Are Knowledge Management and Information Management two sides of the same coin?

 BY
Jasmine Aljarallah

Abstract
Recently, Knowledge management (KM) has become the latest hot topic, particularly in business and public sectors internationally, and it has generated much interest in a very short time. This can obviously be seen in many conferences, information technology products, new publications, job advertisements, and amongst IT specialists and librarians (Corral, 1999). Since it is still a rapidly developing area, many people are not sure whether KM will become a permanent and significant component of management or just another name for information management (IM). In order to clarify this confusion it is important to review their objectives, their project approaches and their strategies of protecting intellectual capital as a very valuable element in organizations. In addition, providing some organizations’ experience of implementing KM infinitives would help to clarify some differences. However, it would be useful to start with some leading authors’ definitions of both ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ and examine the current societies’ interest in the KM topic.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Since new terminologies often create doubt and vagueness, there have been numerous attempts to define KM and clarifying its meaning. Despite its popularity there is no unanimous agreement on the concept and whether it is a new discipline with its own research base (Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002). While KM articles often discuss the importance of its techniques to achieve the betterment of humankind and organizations, it is still not well-articulated yet. Some authors consider KM as the salvation of business (Martensson, 2000); others believe that KM is just “old wine in new bottles” or simply a marketing ploy for consultants (Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002). Some writers attribute the present confusion over KM to the lack of a clear distinction between ‘knowledge’ and ‘information’ (Martensson, 2000; Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2000; Kakabadse et al., 2001). The frequent debate on KM versus IM illustrates the need for a clearly defined vocabulary, and this would be the academic researcher’s task (Wilson, 2001).
 
'Knowledge' and 'information'
It is clearly necessary for both information systems and information science fields to have obvious definitions of both ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’, and this can demolish the common usage of these terms as synonyms (Wilson, 2001). In addition, providing a better distinction between these terms would result in a better understanding of the difference between KM and IM.
 
 
What is knowledge? In fact, it is not clear precisely what knowledge means. Also, it has no universally well-known meaning. However, Wilson (2001) defined knowledge as “what we know: knowledge involves the mental processes of comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in the mind”. Davenport and Prusak (1998) state that “Knowledge is neither data nor information”. In order to verify such definitions several attempts have been presented to distinguish between data, information and knowledge concepts. The majority define data as raw facts or figures. Meadow et al. (2000) defined data as “a string of elementary symbols, such as digits or letters". Sometimes this string of digits or letters does not have a useful meaning for everyone: according to Ahsan and Shah (2006), “data can exist in any form, usable or not and it does not have meaning of itself”. Whereas they defined information as “data that has been given meaning by way of relational connection and this "meaning" can be useful, but does not have to be”, it has also been defined as “Data endowed with relevance and purpose” (Drucker, 1998).
 
These are similar to many other definitions. However, definitions of knowledge are much more complicated and less uniform than those of information (Terra and Angeloni, 2002). Many knowledge definitions described by the leading authors seem fairly inclusive and they indicate that information and knowledge are often used interchangeably (Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002). For instance, Davenport & Prusak (1998) describe knowledge as “a mix of fluid experiences, values, contextual information and intuition that provides a structure to evaluate and incorporate new experiences and information”. Another similar definition is given by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995): “Knowledge is true and justified belief”. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995, p.58) claim that knowledge is formed by the very information flow that planted in its holder beliefs and commitments.
 
Also knowledge definitions vary from one author to another depending on their background: for example, philosophers such as Polanyi (1962) often emphasize the individual character of knowledge, and he represented the difference between explicit and tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge that resides in our mind and cannot be easily communicated or expressed simply because "we know more than we can tell"( Polanyi, 1962). In other words, tacit knowledge remains tacit and cannot be transformed into explicit knowledge as claimed by Tsoukas and Vladimirou (2000). However, organizational theorists such as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) emphasize the circulation of knowledge in organizations. And they describe tacit knowledge as the main important type of knowledge in organizations, which can be broadcast and transformed into explicit knowledge through social communication. They also believe that organizational knowledge is built on this kind of knowledge. From this perspective we can say that knowledge is equated to information, proving that KM is another term for IM. According to Black et al ( 2007), once tacit knowledge is expressed via speech or any other mode, it becomes transmitted knowledge which is similar to information. However, it is hard to find any literature in the KM field which does not refer to the concept of knowledge itself, and the meaning still remains blurred and insufficient, a situation that might possibly delay the growth of KM theory and practice (Gourlay, 2000). The previous author argues that the term KM is expected to rest on how knowledge is defined if the writers still indicate that KM means to manage something different from what the managers tend to do. However, discussing more definitions of both ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’ provided by leading authors would not be very helpful in order to draw a logical conclusion about the difference between managing ‘knowledge’ and managing ‘information’.
 
The introduction of KM
Many people believe that Managing knowledge has existed and been practiced since the existence of mankind in informal ways with simple tools. Streatfield and Wilson (1999) pointed out that KM activities have been implemented for a very long time among information professionals and some firms, but the KM expression was introduced for the first time by Dr. Karl Wiig in 1986 (Beckman, 1999). Since then, from 1997 to date this expression has become a very hot topic of major interest in both business and academic communities (Wilson, 2001). So what is different now and why has KM become the catch phrase of the era?
 
Many changes have been cited as major reasons for the emphasis being placed on KM; for example the exponential explosion of information, the universal dispersal of companies (Wakin, 1999) and the move toward global competitiveness (Morris, 2001), in addition, the technological innovation including smart products and the substantial growth in capacity of processing power and memory of the computer, which can process a large amount of information in a very short time (Morris, 2001) “making more information more available to more people than at any other time in human history” (Feather, 1998). Additionally, the recent awareness of the ’intellectual capital’ value drives many large organisations to search for a consistent method to protect their valuable ’intellectual capital’(Morris, 2001). But the question is: what precisely is managing ‘knowledge’ and how does it differ from managing ‘information’?
 
Some KM writers have suggested that the term managing ‘knowledge’ is possibly misleading. For example Gourlay (2000) pointed out that we cannot manage ‘knowledge’, because KM practices do not focus on ‘knowledge’ itself. And he stated that "knowledge representations" is the definite focus of KM. In addition, Abram (1997) mentioned that managing knowledge has only two dimensions that can be managed: knowledge environment and the condition of its use. From the viewpoints of both Gourlay (2000) and Abram (1997) the difference between IM and KM becomes vaguer.
 
Claudio & Angeloni (2002) have analyzed the fine line between managing ‘knowledge’ and managing ‘information’ according to five different dimensions. In this paper I will focus briefly on two dimensions (KM projects and protecting intellectual capital) which, in my opinion, should be sufficient to understand what each term signifies.
 
KM and IM projects
KM projects are more complex than IM projects, as Claudio & Angeloni (2002) state that KM needs to be supported by information technology (IT) infrastructure to exchange knowledge in a wide manner. As in very large organizations where the collaboration is needed between knowledge-workers, they create, store and apply information to be used by people from the same organization in different locations with no need for personal meetings (Claudio & Angeloni, 2002). Another key difference is that KM has more to do with supporting connection and conversation between people and increasing the humanistic perspective of work. Furthermore, “KM systems are much more human-centric than IM infinitives” (Claudio & Angeloni, 2002). In addition, the achievement of IM projects often depends on technical achievements, whereas the success of KM projects is judged more on the basis of the changes in actions and behaviour that are derived from learning. Additionally, Claudio & Angeloni (2002) stated that because KM projects rely on individuals’ motivations and willingness to share their personal knowledge and experiences, it requires very different approaches from those used in IM .
 
Protecting intellectual capital
From the KM perspective, protecting intellectual capital is the protection of valuable organisational knowledge that resides in people’s minds from being lost due to unexpected departure of people from the organization, and this can be achieved by applying the ‘circulation of knowledge’ strategy. This strategy gives beginners the opportunity to gain knowledge from more senior people who hold strategic knowledge and makes sure that knowledge is developed among a number of people cooperatively. In contrast, the IM strategy of protecting the intellectual capital is to put too much emphasis on access levels, front-door security and firewalls, which are very important but do not preserve all types of knowledge (Claudio & Angeloni, 2002).
 
According to Claudio & Angeloni (2002), from both dimensions discussed above the vagueness about KM and IM is reasonably clarified. Both IM and KM fields are closely complementary and require a high level of human involvement. But their goals are very different. In the case of KM the exchange of informal information among individuals (creating an integrated environment in order to maximise organisational success) is considered to be the main objective. On the other hand, organizing, storing, using, creating, and retrieving the information are the ultimate aims of IM (Feather and Sturges, 1997).
 
Despite the doubts about KM and the current debate about its functionality, there are many organizations which have developed a KM infinitive. A strong interest for KM among the business community was shown by a survey carried out in the United States which revealed that 80% of 200 large firms have implemented KM initiatives (KPMG, 2000). Not only in the US, but also within some private and public sectors organisations around the world KM has been practised successfully; for example, the World Bank, Health Canada and Hewlett-Packard, and there are also some recent KM initiatives in UK organizations such as the British Council, NatWest Markets and British Petroleum (BP), which I will discuss later (Skok,2000).
In the study by Bouthillier & Shearer (2002), they observed that KM practices are different from one institution to another and often depend on the institution’s goals and objectives. The objectives of KM practices in private sector organizations were to enhance knowledge sharing between employees within the organization, while in most public sector organizations the objectives were to enhance sharing not just within the organization but also with the general public.   
 
BP as a successful example of implementation of KM principles
BP is one of the large worldwide organizations that adopted the KM concept at an  early stage; it has embedded KM in its core process since 1994 (Wakin, 1999). It started investigating different ways to facilitate communication and sharing across its geographically dispersed organizations, such as teleconferencing and videoconferencing technologies. BP receives significant benefits from such applications when the company branch in London needs repair specialists to fix a remote oil drilling rig. Repair specialists from anywhere around the world view, analyse, discuss and examine a breakdown part of the machine and give potential solutions using a desktop teleconferencing technology. In addition, the recommended solutions are stored for any future needs, thereby saving a substantial amount of time and money. “KM is not a fad for BP” (Wakin, 1999). According to the SAIC Web site, BP has applied a consistent approach of KM and this has resulted in saving around $260 million in 1998 alone, as revealed by BP business managers.
 
Current society’s interest in KM
Accumulation of knowledge throughout the past decades or even centuries has a remarkable reflection on the society’s and community’s transition from farming communities to the information society (Al-Hawamdeh, 2002). It is now widely believed that knowledge is the right way for societies’ development and improvement.  Indeed, the World Bank report 1998-1999 strongly supports this notion that was apparent at a glance from its title “Knowledge for Development”. The report highlighted global issues with an exceptional focus on knowledge awareness. One of the major aspects that were discussed in the report was how some developing countries progressed significantly by taking advantage of the dramatic increase of universal knowledge whilst other developing countries are still lagging behind.
A number of studies have demonstrated that securing a life sustaining world can be achieved by building knowledge and information rich societies as this will have a powerful impact on reaching a wise balance between ecological preservation and social equity in one hand, whilst maintaining economical growth on the other hand. In other words KM principles can guide societies and raise their awareness for social, ecological and economical issues and values, and, thereby contributing to a wise decision making process of individuals and governments leading to a positive impact on society, ecology and economy. This might be due to that KM encourages collaboration and sharing of knowledge by providing real and virtual spaces in which people can communicate, discuss and exchange know-how and experiences in order to contribute to their society’s development. In fact, societies which have already advanced as much as the Western World has, based on know-how which lead to high-tech societies, have no other choice than to pursue even more research and development. In time their economic growth became largely dependant on these achievements. The reason is that their advance lead to prosperity of the individuals with raising salaries and benefits preventing low-tech industry branches to compete with cheap labour countries like India or China. In the same time these countries are catching up with knowledge based technologies (i.e., IT in India, telecommunications in China), slowly competing with the Western World not only on low-tech, but also on high-tech levels of manufacturing leading to competition in the knowledge based technologies.
 
Conclusion
Although the confusion over the terminology of KM is not cleared yet, it has recorded successful experiments amongst some large private and public organizations. While managing information is a very well established area with its own familiar techniques, managing knowledge with its unclear label has addressed issues that IM could not deal with for years. However, with more focusing on KM projects and its perspective on protecting intellectual capital, one can realize that it is a distinctive and growing discipline.
 
 
 
 Reverences
Abram, S. (1997) "Post information age positioning for special librarians: is knowledge management the answer?" Information Outlook, 1(6), 18-25.
Accounting, Finance and Management, University of Essex.
 
Ahsan, S., Shah, A. (2006). “ Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom: A Doubly Linked Chain?”. Research and Development Centre of Computer Science, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore.
 
Black. A., Muddiman, D. and Plant, H. (2007), The Early Information Society: Information Management in Britain before the Computer, Aldershot, Ashgate, ISBN 0 7456 4279 4
 
Bouthillier, F. and Shearer, K. (2002). "Understanding knowledge management and information management: the need for an empirical perspective" Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 141 [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper141.html]
 
Corral, S. (1999).“Are We in the Knowledge Management Business?”. University of Reading, Web article, [available at
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue18/knowledge-mgt/].
 
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) “Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
 
 
 
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998) “Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
 
Drucker, P.F. (1998). “The coming of the new organisation”. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
 
Feather, J. & P. Sturges, 1997. International Encyclopedia of Information and Library Science, London:
 
Feather, J. P., (1998). “The Information Society: A Study of Continuity and Change 2nd ed”., London: Library
 
 Gourlay, S. (2000) "Frameworks for knowledge: a contribution towards conceptual clarity for knowledge management". Paper delivered at: Knowledge management: concepts and controversies conference, Warwick University, 10-11 February 2000. Available at: http://bprc.warwick.ac.uk/km013.pdf [Site visited 21 September 2002]
 
Kakabadse N.K., Kouzmin, A. and Kakabadse A. (2001) "From tacit knowledge to knowledge: leveraging invisible assets." Knowledge and Process Management, 8(3), 137-154.Management: An Ethnographic Investigation. Working Paper no. 00/02, Department of
 
 
  Martensson, M. (2000). "A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool." Journal of Knowledge Management, 4, 204-216.
 
Meadow, C. T., Boyce, B.R. and Kraft, D.H.(2000) Text information retrieval systems, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Morris, A (2001), “Knowledge management: opportunities for LIS graduates”, paper presented to 67th IFLA Council and General Conference, Boston, Available at http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla67/papers/015-115ae.pdf.
 
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
 
Polanyi, M. (1962) Personal knowledge. Chicago, IL.: University of the Chicago Press.Routledge.
 Skok, W. (2000) "Managing knowledge within the London taxi cab service." Knowledge and Process Management, 7(4), 224-232.KPMG Consulting (2000). Knowledge management research report. London: Atos KPMG Consulting. Availableat:http://www.kpmgconsulting.co.uk/research/othermedia/wf_8519kmreport.pdf [Site visited 24th September 2002]e
Streatfield, D. and Wilson, T.D. (1999) "Deconstructing knowledge management." Aslib Proceedings, 51(3), 67-72.
Suliman Al-Hawamdeh (2002) Knowledge management: re-thinking information management and facing the challenge of managing tacit knowledge, Montreal, Canada.
Terra, J. and Angeloni, T. (2002).“Understanding the difference between Information Management”. TerraForum Consultores, Toronto, ON, Canada, M4L 3S5. Available at http://www.providersedge.com/docs/km_articles/Understanding_the_Difference_Between_IM_and_KM.pdf.
 
TSOUKAS, H. and E. VLADIMIROU. (2000). On Organizational Knowledge and its
Wakin, E. (1999) “Tapping Intellectual Capital”, in: Cortada, J.W., Woods, J.A. (eds.) The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000.Boston:Butterworth-Heinemann
 
Wilson, T.D. (2002) "The nonsense of 'knowledge management'" Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 144   [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html]
World Bank (1998) World Development Report 1998-1999: Knowledge for Development, A World Bank Publication; 21 edition (October 8, 1998)
Website  SAIC: www.saic.com