I have just read your blog and I find your piece on Strategy very intersting. I like the fact that you identified the external factors that might affect the strategy of an organisation that Quinn (1980) and Davis(2000) forgot to address. It was also good to see that you had included examples with the different classifications of Strategy.I would like to point out that you did not give your understanding as to what you think strategy is. It would be nice if you could give a definition that encompasses the points you agree with that were brought up by Quinn and Davis and include the external factors you think might affect an organisations strategy. I think this would be a good definition of strategy. I would also like it if you could put up a list of your references as it would be helpful to see where you got the classifications of strategy from.

Data, Information and Knowledge

Although these three terms have different meanings, they often get mixed up and misused in our everyday lives, even in organisations where it should matter a lot seeing as data, information and knowledge are the building blocks of organisations. Many attempts have been made to define these three terms but some of these definitions do not quite capture the essence of these terms. Anthony Lieu (2007) pointed out that although many of these definitions are relevant, they are far from being complete. The following definitions were given by Anthony Lieu (2007), in his article called “Understanding Data, Information, Knowledge and their inter-relationships”. These definitions as we will come to see are in line with what T.D Wilson and Dick Stenmark came up with.

.

Data: signals or reading that are recorded, captured and stored
Information: a message that contains relevant meaning, implication, or input for decision and/or action.
Knowledge: cognition or recognition (know-what), capacity to act (know-how), and understanding (know-why) that resides or is contained within the mind or in the brain

Earlier conceptions of data, Information and knowledge were that data was transformed into information and information is then transformed into knowledge. Definitions like this fail to take into account that at times knowledge is needed to interpret information and to create data out of this information Dick Stenmark (2002), he also indicates that data, information, and knowledge are interwoven and interrelated in more complicated ways. Kakabadse (2003) mentioned that the chain of knowledge is data-information-realization-action-wisdom. This is also not a good representation of “the chain of knowledge” as Dick Stenmark (2002) points out that this is not the case as the transition does not go the other way.

T.D Wilson’s (2002) definition of information and knowledge is quite similar to Dick Stenmarks’ in that he describes knowledge as what we know and information as when we express what we know be it in oral, written or whatever form, such messages do not contain knowledge, they contain information. It is then up to individual to understand this information and incorporate it into their own knowledge structure. Stenmarks’(2002) opinion is that knowledge is central and data and information are at the two opposite ends, he says if this focal knowledge is articulated into words then it is called information, he then says if this information loses its meaning so much that it becomes very distant from the knowledge required to interpret it, it is called data.

Stenmark (2002) gives an example using text. He points out that text itself is not enough to describe the knowledge to which it refers. He explains that the tacit knowledge of the reader must be compatible with that of the writer for them to fully understand the information.

I would also like to point out that what one person sees as information might be data to someone else. This problem arose when one of the groups giving a presentation on data, information and knowledge gave the example below. (This is not an actual representation of what they presented)

DATA ------------------------------INFORMATION

?? ....... .........- ?? ----- ----------------Name .......... Date of Birth
Mr A ............ 12/07/04 --------------- Mr A ............ 12/07/04
Mr B............. 23/09/98 --------------- Mr B ............ 23/09/98

They claimed that the table on the left was data and the one on the right was information. I pointed out that the figure on the right was exactly the same as that on left except it had been given context. They tried to explain that it might be information to them as the names and date had meaning to them. Although I was not convinced their representation was correct, I understood what they meant. To me it was still data but to them it was information. Or, it might be because my tacit knowledge was not compatible with theirs, I did not know for what purpose they would utilise the data or as they said information which is why we had different views. This just emphasises the fact that knowledge is required to interpret data and information.

After much contemplation, I believe data, knowledge and information are interrelated and each is needed to create the other. Information should be able to answer these questions for decision makers who, where and when. For example who should we target? Where should we market our products and when should do it. Knowledge on the other hand should be able to answer the how question. How do improve our products or services e.t.c.




REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
· Stenmark. D (2002). “Information vs. Knowledge: The Role of intranets in Knowledge Management” Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
· Lieu. A (2007). “Understanding Data, Information, Knowledge And Their Inter-Relationships”Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2
· Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H.( 1995.) “The knowledge-creating Company”, Oxford University Press, New York.
· Kakabadse. N, Kakabadse. A, Kouzmin. A.(2003). “eviewing the knowledge management literature”, journal of knowledge management.
· Wilson. T.D.(2002). “The nonsense of knowledge management”. Information research. Vol 8, No 1.

Communities of Practice Vs Organisations

Communities of Practice

Wenger et al. (2002, p. 4) defined Communities of Practice as groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis.

Edurne Loyarte and Olga Rivera in their paper “communities of practice: a model for their cultivation” say that communities of practice are not part of formal structures they also go ahead to say that they are informal entities that exist in the mind of each member (2007). I personally do not take this view. In my opinion, communities of practice could be part of a formal structure.

Take Middlesex University for example, it might encourage it lecturers (in the same field) to socialise outside of the university in order to share knowledge they might have. If these lecturers decide to meet say once every month to pool or share knowledge, can we now say because the structure or nature of their meetings are informal that they are not part of Middlesex University which is a formal organisation? I do not think so.

Communities of practice can help play an important role in an organisation by encouraging faster learning this might occur if the activities of the community of practice are aligned with the strategy of the organisation. Samo Palvin (2006) points out that both the community of practice and the organisation benefit from this. The organisation would benefit because there would be innovation which would lead to faster problem solving, quality and cost could also be improved. The community of practice could also benefit as knowledge would be shared faster.

Etienne Wenger(1999) points out that communities of practice unites three components namely people, knowledge and experience. Seeing as COP’s are made up of three components:
· the domain which signifies the area of knowledge that causes the people to meet
· the community which signifies the people that make up the community and usually in that domain and
· the practice which signifies knowledge, e.t.c. the members of the community discuss or share with each other.

It is very important that Communities of practice not be confused with teams as the term communities of practice are sometimes used incorrectly. It is also sometimes confused with a range of groups and even functional departments. (Paul et al 2000).Taking all of this into consideration, I understand a community of practice as a group of people that have a common interest and interact or meet regularly in such a way that each member of the community contributes/ shares and acquires knowledge from the other members for example the imperial team could be said to be a community of practice.


Organisations
The Oxford English dictionary defines an “organisation as an organised body of people with a particular purpose”. As stated in my earlier blog can be said to be a group of people working together to achieve a collective goal. I would also like to point out that organisations usually have objectives through which the goal or set of goals could be achieved and a strategy or set of strategies to optimally achieve their goals.

Differences between an organisation and a community of practice

As pointed out in my earlier blog on organisations and communities of practice, some noticeable differences between organisations and communities of practice are:

· Communities of practice usually have a shared domain of interest unlike organisations that have vast domains of interest.
· An organisation usually has a defined name while a community may or may not have a name.
· The main goal of an organisation is to gain profit while the goal of a community of practice is to gain knowledge.
· An organisation is usually formal in its structure while a community of practise might be formal or informal.
· Organisations usually have a hierarchy structure (i.e. leadership), communities of practice do not.
· An organistion ususally has well defined goals, objectives and strtegies that might help in achieving these goals, this is not always the case for communities of practice.

Although Communities of practices and organisations are different in so many ways, they can both be said to be social structures.

REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

· Loyarte. E and Rivera. O (2007) “communities of practice: a model for their cultivation” Journal of knowledge management vol. 11 no. 3 2007, pp. 67-77
· Wenger, E., McDermott, R.A. and Snyder, W. (2002), Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
· Palvin. S (2006) “Community of practice in a small research institute” journal of knowledge management. Vol 10. No 4
· Hildreth. P, Kimble. C, Wright. P (2000). “Communities of practice in the distributed international environment”. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol 4, No 1
· The Oxford English Dictionary

STRATEGY

STRATEGY
Strategy allows a business to sustain its competitive advantage over time. Michael. E Porter claims that an organisation can do better than its rivals if only it can establish an advantage that it can preserve, this can be done by delivering products at a reduced cost, delivering great value to customers or doing both (1996). Strategy can be defined as “the match an organization makes between its internal resources and skills, and the opportunities and risks created by its external environment” (Grant, 1991).

This is a definition that takes into account both internal and external factors and the relationship between an organisations resources and opportunities or risks that might come about as a result of its ever changing environment. As said on my previous post for Strategy and improving on that post, my understanding of strategy is a set of activities an organisation carries out to ensure its goals or objectives are achieved by effectively managing its assets and giving considerable thought to external factors.

Knowledge Management, a useful tool for organisations can be employed in such a way as to provide the organisation with a competitive advantage. It is therefore necessary that the Knowledge Management strategy of an organisation be closely aligned with the overall business strategy. If this is done, it will produce a substantial result to the organisation as a whole. This could be done by making the knowledge management strategy a sub-strategy for the business strategy. What I mean by this is making the knowledge management strategy in such a way that its success aids in achieving the organisations business strategy.

Using Abercrombie & Fitch as a case study, it would be helpful to see how such an organisation employs strategies and what type of strategies it employs. Although Abercrombie does not have an advertising campaign, they pride themselves in the brand name and the shopping experience customers get from visiting their stores shoppers all around the world get the same experience when visiting different stores as all the stores are set up in the same way. Some of the ways they have chosen to stand out from their competitors such as American Eagle Outfitters and Gap are the shirtless men in front of their stores and the girls dancing inside. The stores are also very dark inside with very loud music playing and fragrance is sprayed throughout the store and on the merchandise. Although this condition is not ideal for the older generation, it is ideal for their target age group (16 – 35). A lot of money is also spent in employing overnight staff to ensure the merchandise is folded to perfection to give the feeling of luxury to otherwise casual clothing. The feel a customer gets from the store is unique to Abercrombie and with an annual revenue of 3.7 billion dollars in 2008, it is obvious their strategy is working.

An argument that arose during one of the seminar classes was whether strategy was always long term or could it also be short term? After extensive research and reading, I can say that strategy need not always be long term as the objectives for a short term strategy might be the building blocks for a long term strategy. This obviously depends on the changing external environment.


REFERENCES


· Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic

Management Journal. Vol 17.
· M. Mazucatto (2002). “Strategy for business”. The open university press. London
· Porter, M.E. (1996), “What is strategy?” Harvard Business Review,

November/December, pg 61-78

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Knowledge management is a concept that has not been around for very long. It came about as a result of employees leaving their companies with important knowledge they had gained throughout the duration of their employment and probably from previous employment. Organisations then came to realise that they lost valuable information when they lost such employees and they came up with a method to ensure they were not badly affected if the holders of valuable knowledge left such organisations again.

This led management to undertake a “knowledge management'” strategy in an effort to store and retain employee knowledge for the future benefit of the company (Forbes, 1997). Organisations are now trying to use technology and systems to capture the knowledge that inhabits the minds of their employees, so it can be easily distributed within the organisation. When stored, this knowledge becomes a reusable resource that can provide a wealth of competitive advantages, including enhanced organisational capacities, facilitating output, and lowering costs (Forbes, 1997).

My understanding of knowledge management can be said to be the process in which an organisation attains and stores the knowledge of knowledgeable employees and in a way that is readily available to other employees of that organisation and can help that organisation develop new opportunities. This knowledge can be shared in an organisation by socialising, groupware, networking and encouraging employees to exchange information formally or informally and by other means.

According to Maria Martenson (2000) Knowledge is a critical factor for the survival of any organisation. As it can be said to help improve performance (Ostro 1997), a way to reduce research costs and delays (Maglitta 1995), a way to capture the best practices (Cole- Gomolski 1998) and also a way to improve sharing and using of knowledge within an organisation (Maglitta 1995) and also improve business performance, quality and performance( McAdam and Reid 2001) and to help gain competitive advantages. Although Rob Sharkie (2003) points out that for knowledge management to help a business gain competitive advantage, knowledge must be unique to that organisation as publicly known knowledge only helps improve business performance and rarely allows that organisation gain a competitive advantage.

If this is the case why is it that employees find it difficult to share their expertise amongst themselves? Forbes(1997) explains that the reason for this might be because employees are competitive by nature so they might feel the need to hoard any knowledge they might have gained rather than share such knowledge. Organisations, in an attempt to better exploit knowledge now try to store individuals’ knowledge by making tacit knowledge explicit and transforming individuals’ knowledge into organisational knowledge, this process has been made possible through recent developments within IT (Martenson 2000).

According to Mark W Sailsbury (2003), there are three different stages in knowledge management. First, the knowledge is created, then it is preserved and it is finally distributed. This distributed knowledge might also be an input for solving new problems in the next knowledge creation phase. This process could be said to be the knowledge management cycle.


THEORY INTO PRACTICE

Using Abercrombie & Fitch as an example, one cannot help but notice the “creation, preservation and distribution” (Mark W Sailsbury 2003) phases of knowledge when a problem arises. Take for example: It was noticed that employees could not bring back their giveaways (free uniform) to exchange it for a different size on their new systems once it had been put through the till. This was because it had been programmed into the system as 100% reduction in the price of the item. Any attempts made to scan the item and try to exchange it, caused the system to override the transaction leaving the employee with a balance to pay as it did not register that the item they wanted to exchange it for was discounted at a 100% as well. It became quite a big issue as having over 400 employees, there was always a queue of people did not try on their uniforms before taking it over to the till.

This was not working as customers also had to queue at the same till to pay for their purchases, and some left without paying for the merchandise as queues were getting long. A senior manager was then alerted about the problem as no one had any idea of what to do about it. He then later figured out that if you scanned the item and manually entered the 100% discount, you could later exchange the same item for a different size or colour as long as it was something from the giveaway collection.

This phase could be called the knowledge creation phase, as a new problem was identified and then it was solved so knowledge was created. The next phase, the preservation phase although not directly applicable in this scenario as the knowledge gained was not recorded in any format, Although the problem along with the solution was relayed to other management staff. So one could argue that that was preserving the knowledge. The distributing phase could be directly linked to the training that the cashiers were given each morning to help them deal with the problem if they ever encountered it again. Or the senior managers reporting it to their superiors(the regional managers) who in turn discussed this problem and its solutions with other regional mangers.





REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Groenhaug, K. and Nordhaug, O. (1992), ``Strategy and competence in firms'', European Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 438-44.
• Forbes (1997), ``Knowledge management: the era of shared ideas'', Forbes, Vol. 160 No. 6.
• Martensson, M. (2000), "A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool", Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 4 . Number 3.
• Ostro, N. (1997), ``The corporate brain'', Chief Executive, Vol. 123, May, pp. 58-62.
• Maglitta, J. (1995), ``Smarten up!'', Computerworld, Vol. 29 No. 23, 5 June, p. 84(3).
• Cole-Gomolski, B. (1997b), ``Users loath to share their know-how'', Computerworld, Vol. 31 No. 46.
• R. Sharkie(2003) “knowledge creation and its place in development of sustainable competitive advantage” Journal of knowledge management vol 7 no1 2003.

Organisational Strategy

For an organisation to be successful, it usually has goals and objectives. To achieve these goals, strategies are developed to ensure the goals are achieved to the maximum. These strategies are activities or a group of activities the organisation carries out.

Organisations

An organisation

can be said to be a group of people working together to achieve a collective goal. An organisation could be a commercial or industrial body.

A community of practice

According to Etienne Wenger (2007), "Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly". This could also be a group of people that have a common interest and also share knowledge and experience within the group to achieve a common goal.
Communities of practice have three characteristics namely the domain, the community and the practice.

Differences between an organisation and a community of practice

• Communities of practice usually have a shared domain of interest unlike organisations that have vast domains of interest.
• An organisation usually has a defined name while a community may or may not have a name.
• An organisation is usually formal in its structure while a community of practise might be formal or informal.
• organisations usually have a hierachy structure( i.e leadership), communities of practice do not.
• An organistion ususally has well defined goals, objectives and strtegies that might help in achieving these goals, this is not always the case for communities of practice.

References:

• Smith, M.K. (2003). "Communities of practice". The Encyclopedia of Informal Education
• http://www.ewenger.com/theory/