Electronic Portfolio as a Knowledge Management Tool: A Comparative Analysis Wardah Zainal-Abidin1, Lorna Uden2, Rose Alinda Alias3 1 Department of Informatics, Advanced Informatics School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 54100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Email:
[email protected] 2 FCET, Staffordshire University, The Octagon, Beaconside, Stafford, ST 18 OAD. UK. Email:
[email protected], 3 Office of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academics and Internationalisation), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81380, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, Email:
[email protected]
Abstract Traditionally, electronic portfolio tools focused mainly on the presentation of information, with an archive of digital data that are derived from the associated purpose of the presentation. Today, new electronic portfolio tools include digital environments for assembling and managing documents and all forms of media in a digital archive, and/or software applications for assembling and sorting portions of that archive for a particular purpose. This shares many features with knowledge management tools. Central to both tools is the knowledge creation stage. Based on our experiences of using electronic portfolio, this paper explores the potential use of electronic portfolio as a knowledge management (KM) tool for knowledge workers in organizations. Salient features of characteristics of KM tools are studied and these are matched against various electronic portfolio features. The paper then shows how the electronic portfolio can be used as a means to tackle the challenges faced at the individual context of the knowledge creation phase.
Keywords Electronic Portfolio System; knowledge creation, knowledge management tool, comparative analysis, knowledge management
1 Introduction Electronic Portfolio (e-portfolio) which is digital presentations of skills and competences of the e-portfolio owner have been in use in education for nearly a dec-
2
ade [1]. The main objective of using e-portfolio in higher education is to provide students the opportunity to reflect upon their actions as learners to become knowledgeable learners. The capability of the e-portfolio as a tool for an organization other than a learning institution has not been studied by many IT researchers. The potential for e-portfolio to replicate its benefits in a business environment should be explored. Hence this paper attempts to explore the use of e-portfolio as a tool to get individuals to capture, document, reflect and learn from their individual experiences in their working lives, and then selectively and willingly share their knowledge to fill the organizational memory reservoir. A comparative analysis is conducted to investigate the suitability of e-portfolio as a KM tool based on related works in terms of their knowledge creation attributes and activities. This paper starts with a brief review of knowledge management in Section 2, followed by electronic portfolio in Section 3. In Section 4 the comparative analysis is described and results of the comparison between e-portfolio and KM are shown. Section 5 summarises and recommends future research.
2 From Knowledge to Tools
2.1 Knowledge and Knowledge Management Alavi & Leidner [2] suggest that knowledge is information possessed in the mind of individuals once it is articulated and presented in the form of text, graphics, words or other symbolic forms: it is personalized information (which may or may not be new, unique, useful or accurate) related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and judgments. This gives rise to two important implications–(i) for individuals to arrive at the same understanding of data or information, they must share a certain knowledge base, and (ii) systems designed to support knowledge in organizations may not appear radically different from other forms of information systems but rather should be geared toward enabling users to assign meaning to information and to capture some of their knowledge in information and/or data.
3
Apart from this, knowledge can be seen differently based on different views. These different perspectives make knowledge to be either (i) a state of mind, (ii) an object, (iii) a process, (iv) a condition of having access to information, or (v) a capability [2]. These different perspectives are important for organizations to understand and recognise before embarking on initiatives involving KM or KMS. KM is not technology but rather a concept to which involves identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge in an organization to help the organization compete [3]. The collective knowledge is also called organizational knowledge which comprises of collections of personal knowledge which resides in the minds of individuals [4], [5], [6].
2.2 Knowledge Management Systems (KMS) KMS refers to a class of information systems applied to managing organizational knowledge. They are IT-based systems meant to support and enhance the organizational process of KM. These processes are namely knowledge creation, storage/retrieval, transfer and application. These four processes however are not linear nor discrete but iterative, fluid and are not monolithic set of activities [7].
2.3 KM tools Ruggles [8] defines KM tools as tools, supporting the performance of applications, activities or actions such as knowledge generation, knowledge codification or knowledge transfer. In August 2009 the Asian Productivity Organization (APO) in Singapore had compiled and agreed on a list comprising of 20 KM tools. Prior in 2002, Tyndale [9], in his paper listed 17 KM tools which are based on technology types. These two lists have different components except for Document Management. The total list is adapted and used in Tables 3a, 3b and 3c.
4
3.0 Electronic Portfolio
3.1 Purposes and types of electronic portfolio Based on [1], [10], [11] and [12] the electronic portfolio can be defined as; A digital repository comprising of authentic and diverse evidence of acquired knowledge, skills, and abilities drawn from a large archive, that reflects what the owner (person or organization) has learned and reflected over time, designed for presentation to one or more audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose. In addition it works as a toolbox and an information management system for the owner to save work and information about the owner's career or lifelong learning.
The e-portfolio has many uses depending on its purpose and audience. Purpose can range from learning, professional development, assessment, job applications or promotions. Consequently this determines the audience type [10]. In addition an e-portfolio can be developed at the individual, group or organizational level. This ability to be flexible in terms of catering for different needs is only possible with the digital portfolio and not so easy with the hardcopy one.
3.2 Benefits of the e-portfolio The e-portfolio can benefit various stakeholders affected by its use. These include the students (builders), tutors (advisors), university management (deans), potential employers (audience) and parents (sponsors). Owing to the space limitation it is suffice to say that each entity uses the e-portfolio according to their individual needs [13]. As an example, some benefits to the students [10] include self improvement in using multimedia technology, general literacy, communication and problem solving skills; finding meaning to one's actions via reflection; and fostering a sense of pride in one's achievements. E-portfolio allows a more organised, maintainable, portable and sharable artefacts to be stored conveniently in a standardized manner within acceptable privacy terms. It empower students to take ownership of their own learning while the tutor provides guidance and advice allowing students to make connections between different aspects of their lives and help them to form their social identities, and their identity within their discipline of study.
5
4.0 Comparative Analysis Comparative Analysis [14] is used here to make a direct compare and contrast analysis between the e-portfolio (A) and the KM tool (B). In this approach, comparison(s) are made on characteristics and attributes of A and B for their similarities or differences. Hence when one compares A against B, one uses A as a "lens" through which to view B. Lens comparisons are useful for illuminating, critiquing, or challenging the stability of a thing that, before the analysis, seemed perfectly understood.
4.1 Grounds for comparison The justification for this investigation can be summarised as follows: a) The corporate world lacks reflective learning culture which is much needed if they want to stay competitive and innovative. Reflection by employees after completing a certain task can be done using the eportfolio. b) The weakest point in KM initiatives is the slack in knowledge creation by individuals. This makes learning not readily possible thus not contributing to the accumulation of organizational knowledge. By keeping eportfolios repositories of experiences for the organization can be realized. c) The e-portfolio is a flexible application which grows at the hands of the creator. The creator/builder architects his own personal portfolio according to his desire and purpose by capturing, coding, storing and reflecting upon selected artefacts primarily for personal improvement. d) The work force demography is quickly changing with the techno-savvy generation replacing the Baby Boomers. This new generation readily embrace technology to build e-portfolio.
e) The employer-employee relationship can also escalate to a higher level if the e-portfolio environment is handled with trust and respect by all parties. This relationship is analogous to the teacher-student relationship at universities.
6
4.2 Compare and Contrast To examine the extent of the appropriateness of the e-portfolio as a KM tool or method, comparisons are made between the e-portfolio and its KM counterpart. Firstly comparison is made on attributes of both KM and e-portfolio as depicted in Table 1. Four main domains of KM (knowledge, KM, KMS, KM Tools) according to [2], [9] have been identified and these are matched against similar attributes of e-portfolio [1], [15], [16], [10]. As can be seen e-portfolio has characteristics which are also found in all the four domains of KM. As an example, e-portfolio which is built by an individual is therefore a representation of personal knowledge. Table 1 Comparison on attributes of KM versus e-Portfolio K/KM/KMS Attributes
E-portfolio Attributes
i) State of knowledge: is personal experi- is privately owned by an owner; a collection of digitalence oriented; is a state of mind; is perised significant authentic and diverse evidence, drawn sonal knowledge reside in the mind of indi- from a large archive; designed for presentation to one viduals; is an object; is a condition of access or more audiences for a particular rhetorical purpose; to information; is a capability; Same under- is a toolbox for the owner to organise knowledge; eP– standing can be derived from sharing a cer- an inventory of acquired knowledge, skills, and abilitain knowledge base ties with deep learning; promotes–self reflection; shows evidence of learning; allows feedback from others; has psychological benefits; allows portability, ii) Knowledge Management: Knowledge creation–Internalization; Knowledge crea- sharing and accessibility; makes organisation of ortion–Externalization; Knowledge creation– ganisations; motivates standardization across the board; an inventory of acquired knowledge, skills, and Socialization; Knowledge creation– abilities with deep learning Combinations; Knowledge creation–Ba; Knowledge Transfer–formal/informal and personal/impersonal iii) Knowledge Management Systems: to web-based or stand alone PC; proprietary with a fee, support KM; can be typical IS; Knowledge freeware/open source or developed home-grown; Storage/Retrieval–found externally; Knowl- supports database; is an information management edge Application–knowledge in effective ac- system that uses electronic media and services; suption ports multi-storage types; various uses including for research; interface accepts feedbacks from audience; stores users reflective writings
7
iv) Knowledge Management tools: to sup- multiple uses--for learning, professional development, port KMS; variety; situational assessment, job applications and promotions; multiple types--learning, credential, showcase, process, assessment, dossier, training, reflective, personal development planning; multiple audience--peers, employers, ownself
Secondly, further investigation is made by comparing the principles or fundamental truth, rule or norm found in both KM and e-portfolio. This is best portrayed by practitioners of either fields because this would mean the principles are tried and tested. Hence for e-portfolio the principles are taken from community of practice called CCCC (Conference on College Composition and Communication which supports and promotes the teaching and study of college composition and communication). Likewise for KM the principles are taken from a KM community website organised by Ron Young (an experienced KM consultant of Knowledge Associates International Ltd). The output of this comparison between e-portfolio and KM is found in Table 2a (Table 2b lists the principles for KM). To determine similarities between the two, the authors have adopted keywords and semantic in context. The result shows that principles from both tools can be mapped seamlessly and this indicates the degree of compatibility is positive. Table 2a Comparison on principles of KM[17] and e-Portfolio[18] (Learning) E-portfolio Principles
KM Principles
#1: Learning Outcomes
No: 1; 5; 9
student guide; clearly articulated individual, shared vision, values; Learning and knowlcourse, programmatic, or institutional outcomes in edge driven organization; Embed continutheir collection, selection, reflection upon, and ous learning and knowledge processes in presentation of “artefacts” in the e-portfolio; stu- routine works dents structure portfolios around their own learning goals. Principle #2: Digital Environments
No: 11; 12; 13; 14
optimal use of the technological features of elec- Knowledge ecology breeds knowledge; tronic writing, collaboration, and records-keeping, ‘Federal’ organizations; ‘organization of orand making e-portfolios accessible on the Internet. ganizations' (interdependent); knowledge asset driven, not tools driven Principle #3: Virtual Identities
No: 15; 16; 17; 18
Students represent themselves through personal- knowledge on a needs basis; If only we
8
ized information that conveys a web-savvy and de- knew...; Personal and team success deterliberately constructed ethos for various uses of the mine organizational success; Demonstrate e-portfolio; identities are managed by having con- the KM principles (pilot first) trol over artefacts and audience Principle #4: Authentic Audiences
No: 19; 20; 21; 22; 23
Students engage in audience analysis of who they Teamwork as one entity; Organizations intend to read their e-portfolios (internal and ex- learn only through individuals who learn; ternal); they coordinate access to their e-portfolios What gets rewarded gets done; it's a virtuous circle; 'learn how to learn' Principle #5: Reflection and E-portfolio Pedagogy
No: 7; 8; 9; 10
Creation of “reflective artefacts” which identify and evaluate the different kinds of learning that eportfolios represent; explain how various forms of instructive feedback have influenced learning via composition and revision of the artefacts, making teaching and learning transparent to readers.
No re-inventing of the wheel; No second mistakes; Embed continuous learning and knowledge processes in routine works; repetition produces efficiency
Principle #6: Integration and Curriculum Connections
No: 11; 12; 13
Knowledge ecology breeds knowledge; Students link artefacts in a flexible structure (syn- ‘Federal’ organizations; ‘organization of orthesizes diverse evidence and ideas; invites linear ganisations' (interdepence) or non-linear ways to read and evaluate eportfolios; makes evidence available across the Internet); shows curriculum connectivity Principle #7: Stakeholders’ Responsibilities
No: 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 19
Students receive the necessary support from fac- Lessons learnt from doing tasks; 'situulty, program directors, and university administra- ational'; Quantum Physics; Learning and tors via assessment for program improvement and knowledge driven organization; Practice also informed about resources are essential for Competitive Collaboration; Teamwork as implementing, maintaining, and accessing eone entity portfolios. Principle # 8: Lifelong Learning
No: 20; 21; 22; 23
Students are able to adapt their e-portfolios to Organizations learn only through individuals various purposes/ uses beyond their academic ca- who learn; What gets rewarded gets done; reers, enabling their various readers, in turn, to it's a virtuous circle; 'learn how to learn' track their learning longitudinally.
9 Table 2b List of KM Principles (referred by Table 2a). KM Principles (Knowledge Associates International Ltd)[17] Principle 1: People will focus and work more effec- Principle 14: Knowledge systems and tools tively through a shared vision and values, and the are implements for knowledge working. KM strategy must be aligned to this They should be to support knowledge asset driven strategies, processes, methods and Principle 2: What have we learned today, as a techniques. Be knowledge asset driven, not 'learning organization', is sometimes more impor- tools driven. tant than what tasks we performed today Principle 15: Partners, customers, stakePrinciple 3: KM is 'situational' holders don’t know what they need to know until they need to know it Principle 4:KM and Quantum Physics: holistic approach to invisible tacit and visible explicit knowl- Principle 16: If only we knew what we know, edge we would be three times more effective tomorrow Principle 5: Be both a learning organization and knowledge driven Principle 17: Effective organizational KM is the natural result of effective personal and Principle 6: Practice Competitive Collaboration team KM Principle 7: No re-inventing of the wheel Principle 8: No continual repeating of the same mistakes
Principle 18: Demonstrate the KM principles, manage the risk, gain success and then, naturally, implement across the organization
Principle 9: For effective organizational KM to oc- Principle 19: Team KM is concerned with cur, work plans, work processes and systems must creating, sharing and applying knowledge as be improved to include more collective, systematic a team, by working more effectively toand continuous learning and knowledge processes. gether as one Principle 10: Every time we do something repetitive we should strive to do it better than the last time
Principle 20: Organizations learn only through individuals who learn
Principle 21: What gets rewarded gets done Principle 11: Knowledge naturally resides, thrives, and grows in knowledge ecologies Principle22: Naturally trust, communicate, learn and share knowledge - it's a virtuous Principle 12: Knowledge is created and applied circle best in ‘Federal’ organizations Principle 23: Teach people to 'learn how to Principle 13: The Knowledge Society is at its best as learn' an ‘organization of organisations'
After establishing grounds of similarities between the two concepts (Table 1 and Table 2a), the next step is to examine the contrasts between them. Here a contrast profile is made directly on e-portfolio against KM tools. Tables 3a, 3b and
10
3c show the KM tools features which are fully similar, partially similar and not similar to e-portfolios features respectively. In Table 3a, all the given features of KM tools are consistent with the core attributes and essence of e-portfolio. Table 3b shows the KM tool features listed may or may not be exhibited by e-portfolio unless for special purpose. Lastly Table 3c shows clearly what e-portfolios are not in terms of KM tools. Table 3a: Contrasting e-portfolio against KM Tools (Similar fully) KM Tools features
Notes
Learning and Idea Capture; Learning Reviews; After Action Core attribute and essence of eReview; Storytelling; Building Knowledge Clusters; Collabo- Portfolio rative Virtual Workspaces; Social Network Services; Content Management; Knowledge creation applications Knowledge Bases (Wikis, etc.); Expert Locator; Blogs
e-Portfolio can be compiled and shared with consent by owners
Table 3b: Contrasting e-portfolio against KM Tools (Similar partly) KM Tools features
Notes
Peer Assist; APO KM Assessment Tool; Web Portals; Electronic publishing systems
Only with e-portfolio owner’s consent
Community of Practice; Advanced Search Tools; CRM
Features exhibited by e-Portfolio
Intranet; Groupware;
Environment of e-Portfolio
Table 3c: Contrasting e-portfolio against KM Tools (Not Similar) KM Tools features
Notes
Brainstorming; Collaborative Physical Workspace; Knowledge Café; Not directly representative Taxonomy; Document Libraries leading to a DMS; Voice and Voice- nor similar over-Internet Protocol; Push Technologies; Agents; Document Management systems; Workflow; BPR; Information retrieval engines; Relational and object databases; Help-desk applications; Data warehousing; Data mining
11
5.0 Conclusion With this analysis on the similarities and differences between KM tool and eportfolio, it shows that e-portfolio can be used as a KM tool for organization to capture knowledge found in individuals in a non-structured manner which may be more appealing for people when sharing their knowledge voluntarily. E-portfolio can help to promote a rich KM culture by getting individuals to create personal e-portfolio, as contributing inputs to the organization’s knowledge repository. The use of e-portfolio as a KM tool can be beneficial. Individuals in organization have opportunities to put their thoughts, and reflections to improve their decision making which is recognised by their organization as part of knowledge creation. This empowerment is similar to the concept of student personal development planning (PDP) which is the core of e-portfolio building. Compilation and sharing of e-portfolios at the organization level is directly contributing to the realization of the organizational memory. Since individuals can control their own portfolios, without fear of being discriminated but rather with respect and trust, the willingness to share (push) their propositional knowledge to their peers and organizational can be profitable to the organization’s performance and growth. Peer collaboration can also be a welcoming outcome when individuals have a better understanding of their roles in a team-setting environment, as a result of self-reflection and deep thinking. In order to validate the effectiveness of using e-portfolio as a KM tool, further research will be needed. This is especially in business where knowledge sharing is crucial for the organisations. Our desire will be to use eportfolio in an organisation as a case study to validate our proposed framework.
REFERENCES: [1] H. C. Barrett, “Researching Electronic Portfolios and Learner Engagement: The REFLECT Initiative,” J. Adolesc. Adult Lit., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 436–449, 2007. [2] M. Alavi and D. E. Leidner, “Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues,” Mis Q., pp. 107–136, 2001. [3] G. Von Krogh, “Care in Knowledge Creation,” Calif. Manage. Rev., vol. 40, no. 3, p. 133, 1998. [4] I. Nonaka and R. Toyama, “The knowledge-creating theory revisited: knowledge creation as a synthesizing process,” Knowl. Manag. Res. Pr., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 2–10, 2003.
12 [5]
[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[11] [12] [13] [14]
[15]
[16]
[17] [18]
R. Larsson, L. Bengtsson, K. Henriksson, and J. Sparks, “The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances,” Organ. Sci., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 285–305, 1998. J.-C. Spender, “Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: three concepts in search of a theory,” J. Organ. Change Manag., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 63–78, 1996. I. Nonaka, “A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation,” Organ. Sci., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 14–37, 1994. R. Ruggles and D. Holtshouse, “The knowledge advantage,” Capstone Us, 1999. P. Tyndale, “A taxonomy of knowledge management software tools: origins and applications,” Eval. Program Plann., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 183–190, 2002. P. Butler, B. Anderson, M. Brown, M. Simpson, A. Higgins, M. Northover, L. Meyer, M. Connor, M. Lamont, and R. Wyles, “A Review Of The Literature On Portfolios And Electronic Portfolios.” D. R. Cambridge, B. L. Cambridge, and K. B. Yancey, Electronic Portfolios 2.0: Emergent Research on Implementaton and Impact. Stylus Publishing, LLC., 2009. S. Strohmeier, “Electronic portfolios in recruiting? A conceptual analysis of usage,” J. Electron. Commer. Res., vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 268–280, 2010. B.-M., Nicole A, The E-portfolio Paradigm: Informing, Educating, Assessing, and Managing with E-portfolios. Informing Science, 2010. K. Walk, “How to write a comparative analysis.” [Online]. Available: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~wricntr/documents/CompAnalysis.html. [Accessed: 30Mar-2013]. D. Gibson and H. Barrett, “Directions in electronic portfolio development,” in Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, 2003, vol. 2003, pp. 58–64. G. Hallam and T. Creagh, “ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: a review of the Australian ePortfolio Project,” High. Educ. Res. Dev., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 179–193, 2010. “Ron Young.” [Online]. Available: http://www.knowledge-management-online.com/ronyoung.html. [Accessed: 08-Apr-2013]. National Council of Teachers of English, “Principles and Practices in Electronic Portfolios,” Conference on College Composition and Communication, 2013-1998. [Online]. Available: http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/electronicportfolios. [Accessed: 06-May-2013].
