Managing large amounts of knowledge objects: cognitive and organisational problems

Abstract

The process of knowledge objectification entails several advantages in terms of capitalising the owned knowledge, facilitating its localisation, retrieval and reuse, establishing a common cognitive base and so on. However, the management of knowledge objects is all but simple, especially in the case of llarge organisations with an extensive and dispersed production of knowledge objects. In principle, this issue seems to have a simple solution, that is, merging the various cognitive bases in a single one. In practice this raises several questions, both on the technical-cognitive and the organisational side. The paper deals with this topic, by discussing the case of Ernst & Young that 3 years ago started a project aimed at developing a common knowledge platform. In particular, it intends to identify and discuss the main problems (and possible solutions) raised by the management of large amount of knowledge objects scattered in different parts of the organisation. In addition, it aims to show how a codification, technology-based approach to knowledge management cannot be successfully pursued without taking into account the relevant social and organisational aspect

Knowledge Management in Support of Enterprise Risk Management

“…Two possible explanations to support the latter are: (a) that organizational silos still prevail, and local operational risk control is the main concern, while overall ERM success, for most people, remains someone else's problem; and/or (b) that the majority of relatively junior and inexperienced staff among the respondents are not able to take the holistic view that ERM requires and do not know how valuable or otherwise ERM implementation is in their organization. Padova and Scarso (2012) have recently described similar tensions between local and global knowledge management issues even in an organization as experienced in KM as Ernst & Young. It is also very relevant to note the comments of Zack, McKeen, and Singh (2009) that "[a] gap exists between KM practices that firms believe to be important and those that were directly related to organizational performance.…”