Presented at the STC India 12 th Annual Conference, November 11, 12, and 13, 2010, New Delhi. Knowledge Management: On the Road to Nirvana. Saurabh Kudesia Manager, Technical Documentation Tejas Networks Ltd. Bangalore [email protected] About the Speaker: Saurabh Kudesia.
Presented at the STC India 12th Annual Conference, November 11, 12, and 13, 2010, New Delhi
Saurabh KudesiaManager, Technical DocumentationTejas Networks Ltd. [email protected]
Manager, Technical Documentation at Tejas Networks Bangalore
Co-founder, former editor-in-chief, KnowGenesis International Journal for Technical Communication (IJTC)
Former associate editor of Directives, a newsletter published by the (STC) Management SIG
Bachelor of Electronics and a Certified Scrum Master (CSM)
Alumnus of Symbiosis Institute (Pune) and IIM (Bangalore)
Popular Myths and Realities of Knowledge Management (KM)
The Essence of Knowledge Management
Knowledge flow and KM framework
Understanding KM Models and Value Chain
Why KM Systems Fail?
Approaches to KM
Knowledge can be shared.
Knowledge can be transferred.
Knowledge Management is a new phenomenon.
Knowledge Management is about technology.
KM is ‘One size fits all’ mantra.
Knowledge Management = data warehousing.
People do not like to share their knowledge.
Knowledge sharing is difficult in organization.
Knowledge management dramatically affects the bottom line.
Knowledge management must be implemented on an enterprise basis.
Knowledge management needs a chief knowledge officer.
a systemic and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing, and communicating both tacit and explicit knowledge of employees so that other employees may make use of it to be more effective and productive in their work. (Alavi and Leidner, 1999)
fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories, but also in organization routines, processes, and norms. (Davenport and Prusak, 2000)
the formalization of and access to experience, knowledge and expertise that create new capabilities, enable superior performance, encourage innovation and enhance customer value. (Beckman, 1999)
Not a linear process.
Each phase influences previous phases.
Each phase is influenced by the task at hand, the objective or purpose, the context in which this task is to be performed and the context in which the required signals could be perceived
Knowledge sharer creates signals.
Receiver has to complete all the phases of knowledge creation
Knowledge created by the receiver need not be same as original knowledge of sender.
Knowledge can be shared, but not transferred.
Define the Resource
Create the Resource
Manage the Resource
Resource-based Customer Services
Increasing intelligence axis
Enterprise Wide KM Systems
Knowledge Work Systems
General Purpose, integrated, firm-wide efforts to collect, store, disseminate, and use digital content and knowledge
Specialized workstation and systems that enable other knowledge workers to create and discover new knowledge
Tools for discovering patterns and applying knowledge to discrete decisions and knowledge domains
Manage and Locate crucial information
Capture competitive advantages
Avoid costs and consequences of relearning lessons
Focus on long term than short term
Stimulate knowledge growth and creation
Recognize and reward knowledge reuse
Models provide a way of translating managerial activities and guiding managerial efforts in managing knowledge in the organizations.
KM models have evolved over time
Boisot’s Knowledge Category Models
Nonaka’s Knowledge Management Model
Hedlund and Nonaka’s Knowledge Management Model
Skandia Intellectual Capital Model of Knowledge Management
Demerest’s Knowledge Management Model
Frid’s Knowledge Management Model
Stankosky and Baldanza’s Knowledge Management Framework
Kogut and Zander’s Knowledge Management Model
A constant shift from categorical view to the more complicated and complex mechanistic and socially constructed perspective.
Centralized Organizational Model: Knowledge is continuously negotiated and created within an organizational unit.
Distributed Organizational Model: Knowledge is continuously managed within organizational units, and it is continuously negotiated by people who try to understand how other units look like from different interpretation schemas.
Focus on only one requirement
Thinking of technology first than the users.
Uncomfortable ‘IT experience’
Lack of support from Management
People are afraid of losing “competitive advantage”
Representations of knowledge does not satisfy the needs and the interpretation schemas of users.
The existing KM models tend to narrowly define knowledge from conceptual and perceptual perspectives and fail to recognize affectual knowledge such as values and visions.
Most models view KM as a linear or cyclical process and thus fail to identify the multidimensional nature of the knowledge dynamics between individuals and organizations.
What are the strategic grouping structures in the organization/team?
What are the principal linking mechanisms?
What are the major alignment challenges, and how are they addressed?
What are the major strengths and weaknesses of the organization design?
What are the bases of the power?
What is the potential effect of the proposed system on the different stakeholders influence in the organization?
What are the resistances?
What are the effects of the resistances on the success or failure of the initiative?Supporting Framework: Political Perspective
How is the initiative related to the values and basic assumptions of the organization? Does it reinforce them or challenge them?
Are there any “ceremonies” or rituals involved in introducing the initiative? How are they interpreted?
What type of language is used in discussing the initiative? Does it vary, depending on who is speaking, or on who is listening?Supporting Framework: Cultural Perspective
- Balance corporate and local goals
- Facilitate communities of practice
- Create reward and recognition
- Recognize ownership
- Enable sharing and reuse
Principle of Autonomy – each organizational unit should be granted a high degree of autonomy to manage its local knowledge and its interpretation schema
Principle of Coordination – each organizational unit must be enabled to exchange knowledge with others not through the adoption of a single, common interpretation schema.
Important variables which determine success or failure of KM systems:
Three main areas of KM: processes, systems and data
People are the key. Recognize people and reward people for sharing knowledge
Encourage and support communities of practice
Strike a balance between long-term corporate needs (capturing knowledge) with short-term local needs (completing a task quickly)
Sun\'s knowledge network enhances its selling skills. http://www.kmtalk.net/article.php?story=20050412032755660
Dow chemical capitalizes on intellectual assets http://www.kmtalk.net/article.php?story=20050412033035404
Knowledge Management at The MITRE Corporation http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_03/maybury_knowledge/KM_MITRE.pdf
Nonaka, I. And Takeuchi, H (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
Haslinda, Sarinah (2009) A Review of Knowledge Management Models, The Journal of International Social Research, Volume 2 / 9.
Saurabh Kudesia (Oct 2009). From Electronics Landfills to Information Superhighway: Enhancing Document Management Framework at Tejas Networks. Dr. Vijay Kumar Festschrift ‘Serving Knowledge in the 21st Century; published by Knowledge Management Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Center, Mumbai.
Thomas Stewart (1997). Intellectual Capital, The New Wealth of Organizations. Doubleday/Currency.
Melissie Clemmons Rumizen (2002). The Complete Idiot’s Guide To Knowledge Management. John A. Woods, CWL Publishing Enterprises.
Harvard Business Review on Measuring Corporate Performance, 1998, Harvard Business Review.
Cisco Systems, Inc.: Implementing ERP. Harvard Business School case 699-022
Buckman Laboratories (A). Harvard Business School case 800-160