CRITICAL THEMES AND PERSPECTIVES ON MANAGEMENT

Critical Themes and Perspectives on Management, Organization and Strategy

Critical Themes and Perspectives on Management, Organization and Strategy

Abstract

It is commonplace these days to state that knowledge is the most critical asset to be managed. Yet not numerous people - especially not practitioners - invest very much time in learning about what information actually is and how distinct information management is from information management. Particularly IM-focused individuals or software vendors are inclined to heal IM and KM as the identical thing. However, the very proceed of managing and administration research itself can be seen, to a large extent, as the application of human knowledge in an organizational context to accomplish desired conclusions. Thus, organizing information can be characterized very narrowly or broadly counting on a person's exact goals or perspective. Introduction

A slender delineation of KM is generally affiliated with the deployment of information administration schemes, while very wide delineations are usually associated with the suppler edge of management such as leadership method, organizational heritage, rewards and acknowledgement programs, etc. In this article, we will argue that regardless of the growing focus on data administration schemes as a key enabler of KM, information administration as an appearing control and respect depends on the fusion of the contributions of many disciplines, including beliefs, psychology, sociology, management and economics that until recently did not cross routes (Alvesson, 2000).

In order to fully understand the differences between IM and KM, it is important to review basic definitions of information and knowledge. There has been no shortage of authors providing their own definitions of these terms. Thus, in this paper, we will not present our own definitions, but rather discuss the management implications of definitions provided by some leading authors. In general, the definitions of information tend to be far more uniform and fewer complexes these definitions are similar to many others that point to the fact that information includes human participation in the purposeful organization of raw data. Characterizing information, although, is a much more complex task. One way to tackle this task is to go back to the roots of the Greek word episteme, which means absolute truth. That seems broad enough to include many subsequent definitions. What is absolute truth and how to reach it, however, have been questions plaguing many generations of philosophers since Aristotle and Plato. We will not discuss all the perspectives that many great thinkers have offered since then, but highlight that two main views have been put forth about how we learn and acquire knowledge: empiricism and rationalism (Gordon, 2002). The interplay between authors coming from these two camps offers us the current more accepted understanding about knowledge. Namely, knowledge can only reside in one's mind and is the result of human experience and reflection based on a set of beliefs that are at the same time individual and collective (Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel, 1998).

The same complexity is highlighted by some of the leading authors in the emerging field of knowledge ...