Similarities and differences of KB and KM

Posted on February 11, 2013 by philippg — 6 Comments ↓

Within international development there has been an increasing interest in knowledge management and knowledge brokering and it has not always been easy to deal with terminology (the K* space holder demonstrates this nicely). However, when faced with holding a workshop bringing together both KB and KM practitioners to discuss the use of indicators to measure both activities, it was necessary to move the terminology debate from the general to the specific and agree on some sort of working definition.

Thus, I am suggesting these working definitions. The KM definition is provided by the IKM emergent programme (with a slight adjustment from my side) and the knowledge brokering definition has been constructed (using the nested functions/roles from the K* discussions) by me. Please find these here:

Knowledge Management: “Any processes and practices concerned with the creation, acquisition, capture, sharing and use of knowledge, skills and expertise [within an organisation] (Quintas et al. 1996) [sic] whether these are explicitly labelled as KM or not (Swan et al. 1999)” (Ferguson, Mchombu, Cummings, 2008, p.8).

Knowledge Brokering: Any processes and practices concerned with informing, linking, matchmaking, engaging, collaborating and building of adaptive capacity (Jones et al., 2012), of two or more external knowledge producers/holders and users/seekers, whether these are explicitly labelled as KB or not

What these definitions immediately highlight is the organisational nature of KM and the sector perspective of KB. In knowledge management, knowledge and information (and data) is managed as a capital resource for the benefit of an organisation. In KB knowledge and information (and data) is shared by reaching across organisations to benefit the sector.

After having assessed this crucial difference one can address some of the similarities that exist. Some of them are listed here:
• Both, KM and KB aim at promoting and facilitating evidence-informed policy making and/or practice. Both try to
• address knowledge gaps.
• KM and KB can both be undertaken by individuals and institutions alike.
• Both, KM and KB, are roles that actors can play at different times.
• At the practical level KM and KB activities and interventions are often similar; e.g. putting in place a knowledge sharing system, developing communities of practice or learning networks, creating knowledge sharing relationships, building a repository of good practice, providing a knowledge advisory service

However, I am aware that many practitioners and theorists would disagree with those definitions. One objection might be that KM has been used more widely (than in the organisational context) in the development sector over the last decade. KM4Dev is sometimes understood to encompass all knowledge related activities in the sector. However, I would argue that this ignores the historical origin of knowledge management and that the term knowledge for development (K4D) sufficiently covers the need for a concept that describes knowledge related issues at a sector level.

Another objection might be that people would use the terms of KB or KM to describe the facilitation of knowledge exchanges between individuals that are situated within their own organisations and external stakeholders. However, I would call these activities simply ‘communications’ (in the case of research organisations/institutes/think tanks this would then be ‘research communications’).

This leads to another objection. What if an individual sometimes carries out research comms and at other times knowledge brokering? I would suggest that actors can put on different hats at different times. These definitions are to be understood as roles; thus, they describe processes and not actors.

These are just three objections. I can think of many more and there are probably plenty more than that. It would be great to hear what you think of these working definitions.

We (Walter Mansfield and myself – with the support of the Institute of Development Studies and the KM4Dev community) are currently running a survey on indicators that are being used to monitor and evaluate knowledge management and knowledge brokering and it includes a question on definitions: please leave your feedback via this survey or in the comments of this blog post. Thank you.

Please find below a link to a survey on indicators for Knowledge Management (KM) and Knowledge Brokering (KB) that will take 5-10 minutes to take part in:
https://www.survey.lboro.ac.uk/k4devindicators/

This will feed into a project and workshop which seeks to build an overview of how KM and KB activities are being measured and what indicators are in use.
We would be very grateful for your input in completing the survey and your help in sharing / tweeting (#K4DevIndicators)/ blogging on, and otherwise disseminating this survey within your knowledge networks

Background information:

This survey and definitions have been produced for a KM4Dev Innovation Fund project and as part of a larger collaborative project between researchers from Loughborough University and the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), funded by DFID as part of the Mobilising Knowledge for Development programme. The survey will be used to assist in the development of a workshop on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Brokering indicators to be held on the 8th March at IDS, UK. The results and findings of the survey and workshop will be reported back to the KM4Dev forum and the Knowledge Brokers Forum (KBF).

Bibliography

FERGUSON, J., MCHOMBU, K., CUMMINGS, S., 2008. Meta-review and scoping study of the management of knowledge for development. [online]. IKM Emergent. [viewed 08/01/2013]. Available from: http://content.imamu.edu.sa/Scholars/it/net/080421-ikm-working-paper-no1-meta-review-and-scoping-study-final.pdf.

JONES, H., JONES, N., SHAXSON, L., WALKER, D., 2012. Knowledge, policy and power in international development a practical guide. 1st ed. Bristol: Policy Press.

ORGANISATION OF ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 2010. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management [pdf] Available at: <http://www.oecd.org/development/peerreviewsofdacmembers/2754804.pdf> [Accessed 08 January 2013].

QUINTAS, P., LEFRERE, P., JONES, G., 1997. Knowledge Management: A strategic agenda. Long range planning 30(3), 385-391.

SWAN, J., NEWELL, S., SCARBROUGH, H., HISLOP, D., 1999. Knowledge management and innovation: networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management 3(4), 262-275.

Tagged with: Indicators, Knowledge Intermediaries, Knowledge Interventions, Knowledge Management, M&E
Posted in K*

Jaap Pels

Hi Philipp,
1 please insert links to your references … example: http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8199.pdf etc (yes, I can Google etc but … )

2 Knowledge cannot be managed nor brokered; see Snowden (http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/entry/5576/rendering-knowledge) / Jarche (http://www.jarche.com/pkm/)

An organisation is mere a (very cumbersome / frustrating / stress-full) vehicle to ‘manage’ knowledge sharing, even better ‘learning’. Now please do not hide under ‘learning organisations’ because organisations do not learn; people do
KM4Dev is typical collection of people sharing. managing – especially in orgs – drills down to control.

3 Be careful with the linear data – information – knowledge – wisdom. See the picture by Poindexter at http://goo.gl/MStWb

4 Why not stick with ‘knowledge is information in use’? That way you can think / talk about ‘managing information in use’ and see what can be done in respect to brokering e.g. broker information and broker use ….

Just some thoughts Jaap
- thought4dev
  
  Hi Jaap,
  
  Thanks for your comments. I should have provided the links. Academia is really getting to me
  
  These are of course only labels and suffer from their weaknesses. As well as the inherent weaknesses of definitions.
  I agree with you on the people argument. However, that is why the definitions talk of “processes and practices concerned with”. Knowledge cannot be subject to these, but people can. In this sense, management and brokering are the important words rather than knowledge (you point to that in your comment).
  
  Thus, I do not really mind what it is called: information, wisdom, knowledge, etc. because these focus on objects rather than processes.
  
  Thanks again for your thoughts.
  Best wishes,
  Philipp
http://twitter.com/ewenlb ewenlb

Hi Philipp,

Thanks for posting this. I agree with Jaap’s points. Mind that labels carry a lot of mental images with them for the people using them – words DO matter as each word tilts the emphasis on this aspect or that aspect. In that vein, data-, information-, knowledge management (let me spare wisdom here) are all different.

As mentioned in the survey that I filled out for your project, I like – in the definition of KB that was put forward – the external focus and the ‘unconscious’ dimension too i.e. “of two or more external knowledge producers/holders and users/seekers, whether these are explicitly labelled as KB or not”

I think the KM movement too often has failed to recognise the importance of ‘doing KM’ without calling it that.

Mind that although a lot of KM has been applied to organisations – verging on the organisational learning territory as Jaap mentioned – it has also gone way beyond that in many ways. The communities of practice sprouting about are a testimony to this, and certainly in development/cooperation there is more recognition for the importance of KM at network/sector/inter-sectoral level.

Finally, let me just say that definitions fix ideas in time for a while, but people move on from these. The KM definition from IKM-E was formulated at the onset of the program and although we didn’t come back to defining KM towards the end of the program, we moved away from the boundaries of that definition to look more broadly at the multiple knowledges that help realise the potential of KM…

Thanks again for the interesting and challenging thoughts and mind the words
- thought4dev
  
  Hi Ewen,
  
  thank you very much for your comment. I see what you mean. There are a lot of images attached to knowledge management; and, as it seems, also to “management”. What those definitions are trying to capture is that talking of “management” at a sector or even inter-sector level (as you say in a different context: http://km4meu.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/managing-or-facilitating-change-not-just-a-question-of-words/) might stretch the concept slightly too far. It would be very interesting to explore what people working in int. dev. understand under management and how that overlaps (or not) with other understandings and the term’s historical origin!
  
  I agree in that KM has been understood in the sector mean more than “organisational” stuff but I would suggest that this is not always helpful, considering that the concept and a lot of the tools and methods it offers have been developed for an organisational context. Rather than focussing so much on KM we should open our eyes to some of the concepts in information science and, the social sciences more, generally. I tried to outline this in another post with regards to complexity theory (http://www.thoughtfordevelopment.com/2013/02/decentralising-knowledge-interventions-and-complexity/).
  
  In this respect, I agree with Jaap’s comment. Knowledge cannot be managed, neither brokered. However, for exchange to happen communications and relationships need to exist and occur. These might be managed within organisations but outside the firm (social) structures that come with organisations the only thing we might dare to say is that the can be brokered or (what I personally prefer) facilitated.
  
  Thanks again for your comment. Would be great to hear more of your thoughts!
  Cheers,
  Philipp
Emilie Wilson

Hi Philip

Thanks for braving that dangerous (or at least contested) territory of definitions – part of the ongoing battle it seems to – on the one hand have enough of a definition or shared understanding about our practices, processes and products (those us working as information/communication/research intermediaries) in order for us to get on with our jobs and work with one another more effectively; and on the other hand, the rejection of definition (via ongoing debates) as being too narrow or meaning different things and different contexts or other…

I’m looking forward to hearing more about survey findings once, you have crunched through the data.

You might be interested in the writings and musings of a former colleague of mine, Catherine Fisher, on some of the points you touch upon (e.g. in her post “Buzzing about Brokers” http://www.impactandlearning.org/2012/01/power-politics-practicing-what-you.html or Elise Wach who draws an interesting parallel with value chain analysis http://www.impactandlearning.org/2012/10/comparing-research-and-oranges-what-can.html)

Best wishes,

Emilie
- thought4dev
  
  Hello Emilie,
  
  thank you very much for your comment.
  
  I am aware of Catherine’s work. I have been missing her contributions since she left IDS.
  
  You raise an important point there. The most important thing is to have those discussions. Whatever is being “agreed” is temporary any ways. However, the discourse is important for everyone to be able to develop their own take on the issue and to reflect on what others think and say.
  
  I will keep people informed about the survey process. We have more than 50 responses now but will keep it open for another while (until 22nd of March) and report on it at the end of March.
  
  Thanks again for your comment.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  Philipp