Knowledge circle
- Main page: Knowledge Management
The knowledge circle is a form of circle which, in addition to knowledge development and knowledge transfer, pursues the goal of generating new knowledge and finding innovations. The concept of the knowledge circle is subordinate to the circle concept and can be distinguished from other types of circles (such as experience circles or problem-solving circles). However, there are many similarities between the different types of circles.
Definition and terminology
Circle
In an organization, circles are the space in which members of the organization can participate in the design of organizational processes in a group-oriented and experience-based manner. They come about through regular meetings of volunteers in order, if necessary, under the guidance of a moderator or using certain methods, to exchange ideas about the organizational processes and to review and improve them based on gained (work) experience. Their contents can vary. Depending on their main objective, terms such as quality circles, experience circles, problem-solving circles or knowledge circles are used.
Experience circle
Experience circles are an innovation-accompanying instrument that aims to supplement local experience with information and expertise. The primary goal is to help shape changes that have already been planned.
Problem solving circle
Here, singular problems are crystallized and solved in a circle.
Knowledge circle
Knowledge circles are to be understood as triggering innovation. They come into play before change. Here, too - as in circles of experience - experience is exchanged, knowledge is developed and passed on, but not - as in the case of a problem-solving circle - on a limited subject area, but on the organizational processes and their products as a whole. The clear goal is to "make the invisible visible", that is, to explicate implicit knowledge and experiences and thus to make them organizationally usable. Knowledge circles strive for a change in behavior and a change in organizational processes by introducing newly generated knowledge into the structures and processes of the organization.
In simple terms, the terms can be separated as follows: "Knowledge circles can trigger innovations, experience circles shape them, and problem-solving circles optimize and correct their innovations." ( Derboven et al. )
Suitability of circles for knowledge management
Starting point of circles
Circles start both at the macro level of the organization and at the micro level of the individual as a member of the organization. They are therefore suitable for redesigning not only the individual approach, but also the collective approach to knowledge. Knowledge circles can thus serve as spaces of experience and knowledge in which patterns of action for handling tasks in the organization can be disclosed and expanded.
Relevance of circles for organizational change
With the advent of Taylorism , the separation of planning and design activities (e.g. management) and executing and maintaining activities (e.g. employees) was enforced. The planning activities should intervene in organizational processes and change them, the executing activities should reproduce and preserve organizational processes. In the meantime it has been recognized that changes and change-relevant knowledge can also and especially be found at the level of executing activities. It can be stated that one can roughly distinguish between two types of change: the revolutionary changes and the evolutionary changes. Revolutionary changes are radical, volatile, and confrontational. They require a plan and a goal (require analytical and conceptual knowledge) and are mostly enforced top-down . Evolutionary changes proceed continuously and barely noticeably, because they arise without a plan in everyday organizational processes. The prerequisite for this is on-site knowledge and implementation experience.
The revolutionary change at the planning level is important for the adaptability of an organization, but the evolutionary change at the execution level is also synonymous. So that the design and maintenance of organizational processes do not drift apart, it is necessary that evolutionary change processes are taken up by the planning level and included in planning. The primary goal must be a dialogue between the execution and planning levels. Compasses can be used as an instrument for such a dialogue. In particular, knowledge circles can be regarded as suitable because they strive to disclose empirical knowledge that is fundamental to the description of evolutionary change processes and can serve as a source of innovation .
Circle as group-oriented concepts
Particularly in the area of knowledge management , high expectations are placed on groups. Within the framework of (knowledge) circles, not only is knowledge reflected, disseminated and coordinated, but new knowledge is also generated. This is precisely what knowledge circles aim at, which are supposed to generate innovations. At the same time, there is a collective learning process similar to that in learning communities . Due to such effects, different research approaches regard practice communities as a "nucleus" for social design or as a "nucleus" for knowledge management. However, caution is also urged not to set expectations in this regard too high without appropriate research knowledge. Even if a clear impact of group orientation on knowledge management can be expected, boundary conditions and unintended effects must be observed and a scientific foundation must be awaited.
Requirements and methodical design options
In the following, requirements and design options will be discussed. First of all, however, it must be explained that the design options as well as the requirements relate to circles in general due to extensive overlap. In certain places where a differentiation is useful, aspects of the knowledge circle are emphasized.
conditions
In order to draw from the pool of possibilities of a circle, a space for decision-making and experience must be opened up with it. One cannot expect empirical knowledge to be explicated at the push of a button, but conditions can be created that encourage it and “elicit” it from the participants. Traditional circles with a purely corrective character often reach their limits here. Circles are intended to allow organization members to participate in organizational processes and must hold out the prospect of possible change. That is why short-term circles should not be associated with high expectations.
Another important prerequisite for successful implementation is acceptance and support from the management level . The members of the organization must also be sufficiently informed, which in turn requires funding from the organization.
It is often observed in circles that participants have problem but no solution experience. To make sensible use of the problem experience, it is useful to call in experts who can provide solution knowledge, especially for more complex problems. Participants should not become solution experts, but they can be involved and contribute to the situational adjustment of solution concepts.
The willingness of employees to disclose knowledge is fundamental for the successful implementation of knowledge circles in particular. This requires a basis of trust in the organization. It must be made clear that the collective design of the generation and transfer of knowledge does not lead to any expropriation of knowledge, but always to an increase in knowledge and a benefit for everyone from shared knowledge management ( win-win concept).
Methods
Various knowledge management methods can be used when designing circles. The knowledge circle starts with everyday tasks of organization members and therefore requires methods that reveal particularly unconscious empirical values. Implicit knowledge and experience cannot be called up on request, but require methods that capture problems in their entirety and address aspects that are difficult to describe verbally.
Derboven et al. present an overview of such methods that you have used yourself in the practical implementation of (knowledge) circles. The common denominator of all these methods is that experiences are made consciously via the detour of a concrete application (game, visualization, objectification). Experience-based knowledge is, so to speak, elicited from the circle participants through a "back door". Some methods are presented below.
Through role playing contexts can, which are often not verbal writable, are included. These can be of an atmospheric or emotional nature. Such contexts are important because they very often require “on-site knowledge”. Role plays are evaluated collectively by the actors and spectators (both groups were previously formed from the circle participants). Behaviors are discussed and suggestions for improvement are discussed. After this evaluation, it is important to be able to run through the role play again with the discussed alternative courses of action.
“The Council of Wise Men” is also interesting as a special form of role play. Among the actors there are those seeking advice and those who give advice. This simulates a counseling process that sensitizes the circle participants for careful listening and the responsibility towards those seeking advice. In doing so, analogies are used as a presentation option for those seeking advice. It is important here that the person seeking advice is recognized and accepted as a carrier of information and experience. This is followed by an evaluation and discussion by all circle participants.
Another method is the objectification of knowledge through the creation of an evaluation sheet by the circle participants. Important points can be identified through brainwriting . In this way, individual wishes and experiences regarding cooperation can be communicated successfully. The evaluation sheet serves as a diagnostic tool for assessing the cooperation. In this way one achieves a great common consensus, as each individual is part of the overall result. In this way, the experiences of all participants are taken into account through a process that was developed jointly.
Another method is the creation of knowledge maps using mind mapping and info mapping . Mind mapping is used to represent conceptual relationships in a network that at the same time enables structuring through generic and subordinate terms. The visualization also stimulates thought flows. Infomapping works in a similar way, but concentrates on the representation of the connection of information flows (e.g. between employees, but also between departments or between different organizations) so that map-like structures can be created. For this purpose, the circle participants must reflect on their own experience in a concentrated manner and represent it using symbols. This ensures that everyday organizational processes become aware.
literature
- Wibke Derboven, Michael Dick, Theo Wehner: Experience- oriented participation and knowledge development. The use of circles in the context of knowledge management concepts. In: Harburger contributions to the psychology and sociology of work. 1999 ( PDF ; 405 kB).
- Wibke Derboven, Michael Dick, Theo Wehner: Circles as spaces for the creation, acquisition and diffusion of knowledge. In: Business Psychology, Issue 3. 2003 ( PDF ; 90 kB).
further reading
- Gabi Reinmann-Rothmeier: Communities and Knowledge Management. When high expectations and little knowledge come together. (Research reports of the LMU Munich, No. 129). Chair for Empirical Pedagogy and Educational Psychology at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, 2000.
- Case study at:
- Michael Dick, Theo Wehner: Airbus Deutschland GmbH: Participative development of knowledge management tools. In: Werner Lüthy, Eugen Voit, Theo Wehner (eds.): Knowledge management - practice: Introduction, fields of action and case studies. Zurich 2002, pp. 129–153 ( PDF ; 223 kB).
Web links
- Networks on the subject of knowledge circles form on the knowledge management platform