Westminster Business School

35 Marylebone Road

London NW1 5LS

Tel: 0207911 5000 Fax: 0207911 5839

email:coakese@wmin.ac.uk

gill@wmin.ac.uk

This paper reports on the third stage of a research project investigating the role of knowledge management and organisational learning in the university sector. [For information about previous research results see Coakes and Sugden 1998, 1999 and 2000].

The authors explain some fundamental principles of knowledge and learning, and show how the first stage of this research revealed that universities are not always the seats of knowledge sharing which might otherwise be believed.

The paper goes on to describe a pioneering knowledge management programme in a leading British university, and concludes that knowledge management tools can have many benefits to the various activities in which universities are involved. They can help to integrate various ‘pockets’ of research, and co-ordinate better the teaching and industrial liaison activities. However, the case study also raises some important issues for knowledge management in universities. Firstly, the focus on explicit knowledge management tools does not necessarily enable real organisational learning or the sharing of tacit knowledge across the cultural boundaries that are so prevalent amongst academics. Secondly, there appears to be little recognition of a strategic approach to knowledge management in universities - one that can take into account the changing nature of the marketplace in which universities compete.

Knowledge management has become a major topic for both practitioners and academics in the business world of today. In 1991 two writers in particular drew attention to the influence of knowledge in industry. Joseph Badaracco developed the concept of embedded and migratory knowledge. Migratory knowledge has a tendency to move out of the organisation, as it is usually codified and is easily transferable. Embedded knowledge is firmly established in the culture of an organisation, in norms, attitudes, relationships among individuals and groups, and decision-making routines (1991).

Nonaka also recognised the growing importance of knowledge:

"In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge." Nonaka, (1991), P96.

Paralleling to some extent the arguments of Badaracco, Nonaka and Tageuchi progressed the argument for two distinct types of knowledge, using the terms ‘tacit’ and ‘explicit’ knowledge. The concept of the knowledge-creating company was born, based on a dynamic flow of tacit and explicit knowledge, which constantly recreates and reinvents itself (1995). This has become the basis of much speculation and research in the area ever since. Pan and Scarbrough further expound upon this:

"Explicit is systematic and easily communicated in the form of hard data or codified procedures. It can be articulated in formal language including grammatical statements. This kind of knowledge can thus be transmitted across individuals formally and easily. Tacit knowledge is not available as a text and may conveniently be regarded as residing in the heads of those working in a particular organisational context. It involves intangible factors embedded in personal beliefs, experiences, and values." (1999), P362.

They claim that knowledge management generally focuses on the transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, and this explicit knowledge tends to be based on information technologies. Scarbrough, Swan and Preston have recognised the link between knowledge and learning. To them, knowledge management is:

"…any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge, wherever it resides, to enhance learning and performance in organisations"(1999), P1.

They argue however that the core themes in knowledge management cover mostly IT/IS related topics. Through a survey conducted in 1998, they found that nearly 70% of articles on knowledge management were in the IT/IS areas, and many of these were practice driven, with the emphasis on explicit knowledge (1999, op.cit.). They claim that organisational knowledge can be shared through groupware, intranets, list servers, knowledge repositories, database management and knowledge action networks. Managers hope that these tools will retain knowledge within the company when employees have left, and also that this will encourage learning and the flourishing of communities of interest across functional boundaries.

However, there is little which relates knowledge management to organisational learning in either literature or practice. Scarbrough et al. claim that knowledge management rarely appears in the literature on the learning organisation, and the two themes come from very different roots (1999, op. cit.).

Merali recognises these tools in relation to more tacit types of knowledge. He states that tools such as co-ordinated databases, groupware systems, intranets and internets can be used as support tools, to initiate and enable discussion forums and communities of practice (1999). These refer to tacit knowledge, which may have more in common with organisational learning than explicit knowledge does, most notably the idea that people are more important than technology. This is hardly surprising as information technology in its electronic form has only been in existence for a few decades. Choo points out the similarities of tacit knowledge and learning in the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, a company that he refers to as a ‘knowing’ organisation:

The current focus on IT-centred knowledge management tools may be a significant aspect of knowledge management for many organisations, but raises questions as to the extent to which they can actually enable real learning, through the sharing and enactment of tacit knowledge.

Below we discuss knowledge management in the university sector and through empirical results show issues that concern the nature of knowledge in this specific sector.

Universities traditionally focus on the acquisition of knowledge and learning. According to Garvin’s view, organisational learning is multidisciplinary, and he supports the argument that action, that is, change in work activities, is crucial to the organisational learning process, and that ideas by themselves are not enough. To illustrate this argument he points out that universities would not be considered learning organisations under these conditions (1993). This is a significant statement - universities are, after all, seats of learning and their output is knowledge. However, other studies have shown that knowledge is not always shared easily and universities may not actually be learning organisations.

Peter Senge described learning organisations as:

"…places where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together" (1990), P4.

Lank, from John (1999), presents an argument that is analogous to Senge. He claims that organisations which are good at sharing knowledge do not always have the best technology infrastructure, but do have a culture based on teamwork and trust.

Universities are in fact highly functional organisations, with unique sub-cultures of their own. Franklin, Hodgkinson and Stewart argue that universities cannot aspire to be learning organisations as:

"…the cultures vary both across and within different subject areas, and different faculties, departments and subject groups" (1998), P5.

One reason for this, they argue, is the natural scepticism and questioning which goes on between the methods and findings from different subject areas. Another reason is rooted in the everyday language and jargons peculiar to different disciplines, and which sets up barriers to communication. A third reason exacerbates the first two, and concerns the fact that both individuals and groups may have differing views on what is important. This may concern the importance of one discipline over another, or the importance of teaching, research and consultancy in relation to one another (1998, op. cit.). Similarly, Rowley claims that the role academics play requires them to pose as experts in their own specific domain, and they maintain a sense of power and security because of this (2000).

This has been backed up to some extent by results from an initial survey undertaken by the authors in the areas of knowledge management, organisational learning and the role of IT/IS within the university sector. Coakes and Sugden found that not all universities saw their organisations as learning organisations, and few could define what the term meant (1999). The survey also found that many universities do not have the required culture of teamwork and trust which facilitates knowledge sharing. 56% of the universities experienced resistance to knowledge sharing and 44% believed there were cultural issues, which impeded the sharing of knowledge. Without exception these organisations were seen to lack understanding about knowledge management by senior staff.

These issues raise questions as to the nature of knowledge and learning in universities that are also emphasised in the case study below.

The University of Leeds has pioneered a university-wide knowledge management strategy. Promoting knowledge as the business of the university and integrating the major roles of the university are its main aims. The three roles are:

The first role includes the teaching of students, their independent learning activities, and the award of degrees. The second is at the heart of most universities, and includes research training through Ph.Ds, pure and applied research activities, and the dissemination of its results. ‘Third arm' activities are relatively new to universities - technology transfer, consultancy, company liaisons and partnership, life-long learning and work-based learning. Increasingly innovative delivery of learning and entrepreneurial activities, for example, through spin-off companies, are relevant.

The Pro-Vice Chancellor for Communications & IT leads the programme, and she works closely with colleagues in the library and computing services. She also works with experts from the Centre for Virtual Working Systems, which is attached to the Computer Studies Department.

The architects of the knowledge management programme believe that universities do not generally manage information well. They tend to lose it, fail to exploit it, duplicate it, do not share it, do not always know what they know and do not recognise knowledge as an asset.

The reasons for those difficulties are varied, but they are likely to be because of the traditional culture and structure of universities. A university is a collection of sub-cultures, which are primarily loyal to their discipline, through virtual and networked communities. The idea of a corporate culture is very much secondary to the reality of these sub-cultures. Status and self-esteem amongst academics is very closely linked to information ownership and expertise. Individualism or research group loyalty is of paramount importance, as is intellectual autonomy, highly valued amongst academics.

This university has developed a knowledge management tool of its own, a Virtual Science Park (VSP), and this has been fostered through a university spin-off company, VWS Limited (Virtual Working Systems). The tool has four major areas of application within the university:

The research application provides a flexible tool to help develop collaboration between pockets of research and other collaborative programmes across Europe as well as within the region. It includes facilities for website development, personalised reports, expertise mapping, formats for publishing and knowledge bases. To underpin the university’s research assessment submission an additional linked application to create a corporate research expertise and publications system is currently being set up. It will support research strategy development and research group management.

The teaching application delivers a sophisticated platform for interactions between student groups and their course tutors. It supports on-line reading rooms for 'documents' of all types, links to Web resources, and a variety of group working tools. The research library has adopted the VSP in order to support a range of applications from its intranet, library and faculty communication, and information mediation and training in real time.

The same information system also supports outreach activities. In a pilot project, funded by the Higher Education Funding Council under its Good Management initiative for the university sector, the university is developing an application to encourage researchers to collaborate with industry in a range of exploitation activities. It will indicate the university supply capability, provide an opportunities database and exploitation facilitators, both of which will be matched with customers, partners, skills, practices and processes.

Within the university, knowledge management is critical for:

There are also acknowledged problem areas:

These issues have still to be addressed and we discuss further below the implications for universities attempting to undertake this type of initiative.

The case study findings illustrate the argument for an explicit knowledge management policy in universities to reinforce the activities associated with their main purpose - learning, knowledge acquisition and sharing. It shows that libraries and computing services in universities have a significant role to play in knowledge management programmes. They are separate to and disinterested enough from academic and outreach activities to provide integrated tools which can be used throughout the university, while being knowledgeable and professional enough to be able to relate to all the different disciplines, cultures and interests which are an inherent aspect of university life. They can provide practical tools for the sharing and circulating of explicit knowledge.

However, there appears to be little evidence as yet that the various cultures, sub-cultures and other spheres of influence and power in universities are being overthrown. There is also little evidence that real organisational learning is taking place through the collective sharing and synthesising of tacit knowledge - the ‘learning how to learn’ which Senge described. Knowledge management appears to be a disconcerting topic for academics, one that has connotations of ownership, prestige and power.

This brings up some important points about knowledge management and learning, not just for universities but for all organisations. Major questions are the extent to which these knowledge management systems can actually enable the sharing of tacit knowledge and allow learning. Can they actually break down cultures and power domains, or do these tools simply remain what they appear on the surface - sophisticated tools for sharing and disseminating information?

A major challenge is the elusive nature of tacit knowledge. Roth claims that information and communication technologies can be an enabling tool for learning, but points out that most of these efforts have been focused on the codifying, archiving and retrieving of information, and this is in fact the easiest to do (1999).

If these arguments are justifiable, the knowledge management tools referred to in the introduction are simply a more sophisticated version of the rational, technology-driven approach adopted by large companies who can afford expensive information systems. This would make explicit knowledge not really knowledge at all, but merely a form of information. This information may be more interactive and malleable than ever, but it is still information. The sharing of tacit knowledge and the learning processes which have been part of universities for centuries have always relied on some form of codified information, mainly books, but these alone have not guaranteed academic excellence. Academic excellence is rooted in people, both as individuals and groups.

These arguments aside, there is also another issue with regard to knowledge management and universities. Universities are increasingly operating in a competitive environment and being faced with similar market conditions as business. They must compete with each other for students and for research funding. Because of this they have more pressure on them than ever to maintain a good reputation, or brand image, in the eyes of private and public bodies, the government and the public in general, both in the UK and overseas.

There are important lessons in the above case study. Knowledge management tools may be useful to share and disseminate information, or explicit knowledge, but the extent to which they can achieve real sharing of tacit knowledge and experience, and the fostering of a learning organisation is debatable. They are primarily management tools for the manipulation and control of explicit knowledge assets. On the other hand, tacit knowledge, which may comprise anything from the latent expertise and skills of employees to subjective insights, opinions and intuition, to the ability of people to learn how to learn, is firmly embedded in individuals, social networks and communities.

The argument for knowledge management tools is still a strong one. These tools may be able to support and encourage tacit knowledge and learning if management already nurture a learning environment. There is some evidence that academics do share knowledge across functional boundaries. Multi-disciplinary research projects are becoming more commonplace, especially in the award of research funding to multi-site collaborations. The significance of this cannot be underestimated, as it is usually the academics themselves who initiate this kind of environment.

Libraries may be able to nurture and encourage this type of environment in universities better than the typical management structures in many companies. Management structures are often rigid and inflexible, concerned with power and control and the ‘ownership’ of information. In such organisations the encouragement of tacit knowledge sharing and organisational learning through knowledge management tools seems even less plausible. Universities, however, are different. Librarians are not usually part of the academic management structure. They can provide the means to share explicit knowledge spanning cultural divisions without manipulating it for their own gain. However, they are not part of the management structure either, and for these reasons seem to be constrained to offering a useful and practical support role for academics. For these reasons, library-initiated knowledge management programmes would appear to have little realisation of universities as corporate bodies.

The questions for both senior management and the people who design and implement these technology-based solutions are critical. How can people be encouraged to share tacit knowledge and learn from and with each other over cultural divisions, and how can these tools support this? Also, how can knowledge management tools be used to enable universities to be more competitive for the future? Time will tell to what extent this can be achieved in universities.

EC/GS