C.S. No. 5 November 14, 2024 | The Road to Knowledge Management Success for the seeEYEsee Student Organization
C.S. No. 5 November 14, 2024 The Road to Knowledge Management Success for the seeEYEsee Student Organization
Vincent Dialing
University of Southeastern Philippines- Obrero College of Information and Computing
ReferencesBefore the development of the Knowledge Management (KM) roadmap, the seeEYEsee Student Organization encountered several key challenges in managing knowledge effectively, which centered on knowledge loss, lack of continuity during leadership transitions, and the absence of a centralized platform for information sharing.
A major issue was the recurring loss of essential information during changes in leadership. Every academic year, new leaders stepped into their roles without a reliable way to access the insights, experiences, and lessons learned by previous teams. This gap often meant that each new leadership cycle had to start from scratch, which led to repeated mistakes and missed opportunities for building on past achievements. As a result, the organization’s growth and ability to innovate were consistently limited (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Team engagement and collaboration presented further challenges. Members tended to work in silos, focusing only on their specific tasks without visibility into the activities and projects of other teams. This lack of inter-team awareness stifled collaboration and kept valuable ideas and lessons from reaching others who might benefit from them. When project groups finished their work, they often left without documenting or sharing results in a way that future members could easily access or learn from, which meant that much of the knowledge generated was scattered or lost (Nonaka, 1994).
Without a unified platform to store and organize information, the organization struggled to retain project knowledge over time. After projects concluded or teams disbanded, reports, findings, and best practices were frequently misplaced or remained accessible only to those directly involved. This lack of a structured, centralized repository meant that any attempts to share knowledge were inconsistent, leaving future members without the resources to build on previous projects or avoid similar challenges (Dalkir, 2017).
The organization also faced difficulties related to knowledge transfer, as there was no formal process to document experiences and share expertise with incoming leaders and members. Departing members might make informal efforts to pass on their insights, but there was no established mentorship or transition plan to ensure that such exchanges happened systematically. This lack of structure further contributed to the recurring cycle of knowledge loss and hindered the smooth transition of responsibilities between leadership teams (Argote & Ingram, 2000).
In addition to these organizational challenges, limited resources were available to support Knowledge Management efforts. Since knowledge management practices hadn’t been formally integrated into the organization’s core activities, there were few tools, procedures, or platforms in place to facilitate effective knowledge transfer and retention. Although the importance of managing knowledge was understood in principle, the lack of a clear strategy or dedicated resources meant that knowledge-sharing initiatives remained fragmented and inconsistent, compounding the organization’s difficulties in retaining valuable information (Wiig, 1997).
The culture surrounding knowledge sharing within the organization also played a role. Members often viewed their responsibilities as isolated tasks rather than as interconnected parts of a larger mission, which hindered the development of a knowledge-sharing ethos. With limited emphasis on the importance of collective learning and collaboration, members were less inclined to document their work or engage in cross-functional knowledge-sharing activities. This absence of a knowledge-sharing culture made it challenging to establish a sense of organizational memory or cumulative learning over time (Schein, 2010).
These interconnected challenges—fragmented knowledge, inadequate continuity during leadership transitions, lack of centralized information storage, insufficient structured knowledge transfer, limited resources, and a culture that did not prioritize knowledge sharing—highlighted the need for a comprehensive KM roadmap. By addressing these issues, the roadmap could enable seeEYEsee to foster a more collaborative, continuous, and innovative approach to knowledge management, ultimately supporting the organization’s growth and sustainability.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150-169. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
2. What part did culture play in the KM program's success, and how did the organization promote a culture of knowledge sharing?
Culture played a central role in the success of the seeEYEsee Student Organization’s Knowledge Management (KM) program, as it influenced members’ attitudes and behaviors toward sharing information, collaborating, and engaging in continuous learning. Building a culture that values knowledge sharing was essential in overcoming the initial resistance from members and creating an environment where information exchange became second nature. The organization promoted this culture through a combination of structured events, mentorship programs, and the use of accessible KM tools, all aimed at embedding knowledge sharing into everyday practices.
The first step in promoting a culture of knowledge sharing was recognizing the need to break down silos and encourage open communication among members. In many organizations, including seeEYEsee, members often focus narrowly on their specific tasks or projects, which can result in isolated knowledge pockets. A culture that prioritizes knowledge sharing allows members to see their responsibilities as interconnected with the goals of the organization as a whole (Schein, 2010). At seeEYEsee, leaders initiated events like “CICapehan,” a series of casual, monthly get-togethers where students could discuss their experiences, share ideas, and learn from one another in a relaxed setting. These sessions helped cultivate a sense of community and trust, making it easier for members to share insights without fear of judgment or competition (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
In addition to CICapehan, the mentorship program played a crucial role in promoting a knowledge-sharing culture. Leaders established a formal mentorship program in which outgoing leaders were responsible for passing on their expertise and lessons learned to new leaders. This program not only provided continuity but also reinforced the idea that knowledge sharing was part of each member’s responsibility. By integrating mentorship into the organizational culture, seeEYEsee ensured that incoming members had access to the accumulated wisdom of past leaders, which reduced the knowledge loss that had plagued the organization in previous years (Argote, 2012). The annual “Leadership Transfer Day,” where departments shared overviews of their successes, challenges, and lessons from the past year, further reinforced the importance of knowledge continuity.
Furthermore, the organization encouraged the adoption of KM tools that made knowledge sharing convenient and accessible. Tools like Trello and Google Forms became the standard platforms for project tracking and document storage. By making these tools easy to use and accessible to all members, the organization reduced the barriers to sharing and documenting knowledge (Dalkir, 2017). Members could easily upload reports, access project documents, and view event recordings, which helped create a repository of organizational memory. This digital knowledge base was central to the KM strategy and supported the cultural shift toward openness and transparency.
A significant aspect of seeEYEsee’s success in promoting knowledge sharing was also due to their leaders’ commitment to modeling and reinforcing this behavior. When members saw leaders actively participating in knowledge-sharing events, using KM tools, and encouraging cross-team collaboration, they were more likely to follow suit. Leadership behaviors serve as powerful cultural signals, demonstrating that knowledge sharing is valued and expected in the organization (Nonaka, 1994). Additionally, by setting up clear guidelines and standards for documenting and sharing knowledge, leaders institutionalized these practices, making them part of the organizational routine.
Moreover, seeEYEsee fostered a culture of inclusivity, where every member’s contributions were valued. The organization encouraged members to participate actively in CICapehan and other informal knowledge-sharing events. This approach not only enhanced engagement but also empowered students to share their unique perspectives and experiences. Members began to view knowledge sharing as a mutually beneficial practice that enriched their learning experiences and strengthened the organization as a whole (Wiig, 1997).
Overall, the organization’s efforts to foster a culture of knowledge sharing—through mentorship, structured events, user-friendly tools, and leadership support—were instrumental in the KM program’s success. By embedding these practices into their culture, seeEYEsee transformed knowledge sharing from a formal requirement into a core organizational value. This cultural shift was key to overcoming knowledge silos, improving collaboration, and ensuring the sustainability of the KM program for future generations.
References
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
3. Why was the mentorship program so important for seamless leadership transitions?
ReferencesThe mentorship program introduced by the seeEYEsee Student Organization was vital in ensuring smooth leadership transitions and addressing challenges that previously hindered the organization’s growth and continuity. This program offered a structured approach to passing down essential knowledge and expertise from outgoing leaders to their successors, helping to retain organizational memory and minimize the disruptions often associated with leadership changes.
A primary reason for the program’s effectiveness was its capacity to allow outgoing leaders to share practical insights, experiences, and lessons they had gathered over their tenure. In many organizations, including seeEYEsee, leadership transitions can lead to the loss of critical knowledge due to the lack of formal mechanisms for knowledge transfer (Schein, 2010). With the mentorship program in place, outgoing leaders could convey their understanding of the organization’s goals, challenges, and effective practices directly to incoming leaders, fostering continuity and preserving institutional knowledge.
Beyond the transfer of information, the mentorship program helped establish personal connections between outgoing and incoming leaders, creating a foundation of trust and support. New leaders were not only absorbing organizational procedures but also gaining confidence from the guidance of someone who had previously navigated similar challenges. These relationships cultivated an environment where new leaders felt comfortable seeking advice, asking questions, and accessing resources that might otherwise be difficult to acquire independently (Argote, 2012). The relational aspect of mentorship is essential, as knowledge transfer is often about interpersonal dynamics as much as it is about conveying explicit information.
The program also encouraged a shared understanding of the organization’s culture and values. When new leaders step into their roles without adequate exposure to an organization’s culture, they may inadvertently shift its direction or overlook important traditions and norms. Spending time with outgoing leaders allowed the incoming leadership to gain insight into the beliefs, values, and practices that defined seeEYEsee’s identity. This cultural transfer helped maintain a sense of continuity and coherence within the organization, even as members changed frequently (Nonaka, 1994).
With the addition of the annual “Leadership Transfer Day,” the mentorship experience gained further depth. This event provided departments a platform to comprehensively share their experiences and knowledge, where outgoing leaders presented their achievements, challenges, and strategic insights. Such an organized approach to knowledge sharing offered new leaders a roadmap of what to expect and guidance on navigating common obstacles. Leadership Transfer Day became a cornerstone of the mentorship program, underscoring the idea that knowledge transfer is a collective responsibility that strengthens the organization as a whole (Dalkir, 2017).
The mentorship program also minimized the learning curve that new leaders typically face. Without mentorship, incoming leaders often spend considerable time and effort learning basic processes and understanding the context of their roles, which can delay progress and reduce organizational efficiency. The program provided new leaders with a solid foundation of practical knowledge, enabling them to focus on strategic decisions and innovation rather than simply catching up on procedural details (Wiig, 1997). This early familiarity with organizational workings was essential for maintaining momentum and avoiding setbacks during transitions.
Ultimately, the mentorship program not only facilitated knowledge transfer but also instilled a sense of responsibility among outgoing leaders to actively contribute to the organization’s future success. By embedding mentorship into the transition process, seeEYEsee created a sustainable mechanism for preserving intellectual capital. Each generation of leaders could build on the legacy of their predecessors, following a fundamental principle of Knowledge Management: continuity of knowledge is vital for long-term success and growth (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
In essence, the mentorship program was instrumental in helping seeEYEsee avoid common pitfalls during leadership transitions by fostering a structured, supportive, and culturally cohesive environment. The program ensured that the organization’s knowledge base, values, and operational insights were passed down seamlessly, setting a solid foundation for the future and enhancing the resilience and adaptability of the organization as a whole.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
4. What actions did the seeEYEsee leadership take to evaluate members' existing knowledge management practices, and how did that help them create their roadmap?
The leadership of the seeEYEsee Student Organization recognized the need to understand the existing knowledge management (KM) practices among members before embarking on a structured KM roadmap. To ensure that the roadmap would effectively address the organization’s needs, they began by assessing how members currently handled knowledge-sharing, documentation, and project retention. This initial evaluation process allowed them to identify gaps, challenges, and areas for improvement that would serve as focal points in developing their KM strategy.
To gain a clearer picture of the organization’s knowledge practices, seeEYEsee leaders initiated focus groups and discussions with members across different project teams. These focus groups provided a platform for members to voice their experiences and frustrations regarding the handling of project information and continuity. Through these conversations, the leadership team uncovered a recurring problem: members often felt disconnected from one another’s projects and lacked awareness of the knowledge generated in other parts of the organization. This disconnect highlighted the existence of silos within the organization, where information was isolated in different teams, limiting cross-functional collaboration and knowledge sharing (Dalkir, 2017).
In addition to identifying the issue of knowledge silos, the focus groups revealed that members struggled with documentation and knowledge retention. Many projects were completed without proper recording of processes, challenges, and solutions, leading to valuable insights being lost once the project team disbanded. Leaders realized that without a structured approach to documentation, the organization was missing out on an opportunity to build an institutional memory that could benefit future teams. This insight emphasized the need for a centralized knowledge base where project reports, best practices, and lessons learned could be stored and accessed by all members (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Following the focus groups, the leadership team conducted surveys to capture a broader range of perspectives and preferences regarding KM tools and practices. The survey data provided quantitative insights into members’ familiarity with digital tools, willingness to engage in documentation, and perceptions of knowledge-sharing initiatives. This data-driven approach allowed the leadership to identify which KM tools would be most effective and user-friendly for the organization’s members, ensuring that the roadmap would incorporate solutions that aligned with members’ existing competencies and comfort levels. By tailoring the roadmap to these preferences, the leadership increased the likelihood of buy-in and successful adoption among members (Schein, 2010).
Based on the feedback gathered, seeEYEsee leadership identified four primary goals for their KM roadmap: establishing a centralized knowledge base, encouraging a culture of knowledge sharing, facilitating smoother leadership transitions, and implementing standardized KM tools and procedures. With a clear understanding of members’ challenges and preferences, the leadership was able to shape these goals into practical steps that addressed the specific needs of the organization. Establishing a knowledge base, for instance, directly responded to the issue of documentation, while fostering a culture of knowledge sharing tackled the silos identified in focus groups (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
The evaluation process also underscored the importance of organizational culture in supporting KM practices. The feedback revealed that many members perceived knowledge sharing as burdensome or overly formal. To overcome this, the roadmap included strategies to cultivate a more open and collaborative environment, where knowledge sharing would feel natural and rewarding. Leadership created informal knowledge-sharing events, such as the “CICapehan” sessions, where members could discuss their experiences in a relaxed setting. By incorporating these insights, the roadmap went beyond technical solutions to address the cultural dimensions of KM, making it a more holistic strategy (Argote, 2012).
The organization’s evaluation of current practices proved invaluable in crafting a KM roadmap that was both comprehensive and achievable. By listening to members and understanding the root causes of existing challenges, seeEYEsee’s leadership was able to develop a roadmap that not only introduced new tools and processes but also fostered a supportive culture of knowledge sharing. This groundwork laid the foundation for a KM strategy that was aligned with the organization’s specific needs, ultimately helping seeEYEsee transition from fragmented knowledge practices to a cohesive and sustainable KM program.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
5. How did the organization convince resistant students to accept the new KM tools and processes?
Convincing resistant students to embrace new Knowledge Management (KM) tools and processes required a strategic and empathetic approach by the seeEYEsee Student Organization. Resistance to change is common, especially when new processes seem complex or disrupt established habits. To overcome this reluctance, seeEYEsee’s leadership focused on clear communication, accessibility, and gradual integration of the KM tools, helping students recognize the value and benefits of the changes.
One of the key approaches was open and transparent communication. Leaders took the time to explain the purpose of the new KM tools and how they would benefit not only the organization as a whole but also individual students. By highlighting the long-term advantages, such as easier access to information, enhanced project continuity, and reduced need to “reinvent the wheel” each year, leaders helped students understand the value of adopting these practices. They emphasized that the new KM tools would save time and effort in the long run, making students’ contributions more meaningful and impactful (Dalkir, 2017).
In addition to communication, seeEYEsee made the KM tools as user-friendly and accessible as possible. Rather than introducing complex systems that would require extensive training, the organization selected familiar tools like Google Forms for document storage and Trello for task management. These platforms were already widely used and easily accessible, which lowered the learning curve and helped students feel more comfortable with the changes. By choosing tools that students could quickly adapt to, the leadership minimized the perception of KM as a burdensome or unnecessary addition to their responsibilities (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
To further ease the transition, the leadership implemented training sessions and provided hands-on support. Recognizing that some students might need assistance to fully understand and utilize the new tools, the organization arranged workshops and tutorials to guide them through each tool’s features and functions. Leaders and tech-savvy members offered one-on-one help for students who struggled with the transition, ensuring that everyone had the resources they needed to succeed. This personal approach helped build trust and reduce the anxiety associated with learning new tools, fostering a more positive attitude toward the KM changes (Schein, 2010).
A gradual rollout of the KM tools was another effective strategy. Rather than enforcing an immediate, organization-wide shift, seeEYEsee phased in the new processes step by step. This approach allowed students to gradually familiarize themselves with the tools without feeling overwhelmed. Leaders prioritized specific aspects of the KM system that would provide immediate benefits, such as the centralized knowledge base, before implementing more advanced features. This incremental integration allowed students to see the immediate value of the tools and increased their willingness to adopt additional KM practices over time (Argote, 2012).
Creating opportunities for peer support and feedback also played a crucial role in encouraging adoption. The organization encouraged students who quickly adapted to the KM tools to share their positive experiences and tips with others, creating a sense of community around the new processes. These early adopters acted as informal ambassadors for the KM program, helping to shift the perspective from “something imposed by leadership” to “something that benefits everyone.” Students could see that their peers were benefiting from the tools, which helped normalize the changes and reduced the initial resistance (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Another approach involved fostering a culture that emphasized the importance of knowledge sharing and continuous improvement. Leaders actively promoted the idea that KM was not just about using new tools but was part of a larger effort to make the organization more effective and inclusive. By framing KM as a shared responsibility and showing how it contributed to the organization’s mission, leaders helped students see it as an essential component of their roles. This cultural shift reduced resistance, as students began to view KM practices as integral to the organization’s success rather than as additional tasks (Wiig, 1997).
In essence, seeEYEsee’s approach to overcoming resistance was multi-faceted, combining clear communication, accessible tools, incremental implementation, peer support, and cultural alignment. Through these efforts, the organization was able to ease students into the new KM processes and create a supportive environment where knowledge sharing and collaboration became valued practices. This thoughtful and inclusive strategy ultimately turned initial resistance into engagement, fostering a KM culture that benefitted both individual students and the organization as a whole.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
6. Why did students respond better to unstructured knowledge-sharing events like CICapehan?
Students responded more positively to unstructured knowledge-sharing events, such as CICapehan, because these informal gatherings created an open, relaxed environment where they could freely express ideas, share experiences, and learn from each other without the pressure of formality. CICapehan events were designed as casual monthly get-togethers where students could exchange insights, discuss ongoing projects, and provide feedback on each other's initiatives. This format allowed students to engage in knowledge sharing in a way that felt natural and engaging, encouraging participation and strengthening the sense of community within the organization.
The unstructured nature of CICapehan made knowledge sharing feel less like a requirement and more like a collaborative conversation. In formal settings, knowledge-sharing activities can sometimes feel rigid or forced, leading to reduced participation as students may feel self-conscious or overly cautious. With CICapehan, however, students felt more at ease, as the informal atmosphere allowed for spontaneous discussions and honest sharing of experiences. This casual structure fostered a more open and inclusive environment, where students felt comfortable expressing their ideas without fear of judgment or the need to adhere to a strict agenda (Schein, 2010).
Another reason students responded well to unstructured events was the emphasis on peer-to-peer learning. CICapehan sessions encouraged students to share their individual perspectives and insights gained from various projects. This approach empowered students to take on active roles as both learners and contributors, creating a reciprocal learning experience. Seeing their peers as sources of valuable knowledge helped students appreciate the diversity of experiences within the organization. By facilitating this kind of peer interaction, CICapehan sessions helped break down hierarchical boundaries and promoted a culture of shared learning and mutual respect (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
The informal format also helped bridge knowledge gaps between different teams and projects. Within seeEYEsee, teams often worked in isolation on specific projects, leading to knowledge silos where information was confined to individual groups. CICapehan offered a solution to this challenge by providing a space where members from various teams could come together, discuss their work, and exchange insights across organizational boundaries. This cross-functional interaction fostered a broader understanding of the organization’s collective goals and enabled members to learn from the experiences of other teams. In turn, students gained a more comprehensive view of the organization’s activities, allowing them to see how their work connected to the larger mission (Dalkir, 2017).
Furthermore, unstructured knowledge-sharing events like CICapehan allowed students to address practical challenges and seek advice in real-time. Many students faced similar obstacles in their projects, and the open discussions at CICapehan created opportunities to exchange solutions and troubleshoot problems collectively. This problem-solving aspect of CICapehan reinforced the value of shared knowledge, as students experienced firsthand how collective wisdom could help them overcome common hurdles. Such immediate, practical benefits demonstrated the usefulness of knowledge-sharing practices, encouraging students to participate more actively (Argote, 2012).
CICapehan also played a significant role in fostering a sense of belonging and solidarity among members. The casual, social aspect of the events allowed students to build personal connections, which strengthened trust within the organization. When students interacted outside of formal project settings, they formed friendships and support networks, which made them more willing to share knowledge and collaborate in future projects. This camaraderie was essential in developing a knowledge-sharing culture, as trust and interpersonal relationships are foundational to effective KM practices (Wiig, 1997).
The success of unstructured knowledge-sharing events like CICapehan can be attributed to their ability to make knowledge sharing feel organic and community-driven. These sessions went beyond simple information exchange by creating an environment where students felt valued, connected, and inspired to contribute. By fostering an atmosphere of inclusivity, CICapehan helped normalize knowledge-sharing practices and demonstrated that knowledge management is not just about formal structures and tools but also about creating meaningful connections. The positive response to CICapehan highlighted the importance of flexibility in KM initiatives, showing that sometimes informal interactions can be just as impactful, if not more so, than structured processes.
Overall, CICapehan succeeded in building a culture where knowledge sharing became a natural and enjoyable part of organizational life. By prioritizing unstructured, peer-driven interactions, seeEYEsee was able to engage students in a way that felt relevant and rewarding, ultimately strengthening the KM program and contributing to the organization’s long-term success.
References
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
7. What observable improvements in student engagement and knowledge retention resulted from implementing the KM roadmap?
The implementation of the Knowledge Management (KM) roadmap at seeEYEsee Student Organization led to a series of tangible improvements in both student engagement and knowledge retention. By establishing structured practices and tools for sharing information, the organization created a more collaborative environment, encouraging students to actively participate in KM initiatives and enabling the retention of valuable organizational knowledge.
One of the most noticeable improvements was the increase in student engagement. Before the KM roadmap, students often worked in isolation on their individual tasks, unaware of projects in other teams. The roadmap introduced regular knowledge-sharing events, such as the CICapehan sessions, which encouraged students from different teams to discuss their projects, share insights, and learn from each other’s experiences. These events fostered a greater sense of community and made knowledge sharing feel like a collective responsibility. As students became more aware of each other’s work, they started taking a genuine interest in organizational projects beyond their own tasks, which greatly enhanced their engagement and overall involvement in the organization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
The establishment of a centralized knowledge base contributed significantly to knowledge retention. By using digital tools like Google Forms for documentation and Trello for task management, seeEYEsee created a repository where students could easily store and access project reports, lessons learned, and event records. This centralization made it possible for future members to retrieve past information, minimizing the need to “reinvent the wheel” for each new project. Access to this accumulated knowledge reduced the repetitive cycle of relearning and enabled students to build on the efforts of previous teams, which enhanced the organization’s productivity and long-term learning capacity (Dalkir, 2017).
Mentorship programs also played a crucial role in improving knowledge retention. The KM roadmap formalized mentorship as part of the leadership transition process, ensuring that departing leaders had the opportunity to pass on their expertise to incoming leaders. Through structured mentorship, outgoing leaders shared not only procedural knowledge but also insights about organizational culture and values. This transfer of tacit knowledge helped new leaders to avoid common mistakes and maintain continuity within the organization. Mentorship supported a seamless transition of responsibilities, reinforcing knowledge retention and allowing each generation of leaders to build upon the experiences of their predecessors (Argote, 2012).
Student engagement further increased as the KM roadmap integrated training and support to help students adapt to the new tools and processes. Many students initially struggled with the concept of formal knowledge management, viewing it as an additional task. However, through hands-on training sessions and continuous support from leaders, students gradually became more comfortable with using KM tools. They began to see the practical benefits of having a structured approach to documentation and knowledge sharing. This realization turned initial reluctance into enthusiasm, as students recognized that KM tools made their tasks easier and added value to their contributions (Schein, 2010).
Another observable improvement was the enhanced quality of collaboration across teams. The KM roadmap encouraged cross-functional knowledge sharing, allowing members from different departments to work together and leverage each other’s expertise. This collaborative approach broke down the organizational silos that had previously kept teams isolated. By connecting students with diverse skills and perspectives, the roadmap facilitated more innovative and effective solutions to organizational challenges. The collaborative spirit fostered by KM practices strengthened team dynamics and made students feel more connected to the organization’s mission and goals (Wiig, 1997).
The cultural shift towards knowledge sharing, spurred by the roadmap, also improved knowledge retention by making it a part of everyday organizational life. With a structured KM approach, knowledge sharing became embedded in seeEYEsee’s culture rather than an occasional activity. Students became more proactive in documenting their work, knowing that their efforts would benefit future members. This cultural change helped establish a sense of organizational memory, where knowledge was systematically stored, retrieved, and applied, ensuring that valuable insights were retained over time and accessible to all members (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Overall, the KM roadmap transformed seeEYEsee into a more engaged, informed, and cohesive organization. The increased student engagement, improved knowledge retention, seamless leadership transitions, enhanced cross-functional collaboration, and cultural shift toward knowledge sharing all demonstrated the positive impact of a well-implemented KM strategy. These improvements not only addressed the organization’s immediate challenges but also set a strong foundation for sustainable growth and innovation, allowing seeEYEsee to thrive as a knowledge-driven organization.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
8. In what ways did the seeEYEsee Student Organization’s KM roadmap help to sustain long-term improvements in the organization’s operations and knowledge-sharing practices?
The Knowledge Management (KM) roadmap implemented by the seeEYEsee Student Organization provided a structured approach to sustaining long-term improvements in operations and knowledge-sharing practices, creating lasting benefits across several dimensions of organizational function. By embedding knowledge-sharing mechanisms, facilitating smooth leadership transitions, and fostering a knowledge-sharing culture, the roadmap established a foundation for continuous growth and resilience.
One significant aspect of the roadmap’s impact was the development of a centralized knowledge base. This repository allowed members to document project reports, best practices, and lessons learned, ensuring that organizational knowledge was retained and accessible to future members. Prior to the roadmap, much of the organization’s valuable insights were scattered or lost with each leadership transition, leading to repeated mistakes and inefficiencies. The central knowledge base transformed this process by providing a consistent location for storing information, which future teams could consult to avoid pitfalls and leverage previous successes. This consistency not only preserved the organization’s memory but also reinforced a culture of documentation, making knowledge-sharing practices sustainable (Dalkir, 2017).
The mentorship program, as part of the roadmap, played a crucial role in sustaining operational improvements. By formalizing mentorship between outgoing and incoming leaders, the roadmap provided a mechanism for effective knowledge transfer and leadership continuity. This structured mentorship allowed incoming leaders to understand organizational values, procedures, and challenges directly from those who had firsthand experience. With each leadership transition, the mentorship program ensured that accumulated knowledge was passed on, which minimized disruptions and allowed the organization to build on prior accomplishments. This continuity was essential for maintaining organizational stability and fostering a forward-looking approach to long-term improvement (Argote, 2012).
The roadmap’s emphasis on regular knowledge-sharing events, such as the informal CICapehan sessions, further supported long-term improvements. These events allowed members to share experiences, collaborate across teams, and address challenges collectively in a relaxed environment. Unlike formal meetings, these sessions encouraged spontaneous discussions that often led to new ideas and solutions. Over time, CICapehan became a core part of seeEYEsee’s organizational culture, reinforcing a mindset where knowledge sharing was seen as both valuable and enjoyable. By institutionalizing these events, the roadmap nurtured a collaborative environment, which contributed to sustained engagement and improved knowledge-sharing practices (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Another key component of the roadmap’s success was its adaptability to members’ evolving needs. As the organization’s projects and goals changed, the KM roadmap remained flexible, allowing for updates to processes and tools. For instance, when members expressed a need for simpler documentation tools, the organization adapted by choosing widely accessible platforms like Google Forms and Trello. This adaptability ensured that knowledge-sharing practices were responsive and aligned with the organization’s capabilities and preferences. By staying relevant to members’ needs, the roadmap supported continuous improvement and long-term engagement with KM practices (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
The roadmap also reinforced the importance of a knowledge-sharing culture, helping to make knowledge management a central value within seeEYEsee. Leaders actively promoted KM practices by modeling knowledge-sharing behavior, encouraging team collaboration, and recognizing members’ contributions to the knowledge base. This cultural shift helped integrate KM into the organization’s identity, making it more than a temporary initiative. By fostering an environment where knowledge sharing was celebrated and valued, the roadmap helped solidify KM as an enduring organizational principle, essential for seeEYEsee’s operational success and adaptability (Schein, 2010).
Furthermore, the roadmap’s strategic focus on cross-functional collaboration helped sustain improvements in operational efficiency. The organization encouraged collaboration across teams, breaking down silos that had previously isolated knowledge within individual groups. This approach allowed members to draw on diverse perspectives and skills, leading to more innovative problem-solving and greater alignment between projects and organizational goals. Cross-functional collaboration, supported by KM practices, enabled members to see their roles in the context of broader organizational objectives, enhancing commitment and cohesion (Wiig, 1997).
Overall, the KM roadmap transformed seeEYEsee’s operations by embedding sustainable practices that promoted continuous knowledge sharing, organizational learning, and leadership continuity. Through its focus on centralized documentation, mentorship, knowledge-sharing events, adaptability, cultural reinforcement, and cross-functional collaboration, the roadmap created an infrastructure that supported ongoing improvement. These sustainable changes ensured that seeEYEsee could grow, innovate, and adapt to future challenges, establishing KM as a vital component of the organization’s success.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
9. How did the KM roadmap contribute to fostering innovation within the organization?
The Knowledge Management (KM) roadmap implemented by seeEYEsee played a pivotal role in fostering innovation within the organization by creating a supportive environment for idea sharing, cross-functional collaboration, and continuous learning. By integrating KM practices, seeEYEsee empowered members to think creatively, build on collective knowledge, and approach challenges with a more innovative mindset.
One of the primary ways the KM roadmap encouraged innovation was through the establishment of a centralized knowledge base. This knowledge repository allowed members to access information from past projects, including successful strategies, challenges encountered, and lessons learned. Having a structured and accessible knowledge base meant that members did not have to start from scratch when developing new initiatives; instead, they could build upon the work of previous teams, which accelerated the innovation process. Access to documented experiences and insights encouraged members to experiment and improve upon existing ideas, resulting in more refined and innovative solutions over time (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
The roadmap also promoted cross-functional collaboration, which became a catalyst for innovation. By encouraging knowledge-sharing events like CICapehan, seeEYEsee provided members from different teams the opportunity to exchange perspectives, insights, and ideas. This cross-team interaction allowed for diverse viewpoints to merge, creating a fertile ground for innovative thinking. When members from varied backgrounds and roles collaborated, they were able to combine their expertise in ways that generated fresh ideas and solutions that might not have emerged within isolated teams. This collaborative culture helped break down silos and enabled the organization to harness the creative potential of its members (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Furthermore, the mentorship program embedded in the KM roadmap facilitated a flow of both explicit and tacit knowledge, which is crucial for innovation. Through structured mentorship, outgoing leaders passed on their experiences, problem-solving approaches, and unique insights to incoming leaders. This transfer of knowledge not only helped new leaders avoid past mistakes but also empowered them to take more calculated risks in their projects. The accumulated insights from mentorship interactions provided a rich foundation of knowledge that encouraged new leaders to innovate confidently, knowing they were supported by the wisdom of their predecessors (Argote, 2012).
The KM roadmap’s focus on informal knowledge-sharing events also played an essential role in sparking innovation. Unlike structured meetings, unstructured events such as CICapehan allowed members to discuss ideas without constraints, leading to more spontaneous and creative discussions. These informal gatherings encouraged open dialogue, where members could brainstorm, provide feedback, and explore unconventional approaches. This setting created a safe space for experimentation, as members felt more comfortable sharing their ideas and testing out new concepts in a relaxed environment. By fostering these creative interactions, the roadmap helped cultivate a culture where innovative thinking was valued and actively pursued (Schein, 2010).
Additionally, the KM roadmap emphasized adaptability and responsiveness to change, which are key drivers of innovation. The organization’s willingness to update KM tools and processes based on members’ feedback meant that seeEYEsee could evolve its practices to support new ideas and technologies. This adaptability encouraged a forward-thinking mindset among members, who were more inclined to explore new methods and tools, knowing that the organization was open to innovation. By embedding flexibility into its KM strategy, seeEYEsee demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement, which helped sustain an environment where innovation could thrive (Wiig, 1997).
The cultural shift toward a knowledge-sharing ethos, as promoted by the KM roadmap, further nurtured an innovative atmosphere. By emphasizing that knowledge sharing was a collective responsibility, the roadmap encouraged members to actively contribute their insights, regardless of their role or experience level. This inclusive approach made everyone feel that their ideas were valuable, increasing the likelihood of creative contributions. As members engaged in knowledge-sharing practices, they developed a sense of ownership over the organization’s progress and felt motivated to contribute original ideas that could advance its goals (Dalkir, 2017).
In summary, the KM roadmap fostered innovation within seeEYEsee by facilitating access to past knowledge, encouraging cross-functional collaboration, supporting mentorship-based knowledge transfer, promoting informal brainstorming sessions, embracing adaptability, and building a culture that valued each member’s contributions. These practices collectively created an environment where creativity and innovation could flourish, positioning the organization for long-term success and adaptability.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
10. What are the potential challenges seeEYEsee might face in sustaining its KM practices, and how could these be addressed?
While the seeEYEsee Student Organization has made substantial progress in establishing effective Knowledge Management (KM) practices, sustaining these initiatives over the long term may present several challenges. These potential issues include knowledge retention amidst frequent membership turnover, maintaining engagement with KM tools, and preserving a knowledge-sharing culture as organizational priorities shift. Addressing these challenges proactively will be crucial for seeEYEsee to ensure that its KM practices continue to benefit the organization in the future.
One of the most significant challenges seeEYEsee faces is the high turnover rate typical in student organizations. Each academic year brings new members, and many experienced students graduate or leave, which can disrupt continuity. When active members depart, valuable tacit knowledge—such as personal insights, problem-solving techniques, and organizational culture—can be lost, diminishing the accumulated wisdom within the organization. To mitigate this, seeEYEsee could emphasize structured mentorship programs and documentation practices as part of every leadership transition. By formalizing mentorship between outgoing and incoming members and ensuring that critical insights are documented in accessible formats, the organization can create a more resilient system that retains knowledge even when individual members leave (Argote, 2012).
Another potential challenge lies in keeping members engaged with KM tools and practices over time. Students might initially embrace tools like Trello and Google Forms but may lose motivation as their workloads increase or if they feel that KM tasks are adding to their responsibilities. To address this, seeEYEsee could emphasize the practical benefits of KM tools by integrating them seamlessly into daily workflows. For instance, by automating certain documentation processes or simplifying access to knowledge repositories, the organization can reduce the effort required from members. Additionally, leaders can periodically showcase success stories that highlight how KM practices have led to tangible improvements in projects, reinforcing the value of these practices (Dalkir, 2017).
Sustaining a culture of knowledge sharing presents its own challenges, especially as organizational priorities shift or if new members lack a strong understanding of the KM program’s benefits. Students may be less inclined to share knowledge if they perceive it as time-consuming or if they do not see immediate rewards for their contributions. To maintain a culture that values knowledge sharing, seeEYEsee could incorporate knowledge-sharing behaviors into its recognition and rewards system. Acknowledging members who actively participate in KM initiatives—whether through public recognition, small incentives, or awards—could reinforce the idea that knowledge sharing is an important and appreciated part of organizational life (Schein, 2010).
Technology advancements and the evolving needs of members could also challenge the organization’s ability to maintain its KM practices. As new tools and digital platforms become available, seeEYEsee may need to periodically update its KM systems to stay relevant and user-friendly. Stagnation in KM technology could lead to outdated practices that no longer serve the organization’s needs, causing disengagement. To prevent this, the organization could establish a routine review of KM tools and processes, allowing members to provide feedback on current practices and suggest improvements. Regularly updating technology and processes based on user feedback would keep KM practices fresh and adaptable to changing circumstances (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Maintaining cross-functional collaboration and preventing silos from re-emerging could also be challenging as the organization grows or diversifies its projects. As new teams form or expand, they may become isolated, leading to fragmented knowledge and reduced collaboration. To address this risk, seeEYEsee could establish regular inter-team meetings and collaborative projects that bring together members from different areas. By promoting a sense of interconnectedness, the organization can encourage knowledge sharing and reduce the risk of silos forming over time. These initiatives could help preserve the open and collaborative culture that KM practices aim to support (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Lastly, the continuity of KM practices may be threatened if incoming leaders do not fully understand the importance of knowledge management. Without strong advocacy from leadership, KM initiatives might lose momentum or be deprioritized in favor of immediate concerns. To ensure that KM remains a priority, seeEYEsee could embed KM principles into its leadership training programs. By educating new leaders on the value of KM and involving them in the process of updating KM strategies, the organization can build a commitment to knowledge management that transcends individual tenures and sustains the program over the long term (Wiig, 1997).
In summary, while seeEYEsee’s KM roadmap has laid a strong foundation, sustaining these practices will require attention to challenges such as membership turnover, maintaining engagement, adapting to technological change, preventing knowledge silos, and ensuring ongoing leadership support. By proactively addressing these issues, seeEYEsee can continue to strengthen its KM practices, ensuring that they remain a valuable asset for the organization and contribute to its success well into the future.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
11. How did the KM roadmap enhance the organization’s adaptability to new challenges and opportunities?
The KM roadmap implemented by the seeEYEsee Student Organization significantly enhanced its adaptability, enabling it to navigate new challenges and seize emerging opportunities more effectively. By fostering a structured approach to knowledge sharing, creating a centralized knowledge repository, and promoting a culture of continuous learning, the roadmap provided the organization with the flexibility needed to respond dynamically to changing circumstances.
One of the primary ways the KM roadmap improved adaptability was by establishing a central knowledge base where members could document and access valuable information. This centralized repository served as a resource for organizational memory, preserving insights from past projects and enabling current members to build on previous experiences. In the face of new challenges, members could quickly refer to past solutions and lessons learned, avoiding the need to start from scratch. This ease of access to organizational knowledge allowed the organization to make informed decisions and adapt more rapidly, as members were equipped with insights that had proven successful in similar situations (Dalkir, 2017).
The roadmap also promoted cross-functional knowledge sharing, which was essential for enhancing adaptability. By encouraging collaboration between different teams and facilitating events like CICapehan, the organization enabled members to exchange ideas and approaches that could be applied across various contexts. Cross-functional interactions exposed members to diverse perspectives and innovative thinking, empowering them to find creative solutions when faced with new challenges. This collaborative environment allowed seeEYEsee to approach problems with a broader set of tools and insights, which increased its ability to adapt to unexpected changes and capitalize on new opportunities (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Mentorship played a vital role in enhancing adaptability by ensuring that knowledge transfer became a continuous process. By formalizing mentorship programs, seeEYEsee created a system in which experienced members could share their insights, problem-solving techniques, and leadership approaches with newer members. This mentorship structure equipped incoming leaders with the skills and knowledge necessary to face evolving challenges. As each generation of leaders gained insights from their predecessors, they developed a nuanced understanding of the organization’s values and strategies, allowing them to adapt these principles to current contexts while staying aligned with the organization’s mission (Argote, 2012).
The KM roadmap’s emphasis on informal knowledge-sharing events contributed further to the organization’s adaptability by fostering a culture of open communication and creativity. Unlike structured meetings, informal events allowed members to brainstorm freely, explore alternative approaches, and discuss emerging trends. These unstructured settings encouraged members to think outside the box, experiment with new ideas, and adapt existing practices to fit new challenges. The flexibility of informal knowledge sharing enabled the organization to remain open to change, creating a foundation for continual adaptation and innovation (Schein, 2010).
The adaptability fostered by the KM roadmap was also supported by the organization’s commitment to regular reviews and updates of KM tools. Recognizing that digital tools and organizational needs evolve, seeEYEsee established a practice of gathering feedback on KM tools and adjusting them as necessary. By regularly evaluating and refining its tools, the organization ensured that its KM practices remained relevant and effective. This willingness to evolve its tools and processes kept KM practices aligned with members’ needs and technological advancements, allowing seeEYEsee to maintain flexibility in its knowledge-sharing practices and to respond proactively to new situations (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).
Finally, the roadmap’s success in cultivating a knowledge-sharing culture provided the organization with a robust foundation for adaptability. By embedding KM principles into the organization’s culture, seeEYEsee transformed knowledge sharing from a formal requirement into an intrinsic part of organizational life. Members began to view knowledge sharing as a fundamental responsibility, and this cultural shift encouraged them to contribute their insights, learn from one another, and apply shared knowledge in innovative ways. With knowledge sharing deeply ingrained in the culture, members became more resilient and capable of adjusting to new demands, as they could leverage the collective expertise of the organization to navigate challenges and explore opportunities (Wiig, 1997).
In summary, the KM roadmap enhanced seeEYEsee’s adaptability by providing a centralized knowledge base, fostering cross-functional collaboration, formalizing mentorship, promoting informal knowledge-sharing events, maintaining flexibility in KM tools, and building a culture of continuous knowledge sharing. These elements collectively positioned the organization to respond effectively to changes, make informed decisions, and seize new opportunities, securing its ability to thrive in a dynamic environment.
References
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer Science & Business Media.
Dalkir, K. (2017). Knowledge management in theory and practice (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Wiig, K. M. (1997). Knowledge management: Where did it come from and where will it go? Expert Systems with Applications, 13(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(97)00018-3
Comments
Post a Comment