Innovating Strategically In Knowledge Management Free-Samples

Question: Discuss about the Evolution of knowledge Management and the various technologies that Enable and Facilitate the Creation, Storage and Dissemination of Organisational Knowledge. Answer: Introduction Globalization and technological advancements have induced immense dynamism and changes in the field of Information Systems as well as Knowledge Management Systems(Okyere-Kwakye, 2011). Though the scope of KMS as well as IS extensively contributes to the field of enhanced management and system effectiveness, yet its development is primarily focuses on research and development done on the area by relevant academic institution. In order to become a leading school amongst European institutions it has been obtained that top level management and leaders enforce research in the area of five domains as economics, marketing, finance, law, accounting and auditing as well as organizational behavior (OB). Though all these fields are interrelated to the scope of KMS/Is but the scope of this study pertains to analyzing the contribution of OB in the field of advancement for IS/KMS(Yang, 2007). Thus, for attaining aims of the study there is a pertinent literature source that has made significant con tribution and has been taken into account for the purpose of this study. Further a critical review regarding the research questions and detailed analysis helps reveal further insights into the topic. Literature Review Development of specific literature reviews and identification of sources that can cater to attaining aims for the study are crucial part for any study. For the purpose of analyzing the specific domain in regards to innovation and development in KMS there is a specific journal that has been selected. Innovating strategically in information and knowledge management: Applications of organizational behavior theory in the International Journal of Information Management by Tor J. Larsen and Olasisen (2013) (Larsen, 2013). The scope of this journal evaluates relationship and the domain of OB in a detailed and scientific manner by analyzing certain research questions that can cater to aims of the research. Academic institutions priorities and target fields that successfully can generate a steady source of revenue for conducting various other pertinent research works. The aim of every institution is focuses on attracting market attention through delivery of its academic entrepreneurial research endeavors. As IS/KMS makes significant contribution in the field and domain of research and organizational effectiveness, it becomes crucial that faculties from information as well as knowledge management systems question their field of research to the Department of Organizational Behavior. IS/KMS continues to attract nearly 28% of investments from US business sectors that reflects the need for accommodating and including relevant research in the domain of IS/KMS and changing the ongoing educational practices. IS/KMS has been found to support in creating value for the business as well as accommodating for organizations changes in capabilities(Ruggles, 2009). KMS has been found to be intensely rel ated to creating, acquiring, implementing and in using of value infrastructure for sustainability within organizations. Till date all research in the field of KMS has been related to all inter-disciplinary topics such that its impacts can easily be assessed, hence OB can have significant contributions to make to the field of KMS. Thus, in the particular research the key research questions that are being catered to are ways to discover means which business schools adopt for selecting academic fields. Secondly to understand the strategic importance of OB theories to making an impact. Then developing an interrelation between OB and KMS/IS to understand their purview as well as scope in various theories, concepts and so on. In order to conduct research pertaining to the specific field, the literature journal had made use of textbooks in OB along with academic articles in EBSCO EconLit database of Lancaster University, data from top European and US business schools and so on. Further the data obtained from these various sources was analyzed using various themes of OB theories. The several theme ascertained form the research questions as well as textbooks and journals were in regards to theories that have been used in the field of research in the recent 5 years. Analysis from various data sources reveal theories used are social capital theory, Theory of bounded objects and knowledge sharing and Adaptive structuration theory. The second theme evaluates the theories that have not been used but should have been accommodated are large negative in nature. All possible theories and concepts have been utilized for processing of the concepts and theories. The next theme reveals the various familiar theories of OB and its description. ANT and theories pertaining to leadership, communications, organizational designs, motivations, personal issues, productivity, politics and strategy has been taken into consideration to understand its relation to KMS. The role of OB in IS/KMS research reflects that there are no significant connections. As benefits from KMS/IS can be evaluated by its roles in OB but its research significance cannot be directly established. Review of KMS Organizations are handling their complex data and information by the use of Knowledge Management systems(Ratcliffe, 2008). KMS are infrastructure that provides organizations with capabilities to filter their complex information as well as make use of relevant and crucial information for making as well as development of strategy. The field of IS/KMS is vast as it makes unique usage of various information that are fitted into organizational systems and then reviews them not only develop strategies but also cater to their customer needs and gain competitive advantages(Xu, 2008). Such processing of complex information is done by review of system stored information as well as information obtained from the market. It functions more like a decision systems with various other functionalities that have capabilities to process knowledge. Hence, the purview of KMS/IS is huge as organizations globalize and they cater to larger and more competitive market scenarios. Organizations have to process multifarious information for enhancing their scope of operation and not only KMS does it but it is also humanly impossible to do such things(Torres, 2007). There is limitedness in various ways and means that humans can process such information and provide them to top and senior level managers, it is highly possible that they miss out on relevant and useful information that can be used effectively in competitive markets. There rises the immense scope and relevance for IS/KMS, though the definition and scope of its advantages are not limited in nature(Paquette, 2011). OB relates to vast organizational framework and concepts that are used in enhancing and developing knowledge related to physical as well as tactical infrastructure, hence development in the fields of OB might not extend innovation in IS/KMS which are so crucial in todays organizations. Thus, from such analysis there are various useful discussions that has been obtained that can be used to ref lect on the purview of the topic. Though Ob can be used extensively in KMs/IS to relate to its application such theories cannot be directly be used in the domain KMS/IS to yield any innovative or developmental research work. Thus, organizations especially academic institutions need to undertake the purview of the domain of KMS and take innovation related to the domain by catering adequate funds to it. Critical Analysis The literature review and scope of KMS provides immense knowledge and inputs pertaining to the relevant application and derivation in the field(O'Neill, 2007). The field of OB is vast and immense and includes various concepts as well as theories pertaining to organization. The scope of the literature review provided highlights relevant discussions pertaining to findings in OB that relates to organizational structure, networks, leadership, management and so on. Thus, the field of OB is broad that encompasses various organizational wide phenomenon within settings but there were no concepts that defined its scope to be strategic in nature. OB is a term used in economics and is an inter-disciplinary domain and cannot be compared as against other academic disciplines. While searching for research in the fields of OB it has been obtained that EBSCOs EconLit database does not include OB as an active element of research(Runar Edvardsson, 2008). Hence, the domain has not been involved in eith er research problems, nor in research models, neither while discussions, development, background analysis or in conclusion. OB is rather treated as an umbrella encompassing various multiple domains that are used as a merely an element for future research in organizational settings. Deriving from the findings of the study it has been established that OB is completely separate than the field of IS/KMS. OB also cannot have any sort of strategic role in catering to a relevant material to contribute in the research and innovation of KMS/IS. Academic institutions success is highly and greatly dependent on its capabilities to nurture and develop the spirits of academic entrepreneurship hence, they identify and recognize various domains that can contribute positively in such endeavors(Uddin, 2010). Implications and deriving from the literature source reveals that though there might be certain theoretical perspective in the domain and area of IS, there are very few private as well as public organizations the actually invest in the field of KMS/IS. the purview of innovation and development in IS/KMS involves a risky undertaking that involves uncertain outcomes hence research in this particular domain has to be built in regards to research thinkings and be based on empiri cal reports. A major reflection gained from progress of such reports indicate that there is relatively less success experienced in innovation as regards to competence and in-depth understanding that exists in such innovations. There has to be a model developed that can cater to the macro needs in the subject area and brings institutions in IS research that helps build knowledge. But within the framework of OB there are no theories or knowledge or concepts that can help develop concepts in the field of IS/KMS(Pee, 2009). Thus, a critical analysis of several findings and analysis in the domain of OB reflects that it cannot be linked to innovation as well as development to IS/KMS hence narrowing the scope for its research further. Conclusion The growth, development and survival of the field of KMS.IS might have greater dependence in relation to its increased scope. As results from findings and analysis reveals that OB is a vast domain and does not related to any specific topic or research areas and scientists as well as researchers use it for their convenience it can be said that OB might not strategically impact growth and development of IS/KMS. Educational institutions develop and obtain scope of research by catering to their internationalization and strategic formulation in the scope of research. Their field of research though has a responsibility to cater to public, social, professional and private development, they relatively caters to them. further as the definition involving the area of OB is so vast it becomes pertinent to evaluate its resource allocation as well as the scope of tis discussions. The findings reveal that there is a negative correlation between the results for OB and that of IS/KMS. Thus, organizat ion has to meet their challenges in regards to increased portfolios in IS/KMS and develop the scopes for such innovation themselves rather than developing a dependency. As organizations are on one end of facing high risks in regards to changes and innovations in the field of IS/KMS they need to adopt a macro model that serves their purpose. Reference Lists Larsen, T. J. 2013. Innovating strategically in information and knowledge management: Applications of organizational behavior theory. . International Journal of Information Management, 764-774. Okyere-Kwakye, E. a. 2011. Individual factors and knowledge sharing. . American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(1), 66. O'Neill, B. a. 2007. Knowledge sharing and the psychological contract: Managing knowledge workers across different stages of employment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 411-436. Paquette, S. 2011. Customer Knowledge Management. Pee, L. G. 2009. A model of organisational knowledge management maturity based on people, process, and technology. . Journal of Information Knowledge Management, 79-99. Ratcliffe, J. 2008. Knowledge management challenges in the development of intelligence-led policing. The Handbook of Knowledge-Based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future Directions. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 205-220. Ruggles, R. 2009. Knowledge management tools. . Routledge. Runar Edvardsson, I. 2008. HRM and knowledge management. Employee Relations, 553-561. Torres, J. M. 2007. Knowledge management system. U.S. Patent, 2,272,610. Uddin, M. N. 2010. Impact of Knowledge Management and Inter-organisational Systems on Supply Chain Performance: The Case of the Australian Agri-food Industry. . Curtin University of Technology. Xu, Q. a. 2008. Determinants of ERP implementation knowledge transfer. Information Management, 45(8), 528-539. Yang, J. 2007. Knowledge sharing: Investigating appropriate leadership roles and collaborative culture. . Tourism management, 28(2), 530-543