Here I'am comparing some different models.
Wiig KM Model:
Wiig(1993) proposed his Knowledge Management model with a principle which states that,knowledge can be useful if it is well oraganized.There are some useful dimensions to be noted in Wiigs KM model.They are:
- Perspective and purpose
'Completeness 'refers to check how much relevant knowledge is available from given source.The source of knowledge may be implicit or explicit(from human brains or knowledge bases).'connectedness refers to well defined relation between diferent knowledge objects.A knowledge base possesses 'congruence' when all facts.concepts,values and relational links between the objects are consistent.'perspective and purpose' is a phenomena through we know something but from a particular point of view for a specific purpose.
Wiig KM model is one of the powerful theoretical KM model which is in existence today.This model helps the practitioners toadopt a refined approach to managing knowledge based on the type of knowledge.
Boisot I-Space KM Model:
Boisot(1998) proposes 2 key points they are:
- The more easily data is converted to information the more easily it is diffused.
- The less the data is structured requires a shared context for its diffusion,the more diffusable it becomes.
Boisot's I-Space model is visualised as a 3 dimensional cube with following dimensions:
'Codification' is creation of content categories.Less the number of categories more the abstract codification scheme.Well-codified abstarct content is easy to understand and use then highly contextual content.Loss of context due to codification results in loss of valuble content.
Boisot KM model links the content,information and knowledge management in an effective way.Boisot model is different from other KM models because it maps the organisational knowledge assets to social learning cycle which other KM models do not directly address.Boisot's KM model is not widely used implementation and is less accessible.
Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi theory of organizational knowledge creation is the most widely accepted knowledge management model which has four modes of knowledge conversion;
- tacit to tacit (Socialization),
- tacit to explicit (Externalization),
- explicit to explicit (Combination) and
- explicit to tacit (Internalization).
After the completion of the last process internalization, the model continues into a new level where the tacit knowledge held by an individual is shared and amplified by the spiral of knowledge through above 4 processes . Hence the SECI process of knowledge creation is also referred to as spiral model of knowledge creation. This model focuses on the challenges that organizations face to understand the dynamic nature of knowledge creation and also to establish effective knowledge transfer in program management.
Though there are some flaws with this model,I feel this is the best model when compared to the other two models.The SECI model is a widely accepted and widely used model and is still being used.The SECI model is a best approach to describe the way knowledge is generated,transferred re-created in an organisation.I would like to support the SECI model by giving an example.
In an organisation, different people in a team play different roles.Here,sharing of tacit knowledge through personal experiences is done especially in program environments where the communication is limited to within the team. So,they all discuss and share their knowledge.This represents socializtion.The tacit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge where all the team members discuss in a group and brings out a part of project.This represents externalisation.When the team members prepare their work and and when the combine their work to finish the project that represents combination.The project is done by group of people.So when it is ready to be executed by an individual that represents internalisation.
1.Wiig, K., 1993, Knowledge Management Foundations – Schema press -
2.Wiig.K 1993 Knowledge management foundations.Thinking about thinking: how people and oraganisations creatte and use knowledge .Arlington TX.Schema press.
3.Boisot.M(1998) Knowledge assets,Oxford:Oxford University Press.
4.Nonaka, I. 1991, The Knowledge Creating Company. Harvard Business Review, November-December, 96-104.