Implementation of Knowledge Management in Thai public sector

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Knowledge and information
2.2 What is Knowledge Management (KM)?
2.3 What is tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge?
2.4 Challenges in the externalization of tacit knowledge for the proper implementation of KM
2.5 General challenges in the implementation of KM
2.6 Public sector employment in Thailand
2.7 Problems of knowledge management in public sector in Thailand
2.8 Hypotheses
2.9 Conceptual framework

Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Knowledge and information
According to Borghoff & Pareschi (1997), knowledge has been recognized as one of the most important assets of organizations. In their opinion, Information technology can help the growth and the sustainment of organizational knowledge. A lot of people have many illusions about knowledge and information. Many of them visualize both as the same thing. In fact they are the two sides of the same coin. In other words, without information there is no knowledge. According to France Bouthillier and Kathleen Shearer (2002), information is the fact and data organized to characterize a particular situation whereas knowledge is a set of truths and beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments and expectations, methodologies and know-how. As per their views, the difference between knowledge and information is that knowledge is an internal thing whereas information is an external thing. Knowledge is closer to action while information could be seen as documentation of any of pieces of knowledge (Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002).
2.2 What is Knowledge Management (KM)?
Knowledge management or KM has many definitions. Different scholars have defined KM in in different manner. According to Poorebrahimi et al. (2012), KM is a process through which organizations extract values from their intellectual assets in order to gain competitive advantages in the heavily competitive business world. They have mentioned that KM can discover, develop, utilize, deliver, and absorb knowledge both from inside and outside of the organization (Poorebrahimi et al. 2012). Egbu & Botterill (2001) mentioned that KM helps organizations to meet their existing and emerging needs. As per another definition, KM is a process to capture, acquire, organize and disseminate worker’s knowledge or critical know-how(Alavi and Leidner, 2001).
According to MacMorrow (2001), the major purpose of KM is knowledge sharing. He has pointed out that knowledge is a useless entity if it is kept at a particular place without sharing. Knowledge is usually acquired at the individual levels. For example, the CEO of an organization is responsible for setting out the rules and regulations in his company. If he fails to distribute or share the rules and regulations set for the company with the employees, the rules and regulations will become useless. Same way, knowledge sharing is extremely important when new employees arrive and others quit. It should be noted that an organization might have invested heavily for the training of the employees. Once the trained employees retire, their knowledge and experience will also retire unless such things were not shared (MacMorrow, 2001). Martensson (2000) also supported the findings of MacMorrow. In his opinion, the success of KM depends on knowledge sharing. The use of stored and shared knowledge is extremely important for the success of an organization (Martensson, 2000).
According to Tseng, (2008) KM is helpful in cutting production costs. It may help an organization to innovate new products and services. He has mentioned that the availability of knowledge workers would help an organization to cut down much expenditure. For example, the number of clerical employees can be reduced considerably if a company employs IT professionals in the administration section. Cutting down of production costs and administration cost as well as the ability to develop new products and services with the help of KM would help an organization to improve its competitive power (Tseng, 2008).
Lópezet al (2009) stressed the importance of KM in making a firm aware of its financial situation, the effectiveness of its products,its production costs etc. They mentioned that KM would help an organization to collect valuable information from the external world such as the competitors, customers, suppliers, etc. This information helps organizations immensely in knowing their customers and gaining sustainable competitive advantages (Lópezet al., 2009).
Numerous studies have been conducted by prominent scholars such as Alalawi et al. (2007), Shajera and Albastaki, (2013) and Shajera and Albastaki (2014) to know more about the importance of KM. While Alalawi et al. investigated the issues related to knowledge management in the public and private sectors, Shajera and Albastaki studied the readiness of public sector in accepting KM as a competitive strategy. On the other hand, Shajera and Albastaki (2014) conducted an extensive study to learn more about the factors that affect organizational readiness for Knowledge Management (KM). All the above mentioned studies proved that the implementation of KM in the public sector has been a failure in many countries because of the failure in converting tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 2009). These studies stressed the importance of careful planning necessary for the successful implementation of KM.
Teece (1981, 1982) and Nelson and Winter (1982) have contributed heavily for the development of KM in the organizational world. They were able break many of the established theories and principles related to utility of knowledge in the organizational world. The importance of KM in the organizational world was shown by many scholars such as Barney (1991), Reed and DeFillippi(1990), and Conner and Prahalad(1996). They used the resource-based theory for underlining the importance of KM in the modern organizations. The concept of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge was introduced by Winter (1987). It helped many other scholars to conduct comprehensive researches about the importance of externalization of tacit knowledge in the organizational world. Among the many scholars who attempted to explain tacit and explicit knowledge, the work by Kogut and Zander (1992) was extremely important. They were able to segregate codified knowledge from tacit knowledge. Moreover, their work helped many others to develop theories and principles about KM as a strategic tool in the organizational world.

2.3 What is tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge?
As per another definition, KM is a process to capture, acquire, organize and disseminate worker’s knowledge or critical know-how. It can be classified into two broad categories: tacit and explicit (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Nonaka and Krogh, 2009). Explicit knowledge can be defined as the knowledge that is learned consciously. Such knowledge can be accessed by the holder any time he wants. Explicit knowledge can be expressed in terms of quantities. It is tangible and can be written down and clearly communicated to others. Experience has nothing to do withexplicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be conveyed through articles, books, seminars. It can be communicated electronically as well (Bogue, 2006).
On the other hand, tacit knowledge is the knowledge obtained from observations and experiences. No laws or rules prevent the accumulation of tacit knowledge as it is gained from experiences. Moreover, it can be applied directly whenever a necessity occurs (Bogue, 2006). Tacit knowledge is learned unconsciously and it stores in the subconscious mind of the holder. It cannot be accessed easily (Tagger, 2005). Tacit knowledge is more difficult to capture and pass on. It includes experience, stories, impressions and creative solutions. It is the knowledge that is much harder to get from peoplebecause it accumulates many years of personal experience (Smith, 2001).
Tacit knowledge can be accessible through consciousness if it leans towards the explicit side of the continuum. However, most of the details about individual skills, due totheir embodiment, are inaccessible through consciousness. The notion of “continuum” refers to knowledge ranging from tacit to explicit and vice versa. By incorporating “tacit knowledge,” organizational knowledge creation theory overcame mainstream theory’s tendency to equate knowledge with information. Individuals may hold tacit beliefs about objects, events, and relationships. Such beliefs may sometimes hinder the capacity of individuals to act and impede groups from effectively coordinating individual action. When making knowledge increasingly explicit along the continuum, the individual justify their beliefs based on their observation of objects, events, and relationships. Over time, these beliefs may become true if they can be justified and are useful to them and/or their group in coordinating individual action. However, because individuals may not be able to articulate all their beliefs and justify them (tacit knowledge), it seems not all knowledge is justified true belief (Nonaka and Krogh, 2009, p.637).
Tacit knowledge is embedded in people’s mind unless it is converted into explicit knowledge using some means. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that some of the explicit knowledge of the people are based on their tacit knowledge. For example, thoughts, viewpoints, and interests are usually demonstrated by people based on their tacit knowledge. Moreover, scientists discover many things based on their tacit knowledge. In short, tacit knowledge often attain the proportion of scientific knowledge or explicit knowledge knowingly or unknowingly (Day 2005).
According to Nonaka & Takeuchi (1997), humans, processes and technology play an important role in the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. Leaders often face many challenges while externalizing the tacit knowledge of the employees. Tacit knowledge is embedded in the subconscious mind of the employees. It has technical as well as cognitive dimensions. The cognitive dimension of the tacit knowledge is raising many challenges while leaders try to externalize tacit knowledge. Externalization of tacit knowledge is helpful for an organization for its development. The valuable knowledge and skills learned by the experienced employees can be transferred to new employees with the help of processes such as externalization of tacit knowledge. It is necessary to convert the tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge in order to make it useful to the organization. Various processes and technological helps are necessary to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1997).
The extraction of tacit knowledge is profitable for an organization. It should be noted that experience is the best available teacher in this world. No other teachers can teach a person as effectively as experience does. An employee might have enhanced his knowledge and skill as he spends more time in an organization. A fresh employee may struggle to adapt with an organization even if he is well talented, highly skilled or educated. Externalization of tacit knowledge from experienced employees would help fresh employees to manage their jobs and responsibilities with ease. Moreover, “the results of the externalization process enable people with different backgrounds to share the former tacit knowledge” (Hemmecke and Stary, N.d., p.3).
According to Bukowitz and Williams (1999), the tacit knowledge possessed by individuals is crucial in the success and failures of an organization. An organization which is able to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge may excel in the market whereas an organization which failed to do so would struggle in the market. At the same time, conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge or externalization of tacit knowledge is a big challenge for many organizationsExternalization is the process through which tacit knowledge is converted to explicit knowledge. This process can be accomplished with the help of collaboration systems, online discussion database, wikis, blogs, forums(Bukowitz and Williams, 1999).
2.4 Challenges in the externalization of tacit knowledge for the proper implementation of KM
According to Tagger (2005), the extraction of tacit knowledge from employees is a complex process for leaders and managers because such knowledge is located actually inside the expert’s head. In other words, tacit knowledge is located at some inaccessible areas or the subconscious levels of the employee brain. Normal processes may not help leaders to bring out this knowledge. Moreover, the holder of the tacit knowledge may not know whether the information stored in his subconscious mind may come under the knowledge category or not. It is easy for him to externalize explicit knowledge since such knowledge is accepted as knowledge by the holder. On the other hand, the holder of tacit knowledge may not accept even useful information as knowledge. As a result of that, he may not be aware of the tacit knowledge stored in his memory (Stacey, 2002).
Another problem in the externalization of tacit knowledge is with respect to cognitive dimension. Tacit knowledge has two dimensions: technical and cognitive Technical dimension refers to the know-how whereas cognitive dimension refers to beliefs, ideals, values, mental models, schemata etc (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). The cognitive dimension of the tacit knowledge are mental models that are controlling people’s actions and are, vice versa, shaped by them (Senge, 1996). For example, it is easy to judge a person’s actions if his thinking process is known. However, it is extremely difficult to realize the thinking process of a person and hence it is difficult to judge or anticipate his actions.
2.5 General challenges in the implementation of KM
Paghaleh, et al. (2011), described some of the loopholes and pitfalls in the implementation of KM. As per their views, effective technology is necessary for an organization to implement KM successfully. In other words, they stressed the importance of proper IT infrastructure for the successful implementation of KM. Another argument put forward by them is that knowledge sharing is not taking place in many organizations because of the inadequate IT infrastructure (Paghaleh, et al., 2011).
According to Mithas et al. (2011), informationmanagement capability plays an important role in the implementation of KM. They mentioned that many of the modern organizations do not have adequate facilities for information management. They stressed the importance or role of senior leaders in creating necessary infrastructure facilities necessary for the proper implementation of KM (Mithas et al., 2011)
As per the views of Poor-Ebrahimi & Toloie-Eshlaghy (2011), the selection of suitable tools and system for the implementation of KM is extremely important. Many organizations have the belief that the tools used successfully for the implementation of KM in one organization may be successful in other organizations as well. Such organizations forget fact that the organizational environment is different for different organizations. They stressed the importance of a systematic and long-term approach for the successful implementation of KM (Poor-Ebrahimi & Toloie- Eshlaghy, 2011).
Many organizations have the belief that increasing the amount of information technology available to workers will improve the performances of the workers. However, the studies conducted by Davenport (2011) yielded results against the above argument. He has proved that “merely increasing the amount of informationtechnology available to workers is actually counterproductive as it fails to account for the very different responsibilities knowledge workers have within organizations” (Davenport, 2011, p.89). There is no point in feeding more or irrelevant information to the employees. Employees have a fixed capacity to accommodate knowledge and information. If the fed information exceeds beyond these capacities, employees may feel fatigue and become counterproductive.
According to Sue et al. (2010), lack of investments is another barrier in front of the successful implementation of KM. In their opinion, KM implementation is not a cheap act; it is highly expensive. Adequate funding is necessary to prepare the infrastructure necessary for the implementation of KM. However, many companies are reluctant in spending too much for the preparation of infrastructure necessary for the implementation of KM (Sue et al. 2010)
2.6 Public sector employment in Thailand
In the late 1970s and 1980s, the importance of public enterprises in Thai economy has increased considerably because of phenomenal expansion of public sector. The ratio of public sector revenue to GDP has increased from 10% in 1970s to 18% by 1980s. Public sector investment also marked tremendous growth during this period. It has grown from 1.7% in the 1970s to 3.5% in the 1980s. Moreover, the public enterprises accounted more than 70% of the public sector investments by 1985. Thai’s public enterprises consist of public utility companies, transport companies, energy companies, telecommunication companies, financial institutions, petroleum companies and several nonprofit organizations. All these public organizations in Thailand hire only Thai citizens, except for very obvious cases. Once these locals retire the public enterprises in Thailand look for local employment market for filling the vacancies. It is necessary for Thailand to allow fresh employees to take training under experienced ones in order to ensure that the knowledge sharing from the experienced to the fresh ones taking place smoothly. Knowledge sharing from the experienced employees to the fresh employees is extremely important for Thailand’s public sector since the public sector is reluctant in taking knowledge from outside the territories of the country (Offerdal et al., 1996).
The Thaksin Shinawatragovernment is often criticized for the destruction of traditional bureaucracy in Thailand because of Thaksin’s political style of Thaksinocracy, nepotism, corruption, and populism in favor of rural people. He was often labelled as the destructor of traditional bureaucracy in Thailand. However, it is a fact that he was responsible for many political and social reforms in the Kingdom of Thailand. Akira (2013) conducted a study about Thaksin’s populist policies, and the major reforms undertaken by the Thaksin government in the public sector (bureaucracy) and concluded that Thaksin was able to transform Thailand from a traditional bureaucratic polity into a modern state. However, Thaksin’s reforms were too radical and too speedy and it failed to bring the intended results in the bureaucracy led Thai public sector (Akira, 2013).
Thailand’s public sector is too bureaucratic in nature. In other words, bureaucrats or public servants dictate the public sector in Thailand. Ordinary people get fewer benefits and services from the public sector even though the government is spending a lot for the betterment of public sector enterprises. For example Thailand government has recently approved many programs for the reformation of judicial process in the country. The police department of the ministry of interiors in the country has undergone many restructuring as part of these reformation initiatives. Even though the police got increased autonomy and power as part of these reforms, the ordinary public has not witnessed any improvements in the services they received from the police department(Farazmand, 2001).
2.7 Problems of knowledge management in public sector in Thailand
Dr. Talisayon (2013) conducted a study in Taphanhin Crown Prince Hospital (TCPH) located in Taphanhin District, Pichit Province, a small and peaceful province 300 km north of Bangkok, in order to learn more about the problems in implementing KM in the public sector enterprises in Thailand. He found that the first challenge in the implementation of KM is the lack of awareness among the employees about KM. He found that even the senior employees of the hospital had only abstract and context-specific knowledge about KM. As a result of that the KM strategies which tasted success in other organizations may not taste the same success TCPH. The second problem associated with the implementation of KM in TCPH was the lack of computer literacy among the employees. Instead of using IT (information technology) capability for the implementation of KM, the TCPH tried to implement KM with the help of an approach like “Learning by Doing” and failed miserably. Another reason for the failure of KM in TCPH was the problems in knowledge sharing. TCPH tried to give too much focus to quantity rather than quality while sharing knowledge. Another reason for the failure of KM in TCPH was the failure of the TCPH management team in accepting employee feedback for the proper implementation of KM (Dr. Talisayon, 2013)
Yuen (n.d.) quoted the findings of a recent survey (NUS 2007) conducted in the public sector of many countries including Thailand in order to know the problems and challenges in the implementation of KM. This survey has identified many major challenges: lack of awareness about the importance of KM among employees, lack of ability to apply KM principles and theories, lack of management support in the implementation of KM, lack time, lack of resources, and difficulty in capturing tacit knowledge from employees. Lack of awareness about KM forces employees to resist the implementation of KM. It should be noted that employees always resist changes in policies of the company because of their misconception that all changes in policies may work against their interests (Yuen, n.d.).
Akawattanakul (n.d.) has conducted a case study of the Thai Revenue Department in order to learn more about the challenges in the implementation of KM in the public sector departments in Thailand. As per the findings of this study, lack of political will is the major reason for the failure of KM in the public sector. He has pointed out that the several policy changes are necessary for the implementation of KM and the government is responsible for making such changes. However, Thai government and political leaders are keeping a blind eye towards the implementation of KM in the public sector (Akawattanakul, n.d.)
Another reason for the failure of KM in public enterprises in Thailand is the lack of resources. According to Cheema and Rondinelh (1983), the extent of financial, administrative and technical support received by the KM initiatives in the public sector of Thailand is inadequate. They pointed out that sufficient budget allocations, timeliness and availability of resources, are necessary for the proper implementation of KM. They mentioned that the implementer’s attitude plays crucial role in the success and failure of KM (Cheema and Rondinelh, 1983).
Nurach, et al. (2012) conducted a survey by a sample of Thailand SME(s) (n = 770) from a cross-section of industries. After analyzing the results, they concluded that the most important factors in improving a business’ quality are accuracy and timeliness of information, followed by the availability of information analysis, the usage of informationtechnology in storing day-to-day operations and use it for performance management, the effectiveness of knowledge sharing and management system, the effectiveness of acquiring and using external information and, last but not least, the effectiveness of acquiring and using internal information(Nurach, et al., 2012, p.359).
2.8 Hypotheses
From the literature review above, the hypotheses of the study can be constructed as follows:
H1: KM is important for the successful management of public sector undertakings in Thailand
H2: Externalization of tacit knowledge is the biggest challenge in the implementation of KM in Thailand
H3: Lack of awareness about the importance of KM among employees is causing problems in the implementation of KM in Thailand
H4: Lack of resources is causing problems the implementation of KM in Thailand
H5: The dominance of bureaucracy is causing problems in the implementation of of KM in Thailand
2.9 Conceptual framework
Heisig (2009) analyzed around 160 frameworks and formulated a conceptual framework for the analysis of KM in organizations. It is illustrated below

(Heisig2009)
According to Heisig (2009), the success and failure of the KM in an organization depends on five factors as illustrated above: company culture, human resource management, leadership and strategies, information technology, controlling and organization and roles. As per the views of Heisig, KM is embedded within the above five factors. In his opinion, knowledge creating leads to knowledge storing, sharing, and application. The application of knowledge may create new knowledge as well. In other words, knowledge creation, storing, sharing, and application form the parts of a continuous KM loop inside the organization.
Creation of new knowledge is possible from the discovered or acquired knowledge. Refining of the discovered or acquired knowledge is necessary for the creation of new knowledge. Creation of new knowledge takes place in three ways: by combining internal knowledge, by combining external knowledge and by combining internal; and external knowledge. The analysis of information can also create new knowledge. An example for knowledge creation process is competitive intelligence. Various technologies can be combined together to create new knowledge and to achieve competitive intelligence (Oluic-Vukovic, 2001). For example, Apple Inc. was successful in gaining competitive power in mobile phone market by combining touchscreen technology with mobile phone technology.
Storing of knowledge is the second step in KM model proposed Heisig. Storing of knowledge takes place from two different processes: discovery and acquisition. Discovery refers to the identification of internal knowledge within the organization. The awareness about the knowledge existing in one part of the organization need not be available in other parts.Acquisition on the other hand refers to the collection of knowledge from external sources (Bouthillier and Shearer, 2002).
Sharing of stored knowledge is the third step in the KM model proposed by Heisig. Just like currency, knowledge has no value if it is stored in a particular place. Currency gets its value when it is used to purchase something. Same way, knowledge gets value only when it is used for some purposes. At the same time, knowledge needs to be stored properly in order to share it later. Knowledge sharing refers to the transfer of knowledge from one (or more) person to another one (or more) Different methods are necessary for the documentation, storing and sharing of different knowledge (Snowden, 1998). Application of shared knowledge is the last step in the KM model proposed by Heisig
Heisig argued that human oriented factors (such as culture, people, and leadership), organization factors (such as organizational processes and organizational structures), technology factors (such as infrastructure and applications) and management factors (such as strategy, goals and measurement) play important roles in the success and failure of KM in an organization (Heisig, 2009).

TO HAVE YOUR ASSIGNMENT DONE AT A LOW PRICE FOR A HIGH QUALITY PAPER, PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR
ORDER WITH US NOW.