Page 92 -

Knowledge Management Models 75

through the provision of new knowledge and new competencies. The result feeds the
decision-making process with innovative strategies that extend the organization ’ s
capability to make informed, rational decisions. Choo (1998) draws upon the Nonaka
and Takeuchi (1995) model for a theoretical basis of knowledge creation.
Decision making is situated in rational decision-making models that are used
to identify and evaluate alternatives by processing the information and knowledge
collected to date. There are a wide range of decision-making theories such as the
theory of games and economic behavior (e.g., Dixit and Nalebuff 1991 ; Bierman and
Fernandez 1993 ), chaos theory, emergent theory, and complexity theory (e.g., Gleick
1987 ; Fisher 1984 ; Simon 1969 ; Stewart 1989 ; Stacey 1992 ), and even a garbage can
theory of decision making (e.g., Daft 1982 ; Daft and Weick 1984 ; Padgett 1980 ).
The garbage can model (GCM) of organizational decision making was developed
in reference to “ ambiguous behaviors, ” that is, explanations or interpretations of
behaviors that at least appear to contradict classical theory. The GCM was greatly
infl uenced by the realization that extreme cases of aggregate uncertainty in decision
environments would trigger behavioral responses, which, at least from a distance,
appear irrational or at least not in compliance with the total/global rationality of
economic man (e.g., “ act fi rst, think later ” ). The GCM was originally formulated in
the context of the operation of universities and their many interdepartmental com-
munications problems.
The garbage can model tried to expand organizational decision theory into the then
uncharted fi eld of organizational anarchy, which is characterized by problematic
preferences, unclear technology, and fl uid participation. “ The theoretical breakthrough
of the garbage can model is that it disconnects problems, solutions and decision
makers from each other, unlike traditional decision theory. Specifi c decisions do not
follow an orderly process from problem to solution, but are outcomes of several rela-
tively independent streams of events within the organization ” ( Daft 1982 , 139).
Simon (1957, 198) identifi ed the principle of bounded rationality as a constraint
for organizational decision making, stating that “ the capacity of the human mind for
formulating and for solving complex problems is very small compared with the size
of the problems whose solution is required for objectively rational behavior in the real
world — or even for a reasonable approximation to such objective rationality. ”
Simon suggested that persons faced with ambiguous goals and unclear means of
linking actions to those goals seek to fulfi ll short-term subgoals. Subgoals are objectives
that the individual believes can be achieved by allocating resources under his or her
control. These subgoals are generally not derived from broad policy goals, but rather
from experiences, education, the community, and personal needs. Bounded rationality