Page 254 -

CONCLUSIONS 243

information (as you will have found for yourselves if you have been involved in
the role-play provided in Chapter 9). Not only are they inevitable, but alterna-
tive interpretations are also desirable, being a great source of innovation and
change – provided, that is, that tensions and conflict can be used constructively
rather than destructively.
We have stressed how it is important to recognize that the value of knowledge
depends on the context of its application; this leads to a much more nuanced
approach to managing knowledge work. In particular, it leads us to recognize
that, while examples of ‘good practice’ may be identified in one part of an orga-
nization, it may be highly problematic to codify and share knowledge about
these practices across other parts of the organization or across organizations.
While ‘best practice’ is a seductive idea in theory, not least because it avoids
reinventing the wheel, it often founders on the context-dependent nature of
what is ‘good’ at any point in time. Simply put, what works in one depart-
ment or one organization may not work in another, not simply because the
context is different, but also because typically what is shared cannot capture
all of the knowledge involved in actually making it effective. Thus, templates
and knowledge about a so-called ‘best’ practice will be interpreted differently in
each context of application. Indeed, in many cases, what is considered to be a
‘good practice’ in one context may be deemed unworkable in another, because
the sense-making in these other social contexts remains bounded by traditions
and assumptions that are anchored in professional practices that have developed
over time. As Dervin (1998) observes, reading about a best practice makes little
sense without an understanding of the struggle and gaps it was designed to
overcome.
This concluding point is well-illustrated in the BioTech case study that follows.
This case provides examples of numerous attempts to introduce good practices
around knowledge sharing and knowledge integration in order to streamline
and improve the drug development process. However, inevitably in such a
complex inter-organizational context, problems are encountered which throw
into sharp relief the way in which different professional practices and particular
features of the biomedical sector can constrain knowledge sharing and knowl-
edge integration. This final case draws together major themes of this book, and
highlights the importance for managing knowledge work in context, not just of
sharing knowledge about facts and things, but also of creating a shared context
for knowing. This does not mean that the role of management is to create an
environment where everyone thinks the same. Rather it means adopting a more
pluralist and pragmatic approach to managing knowledge work. This involves
recognizing the importance of diverse cultures, understandings and ‘logics of
action’ that in all likelihood are quite sector specific. It also involves recogniz-
ing the importance of developing a social context where diverse individuals and
groups can both coexist and learn from one another. The key issues in creating
a shared context for knowing have been a major theme in this book. Such an
approach helps to redress the reification of knowledge and makes its successful
application to knowledge purposes, practices and processes more promising.

6/5/09 7:21:37 AM
9780230_522015_11_cha10.indd 243 6/5/09 7:21:37 AM
9780230_522015_11_cha10.indd 243