Knowledge Management

...

Balanced Scorecard

According to Leon‐Soriano, Munoz‐Torres, and Chalmeta‐Rosalen (2010), the balanced scorecard perspective includes establishing main element of operations, setting target for them and looking for ways in which progress can be measured with respect to achievements. Gautreau and Kleiner (2001) have indicated that the balanced scorecard is supposed to be a strategy implementation method and not an alternative for strategy formulation. Strategic implementation includes a wide of attempt that is aimed at transforming strategic ideas to actions (Miller and Dess, 1996). The balanced scorecard enables firms to have full view of performance by discovering various important aspect of performance and interpreting how their changes may affect others (Chan 2004). Kaplan and Norton (1996), states that the balanced scored sheet complements the usual financial measures with standards that measures performance from three others aspect - the learning and growth, customers and internal business processes. According to Kalender and Vayvay (2016, p.77), explains the financial perspective as “measuring the revenue growth, investment return and cost reduction by gathering financial data and reviewing business performance based on financial performance”. Customer perspective looks at the satisfaction of customers, the market share, gaining new customers and their trust. This aspect make companies to have an understanding of what customers it should focus on with respect to their needs and anticipations from the business (Kalender and Vayvay, 2016). The learning and growth perspective looks at ability and internal skills of employees, so as to fit them in direction of strategic goals of the company. In specifics, this will include administration of regular procedures, training and workers skill (Kalender and Vayvay, 2016). The internal business process perspective can contain the immediate and future goals and also bringing creative development process so as to stimulate development (Kalender and Vayvay, 2016).

Communities of Practice (CoP)

Community of practice are group of individuals that share passion or worries for things they do and find out ways of doing it better as they communicate frequently (Wenger-Trayner and Wenger-Trayner, 2015). Eckert (2006) describes communities of practice as a group of individuals that meet together regularly in common area of interest. According to Wenger (2010), three important aspect are important for a CoP to exist - Domain, community and practice. Domain - this is characterized by a shared area of interest, commitment and competence from its members. Community - within member’s area of interest, they collaborate, share problems, discuss and form relationship that enable learning from one another. Practice- this involves members not only having a shared area of interest but also engage in sharing stories and experiences within their area of practice (Wenger, 2010).

Wenger (1998) states that the way practice is formed within a community and the way practice forms are expressed in three aspect- Joint enterprise, shared repertoire and mutual engagement. Joint enterprise represents the common interest of community members and the aim of the community in general. According to Wenger (1998, p. 83), shared repertoire includes “ routines, words, tools, ways of doing things, stories, gestures, symbols, genres, actions, or concepts that the community has produced or adopted in the course of its existence, and which have become

part of its practice’’. Mutual engagement means the way members of a community communicate and connect with one another within the practice (Wenger, 2008).

Lesser and storck (2001) asserts that benefit do not only come to individuals through CoP, but also to organizations. Also, the community idea is confirmed to be a way to growing and supporting organizational memory over a long period of time. Quinello (2006) explains organizational memory as a common idea that describes knowledge sharing, storage, policies and practice in a firm. McDermott (2004) states that CoP is termed to be successful if there is a particular knowledge transfer or experiences between its members so as to add to a growing practice in a particular field.

Probst and Borzillo (2008) in their work identified some reasons why CoP do not succeed. One of which is that member reduce their level of engagement like constant attendance of meetings, low level support in solving problems to member and lack of new ideas from members.

Also, that if members hardly connect with one another with respect to practices then this can affect the CoP negatively. Another point that was raised by Probst and Borzillo is that CoP will also fail if members only trust their own competence and not interested in making use of practices emanating from other CoP members.

Soft Systems thinking

According to Reisman (1979, p.2), a system is defined as “a set of resources- personnel, materials, facilities, and/or information- organized to perform designated functions, in order to achieve desired results”. In the video by Awal premi (2015), Professor Ackoff explains that the main feature of a car is to transport an individual from a location to another which no part of the car do alone. In this view, relating system thinking (ST) to that of an organization will mean the interaction and interconnection between various units of a firm will enables the whole organization to function properly. If a unit of the firm becomes defective, there will be a change in the way the organization operates. ST is essential thinking systematically and concentrating on dynamics, usually non-sequential processes of connection and communication between an environment and its resources where the system functions (Reisman and Oral, 2005).

Soft system methodology (SSM) focuses on learning from circumstantial and organizational uncertainty and acknowledging socially bounded difficult situation with respect to changeful relations and ensuring improvements (Jacob, 2004).

Jacobs (2004, p. 140) in his work asserts that using “SSM can help managers and others develop new perspectives by recognizing and accounting for factors otherwise ignored and challenge prevailing attitudes and entrenched assumption”.

SSM provides a rational way to individual and group thinking with respect to circumstances, difficulties and the uncertainty of policy (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).