1. Knowledge
&
Organisations
-­‐
Of
Knowledge,
communication
&technologies
Lapin
Ylipisto,
Rovaniemi,
15th
of
January
2013
Dr.
Oliver
Krone
MBA

2. 2
Agenda
* Definitions
* Knowledge
* Organisation
* Communication
* Knowledge
and
Management
* Knowledge
as
“communal
wisdom”
* Knowledge
formation
and
its
social
character
* Management
as
activity
of
Administrators
* Management
as
setting
boundaries
* Knowledge
creation
–
Disciplin-­‐ary
interactions
* Knowledge
Sharing
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

3. Knowledge

4. “Definition”
of
Knowledge
I
subscribe
Luft,
1994;Liebenau
&
Backhouse
1990
Dr.
Oliver
Krone
Lay,
2013,
Organizations
and
Management

5. Concept
exploration
I
ì Knowledge
ì Knowledge,
as
negotiated
outcome
of
a
discourse,
ì the
value
attached
to
it,
and
ì claim
for
acceptance,
is
dependent
on
the
ì coherence
of
its
descriptions
ì to
the
processes
as
they
are
ensuing
in
reality
(Krone,
2007)
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

6. Organisation
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

7. The constructedness of
Organisations
Organi-
sation
includes
generate/
Management
enact structures
Organisation+
Define/ entailed Work
Set-up relationships
Human
Beings Work fields
Domains
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

8. Knowledge
in
the
Organisation
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

9. Communication
* „Organiza)onal
survival
is
related
to
management‘s
ability
to
receive,
transmit
and
act
informa)on.
The
commnuica)on
process
links
the
organiza)on
to
its
environment
as
well
as
to
ist
parts...[Gibson
et
al.,
2003,p.13]
* „[..]
communica)on
as
selec)on
out
of
complexi)es
based
on
system
endemic
sense
structures,
because
communica)on
is
the
processing
of
selec)ons“
[Krone,
2007,p.34]
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

10. Interactions in Organisation
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

11. Knowledge and Management
• Knowledge
– As
communal
wisdom
– Formation
and
its
social
character
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

12. Knowledge
–
communal
wisdom
ì Language
–
or:
How
do
we
arrive
at
Knowledge?
ì Consists
of
grammar,
words
and
categories
ì Its
acquisition
by
infants
is
a
rather
slow,
but
suggested
to
be
a
natural
process
ì Is
a
social
shared
good
ì Delivers
descriptions
of
real
life
objects
and
categorises
those
into
families
of
objects
that
are
of
same
kind
ì according
to
Whorf(-­‐Sapir)
shapes
our
way
of
conceiving
world
(Boroditsky,
w/y)
ì Is
used
to
formulate
and
develop
knowledge
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

13. Knowledge
–
Individual
posession
* As
far
as
emotions
are
concerned
these
are
individual,
but
increasingly
research
shows
that
knowledge
is
not
stored
only
in
a
factual
way,
but
* also
has
affective
components
and
the
brains
stores
the
factual
content
and
the
affective
content
in
the
mind
* If
this
is
true,
it
might
explain
why
people
have
„gut“
feelings
on
the
rightness
of
knowledge
claims
[Damasio,
2004;
cp.
Polanyi,
1958)
* Talking
about
tacit-­‐explicit
knowledge
is
than
not
about
explicit
(verbalized)
–
implict
(held
in
heads)
knowledge,
but
about
the
quality
of
the
sentiment
when
individuals
work
with
this
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

14. Management
ì Management
ì As
activity
of
administrators
ì As
setting
boundaries
Dr.
Oliver
Krone
Lay,
2013,
Organizations
and
Management

15. Management
–
Leadership
ì Yukl
[2006,
p.6]
distinguishes
between
leadership
and
management
as
dedicated
different
activities
ì Management
is
ì running
of
the
organization
ì
allocating
ressources
ì
defining
operational
aims
ì taking
corrective
action
when
organizational
aims
are
not
met
ì Leadership
in
this
perspective
orients
to
ì challenging
status
quo
ì implementing
the
measures
that
drive
the
organization
to
the
new
direction
ì Management
is
oriented
to
efficiency
and
can
conflict
with
the
disruptive
premise
of
Leadership
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

16. Management
–
as
setting
boundaries
I
ì Is
commomly
associated
with
processes
that
relate
to
the
measurement
of
activities
ì It
seeks
establishing
efficient
modes
of
working
in
order
to
ì allow
optimised
resource
utilisation
under
conditions
of
scarcity
ì Is
oriented
to
the
minute
working
of
the
organisation;
ì Uses
knowledge
to
achieve
better
performance
Dr.
Oliver
Krone
Lay,
2013,
Organizations
and
Management

17. Knowledge
Management
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

18. Knowledge
Management
I
(the
Business
interpretation)
Basic
assumptions
that
are
recurrent
in
the
field
of
research
on
knowledge
in
organisations
* Knowledge
is
worth
managing
* Organisations
benefit
from
managing
knowledge
* Knowledge
can
be
managed
* Minimal
risk
is
associated
with
managing
knowledge
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

19. Knowledge
Management
IV
(the
Business
interpretation)
* In
the
field
of
KM
it
is
a
general
practice
to
perceive
these
elements
as
being
expression
of
knowledge
* Processses
* Corporate
structures
* Guidelines,
formal
work
instructions
* Sometimes
the
above
mentioned
Items
are
considered
together
and
than
make
so
called
„Core
Competencies“
* “Core
Competencies”
are
policies
and
experiences
in
the
field
of:
* Dealing
with
physical
goods
* Management
practices
* “corporate
culture”
* IT
Applications
Dr.
Oliver
Krone
Lay,
2013,
Organizations
and
Management

20. Knowledge
Management
VI
ì Jennex
:
ì [..]
the
practice
of
ì selectively
applying
knowledge
ì from
previous
experiences
of
decision-­‐making
ì to
current
and
future
decision-­‐making
activities
ì with
the
express
purpose
of
improving
the
organization’s
effectiveness.[Jennex,
2010,XVII]
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

21. Knowledge
creation
–
Disciplinary
interactions
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

22. Method
and
knowledge
production
II
ì As
result
of
the
industrial
revolution,
and
latest
after
World
War
II
,
Nowotny
et
al.
(2004)
observe
that
ì knowledge
generation
moved
out
of
the
traditional,
state-­‐sanctioned
ì Predominant
field
of
academic
research
ì into
the
individual
(industrial-­‐)organisation
ì
the
commercial
oriented
production
of
knowledge,
while
ì Adhering
to
procedures
resting
on
rational-­‐
methodological
empirical
methods,
has
led
to
ì a
re-­‐orientation
to
the
particular
organisation
Dr. Oliver Krone 39
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

23. Method
and
knowledge
production
III
ì Knowledge
becomes
particular,
ì Validity
is
assigned
to
the
ì outcomes
of
research
by
ì fit
to
the
purpose
for
which
solutions
were
looked
for
ì “Knowledge”
generation
becomes
ì
temporal,
ì oriented
to
the
particular,
and
ì “personalised”
to
the
employee
working
in
a
given
process
=>
ì Knowledge
becomes
organisational
Dr. Oliver Krone 40
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

24. Inter-­‐/Multidisciplinarity
What
are
actually
disciplines?
I
* „[..]
collec)vi)es
that
include
a
large
propor)on
of
persons
holding
degrees
with
the
same
differen)a)ng
specializa)on
name,
* Which
are
organized
in
part
into
degree-­‐gran)ng
units
that
* in
part
give
degree-­‐gran)ng
posi)ons
and
powers
to
persons
holding
these
degrees;
* persons
holding
degrees
of
this
par)cular
specialized
kind
are
employed
in
posi)ons
that
give
degree
gran)ng
powers
to
them,
* Such
that
there
is
an
actual
exchange
of
students
between
different
degree-­‐gran)ng
ins)tu)ons
offering
degrees
in
what
is
understood
to
be
the
same
specializa)on
[...]“
Turner,
47
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

25. Inter-­‐/Multidisciplinarity
What
are
actually
disciplines?
II
* The
market
is
secured
by
* Standardization
of
training
driven
by
demands
of
the
market
become
curriculum
brought
to
students.
* Students
internalise
these
demands
by
having
gone
through
the
experience
of
studying
for
particular
exam
or
* Particular
kind
of
procedure.
* The
fact
that
people
are
trained
in
fundamentally
the
same
way
makes
it
possible
for
them
to
effectively
judge
about
the
quality
of
work
done
by
others
and
* regimes
of
training
for
themselves
be
evaluated
for
their
rigour.
⇒
Disciplines
shape
cognitive
patterns
of
what
is
good
and
wrong
in
the
light
of
their
own
horizon!
(Turner,
p.
52)
⇒
disciplines
shape
conditions
for
their
interaction
with
other
disciplines
via
their
training
(epistemic
style;
Bromme,
p.
124-­‐5)
⇒ Disciplines
give
a
sense
of
belonging
and
how
and
against
which
standards
knowledge
bearers
are
held
accountable!
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

26. Inter-­‐/Multidisciplinarity
What
are
actually
disciplines?
IV
* The
generation
of
markets
for
students
of
a
particular
discipline,
is
according
to
Turner
the
crucial
element
for
becoming
a
discipline
* Disciplines
are
expressions
of
an
integration
into
the
division
of
labour
in
the
environment
of
the
‚discipline‘
that
is
applied
to
academic
research
(irrespective
of
the
existence
of
explaining
or
rigorous
models)
* Disciplines
reflect
outside
patterns
to
the
inside
by
shaping
internally
working
opportunities
for
their
graduates
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

27. Knowledge
Sharing
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

28. Knowledge
Sharing
I
ì In
general
terms
it
is
distinguished:
ì “Sharing
for
further
utilisation
in
a
known
activity”
[“Lessons
learnt”
in
Project
wrap-­‐up,
never
really
happening]
ì “Sharing
for
the
purpose
of
generating
new
Knowledge”
(Hendriks,
1999)
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

29. Knowledge
Sharing
II
ì Means
to
increase
the
willingness
to
exchange
knowledge
ì Making
the
team
aware
of
its
reliance
on
each
other
ì Project
manager
to
ensure
that
Communication
is
not
blocked
by
rank
differences
ì Generate
setting
which
discourages
from
Individual
profit
taking
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

30. Knowledge
Sharing
V
=>
We
can
not
neglect
that
even
the
most
altruistic
Human
being
in
times
has
individual
rational
aims
* Promotions
being
depended
on
performance
will
limit
employees
willingness
to
share
their
knowledge,
but
* this
is
conditional
on
aspects
summarized
under
the
label
of
“social
capital”
(Wang
2004;
Chua
2003)
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

31. Social
Identity
Theory
Group-­‐membership
-­‐ assimilation
to
prototype
-­‐
social
attraction
hypothesis
-­‐
Leadership
based
on
prototypicality
Leadership
allows
-­‐
change
in
def.
of
prototype
-­‐
define
new
norms
-­‐
pressure
on
deviant
members
Results:
-­‐ Leaders
are
not
selected
based
on
capabilities
-­‐
overall
in
the
orga.
management
is
a
rep.
of
a
dominant
type
-­‐
overall
org.
are
becoming
prone
to
be
abusive
to
others
(Hogg/Terry 2000)
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

32. On
the
way
to
Knowledge
Integration
I
* Members
of
a
project
are
reflecting
different
domains
of
a
organisation
* From
psychology
it
is
known
that
a
process
can
be
observed
by
which
domain
members
* Depersonalise
(reduce
own
characteristics)
* Adapt
their
behaviour
to
that
of
their
domain
* Try
to
imitate
the
behaviour
of
a
sub-­‐group
leader
* This
phenomena
is
in
particular
observable
if
a
given
domain
is
subject
to
„intra
–
organisational“
stress
factors
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

33. Gouvernmentality
and
knowledges
ì Describes
in
modern
guise
a
form
of
governance
that
relies
on
community
based
control
ì Often
uses
as
expression
of
its
„tacit“
character
technological
expert
knowledge
ì Behaviour
is
evaluated
by
others
and
staff
itself
in
line
with
role-­‐
models
of
a
given
work
community
ì Diverse
knowledge's
and
work
communities
are
an
expression
of
different
arena
in
which
disciplinarisation
happens
ì Thus
there
is
a
linage
of
becoming
factual
acquainted
with
knowledge,
while
also
subjected
to
group-­‐control
effects
of
knowledge
Dr. Oliver Krone 54
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

34. Knowledge
Integration
I
ì „It
[KI]
examines
the
processes
under
which
a
successful
exchange
of
Information
and
Knowledge
is
happening“
(Hislop
2003)
ì
“synthesis
of
individual
specialised
Knowledge
into
situation-­‐specific
systemic
knowledge”
(Alavi/
Timawa
2001)
ì “the
compilation
of
systemic
networked
meta-­‐
knowledge
which
forms
a
bridge
between
previously
isolated
areas
of
knowledge
and
experience.
It
relies
on
the
ability
to
define
problems
independently
of
disciplines
and
to
solve
them
on
an
interdisciplinary
basis“
(Ganz/Hermann
1999)
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

35. 58
Terminological
Clarifications
ì Knowledge
Integration
ì Knowledge
Integration
(KI)
as
an
activity
[..],
ì is
a
process
in
which
individuals
from
different
domains
ì communicate
information
and
knowledge
in
a
way
that
the
respective
recipient
[..],
ì can
act
based
on
the
information/knowledge
obtained.
ì It
is
an
activity
of
knowledge
generation.
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

36. 59
Technologies
of
KM
ì KM
today
has
become
more
and
more
split
into
ì Delivery
of
ICT
infrastructural
components
that
support
KM
ì Motivational
elements
that
seek
shaping
organisational
internal
interactions
to
make
them
conducive
to
knowledge
sharing
ì In
both
fields
psychological
components
are
important,
but
need
to
tackle
different
aspects
of
using
these
technologies
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

37. 60
Technologies
(ICT
of
KM)
ì IS
are
ì “[..]
system[s]
of
communication
between
people.
ì Information
systems
are
systems
involved
in
the
gathering,
processing,
distribution
and
use
of
information.
ì Information
systems
support
human
activity
systems.“
(Beynon-­‐Davies,2002)
Dr. Oliver Krone
Lay, 2013, Organizations and Management

38. What
(K)now?
I
ì Can
Knowledge
Management
exist?
ì KM
is
also
about
the
study
of
the
interaction
among
people
of
different
knowledge
sets,
and
between
people
and
organisations
ì Knowledge
includes
many
facets
that
structure
its
bearers
behaviour
in
line
with
his/her
peer-­‐group
ì If
knowledge
is
outcome
of
conversations:
What
about
the
rational
side
of
the
knowledge
generation
process?
ì Organisations
and
knowledge
are
interdependent
and
do
have
mutual
re-­‐inforcing
characteristics

39. What
(K)now?
II
ì What
is
academic
knowledge
generation
for?
ì What
are
methods
that
should
be
used
allowing
for
discourses
(communication)
among
people
from
different
domains
in
academia
and
real-­‐life?
If
knowledge
is
outcome
from
communication,
should
we
not
have
respectful
communication
with
our
communicative
partner,
and
then
generate
knowledge
by
means
of
our
shared
language
and
collective
sense
making
that
respects
differences
of
what
is
seen?