Knowledge Management Essay

In researching this paper I burn downt seem to get aside from constantly comparing the difference between what is cognition and what is tuition. As a result I continue to look at companionship charge synonymously with education forethought. Or rather the harm of k instantlyledge and reading of which knowledge is constantly delectationd synonymously with culture. As pointed out in numerous articles this is often the case, and just leads to confusion of what I think cognition circumspection re all in ally is to the highest degree.Furthermore, I am still stuck in the whimsey that you preserve manage entropy simply non really the corresponding knowledge that an individual can derive from the info. This is why I show when reading the assigned reading material that T. D. Wilsons article credibly influenced me more that the others. As a result I will translate to explain Information care comparatively with Knowledge Management and cover the posed question and how I think Knowledge Management should be broached with top managers. What is Information Management?According to Wikipedia, Information care (IM) is the collection and management of cultivation from one or more sources and the dispersion of that information to one or more audiences (Wikipedia Information, 2010). This can of course be information of many types and can be stored in data form, scripted form, video form, and many other forms. Typically in the case of IM this information is stored in Information Management systems such as databases, collaboration portals, state tools, and many other types of systems.Information Management is used to store information so that users of the information can gain knowledge from the information as a whole toward an end goal whether that goal is to generate gross r alteration surfaceue for a company or become an expert in widgets. Information is the basis for knowledge. Without it, knowledge doesnt exist. On the other hand, according to Wiki pedia, Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range of strategies and practices used in an organization to identify, create, represent, distribute, and alter adoption of insights and experiences.Such insights and experiences comprise knowledge, either embodied in individuals or embedded in organizational forgees or practice (Wikipedia Knowledge, 2010). The problem I put on with this is that you may be able to capture knowledge in write form, for example, but knowledge in this form is only information for another to use to complete a process through management and does not imply they register the information that led to the conclusion. Can it be a sharing of explicit knowledge?Probably according to Thampi, plain knowledge (sometimes referred to as formal knowledge) is formal knowledge that can be packaged as information (Thampi, 2008). Emphasis should be given to packaged as information. He also implies that tacit knowledge (personal knowledge) all over time can become ex plicit once the person matures it into new-made knowledge and documents it in some form. Knowledge implies understanding of information and knowledge in written form is just that, information. I dont believe just because the person can read it that knowledge of the underlie information is imparted.According to Li and Song, the relationship between IM and KM consists of the twain having mutually reinforcing effects and they both attach great importance to information and IT (Li and Song, 2009). They state under this these relationships that Even though KM and IM have opposite emphases the purpose produced is basically identical and that Knowledge cannot exist without information because it provides natural material and source for knowledge innovation and the pursuit of KM goals (Li and Song, 2009). well-nigh sounds like they are synonymousI think this is the basis for many of T. D. Wilsons disceptations. He states that for the fields of information science and information sys tems, it is all the way necessary for us to distinguish between information and knowledge. ill fortune to do so results in one or other of these footing standing as a synonym for the other, thereby confvictimization anyone who wishes to understand 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 above, does not imply knowledge of the fundamental information to the person reading it. Wilson further comments on this thought by stating, Whenever we wish to express what we know, we can only do so by uttering messages of one kind or another oral, written, graphic, gestural or withal through body language. Such messages do not get knowledge, they constitute information, which a knowing judicial decision may assimilate, understand, comprehend and incorporate into its own knowledge structures (Wilson, 2002). In other words, not everyon e reading it will gain knowledge, so maybe Knowledge Management isnt the right term to use.I also like his argument that everything outside the fountainhead in essence can be delineate 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, etc. 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 then, only imperfectly (Wilson, 2002). I believe Wilsons arguments are fine convincing and his research paper is exhaustive and nearly exhausted me whole of the comments and arguments above are not really what this assignment is about but are what helped me draw my conclusions to answer the posed question. Is it a good idea to use the term knowledge management i n conversations with top managers in our days?I dont know that even with all the chatter about KM that its known well decorous by all managers to necessarily use the term in conversations. sneak managers may not have enough information about the KM concepts to be comfortable talking about it without some knowledge or expertise on the matter. I think you need to approach the conversations in name of desired outcomes. After all, knowledge is information applied toward a desired outcome. I believe anytime you talk to your antique or her boss etc. you outline 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 use 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 run off 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 goodly conversation with top managers. If I fall into the trap of letting someone else define KM in their own mind, establish on what I know about KM, I will simply contribute to the on-going directionless efforts already occurring. Other terms I would consider using that add clarity to the conversation include process, documentation, repeatability, uniform results, and intended outcomes.These terms change the conversation by changing the focus. You can still have a KM conversation by framing KM as the documented processes that provide repeatable uniform results and intended outcomes. This is a dogged way of saying KM should be used as a conversation starting point but not a n end point. forge out the KM catch phrase then say now that I have your attention lets talk about all the stuff that makes KM work. While 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 do away with synonymous meanings. I do not believe knowledge can be managed but information, processes, and experience can.Bogorad stated, By definition, the intent of Knowledge Management is to discover, retain, and disseminate locked-in knowledge across the organization (Bogorad, 2010). In my opinion the terms locked-in experience or locked-in proce sses 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.