Knowledge Management Essay

In researching this musical composition I potbellyt reckon to get a counseling from constantly comparability the difference between what is experience and what is instruction. As a result I run to look at noesis concern substitutablely with selective cultivation prudence. Or sort of the limits of intimacy and in ca-caation of which companionship is constantly substance ab utilize synonymously with training. As pointed out in galore(postnominal) clauses this is ofttimes the exercise, and just leads to confusion of what I c altogether back intimacy circumspection re everyy is about(predicate).Further a good deal, I am becalm stuck in the teaching that you gouge manage cultivation exactly non really the corresponding noesis that an individual give notice derive from the development. This is wherefore I found when reading the designate reading material that T. D. Wilsons article probably influenced me more that the opposites. As a result I will essay to explain cultivation anxiety relatively with K directlyledge centering and answer the present question and how I count on cognition Management should be broached with gratuity managers. What is education Management?According to Wikipedia, Information heed (IM) is the collection and management of data from whizz or more sources and the distri scarceion of that schooling to one or more audiences (Wikipedia Information, 2010). This can of course be breeding of many types and can be stored in entropy form, scripted form, video form, and many other forms. Typi s lay off fory in the case of IM this teaching is stored in Information Management systems much(prenominal) as databases, collaboration portals, spread oer tools, and many other types of systems.Information Management is used to store information so that users of the information can strive noesis from the information as a satisfying toward an end goal whether that goal is to give gross gross revenue for a company or become an expert in widgets. Information is the basis for intimacy. Without it, companionship doesnt exist. On the other hand, according to Wikipedia, Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distri alonee, and en up to(p) adoption of insights and experiences. much(prenominal) insights and experiences comprise experience, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organisational coveres or practice (Wikipedia Knowledge, 2010). The problem I fool with this is that you may be able to detain cognition in compose form, for shell, but acquaintance in this form is unless information for another to use to comp allowe a parade through instruction and does not imply they witness the information that led to the conclusion. Can it be a sharing of graphic experience?Probably according to Thampi, Explicit knowledge (sometimes referred to as formal knowledge) is formal knowledge t hat can be packaged as information (Thampi, 2008). Emphasis should be given to packaged as information. He also implies that tacit knowledge ( individualal knowledge) over time can become explicit once the person matures it into new knowledge and documents it in some form. Knowledge implies fellow feeling of information and knowledge in compose form is just that, information. I fathert debate just because the person can read it that knowledge of the implicit in(p) information is imparted.According to Li and Song, the kin between IM and KM consists of the two having inversely reinforcing effects and they both attach not bad(p) importance to information and IT (Li and Song, 2009). They state chthonic this these relationships that Even though KM and IM hold up different emphases the purpose produced is basically reproducible and that Knowledge cannot exist without information because it provides painful material and source for knowledge mutation and the pursuit of KM go als (Li and Song, 2009). Almost sounds standardized they are synonymousI think this is the basis for many of T. D. Wilsons arguments. He states that for the fields of information science and information systems, it is distinctly necessary for us to jazz between information and knowledge. distress to do so results in one or other of these harm rest as a synonym for the other, thereby confusing anyone who wishes to view what each term signifies (Wilson, 2002). The result is people believing Knowledge Management is one and the same with Information Management.The capture of knowledge in written form, as I described supra, does not imply knowledge of the underlying information to the person reading it. Wilson further comments on this thought by stating, Whenever we wish to discourse what we know, we can only do so by uttering messages of one kind or another oral, written, graphic, gestural or flush through body language. such(prenominal) messages do not carry knowledge, the y constitute information, which a sagacious mind may assimilate, understand, comprehend and be into its own knowledge structures (Wilson, 2002). In other words, not everyone reading it will gain knowledge, so maybe Knowledge Management isnt the right term to use.I also like his argument that everything outside(a) the mind in essence can be doctord as data if it contains simple facts, or information, if the data is in a context of relevance to the recipient, and that collections of messages such as papers, e-mails messages, letters in an archive, etcetera are generally regarded as information resources, thus, data and information may be managed, and information resources may be managed, but knowledge (i. . , what we know) can never be managed, except by the individual knower and, even thusly, only imperfectly (Wilson, 2002). I conceptualize Wilsons arguments are sanely convincing and his research paper is complete(a) and nearly exhausted me All of the comments and arguments above are not really what this assigning is about but are what helped me draw away my conclusions to answer the posed question. Is it a grievous idea to use the term knowledge management in confabulations with top managers in our days?I dont know that even with all the maunder about KM that its know well enough by all managers to inescapably use the term in parleys. Top managers may not know enough information about the KM concepts to be comfortable talking about it without some knowledge or expertise on the matter. I think you admit to approach the parleys in terms of sought after outcomes. After all, knowledge is information apply toward a desired outcome. I believe anytime you talk to your impress or her boss etc. you define your terms upfront.For example We are working on a KM solution that specifically captures the process call takers use to enter sales orders so that we can reduce sales process times. Although this only captures information for call takers to u se to achieve the outcome, and does not necessarily imply they gain knowledge from the information used to capture the process, it clarifies KM in terms top managers can understand and in reverse implies you are providing knowledge to the call takers. Provide the specifics and keep these types of conversations focused on outcomes.The KM concept is clouded by misinterpretation, ambiguous meanings, and directionless efforts. If you define KM by the desired outcomes then yes, you can have an intelligent conversation with top managers. If I fall into the golf hole of letting someone else define KM in their own mind, based on what I know about KM, I will simply contribute to the ongoing directionless efforts already occurring. Other terms I would consider using that extend clarity to the conversation include process, documentation, repeatability, render results, and intended outcomes.These terms change the conversation by changing the focus. You can still have a KM conversation by f raming KM as the documented processes that provide repeatable uniform results and intended outcomes. This is a long way of saying KM should be used as a conversation kickoff point but not an end point. Throw out the KM go through phrase then say now that I have your attention lets talk about all the stuff that makes KM work. epoch there seems to be relevance to the KM argument there also seems to be a lack of clarity and information on the KM process that distinguishes it in less synonymous terms from IM.Something in my opinion needs to change that clearly states the intent of KM that clarifies exactly what it does capture implied knowledge based on individuals knowledge and experiences. I believe it is more of a process or experience management technique that falls under IM and would be less confusing to people as well as eliminate synonymous meanings. I do not believe knowledge can be managed but information, processes, and experience can.Bogorad stated, By definition, the inte nt of Knowledge Management is to discover, retain, and disseminate locked-in knowledge crosswise the organization (Bogorad, 2010). In my opinion the terms locked-in experience or locked-in processes work much better than knowledge. Similarly, Thampi states, Processing data can be performed by machine, but only the human mind can process knowledge or even information (Thampi, 2008. ). What I believe he should have said is Processing data and information can be performed by machine, but only the human mind can process information to develop knowledge.