Discussion Question: CLO 1, CLO 2, CLO 3 Discuss The Two Rea

Discussion Question: CLO 1, CLO 2, CLO 3 Discuss the two reasons according to the video why knowledge management often fails

Discuss the two reasons according to the video why knowledge management often fails. What is the clash between IT and the dominant business view? What is the difference between explicit and tacit knowledge? What are the two positions of knowledge creation in knowledge management? How does knowledge management apply at your internship organization? Consider continuing your entries in your Journal weekly, for your use and to support your CLA2.

Paper For Above instruction

Knowledge management (KM) is an essential aspect of modern organizations, aimed at capturing, sharing, and utilizing organizational knowledge to improve efficiency and innovation. Despite its potential benefits, many organizations struggle with implementing effective KM strategies, often resulting in failure. According to insights from expert videos on the subject, two primary reasons contribute to this failure: organizational resistance and technological limitations.

The first reason is organizational resistance, which stems from cultural and structural barriers within the organization. Employees may be reluctant to share knowledge due to fears of losing job security or recognition. There is often a lack of trust, and organizational cultures may reward individual performance over collective knowledge sharing. Resistance can also be attributed to a lack of leadership support and strategic alignment, where KM initiatives are not fully integrated into the organization’s goals and workflows (Davenport & Prusak, 1998). Without strong leadership and a culture that promotes openness, KM initiatives tend to falter.

The second reason is technological limitations. Implementing the right technology solutions, such as knowledge repositories, collaboration platforms, or artificial intelligence tools, is complex and costly. Many organizations struggle with selecting appropriate systems or integrating them seamlessly into daily operations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Technological systems often fall short of capturing tacit knowledge—the insights, intuitions, and experiences that are difficult to codify—leading to an incomplete knowledge base. When technology does not support the organization's needs or is poorly managed, KM efforts tend to fail.

The clash between IT and the dominant business view refers to the disconnect between technological solutions and what the business perceives as valuable. IT departments often focus on technical robustness and efficiency, emphasizing systems that store and retrieve explicit knowledge. Conversely, the business view values actionable knowledge that can drive decision-making, innovation, and competitive advantage. This clash results in IT implementing systems that may be technologically sound but lack user adoption or alignment with business needs. Successful KM requires collaboration where IT understands the strategic importance of tacit knowledge and the need for systems that support both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).

Explicit knowledge is formal, documented, and easily shared, such as manuals, reports, or databases. Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is personal, experience-based, and difficult to articulate; it resides in people's minds, skills, and intuitions. Differentiating between these types is crucial in KM because explicit knowledge can be codified and stored easily, whereas tacit knowledge requires socialization and shared experiences for transfer.

In knowledge management, two prominent positions regarding knowledge creation are the codification and personalization approaches. The codification perspective emphasizes converting tacit knowledge into explicit forms, such as documents or databases, to facilitate dissemination across the organization (Hansen, Daft, & Nascinovic, 2005). Conversely, the personalization perspective advocates for direct interaction, mentorship, and socialization processes where knowledge is shared through dialogue and shared experiences—acknowledging that some knowledge cannot be easily codified (Nonaka & Toyama, 2003). Effective KM often combines both approaches to maximize knowledge sharing and creation.

At my internship organization, knowledge management is increasingly relevant as we strive for innovation and efficiency. The organization utilizes a knowledge repository to store explicit knowledge, such as project documentation and procedures. However, tacit knowledge transfer remains challenging; informal mentoring and social activities are encouraged, yet there is room for improvement in capturing experiential insights. Implementing collaborative tools and fostering a culture of open communication can enhance the sharing of both explicit and tacit knowledge, ultimately supporting organizational growth and adaptability.

In conclusion, understanding the reasons behind KM failures—mainly organizational resistance and technological issues—is critical for developing effective strategies. Recognizing the clash between IT and the business view helps tailor systems to meet organizational needs, supporting both explicit and tacit knowledge. Emphasizing both codification and personalization approaches to knowledge creation can facilitate more meaningful knowledge sharing. Applying these principles within organizations, including my internship organization, will improve knowledge flows and organizational competence.

References

• Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
• Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Harvard Business Press.
• Hansen, M. T., Daft, R. L., & Nascinovic, K. (2005). Knowledge management: Issues, challenges, and advantages. Journal of Management, 31(2), 276-304.
• Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
• Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Nippon Steel’s journey from "Ba" to "Ameta". Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–20.