What about Knowledge Management?

Although I said that the previous post would be my last argument about integration… well, I couldn’t resist! : )) In fact, I think it is still missing a link from all this discussion and the main focused topic in this blog: Knowledge Management.

Is integration important for KM? No doubt about that!!! In this sense, we can think of:

• knowledge integration, as in different pieces of knowledge merging together in one big whole that is useful for someone;
• the integration of processes and enabling technology to serve the purposes of KM inside an organization;
• the integration of people in communities of practice to allow purposeful collaboration within or across organizations.

All these three examples are very relevant for KM to be effective. In this way, you can also imagine that all the discussions we made so far (starting here) are of course also applicable in this scenario. Let us see how:

1) When should a KM system be integrated in the processes underlying an organization?
A new KM system should be integrated when the members of the organization feel a need for support to achieve certain goals (both in terms of organizational strategic goals, and its members’ individual objectives). If the system in this case is already available (e.g. Lottus Notes, KEEx -- click in 'Soluzione'), an analysis should be made in order to find out ‘how’ this system may be configured, in a way that it is not intrusive and, instead, naturally adjust to people’s practices. A similar analysis is needed even if the system is not yet available. In this case, the system should preferably be built on top of existing technology already in use in the organization so that the members are already familiar with the interfaces and/or methods applied. This can make a big difference in achieving acceptance.

2) How should this system be integrated into the current processes?
The integration of this new system should result in advantages to the organizational members. So, based on my previous argument on how integration should occur, the system should maximize the positive points of the process while minimizing its flaws. On the other hand, in accommodating the system, the process should cover the important needs that are not covered in the system functionalities, besides allowing organizational members to make use of the system in its full potential. We can thus conclude that, besides the initial analysis of requirements, mentioned in 1), this also requires a careful design on how system and processes should be ajusted.

Ok, after this small example in the KM field, I am now completely satisfied! Wait… no… actually, not completely… I still need your comments! : )) So, I’m waiting, guys…

Kind regards,
Renata

Integration Nature and Requirements (part 2) – How?

Dear friends,

After reasoning about some conditions that make integration desirable, we should now target the question of ‘how’ this process should be conducted.

Integration processes between two or more parties should be carried out in a way that it results on maximizing the positive features of all involved parties, while minimizing their flaws.

Taking again the example of companies A and B of our previous post, we remember that the advantage of A is being a bigger company, thus being economically stronger; while B’s strength is having a new promising product in the market. Let us then suppose that, for being economically stronger, A wants to impose certain restrictions on B’s production chain, leading the given product to have great quality losses. Consequently, this could lead the product to become less acceptable from the market. In this case, despite the fact that the situation involving A and B suggests that their merge could be profitable, this could result in general losses for both A and B.

In the case above, company A has acted as ‘oppressor’ because of its economical advantage. This is very common in integration processes because there is usually one party that is stronger than the others. For example, when immigrants are integrating in their living countries, this country’s society may sometimes oppress them, by not giving them the chance to express who they really are. Consequently, this society is loosing a great opportunity to profit from the integration in its full potential. Immigrants are often attracted because of their work force, or some other advantage to the country that receives them. However, they may provide much more than new workers. They may bring new ways of thinking and experimenting life to that society. On the other hand, immigrants must definitely make firm steps towards adjusting to their new land, learning what people there know or do best. Embracing culture diversity has many advantages, such as:

• Allowing people to rethink their points of view, taking other cultural perspectives;
• Diminishing prejudice;
• Profiting from different solutions applied in different cultures, so that innovative ways to resolve conflicts and problems may be found.

These are only a few examples of good things that might emerge from true integration. There is a last important observation I’d like to make before I rest my case on our discussion, and this is: being open does not mean that the society mentioned above should allow all types of behavior and attitudes. It is important that some cultural values are preserved, being them those that guarantee the well-being of citizens, such as not accepting violent behavior, giving equal rights to all human beings despite gender and race, and not imposing religious beliefs and cults. I guess this statement is more debate-motivating than a closure… So, although I here declare our integration discussing week over, please do not be shy as new ideas and thoughts on this issue are always of interest in this blog.

Cheers to all,
Renata

Integration Nature and Requirements (part 1) – When?

Dear Collabloggers,

I guess we can move on a little bit on this discussion, focusing on something new for a change. I hope the Netherlands (including all its inhabitants) will find a way to deal better with the integration of the different co-existing cultures living here. As Olaf has put it, this might be a transition period, and despite all divergent opinions, I think we all agree that the current model does not work any longer.

Anyway, there have been other contributions to our discussion, like Luiz's interesting message about globalization. I totally agree with you that 'people' have been forgotten in the globalization process, although I think that not 'all people', but just some, usually the weakeast links of our so called 'global economy'. Taking this as a context, I'd like to propose the following questions: is integration always good? if not, when is it good, and when is it bad?

In my view, no matter in which context, integrating two parties is only beneficial if each party will have advantages or gains resulting from this merge.

The statement above has great impact on the ‘when’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ questions related to an integration processes. Let us first focus on 'when', illustrate our thoughts with a concrete example. If two companies A and B decide to merge, they should analyze what they will profit from that. So, suppose company A is bigger and more valuable, but thinks that company B has an interesting new product that has already gained some attention in the market. On the other hand, company B (a small business) sees this merge as a good opportunity to grow, having important contributions from A, in terms of resources of several kinds. Clearly, in this case, companies A and B have good reasons to merge. Now you might claim that this is the general case, when ‘things’ integrate in our world, but just think about it: has anyone asked the countries in Africa or in South America if they wanted to be part of a global economy? I guess not… For many of these countries, globalization as it happened did not improve the life of their people. On the contrary, it made them poorer than before. On the other hand, these countries see themselves more or less ‘forced’ to integrate, otherwise their products may not be competitive in the global market anymore… that’s too bad!

Well, in the next post we will continue this discussion, with some ideas about ‘how’ integration can be effectively achieved. Meanwhile, I let you process this post and provide me with your opinions.

Take care,
Renata

Understanding better about Integration issues in the Netherlands

Dear all,

I've just read the new comment by Olaf, giving us with some information on why he so strongly disagreed with the anonymous post. Well, I am speechless... Really, Olaf's explanation has made me rethink about some of my preconceived ideas about this country. It's funny how we can sometimes be caught making mistakes such as stereotyping or generalizing too much. I wonder if this is inevitable... well, I guess this would trigger another discussion and to be honest, I think I'd like to spend some more time on the Integration topic... Come on, guys, let's go on with this interesting debate!!!

By the way, I decided to switch back to allowing anonymous posting. I did this because I think, otherwise, we may miss some interesting contribution, in case someone does not want to register in Blogger. So, if there is something inapropriate or offensive, I will make sure that specific comment is hidden. Other than, everything else is allowed. So, I am waiting for comments from everyone!

Cheers,
Renata

Integration Discussion

Dear collabloggers,

Thanks for your contributions, by posting comments on my previous message. I am really happy that we are discussing this very polemic theme here in Collablogging! For being so controversial, we need to be careful about respecting each other's opinions, at the same time that we must also keep it a civil discussion. That's why I decided to follow Olaf's suggestion of not allowing anonymous postings. I guess this can prevent any ackwardness to happen here...

But in fact I liked a lot the anonymous post (i.e. the first comment on the previous message). It was on purpose that I left to you, my dear collabloggers, to set the first focus of our discussion. I do intend to discuss about 'Integration' in diverse aspects but I think the choice of our anonymous collablogger is indeed quite interesting.

In this context, I must say that I was myself disappointed with the consequences of the recent death of van Gogh. I had said in a previous post that I admire the Dutch people for their ethics and their tolerance... But, suddenly, less than a week after this previous post, bam! They start proving me wrong... burning muslin schools, mosques... declaring war to Islam and (what's most strange), somehow encouraged by some members of the Dutch government... For these reasons, I guess I tend to agree with many things about what the anonymous post said. But perhaps, I also miss the point about the Dutch society and history... So, I kindly ask Olaf to be more explicit about why he so strongly disagrees with that first post.

That's it for now, folks. Thanks again for the contributions and I hope this discussion goes on! Today is my B-day, so I have to go. My husband is going to take me out to dinner in a surprise restaurant. I am so excited! : )

Kind regards,
Renata

P.S. the Internet connection at my home is dead so I guess I can only post again on Monday. : (

Integration

Hey collabloggers,

I know I haven't been so disciplined to write everyday... it's mostly due lack of time (work consumes a lot!). But I've been indeed having lots and lots in mind these days to share with you and I'd like to start by dedicating a whole week for talks about a theme that has been very much in the news, both in and out of organizations, having much more impact in our lives than we think. Are you curious about the theme? Well... the post title said it all: INTEGRATION!

I hope we can have a seven days (at least, but not limited to that) of discussions about this topic that seems to be one of the biggest issues now in our world. We turn on the TV and we hear: knowledge integration within and across organizations, business integration (i.e. merges creating huge corporations) , integration of imigrants in their living countries, European Union integrating more countries, economies integration (or globalization), etc... So, it is natural that we start asking ourselves: why is integration important? why can't things/people/companies remain separated? What has changed in the world to motivate all this fuss about integration? And, while reasoning about these motivation issues, we also question: what is the 'nature' of integration processes? How does integration happen? Which conditions need to be met in order for integration to happen? Are there any requirements that are specific for each context? And these questions go on and on in our minds...

Well, we hope to answer some of them during our discussions, not with the purpose of providing a 'final answer' or the 'truth' about the theme, since I DO NOT BELIEVE there is only ONE UNIQUE ANSWER for any COMPLEX QUESTION like the ones posed above. My main aim with this is to motivate critical thinking and 'intelligent' debate about the theme, as I think it is just too dangerous to let only the established media guide our thoughts about important topics such as this one.

Anyway, enough with introductory remarks, let's get to the debate... in the next post, of course. : ) Or... do any of you would like to start by posting some comments here? I'd love that! Come on and please give it a shot on answering the previous questions.

Considerations on KM from a practical knowledge worker

Hey everyone,

I am here in my friend's house in Amsterdam: Mariana and Anthon and we've had some great chats about how KM is done in practice in Anthon's job in TPG Post, in the Netherlands. It is amazing how much I could learn from a talk to someone that is experiencing KM in a real life situation. So, this is just a reminder for myself (in the future) and for every KM researcher reading this blog that we should, every once in a while, get with our hands on the real thing (or in other words, to mind about the real world). : )))

Cheers to you all,
Renata

My first encounters with KM

Previously to my PhD, I used to work with Collaborative Learning, emphasizing the constructive nature of knowledge and aiming at supporting learners on broadening their mental models while interacting. It wasn't something very far from these ideas that lead to my becoming interest in the KM field. If you think about it, KM is basically aimed at making people learn while doing their work, in an almost unintentional and, as Lave & Wenger put it, situated way.

My first readings about KM processes and theories comprehend the 2001 article of Gerhard Fischer and Jonathan Ostwald for the IEEE Intelligent Systems journal (Vol. 16, No. 1, January/February 2001), entitled "Knowledge Management - Problems, Promises, Realities, and Challenges". Such paper was for me very inspiring! Here is an interesting quote that mentions some of the connections between KM and the educational system:

Our KM perspective requires a cultural transformation in which all stakeholders must learn new relationships between practices and attitudes. (...) the traditional education paradigm is inappropriate for studying the types of open-ended and multidisciplinary problems that are most pressing to our society. These problems, which typically involve a combination of social and technological issues, requires a new paradigm of education and learning skills, including self-directed learning, active collaboration, and consideration of multiple perspectives. Problems of this nature do not have “right” answers, and the knowledge to understand and resolve them is changing rapidly, requiring an ongoing and evolutionary approach to learning.

From this as well as from related readings, I came up, with the help of my supervisors, to a system proposal for KM in learning settings. The system is called Help&Learn (H&L) and is based on a peer-to-peer network where students and teachers can interact, asking and answering questions, in extra-class activities. Here are some preliminary ideas on the system annotated in my personal summaries of the paper above:

• Companies, as well as schools, are becoming less hierarchic structured and more open to workers opinions and participation on decision-making processes. They require people who have developed certain abilities, such as collaboration and self-directed learning. There is an increasing need for professionals that can flexibly use knowledge and who are also capable of working cooperatively. The traditional educational model is not appropriate for this new challenge, but the use of information technology, supported by cognitive pedagogical theories, seems to be leading to better results.
• KM can be highly beneficial for education. In KM systems, it is necessary that the users create artifacts, externalizing their knowledge, in order to make it available for other users. This process of externalization is an important step for learning. Constructionist theories emphasize the importance for the learner to produce something concrete, which he can share with his peers. Sometimes, teaching others is the best way of learning something. In other words, externalizing the knowledge by means of a sharable artifact, the learner will perform a synthesis and will learn.
• H&L proposes a dynamic and open KM system in which knowledge is created in an ongoing collaborative process, integration happens at use time (instead of at design time) and the users are not organized in a hierarchical structure. Instead, all users are peers who collaborate in knowledge creation, integration and dissemination.
  In H&L, knowledge is constructed through a process of collaboration among the peers. This system provides an informal way of KM in which the users do not have to get busy with knowledge creation and representation.
• H&L has great potential for project-based courses. In these courses, students are gathered in groups and each group needs to work on a project, usually picked by the group itself. The learning process happens in the context of these projects. Each group has a tutor who guides them in the development of the project, which is inherently a collaborative process. In such context, a KM system is highly recommended to store the group’s knowledge and to help them in developing a sharing vocabulary and, ultimately, a shared understanding of the domain.