::KMtalk.net

KNOWLEDGELINK- KM System in Higher Learning Institutions (HLIS) in Malaysia

Fri, 02 May 2008 10:17:37 -0400

By Chua Lee Yang & Maizatul Akmar Ismail
Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology,
University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur

ABSTRACT
Knowledge Management (KM) is certainly challenging and important concept in Higher Learning Institutions (HLIS) to improve the quality of knowledge sharing and archive knowledge assets based on the available explicit and tacit knowledge. This paper begins with an introduction of KM which provides an overview of KM and types of knowledge that can be acquired through various resources. Then, follow by discussion and analysis of surveys and interviews based on the KM System (KMS) implementation in two well-known Malaysia universities named Multimedia University (MMU) and University of Putra Malaysia (UPM).

Next, this paper proposed a KMS named �KnowledgeLink� to be applied in HLIS in which, it was derived through the ideas and comparisons of features based on the existing KMS. �KnowledgeLink� is a web-based system which is implemented using ASP.Net, JavaScript and MySQL database with powerful web server named Internet Information Services (IIS). On top of that, �KnowledgeLink� is also further explained with the illustration of use case diagram as well as the screen shots of the system. Lastly, this paper concludes with future work to improve and enhance �KnowledgeLink�

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The rapid growth of data and technologies has triggered the transformation of data to useful information, known as knowledge. Knowledge is power and it is identified as crucial assets in many sectors especially in HLIS. Many people are aware of the importance of knowledge and ways to acquire, recognize, capture, retrieve, use, measure, manage and collaborate the knowledge, so that the knowledge can be shared without losing it.

Tiwana (2000) has categorized two major types of knowledge:

a. Explicit Knowledge: It is the knowledge that can be expressed in words and numbers, and easily be communicated and shared in the form of hard data, scientific formulae, codified procedures, or universal principles (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Choo, 2003) such as outputs of Research and Development (R&D) teams, strategic information about customers, suppliers, products and competitors. Besides, the explicit knowledge can also be accumulated through reports that consist of �know-what� knowledge.

b. Tacit Knowledge: It is the knowledge that can be expressed through people�s minds via their views and experiences, which cannot be recorded easily (Tiwana, 2000). Tacit knowledge can also be conveyed through �face-to-face� and �hands-on� methods by focusing on �know-how� knowledge to others that includes competencies and knowledge resources of human capital within the organization.

Elizabeth (2001) believed that workers who are lacking in adequate education and training rely on common sense and intuition or tacit knowledge. While the ability to acquire and manage tacit knowledge is deemed to be the key to managerial success, however it is also found that the tacit knowledge can be lost through employee outsourcing, organization downsizing, job termination and retirement. As a result, most organizations are trying to retain their employees or capture and store their knowledge for future reference.

There are many definitions for KM. It can be known as �a process where organizations have formulated ways in the attempt to recognize and archive knowledge assets within the organization that are derived from the employees of various departments or faculties and in some cases, even from other organizations that share the similar area of interests or specialization� (Joseph, 2001). Besides, knowledge can also be defined as �the process of transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring value. It also connects people with the knowledge that they need to take action, when they need it� (Jillinda et. al., 2000).

In business and management perspective, Gray (2000) has argued that KM is an audit of intellectual assets that highlights unique sources, critical functions and potential bottlenecks, which hinder knowledge flows to the point of use. It protects intellectual assets from decay, seeks opportunities to enhance decisions, services and products through adding intelligence, increasing value and providing flexibility. Moreover, Holsapple and Joshi (1999) has highlighted that, KM is also concern with making the right knowledge available to the right processor such as human or computer, at the right time in the right presentations for the right cost. According to Hansen et al. (1999), Koehn and Abecker (1997), the two main strategies for KM that have been employed by early adopters of principals are:

a. The process-centered approach emphasizes on communication process and enforces person-to-person contacts, which help in knowledge sharing and communication.

b. The product-centered approach which describes the knowledge documents, knowledge creation, storage and re-use.

In general, knowledge is developed and transferred through process-centered approach, while the content of KM can be transformed into different forms such as documents and digital forms via the product-centered approach.

Ian (2000) stated that �The business of universities is all about knowledge and the HLIS such as universities have been the site of knowledge production, storage, dissemination and authorization�. This shows that the HLIs are no longer just places for learning and studying, but also to contribute knowledge. Therefore, management of knowledge and intellectual capital is necessary to retain the available knowledge.

In this research, it studies on how KM can be implemented in HLIS with the assistance of the proposed web-based system known as �KnowledgeLink� which is implemented to support KM in HLIS.

Click here to download the full article...

Writers' e-mail:

jessie_cly@yahoo.com, maizatul@um.edu.my

KM Malaysia Newsletter- May 2008

Thu, 01 May 2008 01:07:00 -0400

Knowledge Management Malaysia Newsletter- 1st issue was published in May 2008. Click Read More....for the newsletter.

Issue No. 01 :: May 2008

According to independent research firm AMI-Partners, SMEs in Malaysia are on track to spend up to US$4.6 billion (RM21.93 billion) on ICT in 2008, up roughly by 11 percent over 2007. Issue is- how much of that investment goes to KM technologies and processes. Many SMEs might not even realize the value of KM. As the global KM solutions cost really high, local solutions and training can boost the adoption of KM in the Malaysian SMEs.

Upcoming Events

	ICKM 2008
	KM 2.0: Knowledge Management in a Wiki World Hong Kong
	10 IBIMA conference on Innovation and KM in Business Globalization KL, Malaysia 30 June - 2 July 2008
	7th International Conference on Mathematical KM

KM Association
Malaysia Yahoogroups :

South-East Asian
KM Association

KM Association Malaysia

IKMS, Singapore

KM Association,
Philippines

Indonesian KM
Community

Hong Kong Knowledge Management Society

Quick Facts !!!

Workers who spend time on social networking web sites such as Facebook could be costing UK firms over US $250 million a day, a study has calculated. According to employment law firm Peninsula, 233 million hours are lost every month as a result of employees wasting time on social networking.

Editor

Naguib Chowdhury

On The Use of A Diagnostic Tool For Knowledge Audits

The research reported in this paper outlines the construction and utilisation of a diagnostic tool for performing what we call a material knowledge audit in an enterprise of medium complexity. The tool was developed by adapting some of the more applicable techniques suggested in the literature by practitioners ...

read more

An interview with Patrick Lambe

KMTALK recently managed to get hold of renowned KM practitioners Patrick Lambe and Edgar Tan from the Straits Knowledge, Singapore. During the enlightening interview Patrick spoke about the development of KM in Asian region as compared to the West. According to Patrick ...

read more

	POST HIGHLIGHTS
		Transforming for the Knowledge-based Economy through the practice of KM
		The secret behind IKEA lies in KM !
		After Action Review : A Checklist

Knowledge Management TO-DO Task Matrix

Stephen Covey in his book, 7 habits of highly effective people, wrote about how to effectively manage time using the four quadrant TODO model. I believe that the same 4 quadrant matrix can be applied to any KM projects. A little change in the parameters- instead of �due time�, I am using completion time here. Four Quadrant of this KM TO-DO task Matrix is developed to identify which KM tasks we should do first and give priority to... read more

	BLOG HIGHLIGHTS
		Let the Youth Rule�
		What�s left for KM ?
		KM in politics? Nay�

---Copyright � 2008 :: KMtalk.net
---All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.

On The Use of A Diagnostic Tool For Knowledge Audits

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:42:12 -0400

By Ravi Sharma & Naguib Chowdhury

Abstract
The research reported in this paper outlines the construction and utilisation of a diagnostic tool for performing what we call a material knowledge audit in an enterprise of medium complexity. The tool was developed by adapting some of the more applicable techniques suggested in the literature by practitioners. It was then put on trial in five organisations � a library, an IT consulting firm, a research institute, a telecommunications service provider, and a media agency � which were involved in knowledge intensive business activities. The appendices list the three main components of such a field trial-ed diagnostic instrument. Our investigations revealed the dearth of such diagnostic tools as well as the need to continually refine knowledge audit techniques so that the practice evolves from an art into a science.

1. Overview Of Knowledge Audits

Knowledge, as compared to information, in the modern organization has elements of variety and is incongruous and heterogeneous in nature. In academic research as well as trade forums, the understanding of what constitutes knowledge is often debated because of the multidimensionality associated with it (cf. Feldman & Sherman 2001). Only when the knowledge is captured and organised into proper formats, can it be made accessible and put to further use. In effect, capturing knowledge is of little use if it is not organised in such a way that it can be understood, indexed, accessed easily, cross-referenced, searched, linked, and generally manipulated for maximum benefit of all members of an enterprise. Hence the capture, storage, transfer and exploitation of knowledge plays a critical role throughout the knowledge cycle and the cost of not retrieving it is indeed high (Gantz 2007). Indeed the capability of an organisation to create new knowledge, disseminate it throughout the organisation and embody it in its products, services and systems is defined by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) as an essential aspect of knowledge management (KM).

But as Peter Drucker famously said: �We cannot manage what we do not know how to measure!� A Knowledge Audit (K-Audit) is hence a systematic examination and evaluation of organizational knowledge health, which looks at whether knowledge is exploited when needed. More specifically, it is an analysis of the organization�s knowledge needs, existing knowledge assets or resources, knowledge flows, future knowledge needs, knowledge gaps, and finally, the behavior of people in sharing and creating knowledge. In one way, a knowledge audit can reveal an organization�s knowledge strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats and risks (Cheung et al. 2007; Hylton 2002; Liebowitz et al. 2000; Schikkard & Toit 2004). A K-Audit, typically, also includes an examination of organization�s strategy, leadership, collaborative, learning culture, technology infrastructure in its various knowledge processes.

Click here to read more....

Transforming for the Knowledge-based Economy through the practice of KM

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:38:57 -0400

By Moi Kok Wah, JT Frank Academy

Global Pillars of Competition
Globally, organizations compete on one of the three pillars of competition: operational excellence, customer responsiveness and innovation intensity. Organizations in manufacturing and high-risk industries, for instance, strive to excel in operational excellence. They operate under conditions where customer requirements are very clear and they differentiate themselves by focusing on efficiency and effectiveness of operations.

Relentless drive toward higher productivity, cost effectiveness and operational precision is common to industries such as manufacturing, oil & gas, aviation, medical centers etc. Therefore, common measurements include number of lessons learned, number of best practices instituted and generally focusing on the reduction of mistakes made.

However, if you operate in any customer-centric industry such as tourism, call centre outsourcing, financial services or even in the public sector, then you will want to excel in customer responsiveness. In such industries, the focus is on understanding, meeting or even exceeding immediate and near term customer expectations. Sometimes, the internal operations may not be exactly the most efficient but yet such organizations can be successful as they know that customer delight makes or breaks their businesses. Typical measures of success in such cases will be around the number of Q&A (questions and answers) created, or the number of complaints received and solutions provided as well as generally on the speed and quality of response to customer requests.

Click here to download the full paper

An interview with Patrick Lambe

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 06:02:29 -0500

By Naguib Chowdhury

KMTALK recently managed to get hold of renowned KM practitioners Patrick Lambe and Edgar Tan from the Straits Knowledge, Singapore. During the enlightening interview Patrick spoke about the development of KM in Asian region as compared to the West. According to Patrick, Asia is more serious in doing KM than the West. Edgar and Patrick also spoke about the worst practices in KM that they have encountered so far as consultants. Question was asked about the traits of a KM practioners, where Patrick mentioned, Knowledge managers themselves do not share much and it�s the time that they should change such attitudes. Other than Patrick, Edgar and myself we also had Hayati from PETRONAS participated in the conversation.

Click here to listen to the interview. It might take some time to download the podcast.

Collaboration: The $588 bil Problem

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:11:54 -0500

E-mail, instant messaging, and blog-reading are costing the economy billions in lost productivity, new research finds.

As much as e-mail, instant messages, blogs and their brethren technologies have helped knowledge workers better collaborate, interruptions and duplications derived from these forms of digital communication and content are overwhelming workers to the point of distraction.

The result is an egregious lack of productivity that may cost the U.S. economy $588 billion a year, according to a report by Basex, which has tabbed information overload as the "Problem of the Year" for 2008.

"Information Overload: We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us," authored by Basex analysts Jonathan B. Spira and David M. Goldes and released Dec. 19, claims that interruptions from phone calls, e-mails and instant messages eat up 28 percent of a knowledge worker's work day, resulting in 28 billion hours of lost productivity a year. The $588 billion figure assumes a salary of $21 per hour for knowledge workers.

The addition of new collaboration layers force the technologies into untenable competitive positions, with phone calls, e-mails, instant messaging and blog-reading all vying for workers' time.

For example, a user who has started relying on instant messaging to communicate may not comb through his or her e-mail with the same diligence. Or, a workgroup may add a wiki to communicate with coworkers, adding another layer of collaboration and therefore another interruption source that takes users away from their primary tasks. Full story here

The secret behind IKEA lies in KM !

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:13:00 -0500

Why do some companies succeed in getting established abroad while others don't? Internationalization experts have long maintained that the key to success lies in knowledge about the new market. On Friday business analyst Anna Jonsson at Lund University will submit a dissertation with new findings: A good system for transmitting knowledge among various co-workers is just as important if not more important than knowledge about new markets.

For five year Anna Jonsson has been studying IKEA's establishment in Russia, China, and Japan in order to understand why they succeed so well with their new establishments. She has found that the secret lies in the fact that the company associates are good at sharing their knowledge and that the knowledge flows readily among all levels. Anyone wishing to pursue a career with the company has to try out many different positions and zig zag their way up.

"In many companies a person's career can benefit from them not sharing their knowledge," says Anna Jonsson. "At IKEA it's just the other way around: you can't pursue a career there unless you share."

Today knowledge management is a buzz word among company developers. The concept is often associated with strategies that include expensive IT solutions and intranets, but Anna Jonsson maintains that people often focus on the wrong things:

"In the case of IKEA knowledge management has been a built-in component of the company culture. When foreign stores are to be established, a large team travels around and assists. Contrary to what most internationalization experts say, the company has not put much effort into adapting to new markets. Anyone with a good knowledge of the company and who has been involved in starting new stores can quickly get established on a new market anyway."

In principle IKEA simply follows that same concept for success, but this does not mean that the company is not willing to learn new lessons. Unlike many other countries, new knowledge is communicated not only between the head office and subsidiaries but also among the various subsidiaries.

"By not having hermetically sealed compartments between different regions, levels, and functions within IKEA, associates utilize each other's knowledge in the best possible manner," says Anna Jonsson. In this way, they assist each other on markets where they are facing the same problems even though they might be remote from each other geographically and organizationally. When stores were established in Japan, for instance, they looked more at IKEA in Germany than at their activities in China since the two former markets involve more comparable challenges than China and Japan do, for example.

For more information, speak with Anna Jonsson at cell phone number: +46 (0)708-69 89 99. Anna Jonsson will defend her thesis on Friday, January 25. It is titled Knowledge sharing across bordersA study in the IKEA world. The public defense will take place at 1:15 p.m. in Crafoord Hall at the School of Economics and Management.

Source: http://www.idw-online.de/pages/de/news244201

After Action Review: A Checklist

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:01:43 -0500

The AAR is a simple process used by a team to capture the lessons learned from past successes and failures with the goal of improving future performance. It is an opportunity for a team to reflect on a project, activity, event or task so that the next time, they can do better.

AAR does not have to be performed at the end of a project or activity. Rather, it can be performed after each identifiable event within a project or major activity, thus becoming a live learning process for staff.

The AAR is a professional discussion that includes the participants and focuses directly on the tasks and goals. It is not a critique. It does not judge success or failure.

� AAR attempts to discover why things happened.
� Are conducted during or immediately after each event.
� Involve all participants in the discussion.
� Use open-ended questions
� It focuses directly on the tasks and goals that were to be accomplished.
� It encourages employees to surface important lessons in the discussion.
� More employees participate so that more of the project or activity can be recalled and more lessons can be learned and shared.
� Link performance to subsequent training

Click here to download the full paper

Lessons Learned on KM Implementation Model For Community Information Service (CIS) Portal

Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:37:35 -0500

By Ruzaif Adli Md. Daud
Sigma Consulting Sdn. Bhd

Information is so essential that it has become part of every human being. All human beings have information need, either individual or collective. Information is that basic need of life, which helps in the proper fulfillment of other needs such as food, shelter etc. for its survival and growth. Hence it can be rightly said that without information, survival and development of any community is not possible. Therefore, it is the basic responsibility of any Public Library to provide information services to communities. In addition, the Public libraries, being the library of communities can play important role in providing effective Community Information Service (CIS). These institutions are entrusted with the duties of providing right information to right users at right time, there by help people to deal with daily problem solving or in improving the quality of their lives. This paper attempts to share the KM Implementation Model for Penang State Library (PSL) on their CIS portal and to share the lesson learned of the successful CIS portal implementation throughout state of Penang.

1.0 Introduction

Community Information (CI) is the combination of two terms i.e. Community and Information. The term � Information� is used to identify many concepts; hence it is extremely difficult to define it precisely. Normally, information is a message, communicated by a communicator to a receiver. It is the product of human action in mind, which may be abstract or concrete. Therefore it is the raw material that is used in knowing, making decisions, taking actions, thinking and learning. Reid (1977) defines information as �a process rather than as material. Data only becomes information by the act of imparting it.� Information can be regarded as data, which can be transmitted between individuals, and each individual can make use of it in whatever form he/she wants. When information becomes publicly recorded, it becomes objective knowledge available to all. Community is a body of people in the same locality or a body of people leading a common life or a group of people having common rights or a group of people having a common possession or enjoyment. Giggey (1988) defines community as �a group of people who have something common. This can be their age, education, religion, interest, political affiliation, activities, work, possession or a combination of two or more of these.� Similarly Usherwood (1977) defines community in a comprehensive way that �any geographical community or neighborhood will be made up of a number of communities definable by race, social class, or income group, employment, leisure interest, religion and so on, each with its own informal information network that has grown up without the help of librarians or any other information advice workers.� Thus community in general indicates towards a group of people having common interests. However, neither they can be assumed nor they can be created to legitimate a political programme or to support a plan for action. In the context of librarianship, it is a group of people with shared meaning and shared communication.

Community Information (CI) is the information for the survival and growth of the community or it is that information which is required by the member of the community to make effective use of the available resources around them. In this context Kempson (1986) has rightly defined CI as �information of self-reliance and self-determination�. Thus CI is that information which helps to solve their day to day problems related to survival such as health, education, housing, legal protection, sound economic development, political rights etc and also to participate in social, political, cultural, legal and economic progress of the society either individually or collectively. The information services through which community information (CI) is provided to communities is called Community Information Service (CIS).

Click here to download the full paper

World's Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE) 2007

Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:35:07 -0500

Teleos, in association with The KNOW Network, has announced the Winners of the 2007 Global Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE) study. McKinsey & Company is the overall 2007 Global MAKE Winner for the first time.

North America took top honors with 8 Winners, followed by Asia (4 Winners) and Europe (4 Winners). There were also 4 'Global' Winners whose organizational structures reflect the 21st global knowledge economy. They operate as partnerships or have global rather national/regional management structures and include consulting, professional services, non-profit, and increasingly energy, media and Internet firms.

The Winners of the 10th annual Global MAKE study, conducted by Teleos in association with The KNOW Network, are (in alphabetical order):

- Accenture (Global)
- Apple (United States)
- BP (United Kingdom)
- British Broadcasting Corporation (United Kingdom)
- Ernst & Young (Global)
- Fluor (United States)
- General Electric (United States)
- Google (United States)
- IBM (United States)
- Infosys Technologies (India)
- Intel (United States)
- McKinsey & Company (Global)
- Microsoft (United States)
- Nokia (Finland)
- Royal Dutch Shell (The Netherlands/United Kingdom)
- Samsung Group (S. Korea)
- 3M (United States)
- Toyota (Japan)
- Wikipedia (Global)
- Wipro Technologies (India)

A total of 131 organizations have been named Global MAKE Finalists since the MAKE research program began in 1998. And, of this group, only 50 organizations have been recognized as Global MAKE Winners. They are concentrated in just 20 business sectors.

An even more select group of organizations form the 2007 Global MAKE Hall of Fame. These 21 organizations have been Global MAKE Finalists in each of the past five studies: Accenture, BP, Ernst & Young, General Electric, Hewlett-Packard, Honda Motor, IBM, Infosys Technologies, Intel, McKinsey & Company, Microsoft, Nokia, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Royal Dutch Shell, Samsung Group, Schlumberger, Siemens, Sony, 3M, Toyota and Wipro Technologies.

( Taken from the Know-Network, www.knowledgebusiness.com)