Page 174 -

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 163

I think that a wiki could help us share ideas about a particular topic. For example,
you might want to look at the issues surrounding product development or sourc-
ing and supply chain issues and whilst you have some ideas, you don’t know
exactly how to solve the client’s problems. So, if people all go to the same place
and share some ideas with you, even if they are not on the same project that could
be very useful. Yes, I think that if such a technology could be used that would be
very useful.
MECs, on the other hand, thought wikis would be less of a panacea:
I don’t see that playing a major role to be honest with you. [. . .] I don’t want
something else that I have to check every day. I read emails every day, I get a mil-
lion phone calls every day, I don’t need a new thing such as a wiki [. . .] . Maybe for
some people that would be great, but for me that would not be helpful. It’s not
like working at an office [. . .] .

>> QUESTIONS
1. What do you see as the main strengths and limitations of the KMS at ICC?
2. How would you describe the problems of the KMS at ICC – technical, organiza-
tional or a combination of both?
3. Why do you think there are differences between the MECs and LECs in terms of
their use of the KMS at ICC?
4. What recommendations would you make to ICC to improve their KMS?

Summary of key learning points

>> Two types of ICT are often defined as supporting ‘Knowledge Management’ – Enterprise Sys-
tems, which supposedly embed ‘best practice’ knowledge, and Knowledge Management Sys-
tems, which supposedly facilitate the transfer of knowledge across individuals and groups.
>> Enterprise Systems follow the historical trajectory of attempting to standardize work and
embed knowledge in systems (rather than in workers). However, the idea that they can
embed ‘best practice’ knowledge is inherently problematic.
>> The most prevalent KMS initiatives involve the introduction of ICTs, for example, e-mail,
intranets, databases, groupware.
>> The majority of current KMS can be described as either platform or channel technologies.
>> Both platform and channel KMS have limitations because they are based on a structural
‘epistemology of possession’ view and so neglect process and practice and the socially
constructed, context-dependent nature of knowledge.

>> Newer forms of ICT – Web 2.0 and Enterprise 2.0 – have the potential to expose knowl-
edge practices and so, potentially, can play an important role in the future in encouraging
knowledge sharing and knowledge creation.

6/5/09 7:05:11 AM
9780230_522015_08_cha07.indd 163 6/5/09 7:05:11 AM
9780230_522015_08_cha07.indd 163