Paper Title: Understanding the design of information technologies for knowledge management in organizations: a pragmatic perspective

Authors: Tom Butler & Ciaran Murphy

Summary of  Content of Paper

The paper discusses the design of information technologies for effecting knowledge management systems based on a pragmatic perspective.  The paper conveys the positions of different authors on the existential relevance of different approaches to the design, implementation and application of knowledge base systems.  The authors argue that the functionalist approach to the design of information systems poses a limitation to the understanding of the various components of an information system geared towards achieving a pragmatic design to knowledge management systems.  The assertions of Butler and Murphy (2007) are in line with the position of Bhatt (2001), who had earlier postulated that knowledge management systems are primarily designed to support the construction, sharing, and application of knowledge in organisations.  While Butler and Murphy (2007) had argued for a paradigm shift from a functionalist approach to alternative perspectives to knowledge design and application, which embrace issues in ontology and epistemology in order to fully understand the relevance of information technology artefacts in knowledge management systems, McDermott (1999) posit that information technology may have inspired the vision of knowledge management but disagrees with its ability to realise this vision. This disagreement may be considered to be in line with the assertions of Butler and Murphy (2007) in claiming that information technology artefacts considered as components of knowledge management systems do not help in the systematic capture and dissemination of explicit and tacit experiential knowledge of the transactions of organisations.

A: Quality of the Research

Is the research question or objective clearly stated?

The research clearly highlighted the questions that needed answers in the paper using a reductionist/analytical dialectic based on a “present-at-hand” phenomenon.  The approach to answering the questions raised in the research was based on the deconstruction of the hermeneutic “whole” into its component parts.  Furthermore, the objective of the research was defined to help provide answers to the questions raised.  In doing so, practical and academic approaches were used to further assess the philosophy of technology in the achievement of the research’s objectives.

Is the research question interesting and important?

The research question is pertinent in the context of the research, and focuses on a dialogue of question and answer with questions raised for anticipated answers.  Questions are raised to be answered around categories, which depict the component parts of the knowledge assets.

Is the work original?

The contents of the research paper have high originality index with available in-text references as well as a comprehensive reference list.  All ideas around the research topic are coined from a combination of situated practical theory and philosophy from the academia.

Is the background research clear and relevant?

The research background portrays the design and development of knowledge management (KM) tools for the creation, storage, retrieval, transfer, and application of knowledge in organisations through the use of knowledge management technologies (Butler and Murphy, 2007, pp. 143 – 144).  Knowledge and knowledge management as discussed in Alavi and Leidner (2001) are deemed complex and multidimensional.  Consequently, the deconstruction and reconstitution of the various component parts of the situated practical theory and philosophy of knowledge, comprising knowledge asset categories as expatiated in this research is a clear and relevant discourse in the context of today’s knowledge management systems.  These knowledge management systems constitute the core of organisational processes and practice including the knowledge interests of certain communities-of-practice with cross functional groupings.

Are there any ethical problems?

The research presented ethical issues in the practical development of a knowledge management system including the promotion of knowledge sharing among 1600 knowledge workers of United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) using an Open Source Software Knowledge Management Tool called the Portable Knowledge Asset Development System (pKADS) as a testbed.   These ethical issues were, however, properly addressed in the work.

B: The Research Method

Summarise the research method:

The research method is based on a participative action research study that emphasised the development of pKADS.  This research method highlighted the collaboration of researchers with practitioners of knowledge management systems in a bid to deriving the required solutions for practical problems as well as propagating scientific knowledge.  Action research as mentioned in Baskerville and Myers (2004) involves, firstly, a cooperative inquiry of the social circumstances by the researcher and the themes of the research. This helps the researcher to articulate concepts are around the research domain. Subsequently, the satisfying stage comprises collaborative change, which allows changes to be introduced and the impact of such changes studied in the context of the research.

Does the research method seem appropriate for the research question?

The participative action research is deemed appropriate for the research question raised.  This is due to the fact that the design and development of the knowledge management tool – pKADS, discussed in Butler and Murphy (2007) was based on the combination of practical theory and the philosophy of technology.  The action research study has helped to significantly improve the pKADS tool beyond the level of a pilot prototype knowledge management tool.

Are the methods adequately described?

The research method used in the paper was sufficiently described in consonance with the design perspectives highlighted.  Emphasis was laid on the collaborative analysis of the social situation identified in the research to proffer solution to the design objectives in relation to the questions raised.

Were the analyses done correctly?

The analysis was based on interpretive (phenomenological) data analysis techniques (Thorne, 2016; Hair et al, 1998), which has been identified to be helpful in the improvement of qualitative analysis.  The research, which focussed on the design of an information technology artefact, provided an insight into the qualitative assessment of the artefact design in application and usage in tandem with best practices defined around the efforts of researchers and practitioners in knowledge management systems.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Yes, the conclusions given in the paper are derived and supported by the data used for the research.

C: Quality of Presentation

Is the work well presented?

The work follows a logical flow of ideas from the conception of the main research theme to the design and implementation of the knowledge management (KM) tool.  The presentation of the work is chronological in connection with the research questions, design objectives, and discussion of findings.

Is the paper well structured?

The structure of the paper is satisfactory, and positioned around a descriptive analysis of the research focus.  Emphasis is laid on the outcome derived from the marriage of situated practical theory and the philosophy of technology in achieving the development of a core knowledge management tool for knowledge management systems.

Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?

All symbols, terms, and concepts used are well defined. However, the research discusses ideas around complex ontological and epistemological concepts based on phenomenology and hermeneutics posing a rhetoric description of intended concepts, which may not be easily understood.

Would additional tables, figures help to clarify the work?

The research paper provides only one figure with no tables, and a lot of descriptions.  The use of more tables and figures would have been a good way to present the ideas in the research work.  Comparative analysis, and findings presented using tables and figures have always been a more structured way to clarify ideas around a chosen research focus (Patton, 2005). The research paper, therefore, would have conveyed better understanding with most of the ideas presented as tables and figures in the description of the major research themes.

D: Additional Notes

The paper is in line with the assertions of McDermott (1999), who has identified the limitations of information technology in realising a robust knowledge management system.  Similarly, Banville and Landry (1989) and Checkland  (1988) posit that the monistic view of information systems as science is inappropriate, and has an effect in the realisation of knowledge management systems from a functionalist approach. This notwithstanding, knowledge management tools and systems are indispensable in the context of today’s information systems for organisational processes and practices.  The collaborative efforts of researchers and industry practitioners in this respect is very relevant, and an added advantage for the next generation of KM tools.

 

References

Butler, T. and Murphy, C., 2007. Understanding the design of information technologies for knowledge management in organizations: a pragmatic perspective. Information Systems Journal, 17(2), pp.143-163.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E., 2001. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, pp.107-136.

Bhatt, G.D., 2001. Knowledge management in organizations: examining the interaction between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of knowledge management, 5(1), pp.68-75.

McDermott, R., 1999. Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California management review, 41(4), pp.103-117.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L., 1998. Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 207-219). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice hall.

Walsham, G., 1995. Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of information systems, 4(2), p.74.

Thorne, S., 2016. Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice (Vol. 2). Routledge.

Patton, M.Q., 2005. Qualitative research. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Banville, C. and Landry, M., 1989. Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined?. Communications of the ACM, 32(1), pp.48-60.

Checkland, P.B., 1988. Information systems and systems thinking: time to unite?. International Journal of Information Management, 8(4), pp.239-248.

Baskerville, R. & Myers, M.D. 2004. Special issue on action research in information systems: making IS research relevant to practice – foreword. MIS Quarterly, 28, 329–335.

• Uncategorized