Knowledge management system Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

4Knowledge management system

Knowledge management system (KMS) is referred to as a non-technical or technology-based interconnected group of functions with a behaviour that facilitates or enables the integration, discovery, capture, delivering or sharing of knowledge which is required in meeting the objectives of an organisation. In other words, KMS stores and retrieves knowledge, locates sources of knowledge, captures and applies knowledge or enhances the process of knowledge management (AlSondos, & Othman, 2012). In regard to understanding of the nature of data, information and knowledge, Popper used the 3 Worlds theory. According to Popper (1972), the three worlds are classified as: World-1 which is the physical realm; World-2 which is the realm of subjective reality; and World-3 which is the sphere of objective knowledge. Popper’s three world information theory account for the knowledge held in minds and in linguistic expressions.

In case of a manufacturing plant where a temperature sensor is used, a temperature system in regard to three world’s theory is the physical sphere and operates in World-1. A human system operator is best placed in World-2 as well as the interface between the human and the computer. However, when a human seeks consultation from reference materials, it means that the human is interacting with world-3. In this case, knowledge occurs in World-3 where there is an explanation of the phenomena. In seeking pure knowledge, a person has the main aim of trying to understand as well as answer questions, that is, why and how-questions. In order to answer such questions, one has to give explanation. This is what Popper described as problems of pure knowledge which as problems that of explanation. Thus, the description of knowledge as said by Popper is the answers to questions of how or why which falls under World-3 constructs (Popper, 1996). In this way, knowledge is seen as a mix of framed experience, expert insight, values, contextual information as well as a grounded institution. This provides a framework for incorporation and evaluation of new information and experiences. This originates and is also applied in the mind of those who knows. In regard to an organisation, knowledge is embedded in repositories and organisational norms, routines and practices (Gerami, 2010).

Previously, in knowledge management, the terms ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’ were used without distinction but based on the new knowledge management, distinction appears to be clear. This distinction is explained using two ideas. First one is taken from Popper (1969) which explains that there cannot be certainty of truth and therefore, certain knowledge lacks. As a result, he refers to all human knowledge as fallible. However, we can try to get closer to the truth through finding and eliminating errors in our thinking. This is what Popper referred to as fallible. The second idea is based in the first idea in that what people do when in decision making process and learning is recognition of the problem, formulation of solution and elimination of errors through trial and error. When these two ideas are combined, the result fundamental dynamic that is present in all humans, the need to solve problems through reaching solutions the elimination of errors in solutions through testing and evaluation before decision and action (Maier, 2007). Thus, based on the two ideas, the distinction between information and knowledge is that both ideas consist of claims in regard to the truth, beauty and world. However, only knowledge that consists of the claims that survive tests and evaluation in regard to whether they are in error.

Popper (1972) also describes the distinction between information and knowledge in regard to questions. That is, when a person seeks for answers to who, where, when or what questions, the seeking and exchanging of information is with Word-1. On the other hand, when a person is looking for answers to why or how questions, there is exchange of knowledge with Word-3.

In regard to data, it does not answer any question. However, for data to become information, it must be categorised, contextualised and calculated. Thus, information is much wider as it represents the data with relevance and purpose. In regard to turning data into information, information technology is usually invaluable especially where large data amounts are generated across various functions and departments. However, knowledge is very important and is required in regard to contextualisation (ARRC, 2008).

In conclusion, in regard to the knowledge management system, the distinction between knowledge, information and data can be drawn. Knowledge can be referred to what answers why and how questions while data does not answer any question in the problem space. However, separation into data, information or knowledge is done after defining the problem space. Classification into data, information or knowledge schema is relative to the cognitive state of the receiver. This does not exclude a certain piece of data from being information in regard to a particular application, and knowledge in regard to another application. In regard to Popper’s theory of information, he concludes that information is with World-1 while knowledge occurs within World-3.

Knowledge management system


AlSondos, I., & Othman, F. (2012). Requirement for Knowledge Management System. Journal of Communication and Computer, 263-275

ARRC, 2008, Information Vs Knowledge

Gerami, M. (2010). Knowledge Management. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, 7(2), 234-237

Maier, R (2007). Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management. 3rd edition, Berlin: Springer.

Popper, K. R. (1969). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, 3rd ed, Routledge Paul, London.

Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Claredon Press; Oxford

Popper, K. R. (1996). Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem: In Defence of Interaction, Routledge, Abingdon.