Quality of Working Life, Knowledge-Intensive Work Processes and Creative Learning Organisations: Information Processing Paradigm versus Self-Organisation Theory

At the beginning of the 21st century, all organizations need to address the continually changing social and economic landscape in which they operate. In this landscape organizations need to be responsive, flexible and agile and acquire the capability to leverage information and use collective knowledge to make appropriate decisions quickly and effectively. The practice of knowledge management allows knowledge workers to participate in dynamic processes that generate and use collective knowledge. However the complexity that arises from a continually changing global environment highlights the need for knowledge management to move in new directions both in practice and theory. This paper proposes approaches to knowledge management that incorporate concepts from complexity theory leading to the adoption of a network-centric paradigm in organizations, complementing or replacing traditional hierarchical bureaucracies. Introduction At the beginning ofthe 21st century, all organizations, whether government, industrial, commercial or civil, need to address the continually changing social and economic landscape, in which they operate. A central theme of this change is the emergence of information and knowledge as major elements of wealth creation processes including the growth of intellectual and social capital (Sveiby, 1997). The current corporate interest in knowledge is based on a realization that emerging economic theories, coupled with social and industrial restructuring, demand a more rigorous approach to the exploitation of knowledge, and knowledge making capabilities, as organizational resources (Drucker, 1998). As knowledge workers, modern employees are participating in dynamic processes that generate and use collective knowledge in a changing organizational landscape (Ivari & Linger, 1 999; Pfaff & Hasan, 2007). The practice of knowledge management (KM) is now distinguished from information systems and information management (Hart & Warne, 2005; HB189, 2004). As encapsulated in the Australian Standard (AS 5037, 2005), KM manifests itself in organizations through a variety of interpretations and implementations depending on the enterprise, the pressures for innovation and the market context. KM must contend with the increasing complexity that comes with the continually changing global environment, and the related need to negotiate, test, refine and share complex responses to the resulting challenges. This signals the need to re-evaluate organizational structures and processes to ensure that they appropriately enable these new activities at all levels. We propose approaches to KM incorporating concepts from Complexity Theory leading to the adoption of a network-centric paradigm in organizations, complementing or replacing traditional hierarchical bureaucracies. In this paper we depict information as data in any media that is available and may be processed to be interpreted by people and thus potentially inform. Knowledge, on the other hand, can be distinguished as the human capability to interpret information and use it creatively, both individually and cooperatively, to add value to human activities and products. This accords with the Macquarie Dictionary definition of 'social capital' in terms ofthe investment in institutions, quality relationships and interactions that enhance wealth making processes. Issues raised by these changing environments are: * Transformations in what constitutes wealth and what is valued; * The shrinking distances around the world and global competition; * The compression of time, which increases the tempo of our lives; * The alteration in the distribution of power, including the power that is accrued by custodians of information. Traditionally, wealth creation was based on land, capital and labour. Now, information and knowledge are major ingredients (Benkler, 2006). Creating wealth is about adding value by turning these new ingredients into products and exchanging them through open global markets. …

[1]  Karl-Erik Sveiby The new organizational wealth , 1997 .

[2]  M. Prensky Do They Really Think Differently , 2001 .

[3]  Leoni Warne,et al.  A Holistic Approach to Knowledge Management and Social Learning: lessons learnt from military headquarters , 2001, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[4]  Dianne Willis,et al.  Knowledge Management in the SocioTechnical World , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work.

[5]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Social and commercial sustainability of regional web-based communities , 2005, Int. J. Web Based Communities.

[6]  Leoni Warne A Socio-Technical Approach to Social Learning Analysis in the Australian Defence Force , 2000 .

[7]  Shoshana Zuboff In the Age of the Smart Machine , 1988 .

[8]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Socio-Technical Systems for Knowledge Mobilisation in Communities , 2003 .

[9]  Helen Hasan,et al.  The Co-evolution of an Accessible but Secure Virtual Space for Collaborative Activities , 2006, Bled eConference.

[10]  Mary L. Tucker,et al.  Organizational Communication: Development of Internal Strategic Competitive Advantage , 1996 .

[11]  Helen Hasan,et al.  The mediating role of technology in making sense of information in a knowledge‐intensive industry , 1999 .

[12]  C. D. Sutton,et al.  Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium , 2002 .

[13]  Leoni Warne,et al.  Making the Invisible Visible: modelling social learning in a knowledge management context , 2001, Australas. J. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Leoni Warne,et al.  The Challenge of the Seamless Force: The Role of Informal Networks in Battlespace , 2005 .

[15]  Elayne Coakes,et al.  Knowledge management: a sociotechnical perspective , 2002 .

[16]  Leoni Warne,et al.  Yet Another Role for Team Building and Work Motivation -Enabler of Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Sharing , 2002 .

[17]  Helen Hasan,et al.  A Multifaceted Approach to Distributed Communities of Learning and Practice , 2003 .

[18]  M. Prensky Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants , 2001 .

[19]  P. Drucker Landmarks of tomorrow , 1959 .

[20]  David Snowden,et al.  The First Age: Information for Decision Support 1995: the Transition to the Second Age Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self-awareness , 2022 .

[21]  Glenn Ballard,et al.  Project Definition and Wicked Problems , 2002 .

[22]  Leoni Warne,et al.  Working and learning together: social learning in the Australian Defence Organisation , 2001 .

[23]  Peter Skerry Do we really want immigrants to assimilate? , 2000 .

[24]  V. Allee The future of knowledge : increasing prosperity through value networks , 2003 .

[25]  I. Nonaka A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[26]  Dianne Willis,et al.  The New Sociotech: Graffiti on the Long Wall , 2000 .

[27]  Helen Hasan,et al.  The network centric environment viewed through the lens of Activity Theory , 2005 .

[28]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Transforming Organizational Culture to the Ideal Inquiring Organisation: Hopes and Hurdles , 2005 .

[29]  Helen Hasan,et al.  Collaborative Knowledge at the Grass-roots Level: the Risks and Rewards of Corporate Wikis , 2007, PACIS.

[30]  Juhani Iivari,et al.  Knowledge work as collaborative work: a situated activity theory view , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[31]  Y. Benkler,et al.  The Wealth of Networks , 2008 .