**5.1 Personal Knowledge Governance (PKG)**

232 New Research on Knowledge Management Models and Methods

appropriate actions is neither in the actions themselves, nor in the what's 'out there'. We could also show that our knowledge governance audit can not only tie together the findings of all other available diagnoses (this we showed by describing the contributing factors to the corporate identity crises and how it related to risk management and corporate culture issues) but can answer the seeming reluctance of the organisation to make progress on its most presssing issues (this we demonstrated by preparing the Meta-filter diagnosis that

The relevance of our model to knowledge governance is in emphasising that by taking into account the characteristics of both protocols that interact to create a representation of the organisation's reality, it is easier to see that appropriateness of action and utilisation of relevant knowledge will harbor on how the Corporate Mind orchestrates the interactive linkages among its own functions. Successfully mobilised and coordinated knowledge bases will promote a degree of organisational cohesion that supports performance progress. In case of the less successful ones, their very own actions will be putting strain on the permeability of the system that in turn prevents relevant knowledge to bear on decisions. In sum, the approach taken here proposes that knowledge as it pertains to the development of an appropriate reaction to competitive pressure, one that takes both the complicatedness and complexity of the business issue into account, is the key the driving factor behind

Knowledge governance has two main interpretation levels in the early literature: the company- (micro-) and the national (macro-) level. For example, knowledge governance has been discussed as a profitability issue at the company level and as an effectiveness issue at the government level in the research project series of the University of Bonn. Whitley (2000) conceptually classified knowledge governance as: 1) *enterpreneurial knowledge governance* based upon knowledge codification and privatization, and the organizational methods of generation and usage of new corporate knowledge, and 2) *associative knowledge governance*,

> **The Dalal-Z.Karvalics model 2009**

> > Company *Micro-level*

> > Nation(al) *Meso-level*

Global *Macro-level* 

Entrepreneurial and associative knowledge governance are simultaneously evolving narratives sharing many similarities such as the inclusion of holistic approaches and highlevel planning and control functions. Smits and Moor composed an indicator system to measure the effectivity of corporate knowledge management, dubbing it the "Knowledge

**Z. Karvalics four layer model 2011** 

> Individual *Nano-level*  Company *Micro-level*

Nation(al) *Meso-level* 

Global *Macro-level* 

which addresses the macro-level distribution of the complex forms of knowledge.

showed on overwhelming presence of loop-dominance in the content area).

**5. The extension of knowledge governance framework** 

**model** 

Company *Micro-level* 

Nation(al) *Macro-level* 

Table 2. Development of Knowledge Governance Models

organisational success.

**Original model Advanced** 

Company/ Corporate/ Enterpreneurial Once upon a time the discourse has started with the Personal Information Management (PIM), the practice and training of skills professionals need "*to process the information, save time, and work more effectively*"(Etzel & Thomas, 1999) in organizational (business) environment. With other words: how to manage the constantly and rapidly changing Personal Information Technologies (PIT's - hardware and software components, methods, services, etc.) in work. Later (Jones, 2007) and recently (Jones & Marchionini, 2011) William Jones has started to broaden the definition: Personal information management (PIM) is "*the practice and study of the activities people perform to acquire, organize, maintain, and retrieve information for everyday use*", more generally: *PIM is about taking charge of the information in our lives*.

David Pauleen was the first to go one step beyond, introducing the "Personal Knowledge Management" (PKM) (Pauleen, 2011), "*coping with complex environmental changes and developments…* as a *"form of sophisticated career and life management. "*Personal Knowledge Management" is an emerginging concept *"that focuses on the importance of individual growth and learning as much as on the technology and management processes traditionally associated with organizational knowledge management".* 

The "physical" infrastructure of its individual "nano-level" constituted by the concept of Personal Area Network (PAN). Integrating the existing Personal Information Technologies (PIT's ), Personal Information Management (PIM) and Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) approaches and combining it with the emerging Personal Learning Environments (PLE), it seems to be very topical to define a new, synthetic Personal Knowledge Governance frame. It contains all the mentioned parts, bundling up into a (personal) set of planning and performance activities, based on values, goals, personal and family considerations.
