©

WELCOME!

COMPETENCY MODEL IN

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

©

DIMENSIONS OF KM

©

Historical highlights of intellectual capital

• 1969 - Tobin’s q ratio established • 1988 - EFQM promote non-financial indicators of

excellence. • 1989 – Svieby proposes ‘invisible balance sheet’ • 1990 – Edvinsson appointed Director of Intellectual

Capital at Skandia • 1992 – Kaplan & Norton – Balanced Scorecard • 1994 – First publication of intellectual capital accounts • 1995 – WTO negotiates TRIPS • 1999 – EU funds intellectual assets research • 2000 – Journal of Intellectual Capital • 2002 – Narrative of intellectual capital

©

EFQM Excellence Model

©

The Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 1992)

©

Frameworks of Intellectual

Capital

©

Human and Social Capital

• Hamel & Prahalad (1994) – success linked with development and utilisation of core competences

• Human capital – human embodied knowledge

• Social capital – nature of relationships in a cooperative entity

©

Social Capital• Structural dimension showing the

linkages and connections between actors such as the density and hierarchy of networks.

• Relational dimension that provides the history of interactions between individuals resulting in certain levels of trust, norms and expectations.

• Cognitive dimension that leads to shared meanings, interpretations, mental models and alignment of views.

©

Organisational Capital• Pure form such as

organisational structure • Hybrid form – embodied in

individuals through socialisation

• Investments will lead to greater worker productivity?

• Differences between structural, human and organisational capital?

©

Kolb’s (1984) Learning Cycle

©

TEAM LEARNING (Senge, 1990)

©

ORGANISATIONAL LEARNINGSingle and Double-Loop Learning

• Behavioural learning – ‘single-loop learning’ involves maintaining an organisation’s ‘theory-in-use’

• Cognitive learning – ‘double-loop learning’ involves questionning assumptions and values

©

SUCCESS & FAILURE: WHAT DRIVES OL?

©

SENSEMAKING

©

ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY• Ability of organisations to absorb and

apply new knowledge • Capacity to learn and solve problems • Knowledge capacity driven by high

previous experience, diversity and commonality

• Knowledge capability driven by problem solving and knowledge transfer abilities

• Gatekeepers important to transfer knowledge across boundaries

©

ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY

©

COMPONENT TOOLS TYPOLOGY

©

ORGANISING KNOWLEDGE: ONTOLOGY & TAXONOMY

©

INTEGRATING ONTOLOGIES (see Ding & Foo, 2002)

©

CAPTURING KNOWLEDGE: Cognitive Mapping Tools

• Used principally in mapping strategic knowledge

• Use ‘oval mapping’ technique in groups

• Develop concepts, links and clusters

• ‘Decision Explorer’ – can develop complex levels of analysis

©

CAPTURING KNOWLEDGE: Search Engines: Crawler Indexer

©

EVALUATING KNOWLEDGE: Case based reasoning

• Capture and store past experiences as organisational knowledge

• System searches for stored cases with similar profile to new problem

• Adds unsuccessful cases to aid learning

• Built on artificial intelligence technology

©

EVALUATING KNOWLEDGE: OLAP: On-line analytical processing

• Provides multidimensional analysis of data to allow user to see data in different ways using multiple dimensions

• Main technique is to rotate a data cube

• Also called “slice and dice”

©

EVALUATING KNOWLEDGE: Data mining

• Uses variety of neural network, decision trees and genetic modeling algorithms

• Use sophisticated data search capabilities using algorithms to discover patterns and correlations in vast amounts of data

©

SHARING KNOWLEDGE: Internet/Intranet

• Share knowledge with knowledge providers across the world – some free

• Intranet provides same but restricted access from outside

• Uses HTML and XML – a metalanguage that allows definition of tags and allows distribution of knowledge to call phones, pagers and PDAs

©

SHARING KNOWLEDGE: Groupware tools

• Allows to work on same document by multiple users

• Maintain and update identical data on numerous PCs

• Organising discussions • Storing information • Moving and tracking documents of groups • Preventing unauthorised access of data • Mobile use to access corporate network

©

WEB 2.0 PLATFORM

©

ONLINE SOCIAL NETWORKS• Individuals interact with others in community • Social network sites (SNS): Facebook, MySpace,

LinkedIn, Friendster • SNS tend to support pre-existing relationships rather

than new ones • Benefit from social capital and self presentation • Risk over privacy from third party securing personal

information • Allows interaction with different people in network

©

DELIBERATE AND EMERGENT STRATEGIES

©

KNOWLEDGE BASED VIEW (KBV)

• Knowledge is the key resource for competitive advantage

• Knowledge held in information systems as well as in people’s heads and communities

• Knowledge sharing is important • Primary task to integrate

knowledge between people, product and services

©

RESOURCE-BASED VIEW (RBV) OF THE FIRM

• Resources create competitive advantage

• Competitive resources are valuable, rare, inimitable (not easily replicated) and not substitutable

• Competitive resources include top mgt skills, culture, information systems and HRM

©

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

©

DIALECTICS OF KM

STRATEGIES

©

CONCLUSIONS• How far does competency model depend

on your notion of knowledge management?

• Is it technology based or people based? • Are these competencies different in stable

and volatile environments? • What framework of intellectual capital is

most appropriate for the nuclear energy industry?

• Can a competency model prevent innovation?

©

TIME FOR REFLECTION