Page 80 -

Knowledge Management Models 63

tive organizational epistemology views organizational knowledge as a self-organizing
system in which humans are transparent to the information from the outside (i.e., we
take in information through our senses and use this information to build our mental
models). The brain is a machine based on logic and deduction that does not allow
any contradictory propositions. The organization thus picks up information from its
environment and processes it in a logical way. Alternative courses of action are gener-
ated through information search and the cognitive competence of an organization
depends on the mobilization of individual cognitive resources, that is, a linear sum-
mation of individuals to form the organizational whole.
The connectionist approach, on the other hand, is more holistic than reductionist
in nature. The brain is not assumed to sequentially process symbols but to perceive
wholeness, global properties, patterns, synergies, and gestalts. Learning rules govern
how the various components of these whole networks are connected. Information is
not only taken in from the environment but also generated internally. Familiarity and
practice lead to learning. Individuals form nodes in a loosely connected organizational
system and knowledge is an emergent phenomenon that stems from the social inter-
actions of these individuals. From this perspective, knowledge resides not only in the
minds of individuals, but also in the connections among these individuals. A collective
mind is formed as the representation of this network; and it is this mind that lies at
the core of organizational knowledge management.
Von Kroch and Roos adopt the connectionist approach. In their organizational
epistemology KM model, knowledge resides in both the individuals of an organization;
and at the social level, in the relations between the individuals. Knowledge is charac-
terized as “ embodied ” that is, “ everything known is known by somebody ” ( von Krogh
and Roos 1995 , 50). Unlike the cognitive perspective, where knowledge is viewed as
an abstract entity, connectionism maintains that there cannot be knowledge without
a knower. This fi ts nicely with the concept that tacit knowledge is very diffi cult to
abstract out of someone and make more concrete. It also reinforces the strong need
to maintain links between knowledge objects and those who are knowledgeable about
them — authors, subject matter experts, and experienced users who have applied the
knowledge, successfully and unsuccessfully.
In 1998, von Krogh, Roos, and Kleine examined the fragile nature of KM in orga-
nizations. They describe this fragility in terms of the mindset of the individuals, com-
munication in the organization, the organizational structure, the relationship between
the members, and the management of human resources. These fi ve factors could
impede the successful management of organizational knowledge for innovation, com-
petitive advantage, and other organizational goals. For example, if individuals do not