ASSIGNMENT 2

implementing knowledge management is difficult in organisations as many
employees are afraid of sharing their knowledge. Based on your
organisational behaviour knowledge and theories that you are familiar with,
suggest ways to encourage team members to share their knowledge. Why do
you think your suggestions would be effective?


Knowledge Management develops systems and processes to acquire and share intellectual assets. It increases the generation of useful, actionable and meaningful information and seeks to increase both individual and team learning. In addition, it can maximize the value of an organization's intellectual base across diverse functions and disparate locations. Knowledge Management maintains that successful businesses are a collection not of products but of distinctive knowledge bases. This intellectual capital is the key that will give the company a competitive advantage with its targeted customers. Knowledge Management seeks to accumulate intellectual capital that will create unique core competencies and lead to superior results.

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’.

Knowledge management acts something like a library in that it provides a repository for written information on a given subject, but it also tries to make available to the organization as a whole the knowledge that is in people’s heads. This knowledge may be the most valuable of all because it is put in context and it is frequently more extensive and up-to-date and, therefore, more useful for decision-making. In short, knowledge management helps ensure that the right information gets to the right people at the right time to make the right decisions.

Large organizations know a lot of things, but they don’t always know what they know. Consider this scenario: You’re a specialist in construction technology, and you work in a field office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). A civil engineer at a state department of transportation calls you, requesting information about Superpave™ asphalt mixture design. You know FHWA has plenty of information about Superpave. But where is it? How do you find it? Whom do you call?

The situation is complicated by the fact that knowledge about Superpave exists in a number of forms. Some pavement experts at FHWA have been following Superpave developments ever since the technology was introduced. A good-practices paper was written to document one state’s experience. Several university researchers have written journal articles about the effects of the environment on Superpave asphalt mixtures. How can you be sure, even if you identify one or two sources of expertise, that you’ve done more than scratch the surface of the available information?
That’s the kind of problem faced by thousands of organizations — thousands of times a day — and it’s the reason for the development of a concept known as knowledge management.


In traditional organizations, knowledge tends to flow along organizational lines, from the top down. But that pattern seldom results in making knowledge available in a timely fashion and where it’s needed the most. In organizations with managed knowledge, information can flow across organizational lines, reaching the people who can use it in ways that best promote the organization’s goals and that enhance service to the customer at the same time.
How this happens can be understood by examining the four basic elements of the knowledge management cycle: find/create, organize, share, and use/reuse. Under “find/create,” especially as it operates in a transportation organization, knowledge is gained through a variety of means, including publications, conferences and meetings, project experiences, research, and industry expertise.


In the next step in the cycle, “organize,” the knowledge is filtered and catalogued, and links to the outside are created. Then the information is shared for wide availability, making use of high-tech computer tools such as the Internet and other techniques such as conferences, journal articles, and the natural communication channels created in a collaborative work environment.
To help carry out the “organize” and “share” functions in a specific community of people having a common interest, many experts recommend a knowledge manager. This person has the task of soliciting good practices, indexing and cataloguing new information as it comes in, and serving as an information broker by assisting people to obtain the information they need. The knowledge manager can also serve as an advocate for knowledge-sharing practices within and beyond his or her specific community of practice.


The final stage of the knowledge management cycle, “use/reuse,” involves both informal contacts and access to reports, good practices, success stories, and other forms of communication, including exhibits, demonstrations, and training sessions. Much of this knowledge can be made available to a wide audience through the Internet. This is the step in which knowledge is applied and reapplied to solve real-world issues, such as building better bridges, operating roadways more efficiently, and improving highway safety. Of course, these results are then captured as part of the lessons learned for use as the knowledge cycle begins again.

To implement knowledge management, how much does an organization need to change its culture? Some people believe that a wholesale transformation is required in the way people work and act, but this is largely a myth. The fact is that successful knowledge management programs work with organizational cultures and behaviors, not against them. That’s one reason Mark Youman of American Management Systems, a firm helping FHWA in its early knowledge management efforts, prefers the term “knowledge-sharing.”
“I try to emphasize that this is not an end in itself, but a set of tools and practices that can be used to further the organization’s goals. Knowledge-sharing is not a new goal for FHWA, but a way the agency can achieve the goals it has laid out in its corporate management strategy,” Youman said.

There’s no question that human nature and certain aspects of the corporate culture of organizations, including federal government agencies, can interfere with the smooth operation of a knowledge management program. Some individuals are proprietary about the knowledge they possess, believing that their advancement and status depend on their demonstration of unique or exceptional knowledge. Some managers fear a loss of control if their departments’ knowledge is made available to others. Some staff members feel, at least initially, that they are required to make an extra effort to share knowledge without deriving any benefit from the process. And some supervisors are uncomfortable with the idea of staff members spending time on knowledge-sharing rather than completing traditional tasks.

To a certain extent, these problems are addressed through open communication about knowledge management and its benefits. Nevertheless, there’s also a need to take a new look at how people achieve recognition and rewards in organizations that practice knowledge management. Often, this cultural change occurs as a direct result of the process of implementing knowledge management.

“People begin to realize that by sharing knowledge, they become recognized as people who have expertise in particular areas,” says Youman. This can be formalized through official recognition of people who have made outstanding contributions to knowledge-sharing.

People frequently ask how long it will take to implement knowledge management at FHWA. Knowledge management is not a project that begins and ends, but an ongoing and evolving change in the way an organization operates. Additionally, knowledge-sharing can grow across organizational boundaries and could encompass cooperating organizations, including AASHTO, TRB, and state and local transportation agencies. For another, there’s really no way to predict what technological advances will empower us to do, and we will continually find new directions to explore.

What’s most exciting about our effort is that it puts FHWA in a position to be a major beneficiary of what has been termed the “knowledge boom.” Organizations of all kinds in all sectors of the economy are waking up to the fact that what they know — more accurately, what individuals within these organizations know — is not only of immense value, but it is crucial to their success in this era in which information is a primary product.

The transportation community is made up of people of outstanding ability, experience, and professionalism. By improving the way we create, share, and gain access to these experiences and the accompanying knowledge, knowledge management will enable us to raise the level of expertise throughout the community to the mutual benefit of all participants.

references

http://www.bain.com/management_tools/
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/novdec99/km.htm

Assignment 1

INDIVIDUALISM-COLLECTIVISM, POWER DISTANCE, ACHIEVEMENT-NURTURING ARE SEVERAL KEY VALUES THAT PEOPLE AND ORGANISATIONS SUBCRIBE TO. THESE VALUES PLAY A PIVOTAL ROLE IN ORGANISATIONS AND WOULD UNDENIABLY AFFECT THE ORGANISATIONAL PRACTICES IN THE ORGANISATION. DISCUSS AND REFLECT ON THESE VALUES.

Values are stable, evaluative beliefs that guide our preferences for outcomes or courses of action in a variety of situations. They are perceptions about what is good or bad, right or wrong. Values tell us what we ought to do. Values partly define who we are as individuals and as members of groups with similar values.

Individualism-collectivism, power distance, achievement-nurturing are several key values that people and organizations subscribe to.

Anyone who has worked long enough in other countries will know that values differ across cultures. Some cultures values group decisions, whereas others think that the leader should take charge. For example, meeting in Germany usually start on time, whereas they might be half an hour late in Brazil without much concern. We need to be sensitive to the fact that cultural differences exist and, although often subtle, can influence decisions, behavior, and relations among employees.

Individualism is one of the five intercultural dimensions developed by Hofstede. In short this cultural dimension looks at how much a culture emphasizes the rights of the individual versus those of the group (whether it is family, tribe, company, etc). Individualist cultures include the United States and much of Western Europe, where personal achievements are emphasized. Collectivist cultures, such as China, Korea, and Japan, emphasize the group such as the family and at work this manifests in a strong work group mentality. According to McShane and Von Glinow, individualism is the extent to which we value independence and personnel uniqueness. Highly individualists’ people value personnel freedom, self-sufficiency, control over their own lives, and appreciation of the unique qualities that distinguish them from others.

In my opinion, sometimes is good for us to apply the individualism value. It is because we cannot satisfy everyone’s point of view. If we are too concern of others opinion, it is hard for us to choose our own decision. For example, me, myself are forced by my father to study in MMU and taking the course that I don’t want to. The effect was, I cannot pay attention to my studies and tend to rebel by not taking my studies seriously. At the end, I failed many subjects.

Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, which stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals. Collectivists focus on community and society, and seek to give priority to group goals over individual goals. The philosophical underpinnings of collectivism are for some related to holism or organics - the view that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically, a society as a whole can be seen as having more meaning or value than the separate individuals that make up that society. Collectivism is widely seen as being diametrically opposed to individualism. Notably these views are almost always combined in systems. According to McShane and Von Glinow, Collectivism is the extents to which we value our duty to groups to we belong, as well as group harmony. Highly collectivist people define themselves by their group membership and the value harmonious relationships within those groups.


For example, as we can see the political scenario in our country, the opposition party is brave to join the strikes when they have many supporters. This is because they feel that they will be defended by their leaders if anything happens. Furthermore, they think that they are more powerful than the government.


"Power distance is the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally." (Hofstede page 262). Power distance describes also the extent to which employees accept that superiors have more power than they have. Furthermore that opinions and decisions are right because of the higher position some has. In countries with high power distance employees are too afraid to express their doubts and disagreements with their autocratic and paternalistic bosses. The index for power distance describes the dependence of relationships in a country.

It is small in countries where bosses and subordinates work close together and consult each other. Subordinates and superiors consider each other as or less equal even there is a difference in education level. The hierarchical system can always change depending on the circumstances. The hierarchies are flat with a decentralized organization and a small number of supervisors who are expected to be accessible for their subordinates. Within a company the degree for unequal treatment is reduced to a low level. There is interdependence between employer and employee. The salary range is narrow between the top and bottom in companies. Subordinates expect to be consulted within the decision-making process.

In contrast in large power distance countries the relation between boss and subordinate is strictly ruled and dependent on the decisions of the boss. In companies with larger power distance which have a very centralized organization, subordinates expect to be told what to do from their superiors because they consider each other as unequal. Inequalities are normally expected and privileges are seen as desirable by superiors. There is a large extending to centralization and the salary range is wide. People in high power distance cultures positive emotions are expressed to superiors and negative emotions to subordinates.

People in Asian countries, for example Malaysia and Philippines are among the highest to have high power distance scores. They accept and value unequal power, value obedience to authority, and are comfortable receiving commands from their superiors without consultation or debate. As for me, myself, when I was young, I have no guts to protest if there something that I don’t like or I do not want to do. I always do whatever they asked. Its is not that they are strict or fierce, but maybe because of they are superior and I depend on them.

Achieving-nurturing orientation reflects a competitive versus cooperative view of relations with other people. People with high achievement orientation value assertiveness, competitiveness, and materialism. They appreciate people who are tough and favor the acquisition of money and material goods. In contrast, people in nurturing-oriented cultures emphasize relationships and the well-being of others. They focus in human interaction and caring rather than competition and personnel success. People in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark score very low on achievement orientation; this mean that they have high nurturing orientation. On the other hand, high achievement orientation scores have been reported in Japan and Hungary, while the United States and United Kingdom score near the middle, slightly toward the achievement orientation.

When I was in primary school, my parents applied the achievement orientation. They will reward me by giving presents and money if I get good results. They always forced me to study hard and they made a time table for me. They always compared and wanted me to become better than my cousins. I was not allowed to watch television and cannot answer phone calls from my friends at night.




References

1. McShane, S.L & Von Glinow, M.A (2008). Organizational Behavior. McGraw- Hill International Edition.

2. http://www.via-web.de/282.html

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

4. http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/intercultural/individualism.html