weLEAD Online Magazine

leadingtoday.org

Copyright 2006 ã weLEAD, Inc.

 

 

September 2006 Editorial

The Indefatigable Resource:  Knowledge

 

 

Shannon Flumerfelt, PhD.

Editor of the E-Journal of Organizational Learning and Leadership

 

 

Chevron announced recently that they located an oil field deep in the Gulf of Mexico; a find that adds greatly to the nation’s supply.1   It is well understood that oil is a bounded natural resource, further confined by the expenses of locating and drilling.  Because of the limitations of the resource itself and because of the economic and socio-political costs of obtaining oil, several endeavors are underway to find alternative energy sources.  In contrast, there is a resource, more valuable than anything obtained from the earth, that is emerging as the economic commodity of the new millennium--knowledge.  Albrecht (2006) describes the importance of knowledge as a technological supertrend and explains, “Information is rapidly becoming a profitless commodity, and knowledge is becoming the new competitive advantage.” (p. 26)2 

 

Management of our most valuable resource, knowledge, has been described as essential to economic success by Giddens (2001),

A Knowledge Economy is one in which much of the workforce is involved not in the physical production or distribution of material goods, but in their design, development, technology, marketing, sales and servicing.  [This is] an economy in which ideas, information, [and] knowledge underpin innovation and economic growth. . . . [and] is dominated by the constant flow of information and by the powerful potentials of science and technology. (p. 378)3

In this setting, where research, development, technology and communication areas must have the capacity to convert their information sources into knowledge, the work of organizations focuses on the development of theoretical knowledge as the source of innovation.  Knowledge management becomes an essential strategic and operational activity.  Korogodsky (2004) states, “Eventually it comes back to what information—knowledge—is being retained, how it is being stored, and how easy it is to access it. More importantly, how easy is it to access it in a meaningful way?” (p. 9)4  The implications of knowledge management in organizational culture are far reaching.  Myburgh states, “. . . . there has been a considerable change in the way organizations are formed and in how they function.  They are described as intelligent, virtual and learning.”  (47)5  This means that the work of knowledge management requires structural and organizational changes. 

The definition of knowledge management for organizations includes two areas:  the theoretical constructs and values of knowledge management (ideology) and the operational aspects of knowledge management (process).  Metcalfe (2006) describes this combination,

The ideology of knowledge management holds that intellectual capital is a commodity to be attained and owned.  As a process, knowledge management is the manner in which an organization records, stores, and utilizes knowledge ‘assets’ to create ‘value.’  This ‘value’ may or may not be financial. (p. 18)6

Understanding that knowledge management requires more than the technical processes of creation, retention, sharing, measuring and using information is substantial for organizations.  Metcalfe’s additional explanation of the ideology of knowledge management places it at the core of thinking and practice.  Effective knowledge management, in effect, is the essential idea and practice that creates value for organizations.  Harari (1997) describes how fundamentally different embracing the ideology of knowledge management can be,

We are indeed entering an age of knowledge, where the clear winners will be those organizations that are the smartest. This assertion may seem pretty obvious and fairly harmless. In fact, it is a more subtle and radical statement than first meets the eye, for it challenges some of our most sacrosanct premises about how we manage our enterprises. (p. 38) 7

Embracing knowledge management as an ideology and a process requires organizational alignment.  The ideology of knowledge management challenges the traditional power structures of organizations, for example.  The ideology of knowledge management forces a systemic view of an organization in ways that foster interactions between departments, positions and functions.  Clarke (2006) explains,

The way forward rests on viewing the organization holistically and looking less at where the management of information can be positioned in terms of business functions, and more at how it can be used to enhance the interactions between those functions. (p. 17)8

In other words, organizations structured to de-emphasize positions of authority in order to facilitate organizational information between multidisciplinary functions are able to engage in both the process and ideology of it.   Moore (1998) explains the importance of embracing the full definition of knowledge management, both the process and ideology,

The biggest change in mindset that today’s leaders can make is a shift from conceiving their businesses as hierarchical organizations to envisioning themselves as participants in a world of complex evolving systems. The new strategic paradigm involves exerting leadership—not control—over communities of individuals and organizations. It involves respecting and taking advantage of the intelligence of others around you, and working together to create new innovation. It involves shaping the future, rather than simply defending the enterprises of the past.  We live in a business world where the only true sustainable advantage is innovation. I define innovation not simply as continuously pumping out products and services. (p. 169)9

 

The difficulties of obtaining scarce natural resources, such as oil, will continue to impact organizations of all types.  In this regard, the one indefatigable resource, knowledge, will emerge as unbounded in potential for increasing organizational success, but only if it is understood both theoretically and operationally.

 

 

 

References:

1Trumbull, M. (2006).  New oil find tests drilling’s watery limits [Electronic version].  The Christian Science Monitor retrieved 09/10/06 from:  http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0908/p03s02-usec.html

2Albrecht, K. (2006).  Eight supertrends shaping the future of business.  The Futurist, September-October 2006, 25-29.

3Giddens,   A. (2001).  Sociology, 4th Edition. Oxford, UK:  Blackwell Publishing Ltd. p. 378.

4Korogodsky, A.  (2004).  Moving toward alignment [Electronic version].  Bests Review (104), 9.

5Myburgh, S. (2004).  Competitive intelligence:  Bridging organizational boundaries [Electronic version].  Information Management Journal, 38(2). 46-48, 50-52.

6Metcalfe. A. S. (2006).  Knowledge management and higher education:  a critical analysis [Electronic version].  Information Technology Newsletter 17(2), p. 18-19. retrieved 09/06/06 from: Idea Group Publishing at http://www.idea-group.com/downloads/excerpts/itn.pdf 

7Harari, O. (1995).  Turn your organization into a hotbed of ideas [Electronic version].  Management Review, 84, 37-39.

8Clarke, S. (2006).  The impact of knowledge management on information management practice [Electronic version].  Information Management, 19(3/4), p. 16-17.

9Moore, J. F. (1998).  The rise of a new corporate form [Electronic version].  Washington Quarterly (21), 1, 167-181.

 

 

Comments to: flumerfe@leadingtoday.org

 

 

 

About the author:

 

Shannon Flumerfelt, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at Oakland University. Previously, she worked in public school administration and teaching, which included leadership development initiatives, restructuring schools with the Coalition of Essential Schools’ principles and other various change issues related to traditionally-based settings. Her scholarly interests include organizational leadership change and development and technology.