Dixon does a fabulous job of outlining where Knowledge Management (KM) has been. I find the progression of KM very similar to the development of human cognition. Cherry (2020) brings Piaget's theory of cognitive development to light by pointing out four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational. The logic goes like this. First, an infant will put everything in their mouth to drink up information (sensorimotor stage). Then as they grow, they can use words and understand images representing things, but they cannot reason (preoperational stage). Next, the child can think logically, do simple math, and understand communication (concrete operational stage). Lastly, the child can then reason and think about what-if situations (formal operational).
As I look at the eras described by Dixon (2012), I see that the information management era connects well with the sensorimotor stage (Cherry, 2020; Dixon). Dixon points out that the information management era was about gathering information. Many organizations were turning to technology to help manage the data; however, Dixon points out that it was challenging for organizations to get employees to store or use that information.
Next, the experienced management maps well with the preoperational and concrete operational stages (Cherry, 2020; Dixon, 2012). The experience management era brought in reflection (Dixon). Dickel's (2017) work on reflection is very helpful in bringing this to light. Dickel points out several types of reflection that help individuals to see a situation from different perspectives. There are reflection types that help to think about a situation before, in the moment, and after it happens (Dickel, Dixon). In addition, Dickel illuminates reflection types that help look at a situation from another's point of view. Dickel underscores that reflection helps us evaluate information, connect the dots, find deeper meaning, and identify ways to adjust our thought processes and actions.
Lastly, the idea management era aligns nicely with the formal operational stage (Cherry, 2020; Dixon, 2012). The idea management era takes us to a place where we can think deeper, tackle more complex problems, and be innovative (Dixon). Let's look at the development of human cognition as the child who has been living with their parent for their whole life. Every time the child does something, the parent projects their views and values on the child and redirects the child to match those views and values. Like the child, an employee, being constantly told only to use the organizational knowledge will get frustrating. It will be natural for the employee to look outside of the organization for information. Not only will it be natural, but it is also vital for an organization to improve.
Is Knowledge Management Dead?
Davenport (2017) suggests that KM is not dead; however, several factors have forced it on support life. Those factors are the challenge to change behavior, forcing technology, time-consuming search queries, google, and poor data analytics. It makes perfect sense that an organization would have information to share with employees, but it is ridiculous to say that all the knowledge is stored in the organization. To say that Google is killing KM is like saying God is killing religion. Google has given us the best KM tool of all time, and organizations do not have to pay for it! Did you know you can search your corporate site for information using google search? Anything that your organization has published on their domain (that google can crawl) is available for you to use (Lally, 2019). Google is one of your tools for organizational knowledge management. So, I must disagree with Davenport about the internet, or search engines, killing KM. They become a tool in our KM.
I would instead make this suggestion. I do not think there are eras (Dixon, 2012), meaning that all organizations are at the same place on the organizational learning or KM place. I believe an organization grows around its KM. What I mean by this is that some organizations are in the information gathering stage (information management era), trying to understand what information is out there. Others are now sifting through that information and are starting to understand what's important and what's not. Others have become so fluid in the information that they can create unique products and services. I believe individuals and organizations grow in their knowledge.
Individual, Organization, or Connections
This is where Jarche (2018) comes in. Jarche suggests that we need individual sensemaking skills. Rather than the organization being entirely responsible for giving the information, individuals should use their social networks, experimentation, communities, and teams. I like this idea because it encourages the individual to use all sources, not just the knowledge organization. Then Jarche suggests that the individual must be responsible for the sharing, and the organization should be responsible for collecting, curating, and distributing the knowledge to employees. This would help the organization to keep that learning.
Tools like slack, discord, volley, Marco Polo, zoom, and google meet are making communication and collaboration very easy. For example, my wife just collaborated on a song with someone in Spain. They were able to use zoom to have a few writing sessions and out popped this fantastic song!
Enter Kelly (2016). Kelly does such an excellent job of painting the future that may never be a reality. However, I think the vision Kelly is describing is KM adulthood. Kelly's 12 technological forces all point to growth, collaboration, and evolving. In Kelly's chapter on screening, the vision painted, and becoming a reality, is how accessible information is. This suggests that the adulthood of KM may not just be for the organization but the world. Next, the accessibility that Kelly speaks of, where you do not own any information, but the information is peace together from many sources for the needs of an individual or organization, underscores that KM is becoming global KM, not organizational KM. Taken to the extreme, Kelly outlines what work will look like in the future with individuals being paid for the ideas they create that get implemented. While I do not agree 100% with how freely he pictures the ideal collaboration, I think he is laying out an excellent framework for Global Knowledge Management. I believe this is our future, that organizations will still grow through those stages defined by Dixon (2012) into something more like Kelly has described.
Congratulations, we are becoming adults!
References
Cherry, K. (2020, March 31). The 4 Stages of Cognitive Development Background and Key Concepts of Piaget's Theory. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/piagets-stages-of-cognitive-development-2795457
Davenport, T. H. (2015, June 24). Whatever happened to knowledge management. The Wall Street Journal. https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-CIOB-7428
Dickel, C. T. (2017). Reflection: A taxonomy and synthesis of descriptions of reflective practice/reflective inquiry. Unpublished manuscript, Creighton University, Omaha, NE.
Dixon, N. (2012, August 8). The Three Eras of Knowledge Management. Conversation Matters. https://www.nancydixonblog.com/2012/08/the-three-eras-of-knowledge-management.html
Jarche, H. (2018, July 9). Knowledge-sharing paradox redux. Harold Jarche. https://jarche.com/2018/07/knowledge-sharing-paradox-redux/
Kelly, K. (2016). The inevitable: Understanding the 12 technological forces that will shape our future. Penguin Books.
Lally, M. (2019, October 9). How to Use Google Site Search to Crawl Your Entire Website. Bluleadz. https://www.bluleadz.com/blog/how-to-use-google-site-search