There is no simple definition of knowledge. The meaning of knowledge depends on both the organisation and context (Alvesson, 1993). Knowledge extends beyond information, into the realm of human thinking. With information, humans are able to think, process and share knowledge (Ardichvili & Seung Won, 2009; McDermott, 1999). Without such a human aspect, knowledge would be merely information. Knowledge management, therefore, is the development and implementation of strategies to create, maintain and share knowledge, in order to achieve organisational goals (Edvardsson, 2008). Knowledge management is not a new concept, having been discussed at least 30 years ago (Henry, 1975). Early research conducted into knowledge management focused on the use of information technology concepts, designed to assist knowledge creation, capture and sharing (Edvardsson, 2008; McDermott, 1999; Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002). As time has passed, an increasing amount of research has focused on the human element of knowledge management. This paper focuses on progress of that human element, particularly theoretical and empirical literature related to the link between strategic human resource management and knowledge management.

Most knowledge management systems focus on using information technology to capture, store, distribute and make available information; this does little to improve organisational knowledge. Information systems focus on a singular aspect of knowledge, information, failing to address the fact that knowledge, being the result of human thinking, goes beyond mere information or data. McDermott (1999, p. 104) suggested that the use of information systems was “the great trap in knowledge management”. Rather than solely information systems, human resource systems and information systems need to be combined to manage knowledge. The best use of knowledge can be made by focusing on the human aspect of knowledge, rather than the specific knowledge content itself. Developing communities in which knowledge if effectively and efficiently shared drives innovation, resulting in increased competitive advantage. McDermott further suggests that through planning the organisational structure and culture with knowledge management in mind, knowledge could be created, shared and leveraged. A large amount of modern literature agrees that human elements are at least as important as information systems to knowledge management (Ardichvili & Seung Won, 2009; Edvardsson, 2008; Lopez-Cabrales, Pérez-Luño, & Cabrera, 2009).

Although the human factor in knowledge management is generally accepted, there are many alternative thoughts on integrating human resource management systems into knowledge management. Robertson and Hammersley (2000) conducted exploratory research into human resources practices and knowledge management within a single organisation. The organisation studied used few formal human resource management practices, and it was found that the employees were still motivated to share their knowledge. The organisation was also still highly competitive in the marketplace, despite the lack of traditional human resource practices. The results of their research suggest that, in some knowledge intensive organisations, regular human resources strategies are inadequate or ineffective. Hislop (2003) posited that the reason the organisation studied by Robertson and Hammersley had succeeded in knowledge management was the commitment of employees to the organisation. Where employees are highly dedicated to their job and organisation, knowledge is shared organically without further managerial processes. In some cases, it is necessary to treat employees who work in knowledge intensive organisations differently to regular workers, possibly as they expect a deeper level of autonomy and independence in their work (Robertson & Hammersley, 2000). Rejecting regular human resource management practices and processes in favour of informal, unofficial and subjective approaches to human resource management could lead to improved performance. Edvardsson (2008) also found that regular human resource management processes may need to be modified in knowledge intensive organisations, because those organisations are by nature complex and irregular. Rigid processes such as recruitment, performance management and reward programs can limit knowledge sharing, stifling creativity, with a negative effect on competitive advantage.

Petersen and Poulfelt (2002) agree that different strategies are required, depending on the type of workers and organisational culture. Whilst the study was primarily focused on factors external to human resource strategies, it was also concluded that performance management and incentive programs contribute considerably to the success of knowledge management. For strategies to create and store knowledge to be successful, incentives and rewards must be used to encourage both the creation and sharing of knowledge. For example, incentives for documenting systems and processes should be used in conjunction with incentives for actually sharing information with other workers. This concept has since been agreed by a number of other theorists and researchers (Edvardsson, 2008).

Hislop (2003) suggests that knowledge management has not fully employed human resource management strategies and concepts. He further suggests that the level of commitment of employees to the organisation contributes directly to the effectiveness of knowledge management, and that this may be attributable to human resource management policies and processes. Strategic management incorporating techniques to motivate employees may contribute to commitment, ultimately driving competitive advantage. While much literature focuses on the storage and sharing of knowledge, Hislop contends that the attraction and retention of employees may be just as important as knowledge sharing in the use of knowledge management in fostering innovation. As modern organisations employ larger numbers of higher skilled workers, they are at risk of losing those workers to other organisations, or even being unable to recruit those skilled workers at all. As such, it is vital that organisations develop strategies to manage human resources with knowledge in mind. This includes strategies to manage recruitment and selection to find and hire new skilled workers, who will bring valuable new knowledge. Without such strategies, even a small turnover rate can quickly lead to a loss of organisational knowledge.

Attempting to integrate strategic human resource management with knowledge management, Edvardsson (2008) makes a clear delineation between technical strategies and human based strategies, referring to them as codification and personalisation. Codification strategies focus on structuring of knowledge systems such as databases to store and distribute information within an organisation. Critics of codification strategies note that the information stored lacks context, leading to “information junkyards”, where the stored information is never used (McDermott, 1999, p. 104). Personalisation refers to those strategies that recognize that knowledge has a human aspect, focusing on recruiting and retaining knowledgeable staff, and fostering communication. While both strategies try to effectively control organisational knowledge, codification tends to focus on getting information out of employees and into databases, whilst personalisation focuses on getting and keeping key knowledgeable employees. Human resource strategies to influence knowledge management vary depending on the knowledge management strategy chosen. For example, in performance management, codification strategies call for short-term goals related to the amounts of information documented or stored (Edvardsson, 2008). In contrast, with personalisation strategies, goals are developmental rather than results based, more long term, focusing on creativity and innovation. In reality, a combination of both strategies is usually required (Petersen & Poulfelt, 2002). A prime example of differences in these strategies is the difference in recruitment strategies. With codification, recruitment tends to be very formal, based on written job descriptions, with a focus on testing and evaluating candidates (Edvardsson, 2008). Conversely, a personalisation strategy involves a less formal, more subject approach to recruitment, where the focus is more on determining whether candidates fit within the knowledge sharing culture of the organisation. These theories tend to align with the research of Robertson and Hammersley (2000).

Recent empirical research has further determined that the strategic human resource management of knowledge can improve the knowledge within organisations (Lopez-Cabrales, et al., 2009). Specifically, human resource systems allow organisations to develop and improve on employee knowledge, as well as provide direction to employees to ensure the knowledge is utilised to achieve organisational goals. The use of a human resource strategy to manage knowledge contributes to the creation of unique knowledge; however Lopez-Cabrales, et al. suggest that there is no best practice for the use of human resource processes to manage knowledge. In some ways this research follows on from Wright, Dunford, & Snell (2001), who suggest that any competitive advantage does not stem from the human resource systems, but that the human resource systems provide a framework to store and communicate knowledge. They propose expanding the usual concepts in human resources management processes to also encompass the organisational knowledge, through allowing human resources more input into a wide range of work processes.

However, it has been argued that perhaps regular human resource practices are not relevant in modern knowledge based organisations (Chasserio & Legault, 2009; Minbaeva, Foss, & Snell, 2009; Robertson & Hammersley, 2000). Chasserio & Legault (2009) go so far as to suggest that strategic human resource management may be entirely irrelevant in some modrn, high technology companies. In studies of a variety of knowledge intensive organisations they discovered that few human resource management strategies and policies were in place. Human resources is instead relegated to operational procedures, such as ensuring compliance with industrial relations instruments. In organisations in which this occurs, there is very little in the way of human input into strategy. This lack of strategy opposes research by Petersen and Poufelt (2002), who found that Knowledge management is most effective in organisations where the knowledge management strategy is precise and supported by the organisational structure, culture and general business strategies. Chasserio & Legault speculate that the concepts of commitment, such as those argued by Hislop (2003) and others, require further analysis, particular with regard to highly skilled workers.

The use of strategic human resource management to manage knowledge is a newly established practice. A large amount of existing literature is theoretical in nature, and much empirical research is based on statistically insignificant samples or anecdotes. With the current level of research the link between strategic human resource management and knowledge management is largely context dependent. There are many areas within the field that would benefit from further longitudinal research. The impact of human resource management systems and processes on knowledge management will be better understood through research into aspects such as the influence of job design, organisational culture, career opportunities, and appraisal and reward systems. Additional research into employee commitment will ensure that human resource strategies focus on the areas where most gains can be made, and have a minimal footprint where they are of little benefit. What is clear from the research is that effective knowledge management can and does deliver significant competitive advantage. Where organisations are able to direct their knowledge toward innovation, competitive advantage will follow.

References

Alvesson, M. (1993). Organisations as rhetoric: knowledge-intensive firms and the struggle with ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 30(6), 997-1015.
Ardichvili, A., & Seung Won, Y. (2009). Designing integrative knowledge management systems: theoretical considerations and practical applications. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 307-319.
Chasserio, S., & Legault, M.-J. (2009). Strategic human resources management is irrelevant when it comes to highly skilled professionals in the Canadian new economy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(5), 1113-1131.
Edvardsson, I. R. (2008). HRM and knowledge management. Employee Relations, 30(5), 553-561.
Henry, N. (1975). Knowledge management: bureaucracy, technology, and knowledge management. Public Administration Review, 35(6), 572-578.
Hislop, D. (2003). Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment. Employee Relations, 25(2), 182-202.
Kazmi, A., & Ahmad, F. (2001). Differening Approaches to Strategic Human Resource Management. Journal of Management Research, 1(3), 133.
Lopez-Cabrales, A., Pérez-Luño, A., & Cabrera, R. V. (2009). Knowledge as a mediator between HRM practices and innovative activity. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 485-503.
McDermott, R. (1999). Why Information Technology Inspired But Cannot Deliver Knowledge Management. California Management Review, 41(4), 103-117.
Minbaeva, D., Foss, N., & Snell, S. (2009). Bringing the knowledge perspective into HRM. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 477-483.
Petersen, N. J., & Poulfelt, F. (2002). Knowledge management in action: A study of knowledge management in management consultancies. In A. F. Buono (Ed.), Developing Knowledge and Value in Management Consulting (Volume 2): Research in Management Consulting. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
Robertson, M., & Hammersley, G. O. M. (2000). Knowledge management practices within a knowledge-intensive firm: the significance of the people management dimension. Journal of European Industrial Training, 24(2-4), 241.
Wright, P. M., Dunford, B. B., & Snell, S. A. (2001). Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 27(6), 701.

In recent years, HRMS system has turned out to be very beneficial for corporate landscape. This is because the system is stiff, steadfast in nature and low on functionality .One must have the awareness of the fact that the first HRMS applications were resource consuming monstrosities and their implementation required certified and advanced degree in the field of computer science. A request had to be made by the workers of the company from the supervisors for an HRMS data and these supervisors were the people who were hired specifically to run the system. Earliest HRMS was more of a detriment to them than sanctioning HR departments. But fortunately, later on, improvements in the technologies used for HRMS were brought which showed a new and bright light to the vital tools we are familiar to today. HRMS today is all about diverse, highly specialized tools for efficiently carrying out the various HR tasks. This has ensured a proper way of administering several features of human resources, from time and attendance to payroll and labor distribution and has resulted in overall growth of industries.

Supervising the employees with regard to their payroll and information about different other sections becomes very difficult when there are too many employees. But again to this, there came a solution in the form of a software technology called, payroll software system gets everything mechanical and that too just with a click of a finger. All this has made getting any kind of information easily and without consuming much time.

All in all, the HRMS system and HRMS payroll has given a new shape and speedy growth to the industries today by providing them proper management strategies.

Over the past few years, HRMS system has made a remarkable position on the corporate landscape. This system is stiff, steadfast in nature and low on functionality .It is important to know that the first HRMS applications were resource consuming monstrosities and the implementation of this required an advanced degree in computer science. The workers of the company would have to request HRMS data from the supervisors who were hired specifically to run the system. They found the earliest HRMS more of a detriment than empowering HR departments. Finally there were improvements in the technologies used for HRMS, giving a new way to the vital tools we are accustomed to today. HRMS today contain manifold, highly specialized tools for carrying out the different HR tasks. The ability to administer several features of human resources, from time and attendance to payroll and labor distribution has proven to be of great help in the industry.

Monitoring employees with regard to their payroll and other relevant information becomes very difficult when there are too many employees. But the good news is that with the new software technology today, HRMS payrollsystem gets everything mechanical and that too within a click of a finger. One can get any kind of required information just with a click of mouse. This is also possible for a company that has several offices in different locations, as they can integrate all personnel related information.

Modular packaging is another very significant development in the field of HRMS system. There was a time when HRMS were only available as a singular software entity. Small businesses were relegated to use the same HRMS which was being used by the huge business organizations, with such pricing and functionality that always favored the latter. But today, the scene is different as most HRMS offer scalable modules, and allow businesses to only purchase and apply the applications which they need. This helps in reducing the cost of HRMS and keeps system resources from having to deal with larger applications which had to run even when their functions were not being fully being utilized.

HRMS have become a standard application in the field of business, and as more companies, be it large or small, realize the inherent value of the software, the competition among developers is expected to increase.

So basically HRMS is the process of managing people in organizations in a well structured and thorough manner. The task of human resource management is not only horizontal ie. employee to employee, but also vertical, employee to management. HRM must enable the harmonization and relationships between management and employee and to bring the corporate or organization core value to it’s employees.

HRMS is mainly about people in organizations, so in multinational company they call HR Managers as People Managers. In organizations, the HR manager or the people manager is no longer seen as someone who takes care of the activities described in the traditional way. In fact, most organizations have different departments dealing with Staffing, Payroll, and Retention etc. Instead, the HR manager is responsible for managing employee expectations via  the management objectives and reconciling both to ensure employee fulfillment and realization of management objectives.

HRMS is often help by tools to do the job like using software such as payroll software, recruitment software, performance management software, talent management software, or integrated sophisticated human resource management software. HRMS mainly in recruitment or staffing department often using psychometric tools to give a glimpse about a person or individual behavior.