*Aligning Human Resource Management with Knowledge Management for Better Organizational… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86517*

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 according to the organizational situation.

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 info-culture.

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

**Figure 1.**

*The knowledge management sequential model.*

*Current Issues in Knowledge Management*

interpreting information.

systems and processes, products and services [20].

activities and their interrelations and management.

priced at high-profit margins [21].

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

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

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

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

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

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

KM into a strategy, we need to understand how organizations view KM.

**80**

activities.

exists within individuals and is tacit in nature. The decision makers are then likely to support an HR-based approach to KM with an underpinning personalization strategy. It has been noted, however, that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive and completely independent of one another. Alternatively, Edwards et al. [23] suggested a combination strategy; where opposing perspectives and strategies are held on an equal footing. It then follows that if the premise of this approach is followed then the debate concerning the knowledge concept is of less concern.
