Nepal Monitor: The National Online Journal

By Binita Shrestha

Quite commonly, people use the terms data, information and knowledge loosely. A closer study of each should tell us that they refer to different entities. However, if you think they connote the same semantics, a consideration on a few more similar entities such as insight, wisdom, resolution etc. should make us aware of the possibilities of differences. Scratching the surface of such conceptual topics further will elicit that knowledge, although related to data and information, the two are not interchangeable concepts. Data is a set of discreet, objective facts about events such as technical specifications, statistical facts, or financial reports to name a few. Information can be thought of as a message, which has a sender and receiver. It is the communication of data that has certain meaning to the sender or the receiver, or both. Generally, data needs to be analyzed and contextualized before it can be communicated.

Knowledge (see note 1) is more than data or information available readily in an organization. It is a fluid mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information, and expert insights that provide a conceptual framework for evaluating, and incorporating new experiences and information to stay on top of the competitive market. Data and information are important, but knowledge is more valuable to the organization because somebody has given the data and information a context, a meaning, a particular interpretation, and added their own wisdom to it and has considered its larger implications. Knowledge derives from the minds at work. It exists within people, part and partial of human complexity and unpredictability. If information is to become knowledge, humans must do virtually all the work. Knowledge develops over time through experience that we absorb from books, courses, mentors, training, or informal learning such as apprenticeship. It provides the historical perspective on our own understanding and perception of situations or events or things which includes values and beliefs of the person who posses it directly or derived from the person who passed the knowledge. Knowledge creation is the result of the activities that take place between and within humans through verbal (dialogue or monologue) or non-verbal communication or observation or any other means.

Types of Knowledge
Based on communicability Michael Polanyi (a philosopher) postulated knowledge into two broad conceptual categories, namely, explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge.

Explicit knowledge can be expressed in words and/or numbers, hence can be codified into books, documents, or journals electronically or in traditional methods. An example on explicit knowledge would be the understanding what makes a phone ring or why the sun sets.

Such knowledge can be processed, stored in a database and transmitted across individuals formally and systematically in the form of hard copy or soft copy. Explicit knowledge relates to know-what (about facts) and know-why (scientific principles and laws) components of knowledge.

On the other hand, tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in each individual’s experiences, ideals, beliefs, emotions and actions. Such knowledge provides a historical perspective from which to view and understand new situations and events. How to restore telephone services in case of natural disaster or who can provide the direction where the technology is heading: these are some of the examples of tacit knowledge. The tacit knowledge is developed and internalized by the person who posses it over a long period. It is a complex knowledge that cannot be codified effectively into a document. Tacit knowledge is the knowledge chiefly pertaining to know-how (special skill or ability to act) and know-who (who knows what and who knows how to act) components of the knowledge that people acquire through years of practical experience.

It should now be clear that explicit knowledge could be gained by employing people with right educational degree and providing training to its staff. However, tacit knowledge is embedded in a person with experience. It should be tacit knowledge that a company should try to focus more. When a company hires a new staff fresh from a university, the company is increasing the capacity in explicit knowledge repository, but if an experience staff leaves the company it is not only loosing its capacity in explicit knowledge, but also its loosing its repository of tacit knowledge.

Knowledge Management
Knowledge creation must be the most important objectives of an organization. Hiring experts is the easiest way of creating knowledge repository in a company. Best suitable experts may not be available when required and certainly are very expensive to hire. Furthermore, such an external expert may not have a full understanding of the company’s norms and culture, which may result in dissatisfaction across the company. Hence, it is essential that a company make use of the existing knowledge within the company as knowledge management.

It may sound that terms “Knowledge” and “Management” are oxymoron, one contradicts which with the other. It has been a general trend in traditional companies to hoard knowledge and other assets believing that scarcity creates value. The unwillingness to share information, for example, is cultural. After all, for us, what could be more personal, more our own, than our own thoughts? Such culture was more prevalent in western world and presumes its still exists in South Asian countries like Nepal too.

Hewlett Pack (the American IT giant company before the merger with Compaq) CEO Lew Platt once said, “If HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times more profitable”. He was referring to the knowledge shared by his corporate executives. This is often the case in many organizations.

In contrary, countries like Japan have quite a different culture. They believe in sharing knowledge. Management researchers have contributed to Japan’s innovativeness and such a culture of sharing knowledge. Sharing knowledge is not about giving people something, or getting something from them. That is only valid for information sharing. Sharing knowledge occurs when people are genuinely interested in helping one another to develop new capacities for action; it is about creating learning processes collaboratively. They believe that if the knowledge one possesses is not known or accessible to others, it really does not add any value to the company or to the self.

In order to encourage people to share knowledge, employees should perceive that hoarding knowledge is not adding value to their career paths. A belief system that encourages people to share knowledge among peers within an organization from which the employee sees benefit in doing so is essential. The modern organization must focus on sharing knowledge. It is senior management’s responsibility to foster an organizational culture of knowledge sharing rather than knowledge hoarding. Unbiased human resources system that acknowledges knowledge sharing with rewards and recognition and that abhors knowledge hoarding with punishment will foster knowledge sharing culture within the company.

Besides culture, technological infra-structure and informal structure such as communities of practice are important factors for successful knowledge sharing. Technology helps communicate and store knowledge where possible. Community of practice helps to bring people of similar interest and minds together without any formal obligations or commitments. The subscription of such community should be voluntary and so open that it may include current employees, customers, vendors, partners, ex-employees from any rank and level. Knowledge can come from anywhere.

Conclusion
Nepal Telecom has been operating as a company for about 4 years but before that as a corporation for nearly 4 decades. Over this period, the company has invested humongous amount of money in its financial capital. (Most of them may have been depreciated and become redundant.) What one may not realize is that there are people who are adding their values to these investments to milk the profit to the company. In the modern management terminology, it is known as human capital. There is no doubt that the company is investing in the development of the human capital by training its staff in various topics. However, it is not evident if there is a clear strategy on optimizing the investment in knowledge management.

Knowledge has been regarded as one of the strongest competitive advantages in modern economy. Modern companies should focus on developing the company for future rather for today. To do so, NT needs to be more innovative and adaptive, if NT has to continue to be leading the sector in the country. With the right structure, technology, culture and human resources policy, NT can benefit from its human capital and gain competitive advantage in the market for sustainable period.

Binita Shrestha is a Deputy Manager at Nepal Telecom. This article is adapted, courtesy of the publication released to mark the fifth anniversary of the company.

Note
1. Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L., 2000, Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know, Boston, Massachusetts, Harvard Business School Press.

###