**5. Results**

342 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

During the second stage in the ACCELERA project, which was carried out between 2006 and 2009, the activities centred on analysing the roles of the agents and processes that are

 To describe and analyse the characteristics of the different agents that take part in KCM networks (participants, moderators and knowledge managers) as well as the strategies

 To analyse some of the fundamental processes and factors in the proper development of online KCM, including participation, motivation, group dynamics (cohesion,

The final sample in the study was made up of 343 people (14 CoP moderators, 28 institutional managers and 301 CoP participants) in fourteen CoPs chosen intentionally according to three criteria: a) they develop KCM processes in socio-educational/training environments; b) their KCM is based on online and/or in-person communities of practice;

The CoPs ultimately chosen came from the Centre for Legal Studies and Specialised Training of the Generalitat de Catalunya (4 CoPs), the Health Protection Agency of the Generalitat de Catalunya (4 CoPs), the Educational Management Support Network in Latin America (2 CoPs), the Coyahique Commune in Chile (2 CoPs) and the Autonomous

The methods used to gather information included an exploratory interview with the institutional managers, knowledge managers and moderators of the fourteen communities, content analysis of the forums based on the Community of Inquiry model (Garrison, Anderson & Archer, 2001), analysis of the general operation of the communities, and questionnaires for the participants and two discussion groups with the participation of some members of the communities, institutional managers and experts in various fields of KCM. All the instruments were devised based on the following measures, which were in turn drawn from the basic dimensions of any KCM process (Collison & Parcell, 2003; Gorelick, Milton a& April, 2004; Milton, 2005; Petrides & Nguyen, 2006, Rodríguez-Gomez, 2009): 1. Information and communication technologies for KCM: Today it is difficult to imagine a KCM system that does not entail the use of ICTs, especially in the processes of transferring, storing, processing, accessing and organising data, information and knowledge. However, a disproportionate use of ICTs can pervert KCM systems and

2. KCM processes: It is crucial to plan all the KCM-related processes. The novelty and complexity of KCM processes means that organisations focus on and invest many resources into planning pilot tests and later forget to disseminate this project to the rest of the organisation. For example, the absence or lack of clarity in the KCM goals can serve as an impediment to the success of a project, as can the clarity of the language and goals or fitting the breadth of interpretations attributable to the concepts used in this field (such as knowledge, information, learning, etc.). Likewise, it is important to stress that KCM initiatives can end up in failure without a prior diagnostic evaluation that helps us to contextualise their development and indicates how and why to proceed, if the personal responsibilities are not clarified and established or if the existence of a KCM team devoted especially to designing, developing and evaluating the process is

make them resemble data and information management systems.

involved and take part in KCM in virtual environments. The objective was twofold:

productivity, etc.), ethics, communication processes and content analysis.

they use during the processes they carry out.

and c) the participants had easy access to the CoP.

University of Barcelona (2 CoPs).

not promoted.

**4. Method** 

The analysis and validation of the data obtained from the participants and institutional managers of the fourteen CoPs analysed, as well as the contributions from the numerous experts invited to participate in the discussion groups on the study, enable us to present a proposal for KCM processes and agents based on CoPs and on the ACCELERA model for KCM.

The smooth functioning of online KCM requires the involvement of at least five agents with specified functions, profiles, spaces for participation and roles. What is more, we should consider the fact that online KCM entails different stages of planning, development and dissemination, and in this sense, the participation of any given agent can be related to each of the processes involved (see Figure 2).

In the case of the ACCELERA KCM model, the agents involved in the design and development of any process are the following (Rodríguez-Gómez, Armengol, Fuentes & Muñoz, 2011, p.169-170):


Agents and Processes in Knowledge Creation

**Institutional Manager** 

Creating conditions Designing Acting Verifying Incorporating Sharing

Fig. 2. Roles and processes in KCM

processes, criticised, reused, systematised, etc.

and Management in Educational Organisations 345

phase enables the participants to access the network so that they can shift from tacit (personal) knowledge to explicit (shared) knowledge. This is when a socialisation process gets underway in which the participants share their individual knowledge (theoretical and

> **Technical Facilitator**  (Ensuring the technological functioning of the network)

**Participants**  (Outlining, sharing, interpreting, reusing)

**Network Moderator**  (Motivating, bringing together, moderating, organising, guiding)

The Network Moderator appointed must guide and stimulate the debate, help with group cohesion through regular monitoring of the network, and organise the information and knowledge that are generated through precise moderation. The participants' interventions entail sharing their experience and culture, making their personal knowledge explicit, interpreting and reusing their colleagues' contributions, reflecting on their own beliefs and culture, socially elaborating information and formalising shared knowledge, among others. One important way to improve the efficacy of a KCM network is to encourage the participants to start a dialogue that grows as they share schema, formulas, metaphors, analogies, documents, bibliographic references, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, models, etc. and to encourage the contributions to be analysed, compared, categorised, interpreted,

This dialogue takes on meaning by combining externalisation and individual explanation with the reflection on a social network, giving rise to the creation and internalisation of new

practical, aptitudes, attitudes, etc.), with the goal of contributing to the KCM.

**Network Director** 

generation of a culture that fosters autonomy and self-regulation in order to improve the quality and continuity of the KCM.

 **Participants (P).** The participants are the users of the network, and they are truly at its core since the network has no raison d'être without them. They must shoulder the responsibility of joining the network and participating in it periodically. There are numerous kinds of users, although practice distinguishes three roles: the core active group, the peripheral group with more sporadic participation and the lurkers or passive participants.

The participants must converse with each other and establish an enriching dialogue that promotes the exchange of information based on criteria established by the director and moderator of the network. Their participation should produce new and relevant information for the joint construction of knowledge. The interaction they engage in should be sustained on the outline of ideas, the formulation of questions, discussions on different alternative approaches, contributions of relevant materials and documentation, reflections on the topics proposed and their practice, the sharing of their own or familiar experiences, briefings and criticisms of works, doubts, successes, difficulties and more.

KCM professionals require a multidisciplinary set of competences which enable them to successful deal with any of the processes inherent in KCM (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2009), such as searching for information, using knowledge, evaluating information and knowledge, reformulating questions, filtering information and knowledge, generating contents, synthesising, and organising and classifying data and information. Al-Hawamdeh (2003) groups the set of competences that KCM professionals should have into six categories: technology, information, communication, leadership and management, analysis and personal qualities.

As well as these considerations, it should be borne in mind that in addition to the objective of the network and the desirable active participation of its users, the size of the groups, the number of participants, the forms of participation and the distribution of roles and responsibilities of all the agents affect the KCM. In particular, the entire set of aptitudes and attitudes of each agent involved; the planning, categorisation and distribution of jobs; control over the interactions as the foundation of the communication systems; ethics and the governance of the network or the type of structures that govern the organisation; and the management of the content flow are just a few of the issues which should be taken into consideration.

An integration of phases, agents and processes validated in ACCELERA is shown in Table 4. The PRIOR phase includes the presentation of the KCM through an organisational and cultural diagnostic, which enables the needs to be detected and prioritised. Thus, the map of existing knowledge in the organisation can be completed with the contributions by the participants in the development phase.

After the organisational structure has been evaluated and the strengths and weaknesses identified comes the PLANNING stage. The first step is to assemble a team that will design and develop the KCM process. The members of this team must complement each other and have diverse knowledge (intellectual capital, technology systems, organisational learning, training, management of cultural change, group dynamics, etc.). The members of the group must obviously include the Institutional Manager and the Network Director. At the same time, direct contacts should be forged with the Network Moderator and the ICT Facilitator.

The processes in the IMPLEMENTATION phase refer to the nature of the communication (characteristics, contents, processes, etc.), the participatory processes (natural or induced), the cohesion among the members of the network and their motivation. The start of this

 **Participants (P).** The participants are the users of the network, and they are truly at its core since the network has no raison d'être without them. They must shoulder the responsibility of joining the network and participating in it periodically. There are numerous kinds of users, although practice distinguishes three roles: the core active group, the peripheral group with more sporadic participation and the lurkers or passive

The participants must converse with each other and establish an enriching dialogue that promotes the exchange of information based on criteria established by the director and moderator of the network. Their participation should produce new and relevant information for the joint construction of knowledge. The interaction they engage in should be sustained on the outline of ideas, the formulation of questions, discussions on different alternative approaches, contributions of relevant materials and documentation, reflections on the topics proposed and their practice, the sharing of their own or familiar experiences, briefings and

KCM professionals require a multidisciplinary set of competences which enable them to successful deal with any of the processes inherent in KCM (Rodríguez-Gómez, 2009), such as searching for information, using knowledge, evaluating information and knowledge, reformulating questions, filtering information and knowledge, generating contents, synthesising, and organising and classifying data and information. Al-Hawamdeh (2003) groups the set of competences that KCM professionals should have into six categories: technology, information,

As well as these considerations, it should be borne in mind that in addition to the objective of the network and the desirable active participation of its users, the size of the groups, the number of participants, the forms of participation and the distribution of roles and responsibilities of all the agents affect the KCM. In particular, the entire set of aptitudes and attitudes of each agent involved; the planning, categorisation and distribution of jobs; control over the interactions as the foundation of the communication systems; ethics and the governance of the network or the type of structures that govern the organisation; and the management of the content flow are just a few of the issues which should be taken into

An integration of phases, agents and processes validated in ACCELERA is shown in Table 4. The PRIOR phase includes the presentation of the KCM through an organisational and cultural diagnostic, which enables the needs to be detected and prioritised. Thus, the map of existing knowledge in the organisation can be completed with the contributions by the

After the organisational structure has been evaluated and the strengths and weaknesses identified comes the PLANNING stage. The first step is to assemble a team that will design and develop the KCM process. The members of this team must complement each other and have diverse knowledge (intellectual capital, technology systems, organisational learning, training, management of cultural change, group dynamics, etc.). The members of the group must obviously include the Institutional Manager and the Network Director. At the same time, direct contacts should be forged with the Network Moderator and the ICT Facilitator. The processes in the IMPLEMENTATION phase refer to the nature of the communication (characteristics, contents, processes, etc.), the participatory processes (natural or induced), the cohesion among the members of the network and their motivation. The start of this

communication, leadership and management, analysis and personal qualities.

the quality and continuity of the KCM.

criticisms of works, doubts, successes, difficulties and more.

participants.

consideration.

participants in the development phase.

generation of a culture that fosters autonomy and self-regulation in order to improve

phase enables the participants to access the network so that they can shift from tacit (personal) knowledge to explicit (shared) knowledge. This is when a socialisation process gets underway in which the participants share their individual knowledge (theoretical and practical, aptitudes, attitudes, etc.), with the goal of contributing to the KCM.

The Network Moderator appointed must guide and stimulate the debate, help with group cohesion through regular monitoring of the network, and organise the information and knowledge that are generated through precise moderation. The participants' interventions entail sharing their experience and culture, making their personal knowledge explicit, interpreting and reusing their colleagues' contributions, reflecting on their own beliefs and culture, socially elaborating information and formalising shared knowledge, among others.

One important way to improve the efficacy of a KCM network is to encourage the participants to start a dialogue that grows as they share schema, formulas, metaphors, analogies, documents, bibliographic references, thoughts, feelings, beliefs, models, etc. and to encourage the contributions to be analysed, compared, categorised, interpreted, processes, criticised, reused, systematised, etc.

This dialogue takes on meaning by combining externalisation and individual explanation with the reflection on a social network, giving rise to the creation and internalisation of new

Agents and Processes in Knowledge Creation

PLAN FOR THE EVALUATION PROCESS

DEVELOPMENT OF ACTION PLAN

PARTICIPATION

DEVELOPMENT OF FOLLOW-UP AND REVISION MECHANISMS

IN THE NETWORK DESIGNED

IMPLEMENTATION –

SPECIFIC REVISION "Acting"

and Management in Educational Organisations 347

Deciding on the most appropriate kinds of strategies and instruments to inform the

Defining the training needs to participate in a

Defining evaluation criteria and designing the revision process and instruments: data gathering, drawing up reports, timeline... Design of feedback mechanisms.

Institutional Manager

Network Director

ICT Facilitator

ICT Facilitator

Moderator

Moderator

Dissemination of the results of the evaluation regarding the process and the agreements

Presenting the guide to using the platform. Fostering access to the network and resolving

Motivating and creating a pleasant climate. Establishing moderation criteria and ensuring

Offering feedback and redirecting the topics, if

Reinforcing relationships among people; organising and coordination interaction among

Facilitating the KCM: Discovering the hot points in discussions, guaranteeing the relevancy and quality of the contributions, introducing external information when

Ascertaining the problems as they arise in

Proposing syntheses and/or conclusions.

Active and constructive participation in the

Writing efficacy reports or suggestions during the course of the network, detecting difficulties and progress, launching self-observation and revision mechanisms, launching feedback

KCM network launched. Participants

Timeline of the evaluation plan.

technical problems, if there are any. Guiding the project towards the objectives

Organising and suggesting work.

Defining the mechanisms to motivate the

process.

stakeholders.

participants.

reached.

established.

necessary.

necessary.

mechanisms.

order to affect them.

the participants.

that they are followed.

virtual KCM network.

knowledge, knowledge that can be organisational and which, if it is, should directly contribute to institutional improvement.


knowledge, knowledge that can be organisational and which, if it is, should directly

Determining the origin of the demand. Identifying the ultimate purpose of creating the KM network: to change values, to improve the curriculum, for professional development, for

Contextual conditions: a) analysis of external factors: administrative, academic and economic autonomy, and b) analysis of internal factors: culture and climate of the institution, educational purposes, structures, interactive system, role of the managerial team, tradition of teamwork, tradition of reflexive processes of

RESPONSIBLE

Institutional Manager

Institutional Manager

Institutional Manager

Participants

Institutional Manager

Network Director

ICT Facilitator

Participants

Moderator

Network Director

PHASES ACTIONS DESCRIPTION AGENT

organisational reasons...

analysis and problem-solving.

Degree of integration in relations. Group working dynamic.

Capacity to adjust to new situations. Level of harmony to create shared visions. Existence of leaders with the ability to

Involvement and support of initiatives.

Clarification and precise formulation of the problems and dysfunctions which can be improved or issues to be addressed.

Organisation of general avenues of action, definition of the working methodology and outline of the action plan: step-by-step actions (specific, identifiable, observable, matching the objectives), logistical planning to carry them

Defining the roles and functions of the people involved and agreeing on the process and mechanisms of participation and control. Mobilisation of the resources needed. Assessment of the costs, risks and opportunities of embarking upon a KCM

out, definition of a timeline.

Degree of efficiency of processes. New challenges and demands. Nature of the contents to be improved: structural, academic, management, etc.

NEEDS Categorisation and prioritisation.

motivate.

Degree of motivation.

contribute to institutional improvement.

KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONTEXT OF ACTION

DETECTION OF

DETECTION OF OBSTACLES TO LAUNCHING THE NETWORK

IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES THAT MIGHT BE ADDRESSED

SETTING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE NETWORK

GENERAL AND SPECIFIC ACTION PLANS

PRIOR PHASE

PLANNING

"Designing"

"Creating conditions"


Agents and Processes in Knowledge Creation

**6. Conclusions** 

collaborative work.

Kollock, 2003).

and Management in Educational Organisations 349

The concern with innovation and improvement in educational centres has always been present in the individuals involved in their management and operation, although the focal points have changed according to the successes achieved and expected. The initial importance of extraordinary teaching staff is no longer as important compared as have the necessary collective, coordinated efforts when the period of schooling is on the rise. Here we are discussing schools as spaces of innovation, and the stress is on collaborative work. Making the concern with endowing educational institutions with a shared, common culture promotes consensus and the clarification of objectives (reformulating the educational project, the curricular project, the normative regulations, etc.) and the transformation of structures (spaces and times for meetings, development of catalysts, etc.); that is, the goal is to reinforce the organisation as a global reality by developing a support structure and

This structural concern has not been sufficient to achieve the effects sought, and thus in recent years the importance of people and organisational processes has been reconsidered. First, the personal characteristics and contextual conditions related to professional collaboration have been analysed, while secondly there has been an attempt to identify

The concepts of learning community and community of practice developed in this vein include the feeling of belonging, as well as a clearly determined orientation: the interaction among the members of the community should enable each and every member to progress while also strengthening a shared culture and the possibility that learning and organisational improvement can come to fruition. This is the individual and collective learning that justifies calling these communities formative, even if they adopt different

Professional communities of practice (CoPs) can be set up and developed either in person or through the web. Virtual communities of practice offer several advantages over the more traditional method of working teams: (a) they make it possible to forge asynchronic relationships that facilitate collaborative activities without threatening individual autonomy, thus leading to the acquisition of knowledge constructively and with high social interaction; (b) they facilitate processes of collaboration in which the participants produce knowledge actively by formulating ideas in writing which are shared and constructed based on others' reactions and responses; (c) in the opinion of Silva (2004), they allow more time to consider opinions after reflection and to discuss complex ideas; (d) our knowledge can be extended because of the diversity of the other participants; and (e) they take advantage of the emancipating capacity of certain uses of technology, its capacity to impact users and their environment, improvements in coordinating actions and a reduction in costs (Smith &

However, we should bear in mind several limitations: (a) a restriction due to the written language, which is linked to finding the right tone, the fluidity of the conversation and the loss of richness from gestural language, especially for those with lower writing skills; (b) excess information: over-saturation of information, high time demands and complications in managing all this information; (c) the lack of training in the use of the platform by both the moderators and the other participants is yet another stumbling block that must be overcome for the online training actions to be effective; and (d) the most appropriate materials and/or knowledge are not always available, leading to technical problem related to the set-up of the

effective processes associated with professional and organisational development.

guises, such as professional communities of practice.

system and the access to and use of the network.


Table 4. Phases and actions in the ACCELERA network (based on Gairín, 2002)

The end of cycles must signal EVALUATION processes. Drawing up evaluation reports from the vantage point of each of the stakeholders involved should allow the planning (objectives, tasks proposed, timing, etc.), construction and selection of instruments and technological resources, information outlining and gathering and the agility and effectiveness of the knowledge generated to be assessed.

Likewise, it is important to evaluate to what extent the benefits of online KCM may last over time and become a valuable asset, that is, to assess the impact of the network on the institution.

Finally, the experience must be INSTITUTIONALISED. Communication of the experience online can give rise to organisational knowledge which must be internally disseminated in order to promote institutional improvement and lead, if possible, to generating interorganisational knowledge. The external DISSEMINATION is extremely important for organising the knowledge generated and exploiting it in a way that enables the participating organisations to keep and/or generate a competitive advantage.
