Knowledge Management

Challenges of Successfully Implementing a Knowledge Management Initiative

Academic Year: 2011 2012 Date: 3/01/2012 Name: Aleksandr Karev Student ID: A816441

Introduction
The current phenomenon of globalisation and the increasing use of knowledge and information services have exposed national economies to much more intense competition than ever before. The need for competitive advantage and sustainability has led to an acknowledgement of the efficient use of information and communication technologies as an essential element for survival and profitability in the knowledge-based economy (Ndlela, 2009). Furthermore, organisations are increasingly faced with matters such as rapid technological changes, shortened product lifecycle and high market instability. In order for organisations to survive under these conditions, they need to be able to manage highly distributed diversified knowledge (Grant, 1996). Therefore, it is argued that organisations need to take care of their most valuable asset, which is knowledge. This is particularly relevant for Business-Soft, a company that operates in the software industry and develops highly sophisticated, custom-designed software solutions primarily for the aerospace and high technology manufacturing sectors. Business-Soft is a geographically dispersed company with their head office located in Bristol and a smaller office in Edinburgh. The complex and non-routine nature of their business makes Business-Soft a highly knowledge-intensive company. The purpose of this consultancy report is to shed light on the potential difficulties that could be encountered while implementing knowledge management initiatives at Business-Soft. This report is organised as follows. The first part describes the potential challenges involved in implementing a knowledge management initiative to support the work of software engineers at Business-Soft. The second part of the

Page 1

report provides recommendations regarding what Business-Soft should do to begin the implementation of its knowledge management initiative.

Issues and Challenges of Knowledge Management

Geographically dispersed locations The majority of the work that is undertaken by Business-Soft requires their employees to utilise a considerable amount of tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is knowledge that is difficult to articulate in an explicit form, highly personal and subjective, more informal and embedded in social and cultural values and assumptions of those who possess it (Hislop, 2005). It is important to mention that, in this report, a practice-based perspective is applied. From this perspective, knowledge is not regarded as a separate entity that can be codified and separated from people. Alternatively, knowledge is inseparable from human activity (Orlikowski, 2002). Consequently, all activity is, to some extent, knowledgeable, involving the use and development of knowledge (Hislop, 2005). The practice-based perspective suggests that instead of tacit and explicit knowledge being separate and distinct types of knowledge, they constitute two characteristics of knowledge, and in fact are inseparable and mutually constituted (Tsoukas, 2002). Thus, this implies that there is neither fully explicit nor fully tacit knowledge, as all knowledge will partly consist of both. Mainstream Knowledge Management authors suggest that the nature of tacit knowledge makes it very hard, or in some instances impossible, to share it amongst individuals. The practice-based perspective assumes that for one individual to learn knowledge from another, it is essential that they communicate, interact and work together, typically over an extended period of time (Hislop, 2005). The fact that Business-Soft is a geographically dispersed company, with the majority

Page 2

of their employees located in Bristol and others located Edinburgh might, therefore, have a negative impact on their knowledge management initiatives. (Jaffee, 1993) argues that the acquisition of knowledge from geographically distant sources remains extremely difficult, limiting a firms ability to build upon non-local knowledge for further innovation. Notwithstanding this viewpoint, a number of studies have demonstrated the importance of ICT in knowledge management initiatives between geographically dispersed locations. (Hislop, 2005) argues that the difficulties of facilitating rich interactions via ICTs should not be underestimated. For instance, he suggests that rich communications cannot be achieved through ICTs alone, due to the loss of social cues such as facial expressions, tone and gestures, which significantly impedes the communication process, and limits the extent to which knowledge can be shared via such media. This has been illustrated further by the Pharma-co case study, where electronically mediated working was found to be problematic and challenging for a number of reasons. For example, project management has argued that telephone conferences limited their perception of the reactions of their competitors. In particular, they have highlighted that when you cannot see the facial expressions of your opponent, it is very difficult to gauge whether they are being optimistic or pessimistic about the topic under discussion. Conversely, (DeSanctis, 1999) argue that the loss of social cues, a phenomenon, which occurs when, communicating via most ICTs, may in fact facilitate understanding by removing the distraction of irrelevant stimuli. Moreover, (Kotlarsky J, 2005) suggests that on-going innovations in information and communication technologies (ICT) make it possible to cooperate in a distributed mode. Although current technologies such as video conferencing, e-mail and telephone enable interpersonal communication and interaction over long distances, the question remains

Page 3

as to what extent people will be willing to share their tacit knowledge with those whom they never met before. Research carried out by (McLoughlin, 1999) suggests that rich knowledge sharing in virtual interactions will have a greater chance of success if there is a positive, preexisting social relationship between people. The rationale behind this statement is that people are generally much more likely to share their knowledge with those whom they trust. This is further supported by (Jonsson, 2007), who found that there is a direct relationship between trust and the willingness to share knowledge. Thus, trust is a foundation, but it is also the very quality that is most challenging to build from a distance. Trust was defined by (Child, 2001) as the willingness of one person or group to relate to another in the belief that the others action will be beneficial rather than detrimental, even though this cannot be guaranteed. Currently all of the project teams at Business-Soft are composed of software engineers from one site only. Therefore, it can be argued that there exists only very limited trust between the software engineers from Bristol and Edinburgh, which in turn might limit the effectiveness of their ICT-mediated communication and knowledge management initiatives between the two locations. Nevertheless, a related series of studies has suggested that trust between people can be developed and sustained by electronically-mediated communications alone (Hislop, 2005). For instance, (Jarvenpaa, 1999) suggest that trust can be developed in totally virtual social relations, though they found that the type of trust developed in temporary virtual teams was extremely fragile. Power and Conflict In this report a dissensus-based perspective is applied. This perspective suggests

Page 4

that societies consist of groups whose interests are often oppositional and conflicting, where political behaviour motivated by the pursuit of such interests is common, and where power is unevenly distributed (Hislop, 2005). Evidence suggests that, with the emergence of the knowledge economy, with knowledge regarded as a critical resource, an increase in tensions can now be perceived between employers and employees. The reason for these tensions stems from the fact that many organisations regard the knowledge of their employees as their own economic asset, which they own and have the power to manage. However, the knowledge that workers possess can also be conceptualised as belonging to them themselves, rather than their employers (Hislop, 2005). It can thus be argued that while workers may utilise their knowledge to complete organisational goals, this knowledge nevertheless still belongs to them and they have the right to use it as they wish. Consequently, this might lead to the existence of potential conflicts between workers and their organisations over who owns and controls their knowledge. This may in turn deter workers from sharing their knowledge. For example, Buckman Labs, a specialised chemical company, implemented an electronic network that enabled intensive knowledge sharing in order to assist the solving of complex customer problems. Many of their employees who had traditionally developed considerable informal power by hoarding their valuable expertise felt threatened by this system. This may suggest that willingness of workers to participate in organisational knowledge management activities and to share knowledge with others is predicated by what they consider to be the probable positive and negative outcomes of so doing. If workers consider that the positive benefits are likely to offset the negative ones, then they are likely to participate in knowledge management activities and share their knowledge. If, however, they feel

Page 5

the converse to be the case, i.e. that the negative outcomes are likely to offset the positive ones, they are more likely to hoard their knowledge and not participate in knowledge management activities (Hislop, 2005). Currently, all engineers from Business-Soft are allocated to projects based on their knowledge, prior experience and workload. Additionally, engineers salaries are linked to their levels of experience. Hence, it can be assumed that engineers with more experience are likely to obtain better financial rewards as well as more stimulating and challenging work compared to the less experienced engineers. Following (David de Long, 2000) statement, more experienced engineers might be reluctant to share their knowledge, as they may perceive that by sharing the knowledge they will also relinquish their individual source of power and competitiveness. A notable example of this was demonstrated in Currie & Kerins (2004) study of a UK-based pharmaceutical company, where a number of middle and senior managers were unwilling to share their expertise knowledge because they were afraid to be replaced by less experienced managers. Another form of conflict that can resist knowledge sharing between employees is inter-personal and inter-group conflict. This type of conflict arises as a result of perceived differences of interest between individuals or groups in knowledge management projects (Hislop, 2005). As illustrated by (Currie, 2003) in their research of Pharmco National, a UK-based global pharmaceutical business, it is common for different business units within the same organisation to have an antagonistic them versus us type of relationship. Their study demonstrated that there was a lack of cross-functional knowledge sharing between the sales and marketing departments. The primarily cause of this problem was the rivalry that

Page 6

existed between both departments as well as the differences in their sub-cultures. Furthermore, it is crucial to underscore the fact that every project team at BusinessSoft has a senior engineer as its leader. Thus, based on the theory of power as a resource, where power is referred as a scarce resource whose use allows people to shape the behaviour of others (Hislop, 2005) it may be inferred that the potential tensions within the project groups arise as a result of unevenly distributed power. For example, Dr. Andy Boyd in his presentation on Knowledge Sharing and Knowledge Retention outlined that one of the biggest challenges in adopting a knowledge management programme at Shell was the employees fear of criticism from their peers. In particular, research at Shell has shown that in situations where senior managers were participating in corporate wiki discussions, other less senior employees were reluctant to take part in the discussion because they were afraid of being perceived as incompetent by these senior managers. As a result, it took more than two years and considerable resources for Shell to educate their employees about the potential benefits that can be derived from their corporate wiki system and to help their employees to overcome their fear of participating in discussions. Culture It has been argued that an appropriate culture should be established within an organisation to encourage employees to create and then to share knowledge amongst themselves (Lee, 2003). While its concept is not always easy to capture or define, culture is an observable, powerful force in any organisation. It consists of its members shared values, beliefs, symbols, behaviours and culture, and it guides individual decisions and actions at an unconscious level. Knowledge management efforts are frequently perceived as confronting difficulties from corporate culture

Page 7

perspective and, as a result, having limited impact (De Long, 2000). An Ernst and Young study acknowledged culture as the largest barrier to knowledge transfer, citing the inability to change peoples behaviours as the greatest hindrance to managing knowledge (Watson, 1998). Furthermore, (Gold, 2001) found that more supportive, encouraging organisational cultures positively influence knowledge management infrastructure capability and the resultant knowledge management practice. The study of two large multinational organisations carried out by (Leidner D. A., 2005) reveals the profound impact organisational culture has on knowledge management efforts. Both organisations in this study had a very similar approach to knowledge management, strongly supported by senior management. The most striking difference between these two organisations was the organisational culture, one being individualistic and the other collectivistic. In individualistic cultures, ties between individuals are very loose. Such cultures are generally driven by selfinterest rather than by group interest. Workers in individualistic cultures are likely to ask the question To what extent does this benefit me? rather than focus on the overall benefits of knowledge transfer to the organisation (Gargiulo, 2000). When benefits are perceived as absent, workers are likely to create significant barriers to hinder knowledge transfer efforts (Sherif, 1947). Workers acting as knowledge providers are also focussed on assessing the benefits that might occur from participating in the knowledge transfer process. Thus, for knowledge transfer in individualistic cultures to occur, there must be a perceived mutual benefit between knowledge providers and acquirers. Such culture does little to encourage the sense of community that may be necessary to enable knowledge management to move beyond fixed repositories of information into the kind of dynamic system anticipated

Page 8

by senior management, where ideas flow freely and where knowledge management provides a catalyst for collaborative engagement. (Leidner D. A., 2005) found that in the first organisation, where an individualistic culture applied, employees were reluctant to share their knowledge with others and preferred to remain unnoticed. In addition, it was found that individuals were not only reluctant to share their knowledge, but were also resistant to using information posted in a knowledge repository since this action may have been perceived as a weakness by colleagues, possibly viewing such actions as indicative of their lacking the intelligence to develop their own ideas. Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, stress the importance of group goals over individual goals and the importance of cohesion within social groups. In the second organisation studied by (Leidner D. E., 2006), a much more collectivistic culture was evident, where things were always done in a collaborative, helpful spirit. As a result of the differences in cultures, KM attempts in the first organisation constituted little more than an information repository, whereas in the second organisation the KM effort evolved into a highly collaborative system which facilitated knowledge sharing between employees. Although Business Soft has an open and informal culture where all engineers feel able to ask each other for help and advice when necessary, relatively little is known about their Indian partner. Based on Geert Hofstedes cross-cultural research, it can be concluded that India scores high on the collectivism dimension. Nevertheless, research carried out by (Lam, 2005) demonstrates an example of individualistic culture in an Indian software development company and its profound impact on its knowledge management initiative. In this company, workers were competing against

Page 9

one another for promotion in order to achieve the status of a knowledgeable expert and to work on projects with prestigious clients. This consequently made the workers unwilling to codify their knowledge for fear that they would lose their source of power. Therefore, this implies that challenges in implementing knowledge management initiative may arise as a result of cultural difference between Business Soft and their Indian partner. For example, cultural differences may have a negative impact on organisational learning and collaboration between employees both internally and externally. (Snyder, 1996) argues that organisational learning is a crucial factor in improving knowledge creation activities, which in turn have an effect on the overall performance of an organisation. (Lee, 2003) suggest that in order for successful knowledge creation to occur, organisations should invest in developing a learning culture that encourages collaboration and support among employees. Moreover, organisations should strive to create a culture where failures are seen as opportunities for learning rather than demonstrating incompetency. Nevertheless, the mainstream management literature suggests that cultures are much more resilient than any knowledge management initiative, and that it is very hard to shape organisational cultures. For example, (Pan, 1999) argue that developing an appropriate organisational culture is a complex, daunting and time-consuming process. Furthermore, (McDermott, 2001) suggest that organisations which attempt to shape the culture to fit with their knowledge management initiative, rather than vice versa, are likely to find their knowledge management initiatives fail.

Recommendations
Communities of practice In order to increase the likelihood of a successful knowledge management initiative, it is recommended for Business-Soft to begin by supporting and developing
Page 10

communities of practice. Community of practice is defined as a group of people who have a particular activity in common, and as a consequence have some common knowledge, a sense of community identity, and some element of overlapping values (Hislop, 2005). Supporting and developing communities of practice at Business-Soft could potentially facilitate individual and group learning, as well as the sharing of embodied tacit knowledge within the community. The existence of these communities is also likely to produce and sustain trust-based relations, creating an atmosphere that is beneficial to knowledge sharing. Hence, it should also help Business-Soft to overcome the potential inter-personal and inter-group conflicts mentioned in Section one. Information and Communication technologies As outlined above, one of the greatest challenges in implementing a knowledge management initiative at Business-Soft is the physical distance between their offices and their Indian partner. In order to overcome the physical distance, Business-Soft could implement information and communication technologies, such as enterprise wiki software and blogs (including video tutorials). Enterprise Wiki software is collaborative software that allows users to create and collaboratively edit web pages via a web browser. Wiki pages mirror physical communities of socialisation and information communication, thereby granting a tremendous power in an online environment to conversational knowledge creation. The integration of Wiki pages between both Business-Soft locations and their Indian partner should facilitate the communication and knowledge sharing between all of their employees, and increase synergies between workers throughout the organisation. Taking into consideration Information Richness Theory (IRT), it is also highly recommended for Business Soft to utilise several different communication media, such as video conferencing,

Page 11

telephone and e-mail. This will allow their employees to choose between communication media, depending on their requirements. HRM Practices It is argued that Human Resource Management practices should be aligned with organisational culture and goals. There are a number of HRM mechanisms that Business-Soft could utilise in order to facilitate organisation-wide knowledge sharing. They could begin by implementing recruitment and selection procedures to attempt to identify staff members that would be willing to share their knowledge. In addition, a mentoring system could be employed where senior engineers from Business-Soft would be allocated a number of mentees, with the intention of building up trust among participants as well as facilitating inter-personal knowledge sharing. Moreover, it is highly recommended for Business-Soft to introduce an employee rotation scheme where, for example, an engineer from Bristol would travel to the office in Edinburgh and participate in a project. This should improve the social relationships and the level of trust amongst their employees, as well as fostering a sense of belonging and identification within the organisation. Lastly, Business-Soft should develop an appropriate reward and performance appraisal system that would encourage knowledge sharing. Although financial incentives may be seen as an appropriate reward for sharing knowledge, a number of authors suggest that there may be negative consequences to directly linking individual, financial rewards to knowledge behaviours. For example, (Fahey, 2007) argue that directly linking individual financial rewards to knowledge sharing may mean that individuals will participate in knowledge processes only when they derive some form of financial reward for doing so, thus inhibiting knowledge sharing when such rewards are absent. In addition, direct financial rewards may undermine peoples sense of team

Page 12

or community spirit. Therefore, rather than individual financial rewards, BusinessSoft should develop and utilise a reward system that would focus on the teams and encourage communication and knowledge sharing within the teams.

Bibliography

Page 13

Child. (2001). Trust the fundamental bond in global collaboration. Organizational Dynamics , 274288. Currie, G. a. (2003). Human resource management and knowledge management: enhancing knowledge sharing in a pharmaceutical company . International Journal of Human Resource Management , 1027-1045. David de Long, P. S. (2000). Confronting Conceptual Confusion and Conflict in Knowledge Management. Organizational Dynamics , 33-44. De Long, D. a. (2000). Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management. Academy of Management Executive , 113-127. DeSanctis, G. &. (1999). Communication processes for virtual organizaitons. Organizational Science , 693-703. Fahey, R. V. (2007). The Impact of Rewards Within Communities of Practice: A Study of the SAP Online Global Community. Knowledge Management Research and Practice , 186-198. Gargiulo, M. a. (2000). Trapped in your own net: network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science , 183-201. Gold, J. S. (2001). Precipitating change: Towards the learning movement. UFHRD , 121-128. Grant, R. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal , 109-122. Hislop, D. (2005). Knowledge Management in Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaffee, A. M. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics , 578-598. Jarvenpaa, S. &. (1999). Communication and Trust in Global Virtual teams. Organization Science , 791-815. Jonsson, A. &. (2007). Challenges to knowledge sharing across national and intraorganizational boundaries: Case studies of IKEA and SCA Packaging. Knowledge Management Research & Practice , 161-172. Kotlarsky J, I. O. (2005). Social Ties, Knowledge Sharing and Successful Collaboration in Globally Distributed System Development Projects. European Journal of Information Systems , 37-48. Lam, W. (2005). Successful Knowledge Management Requires a Knowledge Culture: A Case Study. Knowledge Management Research and Practice , 206-217.

Page 14

Lee, H. &. (2003). Knowledge Management enablers, processes and organisational knowledge: An integrative view and empirical investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems , 179-228. Leidner, D. A. (2005). Organizational and sub-unit values in the process of knowledge management. Baylor University. Leidner, D. E. (2006). A Review of Culture in Information Systems Research: Toward a Theory of Information Technology Culture Conflict. MIS Quarterly , 357-399. McDermott, R. &. (2001). Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge . Journal of Knowledge Management , 76 - 85. McLoughlin, I. &. (1999). Virtual Working: Social and Organizational Dynamics. Organizational Learning and the Virtual Organization , 178-205. Ndlela, A. A. (2009). Success Factors in Implementing Knowledge Based Systems. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management , 211-218. Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing. Organization Science , 249-273. Pan, S.-L. a. (1999). Knowledge Management from a Socio- technical Perspective: A Case Study of Buckman Laboratories. Warwick Business Research Papers . Sherif, M. a. (1947). The Psychology of Ego Involvements, Social Attitudes, and Identifications. New York: Wiley. Snyder, C. R. (1996). To hope, to lose, and to hope again. Journal of personal and interpersonal loss , 1-16. Tsoukas, H. (2002). Do we really understand tacit knowledge? Blackwell. Watson, S. (1998). Getting to aha! com- panies use intranets to turn information and experience into knowledge And gain a competitive edge . Computer World , 121-143.

Page 15