KM MODELS AND KM SCHOOLS

There are many models in KM .Each models has different meaning and views.But the most famous models of ikujiro nonaka and hirotaka takeuchi are SECI model related to KM.

SECI stands for Socialization externalization combination internalization.Each words have different meanings define in below.SECI is creation of knowledge is a process of combining of tacit and expliciit knowledge.

Socialization: In any oraganisation two employees are sharing their knowledge between them,i.e tacits knowledge.They sharing their knowledge between them not for others employees.

Externalization:Bluiding concepts, which intergral part of a surrounding whole combined tacits knowledge.

Combination: Combination are various tyoes of elements of explicit knowledge,bluiding orginal type.

Internalization:In this part,explicit knowledge linked to individuals knowledge base learning by doing, and becomes asset for any orgainisations

SECI MODEL

Final Thought:

SECI model are tacit and explicit knowledge combination.It recognises the uses of both tacit and explicit knowledge in the initial construction and the eventual use of this knowledge management model ultimately benefits both the business and the employee. Example: I had done worked with HCL infosystem Limited ,INDIA ,SECI model applied on it.In HCl Some employees shared their knowledge or ideas with managerial level best for oraganisation.Those employees shared their ideas and views always benifical for our projects and organisation. Some employees are not shared their knowledge with employees and team members in managerial level.They always criticized for others teams memebers decision and not shared their knowledge with others teams memebers.They takes a knowledge with them don't shared anyone .I am agree with ikujiro nonaka and hirotaka takeuchi their SECI models are applied for HCL infosystems.
Another Examples: I am working with River Island,there i have saw some employees talkiing with them not sharing their knowledge with others employees, tatics knowledge(socialization) are applied for that’s employees.

In online auction trust building is slightly different to e-commerce trust model. For online auction the most important is the community feedback, and forum. The online auction is a unique shopping method where there are many individuals who act as a buyer and seller in the same time. Before user decides to buy on online auction, user might see the online auctioneer company in general. In the first stage user might assessing the online auctioneer company like they assessing the e-commerce company, and decides whether the online auctioneer company is reliable or not, or can be trusted or not. Once the user decide that the online auctioneer is can be trusted, then they starting to do online shopping. In this stage user uses different variable to determines the trust level to the online auction seller.
Actually there are some researches about improving trust in online environment (e-commerce) in general, but not specifically discuss trust on online auction. In online auction reputation is one of trust variable, Brown & Morgan, 2006, in their research on eBay found that good or positive sellers’ reputation will have impact on price, while negative feedback will lead to price reduction. Reputation building is important to increase trust on seller perspective. When there are many anonymous users in online auction, it is very difficult to determine the good and bad user. One of method on measuring good user is to see their feedback record, however, sometimes seller doing the tricky way to boost their positive feedback by selling cheap items, positive feedback from seller’s buying activities will not affect the transaction (Zhang, 2006). Melnik & AL, 2005, in their research on coin’s selling through auction found that seller with positive feedback will increase the buyer’s willingness to for non-certified coins. Livingston, 2005, adds that the number of bidders will increase if seller has many positive feedbacks, and seller should abandon their identity to get the new one when they got some negative feedbacks. Another activity that can be used to increase customer trust by adding interactivity of shopping, support ease of use website, good information and communication between online auctioneer and user (Bosnjak, Obermeier, & Tuten, 2006).
Below is trust model in online auction comprises of two layers, which are trust on online auctioneer that similar to trust on e-commerce in general and then continue to trust on sellers.
Online auction trust model comprises two levels of trust system.
Level 1, trust on online auctioneer company where user tends to evaluate the auctioneer company by its security, privacy, and confidentiality statement, the auctioneer reputation (image and brand), customer protection, website design whether is it easy to navigate, consist of helpful information, online tutorial, and regularly updated content. In this stage, the trust building has the same level of trust to any other e-commerce site in general.
Level 2, trust on online auction seller, since online auctioneer attract many individuals both seller and buyer. Those individual are never meet, do not know their background, where they come from, and their motive—this is become the crucial thing both for online auctioneer company and buyer. Therefore the online auctioneer builds many way to overcome trust issues, feedback system is the most method that been used, as well as reputation system, forum and testimonials, force the seller to provide information detail about them self, product information detail, and clear pricing. Those variables have a big impact on building customer trust.
Online auction trust model, online auction trust model comprises two level of trust building. Yet, online auction trust building is more complex since there are three parties who involve in the transaction—the online auctioneer who provides e-market place, seller who sell the item, and buyer. Hence, before doing transaction through online auction user should have ability to assess the online auctioneer as well as the individual who act as a seller or buyer.

REFERENCES:
ikujiro nonaka and hirotaka takeuchi. ('95),SECI Model, Avaliable here:- http://www.12manage.com/methods_nonaka_seci.html,1995

Bosnjak, M., Obermeier, D., Tuten, T.L. (2006). Predicting and explaining the propensity to bid in online auctions: a comparison of two action-theoretical models. Journal of Consumer Behavior, Vol. 5, pp. 102-116.
Brown, J., Morgan, J. (2006). Reputation in online auctions: the market for trust. California Management Review, Vol. 49, No.1
Livingston, J.A. (2005). How valuable is a good reputation? a sample selection model of internet auction. The review of economics and statistics, Vol. 87/3, pp.453-465
Melnik, M.I., Al, J. (2005). Seller reputation, information signals, and prices for heterogeneous coins on eBay. Southern Economic Journal, Vol 72/2, pp. 305-328.
Zhang, J. (2006). The roles of players and reputation: evidence from eBay online auction. Decision Support System, Vol. 42

KM SCHOOLS

It’s useful, and its main goal is to share knowledge about the school, but it’s also a collection of selected best practices of ability and thinking. It could be a place where teachers and community members and parents and others have a collective space to share and develop ideas. And in a community like ours in which most have access, the whole idea of using syndication to push content and in turn increase involvement just increases the possibilities. it separately or together with other teachers of their own school or from other schools with whom they cooperated in teacher training courses or in work groups on specific topics. Teachers needed to select and arrange material as needed and also add own documents; another requirement was the possibility to modify the documents in order to use them in a specific context. Since not all of the material was supposed to be accessible to the public and, when used in class, documents were to be released to particular groups of learners, access rights granting read or write access needed to be assigned to specific users or user groups. The solution provided for this purpose is described very briefly in the second section of this contribution.
I will discuss in school context, why culture and management issues are critical for knowledge management planning and implementation.
First, in planning, the school needs to know what knowledge management can bring to school. Although EMB (2004) has mentioned that in enriching digital resources for schools, knowledge management strategies will be adopted to facilitate the usage and sharing of resources and experiences, KM may seem a fresh term to many schools.he said he did not know much what it is; it seems to be a new discipline. Other teachers admitted that they have no idea of what it is. In business field, a senior HR director of Reebok said that they do not consider KM as a top priority, while a professional accountant hinted that KM is just another management fad... So what does KM practically mean to school teachers, though they are transferring to students knowledge daily?
Schools are facing tides of reform. I will not scare teachers away by elaborating on the principles of KM, or the big things it will achieve. To get teachers' buy-in, I would rather choose the term "knowledge sharing / sharing experience". First, the term is not new and easy to understand. Second, schools have been talking about sharing teaching experience and resources for years. Third, the term "experience sharing" focuses on 'tacit knowledge' which is more difficult to disseminate – but most valuable.
Thus, in planning it is most essential to get a working definition for knowledge management (Prusak & Fahey, 1998). In school we can put the emphasis on knowledge sharing, in the rationale of Hong Kong EMB (2004).
Some schools have an intranet which facilitates communication, collaboration and resource management. Teachers get used to send email and circular to each other. A lot of documents (explicit knowledge) are also placed on network storage. They do not always use collaboration tools for sharing and creating teaching materials. They do not use it because the sharing culture is not well nurtured. Unlike the business field, it seems teachers get used to complete their tasks/duties alone – they are mainly the one who controls the classroom; to mark assignments; to set test papers; to conduct activities. School have yet to foster 'communities of practice' to let them share. One would say such CoP may itself flourish, and requires no central planning. However, if the senior management does not encourage this or lead by example, there is little chance for its development.
One thinks that IT can facilitate KM. To some extent it is true. Teachers do not always use it for sharing not because they are reluctant to use IT, rather it is because often what they need to share is not easy to document (make it explicit). The sharing rather requires a human relationship to facilitate understanding and knowledge transfer (McDermott, 1999). Even when the sharers / receivers try to document, they find it takes them too much time.
School leaders have to take the lead in knowledge sharing. They may not have an open mind to innovation and change. Some do not encourage much discussion and sharing of school issues. Other senior staff are also engaged in their departmental administrative work with little communication with ordinary teachers (who do their own work). From another perspective, such school structure is focused on maximizing departmental accomplishments that staff may unconsciously hoard knowledge flow (O'Dell & Grayson, 1998). I suppose school heads / leaders should foster a culture of common focus and mission to which everyone contributes. They can plan by learning from Fullan (2001) who puts forward a coherent framework for leadership stressing moral purpose, understanding change, relationship building and knowledge sharing. This takes quite a process, with first getting staff commitment.
Start small. Do not aim it too high at this stage. In school, subject departments can be developed into communities of practice / knowledge communities. Subject teachers have the same curriculum goals and it is natural for them to share their experience. Perhaps they have been doing this for some time, but without KM strategies. IT can enable their sharing anywhere, though face-to-face contacts are necessary. (Dixon, 2000).
Knowledge sharing champions may arise from functional / subject leaders / IT team, supported by school head (the CKO). They may use a blend of IT and face-to-face collaboration to practise what they cherish, bridge knowledge gaps, reuse knowledge and more importantly to nurture an atmosphere of trust (without which sharing is difficult). When time comes, different CoPs can share with each other and find common knowledge essential to school goals. Hopefully, a learning culture will gradually grow.

References:
McDermott, R. (1999). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management Review, 41( 4), 103-118.

O'Dell, C. & Grayson, J. (1998). If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40(3), 154-175.

Dixon, N.M. (2000). Common knowledge : how companies thrive by sharing what they know. Boston, Mass. : Harvard Business School Press.

Prusak, L. & Fahey, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-277.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Education and Manpower Bureau. (2004). Empowering learning and teaching with information technology. Hong Kong.