THE
ROLE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY TRANSFORMATION
Jolita Vveinhardt
Vytautas
Magnus University, Lithuania
Introduction
In this chapter
scientific researches and descriptions are reviewed, various opinions about
knowledge management in public and private organizations are presented, modern
trends of knowledge management when discussing inveterate challenges for
managers are analyzed through the prism of transformation, mentality and
culture. In the chapter the conception of knowledge management society is
analyzed, knowledge management process in the organization, etc. is discussed. In
the middle of the tenth decade of the last century a lot of researchers and
heads of organizations started to show interest in the importance of knowledge
for organizations. Pioneers of knowledge management are K. E. Sveiby, P. F.
Drucker, M. Polanyi, J. B. Quinn, I. Nonaka, H. Takeutchi and others. Fast
changing and hardly predictable, turbulent environment conditions force
organizations to focus their attention to competitive ability, which
organization’s success, place in the market, and survival depend on. Though
knowledge management and its role in scientific literature is not finally and
beyond debate investigated, it is agreed that new knowledge production,
innovations, knowledge renovation, creativity of working people is the main
impellent of society as well as the producer of productivity and
competitiveness; and not the object but intellectual capital, competitive
advantage and innovations are named as the essence of knowledge management
(Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt,
2010a).
Level of problem research. Different issues of knowledge management are analysed by foreign (Polanyi, 1962; Quinn, 1992; Drucker, 1993; Rowley, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Sveiby, 1997; Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Rowley, 2000; Malhotra, 2000; Gallupe, 2001; Carneiro, 2000; Halawi et al., 2005; Webster, 2006; Du Plessis, 2007; Hung, Lok et al., 2008; Drucker, 2009; Kaminska, 2009, Collison & Parcell, 2010 etc.) and Lithuanian (Bieliūnas, 2000; Augustinaitis, 2002, 2004; Gudauskas, 2004; Kriščiūnas & Daugėlienė, 2006; Viliūnas, 2006; Sakalas & Venskus, 2007; Girdauskienė & Savanevičienė, 2007; Stankevičienė J. et al., 2007; Bakanauskas et al. 2008; Kazlauskaitė & Bučiūnienė, 2008; Liepė & Sakalas, 2008; Melnikas, 2008; Bivainis & Morkvėnas, 2008; Lobanova, 2009; Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2009; Atkočiūnienė et al., 2009; Vveinhardt & Žukauskas, 2010; Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2010a, 2010b, etc.) authors.
The object of the
research. The role of knowledge management in the
context of knowledge society.
The aim of the research
is to analyse the role of knowledge management in
the context of knowledge society.
The article was prepared by applying the methods of literature analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction and reflexions.
Key words: knowledge society, knowledge economy, human capital, individual’s competence, individual’s skills, individual’s innovative contemplation, knowledge management, knowledge administration, technological and human resources.
1. Meaning and development
of knowledge management
1.1. Integrate nature of
knowledge
There exist various competitive attitudes towards knowledge management, thus none of them presents a proving adequate basis of the empirical research (Kluge, Schilling, 2000). Uncertainty when researching knowledge management arises due to a lot of terms that explores it, because all kinds of knowledge have a unique resource and differently react to procedures and structures of management and application. Since these differences are often disregarded the conclusions about the effectiveness of scientific works about knowledge intervention are often contradictory (McGinn, 2001). Information society – today knowledge society has changed. It is searching for the ways to use knowledge on purpose to manage data flow. Thus today it is necessary to analyze a new role of knowledge management that demands a new systemic attitude.
In the English language knowledge is described as “the sum of this that has been understood, discovered or perceived” (Morris, 1938). In Roman languages two words are used when emphasizing knowledge. For example, conaissance in French means recognition; we recognize each other or the situation. Savoir is used when talking about what we know about things and people, e.g. we know square root of p. this conception is as well similar is Spanish when using conocer and saber (McGinn, 2001).
Tendencies show that our most important resource is not earth, work or capital, but knowledge (Snyder, et al., 2000). But some scientists state that “knowledge management” is the most important, i.e. searches for knowledge resources, integration, methodology of accumulation and spread (Gupta, 2001). Meanwhile modern times can be called information century, when organizing management of modern society knowledge management has the biggest meaning. Knowledge management is determined by societal needs. New economic sectors that are growing rapidly demand new knowledge and skill in management. Knowledge helps to fix a new model of economic performance regulation as well as cooperation between public and private sectors. Knowledge management modernizes work relationships, develops economic alliances that are based on competitive reasons with the biggest world companies. Inhabitants are allowed to use accesses to information and self-education with the help of laws, because when creating knowledge society it is important to ensure that all inhabitants can get operative and qualitative information.
Recently knowledge management has been receiving a lot of attention from various scientific branches. Some scientists claim that this kind of interest is caused by post-industrial economic transformation to knowledge economy in which the resource of long-term competitive advantage and profitability is how knowledge is created and used in the organization (Desouza & Avazu, 2005). In spite of increasing interest in this field, there is no universally accepted model of knowledge management, how old this discipline is has not been agreed either. Some researchers (Wiig, 1999) claim that knowledge management is not possible without the most modern computer technologies and thus relate the origin of this discipline to their origin and development. Other scientists claim that knowledge management is not a new conception – it has only been structured and maintained by new technologies, environment and equipment (Ives, et al., 1997). The authors that speak in support of this opinion claim that the history of knowledge management has started from the oldest civilizations – the very first manifestations of knowledge management like collecting, saving and usage of knowledge appeared 3000 years ago when cuneiform was used (Ives, et al., 1997). Development of computer technologies as well as further improvement (that stared in the beginning of the eighth decade) solved the problems that limited the processes of collecting, saving and usage of knowledge, but as well made it more complicated. Many authors are about to announce this period the beginning of modern knowledge management. General requirements of knowledge management and its goals have not changed a lot from old times, but the quantities of information, dynamics of the content, typical workplace are the things that have changed. Due to these reasons knowledge management had to use two main modern technologies: computer databases (to save big amounts of information) and network technologies on purpose to change information among the companies as well as worldwide (Ives, et al., 1997). When knowledge environment has suddenly changed and new instruments started to be used a lot of former methods and means in knowledge management field grew old and do not meet the needs of nowadays. Thus in spite of a long history of knowledge management development the scientist J. Ruževičius (2005) claims that now knowledge management is being discovered anew and the discipline that has not got any certain structure is being formed. Due to this reason the future of knowledge management is not evaluated equally either. The scientists notes that the opinions vary from the statement that knowledge management is and will be the main element that determines success in business to pessimistic evaluation that it is only a temporary fashionable notion of consultation companies that will be soon forgotten (Ruževičius, 2005).
So we see that knowledge
management forms the basis of knowledge society and business world has been
interested in creation, spread and usage of scientific knowledge. One more
important event is related with knowledge management would be “Association of
useful knowledge spread” that was founded in 1826 by British scientists and
industrialists that published scientific information in “Penny Magazine” having
200 000 subscribers. Finally this project collapsed and the initiators were
disappointed that it was so difficult to interest the people in this magazine
in this time; moreover, nobody was in a hurry to apply the knowledge found in
the magazine in practice (Weiss, 1991).
1.2. The conception of knowledge
society
The conception of knowledge society started to form more rapidly in the end of XX century and the beginning of XXI century. In 1970 American scientists P. F. Drucker (professor of social sciences of California) and D. Bell (professor of Harvard University) suggested to expand the conception of information society to the conception of knowledge society. Knowledge society created new conditions for the development of information technologies. The scientists emphasized that the conception of knowledge society embraces the perspectives of social, cultural, economic and political development. According to the authors, the conception of knowledge society better fixes the dynamics of the going processes in all societal sectors.
J. Becker, the scientist from the United States together with other researchers of knowledge society - David L. Holzman, Stephen J. Lukasik, Richard O. Mason presents a unanimous opinion and names knowledge society as intellectual property, social and technical economic stimulator of development. The researchers note that this is a formation of a mew knowledge society and the means of information politics and social changes of this century (Kling, 2009).
F. Webster (2006) states that majority of the authors when giving the definition of knowledge society do not explain it explicitly and narrows it. Thus he provides the following analysis of the conception. The author singles out five main groups of knowledge society: technological definition (cable, computer communication, internet information services, etc.); economic definition (economic value growth of information activity is emphasized in this attitude, i.e. a part of gross domestic product that is created by information business); professional definition (the professions that are related with information dominate here, decrease in occupation of industry is characteristic to society, meanwhile occupation in services sphere is increasing); spatial definition (geographical position and distance is as well as information networks that link the locations are mostly emphasized; the main features are bigger amount of information and the speed of data flow); cultural definition (modern culture in comparison former cultures is greatly affected by information). Modern world lives in the society that is affected by mass media (Webster, 2006). In the 21st globalization century knowledge economy, knowledge management or knowledge society have become the terms that are used in scientific literature most often; they are related by one general need – knowledge (Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2010).
In 1994 a group of influential scientists from Europe and America led by the British science sociologist Michael Gibbons published the book “New Management of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and Researches in Modern Societies” (Gibbons, et al., 1994). Having generalized the works of the scientists of former decades as well as their own researches of 1990-1993 they drew a conclusion that during the recent 30 years the status of science in knowledge society has changed substantially. The scientists named this change as the change of knowledge production paradigms – a shift from the first paradigm to the second paradigm. The first paradigm can be conditionally called the paradigm of traditional scientific awareness and the second one – context-sensitive or socially distributed awareness paradigm.
The first paradigm of
knowledge production is related with the prosperity of academic science in
industrial societies of the first part of XIX – XX century. A strong
self-concept of science autonomy and disciplinary organization of knowledge
society are characteristic to it. Scientific problems here are formulated on
the basis of science development logics and the questions that arise from
former answers. The value of the solution of scientific problems is established
by scientific community on the basis of the norms of coherence of the arguments
that are valid inside the discipline. This is very unanimous, but as well
closed hierarchical culture of cognition that aims at saving current knowledge
society.
The second paradigm of knowledge production is born not as much as the opposite, but more like filling of practical knowledge in societal needs sphere and extension; however, a lot of its features differ from traditional academic culture. Scientific questions here arise not form the knowledge paradigm, but from practical order, however, the value of decisions is appraised not according to the input to the discipline, but according to social (economic, commercial, etc.) effectiveness. Knowledge producers of this kind of the paradigm are not only the scientists of a unanimous, organized academic community, they are as well project principals that represent interested institutions. This is one of the most essential features of the new paradigm of knowledge society – here it is not anymore leaned upon the knowledge that has been collected in academic field and in some way monopolized, but on heterogeneous competence that has spread widely in society and in which academic awareness, practical experience and new knowledge management models match. Neither disciplinary dependence of the knowledge nor match with current system of knowledge science are not important in this paradigm, the researches that are conducted here are naturally trans-disciplinary and heterogeneous. It is often said that in general in this paradigm creative configuration of current knowledge is more important than creation of new knowledge. Formation of absolutely newly-originated disciplines and the fields of trans – disciplinary researches that cannot be named as applied sciences in traditional sense is related with this paradigm, because they are not related with either of the sciences that could be applied here: for example, aeronautics, biochemistry, information technologies. In this paradigm tacit knowledge is very important (Viliūnas, 2006).
In their new book “Re-contemplating Science Awareness and Public Sphere in the Century of Uncertainty” (Nowotony, et al., 2001) the scientists of Gibbons’s group put more highlights on the relations of new knowledge management and the origin of modern society where limits between scientific, political, cultural, market fields disappear and where the agenda of the researches is increasingly affected by knowledge society and scientific expertise grounds
There are not a lot of arguments necessary when improving that these insights of science analysts of the former decade in the field of knowledge management are perfect when discussing current situation of scientific researches as well as the role of science in modern knowledge society. The theories of Gibbons, Nowotny, Limoges, Scotto and others allow perceiving how such political conceptions of modern science as “effectiveness”, “rivalry”, cooperation between science and business” and “commercialization of science” are related with knowledge management.
Knowledge management processes happen in social, cultural, economic and political environment. They embrace the phases of knowledge identification, coding, development, spread, share, evaluation and keeping (Probst, et al., 2006). During all these processes knowledge changes its expression (from invisible to defined), the level (from individual to organizational), the form (from perceiveid to coded) in different levels of the organization when different dimensions applied by organizations are active. According to the purpose, knowledge is classified to recipe, axiomatic and normative. It embodies the ways of receiving the product, routines, procedures, expressions (invisible and defined), the level (individual, collective and organizational), nature (activity, process, causal), etc. When analyzing knowledge management processes in the organization it is suggested to lean on knowledge distribution into two types: invisible and defined (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Greshner, 1996; Schüppel, 1997; Girdauskienė & Savanevičienė, 2007, Šedžiuvienė & Vveinhardt, 2009 and others). Invisible knowledge is the knowledge that is hard to convey in words. Defined knowledge is less related in the context, easy to be documented, automatized and imitated. Invisible knowledge is individual and organizations try to turn it into organizational defined knowledge. So the organization is to purposefully manage knowledge when its aim is to achieve the goal. This process helps the organization to discover, choose, organize, distribute and apply knowledge gaining long-term competitive advantage in this way.
1.3. Knowledge management
in organizations
Organizations when managing knowledge try to achieve the main goal – to turn individual invisible knowledge that has been embodied and perceived into organizational coded knowledge. Modernistic theory of organizations best reveals peculiarities of organizational structure in the aspect of knowledge management process. This theory is proving that the size of the organization determines its management, thus it can be claimed that there exists a mutual relation between the size of the organization and knowledge management process.
It has been established that the bigger the organization is the bigger degree of specialization and centralization exists. In large organizations almost all decisions have already been made in the highest levels of authorities and it is expected that they will be executed. This determines a small involvement of the lowest layers. In decentralized organizations the decisions are made by the individuals that are in the closest position of the situation. Decentralized organizations are based on the participation of a lot of members that take part in the process of making decisions. The authors L. Girdauskienė and A. Savanevičienė (2007) claim that this is the only possible type of knowledge management process in large organizations.
Modernists claim that social culture in the organization consists of such elements as hierarchy, the level of the authorities and payment through various integrated mechanisms. Meanwhile symbolists contradict this position claiming that organizational structures do not exist on their own without human intervention and social interaction. It would be very complicated to lean on the symbolists’ attitude when analyzing the impact of the size of organization on knowledge management processes, because this epistemology is based on cultural rather than structural assumptions.
Generalizing these theories we can claim that when analyzing knowledge management processes in different size organizations it is a must to lean on modernistic theory, because post modernistic theory suggests frustration of the existing theories. Dedifferentiation that has been proposed by post modernists is parallel to the attitude that has been formed by modernists; it claims there is centralized control form possible when making strategic decisions and decentralized control when (at the same time the teams of self-organization or partially autonomous) the decisions that are directly related with work are made, i.e. selective decentralization is applied (Girdauskienė & Savanevičienčė, 2007).
It is necessary to analyze knowledge management processes as the ways for improving quality management. Knowledge management in quality control ensures organization’s staying in the market satisfying and exceeding current and implied needs of consumers. It is based on the philosophy of constant improvement that can be used not only to ensure the quality of the products in organization, but as a concentrate when improving scientific management methods of knowledge society.
Perception of the principles of quality control demands special knowledge and skills. In this functional model of knowledge management the most important integrate parts of knowledge management are singled out, subordination and the relation between them. The organization is to be aware of the level of staff’s knowledge and skills; this ensures understanding the organization that is wanted to be changed and improved. Quality control names consumers and their needs and relieves knowledge management in the organization. The amount of knowledge determines quality and proper control of it allows pursuing constant improvement.
The questions of knowledge management have actively been discussed in scientific community since 1980. During this period knowledge management has undergone several stages of development starting from knowledge spread, knowledge society, identity of knowledge management with information management and information technologies to recent perception of knowledge management on the basis of which more attention is paid to the interaction between social and technological factors, to evaluation of process creation that maintains knowledge management and maturity of management. According to S. Šajeva (2009), the model of the maturity of knowledge management consists of five stages of maturity.
The first stage of maturity is absence of knowledge management or primary stage in which knowledge management initiatives happen chaotically, unsystematically or do not happen at all. Performance of the organization when not paying a lot of attention to knowledge management is characteristic to this stage (Adell, 2004). Organization and its members do not perceive the meaning of knowledge as strategic resource (Kruger & Snyman, 2005) they neither feel the need for managing knowledge (Teah, et al., 2006).. Only individual people understand the importance of knowledge management and the initiatives of knowledge management are non-formal, pursued unsystematically, on the initiative of individuals and fully depend upon their skills, inborn features, knowledge and motivation. The second stage of maturity is the stage of acknowledgement of the importance of knowledge management. The employees understand the importance of knowledge management (Hsieh, et al., 2009) and the authorities understand a formal need of knowledge management and have an intention to control organizational knowledge but do not know exactly what and how should be done (Teah, et al., 2006). In the third stage of maturity the organization is able to ascertain what resources of knowledge (expressed and unexpressed) it has, what resources of knowledge (internal or external) and why concrete knowledge is strategically important. The initiatives of knowledge management are matched, maintained by technological systems and integrated into daily performance of the organization. The organization is capable of seeing the relation between the initiatives of knowledge management and the gained results, thus knowledge management is actively supported and promoted (Kruger & Snyman, 2005), seminars on knowledge management are pursued, the strategy of knowledge management is in creational process, the roles of knowledge management are defined (Teah, et al., 2006), special divisions of knowledge management are founded and teams, the standards of knowledge management are set and the culture that maintains knowledge management is formed (Hsieh, et al., 2009). The fourth stage of maturity is the stage of the formation of general strategy of knowledge management, its coordination with business strategy and evaluation. The initiatives of knowledge management in the organization are well settled. Knowledge management becomes a part of the general strategy in the organization. In the entire organization technological knowledge management systems are installed and used (Teah, et al., 2006). Technological environment in the organization allows maintaining long-term initiatives of knowledge management (Hsieh, et al., 2009). The fifth stage of maturity is the stage of flexible adaptation to environmental changes, proactive management and constant improvement. The organization develops the ability to flexibly adapt to changes and new requirements of knowledge management not falling down on the lower stage of maturity. These skills in the organization are developed by strengthening the culture of learning and sharing knowledge, defining control mechanisms and renewing technological systems (Hsieh, et al., 2009).
S. Šajeva (2009) notes that the analysis of the characteristics of the knowledge management maturity stages allowed noticing that little attention is paid to the first - absence of knowledge management – stage, not foreseeing how the organization should progress from the absence of knowledge management to conscious development of knowledge management system. Meanwhile the organization is to notice the moment when it would start perceiving the gist as well as the meaning of knowledge management and could begin to pursue the first initiatives of knowledge management According to K. Mohammadi, A. Khanlari ir B. Sohrabi (2009), preparation for knowledge management is the basic competence of human and organization that allows initiating and systematizing knowledge management.
The system of knowledge management can be created using the best
information technologies. Thus, when properly using the organization of
management systems it is possible to achieve the biggest and the greatest
results (Kaklauskas, et al., 2004;
Sakalas & Venskus, 2007; Kanapeckienė & Gribniak, 2008 and others). Hence the system of knowledge management can be described as a difficult
process of management that has the goal to improve the quality of people and
the environment of the performance in organization. B. Gates (2000) states that
knowledge management is a reasonable term that describes very simple things of
knowledge society. This embraces administration of data and documents as well
as efforts to enrich thoughts and ideas of employees, coordination of activities
when achieving general goal. Knowledge management is to ensure that necessary
people would achieve required knowledge so that to form concrete actions of
knowledge society.
When analyzing the development of knowledge management we can see that in the process of transformation of modern society to knowledge society there appear absolutely new global contexts of society and economy that demand different management principles, skills, abilities and competencies. Experts that prognosticate changes in European economy claim that the development of business organizations and economy in the economic sphere in Europe is determined by knowledge. Board of Governors of the European Union has set a goal to create the most competitive and dynamic economy in the world that is based on knowledge. Knowledge management is one of the ways to modernize the government of the state, to successfully execute reform in the state adjusting to the requirements of knowledge society and to improve the quality of the relation between society and government.
2. Three inveterate
challenges for managers: transformations, mentality and culture
Optimists often declare overwhelming march of knowledge management, but are sudden changes possible in management systems that have not been acquainted or only partially acquainted with the role of human relationships? When talking about XXI century challenges the following question arises: how was the homework of XX century made? This question is especially important in the societies in which two decades ago political, social and cultural breaks happened that turned national economics in the direction of economy and raised colossal challenges to transform mentality in a short period of time and to perform such kind of work that has been done by rival countries for decades. However, P. F. Drucker (2004) warned about long lasting lag from preponderant economies of the world due to several reasons - rather big expenses on learning and the attitude that does not encourage manual workers to aim at becoming brainworkers as well.
B. Melnikas (2002) noted that transformations in society are likely to be treated as quantitative and qualitative changes that determine formation of lifestyle of the society – as a matter of fact new, forthcoming or the one that distinguishes itself by new qualitative level in it. However, in the former block of Eastern countries an important problem is still encountered, i.e. uneven development of economy and economical – management culture. In the process of transformation of economics to market economy a generation of thrusting, entrepreneurial people grew up that bases the development of national economics. However, according to their attitude towards speed and content, staff management cultures and transformations of traditions lack behind a lot from economical attitudes. Today only a small part of humans has not heard such terms like knowledge society, knowledge management or knowledge economy, but in practice the following problem still arises: in which way executives and specialists should be proved how important knowledge management as well as brainworkers are in human resources management system, especially if the executive himself does not highlight the importance of human resources management. Due to this reason often the divide between the scientists that ventilate the phenomena of knowledge management innovations, creative process and practices becomes conspicuous. Thus the problem how executives of organizations should be motivated to transfer knowledge management models to practice is significant as well.
There are no absolute models that would effectively function in an equal way in any cultural environment not even talking about the already existing and newly appearing subcultures, although we often stick to the conception that the models that have been created in preponderant countries can be directly implemented in Lithuanian organizations (Vveinhardt & Žukauskas, 2010). However, countries went along different historic ways, gained unique experience that was encoded in national cultures and determined individual reactions and ways of performance. For example, Catholicism in Italy, Poland, Lithuania, and Lutheranism in Germany or Calvinism in Switzerland formed national cultures, unique world-view and values. We should not either forget the impact of soviet world-view that had been prevailing in Lithuania on social stereotypes, which give discrimination processes unique features. Thus the opinion that there are no absolute models that would effectively function in an equal way in any country is spreading fast, moreover, the necessity of evaluating the role of national culture when adapting the instruments offered by foreign science is emphasized.
Differences of mentality and culture are more than obvious. For example, A. I. Mockaitis (2001) by conducting comparative research highlighted differences among different countries according to four cultural dimensions that may have different influence on the relationships among employees and economy in general: individualism, hierarchy, avoidance of uncertainty and virility. For example, the range of individualism reflects how society evaluates initiative. There in Lithuania individualism is less evaluated in comparison with Austria, Poland, Finland, Germany, Switzerland, etc.
Similar degree of hierarchy can be found in Lithuania, India, Japan, Spain and Israel. In the societies in which a low level of hierarchy is met it is attempted to minimize the differences, people are considered to be equal, hierarchy is determined by skills. A higher level of hierarchy is found in such countries as Poland, Spain, Italy and Belgium. When the level of avoidance of uncertainty is low, people are more likely to take a risk, bigger freedom is given in organizations. The range of avoidance of uncertainty is higher in Austria, Italy, Spain, France, Belgium and Poland. Virility is understood as push, rivalry, femininity – as cooperation, nursing, harmony, etc. Higher range of virility is found in Austria, Italy, Ireland, Great Britain and Germany.
A lot of trajectories (religious, cultural, geographical or even geopolitical) can be encountered, but it is obvious that employees’ relation with their colleagues, organization and its goals is not equal. These differences become particularly conspicuous when talking about categories of values. Hence when implementing the model, a lot of variables are to be evaluated, the model is to be changed, and adapted - speaking in images – translated into national language.
Thus the third problem that is very often devalued is cultural problem. For example, in Lithuanian (and not only) higher education system that prepares managers a tradition that regards western management models as a constant is often met. This factor is not always evaluated by international companies that start enterprises in Central and Eastern Europe. For example, car repair company from Germany that has its subdivision in Lithuania and is one of the biggest companies in Lithuania, applied information management system that functions only formally, because the employees of the lowest link make inputs only at the end of the working day, thus timeliness, information preciseness and reliability cannot be assured. In former republics of the Soviet Union when talking about sole proprietorship and hired work in private sector, the latter one is often called “official”, which had previously been understood as work for the state. In other words, congruence of the employee’s values and goals in the organization is a complicated goal to be achieved. It shows how strong the tradition of contemplation and world-view is and how slowly it is transforming.
Cultural
environment differs in every organization, thus it is difficult to imagine how
the system that is based on openness and cooperation can be implemented in the
organization in which mistrust and unethical relationships flourish. In such
environment brainworkers would hardly be able to do their best. Culture and
climate in the organization are the categories that do not surrender against sudden
changes, thus in the societies where there is a high level of intolerance
discriminative relationships in a wide sense exist, moral conformism prevails
and social responsibility of the organization is only a fashionable label, it
is hard expect sudden changes of knowledge management and knowledge economy.
Conclusions
References
1. Adell, M. (2004).
A Theoretical Framework for Strategic Knowledge Management Maturity Model,
2009-01-29. Available from:<http://www.iamot.org/conference/index.php/ocs/4/paper/viewFile/646/142>
2.
Atkočiūnienė, Z., Janiūnienė, E.,
Matkevičienė, R., Pranaitis, R. &
Stonkienė, M. (2009). Informacijos ir žinių vadyba verslo
organizacijoje. Monograph. Vilniaus universiteto leidykla, ISBN 978-9955-33-482-8.
3.
Augustinaitis, A. (2002).
Žinių visuomenės tarpdisciplininė mokymo sandara. Informacijos
mokslai-Information sciences, No. 23, pp. 39-51, ISSN 1392-0561.
4.
Augustinaitis, A. (2004).
Šiuolaikinio žinojimo sandara. Informacijos
mokslai-Information sciences, No. 29, pp. 46-57, ISSN 1392-0561.
5. Bakanauskas, A., Kvedaravičius, J., Lydeka, Z., Pačėsa, N., Zakarevičius, P. &
Žukauskas, P. (2008). Žinių
visuomenės formavimas: patirtis, problemos, perspektyvos. Monograph.
Vytauto Didžiojo universiteto leidykla, ISBN 978-9955-12-426-9, Kaunas.
6.
Bieliūnas, M. (2000). Žinių
vadybos praktinis taikymas: pokyčiai, kuriuos lemia ekonomikos
tendencijos. Informacijos mokslai-Information sciences, No. 14, pp. 46-56, ISSN 1392-0561.
7.
Bivainis, J. & Morkvėnas,
R. (2008). Darbuotojų žinių potencialo vertinimas. Verslas:
teorija ir praktika-Business:
Theory and Practice, No. 9(2), pp. 105-115, ISSN 1648-0627
print, ISSN 1822-4202 online.
8.
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence
innovation and competitiveness? Journal of Knowledge Management, No. 4(2), pp. 87–98.
9.
Collison, C. & Parcell, G.
(2010). Išmokite skristi: praktinė
žinių vadyba. Alma littera, ISBN 978-9955-24-899-6, Vilnius.
10. Davenport, T.
H. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
11. Desouza, K.
C. & Awazu, Y. (2005). Engaged Knowledge Management. Engagement with New Realities.
Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Drucker, P.
E. (1993). Post-capitalist Society. New York: HarperCollins.
13.
Drucker, P. F. (2004). Valdymo iššūkiai XXI
amžiuje. Dakra, ISBN
9949-10-533-1, Kaunas.
14.
Drucker, P.
F. (2009). Drukerio mokymo pagrindai. Dakra, ISBN 978-9955-923-13-8,
Kaunas.
15. Du Plessis,
M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of
Knowledge Management, No. 11(4), pp. 1367-3270.
16. Gallupe, B.
(2001) Knowledge management systems: surveying the landscape. International Journal of Management reviews, No. 3(1), pp. 61-77.
17. Gates, B.
(2000). Remarks by Bill Gates. Intel eXCHANGE e-Business Conference San
Francisco, 2009-04-20. Available from:
<http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/speeches/2000/1012intelexchange.aspx>.
18. Gibbons, M.,
Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The
Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.
19. Girdauskienė, L. & Savanevičienčė, A. (2010). Žinių valdymo ypatumai
kūrybinėje organizacijoje. Ekonomika
ir vadyba-Economics and Management, Nr. 15, pp. 491-497, ISSN 1822-6515.
20. Girdauskienė, L. & Savanevičienė, A. (2007). Organizacijos dydžio ir
žinių valdymo procesų tarpusavio ryšys. Vadybos mokslas ir studijos – kaimo
verslų ir jų infrastruktūros plėtrai-Management theory and studies for rural business and infrastructure
development, No. 4(11), pp. 29-35, ISSN 1822-6760.
21. Gudauskas, R. (2004). Valstybės žinių
ekonomikos politika: žinių vadyba ir antreprenerystė. Informacijos
mokslai-Information sciences, No. 31, pp. 18-34, ISSN 1392-0561.
22. Gupta, R.
(2001). Capturing, Understanding, and Leveraging Knowledge Capital in the
Internet Age. KMWorld, November/December, pp. 8-9, ISSN 1099-8284.
23. Halawi, L.
A., Aronson, J. E. & McCarthy, R.
V. (2005). Resource-Based View of Knowledge Management for Competitive
Advantage. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, No.
3(2).
24. Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., Perrašon, J. (2002). Globaliniai
pokyčiai: politika, ekonomika ir kultūra. Vilnius: Margi raštai.
25. Hsieh, P. J.,
Lin, B. & Lin, C. (2009). The
construction and application of knowledge navigator model (KNM™): An evaluation
of knowledge management maturity. Expert
Systems with Applications, Volume 36, Issue 2, Part 2, pp. 4087-4100.
26. Hung, R., Lok, P., Ya-Hui Lien, B., Wu, &
Chi-Min (2008). Factors influencing organizational
knowledge transfer: implication for corporate performance. Journal of
Knowledge Management, No. 12(3), pp. 84 – 100.
27. Ives, W.,
Torrey, B. & Gordon, C. (1997). Knowledge Management:
An Emerging Discipline with a Long History. The Journal of Knowledge Management,
Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 269-274.
28. Kaklauskas,
A., Zavadskas, E. K. & Gargasaitė,
L. (2004). Expert and Knowledge Systems and Data-Bases of the Best Practise (in
Lithuanian). Ūkio technologijos ir ekonominis vystymas-Technological
and Economic Development of Economy(3), pp. 88-95.
29. Kaminska, T.
(2009). The ICT Usage as an Attribute of the Knowledge-Based Economy – Poland’s
Case. Transformations in Business & Economics, No. 3(18),
Priedas B, pp. 166-183, ISSN
1648-4460.
30. Kanapeckienė,
L. & Gribniak, V. (2008). Žinių
valdymas ir aukštasis mokslas. Pedagogika-Pedagogy
studies, Nr. 85, pp. 22-27.
31. Kazlauskaitė, R. & Bučiūnienė, I. (2008). The Role
of Human Resources and their Management in the Establishment of Sustainable
Competitive Advantage. Inžinerinė Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(5),
pp. 78-84, ISSN 1392-2785.
32. Kling, B.
(2009). The Founding of The Information Society. History of The Information Society Journal,
33. Kluge, A. &
Schilling, J. (2000). Organizational learning and the learning organization: An
overview of current theory and empirical results. Zeitschrift Fur Arbeits-Und Organisationspsychologie, 44(4), pp. 179-191.
34. Kriščiūnas, K. & Daugėlienė, R. (2006). Žiniomis
grįstos ekonomikos link: žinių raiška ir svarba. Monograph. Technologija, ISBN 9955-25-058-5, Kaunas.
35. Kruger, C. J. & Snyman, M. M. (2005). Formulation of a strategic knowledge management
maturity model. South African Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 9(3), pp. 1-11.
36. Liepė, Z. & Sakalas, A. (2008). The Three-loop Learning Model
Appliance in New Product Development. Inžinerinė
Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(3), pp. 73-80, ISSN 1392-2785.
37. Lobanova, L.
(2009). Žmogiškųjų išteklių vadybos vertė
žiniomis grindžiamoje visuomenėje. Verslas: teorija ir
praktika-Business: Theory and
Practice, No. 10(3), pp. 233-246, ISSN 1648-0627
print, ISSN 1822-4202 online.
38. Malhotra, Y.
(2000). Knowledge management and new organization forms: a framework for
business model innovation. Information Resources Management Journal, No.
13(1), pp. 5-14.
39. McGinn, N. F.
(2001). Knowledge management in the
corporate sector: Implications for education. 2011-09-30. Available from:
<http://www.sac.smm.lt/images/6%20Knowledge%20Mng%20MacGinn%20angliskai(2).pdf>
40.
Melnikas, B.
(2002). Transformacijos. Monograph.
Vaga, ISBN 5-415-01637-6, Vilnius.
41. Melnikas, B. (2008). The Knowledge-Based Economy in the European Union:
Innovations, Networking and Transformation Strategies. Transformations in
Business & Economics, No. 7(3), pp. 170-192, ISSN 1648-4460.
42. Mockaitis, A. I. (2001). Findings for Lithuanian Cultural Dimensions. Organizacijų vadyba: sisteminiai tyrimai, Nr. 20, pp. 179-188, ISSN 1392-1142.
43. Mohammadi,
K., Khanlari, A. & Sohrabi, B.
(2009). Organizational Readiness Assessment for Knowledge management. Internationals Journal of Knowledge
Management, No. 5(1), pp. 29-45.
44. Morris, C. W. (1938).
Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
45. Nonaka, I. &
Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, ISBN
0-195-092629-4, New York.
46. Nowotny, H.,
Scott, P. & Gibbons, M. (2004). Re-Thinking
Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
47. Polanyi, M.
(1962). Personal Knowledge. Chicago.
48. Probst, G.,
Raub, S. & Romhardt, K. (2006). Žinių vadyba: sėkmės
komponentai. Knygiai, ISBN 9955-443-26-X, Vilnius.
49. Quinn, J. B.
(1992). The Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and Service Based Paradigm for
Industry. New York: Free Press.
50. Rowley, J.
(1994). Organising Knowledge.
Aldershot: Gower.
51. Rowley, J.
(2000). Knowledge organization for a new millennium: principles and processes.
Journal of Knowledge Management, No. 4(5), pp.
217-223.
52. Ruževičius,
J. (2005). Kokybės vadybos ir žinių vadybos
sąsajų tyrimas. Informacijos mokslai-Information sciences, No. 35,
pp. 47-58,
ISSN 1392-0561.
53. Šajeva,
S. (2009). Žinių valdymo brandumo vertinimo modelių ir jų
komponentų kritinė analizė. Ekonomika
ir vadyba-Economics and Management, No. 14, pp. 611-623, ISSN 1822-6515.
54. Sakalas, A. & Venskus,
R. (2007). Interaction of Learning Organization and Organizational structure. Inžinerinė
Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(3), pp. 65-70, ISSN 1392-2785.
55. Šedžiuvienė,
N. & Vveinhardt, J. (2009). The Paradigm of Knowledge
Management in Higher Educational Institutions. Inžinerinė ekonomika-Engineering Economics, No. 5(65),
pp. 79-90, ISSN 1392-2785.
56. Šedžiuvienė,
N. & Vveinhardt, J. (2010a). Competitiveness and
Innovations: Role of Knowledge Management at a Knowledge Organization. Inžinerinė ekonomika-Engineering
Economics, No. 21(5), pp. 525-536, ISSN 1392-2785.
57. Šedžiuvienė,
N. & Vveinhardt, J. (2010b). Žinių valdymo sistemos kūrimas aukštojoje mokykloje. Koleginių
studijų patrauklumo stiprinimas.
Tarptautinės mokslinės praktinės konferencijos straipsnių
rinkinys. ISBN 978-609-436-004-6. Vilnius: Vilniaus kolegija, p. 224-231.
58. Stankevičienė,
J., Šedžiuvienė, N., Vveinhardt,
J. & Mitkuvienė, D. (2007). Data
Management in Modern Organization: the Aspect of Project Designing. Inžinerinė Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, No. 1(51),
pp. 91-102, ISSN 1392-2785.
59. Sveiby, K. E.
(1997). The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring
Knowledge-Based Assets. Berrett Koehler, San
Francisco, CA. 2010-05-02.
Available from: <http://www.sveiby.com/articles/MeasureIntangibleAssets.html>
60. Teah, H. Y., Pee, L. G. & Kankanhalli, A. (2006). Development and
Application of a General Knowledge Management Maturity Model. The Tenth
Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS 2006), pp. 401-416.
2011-08-02. Available from: <http://www.pacis-net.org/file/2006/1112.pdf>
61. Tismaneau, V. (2003).
Išsivadavimo fantazijos. Vilnius: Mintis.
62. Viliūnas, G. (2006). Naujoji žinių paradigma ir mokslo
valdymo sistemos pokyčiai. Informacijos mokslai-Information sciences, No.
37, pp. 9-21, ISSN 1392-0561.
63. Vveinhardt, J. & Žukauskas, P. (2010). Mobingo
specifiškumas: lietuviškojo mentaliteto bruožai. Vadybos mokslas ir studijos – kaimo verslų ir
jų infrastruktūros plėtrai-Management theory and studies for
rural business and infrastructure development, Nr. 20(1), pp.
173–181, ISSN 1822-6760.
64. Webster, F. (2006). Informacinės
visuomenės teorijos. Poligrafija ir informatika, ISSN 1392-1673, ISBN
9986-850-56-8, Kaunas.
65.
Weiss, C. H. (1991). Reflections
on 19th-Century experience with knowledge diffusion. Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization, No. 13(1),
pp. 5–16.
66. Wiig, K. M.
(1999). Knowledge Management “An Emerging Discipline Rooted in a Long History”.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 53, No. 12,
pp. 1009-1018. 2010-01-09. Available from: http://www.krii.com/downloads/km_emerg_discipl.pdf