Understanding the Conceptual Framework of Knowledge Management in Government(Condensed Version)Presentation on UN Capacity-building Workshop on Back Office Management for e/m-Government in Asia and the Pacific RegionShanghai, People’s Republic of China, 27-28 May 2008

Xinhua ZhangDirector of the Center for Policy and Strategic Studies and the Director of the Department of Information Science of SASS

I. Introduction

It has almost become a consensus that with the unprecedented development of Information and Communication Technologies, human society has evolved into a Knowledge era. The knowledge society means embodiment of knowledge in our daily lives and activities as well as active management of knowledge resources not limited to IT support. Hence, knowledge enriched environments must become the focus of our interest in innovative developments.

One of these is the introspection into the role of government in producing and using knowledge. The respective topics span a big breadth and address a variety of issues. They range from governmental approaches using knowledge creation within an affirmative environment; going on with rethinking the role of knowledge in government and governance; and closing with the question of formulating adequate strategies, policies, programs and partnerships within a knowledge enhanced environment for the efficient operation of governments, especially the integration of the usual division of back-office with front-office.

However, although everyone agrees with the utter importance of this final goal, it is the question of how to formulate the concrete path that guides government organizations to attain this goal that is being hotly debated. The confusion and misunderstanding always centers on the understanding of key concepts, processes and dimensions of knowledge and knowledge management.

For this reason, this presentation paper tries to explore into this seemingly easy realm and present a comprehensive conceptual framework of this field. It starts with a concise topology of the basic concepts, followed by a detailed discussion of the various dimensions and processes, and ends in the discussion of some key points towards capacity building and integration of back-office with front-office in government organizations in order to transform from e-government to k-government.

II．Topology of the Basic Concepts of Knowledge and Knowledge Management

As a guiding logic, a topology of the basic concepts of knowledge and knowledge management is first developed in this section, the details of which will be elaborated in the respective chapters and sections.

Figure 1: Knowledge Concept Topology

Hierarchy of Knowledge Concepts

Information Beliefs/insights/judgments/experiences/etc.OthersData

Knowledge (wisdom)

Knowledge Taxonomy II

Knowledge Domain

Knowledge Ontology

Knowledge Taxonomy I

Dimensions of Knowledge Management

Processes People (individual, group, organization)

TechnologyPolicy/Strategy

Knowledge Management in Practice in General

Innovative/sharing cycles Major Thematic Activities

IT-track/people-track

Knowledge Management in Practice in Government

Knowledge Management Capacity Building in Government

Integration of Back-office with Front-office: (From E-government to K-government)

Leveraging Knowledge Assets at Different Levels

Developing Human Potential through

Learning and Training

Leveraging Internal & External Expertise

1 Beckman T. (1998), Knowledge management: a technical review. GWU Working Paper, Washington.2 Scarbrough, H. (1999), Knowledge Management: A Literature Review, Issues in People Management Series, Institute of Personnel and Development: London.3 Kelleher, D. and Levene, S. (2001), Knowledge Management: A Guide to Good Practice, British Standards Institute: London.

III. Key Concepts Concerning Knowledge

1. The Multi-layered, Multifaceted Concept of Knowledge

Throughout history, knowledge has always been viewed from multiple perspectives --- abstract, philosophical, religious and practical etc., and the concept of knowledge invites various interpretations and definitions, many of which offer valuable perspectives and insights. As the result, the discourse of knowledge over the human history has generated various definitions.

Plato in his Meno, Phaedo and Theaetetus first defined the concept of knowledge as “justified true belief”, which has been predominant during the history of western philosophy ever since. Beckman (1998) has compiled a number of other definitions of knowledge and organizational knowledge, some of which are quoted in the following1:

Knowledge is organized information applicable to program solving (Woolf, 1990).-Knowledge is information that has been organized and analyzed to make it understandable and -applicable to problem solving or decision making (Turban, 1992)Knowledge consists of truths and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments and expectations, -methodologies and ‘know-how’ (Wiig, 1993).Knowledge is the whole set of insights, experiences and procedures which are considered correct -and true and which, therefore, guide the thoughts, behaviors and communication of people (Van der Spek and Spijkervet, 1997).Knowledge is reasoning about information to actively guide task execution, problem-solving and -decision making in order to perform, learn and teach (Beckman, 1997).Organizational knowledge is processed information embedded in routines and processes which -enable actions. It is also knowledge captured by organization’s systems, processes, products, rules and culture (Myers, 1996)Organizational knowledge is the collective sum of human-centered assets, intellectual property -assets, infrastructure assets and market assets (Brooking, 1996).

As with any substantive concept, it emerges that knowledge is a multi-faceted and interconnected entity. At some level of abstraction, knowledge represents what is known and is related to concepts such as awareness, familiarity, experience, information, theory, practice, understanding, belief and judgment, etc. It seems that the attempts to define knowledge as one single definition that covers all aspects and at the same time receive unanimous consensus is impossible, especially when the embodiment of knowledge changes at different individual, organizational and social levels.

For this reason, we think that it would seem appropriate to avoid imposing a strict definition but rather regarding knowledge as a “multi-layered, multifaceted concept” 2 that “can impact different organizations in very different ways’3.

Borrowing from the various definitions put forward by different scholars, we

4 Nada K. Kakabadse, Alexander Kouzmin and Andrew Kakabadse (2001), From Tacit Knowledge to Knowledge Management: Leveraging Invisible Assets, Knowledge and Process Management Volume 8 Number 3 pp 137–154.5 Sharda R, Frankwick GL, Turetken O (1999), Group knowledge networks: a framework and an implementation. Information System Frontiers 1, No. 3, 221–239.6 Davenport, T. and Prusak, T (1998), Working Knowledge: How organisations manage what they know, Harvard Business School Press: Boston7 Skyrme and Amidon (1997), reported in Knight, T and Howes, T, 2003, Knowledge Management: A Blueprint for Delivery, Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford p.13

conclude in this paper (for the purpose of discussing on KM in government) that: knowledge is a fluent mix of structured experience, beliefs, relevant information and intuition of experts and, besides residing in human minds, knowledge can also exist in such forms as organization’s systems, processes, products and culture etc..

2. The Conceptual Hierarchy of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom

One of the annoying trends in the current practice of knowledge management arena is that the concepts of knowledge, information and even data tend to be used almost interchangeably throughout the literature and praxis. For example, the management of information captured on organization’s databases is often considered as an example of organizational knowledge and knowledge management. Information and data management are important pillars of knowledge management. However, knowledge management encompasses broader issues, in particular, such as creation of processes, environment and behaviors that allow people to transform information into the organization and create and share knowledge. Thus, knowledge management needs to encompass people, process, technology and culture. Moreover, organizational databases and connectivity do not guarantee the sharing of information over time4. In some instances, databases and connectivity result in too much information, or information overload, posing a threat to aspects of knowledge quality such as relevance.5

Typically, as Davenport and Prusak have explained6:

Data is: simple observation of states of the worldInformation is: data endowed with relevance and purposeKnowledge is: Valuable information from the human mind.

Knowledge builds upon information that is extracted from data. In contrast to data that can be characterized as a property of things, knowledge is a property of agents predisposing them to act in particular circumstances. Information is that subset of the data residing in things that activates an agent through the perceptual or cognitive filters. In contrast to information, knowledge cannot be directly observed. Its existence can only be inferred from actions of agents.

The relationship between these three concepts is actually very well presented by Skyrme and Amidon, with the addition of wisdom, in the diagram of what they called “The Pyramid of Knowledge Hierarchy”7:

Figure 2: The Pyramid of Knowledge Hierarchy

8 Joel Mokyr (2003), The Knowledge Society: Theoretical and Historical Underpinnings, Expanding Public Space for the Development of the Knowledge Society, Report of the Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Knowledge Systems for Development 4-5 September 2003.

3. Popular Schemes of Knowledge Taxonomy

Even with its multifaceted and fluid nature, knowledge can still be characterized in many ways. The most widely accepted schemes include the taxonomy of knowledge being regarded as propositional and perspective, and that of dividing knowledge into tacit and explicit.

Propositional and Perspective KnowledgeAccording to Joe Mokyr,8 useful knowledge can be partitioned into two subsets: one is the knowledge that catalogues natural phenomena and regularities, which he calls propositional knowledge. The other is the knowledge that prescribes certain actions that constitute the manipulation of natural phenomena for human material needs, which is called perspective knowledge.

Propositional knowledge contains what people usually call “science” as a subset, but at the same time it contains a great deal more than science. Propositional knowledge also contains practical informal knowledge about nature; an intuitive grasp of basic mechanics; regularities of nature and even things as informal as folk wisdoms etc.

Perspective knowledge has the form of techniques or instructions. They reside either in people’s brains or in storage devices. They consist of designs and directions for how to adapt means to a well-defined end. They can all be taught, imitated, communicated, and improved upon. A “how-to” manual is a codified set of techniques. An addition to the perspective knowledge set of a society would be regarded as an “invention”.

9 Polanyi, M. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul.10 Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995), The Knowledge Creating Company,Oxford University Press.

Explicit and Tacit KnowledgePerhaps the most widely accepted knowledge taxonomy among researchers and practitioners is the differentiation between explicit knowledge from tacit knowledge, that was first introduced by Polanyi in 19669 and popularized by Nonaka and Takeuchi with the publication of their book The Knowledge Creating Company in 1995. According to them, knowledge can be categorized into explicit and tacit knowledge, in that:

Explicit knowledge is that which:10

“can be expressed in words and numbers and can be easily communicated and shared in the form of hard data, scientific formulae, codified procedures or universal principles”

whereas tacit knowledge is:“highly personal and hard to formalize. Subjective insights, intuitions and hunches fall into this category of knowledge.”

Hence, explicit knowledge in organizations is typically found in documents and databases, while tacit knowledge is that which is in the heads of people. More than often, tacit knowledge is even based on the subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches and is deeply rooted in an individual’s actions and experience and even ideals, values and emotions. Explicit knowledge is also sometimes called formal knowledge while tacit knowledge is called informal knowledge. However, it should be pointed out that, the associated names do not automatically suggest their different levels of importance. Many times, for organizations to build their strategic competitiveness and long-term development, tacit knowledge is actually more important than explicit knowledge and should consequently be the focus of knowledge management programs.

No matter how knowledge is categorized, it is an elusive and vulnerable commodity and can suffer a precarious existence. And primarily, knowledge is held subconsciously in a tacit state defying any attempt at elicitation.

4. The Domains and Ontologies of Knowledge

A domain is a recursive structure containing an ensemble of objects representing a configuration of knowledge assets. An organization’s intellectual capital is maintained within a web of knowledge domains as an integrated series of functionally cohesive models. The structure and design of domains is described in some detail with particular emphasis on the necessity for them to support a variety of cognitive strategies. The basic architecture for a knowledge domain is described in terms of a framework comprising the series of models required to express a variety of perspectives of domain abstractions, capable of expressing knowledge in an integrated network of abstractions and domains while maintaining a presence in multiple ontologies.

Hence the lifecycle trajectory of a knowledge asset will involve several dimensions of knowledge creation, namely, epistemological, behavioral, cybernetic/control, as well as, ontological dimensions of knowledge cycle.

Following the domain theories, we can see clearly that knowledge elicitation depends crucially on the conventions adopted to express and arrange concepts that may have only a tenuous and fragmented presence. As a knowledge asset matures and becomes available for more rigorous and robust definition, the requirement emerges for more sophisticated means of articulation. Knowledge assets are represented as multi-faceted objects supporting a diversity of interrelated abstractions and perspectives specified by some modeling convention.

A cognitive endeavor is considered to commence in response to a (weak) signal reflecting some shift in the interaction between an organization and its environment. The focus is some incidence of functional turbulence, suggesting this might provide a useful orientation for combining and partitioning domains to form other domains.

As with many valuable commodities, knowledge is scarce, elusive, vulnerable and can suffer a precarious existence. One challenging therefore is to devise cognitive devices capable of providing a supporting framework to elicit, express, extend, exploit and preserve knowledge. While many cognitive devices are available to articulate knowledge, it is usually with the formalism of some modeling convention that knowledge is transformed into a competitive asset.

Ontological transition depends on preserving the essence of a knowledge asset between perspectives and domains. If the essence is compromised in concept or expression, the introduction of cognitive barriers may impede, distort or terminate prematurely the ontological transition process. Any of these outcomes might serve to undermine the value of a knowledge asset.

Of particular interest to this part of our paper is the proposition that a knowledge asset is likely to encounter multiple ontologies during its spiral trajectory.

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) discussed the epistemological and ontological dimensions of knowledge creation spiral by providing an elegant expression of the dynamics of organizational knowledge creation in a 2-dimensional space. Nonaka and Takeuchi claim that as a knowledge asset progresses through organizational strata and beyond to the external environment, it engages new domains and ontologies. Ontological transition is thus a multi-dimensional odyssey.

Figure 3. Nonaka and Takeuchi’s Spiral of Organisational Knowledge Domains

Boisot (1995, 1998), however, transforms the epistemological dimension of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s Spiral into a 2-dimensional space by applying the proposition that cognitive activity employs the two economizing techniques to extract information from data: coding and abstraction. Therefore, following Boisot’s approach, the dynamics of organizational knowledge creation must be expressed in a 3-dimensional space (see Figure below).

Figure 4: Boisot’s 3-dimensional Domains of Knowledge

Boisot suggests that knowledge assets are created initially at the task level, where a task is an atomic (or at least very simple) activity. A task might be considered to be contained within a transaction, and executed within the context of a dynamic constellation of other tasks. A transaction might be considered similarly to be embedded within a process and so on. A hierarchy of activities emerges and provides a framework for structuring domains.

Returning to Nonaka and Takeuchi’s definition of the ontological dimension, it is clear that Boisot’s diffusion spectrum shares the same characteristics; i.e. diffusion of knowledge commences with an individual to transcend progressively through the strata of an organization and beyond to the external environment. The issue therefore is that each stratum provides a new ontology to engage the knowledge asset. Engagement may result in one of the following outcomes, the knowledge asset may be: absorbed, revised or rejected by the new ontology. Diffusion is thus dependent on the availability of knowledge to a given population, and the ontological absorption and exploitation of knowledge within that population.

Yolles’ provides us another scheme of knowledge domain. Yolles believes that knowledge systems exist by virtue of the worldviews that create them. In his terminology, worldviews are generators of knowledge. Yolles (1999) distinguished two types of worldview which he respectively calls weltanschauung and paradigm. The former is what we mean tacit knowledge, the latter the explicit knowledge.

The relationship between weltanschauung paradigms and the perceived real (or behavioral) world has been proposed by Yolles (1999) to have a form like that of figure 4.

Figure 5: Yolles’ Structure of Knowledge Domains

Yolles’ diagram explains the relationship and interactions of the four kinds of knowledge domains: cognitive domain, behavioral domain, organizing/cybernetic domain, and the domain of ontology. In his diagram, the cognitive domain is populated by worldviews that can be seen as a system of “truths” that rest upon worldview conceptualizations. Within it we develop cognitive models that involve beliefs, values, attitudes, norms, ideology, meanings, and concepts. The behavioral domain is represented in the paradigm in a way that conforms with its belief system. Transforming knowledge to actions occurs just in the behavioral domain and action is manifested through an organizing process which constitutes the organizing (and cybernetic) domain. This occurs according to some formalized regime and effectively defines logical relationships. The organizing domain is strategic in nature. It is also a logical domain so that all transformational relationships exist there. Consequently, it

11 Bassi, L.J. (1997), Harnessing the power of intellectual capital, Training & Development, December, 51(12):25-30.12 David J. Skyrme (2002), Knowledge Management: Approaches and Policies

is also a cybernetic domain so that it is where control processes are defined. This domain is, however, a construct that derives from the worldview itself. This means that the nature of the organizing that occurs within this context is determined ultimately by worldview concepts and propositions.

III. Key Concepts and Dimensions of Knowledge Management

1. What is Knowledge Management?

From the individual’s perspective knowledge would be meaningless useless it can be transferred to and acquired by an actual person and from the organization’s perspective knowledge would be worthless if it could not be put into application when it is needed for organization’s business. Thus it would be of great importance for an organization to provide strategies to get the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and in the right format. As the complexity of organizations increases, together with the growing scale and scope of information activities due to the development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), effectively and efficiently managing knowledge becomes a pressing necessity of strategic importance for modern organizations.

As is the case with knowledge itself, there cannot be a simple and straightforward definition for KM. In order to avoid misunderstanding, and to be more scientific, we suggest either do not give any definition to KM or treat it in the same way as with knowledge itself.

Bassi defines knowledge management as11:a process of knowledge creation, capturing and application through its documenting and codifying, storage and dissemination them through data banks and communication channels with the purpose of increasing the organizational effectiveness.

The online Media Access Group (www.media-access.com/main.html) called Knowledge Praxis defines knowledge management as a business activity with two primary aspects: Treating the knowledge component of business activities as an explicit concern of business reflected in strategy, policy, and practice at all levels of the organization. And making a direct connection between an organization’s intellectual assets — both explicit [recorded] and tacit [personal know-how] — and positive business results.

Based on interviews with the Chief Knowledge Officers from various organizations, Skyrme define knowledge management as12: the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge and its associated processes of creating, gathering, organizing, diffusion, use and exploitation, in pursuit of organizational objectives.

Notwithstanding the difficulty of establishing a consensus definition for knowledge management, at least the following range of key considerations in relation to

13 Dr David J Skyrme (2002), Knowledge Management: Approaches and Policies

knowledge management should be identified:

It is fundamental that knowledge should be utilized and shared within the -organization; and if possible, should be stored in its most explicit forms.Knowledge management does not just stop on the purpose of sharing; knowledge -management should also be regarded as the enabler of innovation and learning.The purpose of knowledge management is to make organizations more efficient -and effective, and to be aligned with organizational strategy for the support of achieving organizational objectives.

2. Dimensions of Knowledge Management at Different Levels

Knowledge involves a broad range of activities and can be operated at different levels. Also at different levels different dimensional considerations should be carried out. Following this logic, Skyrme has developed a dimensional scheme for knowledge at different key levels in the following table13:

Table 2: Multi-dimensional KM Levels and Associated Activities (Skyrme, 2002)

Policy / Strategy Processes / Methods

People / Skills

Technology

Governments (inc. EU)

StimulationGood practiceRegulation

GuidanceStandards

Qualification and Skills

Interoperability standards

Intra-organization Collaborative associations

Collaboration methods and standards

Skills development

E-business networks

Organization Knowledge-based business

Best practiceKM processes

Personal development programmes, e-learning

Corporate portals

Teams Tasks and outcomes

Virtual working

Team roles Collaborative workspace

Individuals Career / life planning

KM specialties

Professional development

ICT / Internet proficiency

As this table has illustrated that knowledge management is a type of systematic and comprehensive endeavor. Even though for the illustrative purpose Skyrme has divided KM into different levels with different dimensions, we believe the specific corresponding activities may not necessarily be as rigid as he has suggested. A real successful knowledge management project, especially for government organizations, from the perspective of promoting knowledge management for the whole society,

14 David J. Skyrme and Debra M. Amidon (1997), Creating the Knowledge-based Business, Business Intelligence15 Davenport, et. (1998), “Successful Knowledge Management Projects”, Sloan Management Review 39, No.2 (Winter 1998): 43

should “unconsciously” and “voluntarily” encompass every possible dimensions and levels for the mindset of linking all different levels of players and/or stakeholders together in the pursuit of establishing the “knowledge society”.

3. Policy and Strategies of Knowledge Management

Currently knowledge management is a widely used term but is also a term that seems to give rise to a degree of confusion. This is because it appears that there is nothing particularly new in the concept, in some sense it simply represents a re-packaging of things that good organizations should do as a matter of course. However, the reality is that designing and implementing a successful knowledge management program is not as simple as one takes it for granted. Even though all the necessary “established management tools” for knowledge management are there, this is not to suggest that organizations should assume that knowledge management just naturally happens.

Two Thrusts of StrategiesSkyrme14 found two types of strategies regarding the current mainstream knowledge management practices. The first is to make better use of the knowledge that already exists within the organization, for example by sharing best practices. The second major thrust of knowledge-focused strategies is that of innovation, the creation of new knowledge and turning ideas into valuable products and services. Many managers mistakenly believe that this is about R&D and creativity, yet researches found no shortage of creativity in organizations. The real challenge is not to lose these creative ideas and to allow them to flow where they can be used. It needs better innovation, knowledge conversion and commercialization processes. This thrust of strategy is the most difficult, yet ultimately has the best potential for improved company performance.

Four Broad Types of Policy/ObjectivesIn a review of 39 knowledge management projects in the private sector, Davenport, et al.15 identified four broad types of objectives. The first type of objective was the creation of knowledge repositories. These projects generally took the form of database management programs. The second objective was to improve knowledge access. These projects focused on the access to and the sharing of knowledge such as the composition of expert networks. The third objective was to enhance the knowledge environment. Projects in this category sought to change norms and values to attempt to shift what is valued in the organization so as to encourage both the creation and sharing of knowledge. The final objective was the management of knowledge as an asset. These projects involved creating formal audits and metrics of knowledge management at the corporate level. Essentially, they attempt to codify intellectual capital and report them on the company’s balance sheet.

4. Collaborating with the Established Management Tools: A Holistic Perspective of Knowledge Management in General

As we have discussed before, some believe that there is nothing specifically new in the concept of knowledge management and it is simply using established management tools to improve knowledge sharing and creation within an organization and the outside world. Although many of the established management tools have existed long before the term of knowledge management started to be accepted by scholars and practitioners, none of those management tools have ever clearly recognized KNOWLEDGE as its fundamental managing object as knowledge management has. Yet no matter what, many of the existed management tools are proved and actually would remain to be highly useful. For this purpose, we have identified the following existing management tools and their respective techniques that need to be specifically collaborated with an organization’s knowledge management initiatives.

Change ManagementInitiating a knowledge management program within an organization is essentially to bring changes into the organization, hence many of the techniques from change management will also apply. To promote changes within the organization, top management needs to create “urgency for change”; to implement changes the management teams needs to find “zealots” and “champions” within the organization who are the true believers of new ideas that are going to be brought into the organization. Along the way, timetables, milestones, measurement systems need to be established. These ideas, originated from change management, all apply to knowledge management programs.

Learning OrganizationInstead of constantly carrying out change management initiatives to increase an organization’s effectiveness and efficiency, ideally a learning environment could be formalized within the organization so that it can learn and constantly transform accordingly by itself. Actually one component of the goals for knowledge management is to establish a learning environment within the .Naturally the concept of learning organization is also perfectly applicable to knowledge management.

Human Resource ManagementKnowledge management is to manage knowledge. But knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, resides in people’s minds, and “people walk”. Therefore a successful knowledge management program would require a successful human resource management. To effectively implement a knowledge management program, employees need to be empowered. Effective rewarding system as well as mechanisms designed to divert the common belief from “knowledge is power” to “sharing knowledge is power” should also be established. All these need to be cooperated by the HR department and supported by techniques from HR management.

Top Leadership ManagementWithout full support from top management team almost no new management initiatives would success. Knowledge itself has unique characteristics and Knowledge management as a relatively new managing concept particularly needs support form top management. Some of the top leadership management techniques which can be used here may include the formulation of long-term organizational strategic plan. Top leadership should be consistent with the on-going knowledge management programs

16 Bellinger G., D. Castro, and A. Mills (2004), Data, Information, Knowledge, and Wisdom. Retrieved from: http://www.systems-thinking.org/dikw/dikw.htm

and show their commitment toward new initiatives. Effective communication channels and maybe “open-door” policy should also exist between top leadership and employees.

To summarize, all these existing tools of management constitute the most valuable resources within modern organizations for the successful pursuit of ultimate organizational goals, yet knowledge management differs from them in that it advocates a continuous commitment to knowledge acquisition and creation. For this reason, we believe a successful knowledge management system should be the embodiment of all the above-mentioned concepts and maintain a holistic view of adopting them for the purpose of better managing knowledge.

5. Key Processes of Knowledge Management: Tacit-explicit Transformation Spiral

One of the focuses of knowledge management is the attempt for the transformation of knowledge from a tacit to an explicit state. Of particular interest for the purposes of this endeavor are definitions seeking to establish the distinction between phenomena, data, information and knowledge.

As with any substantive concept, it emerges that knowledge is a multi-faceted and interconnected entity. At some level of abstraction, knowledge represents what is known and is related to concepts such as awareness, experience, information, theory, practice, understanding, belief and judgment, i.e. knowledge has context.

Both Ackoff’s, and Checkland and Howell’s approach to defining knowledge pose conceptual difficulties. Bellinger et al (2004) prefer a hierarchy comprising simply data, information, knowledge and wisdom, with different understanding levels through the understanding transition.

Figure 6: The Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Hierarchy16

The key to their hierarchy is achieving levels of understanding. In common with the earlier approaches, data may be viewed as some disconnected collection of facts about

a domain that have little intrinsic interest. Information emerges from the domain when relationships between the facts are established and understood; this is somewhat richer than simply establishing a context for the facts. Knowledge emerges when the patterns of relationships are identified and understood; a quite different perspective from size and longevity. Finally wisdom (the pinnacle of understanding) uncovers the principles that describe the patterns of relationships. This approach is much more encouraging and, we believe, yet fails still to capture the essence of knowledge.

Another perspective is required, and for this it is necessary to turn to the Knowledge Management community. For the knowledge-creating organization, knowledge is believed to be created in a cyclical trajectory simultaneously between ontological and epistemological planes, with spiral progression defining the conversion and mobilization of tacit knowledge. In broad terms, ontology is taken to address the nature of being and reality, while epistemology explores the theory of knowledge with respect to validating what may be accepted as expressions of being and reality. Ontology is adopted to denote the dimension that represents the dissemination of knowledge throughout the diversity of strata describing an organization. This is a quite profound denotation as it draws attention to the fact that ontology may change with the transition between strata. The orthogonal dimension of epistemology represents the dynamic relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge; in particular, the mutuality of tacit and explicit knowledge creation.

6. Four Types of Knowledge Creation Process

Based on the above models and obtaining insights from the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that: the core processes of knowledge management in government rest on the dynamic interaction between explicit and tacit knowledge. Fortunately, Nonaka and Takeuchi have provided us some basic guidance, with which we proceed to concrete management processes.

According to Nonaka and Takeuchi, much of the value of knowledge is created as it is transformed between one type and other, from tacit to explicit and vice versa, back and forth, in what they describe as an ever evolving knowledge spiral that goes from individual tacit knowledge to organizational-wide knowledge. The two of them have identified four different modes of interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge:

(1) Socialization. This is the exchange of experiences whereby personal knowledge is being created in the form of mental models, which involves conversion from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge (2) Externalization. This involves the conversion from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge where personal or tacit knowledge is made explicit in the form of metaphors, analogies, hypotheses and models (3) Combination. This involves conversion from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge. During this process notions are synthesized into a knowledge system. (4) Internalization. This involves the conversion from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge

These four types of process are also widely known as the SECI Model and can be summarized in the following diagram:

Figure 7: The SECI Knowledge Creation Process

17 Sveiby, Karl-Erik (1997), The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledgebased Assets. San Francisco: Berrett Koehler.18 Sveiby, Karl-Erik, What is Knowledge Management? Updated 1 March 1998, 3 June 1998, 20 March 1999, April 2000, April 2001, Retrieved through http://www.sveiby.com/Portals/0/articles/KnowledgeManagement.html

IV. Knowledge Management Practices in General

In the real world, the common practices have suggested the following major knowledge management processes.

1. Two Tracks of Knowledge Management

One of KM’s leading practitioners Karl-Eric Sveiby describes the current practice of knowledge management as being divided into two tracks17:

IT-Track KM = Management of Information. They are involved in construction of information management systems, AI [artificial intelligence], reengineering, groupware etc. To them Knowledge = Objects that can be identified and handled in information systems. This track is new and is growing very fast at the moment, assisted by new developments in IT.

People-Track KM = Management of People. They are primarily involved in assessing, changing and improving human individual skills and/or behavior. To them Knowledge = Processes, a complex set of dynamic skills, know-how etc, that is constantly changing. They are traditionally involved in learning and in managing these competencies. This track is very old, and is not growing so fast18.

The two tracks differ in their techniques and tools. In the IT track, the emphasis is on using software and the Internet. One goal is to capture information in databases. The other goal is to improve communication and. In the people track, emphasis is on

Explicit

Socialization

Empathizing

Externalization

ExplicitArticulating

Combination

Connecting

Internalization

Embodying

Taci

t

Explicit

Explicit

Taci

t

CreateProduct/Process

Innovation Cycle Sharing Cycle

KnowledgeRepository

Codify

Embed

Diffuse

Identify Classify

AccessUse/Exploit

Collect

Organize/Store

Share/Disseminate

19 David J Skyrme (2002), Knowledge Management-- Approaches and Policies, available at http://www.skyrme.com/pubs/deeds_km.doc20 Ibid.

creating an environment that fosters innovation and the highest possible level of skill- utilization—the so-called management of human capital.

It should be noticed that both tracks are the integral parts of an organization’s grand knowledge management strategy. Rather than competing with each other, they are in the nature of supplementing each other.

2. Two Key Activity Processes of Knowledge Management

Within organizations, much of the emphasis of early knowledge management programs was on finding out existing knowledge so as to avoid the phenomenon of “reinventing the wheel”. As categorized by Skyrme, who called this process as knowledge sharing---“knowing what we know”19. However, more important for the establishment of competitive edge and long-term development of an organization, the other process of knowledge management that underlies innovation is being put more emphasis among organizations. As shown in the following figure20 both cycles have their own components.

Figure 8: Two Cycles of Knowledge Management (Skyrme, 2002)

The cycle on the left – the innovation cycle – represents a progression from idea creation (unstructured knowledge) into more structured and reproducible knowledge, embedded within processes, products or services. The cycle on the right – the knowledge sharing cycle – shows the processes associated with gathering and disseminating existing knowledge, having a knowledge repository as its focal point. Although the activities in each cycle roughly follow the sequences shown, continual iteration through different levels of aggregation means that the actual paths between activities are rather more complex than those depicted.

21 As quoted in: Speaking Minds: Interviews with Twenty Eminent Cognitive Scientists, Edited by Peter Baumgartner & Sabine Payr, Princeton University Press, 1996, p.307.

3. Major Thematic Activities of Knowledge Management in Practice

Several major thematic activities of knowledge management have already been amply testified by practical evidences. They include:

Knowledge CodificationThe aim of codification is to put knowledge into a form that makes it accessible to those who need it. It converts knowledge into accessible and applicable formats and literally turns knowledge into a code (though not necessarily a computer code) to make it as organized, explicit, portable, and easy to understand as possible. The common practice of knowledge codification in organizations include the processes to categorize knowledge, describe it, map and model it, simulate it, and embed it in rules and recipes. Each of these approaches has its own specific set of values and limitations, and they can be applied singly or in combination.

Transfer of Tacit to Explicit Knowledge---Mapping Knowledge SourcesKnowledge in organizations ranges from complex, accumulated expertise that resides in individuals and is partly or largely inexpressible knowledge to much more structured and explicit content-related knowledge. Although new technologies play an important role in knowledge management, for the foreseeable future knowledge codification will continue to be more art than science, the domain of minds rather than machines. As Lofti Zadeh, an early AI pioneer and developer of fuzzy-logic concepts, stated, "No computer can summarize what you tell it." That task, vital to knowledge codification, is still a human one21. Then how can we more effectively and efficiently help the process of transferring tacit to explicit knowledge in KM?

One practical solution to this codification/transferring process for the richest tacit knowledge in organizations is generally limited to locating someone with the knowledge, pointing the seeker to it, and encouraging them to interact. The essence of this approach is to connect people who have problems with those who have the solutions. This is based on the understanding that providing access to people with tacit knowledge is more efficient than trying to capture and codify that knowledge electronically or on paper. This is what usually called mapping knowledge sources. A knowledge map points to knowledge but doesn't contain it. Different from repository it is simply a guide. Knowledge maps typically point to people but at the same time could also be documents and databases. The principal purpose and clearest benefit of a knowledge map is to show people in the organization where to go when they need expertise rather than spending time tracking down imperfect answers. Members of the organization with a good knowledge map have access to sources with specific knowledge to solve the problems which would otherwise be difficult or impossible to find by themselves.

It should also be noted that the process of assembling knowledge map if not administrated wisely and strategically, might result in unintended side effects that will have the consequence of ruining the culture and environment of the whole knowledge management program within organization. Because when knowledge is genuinely important to an organization and those who have it are recognized and rewarded, then

22 Asoh, D.A., (2001), A Comparative Study of Media Treatment of Government Information and Strategy Issues: The Case of Information System Successes and Failures in Government. An Annotated Bibliography, Foundations of Government Information Management Course Working Paper, SUNY/Albany, 2001.

the knowledge map, besides being a knowledge locator, might eventually become a picture of status and success. Under certain conditions giving away one's proprietary sources of knowledge in that particular setting might be viewed as giving away power and influence, and thus ultimately hinders the environment that cultivates knowledge sharing. It is important for the management of the organization to assemble the map that is supposed to reflect knowledge, not power.

Knowledge RepositoriesThe typical goal of this phase of KM is to take knowledge already embodied in documents and put it into a repository where it can be easily stored and retrieved. A somewhat less structured form of accumulated knowledge is the discussion database, in which participants record their own experiences on an issue and react to others' comments. As one of the “first-step-projects” of KM, the establishment of knowledge repositories can also help reinforce an organization's cultural rituals and routines.

One instance of Knowledge Repositories is “Best Practices”. However the “best practice” approach has its limitations in today’s world. Even though the “Best Practice” approach does provide an opportunity to retain and use knowledge even when the expert leaves the organization, within a changing business environment such an approach might lead organizations to the stage where the cycle of doing ‘more of the same’ tends to result in with diminishing marginal returns and be locked-in behavior patterns resulting in an organizational “death spiral”. In effect, what is ‘best’ today may be ‘worst’ tomorrow depending upon the shift in the references that determined its “best-ness”22. The underlying argument is that yesterday's core capabilities embedded in today’s best practices could become tomorrow's core rigidities. Therefore, organizations’ “best practices” are required for ongoing reassessment and organizations should constantly scan the environment for emerging patterns that suggest the emergence of something new before the implementation

Knowledge Access and TransferKnowledge access phase focus on the possessors and prospective users of knowledge to provide access to knowledge (tacit and explicit) as well as to facilitate linkages and socialization among members. These types of projects acknowledge that finding the person with the knowledge one needs, and then successfully transferring it from one person to another, can be a daunting process. If the metaphor of a library is useful for conceptualizing knowledge repository projects, then that of a "knowledge Yellow Pages" might best symbolize the purpose of knowledge access projects. Managers involved in knowledge access projects commonly used phrases like, "getting at the knowledge we know we have", "sharing our knowledge" and so forth, phrases that connote a need for connectivity, access, and transfer. An instance here is “Communities of Practice” (CoP).

Knowledge-SharingKnowledge abounds in organizations, but its existence does not guarantee its use. Therefore, we need to come down to finding effective ways to let people talk and listen to each other, hence to realize knowledge-sharing in organizations.

23 Alan M. Webber, "What's So New About the New Economy?" Harvard Business Review January-February 1993.

Knowledge-sharing processes vary in their technological orientation. Some organizations may build and manage expert networks (or, to use maps of knowledge sources), while others may provide technical expert referral service by maintaining a comprehensive database of external technical experts, or other types of communities of practice. Generally speaking, knowledge-sharing in government settings can be of two types: the formal or quasi-formal, structured channels, and the more informal channels of face-to-face communication.

Formal and structured mechanisms of knowledge-sharing in government can take multiple formats. A more commonly used formal and structured mechanism of knowledge-sharing in government is through communities of practice (CoP). Here we would concentrate more on the spontaneous, unstructured knowledge-sharing for tacit knowledge.

Tacit and ambiguous knowledge is especially hard to share from the resource that creates it to other parts of the organization and tacit knowledge-sharing generally requires extensive personal contact. In his article "What's So New About the New Economy?" Alan Webber says, "In the new economy, conversations are the most important form of work. Conversations are the way knowledge workers discover what they know, share it with their colleagues, and in the process create new knowledge for the organization."23 The "conversation in share relationship" involves the more experienced senior person passing along his/her knowledge of the job to the next generation. Such relationships are likely to involve sharing various kinds of knowledge, from explicit to tacit. Not all of the learning communicated will be complex and intuitive, but it is the tacit knowledge that we cannot readily share in any other way. Also, with this sharing process, members in the organization may reach the point of integrating already existing information into a new process, which could be mind maps brought into the meeting by participants, other already existing questionnaires or theoretical process models of how to approach a problem. In this way, organizational knowledge is shared and intellectual assets is exploited, which is of course the major objective of knowledge management in government.

V. Knowledge Management Capacity Building in Government: Integration of Back-office with Front-office (From E-government to K-government)

Knowledge management in its current form probably first received significant attention in 1990s, with leading private sector companies developing procedures to guarantee effective generation, capture and dissemination of information and know-how and the promotion of knowledge. Public sector organizations, especially government entities, are typically thought to be later adopters to this knowledge management wave. However, due to the ever-increasing pressure for higher efficiency and effectiveness and the growing needs for sharing knowledge among different government entities at different levels as well as coping with this inevitable trend, government is quickly catching up and is fully prepared to reap the benefits generated from knowledge management programs.

It has long been criticized that there is a huge gap between the front- and back-offices within government operations, that is, government services were deemed as

unsatisfactory because complains and suggestions made by the public through front-office channels were not necessarily reflected in the policies formulated by the back-office. Sometimes even government employees from the front-office would feel confused about the rules made through the back-office, which inevitably led them to make mistakes during normal government businesses when they were dealing with customers.

Generally speaking, front-office functions are directly customer-facing and therefore require an understanding of customers and their needs, and be familiar with all related rules and regulations. Back-office functions are focused on the management and tracking of data collected from the front-office and are typically policy- and rules-oriented. The limits of traditional bureaucracy of government organizations and the lacking of formal and systematic mechanisms facilitating active interactions between these two “parts” of government organizations used to be the main factors that led to this kind of gap.

However, we believe, with the implementation of knowledge management this gap will gradually diminish as the inter-link between front- and back- office will be greatly improved; also the quality of government services (front-office) will be improved by the integration of knowledge management systems as the result of the initiation of KM projects (back-office).

Current E-government projects and applications among all different levels of governments have laid a very solid foundation for the implementation of knowledge management, and can actually be seen as one of the “first steps” of KM in government. As e-government has become the standard for government operations, also with the help of state-of-art ICTs, front-office in government are able to collect and store much more detailed and specifically customer-related information. Apparently this kind of information is very important to government organizations, and as the matter of fact, for all KM projects within government organizations it will become a large part of its KM initiatives for the analysis and attempt of transformation into knowledge for the purpose of better decision-making and policy formulation.

However in order to realize this purpose, the back-office would have to rely on close collaboration of the front-office and seek their “first-line” experiences. Also for all successful KM programs it will eventually establish formal and systematic mechanisms such as Community of Practice (CoP) to encourage interpersonal connection and knowledge sharing. All these will increase the inter-link between front- and back-offices within government organizations and consequently establish a better knowledge system. At the same time, the establishment of a better knowledge system would in turn naturally improve the quality of government services. We believe, the gap between the front- and back-office will eventually diminish with the progress of fully implementation of KM in government organizations although the main functions of these two parts would still remain different and their distinctions are becoming blurred.

To realize this aim, we think any KM initiatives in government organizations must pinpoint their efforts on the following three “explorations”: 1, Leveraging both

internal and external expertise; 2, Leveraging knowledge assets at different levels; and 3, developing human potential through learning and training. In-depth elaboration and detailed suggestions will be discussed on other occasions.