ASSIGNMENT OF BIA

SUBMITTED TOHARMEET MALHOTRA

NAME- DRISHTI KOCCHAR

ROLLNO.-01313703915

Qa) Explain why knowledge maps are required?

ANS Knowledge maps serve to record and visualize existing knowledge resources in a structured way.
Identifying and allocating knowledge ensures that a transparent and graphic directory of available experts,
knowledge databases, structures and applications can be set up.
The goal of knowledge maps is to record close explicit (conscious) as well as implicit (intuitive, not
conscious) knowledge. They assist in the orientation within the organization and make the knowledge
required for a solution process usable. Knowledge maps themselves do not contain any knowledge but
point the way to knowledge.
In general the following knowledge maps are available:
Knowledge holder maps,
Knowledge base maps,
Knowledge structure maps,
Knowledge application maps,
Knowledge development maps.
Knowledge holder maps refer to persons and their respective subject matter areas within an organization.
In addition, information such as location, qualification and core competencies can be provided.
Knowledge base maps expand the knowledge holder maps by referring to codified knowledge such as
documents, databases etc.
Knowledge structure maps illustrate complex topics. They represent the relationships, connections and
dependencies of content and issues.
Knowledge application maps describe the procedure within a process in terms of time and structure. In
addition, they link the respective process phases with the associated knowledge holders.
Knowledge development maps in contrast describe the competencies required for the processes that are
important for the optimization and execution of organizational processes. Accordingly they indicate the
course of knowledge development.

PROCEDURE OF KNOWLEDGE MAP

1. Record the level of knowledge
In a first step, the real level of knowledge must be recorded. Knowledge holders, knowledge bases and
knowledge-intensive processes must be recorded. This will identify existing knowledge gaps.
The knowledge bases can, for instance, be recorded with the following tools: questionnaires, departmental
meetings or workshops held over several days. In addition to employee surveys, the actual knowledge
bases such as documents, e-mails and call notes must be viewed carefully because they can also contain
important information.
2. Model knowledge
The knowledge to be depicted must then be modeled; it must be brought into an accessible form to ensure
systematic access. The bases must be catalogued and given meaningful names. This can, for example, be
operationalized with the use of a table (see template).
The form of knowledge map that is most suitable for depicting the knowledge to be represented is then
determined. A catalogue structure or a network structure, such as a mind map (see example) is suitable for
this.
3. Realizing knowledge maps technically
The third step involves the technical realization of knowledge maps. The knowledge map is mostly
integrated into existing business process systems by means of technical elements. Navigation elements,
such as overviews or search engines within the knowledge map, are added in this step. Additional
information, such as contact details or discussion fora, is also provided here.
4. Maintenance and updating
The final step is the ongoing updating, expanding and correction of the knowledge bases. It has been
proven that clear personnel responsibilities need to be determined here. This will ensure that the
information provided is reliable. The success of the knowledge map can be evaluated with the aid of
quality-assurance criteria (functional, cognitive, technical and structural).

Qb) What is community of practices ,how it helps in knowledge generation?

ANS - A community of practice is a group of people who share a concern or a passion for something they
do, and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly.
This definition reflects the fundamentally social nature of human learning. It is very broad. It applies to a
street gang, whose members learn how to survive in a hostile world, as well as a group of engineers who
learn how to design better devices or a group of civil servants who seek to improve service to citizens.
In all cases, the key elements are:
The domain: members are brought together by a learning need they share (whether this shared learning
need is explicit or not and whether learning is the motivation for their coming together or a by-product of
it)
The community: their collective learning becomes a bond among them over time (experienced in various
ways and thus not a source of homogeneity)
The practice: their interactions produce resources that affect their practice (whether they engage in actual
practice together or separately)

Learning is seen as deriving from the social process of becoming a

practitioner, as it gives the individual a social context of being an integrated part of
a community. The social construction of identity shapes each person's view and
interpretation of the world. Learning and the creation of new knowledge can then
take place within the context dependent forum of the community, and can be
shared through social practice.
Lave and Wenger (1991) introduce the concept of legitimate peripheral learning
(LPP). LPP links learning to participation within a community of practice. The
objective is not to acquire any specific knowledge, but instead to be granted access
to the community and its culture and language. As a newcomer learns the formal
and informal culture and values of the community, he becomes a legitimate
member. Essentially he moves form peripheral to full participation.
Brown and Duguid (1991) further investigate organizational learning from a
community perspective. They refer to canonical and non canonical practice- which
are concepts similar to espoused theory and theory-in-use described in the previous
section. Canonical practice refers to adherence to formal rules and procedures,
while non-canonical refers to the informal routines that dominate day to day
procedures. Brown and Duguid warn against strict canonical focus as it inhibits the
problem solving capabilities of the organization. They stress that it is unstructured
dialogue, particularly through storytelling, that leads to innovation and problem
solving.
Storytelling functions as a wisdom repository and is instrumental in the creation of
new knowledge. This is closely linked to Levitt and March's concept of history

dependent learning where the interpretations of events (rather than the actual
events) are remembered and passed on. It is also somewhat reminiscent of
Nonaka's externalization process, when tacit knowledge is made explicit often
through the use of metaphor.
The Implications to KM
Botha et al (2008) summarize the key factors regarding communities of practice as
follows:
Learning is a social phenomenon
Knowledge is integrated into the culture, values, and language of the community
Learning and community membership are inseparable
We learn by doing and therefore knowledge and practice are inseparable.
Empowerment is key to learning: The best learning environments are created when
there are real consequences to the individual and his community of practice.
Management must understand the advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of
communities of practice. For example, because they are so loosely defined it may
be very hard to identify them when a problem needs to be solved- to resolve this
some companies today are mapping their communities of practice (Botha 2008).
Another issue could be the problem of transferring and combining knowledge across
the firm. Due to the close ties to "doing" as well as the cultural elements, this may
require innovative solutions- e.g. using temporary cross functional project teams
that can leverage knowledge from different areas, apply it, learn, and the
redistribute the new knowledge back into the individual members' communities.
All this should underline the importance of recognizing and supporting communities
of practice. Knowledge management (KM) initiatives and systems must therefore be
supportive, non-disruptive, and must not enforce canonical practice.