VALUE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT - Process Structuring for Multi-party Conflict

John Rohrbaugh, Shahidul Hassan

Abstract

Value knowledge management (VKM) comprises the process structuring required to make individual and/or group values explicit in a manner so that such initially tacit knowledge appropriately informs decision making. This paper presents a case in which VKM is used for structuring an organizational preparation process for a new and substantial initiative. Fundamental group conflicts exist with respect to this initiative and, more immediately, with respect to the extent of preparation envisioned. The relative importance of two key values is at issue: increasing human capital and reducing project costs. The case illustrates a three-stage approach to VKM and demonstrates how the articulation of group judgment policies, the development of a shared resource allocation model, and the application of analytical mediation can make a substantial contribution to organizational problem solving or opportunity seeking.

References

  1. Adelman, L., 1984. Real-time computer support for decision analysis in a group setting: Another class of decision support systems. Interfaces, 14, 75-83.
  2. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E., 2001. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25, 107-136.
  3. Carper, W. B., & Bresnick, 1981. Strategic planning conferences. Business Horizons, 32, 34-40.
  4. Cooksey, R. W., 1996. Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. New York: Academic.
  5. Darling, T. A., Mumpower, J. L., Rohrbaugh, J., & Vari, A., 1999. Negotiation support for multi-party resource allocation: Developing recommendations for decreasing transportation-related air pollution in Budapest. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 51-75.
  6. Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A., 2003. The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  7. Hammond, K. R., 1996. Human judgment and social policy: Irreducible uncertainy, inevitable error, unavoidable injustice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. Keeney, R. L., 1992. Value-focused thinking: A path to creative decision making. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  9. Liyanage, C., Elhag, T. Ballal, T., & Li, Q., 2009. Knowledge communication and translation - a knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 118-131.
  10. Mumpower, J. L., & Rohrbaugh, J., 1996. Negotiation and design: Supporting resource allocation decisions through analytical mediation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5, 385-409.
  11. Mumpower, J. L., Schuman, S. P., & Zumbolo, A., 1988. Analytical mediation: An application in collective bargaining. In R. M. Lee, A. M. McCosh, & P. Migliarese (Eds.), Organisational Decision Support Systems. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  12. Phillips, L. D., 1985. Systems for solutions. Datamation Business, (April), 26-29.
  13. Rangachari, P., 2009. Knowledge sharing networks in professional complex systems. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 132-145.
  14. Reagan-Cirincione, P., 1994. Improving the accuracy of group judgment: A process intervention combining group facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 246-270.
  15. Rohrbaugh, J., 2001 The relationship between strategy and achievement as the basic unit of group functioning. In K. R. Hammond & T. R. Stewart (Eds.), The Essential Brunswik: Beginnings, Explications, Applications. New York: Oxford University Press.
  16. Schuman, S. P., & Rohrbaugh, J., 1991. Decision conferencing for systems planning. Information and Management, 21, 147-159.
  17. Scott, W. A., 1965. Values and organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally.
  18. van der Spek, R., Kruizinga, E., & Kleijsen, A., 2009. Strengthening lateral relations in organisations through knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13, 3-12.
  19. Vari, A., & Vecsenyi, J., 1992. Experiences with decision conferencing in Hungary. Interfaces, 22, 72-83.
  20. Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B., 1965. A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. New York: McGrawHill.
  21. iii For HRM, the ideal would be levels 5, 5, 3, 1, and 5, respectively, at a cost of $385,000. For B&F, the ideal would be levels 2, 1, 2, 1, and 1, respectively, at a cost of $134,000. For NPC, the ideal would be levels 5, 4, 4, 3, and 5, respectively, at a cost of $395,000. These levels can be identified directly from Figure 2 as the maximum points on each group's set of function forms.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Rohrbaugh J. and Hassan S. (2009). VALUE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT - Process Structuring for Multi-party Conflict . In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing - Volume 1: KMIS, (IC3K 2009) ISBN 978-989-674-013-9, pages 63-68. DOI: 10.5220/0002307600630068


in Bibtex Style

@conference{kmis09,
author={John Rohrbaugh and Shahidul Hassan},
title={VALUE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT - Process Structuring for Multi-party Conflict},
booktitle={Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing - Volume 1: KMIS, (IC3K 2009)},
year={2009},
pages={63-68},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0002307600630068},
isbn={978-989-674-013-9},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing - Volume 1: KMIS, (IC3K 2009)
TI - VALUE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT - Process Structuring for Multi-party Conflict
SN - 978-989-674-013-9
AU - Rohrbaugh J.
AU - Hassan S.
PY - 2009
SP - 63
EP - 68
DO - 10.5220/0002307600630068