Download
1 / 17
170 likes | 317 Views
Knowledge Management in Global Organisations. John Tonna 2011. Introduction.
E N D
Knowledge Management in Global Organisations John Tonna 2011
Introduction An increasing number of global organisations are taking up global software development (GSD) by establishing operations in emerging markets in low cost locations such as Eastern Europe, Latin America and the Far East where highly skilled software engineers are available (Noll, 2010). Global software companies possess diverse knowledge resources to develop complex software solutions These resources, such as know-how, skills, and abilities, are located in specialized pockets distributed geographically and temporally. These barriers often impede clear communication (Awazu,2004) . It is therefore important to understand the barriers to collaboration introduced by GSD, and potential solutions for overcoming those barriers (Noll,2010). Good knowledge management (KM) practices are a major success factor for software development, influencing software quality and team performance (Mehta, 2008). We present a solution to in the form of a knowledge management strategy that can be adopted to facilitate knowledge sharing.
Knowledge Nonaka (1991) changed the premise of “knowledge-creation theory” by examining the characteristic of knowledge itself. He expanded on Polanyi’s supposition (1983) that knowledge can be classified as either tacit or explicit, and that this classification is key to managing the process of organizational knowledge creation. Tacit knowledge is the subjective knowledge that lies deep within the mind and body of a person. It is accumulated through experience and is extremely hard to externalization with language, diagrams, figures or numbers; for example, the expertise of master craftsmen or five-star chefs, and the sales and negotiation skills and know-how of veteran top sales persons are forms of tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge, on the other hand, is the rational and objective knowledge acquired through books and formal education that can be expressed through language, formulas, graphs and numbers.
Knowledge Management Desouza’ study cited by Awazu (2004) introduced two extreme definitions of knowledge management. One is viewed as a technological initiative approach, which focuses on the use of information technology to manage knowledge in organizations.Hansen, as cited by Awazu (2004) states that these initiatives usually result in the implementation of knowledge management systems that codify knowledge and create knowledge networks. The other approach is called a humanistic approach. According to Desouza and Nonaka (1991) ,this approach promotes a people-centered perspective in which the focus is on managing individuals and teams to encourage knowledge sharing and creation. The tenant of this approach is to motivate employees to share know-how with peers for improved organizational performance. These approaches have been encouraged by organizations through mechanisms such as Friday-night poker games, which provide a freeing atmosphere where work-related tips are exchanged and ideas generated (Awazu,2004).
Knowledge Management (cont’d) • We argue that a successful KM strategy requires both the technological and humanistic approach. In agreement to our view it is stated (Lee S.B. et al. 2009) that a successful knowledge management strategy cannot be achieved with technology alone. • Significant time and resources should be invested in the creation and maintenance of a knowledge sharing culture. Once established, the knowledge sharing culture has to be nurtured and the business benefits of knowledge sharing continuously demonstrated. • Ernst & Young (E&Y) presents the importance of the knowledge sharing culture as a necessary foundation in a ‘knowledge management sandcone’, shown in Figure 1 (Lee S.B. et al. 2009).
Figure 1: The Knowledge Management Sandcone ( Lee S.B. et al.2009) The right processes must support the necessary culture and only then should the infrastructure and technology be implemented to facilitate knowledge sharing.
Technology supporting KM For an effective KM initiative across the organisation, there needs to be in place, at least: • Knowledge Portal A gateway to information containing software technologies to support the processes of virtual team communication and collaboration and to support the process of managing knowledge.Furthermore, it contains intelligent agent software to identify and automatically distribute information and knowledge effectively to knowledge workers based on knowledge profiling. • Knowledge Profiles Within the knowledge portal, each knowledge worker can update and maintain a personal ‘knowledge profile’ which identifies his/her specific knowledge needs, areas of interest and frequency of distribution. • Collaborative Workspaces Within the knowledge portal, shared work spaces can be set up for each new team or project. These will become knowledge repositories from which new knowledge will be distilled regularly and systematically and shared across other teams in the organisation.
Technology supporting KM (cont’d) • Urgent Requests A facility to enter any ‘Urgent Request’ into the portal and receive back any responses from across the organisation. • Document Libraries The document library is typically the location where all documents are stored. The library should be context relative and allow the ease of control over any document type. Many organisations now employ an Electronic Document and Records Management System (EDRMS) for this requirement but the integration of the EDRMS with all other relevant information and knowledge sources is imperative. • Knowledge Server and services a centralised knowledge server is required to : (i) manage the communications and collaboration between networks of people (ii) enable the access, creation and sharing of knowledge between them
Case Study • In this case study ,Mehta (2008) introduces a three-staged KM implementation framework, which he describes as the KM-enabled value creation cycle (VCC) consisting of three capabilities that global software companies need to develop sequentially for successful KM implementation. • The VCC was evaluated at three global software companies with successful KM programs. • Company 1 employed over 35,000 people scattered over 30 offices and software development centers in 17 countries. • Company 2 employed over 39,000 people at eight software development centers and 33 global locations. • Company 3 employed more than 16,300 people at 26 global locations. • The three companies had attained Level 5 of software engineering institute’s capability maturity model (SEI-CMM) [1]. The findings are summarized as follows: • [1] Level 5 is the optimizing level where the organization is focused on continuous process improvement . Software project teams perform defect cause analysis and defect prevention.
Capability 2: Facilitating knowledge flows (cont’d) • It is noted that the three companies invested resources in cultivating their employees’ awareness of the KM system. Early users of the KM system were attracted by a regular display of stock information and soccer scores on the portal. • Company 1 enhanced these activities by rewarding ‘‘knowledge currency points’’ to the frequent contributors to the KM system. Employees could exchange these points for products from an e-commerce company. • Early benefits of using the KM system were assessed regularly from the system’s more active users. For example, to involve the more experienced software developers, the KM teams projected benefits of using the KM system – such as the wealth of information they would receive within half-hour of posting a technical query online. • Overall employees were motivated not only to use the system but also to reciprocate the knowledge-sharing behavior, thus contributing to the success of KM program.
Capability 3: Assessing KM value Indirect measures assess the creation of alternative forms of value such as intellectual capital, brand recognition, and client satisfaction. Company 1 had won the Global Most Admired Knowledge Enterprise (MAKE) award in 2003 and 2004, and Company 2 had won KMWorld’s KM Reality award for 2002.
Analysis The case study supports our view and Lee’s view (2009) that a successful KM strategy requires a technological approach and also a humanistic approach. We observe that the KM Sandcone described by Ernst & Young goes hand in hand with Capability 2 of Mehta’s KM-enabled value creation cycle (VCC). Capability 2 amalgamates the necessary processes, promotion of a KM sharing culture and the supporting human and technology infrastructure to facilitate knowledge sharing. Capability 2 also supports the humanistic view to KM which aims to motivate employees to share know-how with peers for improved organizational performance. On top of this the VCC has an added value since it also ensures the support of top management and assesses the KM value.
Conclusion • The limitation of our research is that the KM strategy evaluation has been described as applied to large global software companies with a high maturity level. • Despite this limitation, our research has demonstrated that effective knowledge sharing in global organizations is enabled through good KM. Future studies can build on this research by targeting the following gaps in our study : • Can low maturity global software companies implement a successfully KM strategy using the VCC ? • Do such companies have enough resources to implement the VCC ? • If not ,are there other frameworks suitable for such companies ?
