sign in sign up
<<
Home , Information management, Knowledge management

B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

INFORMATION AND AND THEIR INTER- RELATIONSHIP WITHIN LEAN

VIRGINIA IUGA [email protected]

CLAUDIU VASILE KIFOR [email protected]

“LUCIAN BLAGA” UNIVERSITY, SIBIU, ROMANIA

ABSTRACT The global economy and worldwide markets are being characterized by the shift of focus from tangible resources towards intangible assets. In the context of a “”, knowledge and management are key factors as they represent vital strategic organizational resources. Nevertheless, many organizations struggle with defining these two organizational areas and moreover, delimit them from each other. For lean organizations the represents a key element while collecting, organizing, using, controlling and disposing of information in an economically unwasteful manner. Therefore, information management can be defined as an integrated part of the organizational . The unwasteful disposal of knowledge, and in particular of the tacit organizational knowledge, is as likewise a key success factor. The process of generation, management, application and transfer of organizational knowledge should be tailored around lean principles in order to avoid wastes like over training or over specializations of the staff. Based on an empirical literature review, this paper aims to draw a clear and understandable line between the concepts of knowledge and information management. Furthermore, it underlines the indispensability and interconnectivity of the concepts within lean organizations.

Keywords Information, knowledge, management, lean,

1. Introduction knowledge management (KM) is just In the community knowledge another preface for information management management has gained substantial (IM) is still in the back of many . In importance over the last few years. order to clear the air, this paper addresses Managers have long discovered that both, IM and KM separately at first. The information is the most important asset of a article studies the notions associated with company, but yet, the question of whether the management of information and knowledge

31 B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

from a lean perspective underlining the One important step when gathering importance of eliminating waste factors as information with the purpose of turning it well as the fact that in this context IM is an into organizational knowledge is its integrated part of KM. The second chapter . gives not only an overview of the two Information can be categorize based on concepts, but also over the processes, means the function for which it is collected, hence of implementation and success factors of information, financial information, implementing IM and KM within management information, but also based on organizations. Chapter three combines the the difference between qualitative and two concepts in order to show their inter- quantitative information. While quantitative relationship and circumscribe their information usually contained numbers, differences while the fourth chapter analysis qualitative information will be expressed in and exemplifies the concept from a lean qualitative terms [3]. perspective. The last chapter not only There are several factors that can hinder summarizes the main results but also gives a IM processes. IM and , as brief overview upon the management well as KM systems, are usually complex implications and the gaps that need to be and must be implemented company-wide. filled with further research in this field. Therefore, they must be planed and managed carefully and given the necessary 2. Conceptual Background management and time. A bottom- In order to truly understand the down approach is indispensable for IM interaction between IM and KM it is very processes. Without sufficient management important to understand the difference between attention and the right sustaining these two notions, hence the difference infrastructure information, especially tacit between information and knowledge. There is information, can easily be lost which leads no shortage of researchers providing various to the fact that it will not be considered an definitions of these notions. input for knowledge creation processes. The 2.1. Information Management implementation and maintenance of IM IM represents the way through which processes leads us to the issue of budgeting. an organization collects, organizes, controls IM processes, systems and infrastructures and spreads information, ensuring that the usually generate high and diverse costs on value of that information is identified and exploited to the fullest extent. It represents the short run. The economic of the key for sustaining knowledge creation information projects is difficult and opaque and application within organizations. due to the intangible nature of this Information and management are organizational asset. Nevertheless, the important pillars of knowledge management necessarily systems, the that allow individuals to transform information allocated to these processes and the into the organization in order to create and infrastructures will pay for themselves [4]. share knowledge. Information management 2.2. Knowledge Management implies managing explicit knowledge, but While definitions of information tend to also procedures such as sharing of rules or be less complex and far more uniform, experiences [1]. Information definitions of knowledge are most of the systems should be the stable structure of an times more thorough and multifarious. organization. That way, even though the A common definition found in literature human factor of an organization varies, the states that knowledge management represents value of its experience will be incorporated the capability to build profits and market in systems that help employees and their share by implementing the idea of knowledge successors conduct the business [2]. and know-how [5].

32 B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

In this context, KM refers to the means computer-based information mechanisms in which organizations manage knowledge like intuition and understanding [10]. resources in a company in order to obtain can be transmitted business benefits. In few words: the means to through social interactions or socialization, achieve business goals [6]. This organizational and made explicit through externalization. knowledge can be split into two different Therefore tacit knowledge is concealed types: tacit and explicit knowledge. knowledge [11]. The relationship between the two types Within the second aspect, people give is captured in four different ways: meaning to information through the process – socialization, which involves the of interpretation. Interpretations are necessary conversion from tacit knowledge to tacit for preventing oversimplification or premature knowledge; decision closure. It also facilitates diverse – externalization, which involves the views within a framework that is wide enough conversion from tacit knowledge to explicit to comprise individual differences [12]. knowledge; The constructive aspect of knowledge – combination, which summarizes the creation is expected to authorize the conversion from explicit knowledge to organization’s advanced response to explicit knowledge and discontinuous change. Since knowledge is – internalization, which refers to the created by individuals, in the process of conversion from explicit knowledge to tacit using data, it is difficult to provide the best knowledge [7]. practices residing in computer-based While tacit knowledge is action-based, repository. Individuals respond to what they explicit knowledge is the kind of knowledge consider to be a stimulus and not every that can be codified and is therefore more individual responds to the same stimuli [13]. easily communicated and shared. Last, interaction between people is the KM is an integrated way that mixes the best way in which successful knowledge information stored in an enterprise's transfer can be obtained. Social interaction information with unstructured is moreover crucial in the creation of new information that holds the experiences and knowledge [14]. insights of the enterprise. It also encourages In order to understand how knowledge to be created, shared, learned, organizations can make use of knowledge improved and organized for the benefit of management systems in order to develop a the organization and its customers. lean organization, it is crucial to get a Therefore, KM focuses on people and general understanding of how KM works increases their capabilities by improving and what the main phases of a KM process , information, transfer and are. Many researchers have based their work [8]. around the area of KM, developing several There are four key processes that around its lifecycle. All these describe KM: models are based on five or six similar – the tacit dimension of knowledge steps. One other thing all researches creation; conducted in this area have in common is – the subjective, interpretative and the fact all activities of a lifecycle are sense-making bases of knowledge; iterative. In most cases the KM life cycle – the construction of meaning in begins with the phase of capturing, creating knowledge creation and or generating knowledge so that this – the social interactive nature of knowledge can be further organized, knowledge [9]. mapped and bundled. After these first two The first type of knowledge is based on steps knowledge undergoes the process of aspects that are difficult to communicate by transformation into explicit and formal

33 B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

knowledge. The fourth step addresses the Successful KM systems are also dependent ability to share and distribute the formalized on management backing. KM are knowledge. Some models use a fifth and a long term strategies and involve not only the sixth phase which address the ability to acceptance but also the adoption of reuse knowledge as well as knowledge processes, values and systems company- evolution [15]. wide. That is why failure can occur due to While knowledge management is a tool the lack of long-term acceptance, itself to create long lasting and sustainable responsibility and support. Lack of lean organizations, this tool is also built on a understanding or insufficient time directed set of utensils that need to be integrated to the KM program from the managerial within each lean organization. However, side can lead to the failure of the whole there is considerable disagreement on what . Managers need to understand the KM tools are and this disagreement results complexity and requirements of KM mainly from the fact that these tools were strategies as well as to allocate the necessary not built as KM tools per se but are used to time needed to properly implement and achieve the overall goals of lean manage organizational knowledge. organizations [16]. In other words, KM requires proper KM practitioners make use of a wide planning, designing, coordination and range of IT tools in order to create, codify evaluation. Political maneuvering is also a and share knowledge. These tools are based premise for failure. KM projects are often on systems which will transform the used as a means to gain power with the information mentioned above into knowledge. organization. Also, the scope of KM can One category of tool is based on providing often interfere with managerial interests e.g. access to explicit knowledge so that is can top management employees might not be be stored and transferred within the ready to share valuable knowledge in order organization. to improve the organization. Inadequate skills Another category of tools is meant to of knowledge managers and employees can support the presentation and analysis of the also produce a failing KM system. gathered knowledge. These are so called Just like in any other area of work, semantic mapping tools. They enable users employees assigned to integrate KM systems to organize the gathered knowledge based within organizations are required to have a on several criteria. specific set of skills such as: strategic, Last but not least, KM also makes use of business, communicational, interpersonal, IM, and localization tools IT, intellectual and learning. The right which are self-explanatory in this context [17]. business and technical skills must be present Not having the right infrastructure and in order for an employee to be able to not paying the necessary attention to sustain KM projects and strategies. organizational knowledge can lead to its Employees working with KM systems should loss. There are several factors that can cause be analytical, intuitive and pragmatic [18]. knowledge management failure. For an Other factors that can lead to the failure instance, the lack of performance indicators of KM systems are, for example, the loss of in the area of KM can trigger failure. Even if knowledge from staff defection or the intangible character of knowledge makes retirement, lack of responsibility and it difficult for managers to measure results, ownership of knowledge, lack of relevance, just like in any other organizational area, qualitative and usable knowledge, improper performance indicators and measurable implementation of and benefits are the key to assess whether the infrastructures that can sustain KM systems information gathered from knowledge is and improper or insufficient budgeting [19]. adequate, qualitative and usable or not.

34 B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

3. The Interplay between IM and KM whereas knowledge cannot actually be In order to distinguish KM from IM, is managed. Knowledge resides in a person’s very important to understand the concepts of and is acquired over time. A key knowledge and information. interaction point between the two is the fact According to Wiig (1999), information that knowledge is acquired and learned organizes facts and data to characterize a using not only experiences but mainly the situation and knowledge as a set of truths above mentioned information. Therefore, and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, information is in this context an integrated judgments and expectations, methodologies part of knowledge. On the other hand, as well as know-how [20]. On the other knowledge can also be translated into hand, knowledge is described as a mixture information through its application within of experience, values, information and various circumstances. If this created view that ensures a skeleton for information is then used and shared with the evaluating and incorporating new experiences purpose to create new ideas and value then and information [21]. Knowledge should be the process described is a circular one where understood as a combination of information, the two variables are directly interdependent. personal experience, views, expertise, One interesting point about this interaction suppositions and logical reasoning formed is that knowledge can be transformed into in the minds of human beings [22]. information. Nevertheless, the for According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), which these two notions are not identical is knowledge, unlike information, is about the fact that when this transformation occurs, beliefs and commitment [23]. individuals materialize their knowledge. Even though both KM and IM demand During the process of emails, human involvement, their objectives are documents or even verbally transmitting ones different. IM’s purpose is to provide stored knowledge, individuals not only codify their and retrievable information whereas the goal knowledge but also either leave knowledge of KM is related to organization outcomes. out or learn and adapt it in the process of Another difference between KM and IM is “downloading” this knowledge [25]. related to the tools needed for their Another difference is that information management. IM tools allow organizations to per se can be useless for an individual and generate access, store and analyze data, also not suitable for its transformation into usually in the form of facts and figures. On knowledge if it lacks context. This is why the other hand, while KM systems include KM is usually more human-centric than IM. tools that handle data and information, IM Increasing the , context and tools are not strong enough to ensure KM [24]. understandability of information leads to Also, the success of an IM is greater chances that this information will accomplished when the preservation and the actually be transformed into knowledge [26]. recovery of information is guaranteed while From a broad, organizational point of the success of a KM program depends on view, KM and IM not only have different the sharing of knowledge. For example, if approaches but also different scopes. KM is there is only one person who knows the an organizational pillar, an ongoing process. organizational rules and procedures of an KM projects usually have a holistic view enterprise, these rules and procedures are upon the company and comprise all several not useful. is decisive if not all areas of an organization. Since KM when some employees quit and others join. relies on individual’s previous knowledge, The main difference between IM and and willingness to transform this KM, especially from a managerial point of knowledge into information or further view, is the fact that information is much knowledge. KM is not only dependent on easier identified, controlled and transmitted information but also more complex than IM.

35 B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

4. Consequences for Lean Organizations KM ensures the durable functioning of Within all organizations, KM refers to lean organizations. KM, as well as its the process of developing the abilities of prerequisite, IM, needs to be an integrated employees. The employees are the value- part of the lean organization even prior to added creators of an organization and no the start of the implementation of lean new process or culture can be implanted in processes. Within lean organizations, KM absence of a KM that is already stable in the lies in the itself. organization. In other words, KM and IM are assured through the human factor of an 5. Conclusions and Implications organization. Knowledge and information need to be In the context of lean management and managed like organizational assets. unwasteful organizational processes, the Moreover, IM and KM strategies must be elimination of waste from IM and KM aligned to the organizational strategy in processes is a key factor for the order to meet the strategic and tactical organizational effectiveness. Nevertheless, requirements set by the organization. It is the conversion process described in chapter essential that organizations draw a clear line 2 can also result in loss or false codification between IM and KM. While IM is mainly of information. In order for information to concerned with people and managing their be a valuable resource for an organization, a information sources for easy retrieval and company must recognize the links between dissemination, KM refers to the means in various parts of information and their which organizations manage the knowledge usability. Also, it is crucial for a lean resources created as an output to the organization to understand the different gathered information in order to obtain types of information present in the business benefits. Within lean organizations, company, as describes in chapter 2.1. [27]. IM plays a crucial role as it represents the As discussed in chapter 2.2., there are input for all KM processes. Information several ways to deal with this loss of needs to be managed in a lean manner: information using KM tools. If the process without lacking indispensable information results in false codification, one of two parts and without wasteful information. In things can happen: either the information this context, wastful information refers to does not coincide with the knowledge that either too much, not enough, too complex or was intended to be codified, in which case partial information. the conversion mechanism should be KM should also be managed under revises, or the amount of resulting strong lean principles: under avoidance of information is abundant. This last scenario overloading staff with knowledge not is very common in organizations and necessary for daily work, with the right therefore should be addressed with special amount of knowledge transmitted to the care. Complex knowledge not only requires right person, at the right moment and last a high cognitive load but also significant but not least, rather under the concept of experience and analysis of many decisive quality then quantity. variables. In this case organizations are 5.1. Research Implications often faced with a type of lean waste, with In recent literature, there is a gap unusable or repetitive information. concerning a commonly accepted definition Tools like decision support systems, of KM. Many researchers have come up systems, semantic with definitions of KM or have adapted networks, data warehousing systems and so previous definitions. Nevertheless, there is on are all tools that managers make use of, no universally recognized definition of KM in order to capture and manage relevant as an integrated part of an organization. knowledge [28]. Moreover, further research should

36 B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

concentrate on an in depth analysis of the as separate entities. Understanding the interplay between IM and KM and interplay of these two concepts is decisive especially on how information flows in the for their optimal management. Moreover, process of KM. Further research should then strategies based on information and concentrate on improving the general knowledge should always be aligned to the understanding of the cause-effect relationship organizational overall strategy of the between failure factors of KM and IM as organization. Another important matter is well as on the relationship between the that lean organizations need to make use of drivers of these two assets. tools in order to eliminate waste out of IM 5.2. Management Implications and KM systems and processes. The Managers striving to develop or discussed failure factors are contributors to maintain a lean organization should not only organizational waste and need to be eliminated treat information and knowledge like or prevented. indispensable resources and assets but also

Acknowledgment “This work was supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/159/1.5/S/133255, Project ID 133255 (2014), co-financed by the European Social Fund within the Sectorial Operational Program Human Resources Development 2007-2013”.

References

1. N.K. Kakabadse et al., “From Tacit Knowledge to Knowledge: Leveraging Invisible Assets”, Knowledge and Process Management 8, 3, (2001): 137-154. 2. L. Applegate, et al., “ and Tomorrow’s Manager”, in Revolution in Real Time: Managing Information Technology in the 1990s, W.G. McGowan, (Ed.), (Boston: MA, Harvard Press, 1988), 33-48; 44. 3. M. Powell, Information Management for Development Organisations, Second Edition, (Oxford: Oxfam, 2003), 41. 4. B. Prakken, Information, Organization and Design. An Integrated Approach to Information Problems, (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), 3-4. 5. A. Zuckermann and H. Buell, “Is the World Ready for Knowledge Management?”, Quality Progress 31, 6, (1998): 81-84, in Y. Malhotra, From Information Management to Knowledge Management: Beyond the ‘Hi-Tech Hidebound’ Systems, (2000), 6. 6. T. Johannson and R.C. Moehler, “Knowledge Sharing Strategies for Project Knowledge Management in the Automotive Sector”, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 29, 3: 295-304; P. 296. 7. I. Nonaka, and H. Takeuchi, The Knowledge-Creating Company, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 63. 8. G. Kebede, “Knowledge Management: An Perspective”, International Journal of Information Management 30, (2010): 416-424. 9. Y. Malhotra, “From Information Management to Knowledge Management: Beyond the ‘Hi-Tech Hidebound’ Systems”, (2000), 20, in K. Srikantaiah, and M.E.D. Koenig, (Eds.), Knowledge Management for the , (Medford, N.J.: Information Today Inc., 2000), 37-61.

37 B ULETIN Ş TIINŢ IFIC Nr. 1 (37) 2014

10. Y. Malhotra, “From Information Management to Knowledge Management: Beyond the ‘Hi-Tech Hidebound’ Systems”, (2000), 21, in K. Srikantaiah, and M.E.D. Koenig, (Eds.), Knowledge Management for the Information Professional, (Medford, N.J.: Information Today Inc., 2000), 37-61. 11. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H., cit.ed., 8. 12. Y. Malhotra, “From Information Management to Knowledge Management: Beyond the ‘Hi-Tech Hidebound’ Systems”, (2000), 22-23, in K. Srikantaiah, and M.E.D. Koenig, (Eds.), Knowledge Management for the Information Professional, (Medford, N.J.: Information Today Inc., 2000), 37-61. 13 Y. Malhotra, “From Information Management to Knowledge Management: Beyond the ‘Hi-Tech Hidebound’ Systems”, (2000), 23-24, in K. Srikantaiah, and M.E.D. Koenig, (Eds.), Knowledge Management for the Information Professional, (Medford, N.J.: Information Today Inc., 2000), 37-61. 14. Y. Malhotra, “From Information Management to Knowledge Management: Beyond the ‘Hi-Tech Hidebound’ Systems”, (2000), 24, in K. Srikantaiah, and M.E.D. Koenig, (Eds.), Knowledge Management for the Information Professional, (Medford, N.J.: Information Today Inc., 2000), 37-61. 15. Y. Malhotra, Knowledge Management and Virtual Organizations, (Hershey: Idea Group Publishing, 2000), 223-224. 16. S.R. Ghani, “Knowledge Management: Tools and Techniques”, Journal of Library & Information Technology 29, 6 (2009): 33-38; 37. 17. Ibidem, 33-38; 24-28. 18. A. Frost, A Synthesis of Knowledge Management Failure Factors, http://www.knowledge- management-tools.net/A%20Synthesis%20of%20Knowledge%20Management% 20Failure %20Factors.pdf (accessed March 12, 2014), 1-8. 19. Ibidem, 1. 20. K.M. Wiig, “Introducing Knowledge Management into the Enterprise”, in Knowledge Management Handbook, J. Liebowitz (Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1999), 3.1-3.40. 21. T. Davenport and L. Prusak, Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press, 1998), 5. 22. G. Kebede, cit.ed., 416-424; 420. 23. I. Nonaka and H. Takeuchi, cit.ed., 58. 24. G., Kebede, cit.ed., 416-424; 421. 25. J.C. Terra and T. Angeloni, Understanding the Difference between Information Management and Knowledge Management, Biblioteca Terra Forum, http://biblioteca.terraforum.com.br/ BibliotecaArtigo/libdoc00000013v002Understanding%20the%20difference%20between %20infom.pdf, (accessed March 12, 2014), 3-5. 26. Ibidem, 3-5. 27. M. Powell, cit.ed., 41. 28. J.C. Terra and T. Angeloni, cit.ed., 3-5.

38