Ok, here I am. Flying from Nice to Copenhagen on Maersk Airlines was pretty easy. My first impression here is that bicycles are the queen of the city! It is pretty cold out there but the seminar room is not far from my hotel, the outrageously expensive Scandinavia CabInn...
I took me several minutes to find the school in Copenhagen but the place is pretty nice. (By the way, did you know that Copenhagen means "the home for the merchants"...this is THE place for learning business ;-)
DAY 1
Course 1: Knowledge Organizations and Management perspectives in Knowledge Management
By: Mette Monsted, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Danmark
> Overall Objective: Show how knowledge (as a concept) changes the management theory.
According to Mette, Knowledge Management is old stuff with new perspectives. The main problem is this new paradigm is to know if knowledge is manageable. As Fuller said, “if knowledge is the problem, management is the answer” (2001) (I love this quote!). It is true.
(Personal comment: What I love with Mette courses is the good sense that predominates in the structure of her thoughts. Every example she takes is relevant and extracted from the real life of organizations. I really appreciate. Let's back to the course...)
Mette shows another nice quote from Jackie Swan & Scarbrough (2001): "under what conditions is knowledge manageable?". I like this quote. It shows what knowledge management is all about. Going back to my model, I think I should call it the "Knowing Mix" (KM) to show that managing knowledge means creating conditions to manage knowing (and not knowledge!).
Here are some definitions I also like that Mette has presented:
> If knowledge is essential resource for establishing competitive advantage, then management should identify, generate, deploy, and develop knowledge. (Drucker, 1993: 43)
> Knowledge Management is not possible. Only possible to manage people, and create framework for communication. (Stacey, 2002) I think it is the best one !!!
> As Kif rely on knowledge base of employees, then KM practice should ultimately be directed at the acquisition, development, protection, sharing and exploitation of K within these firms. (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2001:1003)
> KM is a multifaceted matrix of techniques which includes human resource management, managing intellectual property, and managing the development and transfer of industrial and organizational know-how. (Teece, 2000:52) (STRATEGY)
> KM is the process of continually managing knowledge of all kinds to meet existing and emerging needs, to identify and exploit existing and acquired knowledge assets and to develop new opportunities. (Quintas, Lefrere & Jones, 1997:387)
> KM is the dynamic process of turing an unreflective practice into a reflective one by elucidating the rules guiding the activities of the practice, by helping give a particular shape to collective understandings, and by facilitating the emergence of heuristic knowledge (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001:973) (CULTURE)
> Knowledge Management involves efficiently connecting those who know with those who need to know, and converting personal kkowledge into organisational knowledge. (Yankee Group, The Economist, 18 November 2000)
Mette gave me some ideas:
1. Show that storytelling creates a sensemaking process for valuing knowledge transfer (story as an artefact for making sense of KM value).
2. Based on Stacey's view, show that it is not possible to value knowledge management because it has no meanings. But to value knowing with an artefact (ie a story).
3. Analyze Foucault's views on power and knowledge. The question is not to share knowledge, but to choose which knowledge we share, with who, uuder what cunditions ??? Why should I trade time with others without rewards ???
> My point of view: I really enjoyed this course. It leads me to tackle this question: Under what cunditions knowledge is shared in an organization ? Under what cunditions can we value it ?
Course 2: What is Organizational Knowledge and how Organizational Learning relates to Knowledge Management
By: Alphons Sauquet, ESADE Business School, Barcelona, Spain (PhD in Columbia)
> Overall Objective: cover topics on relationships between learning and knowledge
I have red some papers from Prof. Sauquet. I like his approach on organizational learning. I find it deep and interesting. Prof. Sauquet started by explaining the differences between organizational learning and knowledge management. These topics have not been in the front stage until the 90s. Learning is the starting point. Senge 1991 and Nonaka in 1994 are the two basis. There are two communities working there. Why are we interested in learning ? Because we need to adapt to changes: life is longer and society is changing more and more quickly.
He showed a great matrix made by Fiol. I love this matrix. I find it very clear and a good starting point for my thesis. 
Information is not sticky, knowledge is. It takes effort, it is painful. “the use of technology to make information relevant and accessible wherever that information may reside” (Microsoft)…No way:companies are good at transferring information but not good at learning.
For example, librarians in the consulting company give information to the consultant in order to be more knowledgeable in front of customers.
Main barriers for making a knowledge management program a success (Source: Executive Perspectives of Knowledge in the Organisation, 1997):
1. Change people behaviours and attitudes (54%)
2. Have KM indicators (43%)
3. Establish which is the strategic knowledge (40%)
Talking about a ROI an a knowledge centre has no meaning, says Prof. Sauquet. I am OK for that!
Then he explains how Dewey can explain the link between organizational learning and organizational knowledge. It is important to understand knowledge management as the management of "knowing".
This is inspired from Cook & Brown (2001): The difference between knowing and practice. Then , Prof. Sauquet explained the conceptual fundations of Communities of Practice. I think we cannot understand communities of practice without this basement. For example, Jan Lave explains that mathematic is used by educations because it is abstract knowledge (I should read Cognition in practice). In a community, you learn not only knowledge, but you learn to behave like...(a teacher!) In a community we learn the language that you have to use (cf Brown & Duguid).
>My point of view: A very rich course that reminds me that I should make the difference between knowledge and knowing. As I will study practices and transfer of best practices, it is mandatory to do it.
DAY 2
Course 3: A history of concept of knowledge
By: Hans Siggaard Jensen, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
Overall Objective: Study the history of concept of knowledge.
A story to start: One of the first research journals, Le Journal des Savants, was created by a French researcher, Messine. His idea was to concentrate all the letters the researchers were sending to each others: “instead of sending to others and make copies, why don’t you send all the letters to me and I publish it”. Interesting. A French guy ;-)
We tackle some philosophical issues on knowledge and management.
> What is difference between knowledge and knowing ?
It is very important to make a difference between knowledge, a justified true belief (“I know what a triangle is”), and the act of knowing - the process (“we have different perceptions on a triangle”). According to Popper, knowledge is what the science produces - he does not agree with the justified true belief view. The distinction makes it clear that tacit knowledge is impossible. Polanyi was talking about tacit knowing (The Tacit Dimension), because it is personal. A tacit knowledge is an unknown knowledge, it does not make sense. It is a skill or an hability. You know more than you can say: “Know“ can be “knowing“ or “knowledge. Tacit knowing is the condition for creating knowledge. It is the same idea as the difference between “können” and “wissen”.
> What is the difference between knowledge and science ?
Science is universal statements. Knowledge can be expressed in universal laws. Physical sciences are real sciences according to Popper because it is universal. Science needs laws that accept no exceptions.
> What is the difference between knowledge and learning ?
Dewey is an interesting author to understand this difference. Knowledge is a meaningful experience that you have learnt and that help you to solve problems. Knowledge becomes a process which, in fact, is knowing.
According to Prof. Sieggaard, the definition of Davenport & Prusak is the best one in the organizational environment: Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of the owners of knowledge. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories, but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms. (Davenport & Prusak, 1998).
>What is the difference between data, information and knowledge ?
Information is perceived as explicit knowledge. Relevant judgment is now the problem for companies…it is no more having sufficient information. Knowledge becomes judgment + information. The difference between information and miss-information is the “truth” notion. Information is necessarily true! We build the truth on trust (ex: you ask for information, it is not true…it was not information).
The criteria for solving a problem should be part of the problem. A PhD student should not dream a solution.
Recommanded book: ”Architectures of knowledge” by Amin & Cohendet.
> What is the difference between skills and capabilities ?
Capabilities are based on the KBV of the firm. Competencies require a discursive dimension. Qualification is doing things well (like a craftsman).
DAY 3
Course 4: Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital statements - Measurement reflections
By: Hans Siggaard Jensen, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
Overall Objective: Show how knowledge is a capital.
How do you explain that companies are sold and valued more than the book value ?
The concept of capital. Intellectual Capital was introduced by Thomas Stewart. Knowledge was part of the intellectual capital. Karl Erik Sveiby and Leif Edvinsson were the most important actors in the world of intellectual capital.
Jan Mouritsen contributed a guideline for Danish companies to manage intellectual capital during the European project (Meritum). Nordik Innovation Centre (NICe) in Oslo.
Problem with IC: all the companies who have implemented measurements have bad results! The traditional accounting is not so precise neither. The problem is that it is not very relevant for the future. IC is not a huge success but it is linked to the crisis of accounting.
Two situations for managing intellectual capital
- effectiveness: you have to reach the optimum
- complexity: more than one form of knowledge emerges (ex: building a cathedral)
They notice that there is a “goodwill” when a company is sold on the market. The rule of thumbs is to sell your company X4 compared to the book value. They have discovered that some companies are sold 10 times the book price. The difference should be the intellectual capital: patents, brands, innovative culture, ideas. Venture Capitals have increased the phenomena. IC has been linked to the Internet bubble (Joseph Stieglitz was one of the main author).
How a capital can grow by itself? The problem is that when you don’t use your money and put it on the bank account, you get paid for that. So value is created when you don’t you use it. It is not possible with intellectual capital. We should the book written by Lin on “Social Capital”.
Measurement is the process of giving numbers to things. Nagel defines measurement as the correlation with numbers of entities which are not numbers. You can measure the value of something if there is a unit. Abacus (le boulier) was the tool for accounting the price of things in business in the Middle Ages.
Accounting is not measurement, because accountants measure value (money) by value! Temperature measure the speed of the molecule that creates warm or cold. Indicators should be relevant of what you are measuring. If you try to benchmarking, you need indicators. Indicators can be used badly (ex: MBA and the raise in salaries…if you have students from South America, the salary in entry is low, if they work in London, the difference is very high. It is not due to the school but to the area and the costs of life). The problem is to know how indicators relate to each others.
> My point of view::This course was very rich and philosophic. It needs a high level of abstraction from my side. But I really enjoyed the critics towards measurement. I totally agree with this view. I come to the conclusion, that I will not try to measure transfer of knowledge.
> For me, the big debate is about FIGURES (IC Models/Accountings) VS WORDS (Storytelling)
Course 5: Knowledge Management in a large Swedish Case
By: Thomas Hellström, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Knowledge Management initiatives should support some business processes. Tools, techniques and frameworks that appear in the knowledge management area.
Saint Gobain, Ericsson, and Shell were part of a project on best practices in knowledge management in 1999 (comprenant l’Ecole des Mines).
KM Practice at Ericsson: give flesh and bones to knowledge management.
Weak corporate and strong divisions (like Lafarge). Engineering culture is heavy. Competence oriented (they don’t talk about knowledge!). There are few official initiatives on knowledge management.
However, there is a strong shared culture with success stories and heroes (like Volvo): what people have done against all odds. The organization is very decentralized and it can rely on a web of 120 000 employees in 120 countries.
Some local initiatives were:
- Zopps: connecting expats on the web
- Knack : mapping of internal competencies
- BIC: business intelligence with Autonomy
- Stargate: a broad KM portal supposed to collect and systematize of internal consultants and capture “islands of best practice”.
- Experience Engine: a social system was developed with knowledge brokers, experts and communicators. It started after they threw out the database. Knowledge can be transferred and acquired if it refers to an experience. The idea was to create a market for knowledge.
The great challenge in valuing knowledge management is to anticipate knowledge management initiatives pay-offs. One solution does not fit all.
Methodology is storytelling. Do you have anything to say? Make a lot of call. Meet people at the coffee machine. People are more interested in telling stories than telling facts. Transcript of discussions. The problem is polluting its own data.
> My point of view: Nice case but it needs some structure in the examples Thomas gave us. I really like the end of the case when he said that storytelling is a methodology for a researcher in management. He made this statement: story is a case (ie: example) and an occasion (ie: to share with others). At Ericsson he had captured a lot of stories. I feel more confident, now...
DAY 4
Course 6: Research and Innovation Management - Challenges for managers and researchBy: Mette Monsted, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark
Overall Objective: Study the relation between KM and Innovation.
We are talking about knowledge which is not there yet: new ideas, innovation, etc…
> Knowledge management = we communicate about what we know
> Innovation management = we communicate about what we don’t know yet
Innovation supposes to take the decisions on how and when to open and close the process. Innovation supposes the commercialisation of something. Innovation is related to uncertainty: you don’t know what you are going to find, you don’t know who is going to be an expert.
All companies are working under uncertainty. It is part of innovation and needs to be handled: ”As my firm is a network firm, I lose control and how can I handle this uncertainty? I guess you just learn to live with it, as I live from it. This type of collaboration (in networks) is a delicate balance, as there are some things I have to try to keep secret. My basic knowledge, I have to try to keep secret. My basic knowledge, I have to keep for myself, as this is what I am surviving on. It is a dilemma. On the one side, I need information from people in my network and to get some of that I have to provide knowledge, and this is the balancing, which determines whether I survive” (a manager of a biotech firm-I like this quote) Complexity can lead to a paradox: not integrating new resources and people to close the project faster.
We need to have enough knowledge of what others do to communicate with each others. We don’t need to know everything about the others. Another perspective on KM: a communication tool.
Course 7: Critique of the SECI model - perspectives on KM
By: Stephen Gourlay, Kingston College, London, Great Britain
Overall Objective: Criticize the SECI model of Nonaka & Takeuchi
Since 1995, thousands of references have been made to the model of Nonaka. The SECI model is what Stephen Gourlay calls “the engine of knowledge creation”. The idea of this course is to show that Nonaka should be red carefully.
Another model is the “ba” model. The concept was taken from the Japanese philosopher called Nishima. Literally it could mean that ba is “feeling at home”. Nishima = Buddhism + Heidegger philosophy (strange mix isn't it ?)
> What are the conceptual foundations of the SECI model ?
It is based on Polanyi’s model. Tacit is “unspeakable knowledge”.
Tacit knowledge is not “reading between the lines”. Tacit knowledge is another word for talking about skills? First criticism: Nonaka has made a wrong lecture of Polanyi’s view to tacit knowledge.
Riding a bicycle is a physical act. Tacit knowledge is a physical act.
In 1993 a survey of Japanese managers validates the four modes of the SECI model. Problem: the model was not published at that time. We should bear in mind that the basics of its model come from research on information creation.
1) Socialization
Socialization means that you create tacit knowledge by observation. It is a reproduction process: you learn by observation…it is impossible because you don’t know what you have to observe. According to Nonaka you learn by imitation. Ex: the first time you come to a factory, you don’t notice what is relevant. The fact is that we don’t notice things that seem normal to us, we have tacit discrimination of things (“this is not relevant to me”). Socialization is brainstorming, bread machine and customer interaction. It includes social activity of the individuals.
Exercise: one person draws his signature and the other one tries to do the same.
Result of the exercise: we produce something close to what the other does.
The example of bread machine (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995): the first machines were not efficient. The taste was terrible. The chef was “twisting stretch” as the secret of making bread. Something is wrong with the story…the taste is not affected by the “twisting stretch”! This story is ambiguous. Nonaka & Takeuchi have not understood how to make good bread. They make confusion between taste and texture. Software engineer was supposed to understand the practice of a chef. According to Prof. Gourlay it was successful by accident!
2) Externalisation
Exercise: explain how to do the signature to the other.
Result: It tests the ability to say and explaining. The tools (paper and pen) play an important role: speed, friction. When we do the signature, we breath, it is like a performance that you don’t want to miss. Moreover, it has evolved since we have created it, since we have signed our passport. There is also the importance of recognition: can it be reproduced? if yes, it is dangerous for my bank account! Problems are speech and movement of the arm. We know why we draw our signature but we don’t know how to deconstruct it.
To communicate, we start to put names to things (“I do my ”A” like this and like that”).
Externalisation presented in the book (ex: Tall Boy in Toyota) were studies of new product development. Metaphors was used as tools to make tacit knowledge explicit…but where is the tacit knowledge ???
3) Combination
It is a very thorny issue…It should relate to writing reports, meetings, conversations, document exchange, “modern computer systems” and embodiment of knowledge into products. Symbol manipulation at the level of organization.
4) Internalisation
Exercise: Read an ambiguous text
Result: Hard to have a common view on the story.
We acquire tacit knowledge by readings or writing/learning-by-doing or triggered by learning-by-doing. It is an ambiguous notion.
> My point of view: I loved the example of the signature for explaining what tacit knowledge is! It is good, sometime, to criticize the predominant models in the litterature.
DAY 5
Course 8: Tacit Knowledge
By: Stephen Gourlay, Kingston College, London, Great Britain
Overall Objective: Show why tacit knowledge is important to manage.
Tacit knowledge seems to be an important issue to manage for organizations: how knowledge is lost when somebody leaves the organization! How to reduce uncertainty! There is an ambiguity on the notion of “tacit knowledge”.
-private/personal tacit knowledge VS collective/organizational tacit knowledge (Nelson & Winter). It is hard to distinguish personal and collective. Stephen Gourlay finds this distinction not useful. Some authors say that tacit knowledge is acquired with little help from others.
-Tacit/explicit: is possible to make it explicit? Yes, No (Tsoukas), Maybe
Different uses of ‘tacit knowledge’:
a) Someone can do something, but apparently cannot give an account
b) Someone claims they feel something of which they cannot give an account, but it is not clear if subsequent events validate the claim
c) Someone can do something, but not give an account at that moment, but can, if pressed, recall the explicit knowledge that was used tacitly when acting
d) Knowledge existing prior to the situation in which it is effective, and due to innate (biological) characteristics
e) Knowledge existing prior to the situation in which it is effective, and due to cultural factors
f) Situations when A knows something that B does not, but where it could be argued A and B share the same practice
a) The classic sense: Tacit knowledge is the kind of knowledge we cannot explain.
- legal expertise (choice of information)
- selling (ability to persuade others, salesman’s rules of thumb)
- setting up a scientific experiment
- riding a bicycle
People are doing something that they cannot give an account. It is related to action in particular contexts, and seems to have been acquired by such actions. People have accomplished something.
b) Feeling something
- team is unable to articulate their ideas
- financial trader’s feeling about the market
- reading into other’s thoughts
It is funny to see that we use the term ‘intuition’ when we have bad results. Intuition is a process that I can reconstruct in my head, the process is explicit. Abduction is reasoning. Intuition is not reasoning. If intuition is not explicit, we cannot act on it, it is not useful. Problem with ‘intuition’: it is an umbrella term. Ex: of quality controllers at Volvo using ear instead of a check list when they start the motor. When do you abandon the list? Intuition should be explained by the work of Henri Bergson.
Another example is the mistakes made by expert systems in medical. You can train intuitions.
c) ‘innate’ knowledge
- motor skills, riding a bicycle
- innate predispositions (pedagogy, talent)
- using language
d) culturally acquired knowledge
- observance of social norms
e) things known to actors but not to observers
- scientists’ trial experiments
- foreman knowing about violation of dust emissions
- workers knowing safety problems
‘Knowledge’ is a ‘loose name’ (Dewey): ‘knowledge is a vague word’!
> If tacit knowledge, then it is ‘tacit true warranted belief’???
> In the KM literature, knowledge is even loose…no logics
> Knowledge (tacit) is not knowledge
Methodology Issues raised by students
1) To what extent do we explain our theoretical concepts to the person we interview? Open questions or semi-structured interviews?
Alfons: It deals with artistery. You learn all along the process: your first interview will be different from the last. The idea is to not tell that you are working on a sensitive issue (ex: do you have any conflicts?).A good researcher has to be a good interviewer.
2) How can you justify that you eliminate some parts of the literature regarding knowledge?
Hans Siggaard: You need to have a down-to-earth approach. Practitioners want clarity. It is useful to have a hierarchy: ex: Marshall’s short term-middle term-long term. Big theory (ex: Giddens) to micro-level theory (ex: theory of K.Sharing). You can develop a medium-level theory (ex: you are looking at social processes, describing epistemic cultures). You can say that you are part of a group of researcher. The structure of sources cited is like a tree.
3) How do you know when to stop your conceptual search?
Stephen Gourlay: You have to stop for pragmatic reasons. You have to build coherent and defensible arguments. Each discipline has its own blink. You have to resist being creative when you are doing a PhD. The identity of the research community comes from the preservation of conservative rules.
4) How to deal with sensitive issues during an interview?
Stephen Gourlay: You can invite the person to react on a story of him with third party (ex: this person is sharing what she knows, what do you think about?)
So long, Copenhagen...it was a great seminar.
