Knowledge Management Audit Georgia Pacific

Knowledge Management Audit Georgia Pacific

To understand the position of a firm regarding knowledge management and its knowledge assets, a firm conducts knowledge audit. Additionally, knowledge audit provides precise identification, quantification, and measurement and evaluation of the totting up total of implicit and explicit knowledge in the organization. A typical knowledge audit will look at the organization’s knowledge assets and point out through knowledge mapping the inventory, gaps, duplication, etc. in knowledge, (Srikantaiah & Koenig, 2008). The preceding chapters will focus on the importance of knowledge audit and knowledge management SWOT (strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats) format of Georgia Pacific.

Knowledge audit plays a vital role in the performance of Georgia Specific Company as it has the following advantages. Knowledge audit helps Georgia Specific Company identify the amount of knowledge they require to support overall firm goals and individual and team activities. Equally important, knowledge audit provides evidence showing up to what extent the management of knowledge is effective, and also it highlights the areas that need improvements regarding knowledge. Furthermore, knowledge audit reveals knowledge gap and plots a map of what knowledge exists. Also, knowledge audit reveals the new knowledge in a firm.

Georgia Specific Company organizational knowledge resources are of two types, structured organizational knowledge and unstructured organizational knowledge. Structured organizational knowledge source represents the knowledge derived from structured data and information sources like a database, data marts, data warehouse and knowledge bases, (Kondalkar, 2013). Unstructured organizational knowledge resources represent knowledge derived from texts, workers and graphic presentation made by the staff or the guests. There are two types of knowledge, tacit knowledge which is characterized by being more personal, investigational, and content specific, and difficult to formalize. The other type of knowledge is explicit knowledge which has the characteristics of being easily communicated and is shared in a solid form such as scientific formulas, principles or codified procedures.

            Georgia Specific Company organizational structure encourages knowledge flow. Also, a  the companies policies shape the knowledge flow in the organization.  Georgia specific company policy which ensures that the employees undergo a cadet training program focusing on the nature of business the company is indulging in ensures that there is sufficient knowledge flow.

Knowledge gaps arise from soon to retire experts expert who is likely to go with away with the knowledge they acquired in the company. Jay Liebowitz shows that for the organization to close the knowledge, it should enact knowledge sharing from the official strategy.

Knowledge management is the process of capturing, allocating and efficiently using knowledge. (Wiig, 1993), describes knowledge management in the organization in three perception, business perspective, management perspective and hands-on perspective. (Dalkir, 2011), describes knowledge management cycle which includes the capture, codification, sharing, accessing, application, and reuse of knowledge within and between organizations.

SWOT analysis is a special process that evaluates four elements (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) of a firm. Georgia Specific Company has the following strengths in knowledge management. The company has a Knowledge-based system (KBS), which captures and stores expertise knowledge. Knowledge-based system captures and stores knowledge information from expertise that is just about to retire. Since Georgia specific company has Koch Industries under its management, the knowledge-based systems help the company to retain the special technical know-how that the industry needs to make the products. Furthermore, Georgia specific company retains the explicit knowledge type which is easily transferable from one person to another.

Georgia Specific Company organizational structure and company’s confidential policy are some of the weaknesses of the company. The vertical organizational structure of the company inhibits downward communication especially in the relay of information. The company’s bureaucracy when relaying the information inhibits passing of explicit knowledge in the company. Additionally, the confidential policy of the organization limits the expertise in the company not to disclose any knowledge of crucial processes and products of the company.

Georgia Specific has the opportunity of increasing its knowledge base and knowledge management by merging with other firms. For example, if the company merges with organizations that have an advanced technology in retaining information in sales and marketing such as Alibaba would enhance how the knowledge management. Likewise, the company has a series of stores country wide and a variety of products which makes the company require close working with marketing research firms such as Nielsen to increase the quality of knowledge the company has on its products, current market and target market.

The major threat facing knowledge management of Georgia Specific Company is the constant and rapid changes that are occurring in technology. The advancement in technology makes the file formats that are storing information which is knowledgeable obsolete. Additionally, the firm’s expertise knowledge in technology becomes obsolete when that technology upgrade, making the knowledge redundant.

In conclusion, Georgia Specific Company has sound knowledge management, but it needs to upgrade its knowledge management tactics to cope up with sudden and rapid changes in technology.

Click Here to Place your order and Get 100% original paper on any topic done for Your



Dalkir, K. (2011). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kondalkar, V. (2013). Organization effectiveness and change management. Delhi: PHI Learning.

Srikantaiah, T., & Koenig, M. E. (2008). Knowledge management in practice: connections and context. Medford, N.J.: Information Today.

Wiig, K. (1993). Knowledge management foundations. Arlington, TX: Schema Press.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *