Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management (KMCI Press)

Rating:
Summary: KM's Key Issues
Review: Key Issues in The New Knowledge Management, by Joe Firestone and Mark W. McElroy, is the book that goes on - in some respects - where The New Knowledge Management (Mark McElroy, 2002) stopped. The book discusses the New Knowledge Management model, discusses theoretical underpinnings, and provides food for conversation and discussion regarding topics such as metrics of knowledge management, the organization's social capital and knowledge management standards.

Key Issues is one of the few works in the field of knowledge management that presents its model in a transparant way, open and ready to accept criticism. It is also a brave book, since it provides a an explicit knowledge theory, and normative stance to KM. More than enough edges to rub yourself against. However, the book does not seem to draw the ultimate consequence from the model, that positions KM as a source of corporate social innovation. The positioning is there, the argumentation strong, but there is no sign of practical elaboration of this aspect. Instead, this is left up to 'accountants', and it seems as if the authors define this aspect out of scope and remove it from their own working agenda. That is a missed opportunity, in view of the strong appeals made in TNKM, their earlier book. And it is contradicting the importance given to the issue in the model.

The book counts 350 pages and eleven chapters. The first five chapters deal with a thorough reflection on knowledge theory, and its implications for a knowledge management theory. Chapters six to ten deal with The New Knowledge Management Model. And chapter 11 is called "Conclusions", although it is 45 pages long and an interesting read on its own.

The authors carefully lay out the basic concepts of their model, taking a pragmatic and fallabilist perspective on knowledge. This means that knowledge development - a form of model construction - is led by pragmatic criteria. Knowledge is like a 'lense' used to define problems, develop acceptable solutions, and guide knowledge development. By making their model transparant, they provide openings to systematic scrutiny and discussion of their model. Even if the authors do not explicitly refer to it, I interpret the rationale of KM methodological approach to be an example of systematic, pragmatic model building. TNKM The KM model itself is laid-out in its various components as already available in my review of The New Knowledge Management, so that it is not necessary to discuss the model itself again.

In view of the model-character of knowledge, the heart of the matter of organizational KM is: what are the models governing decision-making and organizational behaviour, what is the quality of those models, and how can we improve those models in case we see that things go wrong in practice? The questions above make KM vulnerable to being misused, and to KM practices being ineffective or even destructive. This will be the case if KM practices are being used in a situation where basic assumptions or directives cannot be questioned (for reasons of misuse of hierarchy, power, ideology, desinterest etc.). The answer to this source of vulnerability is the normative concept of the Open Enterprise, which says that any assumption or priority should be open for discussion and scrutiny. Clearly, whether such a state will be present or not in an organization depends on the organizational culture and attitudes and ethics of actors. The degree in which such capacity is 'working', can be understood as the organization's social innovation capital. The normative element needed to pave KM's way to be a source of social innovation capital shows that KM as a pure instrumental management instrument can never be a solid source of innovation and renewal. And that is why the development of KM itself needs to expand into the direction of intangibles, social capital, and social development. In this respect, Firestone and McElroy do not challenge their audience as strongly as TNKM. TNKM demands attention for social innovation issues. But in Key Issues, the appeal seems to have dissolved into two streams. First, the element of learning and change still is present in the knowledge management life cycle, a core element of the books KM approach. But there, the innovation character isn't very strong, and 'just' part of a normal management process cycle. I doubt whether this will bring across the message as strongly as TNKM did. Second, the authors call upon the accountancy profession to improve on intellectual capital accounting and intangible reporting.

To conclude, Firestone and McElroy point to some really crucial aspects of KM, and provide a comprehensive knowledge management model. However, they seem to leave it up to non-qualified others to put their ideas into practice. Since social innovation and intangibles are such an important element of TNKM, I wonder why the authors seem to define the issue out of scope in their working agendas.