|
AUSTRALIAN
HR EXPERTS DECLARING
KM GROWING ATLEAST IN IMPORTANCE
Page
4.
______________________________________________________________
Statistical
Conclusion Hypothesis 2 - HR's Involvement
'Taken
together with the evidence presented by the frequency data the null
hypothesis
is rejected. That is, there is a relationship between the Human
Resources function
and the degree of KM planning and implementation taking place. In
other words, HR
professionals are involved in the planning and implementation of
KM systems,
policies and practices, atleast as much as their organisations allow.
It would appear
from this, that the senior management of organisations consign the
responsibility of
KM matters to the HR department, in much the same way that EEo/Affirmative
Action
matters have been consigned to it in the past. This may prove to
be two-edged sword
in the long run.' (p.120)
Statistical Conclusion Hypothesis 3 - Gender Relevance
'These
results, taken together with those of the t-test, indicate that
it does not seem
to matter if the individual responsible for implementing the knowledge
system and the
like is a man or a woman. Hypothesis H3 is therefore upheld.' (p.124)
Statistical Conclusion Hypothesis 4 - Education Relevance
'On
balance, it would be prudent to uphold hypothesis H4. It would not
seem to matter
greatly if the individual responsible for implementing the Knowledge
system, policies
and practices hold a post-graduate or under-graduate degree, or
certificate or not.'
(p.126)
_______________________________________________________________________
RESEARCHER'S
DISCUSSION SECTION
(CONDENSED, EDITORIAL EMPHASIS IN BOLD)
'There is some
moderate to high interest in the importance of KM with the respondent
organisations. This view is supported, to a fair degree, by an examination
of a number of items in section one of the survey questionnaire.
Although
organisations may be aware of the benefits KM may have, they are
either
unaware of the practical steps they need to take to implement KM
practices and
systems, or, are simply unwilling to provide a budget, among other
things, to enable
effective implementation to take place..
On
the one hand, there is recognition of the importance of allocating
resources, while
on the other hand there is little to no inclination to provide a
budget. (p.127)
Perhaps
there is not, as yet, sufficient confidence or trust in the KM concept
to do
more than intellectually acknowledge the importance of the ideas.
Perhaps there is
a genuine lack of understanding of the practical steps that need
to be taken.
On
fairness however, it is not possible to say definitively whether
the overall view of
the importance of the KM concept indicated by the survey is that
of the organisation
itself reported by the individual responding to the survey, or is,
in fact, specifically the
view of the respondent individual.
In
focusing on the degree of implementation of certain aspects of KM,
a different picture emerges.
Almost
half of the obtained sample appears to only slightly embed KM in
their
business process overall, while a further 11 % do not do so at all.
Only 14 % plan
the enhancement of their actual assets, and a third do not define
responsibilities for
KM initiatives. Less than a quarter of the obtained sample have
a budget in place
specifically targeted to KM initiatives. Although there are moderate
to high levels of
implementation around regulation and compliance requirements, nearly
three
quarters of the obtained sample were at best moderately, and at
worst, not at all,
engaged in identifying where they had gaps in their knowledge base.
Almost
two-thirds of respondent organisations only reward high KM performance
to
a moderate degree or less, while the same percentage of organisations
only recognise
productive teamwork to a slight-moderate degree. One of the reasons
for this
seemingly relative low interest in recognising and rewarding good
performance could
be that organisations are not fully aware of the quality of work
being done by their
staff in the knowledge management area. This is very easy to believe
when we find a
third of respondents report their organisations have no specific
indicators by which to
manage knowledge, and senior management does not regularly review
the
effectiveness of any KM system or policies. Where indicators and
reviews are
implemented however, it is largely in a slight to moderate degree
only.
Although
the overall results obtained from section one and section two of
the survey
questionnaire are somewhat mixed, on balance, it might be concluded
that there is
a failure to fully appreciate what it means, in a practical
sense, to implement KM
systems, practices and procedures, even though there is a moderate
to high level of
awareness of the importance to do so.
Arguably,
there is little in the way of an integrated approach that,
with strong
support from senior management, puts in place appropriate key KM
indicators linked
clearly, and demonstrably, with performance reviews and measurement
and a fitting
compensation package. One could argue that the current level of
HR involvement in
KM, commendable as it is, barely touches the surface of what
could, it is
concluded, be the real future for the HR professional.
Three
major schools of thought about knowledge and its management may
also be
discerned in the literature. The first focuses on information technology
and its use in
collating and making knowledge available to people. The perspective
is concerned
largely, if not exclusively, with explicit knowledge - that which
is easily codified and
collated, is reported in Annual Reports, and recorded on databases,
and in memos
and manuals.
The
second suggests that knowledge management is primarily a human resource
issue. This perspective focuses more on tacit knowledge - that which
is informal and
hidden. It is here that issues of teamwork, motivation, and leadership
culture come
into play.
The
third school of thought is a processual one, and focuses on how
to capture, and
measure, an organisation's knowledge. In this thesis, organisational
knowledge is
considered to be the total sum of the tacit knowledge of all employees
in the
organisation, plus the total sum of the explicit knowledge of the
existing processes,
technology used, and products of the organisation. Knowledge Management,
however, is considered to be the way in which organisational knowledge
is managed for the benefit of the organisation with regard to profits
and sustainability, and for the benefit of the employees with regard
to their job satisfaction and personal growth and
development.
This
thesis posits that not only does involvement inthe knowledge management
process hold considerable benefits for the organisation through
the direct and positive
influence on the 'bottom line' but that such an involvement takes
on a specialised set
of aims and objectives with the human resource function that should
not be ignored.
This
thesis has been particularly concerned with the specialised role
that the human
resources practitioner can play in knowledge work so that the organisation
can
'exploit its knowledge base effectively.'
_______________________________________________________________________
Next....
1
| 2 | 3
| 4 | 5
|
HUMAN LEARNING -
NATURAL DRIFT TO LOOSE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE
