Managing Knowledge Systems

meaning from the context of an idea's practical consequences. He that

terms like "here" and "now" would have no meaning for a lis that
additional unspoken information. Thus statements about
can never be complete, speakers must always presume that the lis
available' some unexpressed and probably unexpressable undcrpin
is that managers recognize the importance of managing
and meaning, and in a knowledge system such as an orga bOth are
embedded in the individual and the social practices of that the
relationships between information, meaning, and practices are
Neither has logical, temporal, or epistemological priority. We can this
with the conventional bureaucratic model of management that that all
organizational action follows from managerial decisions
choice of organizational objective and means of its irnplernenta
priority---and that all such decisions can be made or explained
theoretical framework deriving from that objective. Even the theorist
knows this is false. Many contemporary theorists re
to whether it might be possible, through continued re
Improve the rational approach to the point where it captures many
Itbenoml~ that now seem irrational or a-rational, or whether an en
class of thinldng is called for.
structuration theory is an attempt to create a new kind of In
terms of a theory of knowledge management, we can see that decision
often leads to activity, but as that activity becomes intc the social
system it precipitates changes, which sometimes call for
managers' influence over the pattern of activities is in
by the cognizing system's own knowledge and sense of self. way as
we might argue that politics is the art of the possible; so a keen sense
of the options implicit in the current pattern of
brings US to the well-known distinction between incremental
change in the system, between that which the system al and can
exhibit without changing its knowledge base, and that are beyond
its current knowledge. Likewise the host
its own cognizing capabilities which become manifest
new meanings that become attached to existing language, but
tendencies that become evident in new practices.
the decision space for managers.
these rather dense rwninations later in the chapter. The that
knowledge gains its meaning from being embedded in a
Jean Laveand Etienne Wenger's work (1991) on "comrnu
can be seen as a direct attempt to analyze and deal with
of activity and the way they comprise the source of the organi
and evolution.

16.1

BOUNPEPNESS
We can explore the boundedness of one of these knowledge systems much as
an . anthropologist or ethnologist would, by determining the boundary
around the social group, which used a particular language, or social institu
tion, or cultural artifact. There is 'value in taking !he same approach to orga
nizations. The substantial amount of research into organlzationel culture
and the problems of culture clash when organizations interact, merge, or at
tempt to come into strategic alliance, indicates that culture, and much of or
ganizational practice, is sharply hounded and tied up with the historical evo
lution of the organization .. The psychological tendencies and value systems of
past CEOsarc also likely to be embedded in the firm. This is especially true for
the firm's founders.
But it would be a mistake to think that culture is an adequately powerful
metaphor to capture all that we mean by the collective and bounded context.
Toenrries (1971) made it classic distinction between purely social practice,
which cannot usefully be described as purposive, and organizational practice,
which is purposive by definition. From a knowledge management theory
point of view we can say that much of the organization's knowledge context
is like a culture, without purpose, even though we must recognize that the
functional nature of that culture is under constant review by its members.
Although the organizational knowledge system has cognizing propervies,
managers are continuously atternpttng to harness these to the organization'.
objectives. This is the other side of the dialectic. The managers' creativity is
continuously challenged by the evolutionary tendencies of the background
knowledge systen, in which they are embedded.
It may be useful to track one way in which the dialectic develops betWeen
(a) the individuals who comprise the Knowledge system and (b) the back
ground in which they are embedded. Imagine a basketball team: When they .
first meet, the players are simply individuals with their own knowledge of
their own capabilities. Under a good coach, as they begin to play together,
particularly against other teams, they begin to form collective knowledge,
what Fayol called "esprit de corps." On a basketball court this is evident in the
case with which players anticipate each other's moves and so accelerate the
pace of the game, giving them a profound advantage over teams that still de
pend on overt signaling to underpin their collaboration. The coach knows
success not only in whether the: team wins, but also in the degree to which
the players surprise themselves with what they can do individually and col
lectively. In this case the boundaries around the knowledge system are-some
what subtle. Every team has more players and maybe more coaches than arc
evident in any particular game. The boundary around the knowledge system,
or community of practice, can be defined in terms of those changes to the'
line-up that are productive and increase the team's capability, and those that
do not.