Report R2.2 Research and Management of Knowledge Seminar Leader: D. P. Dash, XIMB dpdash[at]ximb.ac.in Part 1 A doctoral research project on improving the organisation of new product development (NPD) processes was discussed. The project is designed on the basis of multiple case study research method. The cases have produced insights into some of the key areas in the NPD process. It was explored whether combining such insights can produce a "conceptual model" and the necessary understanding to organise NPD processes in a better way. This led to a discussion on the nature and role of "models" in research. It was suggested that "models" provide a link between past and future observations. In other words, models based on past observations can potentially reduce the effort required for future observations (e.g., through explanation, prediction, control, etc.). A distinction was proposed among three classes of models: (a) models having universal applicability (also called universal laws), (b) models that hold good under some constraints of time and space (also called theories), and (c) models that represent a much more specific local phenomenon. It was suggested that all these models attempt to capture some aspects of a complex reality, relevant to a research situation at hand. However, a decision as to which type of model is best suited to a given situation seems to depend upon the broad perspective one adopts with respect to research, e.g., singularism or pluralism (or positive or normative, etc.) While it is possible to argue that research should ultimately help us understand the complex reality, another alternative stance would be that research should help us act effectively in the complex reality. Following this argument, a further distinction between "model of something" versus "model for achieving something" was discussed. Especially when we find it difficult to subsume empirical diversity under well-defined conceptual categories (or models), we may still have the freedom to introduce something new in a situation that produces some new type of convergence. This was illustrated with the example of building a culture of trust and mutual appreciation in an organisation or a group, by introducing specific rules of interaction. This kind of process can also be treated as research, provided the specific rules of interaction and their power of producing the desired type of convergence becomes systematically contestable and improvable in multiple contexts-of-use. Part 2 Discussions on "knowledge management" often begin by attempting to clarify the meaning of "knowledge." This is of course, an arduous task as there can be a number of varied interpretations. Moreover, the assertion that knowledge can somehow be managed has also been controversial. To start with, this session merely sought to differentiate between knowledge and views. One of the key differences is that knowledge denotes observable categories created through research whereas views are merely opinions not yet subjected to systematic contestation that may be possible through research. Much like the case of views and opinions, some models that evolve in the area of Management have problems in attaining the methodological ideal of observational closure. In other words, they remain closely attached to the proponent of these models and do not meet the criteria of "observer independence." One important reason for this might be that organisations are far too complex and it is extremely difficult for an individual researcher to come up with a truly "separable" model that would be applicable with equal effectiveness in all situations. Another reason might be that management thinkers often encourage a subjective approach in the study of organisations. A typical example would be the exhortation to look at threats as opportunities or to find strengths in the organisation's weaknesses. Is there a way out of this predicament? Knowledge management as discussed in the guide document for the seminar seemed to offer a framework for resolving some of these issues. Attention was drawn to the different sources of knowledge as proposed by Earl in 1996. These were: * Science: Knowledge that bases itself on accepted theories and procedures * Judgment: Knowledge that bases itself on probabilistic parameters and policy rules * Experience: Knowledge that bases itself on observational data that is yet to be subjected to scientific scrutiny The above three sources can be associated with three alternative "systems of inquiry." The first one achieves observational closure through empirical regularities. The second one achieves it through statistical convergence (to which the law of large numbers refers). The third one hints at the possibility of self-constructed convergence (e.g., self-organisation) through the transfer of experiences in a multi-agent environment. There is a dichotomy here between operational knowledge derived from experience and knowledge generated by the classical mode of research. The difference between a question and a "research question," or the difference between a problem and "research problem" can be discussed from this standpoint. However, what is of more relevance is the way in which different processes of operation and knowledge are connected. Kawalek proposes a model that involves two parallel strands of systems that enrich each other. One is at the operational level and the other at the knowledge development level. In designing "systems of inquiry," applied disciplines like management seem to be interested in achieving operational improvements through developing knowledge. As Kawalek suggests, this aim requires that the process of knowledge development be coupled with the operational process needing some improvement. Considering the complexity and dynamism in the operational system, the knowledge development system should also have "requisite variety," that is, allow multiple types of convergence to be achieved, rather than remain attached to any single ideal of inquiry. Inspired by such a "methodological pluralism," research in applied disciplines can become venues for production, appraisal, selection, and adoption of different forms of knowledge, within the very context-of-use, where research and management of knowledge become parts of one and the same operation. Reference Kawalek, J. P. (2004). Systems thinking and knowledge management: Positional assertions and preliminary observations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21(1), 17-36.
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
