Chapter 4: Survey of KM Researchers and Practitioners 79
4.3 Results
4.3.2 Relevant capabilities according to perspectives on KM
capabilities by those from the information-oriented cluster. Organizational and technological capabilities in general were considered neutral, with the exception of technological capabilities being rejected by respondents from the human-oriented cluster. Also, we noticed that except for inter-personal and personal capabilities, respondents from the computing-oriented cluster were neutral towards all capabilities and those from the human-oriented cluster supported only the strategic ones.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S O K T I P
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S O K T I P
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S O K T I P
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
Ã
ÄÃ Ã Ã
ÄÃ Ã
à à Ãà à Ã
ÃÃ Ã
ÃÃ Ã
Human Information Computing
S: Strategic, O: Organizational, K: Knowledge-oriented, T: Technological, I: Inter-personal, P: Personal
Figure 4-8: Aggregate importance of capability categories for each of the clusters
We now provide a more detailed account on how each capability was rated by members in each cluster, starting with the knowledge-oriented and technological ones, where the differences were more revealing.
Knowledge-oriented capabilities
Starting with the knowledge-oriented capabilities, we noticed that the information-oriented cluster supported all of them (Figure 4-9). The human-oriented cluster, however, rejected all but two (K1 and K3), and the computing-oriented rejected two (K5 and K6) and remained neutral in other three (K1, K3 and K4). This suggests that, while the capabilities listed may be well accepted and valued by people with an information-oriented perspective on KM, several of them are not relevant for those with either a human- or
computing-oriented perspective. It is important to note that this does not mean that human- or computing-oriented perspectives do not value the so-called knowledge-oriented capabilities. This only indicates that they do not consider relevant those capabilities we suggested under this label; eventually, other capabilities may be suggested under this category that have appeal to those perspectives.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
ÃÄ ÃÄ ÄÄ ÃÄ ÃÄ ÄÄ
ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ
Ã
ÄÄ Ã
ÄÄ
Human Information Computing
K1 Understanding the varied aspects of knowledge and its processes K2 Finding, organizing and distributing relevant knowledge
K3 Mapping knowledge needs, sources and flows, owners and users K4 Designing and managing knowledge repositories
K5 Codifying experience and expertise K6 Assessing and measuring knowledge
Figure 4-9: Knowledge-oriented capabilities
Technological capabilities
The obvious finding about technological capabilities is the aversion of the human-oriented cluster for them: it rejects all but one (T3), about which it remains neutral (Figure 4-10). The information-oriented cluster, in contrast, supports three of them (T2, T3 and T6) and the computing-oriented two (T4 and T6). The relevance of technological capabilities for those clusters, however, need to be qualified. Results suggest that those with an information-oriented perspective on KM see themselves as users (T3) or, at most, administrators (T6) of technological tools, but not as developers or implementers (T5). The data from the computing-oriented cluster surprised us for their relative lack of support for
technological capabilities, which we initially strongly associated with the perspective they represent. The data suggests that they see themselves mostly as recommenders (T4) of technological tools, or maybe administrators (T6).
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
ÄÄ
ÄÄ Ä ÄÄ
ÄÄ Ä
ÄÃ Ã ÄÃ ÄÃ Ã ÄÃ
Ä
à à Ä
à Ã
Human Information Computing
T1 Understanding the existing technological infrastructure T2 Understanding available KM technologies
T3 Using available KM technologies effectively
T4 Assessing needs and recommending KM technologies T5 Developing and implementing KM technologies T6 Administrating and maintaining KM technologies
Figure 4-10: Technological capabilities
Organizational capabilities
Regarding what we labeled organizational capabilities, the importance of understanding the organization’s culture and behavior (O1) and promoting collaboration and creativity (O2) was made clear with the support for them by all clusters (Figure 4-11). The major surprise comes from the human-oriented cluster, which remained neutral or rejected the other capabilities, with only a questionable support for developing people (T4). The same happened in the case of the information- and computing-oriented clusters, which made us question if the capabilities listed are actually relevant for KM competence. Again, this lack of support does not mean that so-called organizational capabilities are unimportant.
It merely indicates that either the capabilities suggested are not the right ones, or that they were stated in the wrong way. Anyway, this is an issue to be further investigated.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
ÃÃ
Ã Ä ÃÃ
à Ä
ÃÃ
Ä ÃÃ
Ä
ÃÃ Ä ÃÃ Ä
Human Information Computing
O1 Understanding the organization’s culture and behavior O2 Promoting collaboration and creativity
O3 Managing teams and communities O4 Developing people
O5 Initiating and managing organizational change O6 Managing projects, from planning to execution
Figure 4-11: Organizational capabilities
Strategic capabilities
The importance of some strategic capabilities is stressed here, with the identification of strategic knowledge (S3) and the development of strategies to advance KM (S4) being supported by all clusters (Figure 4-12). A surprising result is the support from the information-oriented cluster for most of the suggested capabilities, in contrast with their choice of priority activities which neglected those associated with the strategy-perspective (see Figure 4-5). This suggests that strategic capabilities may be unrelated to strategy-oriented activities as they were proposed in this study, despite the similarity in their naming.
Another interesting result is the support from the computing-oriented cluster for understanding the organization’s environment (S1). This contrasted with our assumption at the time the survey was conducted that the computing-oriented perspective was strongly related to the use of technology and thus mostly inattentive to strategic issues.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
ÃÃ Ã Ã ÃÃ Ã Ã
ÃÃ ÃÃ Ã ÃÃ ÃÃ Ã
à Ãà ÄÄ Ã Ãà ÄÄ
Human Information Computing
S1 Understanding the organization’s environment
S2 Understanding the organization’s structure and core processes S3 Identifying strategic knowledge and providing direction for KM S4 Developing approaches and strategies to advance KM practices S5 Evaluating and demonstrating results from KM initiatives
S6 Creating structures and processes for innovation/knowledge creation
Figure 4-12: Strategic capabilities
Inter-personal and personal capabilities
The inter-personal and personal capabilities are notable for the wide support they received from all clusters (Figure 4-13 and Figure 4-14). This is understandable, since they are very generic in nature and not related exclusively to KM. A very unexpected result for us, however, is the rejection by the
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 I6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
ÃÃ ÃÃ ÄÄ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÄÄ
ÃÃ ÃÃ ÄÄ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÄÄ
ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ
Human Information Computing
I1 Communicating effectively in a variety of situations I2 Leading, influencing and gaining support
I3 Building relationships inside and outside the organization I4 Collaborating and working in teams
I5 Negotiating and solving conflicts I6 Handling politics and power relations
Figure 4-13: Inter-personal capabilities
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
+3 +2 +1 0 -1 -2 -3
ÃÃ ÃÃ Ã ÃÃ ÃÃ Ã
ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ ÃÃ
ÃÃ ÃÃ Ã ÃÃ ÃÃ Ã
Human Information Computing
P1 Strongly believes in KM P2 Initiative and proactiveness P3 Creativity and inventiveness
P4 Willingness to reflect and learn from experience P5 Perseverance and resilience
P6 Trustworthiness and accountability
Figure 4-14: Personal capabilities
human-oriented cluster for conflict- and power-related capabilities (I5 and I6). We understand that most of the attention of the KM literature is focused on collaboration and knowledge sharing, but we assumed that conflict is intrinsic to organizational settings. Naturally, we expected that those with a human-oriented perspective on KM would acknowledge that.