Discussion 7: Analysis of Social Relativist and Systems Expert Tools

This discussion post analyzes the application of social-relativist and systems expert tools in the context of knowledge management within an organization. The student explores how these perspectives were utilized to design a proposed model, considering individual viewpoints and leveraging computer applications for problem-solving. The post examines how these perspectives shaped the taxonomy and discusses the consequences of limiting the approach to only two perspectives, highlighting potential flaws such as the inability to effectively evaluate feedback and the encouragement of an adverse organizational culture. The student also reflects on how these perspectives were applied during project execution, emphasizing the importance of understanding diverse viewpoints to develop a solution that addresses the underlying problem. The post references several academic sources to support the analysis and provides insights into the limitations of the chosen approach.

Discussion 1
DISCUSSION
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

Discussion 2
DISCUSSION
How did you apply the tools of the Social Relativist and Systems Expert?
The tools of social-relativism were employed in this paper to successfully seek for
explanation of people subjectivity and thoughts and references of different social actors. Social-
relativism viewpoint is that social roles and institutions occur as expressions of the true meaning
that men attach to their world. The social reality is created differently for different persons. The
social-relativism tools effectively helped me consider individual viewpoints as they acted as
facilitators to comprehend the various learning needs of every individual, which make learning
more effective and personal. It inspires active participation from people, as well as encourages
creativity and sense-making. System expert tools was used in this paper solve complex problems
based on reasoning via bodies of knowledge. In other words, I used the computer application to
perform tasks which would otherwise be undertaken by human expert.
How did the perspectives help or hinder the process?
The perspective of social-relativism significantly helped in this paper to design and
implement a proposed model for knowledge management. Following the perspectives of the
social-relativism approaches, the proposed solution alongside model system is crafted premised
on knowledge management as shown figure 1 and 2 below:

Discussion 3
How did the perspectives help shape the taxonomy?
The social-relativism perspective greatly helped shape the taxonomy. This is because it
helped demonstrate the application of the proposed model by suggesting that the mandatory
individual-online project appraisal journal must be filled up every week by every engineer
engaged in the project. Monetary incentives is given for feedback which is useful and embraced
by management and incentives remains for engineers who choose to anonymous despite their

Discussion 4
feedback being adopted since the company can never recognize and reward anonymous persons
(Wang and Wang 2016). For first path, journal from previous engineering projects’ evaluation
gets withdrawn by permanent engineers heading the novel project before beginning. For second
path, management shall withdraw compiled evaluation journals and review entailed feedback
(Gonzalez and Melo 2017).
What are the consequences of applying only two perspectives?
Applying the two perspective is prone to various critique. For instance, though the
proposed solution is designed and established as an attempt to remain perfect solution to
management of knowledge, its flaws increases by limiting its construction to only two
perspectives. This is because the head engineers must know how to evaluate the feedback
objectives to avoid discarding useful feedbacks and this cannot adequately be achieved through
the two perspectives. This is because the two perspectives only allow one head engineer to
perform the evaluation who might feasibly never be effective as team of head engineers. The two
perspectives also allow for provision of anonymity options which sadly encourages an adverse
organization culture whereby individuals might feasibly never take responsibility for feedback
and hence provide hurtful, biases or irrational feedback (Wang and Wang 2016).
Knowledge remains highly significant and useful resource to organization and hence
using only two perspective exclude other useful perspectives thus increasing the problem of
ineffectively designing and implementing system that can effectively capture such knowledge.
Implementing a knowledge management system for capturing knowledge must go via several
thought processes layers and hence needs the consideration of various perspectives instead of
only two, considering the fact that it involves complex variables like human and environmental
alongside other aspects. Using two perspectives also increased the chances of human factors

Discussion 5
opposing the system even when a perfect knowledge management system is somehow created
and implemented because human remain imperfect and restricted (ThoughtCo 2018).
Which part of the project execution did you apply the perspectives?
I used the perspectives in the understanding the views of people to help me design the
proposed model which takes into consideration that fact that social roles and institutions are as a
result of expressions of the true meaning that men attach to their world. Thus, by seeking for the
views of other people in the team, I was able to restrict the search for the best solution to
knowledge management by solely including meaningful perspectives attached to the benefits of
the model in solving the underlying problem (Powell and Ambrosini 2016). This helped me
understand the need to come up with a solution which limits the issuance of money as incentive
for knowledge to minimize the system flaws as people deeming their knowledge as valuable as
monetary incentives (Maravilhas and Martins 2018).

Discussion 6
References
Gonzalez, R. and Melo, T., 2017. Linkage between dynamics capability and knowledge
management factors. Management Decision, 55(10), pp.2256-2276.
Maravilhas, S. and Martins, J., 2018. Strategic knowledge management a digital environment:
Tacit and explicit knowledge in Fab Labs. Journal of Business Research. [Online] Available at:
https://ac-els-cdn-com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/S0148296318300675/1-s2.0-
S0148296318300675-main.pdf?_tid=9e30746e-4f88-429c-ae54-
2e9f19a24111&acdnat=1537357043_cc3ac030cbf1b883ab374215f774b85a [Accessed 19 Sep.
2018].
Powell, T. and Ambrosini, V., 2016. Espoused versus realized knowledge management tool
usage in knowledge intensive organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, [online] 28(2), pp.356-378. Available at: https://www-tandfonline-
com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/doi/pdf/10.1080/09585192.2016.1244911?needAccess=true
[Accessed 19 Sep. 2018].
ThoughtCo., 2018. Everything You Need to Know About Functionalist Theory. [online]
Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/functionalist-perspective-3026625 [Accessed 11 Sep.
2018].

Discussion 7
Wang, Y. and Wang, Y., 2016. Determinants of firms' knowledge management system
implementation: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, [online] 64, pp.829-842.
Available at: https://ac-els-cdn-com.ezproxy.lib.rmit.edu.au/S0747563216305453/1-s2.0-
S0747563216305453-main.pdf?_tid=0894ef40-8150-4cbe-a551-
1d1beab23dcb&acdnat=1537358310_5e3ee351c8b068f66680efbc3bb3588d [Accessed 19 Sep.
2018].