if present at all, is minimal and vague. An approach is proposed to rectify this. The approach centres on three issues. First, the task to be addressed is defined as the assessment of what the state of the knowledge household of the organization may be expected to become after KBS introduction. Second, it promotes a focus on group processes, by involving those organizational members that may be affected by the KBS introduction. Third, to enhance the effectiveness of the group processes an external facilitator and groupware support are suggested. Application of the approach is illustrated and elaborated by means of a case study.

Ordering disorders; linking organization design and knowledge integration

Studies addressing the connections between knowledge and organization structures can be divided into two classes. One class holds that a perspective on knowledge signals shortcomings of classical design principles and calls for flatter hierarchy and less specification of the production structure. Another class maintains that a knowledge perspective on organizations is at odds with any design perspective, whether classical or not, because the emergent, thoroughly social and practice-based nature of knowledge as knowing in action makes knowledge a useless and even dangerous beacon to designers: ex ante, knowledge is said to be fundamentally indeterminate and any attempt to ‘structure around knowledge’ may effectively drive out knowledge. To explore differences and possible bridges between these two calls of studies, the paper explores how both elements of the equation, organization structure and organizational knowledge, are to be conceived to ensure a meaningful connection between them. It is argued that the grouping focus in both defines the meeting place of organization structures and organizational knowledge, but shows that the involved knowledge and grouping concepts are not mutually compatible. It leads to a view where organization structures are seen as the ‘seeding’ background for knowledge integration processes that, in turn, constitute the patterns of work relationships envisioned in the designers organizational decomposition and grouping. For illustration purposes, the paper presents the example of the Max Planck Institute that describes one possible way through the conceptual model presented in the paper.