The article under consideration in this discussion is an interview of Karl-Erik Sveiby, a Professor of Knowledge Management at the Hanken Business School in Helsinki, Finland by Alex Bennet. He is repeatedly portrayed as one of the founders of the concept of Knowledge Management has opened up different avenues in his field. Alex Bennet, the former Chief Knowledge Officer of the U.S. Department of the Navy and ex-co-chair of the Federal KM Working Group, interview him.
Sveiby describes in the interview how his journey in this field started. He switched over from a consumer product firm to establish his own publishing house along with a few friends. Here he served as a manager and this according to him was his first exposure to knowledge workers. He talks about his experiences with a knowledge-based strategy in the 80s, which was then known as a competency-based strategy. In his book Kunskapsledning, he touched upon the concept of Knowledge Management (KM). However, this was much more aligned with human knowledge as opposed to the now conventional knowledge management, which relies a lot on databases and searching information, which he terms as information management. He defines knowledge as “The capacity to act in a context” (Bennet, 2004, p 2) and knowledge management as “The art of creating value by leveraging intangible assets”. (Bennet, 2004, p 2) He emphasizes that this concept is different from other management initiatives. Knowledge management, according to is a perspective rather than an application of how to operate the business. Although it has some ideologies in common with the learning organization theory it drifts away from it given that KM takes into consideration the outside world, client, and the interactions with them. (Lee, 2007)
Sveiby asserts that there are two very dissimilar interpretations of Knowledge Management. The first one he calls the American interpretation of KM, which according to him is more of information management, is to make information available throughout the organization, generating, collecting, and gathering, clearing the concept of knowledge in people’s minds in order to be accumulated and recovered when required. However, Sveiby feels that people’s interest in this field is weakening gradually. The second interpretation he calls the ‘people-oriented track’ is more to do with human knowledge and he feels that it is emerging and interest in this perspective is increasing and in a sense being rediscovered by various organizations. When talking about what got him excited in the first place to explore this field, he refers to his job as a manager in the publishing company he had established. The success of the competence-based strategy, which he implemented as a knowledge handling policy, got him passionate. However, during the 90’s when the concept of KM started increasingly getting associated with the Internet and Information Technology he found his interest fading away. Then again, in the early 2000’s when he noticed the concept drifting away from such things, the fire to wander about the KM arena was rekindled in him. He mentions that of late, what excites him is his project relating to antique aboriginal knowledge formation and the instruments and the techniques they employed to hoard and recover tacit knowledge, to make it flow across generations over several years by means of storytelling. The most exciting thing in this project, he states, “has to do with tacitness, the ability to transfer knowledge without having to make it explicit.” (Bennet, 2004, p 3)
According to Sveiby, the field of computers is currently only obsessed with generating tools and systems for superior information transfer and he challenges those working with computers to formulate something that would facilitate tacit knowledge transfer. Inherently, computers can only tackle information. Thus, he feels that finding faster storage and retrieval techniques is not worth it as all it leads to is additional information. Accordingly, the challenge is to develop methods that would facilitate creativity, such as educational gear like simulations. Sveiby also points out his interests in Measuring. He highlights the significance of tools like mathematics and statistics as it provides people with a clear-thinking course. Although presently they are being misused as instruments to exert control, he suggests that they should be used in a more constructive way. He suggests that these elements should be used to channel the direction of thoughts. Gradually the interview drifts of to a spiritual level and Sveiby indicates that he gets a lot of inspiration from the outer realm. He believes that one should never hurt someone, neither physically, or emotionally. He reinstates his belief in modesty and does not go out of his way to claim credit for his thoughts. (Lee, 2007)
In the concluding phase of the interview, he suggests that instead of just thinking knowledge management to be a policy to be implemented the top-level administrators should reconstruct their perceptions. They must think about their purpose can how they can “organize themselves to make the better organization”. (Bennet, 2004, p 13) He points out that Finland is one of the very few nations, which implement a knowledge-based strategy for the entire country, and there is enough substantiation to support its success. This fact encourages him to state that, “it might be some indicator when you embrace it on the larger scale, actually engage policy and spend money on it, it actually might have an impact.” (Bennet, 2004, p 13).
References
Bennet, Alex. (2004). Karl-Erik Sveiby: KM Today and Tomorrow? What Makes me Passionate. Web.
Lee, Young-Chan. Capabilities, processes, and performance of knowledge management: A structural approach. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing. 17 (1) 21-41.