**2. Knowledge and knowledge management**

*Current Issues in Knowledge Management*

from the traditional view of human capital.

co-operation and informal learning [5].

in human assets. Managing knowledge effectively is as a significant factor in innovating faster and better than competitors [4–6]. Human resource management (HRM) practices—major contributor to organizations' competitive advantage—should be utilized to manage organizational human assets through facilitating the development of competencies that generate organizational knowledge [4, 5, 7–9]. Ananthram et al. [3] suggested that a new paradigm of HRM is evolving towards "strategic human assets" theory in pursuit of firm global competitive advantage. This paradigm is built on two pillars: strategic agility and knowledge management (KM). However, much of the literature of KM continues to reflect a techno-centric focus, similar to that of information management, which in essence regards knowledge as an entity that can be captured, manipulated and leveraged. This is a limited and ultimately hazardous perception [4]. It is widely accepted that "it is not technology, but the art of humanand humane-management" that is the continuing challenge for executives [5]. In this regard, Gloet [4] illustrated a revitalization of the HRM function to respond to the demands of the knowledge economy, looking both within and outside the organization. The traditional focus on managing people has been broadened to managing organizational capabilities, relationships, learning and knowledge. Banerjee [6] also believes that we must look beyond human capital to a more sustainable and holistic view of individuals; suggesting the term "sustainable human capital" that moves away

The collective knowledge of human expertise through their abilities, experience and interaction with the individual's environment has become such a critical resource to reinvest [1]. It is important that knowledge is viewed as a social creation emerging at the interface between people and information, especially within communities engaged in communication, knowledge-creation, and knowledgesharing and learning [4]. The most crucial point about HRM is that people and their interpersonal relations become and are treated as resources [10]. The success of strategic HRM in the knowledge economy also depends on its ability to harness the hidden potential in the informal social architecture, including tacit knowledge,

HRM and KM are two people-centered concepts focusing on using, sharing and creating knowledge [5, 8]. Mainly, knowledge cannot be managed in the void without people—and vice versa [10]. As Thite [5] identified some key HR strategies for effective people-centric partnership in KM, namely, trusting HR philosophy, institutionalizing learning to learn, and fine-tuning HR systems in recruitment, retention, performance and reward management [5]. Most researchers suggest that KM can be interpreted as a form of HRM. In particular, HRM supports employees in creating and managing knowledge through the sharing of ideas, opinions and

Successful businesses demand high-performing HRM practices and effective KM capacity. Those are two complementary processes and interdependent constructs in the theory of knowledge-based view of the firm as they have a direct link with strategic management and strategic HRM [3, 8]. At the firm-level, the theory suggests that organizations must make investments in developing the human capital of their workforce in order to increase firm performance [6]. Svetlik and Stavrou-Costea [10] demonstrate the benefits of using an integrative approach between HRM and KM, where one reinforces and supports the other in enhancing organizational effectiveness and performance. Gope et al. [8] argue that HRM practices can improve management process at the organizational level by increasing employees' skills and abilities, influencing their behavior and attitudes and increasing their motivation and learning capacity, and through facilitating the development of competencies. Specifically, the contribution of HRM to KM is at the high end of the value chain as it primarily creates and sustains a culture that fosters innovation,

**78**

experiences [8].

In order to understand KM, the underpinning idea of the knowledge concept needs to be examined and understood, as differing perceptions of knowledge tend to shape the various KM perspectives. Broadly, the knowledge concept is debated among two main groups: objectivists and those who adopt "epistemology of practice" [11]. This categorization in Ryle (1963), cited in Nilsson and Ellström [12], is referred to as a "theoretical component" and a "practical component". Objectivists view knowledge as an object that can be referred to as declarative, propositional or codified knowledge and can be managed separately. Objectivists classify knowledge into various types and provide models of how to manage their interactions and transformations. The most popular categorization is the differentiation between explicit and tacit knowledge, for example, see [13]. Another common labeling is concerned with where knowledge is situated. It differentiates between personal and organizational knowledge. Organizational knowledge is infused in the organization itself, whether systematically through procedures or unsystematically through culture [14]. Their main philosophical approach is dualism, which depends on classifications, taxonomies and contingencies [15].

Alternatively, members of the "epistemology of practice" propose that knowledge is tacit in nature and is unlikely to be transformed fully into explicit knowledge. Practical knowledge or "know-how" is associated with experience, is implicit or expressed only in practice, and is thus inseparable from actions [12, 15]. Even if tacit knowledge was partially transformed into explicit knowledge, it will unavoidably contain tacit aspects. Moreover, even if employees are willing to express the knowledge they are in possession of, the likelihood is that they know more than they initially realize. In this sense, knowledge cannot be perceived as a separate object from the knower. "Epistemology of practice" follows a duality philosophy that depends upon structurational models, theories of practice and pragmatism [15]. The most important factor here is the personal nature of tacit knowledge, which requires the willingness, on the part of those workers who possess it, to share and communicate it [16].

Differing perspectives of what knowledge is lead to differing KM formulations. Reviewing existent various KM definitions and categorizing them based on defining the nature of knowledge, reflects the basic assumption of two paradigms that have been labeled differently. These two paradigms can be illustrated in a continuum with a range from IT-based/Hard/Calculative/Mechanistic/Scientific paradigm to a Social/Organic/Soft/Humanistic one. In reality, juncture and coproximity orientations of each paradigm stem from ontological and epistemological assumptions on KM's nature [17]. Those two paradigms lead to two KM approaches/ perspective. The first is IT-focused, where organizations approach KM in a mechanistic, systematic and techno-centric way to enhance knowledge integration and creation [2, 17]. The second is HR-focused, where firms' orientation to KM is more ecological-focused and people-centric, aiming to increase employee interaction and to flourish employee behaviors and an organizational culture that enhances KM activities such as knowledge sharing and creation [2, 17].

The IT perspective perceives KM as a process to store information into databases logically and make knowledge accessible [11, 18]. With this in mind, the main KM goal here could be seen as the codification of knowledge. This codification step is believed to minimize the risk of knowledge loss and maximize knowledge sharing, protection and utilization. A major criticism of IT usage in this context is that it deals with knowledge as information, i.e., it separates it from the knower. However, even if this could be considered "doable," there are still other factors to be considered. The "interpretive flexibility" symptom is one of these factors and is a symptom that reveals itself when an employee is contributing or interpreting information.

In contrast, the HR perspective emphasizes the point that IT solutions are information providers only. They are considered to lack comprehension, be vulnerable and not to encourage trust and loyalty among the workforce of a company. The quintessence of the HR perspective is based on interaction, networking, direct tacit knowledge-sharing and building a knowledge-sharing/creating culture [19]. Knowledge-intensive organizations need to develop a culture that promotes organizational learning; that encourages innovation and the development of novel systems and processes, products and services [20].

KM approaches take an organizational focus in order to optimize organization design and workflows [2]. The approach and perspective to KM can be considered essential to forming a KM strategy. Decision makers' attitude towards the knowledge concept, KM perspective and their managerial philosophy translates into a KM strategy. Alignment between organizational, HRM and KM strategies is a key element for organizational management in the knowledge era [7]. So, in order to operationalize KM into a strategy, we need to understand how organizations view KM.

The predominant view among academics and practitioners seems to be that KM is a "process"; a set of interrelated activities that should be facilitated—mainly through informal mechanisms that are supported by leadership styles and organizational practices, for example, see [15]. The process aims to make the maximum use of knowledge existent within organizations. Hosseingholizadeh [17] on the base of reviewing 32 KM models, found that nine main components (core knowledge activities) that can be viewed as a process of KM. Those are goal setting and knowledge identification, creation, acquisition, evaluation, organization, preservation, retention and update, sharing, application, and finally KM effectiveness evaluation. She added that this process-based approach is vital to improving knowledge work activities.

Following the IT and HR perspectives, Hansen et al. [21] proposed two main strategies: codification and personalization, respectively. Each stresses various KM activities and their interrelations and management.

Codification aims at codifying and storing knowledge with a high dependency on IT for further reuse. Its competitiveness lies in the ability to deliver fast, reliable and high-quality solutions, which are usually mature services and competitively priced [21]. Personalization refers to the development of tacit knowledge that is based on employee insights, intuition and personal skills for solving complex problems. Such knowledge is mainly shared through direct person-to-person contacts. Dialogs, learning histories and communities of practice are among the techniques that have to be used in order to facilitate tacit knowledge sharing. Personalization and explorative learning are closely related, where explorative learning is associated with complex search, basic research, innovation, risk-taking and more relaxed controls. The stress is on flexibility, investment in learning and the creation of new capabilities [22]. Personalization competitive advantage is creativity and innovation in supplying unique and customized services that can be priced at high-profit margins [21].

**81**

**Figure 1.**

*The knowledge management sequential model.*

*Aligning Human Resource Management with Knowledge Management for Better Organizational…*

Hansen et al. [21] highlighted that the two strategies differ in addressing the competitive strategy, economic models, IT and HR. This account stresses the need for the best fit between HRM practices an organization's approach to managing knowledge work [22]. Realizing that, in reality, organizations usually use a combination of the two strategies, Hansen et al. [21] argued that one strategy will be used to a greater extent whilst the other one is relegated to a more supportive role. They claimed that one should be stressed or else the KM strategy's focus will be confusing and will lead to failure and inconsistency with the organizational strategy. The codification strategy and low-cost strategy, for instance, both focus on effectiveness, lowering cost and standardization. The combined KM and general strategy of this kind are called exploitative strategy. Similarly, personalization strategy and differentiation center on new capabilities, innovation and new ways of working. This kind of KM and general strategy is termed as an explorative strategy [22]. Both strategies have the capacity to be successful, if the correct strategy is chosen accord-

However, many scholars criticized Hansen et al. [21] claim that either personalization or codification should be dominant. For example, Edwards et al. [23] found that many practitioners believe that a combination of both strategies should be utilized and should be considered to be of equal importance. Support for the latter observations is visible in a socio-technical approach laid down by Pan and Scarbrough [24], who suggested a multi-layered interaction model for KM. The model takes into account the following facets: infrastructure, info-structure and

Based on previous discussions, it can be deduced that there is a logical sequence that links knowledge concepts, KM perspectives and KM strategies (see **Figure 1**). If a particular person favors the objectivist approach, then ultimately the KM aspect aims at transforming tacit and personal knowledge into explicit and organizational knowledge. Following on from this, the IT approach is adopted, with the eventual use of the codification strategy. Alternatively, if the decision makers are supporters of the "epistemology of practice" philosophy, then they believe that knowledge

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86517*

ing to the organizational situation.

info-culture.
