英语论文网

Understanding the difference between Information Management and Knowledge Management
Jose Claudio Terra, Ph.D.
jcterra@yahoo.com
Terezinha Angeloni, Ph.D
angelggc@hotmail.com
TerraForum Consultores, Toronto, ON, Canada, M4L 3S5
Abstract
This paper discusses the important differences between Information Management (IM) and Knowledge Management (KM). One of the key premises代写英国论文advanced in this paper is that tacit and explicit knowledge are not the same knowledge in a different state. The act of writing and making one’s knowledge available to others is in itself an act of learning and transformation of the nature of knowledge. In a general sense, it can be said that the “human element” is much more relevant from a KM perspective than from an IM perspective. Traditionally, IM has not taken into account how people learn, create, validate, codify, share knowledge and make decisions. Its focus has been on the manipulation of data and information. Conversely, KM, as a more recent discipline, has a much broader ambition. The goal of this article is to discuss not only how KM and IM are different or similar, but also how and why these two disciplines intersect. The risks involved in KM projects that do not clearly take these differences into account are also highlighted in this paper. The paper is based on a literature review and authors’ own experiences with KM initiatives.
Key Words
Information Management, Knowledge Management, Information Technology, Tacit Knowledge, Intuition, Incentives, Risks, Reengineering
Introduction
It is commonplace these days to say that knowledge is the most critical asset to be managed. Yet not many people – particularly not practitioners – invest very much time in learning about what knowledge really is and how different knowledge management is from information management. Particularly IM-focused individuals or software vendors tend to treat IM and KM as the same thing. However, the very act of managing and management science itself can be seen, to a large extent, as the application of human knowledge in an organizational context to achieve desired outcomes. Thus, managing knowledge can be defined very narrowly or broadly depending on a person’s specific goals or perspective.
A narrow definition of KM is usually associated with the deployment of information management systems, while broad definitions are usually associated with the softer side of management such as leadership style, organizational culture, rewards and recognition programs, etc. In this article, we will argue that despite the growing focus on information management systems as a key enabler of KM, knowledge management as an emerging discipline depends on the fusion of the contributions of many disciplines, including philosophy, psychology, sociology, management and economics that until recently did not cross paths.
Defining Information and Knowledge
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 less complex than the definitions of knowledge.
Information is usually defined as:
􀀹 “Organized data” (Saint-Onge, 2002);