Aravali Institute of Management
Topic: Knowledge Management and Organization Behaviour (Tracing the interrelationship)
Submitted To Mr. Prithwi T. Banerjee Faculty, AIM
Submitted by Group No. 4
Harshad Vyas Om Prakash Suthar Bhawani SinghRathore Amit Mathur Gourav Rathi
Organizations are collections of interacting and inter related human and non-human resources working toward a common goal or set of goals within the framework of structured relationships. Organizational behaviour is concerned with all aspects of how organizations influence the behaviour of individuals and how individuals in turn influence organizations. Organizational behaviour is an inter-disciplinary field that draws freely from a number of the behavioural sciences, including anthropology, psychology, sociology, and many others. The unique mission of organizational behaviour is to apply the concepts of behavioural sciences to the pressing problems of management, and, more generally, to administrative theory and practice. The quest for technologies with strategic value for the organization but also with empowering strengths for the work context of the firm has persistently occupied the landscape of information systems. Knowledge Management is the latest techno-managerial buzzword earmarked for improving the work processes and creating value for a firm’s operations. Knowledge Management comprises a multiplicity of technological offerings for potential applications. Nevertheless, there is scarce empirical evidence on phenomena, conditions and factors related to the organizational adoption of these offerings. The research treats Knowledge Management systems as IS innovations by explaining organizational situations and phenomena related to its adoption. This research seeks a deeper understanding of organizational phenomena taking place during the adoption and implementation of KM technical solutions. Knowledge Management is being considered for adoption as a practice that could facilitate the sustainable development of new products and services and beyond that the transition to a radically different set of operational arrangements.
A Framework for Building a Knowledge Sharing Culture
Organizational Knowledge, Cognitively Plausible Actors, and Multi-Actor Systems Organizational knowledge and knowledge management can only be studied successfully if two basic requirements are fulfilled: (1) determination of what knowledge is about and which carriers of knowledge are allowed and (2) the mechanisms that provide the interaction between the carriers (actors and software agents). We therefore have to step down to a lower level of aggregation, which is to say, to actors, to (shared) mental models, to agents and to the interaction between them. In order to guide the study of these constituting elements we formulate two questions. (A) What is the difference between information and knowledge and what consequences does this difference have for corporate and organizational issues? (B) If the human individual is one kind of actor, what other kind of actors (or agents) can we discern, what characteristics do the various actors have and what mechanisms are used to collaborate in Multi-Actor Systems (MAS)? Insights from cognitive science, artificial intelligence and knowledge technology are used to answer the questions. We see knowledge as interpreted information. For the time being only human actors can entertain knowledge, because they have representations. Taking into account other components of (intelligent) actors, such as perception and interaction, other kinds of actors (and agents) can be defined. Various kinds of actors (and agents) may work together in an organization, which we call a Multi-Actor System. The “glue” that keeps such a system together is called: coordination mechanism. Various kinds of coordination mechanisms exist such as standardization,...
References: Alvesson M. & D. Kärreman. 2001. Odd Couple. Coming to terms with knowledge management. Anderson, J. R. 1983. The architecture of cognition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Antonacopoulou, E.P. 2006. The relationship between individual and organizational learning: New evidence from managerial learning practices. Argyris, C., and D. Schon. 1978. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective . Reading, Boisot, M.H. 1995. Information space: A framework for learning in organizations, institutions, and culture . London: Routledge. Boisot, M.H. 1998. Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the information economy . New York: Oxford University Press. Bukowitz, W., and R. Williams. 1999. The knowledge management fieldbook . London: Prentice Hall. Cijsouw, R.S., and R.J. Jorna. 2003. Measuring and mapping knowledge types. In Dynamics and change in organizations: Studies in organizational semiotics , ed. H.W.M. Gazendam, R.S. Cijsouw, and R.J. Jorna Dalkir, K. 2005. Knowledge management in theory and practice . Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann. Fearon, D.S., and S.A. Cavaleri. 2006. Inside knowledge. Rediscovering the source of performance improvement . Milwaukee: Quality press. Firestone, J., and M. McElroy. 2003. Key issues in the new knowledge management . Burlington: Butterworth Heinemann. Gazendam, H.W.M. 1993. Variety controls variety: On the use of organizational theories in information management . Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. Gazendam, H.W.M., and R.J. Jorna. 1998. Semiotics, multi-agent systems and organizations. Meyer, M., and M. Zack. 1996. The design and implementation of information products. Sloan Mintzberg, H. 1983. Structures in fives: Designing effective organizations . Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Newell, A. 1982. The knowledge level. Artificial Intelligence Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation . New York: Oxford University Press.
Peters, K., L. Maruster, and R.J. Jorna. 2009. Knowledge evaluation in organization (accepted for publication). Simon, H.A. 1998/1969. The sciences of the artificial . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Sorge, A. and M. Warner. 2001. The IEBM Handbook of Organizational Behavior . London:
Group No. 4 (PGDM – G)
Name Group Members
Harshad Vyas Om Prakash Suthar Bhawani Singh Rathore Amit Mathur Gourav Rathi
Please join StudyMode to read the full document