Are We Stuck With Knowledge Management?: A Case for Strategic Knowledge Resource Development

Are We Stuck With Knowledge Management?: A Case for Strategic Knowledge Resource Development

David Griffiths, Serge Koukpaki
Copyright: © 2010 |Pages: 20
DOI: 10.4018/jkss.2010100103
(Individual Articles)
No Current Special Offers


This is a conceptual paper offering an approach to apparent practitioner and academic dissatisfaction with the field of Knowledge Management (KM). Discussing definitions of knowledge, the drivers for its value as an organisational resource and comparing these against definitions of Knowledge Management, this paper suggests a divergence between operational needs and KM as the medium for coordination. Offering an historical perspective of knowledge as a resource it suggests KM to be too broad a concept to be effective in fulfilling the needs of organisations. The authors suggest a continuum for knowledge resource development from which Strategic Knowledge Resource Development is offered as a potential solution for current unsatisfaction.
Article Preview

What Is Meant By Knowledge?

Theorists such as Mingers (2008) have identified a lack of definition as a weakness in the field, where too many papers fail to establish a situated definition of knowledge, and thereby take an overly simplified view of its economic value.

Knowledge in its epistemological form is frequently referred to as ‘justified true belief’ (Plato, cited in Kakabadse et al., 2003, p. 76). It has also been described in the modern context as ‘information combined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection’ (Kulkarni et al., 2006). Wilson (2002) states that:

‘Knowledge involves the mental processes of comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in the mind, however much they involve interaction with the world outside the mind and interaction with others.’ (p. 2)

Others present an ontological position in suggesting that Knowledge exists in three states: ‘Knowledge-as-data’, ‘Knowledge-as-meaning’ and ‘Knowledge-as-practice’ (Spender, 2005). It is also said to be part of a flow or evolution process: ‘Data – Information – Knowledge – Understanding – Wisdom’ (Sarah&Haslet, 2003). Wilson (2002) makes an important differentiation between knowledge and information from an organisational perspective by positing that the externalisation of what we know outside of the mind constitutes information.

Complete Article List

Search this Journal:
Volume 15: 1 Issue (2024)
Volume 14: 1 Issue (2023)
Volume 13: 4 Issues (2022): 2 Released, 2 Forthcoming
Volume 12: 4 Issues (2021)
Volume 11: 4 Issues (2020)
Volume 10: 4 Issues (2019)
Volume 9: 4 Issues (2018)
Volume 8: 4 Issues (2017)
Volume 7: 4 Issues (2016)
Volume 6: 4 Issues (2015)
Volume 5: 4 Issues (2014)
Volume 4: 4 Issues (2013)
Volume 3: 4 Issues (2012)
Volume 2: 4 Issues (2011)
Volume 1: 4 Issues (2010)
View Complete Journal Contents Listing