Registration, Access and Use of the Personal Knowledge of Employees

Abstract

Organizations have managed information regarding the knowledge of their employees using various processes with dissimilar success. Personal knowledge registration (PKR) is one way of managing this knowledge. PKR is a system of concepts, methods and processes that can be implemented in different information systems. PKR can also be defined as a social knowledge system, a community of knowledge, and a directory to the education, training and experience of employees, residing within an organization at a particular time. The abbreviation PKR is thus used to denote both the registration process and occasionally the registry itself. The aim of this research was to provide an understanding of how organizations support PKR, and how personal knowledge registration impacts the work of different employees. The first objective contributing to this aim was examining the collaboration of different professionals, records professionals in particular, regarding the registration process. The second objective was studying the strategic intentions of PKR and in what manner those intentions were put into practice. The third objective concerned the documentation requirements of the Icelandic Standard of Equal Pay No. 85:2012 (EPS), Act on Equal Status and Equal Rights of Women and Men No. 10/2008 with amendments no. 54/2017 and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) regarding personal knowledge. The fourth objective was to analyse the access of PKR and how this access, and its level of transparency, was perceived by PKR users. An underlying objective was to discover whether, and how PKR had benefited organizations financially. This research was interdisciplinary, drawing on theories of information and records management, knowledge management and information technology. Qualitative methodology was used for conducting this study. The contextual framework covered 18 organizations in Iceland. A total of 55, semi-structured interviews were conducted with different professionals. An analysis of comprehensive internal documentation was made. Participant observations were conducted to contribute to the data collection. Grounded theory was used to analyse the data. The findings are described in four, peer-reviewed papers. The findings show that there is a positive perception of PKR as a much needed practical knowledge management tool and as economically significant for value creation. Managerial support and clear purpose and responsibility of the registration process negatively influenced PKR use. Access was usually restricted to the personal iv profile of employees, despite there being technological and social solutions for further access. Therefore, the use of PKR was unreasonably limited. A third of the participating organizations had received the Knowledge Company of the Year award. These award winners did not succeed any better when it came to the practice of PKR. In addition, external factors, comprising the regulatory and legal requirements of EPS and GDPR placed added constraints on PKR as a social knowledge system. Another outcome was that, while information and records professionals found it important to have a role in the decision making regarding information management, their part remained only minimal in the selection, registration, access, usability and security of information regarding the knowledge of employees.