Parenting Styles What They Are and Why They Matter Essay

A parent is not only the loving mother who holds you close to her for nine months and then many years, or the dad who plays baseball with you and intimidates his daughter’s dates. It is someone who is there for you from the start, guiding you to the right path of knowledge and teaching you how to stay on the right path independently. A parent does not need to have any biological associations to the child in order to be a parent to them. A parent must have certain characteristics to be rightfully called a parent. For many years psychologists have defined ways to correctly support a child to adulthood for parents all over the world. Some people conclude their practice of parenting their children after the child reaches the age of 18, and†¦show more content†¦There is Authoritarian, Authoritative, and Permissive. Baumrind is also cited in the journal â€Å"Parenting Style as a Moderator for Students’ Academic Achievement.† (Ishak, Low Lau, 2011) However th e parenting styles as listed by Baumrind in the journal are distinct in character, and much through the levels of responsiveness and demandingness each style has. Maccoby and Martin, who are also cited in the second listed journal, had captured the important elements. Parental Responsiveness is parallel to the emotional support a parent would show to the child to their special needs and demands. The parent would listen to the child’s interests and goals, which can result as motivation for academic achievement if listened to properly and shown the right motivation for achievement. Parental responsiveness can be thought of as a parent â€Å"responding† to their child’s need of emotional support. Parental demandingness refers to the expectations of that parent of the child. This can range from expecting higher grades, better performance and excellent behavior. (Ishak, Low Lau, 2011) Authoritative Parenting is high in both demanding and responsiveness. The parent would have high expectations of the child in the household and classroom, along with rules however, with the high level of responsiveness there is more communication and reasoning behind the expectations and more emotional support to ensure a healthy relationshipShow MoreRelatedThe, What Makes A Perfect Parent, Raises The Question Essay1630 Words   |  7 PagesChapter 5 of Freakonomics, What Makes a Perfect Parent, raises the question, â€Å"how much do parents really matter?† This is a very interesting question with a number of different answers. Steven Levitt, the author, goes into great detail to answer this question. Right of the start, Levitt mentions, â€Å"Clearly bad parenting matters a great deal† (Levitt, Dubner p.154). He uses the correlation between abortion and crime, making the argument that unwanted children will be worse off in life versus otherRead MoreThe Fbi Behavior Analysis Unit1443 Words   |  6 PagesPsychology Parenting Styles The FBI Behavior Analysis Unit can profile a person down to the type of household they grew up in. Behavior as an adult, especially of a psychopath, is usually in correlation to a traumatic event of their childhood, usually involving their parents. The FBI has the ability to analyze all the behaviors of a person and tell you what kind of car they are mostly likely to drive, what profession they are most likely involved in, and in most cases, links to why their behaviorRead MoreDiana Baumrinds Parenting Styles in Psychology784 Words   |  3 Pagesthe three parenting styles in psychology, authoritarian parenting, authoritative parenting, and permissive parenting. All of these parenting styles are seen today throughout everyone’s lives. All of these parenting styles can affect a person differently and studies have shown that depending on what style a person has been raised with can affect whom that person becomes and how they behave in life. The first style of parenting is authoritarian parenting. In this style of parenting, childrenRead MoreParenting Styles988 Words   |  4 PagesPARENTING STYLES: EAST OR WEST? Name School Parenting Styles: East or West? Parenthood is a privilege but is also a great responsibility. Parents wish there was a manual that came along with children when they were born; however, that is not the case and parents can only do their best in different situations. How parents act in child rearing is called parenting styles, and geographically speaking there is a wide variety of styles practiced. The most controversial styles are the ones adoptedRead MoreParenting Styles And Their Influence On Children951 Words   |  4 Pageswhich style best fits their beliefs and abilities. Many parents come to the conclusion that they will try their best and just hope that their children learn right from wrong and the abilities they need to succeed in life. However, what most parents do not always realize is that the style of parenting they are using may have a bigger impact on their child than they are aware of. For the sake of these parents and their sanity, as well as the children’s, I have classified these styles of parenting intoRead MoreParenting : A Balancing Act1525 Words   |  7 PagesParenting: A Balancing Act When the term, â€Å"Chinese family,† comes to mind, it can often be associated with words or qualities such as prosperity, diligence, intelligence, superintendence, and even negligence. These associations, however, did not just appear out of thin air. Children raised under a Chinese parenting style often corner the markets in areas concerning child prodigies, successful students, and assiduous workers. Most of the aforementioned qualities of these children can be attributedRead MoreEffects Of Parenting Styles992 Words   |  4 PagesParenting styles can be highly impressionable on their children.  There are various styles of parenting, and each style can have different effects on the child or adolescent.  The four parenting styles that can be implemented in the household are recognized as: authoritarian, neglectful, permissive, and authoritative. All four of these styles carry their own unique characteristics, and have some distinct features. Whichever style a parent dec ides is best to use for their child can have multiple shortRead MoreWhy Chinese Mothers Are Superior By Amy Chua Summary782 Words   |  4 Pagesbragging rights of well-educated, career driven and disciplined descendants, which is an important factor in todays society; however, such parenting can lead teens to experience psychological effects such as depression and ultimately suicide. Regardless of concerned critics, Amy Chua remains positive on the result of tiger parenting. She believes that this parenting enables her children to be successful and she expects nothing but the best. On the contrary, the recipient of such harsh treatment inRead MoreThe Authoritarian Style Of Parenting Essay1414 Words   |  6 Pageschild-parent behavior, seeking to identify parenting styles. The Baumrid study and other further studies identified four main styles of parenting (Miller, 2010): the authoritative parenting style was characterized by fair rules and consequences; The Authoritarian parent ing style was characterized by strict rules and harsh punishment; the permissive parenting style was characterized by minimal rules with little or no consequences; the uninvolved parenting style was characterized by no rules, and parentRead MoreThe Four Basic Types Of Parenting Styles1337 Words   |  6 PagesAccording to Arnett’s book on human development, the four basic types of parenting styles that exist are categorized as neglectful, permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian. Ideally, according to Arnett’s findings, most parents should aim to be authoritative parents, meaning they should aim to posses essential qualities in order to ensure successful communication with their child. Authoritative parents are described as flexible with their children, supportive, and democratic. However, they should

The Factor that Determining the Efficiency of Distribution of Zakat in Sibu, Sarawak - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 3 Words: 770 Downloads: 4 Date added: 2019/10/10 Category Religion Essay Tags: Islam Essay Did you like this example? 1.0 Background of the Study The literal meaning of Zakat can be defined as pure, blessing, good, grow and renowned. Zakat is the third pillar from the five fundamental pillars of Islam. With e well functioning Zakat, it enables economic growth and income equality, in other words, economy with equity (Ahmad Muflih,1986). The government should be accountable in collecting and distributing zakat funds for a few reasons (Yusuf, 2000). Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Factor that Determining the Efficiency of Distribution of Zakat in Sibu, Sarawak" essay for you Create order There are two important roles of Zakat institutions which are collecting and distributing Zakat funds. But nowadays, the distributing of Zakat has become a big issue. Therefore, this research aims to study the factor that determining the efficiency of distribution of Zakat in Sibu. The findings of this study will explain the method and the effectiveness of distribution of Zakat in Sibu. By doing this study also we will get to recognize the challenges that been encounter by the Zakat institutions in Sarawak in distributing the Zakat fund. 2.0 Problem Statement Zakat is the third pillar in Pillars of Islam. It is vital for Malaysia to have a proper zakat management to demonstrate a good image of Islam. The systematic and effective of zakat management will increase the zakat payers confidence in paying their zakat. According to Muhammad Syukri (2002, p. 2), in Malaysia, the zakat collection has been increased averagely from year to year. For 2012, the total Zakat collected from Pusat Pungutan Zakat (PPZ) Selangor is RM451 million, where this amount is exceeding the target set for that year. These total collections have shown and increasing value in Zakat collection for 2011 which is only RM 394.1 million. However, even though the management of Zakat collection getting better from year to year, but when it comes to Zakat distribution, it is still become a big issue. The difficulty with the distribution methods, zakat distribution to the qualified and unqualified asnaf, the problem with poverty that is still happen even though the zakat distribution has been implemented, some zakat institution having shortage zakat fund while some having surplus, are among the issues that has decreased the performance and achievement of the zakat institution itself (Mohamed Dahan 1998; Abdullah 1999). This show the unjustice in Muslim economics and lead to the bad impression of the ability towards Zakat institutions. 3.0 Significance of the Study As a result, this situation creates an interest in the researcher to perform study to review the method of distribution of Zakat and its effectiveness, the factor that determining the efficiency of Zakat and the challenges in distributing Zakat. This research is to find a solution for better way in distributing Zakat in smaller community at Sibu. These research findings can help in improving the efficiency of distribution of Zakat, assist in increase Zakat payers confident toward Zakat institutions by paying their Zakat and help to makes a better strategy for the Tabung Baitulmal Sarawak in increasing their Zakat profesionalisme in Zakat management. This research also significance to a better development of Islamic economy. 4.0 Research Objective Based on the above discussion, the research objective for this study are; 1. To find out the method of distribution of Zakat in Sibu and their effectiveness. 2. To investigate factors determining the efficiency of Zakat distribution in Sibu. 3. To examine the challenges that Tabung Baitulmal Sarawak encounter in distribution of Zakat. 5.0 Research Question In order to meet the objectives of the research, there are few research questions that are conducted in this research. The following are the research questions of this research: 1. How is Zakat distributed in Sibu? 2. What are the factors that determining the efficiency of Zakat distribution in Sibu? 3. What are the challenges that Tabung Baitulmal Sarawak encounter in distribution of Zakat in Sibu? 6.0 Expected Contribution This study expected to help, Tabung Baitulmal Sarawak (TBS) for Sibu area to improve their efficiency in distributing Zakat. When the result of this study indicates the challenges that the institutions encounter, the TBS can come out a strategy to improve their effectiveness in distribution of Zakat in Sibu. Through this new strategy proposed, it is hoped that TBS can increase the profesionalisme of Zakat management and also increase the confidence of the zakat payers. This later will contribute to increasing number of zakat funds and indirectly help the capability of asnaf to improve their life. 7.0 Conclusion As conclusion, this study is vital to increase the confidence of people towards our Zakat institutions. By providing an efficiency and a transparent system of Zakat management, this will attract more people to pay Zakat. Since the collection of Zakat is no longer become an issue in managing Zakat, thus, the government play an important role in finding a solution in enhancing and improving Zakat distribution to Asnaf.

Knowledge Management Free Essays

Knowledge management in an organisation means to capture the knowledge that is critical to them, constantly improve it and make it available in the most effective manner to those who need it. There are two types of knowledge explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is a kind of knowledge that can be expressed in formed E. We will write a custom essay sample on Knowledge Management or any similar topic only for you Order Now g following a procedure. Tacit knowledge is influenced by emotions and beliefs E. g Respect, relationships. Bovis case study throws a light how knowledge management can be difficult for organisations operating globally. There is friction in transfer of knowledge due to cultural factors and sometimes even due to language barriers. Bovis model helps reduce these frictions. In his model group cohesion among members of the knowledge mnanagement team was promoted so that communication barriers are removed. There was weekly conference calls, also team meeting every 6 months in different geographic locations. To remove language barrier english was made as the base language and e-mail acted as a mechanism that communicated queries and solutions in a commom base vehicle. Hoarding of knowledge is a common practice which can lead to limitations to successful communication of knowledge between providers and seekers. Bovis model helps to mitigate these limitations through motivational tactics and linking employee usage to performance reviews. The success of the bovis model lies in the knowledge management team structure and the method he adopted to monitor the success of the knowledge management initiative. Bovis model shows how complex isuues associated with successful implementation of knowledge management in business can be dealt. How to cite Knowledge Management, Papers Knowledge management Free Essays string(40) " what happens between one’s ears\." Prussia core tenet of any organizational learning project is that without detecting and correcting errors in â€Å"what we know† and â€Å"how we learn,† an organization’s knowledge deteriorates, becomes obsolete, and can result in â€Å"bad† decisions. Because systematic attention to knowledge management is relatively recent, it is particularly important to detect these errors so that knowledge management does not become yet another management fad that promised much but delivered little. If we do not identify and try to resolve these errors, â€Å"what we know† about knowledge management may become little else but mythology. We will write a custom essay sample on Knowledge management or any similar topic only for you Order Now As a consequence, we will be faced with the ultimate knowledge irony: efforts to manage knowledge are themselves based upon faulty knowledge principles. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to a set of pervasive knowledge management errors. These reflections are based on the authors’ observing or partaking in over one hundred knowledge projects over the past five years or so. The focus is on fundamental errors, that is, errors that if left unredeemed inhibit genuine knowledge from being developed and leveraged. These are errors associated with he concept of knowledge itself: how knowledge is understood in organizational settings and how that understanding impedes knowledge management. Error l: Not Developing a Working Definition of Knowledge If knowledge is not something that is different from data or information, then there is nothing new or interesting in knowledge management. Yet many managers seem determinedly reluctant to distinguish between data and CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLVO, NO. 3 SPRING 1998 265 The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management information on the one hand and knowledge on the other; and, more importantly, hey seem reluctant to consider the implications of these distinctions. The tendency to avoid grappling with what knowledge is should not be surprising. There is little in the education, training, or organizational experience of managers that prepares them for the deep-seated reflection and understanding required by the concept of knowledge. Moreover, this situation is exacerbated by some recent popular management literature that directly advocates not making distinctions between these concepts. The argument advanced by these authors is that contemplation of such extinctions distracts managers from the necessary task of managing,’ However, reflection upon concepts and the distinctions among and between them is the essence of the process of â€Å"knowing† or learning. This is a critical error. It contributes directly to all of the errors noted below. Also, avoidance of grappling with a working understanding of knowledge leads to a dysfunctional environment for knowledge work. Many executives have told us they were extremely reluctant to even use the knowledge word and that they felt the anti- knowledge culture of their organizations compelled them to do knowledge work by dealt. â€Å"We had to disguise our knowledge project within a data warehousing architecture plan† is a true and representative response. In fairness, firms have been assaulted, at least since the asses, with multitudes of theories and nostrums that have often proved to be of questionable value. This has made many executives skeptical, if not downright hostile, to new ideas and programs. Error 2: Envisaging Knowledge Stock to the Detriment of Knowledge Flow When knowledge is equated with information, it should not be a surprise to find it defined principally as a stock rather than as a flow. It is viewed as a thing or object that exists on its own, that can be captured, transmitted among individuals, and stored in multiple ways within the organization. Indisputably, this â€Å"stock† perspective tends to dominate organizations’ thinking about knowledge. This has come about in part because several early examples of knowledge â€Å"success† focus on articulated and documented stocks of knowledge such as Dhow’s work on patent values and Muckiness’s rapid-response system. The notion of flow, however, suggests a radically different conception of knowledge. It is in constant flux and change. It is central to day-to-day doing and being. Individuals create it and it is largely self-generating. Moreover, it connects, binds, and involves individuals. In short, it is inseparable from the individuals who develop, transmit, and leverage it. The prevalent view of knowledge as stock is grounded in large measure in the thrust of every educational system from grade school through university: learn the facts and regurgitate them as required in the relevant examination. 266 VOLVO 40, NO. 3 This orientation is in turn reflected in and reinforced by the pervasive information genealogy approach to the management of data and information: capture, store, retrieve, and transmit. Although organizations obviously need to manage their data and information using these technology-centered models, knowledge is a substantially different thing and thus needs different models. The implications for how organizations approach all facets of knowledge management are profound. In many firms, knowledge simply becomes another object to be managed. It is viewed as something separate from the organizational processes that help generate and nurture it. Not surprisingly, therefore, managers all too often do not see themselves s part of the knowledge process, but rather see it as happening outside of them. Error 3: Viewing Knowledge as Existing Predominantly Outside the Heads of Individuals Implicit in the observations above is that any discussion of knowledge is meaningless in the absence of a â€Å"knower,† Knowledge is what a knower knows; there is no knowledge without someone knowing it. Knowledge therefore must be viewed as originating â€Å"between the ears† of individuals. Taken literally, the need for a knower raises profound questions as to whether and how knowledge can exist outside the heads of individuals. Although knowledge can be represented in and often embedded in organizational processes, routines, and networks, and sometimes in document repositories, it cannot truly originate outside the heads of individuals. A Nor is it ever complete outside of an individual. In this view, knowledge is shaped by (among other things) one’s initial stock of knowledge, what goes on inside one’s head (that is, how one reasons), and the inflow of new stimuli (such as new data and information). Flow, therefore, is also central to what happens between one’s ears. You read "Knowledge management" in category "Papers" Yet organizations seem to view knowledge as if it has a life of its own. They dub strikingly mundane databases as â€Å"knowledge bases,† they talk of search engines as if they were human brains, and they extol executive expert systems as if the human mind were incidental to their construction and use. This attempt to dress up decades old technologies and concepts in new â€Å"knowledge† clothing is one of the more serious distractions faced by knowledge advocates. In conjunction with an emphasis upon knowledge as stock, this error reinforces organizational tendencies to manage and massage ever more complex and interconnected databases and to construct even more elaborate information structures. This would not be so bad except that it shifts the focus of knowledge and knowledge work away from individuals?without whom knowledge can be neither generated, transmitted, nor used. VOLVO 40, NO, 3 267 The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management Error 4: Not Understanding that a Fundamental Intermediate Purpose of Managing Knowledge Is to Create Shared Context If knowledge exists ultimately within individuals, and it is individuals participating simultaneously in multiple group processes who make and execute key decisions, then a fundamental purpose of â€Å"managing knowledge† must be to build some degree of shared context. Shared context† means a shared understanding of an organization’s external and internal worlds and how these worlds are connected. Shared context is dynamic: knowledge as flow implies that any shared understanding is likely to change over time, and sometimes may do so suddenly. In the absence of shared context, individuals’ differing perspectives, beliefs, assumptions, and views of the future are most likely to collide and thus immobile decision making. Yet many organizations still appear so caught up in the model of knowledge as stock that explicating, challenging, and aligning distinct views receives little systematic attention. In short, individuals’ understanding of the world around them?perhaps the most critical link between knowledge and decision making?is ignored. This error obviously stems from a â€Å"stock† view of knowledge, but its roots lie deep in the prevailing cultures of most organizations. Establishing, challenging, and aligning shared context requires decision makers to engage in open, honest, supportive (and yet critical), and reflective dialogue. ‘ However, knowledge is a direct outcome of experiences, reflection, and dialogue?three activities that use up that most precious managerial asset: namely, time. Few firms feel they can afford to budget directly for these activities, yet little knowledge is ever developed without them. A disregard for shared context means that the generation, transmission, and use of knowledge is not seen as an activity that brings individuals to deeper understanding through dialogue. As a result, information remains simply a pattern of disjointed and ill-structured data points or events. Without such dialogue the path from information to knowledge is difficult to traverse. Error 5: Paying Little Heed to the Role and Importance of Tacit Knowledge A â€Å"head centered† (or perhaps, more accurately, an embodied) view recognizes the central role of tacit knowledge in shaping and influencing explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge entails a body of perspectives (e. G. , our view of customers is framed by our firm’s experience in North America), perceptions (customers seem disinclined to try our new product), beliefs (investment in new technology will lead to breakthrough new products that will create new customer needs), and values (do what is right for the customer). Tacit knowledge is the means by which explicit knowledge is captured, assimilated, created, and disseminated. 268 VOLVO. 40, NO. Yet in spite of the emphasis upon tacit knowledge in both traditional epistemology and the recent knowledge management literature, organizations seem especially reluctant to grapple with its management. One unfortunate consequence is that in redoubling their commitment to managing explicit knowledge, organizations discover to th eir dismay that their efforts are thwarted by the very phenomenon they choose to downplay or ignore. As more emphasis is placed upon refining and extending customer satisfaction surveys, managers’ perceptions, projections, and values intervene to preclude any genuinely new insights into customers’ behavior. The most profound reason for this error is that managers simply do not understand the nature of tacit knowledge, its attributes, or its consequences. Thus, although they admit it is â€Å"there,† they fear it is inaccessible and impossible to influence. Thus, their own tacit knowledge about knowledge serves to limit their understanding of the real nature of knowledge?both tacit and explicit. If this error persists, the development and leveraging of explicit knowledge is largely stifled. Consider the following case. One organization considered its extensive services to be the dominant reason its customers continued to do more business with it. In in-depth interviews with many of these customers, however, service was ranked as only the fifth or sixth most important purchase criterion. Yet, key members of the management team not only refused to believe the interview findings, they steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that their long-held semi-tacit assumption might be wrong. Error 6: Disentangling Knowledge from Its Uses Knowledge is about imbuing data and information with decision- and action-relevant meaning. This is the vital role of human intervention. Information about customers becomes knowledge when decision makers determine how to take advantage of the information. In this way, knowledge is inseparable from thinking and acting (see Error 7). Yet many organizations disconnect knowledge from its uses. A major manifestation of this error is that so-called knowledge initiatives, projects, and programs become ends in themselves. Data warehousing, customer satisfaction surveys, and industry scenarios degenerate respectively into technological challenges, management games, and clashes among proponents of different scenario methodologies. Their relevance for decisions and actions gets lost in the turmoil spawned by debates about appropriate data structures, best survey designs, and alternative techniques for imagining specific industry futures. This error arises directly from a number of decisively false assumptions in the way many organizations approach knowledge management. First, access to information is not equivalent to insight, value, or utility. Examples of managers recognizing in retrospect how they should have derived insight from particular data and information are legend in every company. Second, the value of data 269 ND information is often anything but obvious. Sometimes it is only after considerable discussion and dialogue that the decision relevance and usefulness of data and information becomes evident. Discerning the appropriate marketing strategy responses to new requests of key customers often requires extensive analysis and detailed projections of the forces shaping customers’ behaviors. Third, a common tendency to firmly segregate knowledge users (â€Å"decision makers†) from many of those involved in generating knowledge further serves to separate knowledge from its potential uses. The universal use of the term â€Å"knowledge worker,† s distinct from workers who presumably don’t have or use knowledge, is a prime indicator of how common this sort of error is. A recent survey by Mark Fruit on how knowledge is understood and valued at Toshiba points out the fatuousness of these labels. ‘ A critical implication of this error is that the knowledge efforts of many organizations are misdirected. In short, they frequently commit extensive resources and time to refining and perfecting data and information at the expense of deriving decision and action implications. This tendency is vividly manifest in the extraordinary lengths to which many organizations go to ensure that their customer surveys meet every statistical standard, that unbiased questions are posed, and that the data collection process does not influence the results. Only later is it discovered that the data generated is not terribly helpful in many critical marketing decisions and actions (such as the design of new products, changes to current marketing strategy, or development of rapid responses to the actions of competitors). Error 7: Downplaying Thinking and Reasoning Knowledge generation and use at the level of individuals and groups is a never- ending work-in-progress. At its core, however, getting to different states of knowledge development requires some form of reasoning. For example, a sequence of observations about how customers use a product may lead to insights about desired product modifications, potential new customer solutions, or ways in which existing products might be better customized to specific customers’ needs. Explicating thinking and reasoning processes is especially critical in the case of explicit knowledge. Yet it is always a shock to observe how little attention is paid by allegedly well- managed organizations to their modes of reasoning: the nature of the analytics inherent in points of view or arguments; the assumptions underlying particular models and metaphors; or the relationship between a mode of reasoning and its â€Å"logical† outcomes and consequences. Organizations are thus often unaware why changes occur in a particular stock of explicit knowledge. Hence, they are unable to test the rationales for or validity of such changes. While there are many organizational causes of this error (e. . , an organization’s culture does not tolerate articulation and consideration of conflicts in reasoning), the dominance and pervasiveness of tacit knowledge is one of its 270 principal direct sources. Managers’ deeply held, widely shared, and largely untested perceptions of and assumptions about customers’ changing behaviors overwhelm data describing customers†™ responses to a competitor’s new product introduction. The following words might be heard: â€Å"Customers will quickly see how inferior the competitor’s product is to ours. As soon as they do, they will return to our fold. What goes undeveloped and untested is a set of alternative explanations of the documented customer behaviors and their implications for the organization’s marketing strategy. The obvious implication is that both tacit and explicit knowledge solidify and ossify. Unless distinct modes of reasoning?such as alternative explanations of customers’ responses to a competitor’s new product introduction?are articulated and assessed, radical disjuncture in knowledge content or breakthroughs in insight are considerably less likely to emerge. In short, unless the â€Å"frames†? points of view embodied in perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, and projections about the future? are broken by challenging prevailing modes of thinking and reasoning, knowledge generation and use will be severely restricted. Error 8: Focusing on the Past and the Present and Not the Future If the intent of knowledge is to inform and influence decision making, then its focus must be on the future. Although we cannot know the future, every strategy, decision, and action is, by definition, premised upon some view of the future. Knowledge, as distinguished from raw data and information, can create a shared context for organizational members to address the future. Yet in most organizations, knowledge is still predominantly used for understanding past and present change. The implications of such change for future decision making and action receive only secondary attention at best. A Although some organizations are becoming more enforceable in developing â€Å"memories of the future† through the use of scenarios and other techniques,’ it is still the rare organization that explicitly makes discussing the future the driving focus of its knowledge work. Of course, it hardly needs to be noted that database and information management generally devote little explicit attention to consideration of the future. A number of causes for this error warrant particular attention. First is the greater comfort and ease with which individuals are able to collect data and generate information about the past and the present. Creating explicit projections unavoidably entails making Judgments about the future. The strong natural tendency to avoid the personal, political, and organizational risks associated with exposing one’s thinking and reasoning about the future often conspire to stop development of â€Å"future knowledge† right in its tracks. Second is the common misunderstanding of knowledge and the future: the goal is not to know the future, rather it is to know what projections of the future inform management’s 271 thinking about its strategies and actions. Third is a failure to recognize that alternative projections of the future enlighten our understanding of the present. Moreover, what we take to be knowledge about the present may be largely illusion. As a consequence, the value of our knowledge efforts for decision makers may be far less than we presume. Error 9: Failing to Recognize the Importance of Experimentation Experiments are a crucial source of the data and information necessary for the invigoration of knowledge, and in most respects, the creation of new knowledge. Experiments include trying new approaches to analysis, initiating pilot projects, doing things on a trial-and-error basis, and allowing individuals to assume additional tasks and responsibilities. Customer experiments might include directly involving customers in specific stages of product development, asking and supporting customers to use the product in different ways, and testing new ways to deliver solutions to specific customer segments. Although experiments are a naturally occurring phenomenon in every organizational setting, few organizations explicitly seek to continually create and leverage experiments for knowledge purposes. Indeed, a failure to recognize the potential experimental value of ongoing activities is all too evident in most organizations. For example, many firms now document their â€Å"best raciest† as a means of encapsulating knowledge at work and disseminate such descriptions and results to a wide range of potential internal users. However, such documentation also tends to suppress any inclination to track and monitor improvements and innovations in each best practice as it is applied and enhanced by various user groups. The use of technology tends to result in standardized approaches to collecting and structuring data and to transferring information. This tendency is reinforced by command-and-control, hierarchy-driven organizational cultures that specify precisely what individuals can (and cannot) do. The result is an emphasis on exploitation over exploration. ‘ Organizations invest time and resources in improving current modes of data gathering, enhancing the efficiency of IT, calibrating information structures, and involving more individuals in information and knowledge routines. One consequence of this is an emphasis on simply refining and sharpening what we already know. What is downplayed, and often dismissed entirely, is the willingness to explore: to do new things, to do old things in new ways, and to learn from both these activities. Distinctly new knowledge stems from experimenting. 272 Error 10: Substituting Technological Contact for Human Interface The veritable explosion of information and communication technologies has created the means to capture and transmit data and information at rates and speeds that were unimaginable merely a few years ago. Data warehousing, search engines, groupware, and newly emerging client-server systems are only the tip of the iceberg. Information technology budgets continue to escalate, vendors are sprouting up like mushrooms, IT professionals are increasingly assuming knowledge titles, and many knowledge projects quite rightly depend upon intensive technology use. There is outspread tendency to validate significant investment in IT by reference to its contribution to developing and leveraging knowledge in new and effective ways. Unfortunately, one pivotal error underlying some uses of IT severely limits its potential contribution to organizational knowledge: technological contact is equated with face-to-face dialogue. Although IT is a wonderful facilitator of data and information transmission and distribution, it can never substitute for the rich interactivity, communication, and learning that is inherent in dialogue. Knowledge is primarily a function and consequence of the meeting and interaction of minds. Human intervention remains the only source of knowledge generation. This in turn has produced immense frustration on the part of executives. One result of this frustration is further investment in IT, which without the requisite change in the understanding of knowledge, in turn only leads to further frustration and disappointment. Error 1 1 : Seeking to Develop Direct Measures of Knowledge A reasonable and sensible question now being raised by many concerned senior managers is: How will we know if our efforts to manage knowledge produce satisfactory results? Or, stated differently, where is the pay-off to knowledge projects? Regrettably, it seems that an increasing number of organizations seek to measure knowledge directly rather than by its outcomes, activities, and consequences. Thus, they emphasize the scope, depth, number, and quality of databases; the numbers of individuals, units, and departments connected technologically; the number of requests or â€Å"hits† pertaining to intranets, key knowledge sources, and information pools; and the number, variety, and extensiveness of knowledge projects or initiatives. Yet a moment’s reflection will convince even the most diehard metric devotee that such indicators do not provide any sense of an organization’s stock or low of knowledge or its contribution to decision making and organizational performance. However, some firms have developed â€Å"proxies† for showing the outcomes or consequences of knowledge-based activities. These metrics include patents, new products developed and introduced, customer retention, and process 273 The Eleven Deadliest Sins o f Knowledge Management innovation. Yet it seems fair to suggest that in their thirst for metrics and measures, an embarrassing number of organizations still put the measurement cart before the knowledge horse. This vain pursuit of metrics reinforces many of the errors How to cite Knowledge management, Papers

Knowledge Management Free Essays

Knowledge management in an organisation means to capture the knowledge that is critical to them, constantly improve it and make it available in the most effective manner to those who need it. There are two types of knowledge explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is a kind of knowledge that can be expressed in formed E. We will write a custom essay sample on Knowledge Management or any similar topic only for you Order Now g following a procedure. Tacit knowledge is influenced by emotions and beliefs E. g Respect, relationships. Bovis case study throws a light how knowledge management can be difficult for organisations operating globally. There is friction in transfer of knowledge due to cultural factors and sometimes even due to language barriers. Bovis model helps reduce these frictions. In his model group cohesion among members of the knowledge mnanagement team was promoted so that communication barriers are removed. There was weekly conference calls, also team meeting every 6 months in different geographic locations. To remove language barrier english was made as the base language and e-mail acted as a mechanism that communicated queries and solutions in a commom base vehicle. Hoarding of knowledge is a common practice which can lead to limitations to successful communication of knowledge between providers and seekers. Bovis model helps to mitigate these limitations through motivational tactics and linking employee usage to performance reviews. The success of the bovis model lies in the knowledge management team structure and the method he adopted to monitor the success of the knowledge management initiative. Bovis model shows how complex isuues associated with successful implementation of knowledge management in business can be dealt. How to cite Knowledge Management, Papers Knowledge management Free Essays string(40) " what happens between one’s ears\." Prussia core tenet of any organizational learning project is that without detecting and correcting errors in â€Å"what we know† and â€Å"how we learn,† an organization’s knowledge deteriorates, becomes obsolete, and can result in â€Å"bad† decisions. Because systematic attention to knowledge management is relatively recent, it is particularly important to detect these errors so that knowledge management does not become yet another management fad that promised much but delivered little. If we do not identify and try to resolve these errors, â€Å"what we know† about knowledge management may become little else but mythology. We will write a custom essay sample on Knowledge management or any similar topic only for you Order Now As a consequence, we will be faced with the ultimate knowledge irony: efforts to manage knowledge are themselves based upon faulty knowledge principles. The purpose of this article is to draw attention to a set of pervasive knowledge management errors. These reflections are based on the authors’ observing or partaking in over one hundred knowledge projects over the past five years or so. The focus is on fundamental errors, that is, errors that if left unredeemed inhibit genuine knowledge from being developed and leveraged. These are errors associated with he concept of knowledge itself: how knowledge is understood in organizational settings and how that understanding impedes knowledge management. Error l: Not Developing a Working Definition of Knowledge If knowledge is not something that is different from data or information, then there is nothing new or interesting in knowledge management. Yet many managers seem determinedly reluctant to distinguish between data and CALIFORNIA MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLVO, NO. 3 SPRING 1998 265 The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management information on the one hand and knowledge on the other; and, more importantly, hey seem reluctant to consider the implications of these distinctions. The tendency to avoid grappling with what knowledge is should not be surprising. There is little in the education, training, or organizational experience of managers that prepares them for the deep-seated reflection and understanding required by the concept of knowledge. Moreover, this situation is exacerbated by some recent popular management literature that directly advocates not making distinctions between these concepts. The argument advanced by these authors is that contemplation of such extinctions distracts managers from the necessary task of managing,’ However, reflection upon concepts and the distinctions among and between them is the essence of the process of â€Å"knowing† or learning. This is a critical error. It contributes directly to all of the errors noted below. Also, avoidance of grappling with a working understanding of knowledge leads to a dysfunctional environment for knowledge work. Many executives have told us they were extremely reluctant to even use the knowledge word and that they felt the anti- knowledge culture of their organizations compelled them to do knowledge work by dealt. â€Å"We had to disguise our knowledge project within a data warehousing architecture plan† is a true and representative response. In fairness, firms have been assaulted, at least since the asses, with multitudes of theories and nostrums that have often proved to be of questionable value. This has made many executives skeptical, if not downright hostile, to new ideas and programs. Error 2: Envisaging Knowledge Stock to the Detriment of Knowledge Flow When knowledge is equated with information, it should not be a surprise to find it defined principally as a stock rather than as a flow. It is viewed as a thing or object that exists on its own, that can be captured, transmitted among individuals, and stored in multiple ways within the organization. Indisputably, this â€Å"stock† perspective tends to dominate organizations’ thinking about knowledge. This has come about in part because several early examples of knowledge â€Å"success† focus on articulated and documented stocks of knowledge such as Dhow’s work on patent values and Muckiness’s rapid-response system. The notion of flow, however, suggests a radically different conception of knowledge. It is in constant flux and change. It is central to day-to-day doing and being. Individuals create it and it is largely self-generating. Moreover, it connects, binds, and involves individuals. In short, it is inseparable from the individuals who develop, transmit, and leverage it. The prevalent view of knowledge as stock is grounded in large measure in the thrust of every educational system from grade school through university: learn the facts and regurgitate them as required in the relevant examination. 266 VOLVO 40, NO. 3 This orientation is in turn reflected in and reinforced by the pervasive information genealogy approach to the management of data and information: capture, store, retrieve, and transmit. Although organizations obviously need to manage their data and information using these technology-centered models, knowledge is a substantially different thing and thus needs different models. The implications for how organizations approach all facets of knowledge management are profound. In many firms, knowledge simply becomes another object to be managed. It is viewed as something separate from the organizational processes that help generate and nurture it. Not surprisingly, therefore, managers all too often do not see themselves s part of the knowledge process, but rather see it as happening outside of them. Error 3: Viewing Knowledge as Existing Predominantly Outside the Heads of Individuals Implicit in the observations above is that any discussion of knowledge is meaningless in the absence of a â€Å"knower,† Knowledge is what a knower knows; there is no knowledge without someone knowing it. Knowledge therefore must be viewed as originating â€Å"between the ears† of individuals. Taken literally, the need for a knower raises profound questions as to whether and how knowledge can exist outside the heads of individuals. Although knowledge can be represented in and often embedded in organizational processes, routines, and networks, and sometimes in document repositories, it cannot truly originate outside the heads of individuals. A Nor is it ever complete outside of an individual. In this view, knowledge is shaped by (among other things) one’s initial stock of knowledge, what goes on inside one’s head (that is, how one reasons), and the inflow of new stimuli (such as new data and information). Flow, therefore, is also central to what happens between one’s ears. You read "Knowledge management" in category "Papers" Yet organizations seem to view knowledge as if it has a life of its own. They dub strikingly mundane databases as â€Å"knowledge bases,† they talk of search engines as if they were human brains, and they extol executive expert systems as if the human mind were incidental to their construction and use. This attempt to dress up decades old technologies and concepts in new â€Å"knowledge† clothing is one of the more serious distractions faced by knowledge advocates. In conjunction with an emphasis upon knowledge as stock, this error reinforces organizational tendencies to manage and massage ever more complex and interconnected databases and to construct even more elaborate information structures. This would not be so bad except that it shifts the focus of knowledge and knowledge work away from individuals?without whom knowledge can be neither generated, transmitted, nor used. VOLVO 40, NO, 3 267 The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management Error 4: Not Understanding that a Fundamental Intermediate Purpose of Managing Knowledge Is to Create Shared Context If knowledge exists ultimately within individuals, and it is individuals participating simultaneously in multiple group processes who make and execute key decisions, then a fundamental purpose of â€Å"managing knowledge† must be to build some degree of shared context. Shared context† means a shared understanding of an organization’s external and internal worlds and how these worlds are connected. Shared context is dynamic: knowledge as flow implies that any shared understanding is likely to change over time, and sometimes may do so suddenly. In the absence of shared context, individuals’ differing perspectives, beliefs, assumptions, and views of the future are most likely to collide and thus immobile decision making. Yet many organizations still appear so caught up in the model of knowledge as stock that explicating, challenging, and aligning distinct views receives little systematic attention. In short, individuals’ understanding of the world around them?perhaps the most critical link between knowledge and decision making?is ignored. This error obviously stems from a â€Å"stock† view of knowledge, but its roots lie deep in the prevailing cultures of most organizations. Establishing, challenging, and aligning shared context requires decision makers to engage in open, honest, supportive (and yet critical), and reflective dialogue. ‘ However, knowledge is a direct outcome of experiences, reflection, and dialogue?three activities that use up that most precious managerial asset: namely, time. Few firms feel they can afford to budget directly for these activities, yet little knowledge is ever developed without them. A disregard for shared context means that the generation, transmission, and use of knowledge is not seen as an activity that brings individuals to deeper understanding through dialogue. As a result, information remains simply a pattern of disjointed and ill-structured data points or events. Without such dialogue the path from information to knowledge is difficult to traverse. Error 5: Paying Little Heed to the Role and Importance of Tacit Knowledge A â€Å"head centered† (or perhaps, more accurately, an embodied) view recognizes the central role of tacit knowledge in shaping and influencing explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge entails a body of perspectives (e. G. , our view of customers is framed by our firm’s experience in North America), perceptions (customers seem disinclined to try our new product), beliefs (investment in new technology will lead to breakthrough new products that will create new customer needs), and values (do what is right for the customer). Tacit knowledge is the means by which explicit knowledge is captured, assimilated, created, and disseminated. 268 VOLVO. 40, NO. Yet in spite of the emphasis upon tacit knowledge in both traditional epistemology and the recent knowledge management literature, organizations seem especially reluctant to grapple with its management. One unfortunate consequence is that in redoubling their commitment to managing explicit knowledge, organizations discover to th eir dismay that their efforts are thwarted by the very phenomenon they choose to downplay or ignore. As more emphasis is placed upon refining and extending customer satisfaction surveys, managers’ perceptions, projections, and values intervene to preclude any genuinely new insights into customers’ behavior. The most profound reason for this error is that managers simply do not understand the nature of tacit knowledge, its attributes, or its consequences. Thus, although they admit it is â€Å"there,† they fear it is inaccessible and impossible to influence. Thus, their own tacit knowledge about knowledge serves to limit their understanding of the real nature of knowledge?both tacit and explicit. If this error persists, the development and leveraging of explicit knowledge is largely stifled. Consider the following case. One organization considered its extensive services to be the dominant reason its customers continued to do more business with it. In in-depth interviews with many of these customers, however, service was ranked as only the fifth or sixth most important purchase criterion. Yet, key members of the management team not only refused to believe the interview findings, they steadfastly refused to entertain the possibility that their long-held semi-tacit assumption might be wrong. Error 6: Disentangling Knowledge from Its Uses Knowledge is about imbuing data and information with decision- and action-relevant meaning. This is the vital role of human intervention. Information about customers becomes knowledge when decision makers determine how to take advantage of the information. In this way, knowledge is inseparable from thinking and acting (see Error 7). Yet many organizations disconnect knowledge from its uses. A major manifestation of this error is that so-called knowledge initiatives, projects, and programs become ends in themselves. Data warehousing, customer satisfaction surveys, and industry scenarios degenerate respectively into technological challenges, management games, and clashes among proponents of different scenario methodologies. Their relevance for decisions and actions gets lost in the turmoil spawned by debates about appropriate data structures, best survey designs, and alternative techniques for imagining specific industry futures. This error arises directly from a number of decisively false assumptions in the way many organizations approach knowledge management. First, access to information is not equivalent to insight, value, or utility. Examples of managers recognizing in retrospect how they should have derived insight from particular data and information are legend in every company. Second, the value of data 269 ND information is often anything but obvious. Sometimes it is only after considerable discussion and dialogue that the decision relevance and usefulness of data and information becomes evident. Discerning the appropriate marketing strategy responses to new requests of key customers often requires extensive analysis and detailed projections of the forces shaping customers’ behaviors. Third, a common tendency to firmly segregate knowledge users (â€Å"decision makers†) from many of those involved in generating knowledge further serves to separate knowledge from its potential uses. The universal use of the term â€Å"knowledge worker,† s distinct from workers who presumably don’t have or use knowledge, is a prime indicator of how common this sort of error is. A recent survey by Mark Fruit on how knowledge is understood and valued at Toshiba points out the fatuousness of these labels. ‘ A critical implication of this error is that the knowledge efforts of many organizations are misdirected. In short, they frequently commit extensive resources and time to refining and perfecting data and information at the expense of deriving decision and action implications. This tendency is vividly manifest in the extraordinary lengths to which many organizations go to ensure that their customer surveys meet every statistical standard, that unbiased questions are posed, and that the data collection process does not influence the results. Only later is it discovered that the data generated is not terribly helpful in many critical marketing decisions and actions (such as the design of new products, changes to current marketing strategy, or development of rapid responses to the actions of competitors). Error 7: Downplaying Thinking and Reasoning Knowledge generation and use at the level of individuals and groups is a never- ending work-in-progress. At its core, however, getting to different states of knowledge development requires some form of reasoning. For example, a sequence of observations about how customers use a product may lead to insights about desired product modifications, potential new customer solutions, or ways in which existing products might be better customized to specific customers’ needs. Explicating thinking and reasoning processes is especially critical in the case of explicit knowledge. Yet it is always a shock to observe how little attention is paid by allegedly well- managed organizations to their modes of reasoning: the nature of the analytics inherent in points of view or arguments; the assumptions underlying particular models and metaphors; or the relationship between a mode of reasoning and its â€Å"logical† outcomes and consequences. Organizations are thus often unaware why changes occur in a particular stock of explicit knowledge. Hence, they are unable to test the rationales for or validity of such changes. While there are many organizational causes of this error (e. . , an organization’s culture does not tolerate articulation and consideration of conflicts in reasoning), the dominance and pervasiveness of tacit knowledge is one of its 270 principal direct sources. Managers’ deeply held, widely shared, and largely untested perceptions of and assumptions about customers’ changing behaviors overwhelm data describing customers†™ responses to a competitor’s new product introduction. The following words might be heard: â€Å"Customers will quickly see how inferior the competitor’s product is to ours. As soon as they do, they will return to our fold. What goes undeveloped and untested is a set of alternative explanations of the documented customer behaviors and their implications for the organization’s marketing strategy. The obvious implication is that both tacit and explicit knowledge solidify and ossify. Unless distinct modes of reasoning?such as alternative explanations of customers’ responses to a competitor’s new product introduction?are articulated and assessed, radical disjuncture in knowledge content or breakthroughs in insight are considerably less likely to emerge. In short, unless the â€Å"frames†? points of view embodied in perceptions, beliefs, assumptions, and projections about the future? are broken by challenging prevailing modes of thinking and reasoning, knowledge generation and use will be severely restricted. Error 8: Focusing on the Past and the Present and Not the Future If the intent of knowledge is to inform and influence decision making, then its focus must be on the future. Although we cannot know the future, every strategy, decision, and action is, by definition, premised upon some view of the future. Knowledge, as distinguished from raw data and information, can create a shared context for organizational members to address the future. Yet in most organizations, knowledge is still predominantly used for understanding past and present change. The implications of such change for future decision making and action receive only secondary attention at best. A Although some organizations are becoming more enforceable in developing â€Å"memories of the future† through the use of scenarios and other techniques,’ it is still the rare organization that explicitly makes discussing the future the driving focus of its knowledge work. Of course, it hardly needs to be noted that database and information management generally devote little explicit attention to consideration of the future. A number of causes for this error warrant particular attention. First is the greater comfort and ease with which individuals are able to collect data and generate information about the past and the present. Creating explicit projections unavoidably entails making Judgments about the future. The strong natural tendency to avoid the personal, political, and organizational risks associated with exposing one’s thinking and reasoning about the future often conspire to stop development of â€Å"future knowledge† right in its tracks. Second is the common misunderstanding of knowledge and the future: the goal is not to know the future, rather it is to know what projections of the future inform management’s 271 thinking about its strategies and actions. Third is a failure to recognize that alternative projections of the future enlighten our understanding of the present. Moreover, what we take to be knowledge about the present may be largely illusion. As a consequence, the value of our knowledge efforts for decision makers may be far less than we presume. Error 9: Failing to Recognize the Importance of Experimentation Experiments are a crucial source of the data and information necessary for the invigoration of knowledge, and in most respects, the creation of new knowledge. Experiments include trying new approaches to analysis, initiating pilot projects, doing things on a trial-and-error basis, and allowing individuals to assume additional tasks and responsibilities. Customer experiments might include directly involving customers in specific stages of product development, asking and supporting customers to use the product in different ways, and testing new ways to deliver solutions to specific customer segments. Although experiments are a naturally occurring phenomenon in every organizational setting, few organizations explicitly seek to continually create and leverage experiments for knowledge purposes. Indeed, a failure to recognize the potential experimental value of ongoing activities is all too evident in most organizations. For example, many firms now document their â€Å"best raciest† as a means of encapsulating knowledge at work and disseminate such descriptions and results to a wide range of potential internal users. However, such documentation also tends to suppress any inclination to track and monitor improvements and innovations in each best practice as it is applied and enhanced by various user groups. The use of technology tends to result in standardized approaches to collecting and structuring data and to transferring information. This tendency is reinforced by command-and-control, hierarchy-driven organizational cultures that specify precisely what individuals can (and cannot) do. The result is an emphasis on exploitation over exploration. ‘ Organizations invest time and resources in improving current modes of data gathering, enhancing the efficiency of IT, calibrating information structures, and involving more individuals in information and knowledge routines. One consequence of this is an emphasis on simply refining and sharpening what we already know. What is downplayed, and often dismissed entirely, is the willingness to explore: to do new things, to do old things in new ways, and to learn from both these activities. Distinctly new knowledge stems from experimenting. 272 Error 10: Substituting Technological Contact for Human Interface The veritable explosion of information and communication technologies has created the means to capture and transmit data and information at rates and speeds that were unimaginable merely a few years ago. Data warehousing, search engines, groupware, and newly emerging client-server systems are only the tip of the iceberg. Information technology budgets continue to escalate, vendors are sprouting up like mushrooms, IT professionals are increasingly assuming knowledge titles, and many knowledge projects quite rightly depend upon intensive technology use. There is outspread tendency to validate significant investment in IT by reference to its contribution to developing and leveraging knowledge in new and effective ways. Unfortunately, one pivotal error underlying some uses of IT severely limits its potential contribution to organizational knowledge: technological contact is equated with face-to-face dialogue. Although IT is a wonderful facilitator of data and information transmission and distribution, it can never substitute for the rich interactivity, communication, and learning that is inherent in dialogue. Knowledge is primarily a function and consequence of the meeting and interaction of minds. Human intervention remains the only source of knowledge generation. This in turn has produced immense frustration on the part of executives. One result of this frustration is further investment in IT, which without the requisite change in the understanding of knowledge, in turn only leads to further frustration and disappointment. Error 1 1 : Seeking to Develop Direct Measures of Knowledge A reasonable and sensible question now being raised by many concerned senior managers is: How will we know if our efforts to manage knowledge produce satisfactory results? Or, stated differently, where is the pay-off to knowledge projects? Regrettably, it seems that an increasing number of organizations seek to measure knowledge directly rather than by its outcomes, activities, and consequences. Thus, they emphasize the scope, depth, number, and quality of databases; the numbers of individuals, units, and departments connected technologically; the number of requests or â€Å"hits† pertaining to intranets, key knowledge sources, and information pools; and the number, variety, and extensiveness of knowledge projects or initiatives. Yet a moment’s reflection will convince even the most diehard metric devotee that such indicators do not provide any sense of an organization’s stock or low of knowledge or its contribution to decision making and organizational performance. However, some firms have developed â€Å"proxies† for showing the outcomes or consequences of knowledge-based activities. These metrics include patents, new products developed and introduced, customer retention, and process 273 The Eleven Deadliest Sins o f Knowledge Management innovation. Yet it seems fair to suggest that in their thirst for metrics and measures, an embarrassing number of organizations still put the measurement cart before the knowledge horse. This vain pursuit of metrics reinforces many of the errors How to cite Knowledge management, Papers