Our first contribution to the open period comes from Richard Lalleman who is sharing his dissertation proposal (which uses the Cynefin Framework) with us for comment.
Knowledge management and organisational learning each lack a theory of how cognition happens in human social systems. Complexity theory offers this missing piece and can make a huge contribution to both knowledge management and organisational learning. This dissertation proposal aims to explore and assess the utilisation of the Cynefin framework for leadership to enhance organisational learning processes in cross cultural business contexts.
After a study in the late 1910s, the geologist Alfred Wegener (1915) was convinced that the current configuration of the continents was once a supercontinent, known as Pangaea. He related his theory on the idea that the continents are drifting away from each other. While his theory met with scepticism at that time, developments in geology in the 1950s and 1960s agreed to his theory.
On the other hand, the economic evolution is showing a different movement. Where in geology continents are literally drifting from each other; within economics continents are figuratively drifting to each other. This is known as globalisation. Many researchers, columnists and other recognised professionals have already written much about the causes of globalisation for businesses, which vary from the rapid development of communication technologies to the fall of the Berlin Wall. One of the dominated effects of globalisation for businesses, on the other hand, is unanimous: an increase in competition.
In the pre-modern times of economy, economic activity consisted primarily of the exchange of tangible goods such as coal. The value of these tangible goods was determined by supply and demand, which is still the case. Where there is more competition, the supply of goods increases and the value decreases.
In the post-modern times of economy, the information society, the value of information is also decreasing. According to Murray and Sekella (2007) the supply of information has greatly expanded in virtually unlimited quantities. Where once traditional encyclopaedias were costly but excellent sources for a wide variety of information, Wikipedia can now be used without charge and is being updated instantly.
Consequently, to compete as a business in a rapidly changing environment and where information is available to everybody, businesses are increasingly concentrating on the management of knowledge. Knowledge, the output of the “raw materials of data and information as inputs, and through the application of innovative processes” (Murray and Sekella, 2007), helps people make better decisions and better decision-making helps businesses in changing and uncertain environments.
Under the guidance of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge was seen as something in the minds of people (i.e. tacit knowledge) and as something which is ‘open’ to people after it has been documented in some way (i.e. explicit knowledge). Anyhow, they concluded that at a certain point tacit knowledge should become explicit knowledge. With the rise of new and powerful information technologies in the mid nineties, businesses started to manage knowledge in databases. Unfortunately this approach did not last long and at the end of the 1990s knowledge management failed to show its value. Stacey (2001) argued that “knowledge is not a thing, or a system, but an ephemeral, active process of relating in which you cannot manage it”. This has lead to a new generation of knowledge management in which “we grow beyond managing knowledge as a thing to also managing knowledge as a flow” (Snowden, 2002).
Clearly, businesses should learn through innovative processes if they want to manage knowledge. According to Murray and Greenes (2006) the innovative processes within a learning organisation consist of three important knowledge management pillars: (1) leadership – how to encourage learning and sharing through business driven decisions or tools, (2) organisational designs – how to encourage learning and sharing through human resource management – and the (3) technology infrastructure. To put it briefly, businesses should encourage people to make better decisions in uncertain situations of which knowledge management is the discipline that fills the gap.
According to McElroy (2000), managing knowledge can be done through three communities: the (1) knowledge management community itself; (2) advocates of organisational learning; and (3) supporters of complexity theories. He strongly outlines that each of these three communities “has something that the other two desperately need”. Knowledge management and organisational learning each lack a theory of how cognition happens in human social systems. Complexity theory offers this missing piece and can make a huge contribution to both knowledge management and organisational learning.
Furthermore, over the past ten years a traditional approach to leadership changed to a new form based on complexity science. This resulted in the development of the Cynefin framework. According to Snowden and Boone (2007) the framework sorts decision making into “five contexts defined by the nature of the relationship between cause and effect”. Four of these – simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic – require leaders to diagnose situations and to perform in contextually appropriate ways.
The Cynefin framework for leadership also illustrates clearly the shift in thinking within knowledge management from strategies that urges dissemination and imitation to those that promote education and innovation. Knowledge management started with the intention to capture, codify and distribute organisational knowledge in computerised environments. However, at this moment, “the educate and innovative strategy grants a higher value to learning and knowledge creation” (McElroy, 2000).
Consequently, this research aims to explore and assess the utilisation of the Cynefin framework for leadership to enhance organisational learning processes in cross cultural business contexts by primarily exploring the details of the (1) decision making process and what the role of the leader is in this process. This exploration is linked to the four most important strategic contexts of the Cynefin framework for leadership in organisations. Secondly, if it is clear in which strategic context the decision making process is located, the research explores the (2) learning processes of the organisation and how these learning processes contribute to (3) innovation.
If you want to know more about the research dissertation, please contact Richard Lalleman
REFERENCES
McElroy, M.W. (2000) “Integrating complexity, knowledge management and organizational learning”, Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(3), 195-203
Murray, A.J. and Greenes, K.A. (2006) “In search of the enterprise of the future”, VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 36(3), 231-237
Comments (3)
This sounds like an interesting and useful project. I take issue with your economic sketch, not to be pedantic but in the interests of a clearer understanding of your problem space. You say that:
"The value of these tangible goods was determined by supply and demand, which is still the case. Where there is more competition, the supply of goods increases and the value decreases."
You are confusing price and value. "Value", as it is normally used, resides in the consumer (i.e. the demand side), not the supplier. When supply increases, the price (in competitive markets) decreases. The original consumers still get their full original value, which is why they purchased in the first place, but now (in theory) they get this value at a lower price. New consumers, who had previously had too low a value to pay the price on offer by suppliers, now purchase the product as well. Note that value itself can change, but this results in a demand shift and is not the direct result of a supply shift.
You then say that:
"In the post-modern times of economy, the information society, the value of information is also decreasing."
I would say that the price is certainly changing but, as per the above, the value is not necessarily changing at all. A huge complication is that "information" is not nearly as homogeneous a good as coal, i.e. there are many, and highly differing, types and thus many "markets". Some types of information remain extremely costly (as an analogy think of markets for jewel diamonds vs industrial diamonds though these are, of course, far from "perfect competition" markets).
What is interesting is what happens to innovation when prices drop. To paraphrase economist John Hicks, innovation proceeds along a path which uses less of the more expensive goods, and more of the cheaper. Hicks is definitely talking about price, not value. Now it's important to realize that price decisions among alternatives are always taken on the basis of relative, rather than absolute, prices. If the price of "information" falls, that means that the relative price of everything else rises. If you accept that "understanding" (however defined) is not simply a function of the volume of available information, then its relative price is rising. In general, these relative prices motivate organizations to "innovate" (eg change behaviors) along a path that uses more "information" and less of other things, such as understanding.
I like to use the broad generalization of understanding residing in people, and information in IT. I think it's pretty obvious what the innovation path has been for the last few decades, as both IT and information have plummeted in price. When people were relatively cheap and plentiful in organizations, understanding happened almost unconsciously. Now that understanding is expensive and rare, but no less necessary (in fact, much more necessary in a "new economy", but that's beyond the scope of this post), organizations are forced to pay conscious attention to it. To me, untrained in its innermost secrets though I am {grin}, the Cynefin framework is preeminently a toolkit for building understanding in organizations.
But understanding is also far from a homogeneous economic imperative for all organizations. The impetus for building understanding will ultimately flow from its value to the individual organization, with this value very dependent on the organization's value chain (esp. within the "new economy"). Of course, the paradox is that organizations need a significant understanding just to "valuate" their understanding.
And finally, I take slight issue with:
"To put it briefly, businesses should encourage people to make better decisions in uncertain situations of which knowledge management is the discipline that fills the gap."
I think this is an overambitious role for "knowledge management", however defined, unless you accept the simple (and, to my view, unproductive because overly general) tautology that "knowledge management" is whatever leads to better knowledge.
Good luck in your studies. I can cerainly provide more info, and references, re the "economic view of the innovation path" if you're interested.
Posted by Keith Fortowsky | December 30, 2007 6:15 PM
Posted on December 30, 2007 18:15
Dear Mr Fortowsky,
Many thanks for the elaborated comment focused on the economic dimension of knowledge management. I will certainly research further your comments and where possible modify the research proposal.
Within learning organisations that are embodying knowledge management as good practices, they focus on the process of knowledge creation, adoption, distribution and revision. An important stimulator of this process is leadership. Learning organisations are focusing on these activities primarily to become more competitive in the new economy, in which knowledge is the power. Thereupon, it is not less important to take into account and review the part about the economic value of knowledge management.
I will keep you informed on the continuation of the research proposal.
Again, many thanks and I wish you a Happy New Year.
Richard Lalleman
Posted by Richard Lalleman | January 2, 2008 4:10 PM
Posted on January 2, 2008 16:10
Although I agree that "knowledge is power" in the "new economy", I suggest that this is again too general a statement since "knowledge is power" also very much applies in the traditional economy. You need to distinguish between types and uses of knowledge. Broadly, proprietary knowledge is power in the traditional economy; whereas in the "new economy" paradigm, power flows from agile/adaptive knowledge. Of course, in any real company power is created and sustained by a mixture of both, plus other, types of knowledge.
And I think you need to be very careful re "they focus on the process of knowledge creation, adoption, distribution and revision". While this is doubtless true, I think the differentiating factor for successful organizations in the "new economy" is how well they manage the context of their knowledge processes. To analogize to my earlier comment, it is now "knowledge creation, adoption, distribution and revision" that is relatively cheap (and thus overemphasized, esp. by those selling processes and technology to make it even cheaper), while context (aka understanding) is what is relatively expensive.
Posted by Keith Fortowsky | January 2, 2008 10:12 PM
Posted on January 2, 2008 22:12