Abstract
This paper is on the topic of Data, Information and Knowledge and how knowledge management relates to the theory of cognitive dissonance in an organization. The first next section will discuss the meaning of data, information and knowledge. The following section will discuss the important aspects of knowledge within an organization and the relevant perspectives. The next section will discuss the benefits of knowledge management and some challenges which an organization faces while implementing and routine application. The final section will relate to the application of knowledge management to cognitive dissonance theory on the basis of a example.
Introduction
Knowledge comprises of insights, practical know-how and understandings which everyone possesses and it is the one of those fundamental resources which makes organizations and their employees function. With passage of time, considerable knowledge gets transformed into important manifestations for an organization like data, information, technology, books, traditions and practices. Hatch defined organizational knowledge as “When group knowledge from several subunits or groups is combined and used to create new knowledge, the resulting tacit and explicit knowledge can be called organizational knowledge” (Frost, 2010).
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognitive Dissonance Theory was developed by Leon Festinger in 1957, it states “if a person holds two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another, he will experience dissonance and will try to reduce it in one of the three ways: remove dissonant cognitions, add new consonant cognitions, or reduce the importance of dissonant cognitions” (Georgette, 2012).
Data, information and knowledge
Data and Information along with Knowledge have become fundamental aspects of knowledge management, organizational learning and intellectual capital. Knowledge management has components where “Data is the lowest point, an unstructured collection of facts and figures; information is the next level, and it is regarded as structured data; finally knowledge is defined as - information about information” (Frost, 2010). Prusak and Davenport has defined Data as “Set of discrete, objective facts about events. Data describes only a part of what happened; it provides no judgement or interpretation and no sustainable basis of action”, the next stage is information which Peter Druker has defined as “Data endowed with relevance and purpose. Converting data into information thus requires knowledge. And knowledge, by definition, is specialized” and Knowledge has been defined as “fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information” (Davenport & Prusak, 2000).
Knowledge Management within an Organization
With the relevance of knowledge in every aspect of daily life, the important aspects which are required for success and vitality in all levels are; Knowledge assets and Knowledge related processes. Knowledge Assets are the valuable knowledge present for usage and exploitation which has to be nurtured, preserved and implemented by the organization and individuals. The Knowledge-related processes require knowledge to be created, built, compiled, organized, transformed, transferred, pooled, applied and safeguarded with careful and explicit management in every affected area. Knowledge Management in organization has to be considered on the basis of three perspectives which have different purpose and horizons although they rely on a large extent on insights from the knowledge status within an organization. These perspectives are Business, management and Hands-on operation. The business perspective which is focused on where, why and to what extent an organization needs to exploit or invest in knowledge. This involves considering strategies, alliances, acquisitions and products & services from the knowledge perspective. The management perspective focuses on determination, organization, directing and monitoring activities which are relate to knowledge for achieving the business objectives. The Hands-On Operational Perspective is focused on application of expertise for conducting explicit knowledge related tasks and jobs (Wiig).
Knowledge management has its benefits which an organization can derive from uncovering opportunities and derive value from intellectual assets. Practitioners of Knowledge Management maintain that to get the most out of intellectual capital of a company sharing of knowledge must be done for forming the foundation of decision making. Effective Knowledge management program helps a company to foster innovation with encouragement of free flow of ideas, improving customer service with streamlined response time, boosting revenues by making products reach market faster and enhancing retention rates by recognition of importance of employee’s knowledge and rewarding them appropriately among other things. Knowledge management has its challenges too some of which are to get employees on board, ongoing maintenance and dealing with deluging of data (Levinson, 2007).
Example of Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Knowledge Management
This study is on examining non-adoption of KMS (knowledge management system) for exchange of knowledge between experts from non-life insurance field. The users were enthusiastic while participating in the design process in which they provided data and functional specifications. However, after the introduction the system was rarely used, the case analysis suggests that non-use could be understood as a cause of dissonance which is a dominant theme in the social dynamics of implementation stage. Since, Dissonance was felt through system’s incongruent mental models intent and usage, incongruent mental models of knowledge and its ownership and relational dissonance of power where spirit with which knowledge sharing instilled in the mission challenged the relational position of power between the affected groups (Pumareja & Sikkel, 2005).
Implementation, non-usage and failure of the system implementation can be better understood from the dissonance perspective. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary Dissonance can be defined as “instances of inconsistency, disagreement or discrepancy in a situation usually relating to one’s beliefs, perception, attitude and action” (Merriam-Webster, 2004). The more restricted formulation of Dissonance pertains to psychological conflicts which are experienced by individual at cognitive level which is the set of beliefs or cognitions; dissonance is also at the mass phenomena level in the widened social context of the business, organization and implementation of information technology. The significance to study the unsuccessful implementation of KMS was for observing the many ways by which dissonance can be manifested in implementing a system and using of context which resulted in failure (Pumareja & Sikkel, 2005).
Findings of this case study suggests that dissonance is useful in describing implementation process of a system and understanding the knowledge management system failure to be used successfully by the intended users. In attribution to the failure as a result of dissonance, several features of implementation process have been affected by dissonance as a dominant theme. Firstly, this can be seen at the cognitive level, where different mental models held by stakeholders helped in shaping the development of incongruent metaphors of intention and usage. Secondly, dissonance has also been implied in the differed views of knowledge ownership which were held by stakeholders. Finally, Dissonance is dominant in terms of power at the relational level. Once the power position gets challenged and threatened with implementation of technology and the notion of sharing of knowledge (Pumareja & Sikkel, 2005).
Conclusion
The main function of knowledge management as a scheme for prospective existing knowledge stretches to an integrated and corporate system. The efficient knowledge processing is necessary for achieving those crucial goals of the organization, one of them being development of organizational intellect. The knowledge stars with learning, though the benefits can be limited unless new knowledge gets shared with everyone within the organization making it useful. Sharing depends on everyone making the knowledge they possess available for others and using the knowledge they have to achieve their goals.
References
Frost, A. (2010). “Introducing Organizational Knowledge”. Retrieved 16 Jan 2014 from http://www.knowledge-management-tools.net/introducing-organizational-knowledge.html#ixzz2qgAw0VVM
Telcia, E. E., Madenb, C. & Kantur, D. (2011). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A marketing and management perspective. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 24. 378–386
Georgette, S. (10/31/2012). Cognitive Dissonance at work. Retrieved 16 Jan 2014 from, http://www.financialtoastmasters.org/cognitive-dissonance-at-work/
Davenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. (8/2000). WORKING KNOWLEDGE HOW ORGANIZATIONS MANAGE WHAT THEY KNOW. Retrieved 16 Jan 2014 from, http://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=348775
Wiig, K.M. On The Management of Knowledge. Retrieved 16 Jan 2014 from http://www.km-forum.org/wiig.htm
Levinson, M. (3/7/2007). Knowledge Management Definition and Solutions. Retrieved 16 Jan 2014 from, http://www.cio.com/article/print/40343
Pumareja, D.T. & Sikkel, K. (2005). The Role of Dissonance in Knowledge Exchange: A Case Study of a Knowledge Management System Implementation. Retrieved 16 Jan 2014 from, http://eprints.eemcs.utwente.nl/10454/01/22680042b.pdf
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2004). Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved 17 Jan 2014 from, http://www.m-w.com
