Knowledge Implementation Assessment Tool (KIAT)

One strand of the knowledge management literature argues that little has been delivered by knowledge management and this may lead to the concept of knowledge management being questioned (Gilmour, 2003; Gold et al., 2001). Some scholars suggest that when KMS yield little innovation and other beneficial results for an organisation, it is because organisations are unprepared for effective implementation of the systems (Janz and Prasarnphanich, 2003; Gold et al., 2001). Gold et al. state, “Therefore, a key to understanding the success and failure of knowledge management within an organisation is the identification and assessment of preconditions that are necessary for the effort to flourish. These preconditions are described broadly as ‘capabilities’ or ‘resources’ within the organisational behaviour literature.” (2001: 186). They further argue that organisational effectiveness is a function of knowledge infrastructure capabilities and knowledge process capabilities. The knowledge infrastructure refers to the technical, structural and cultural conditions that enable the maximisation of social capital. Social capital is the sum of actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by a social unit. The knowledge process refers to the capture, reconciliation, and transfer of knowledge. To have a successful implementation of knowledge management, organisations need to address these two capabilities that drive knowledge management initiatives (Gold et al., 2001).

Siemieniuch and Sinclair (2004) argue that organisations do not have the habit of evaluating themselves as to how prepared they are to embark on knowledge management prior to embarking on it – no wonder then, that the end results of KMS implementation give very little return to the organisations. Siemieniuch and Sinclair (2004) further suggest fourteen Factors that managers need to look into in the effort to prepare the organisation for knowledge management. The details of these Factors are presented in Chapter Five: Project Two.

Taylor and Wright (2004), in a different research setting, suggest that an organisation needs to examine six different Factors to make the organisation ready to embark on knowledge management. The details of these Factors are presented in Chapter Five: Project Two. Similar to Siemieniuch and Sinclair (2004) and Gold et al. (2001), Taylor and Wright (2004) contend that organisations need to prepare themselves for a knowledge management initiative by addressing the noted six Factors.

These more recent works on considering knowledge management as a capability, together with the insight into organisational readiness for knowledge management have contributed to the argument why and how implementation of KMS can be effective. Current research has not produced a comprehensive assessment instrument that may help academics and practitioners to measure an organisation’s perceived readiness to implement a KMS across the life-cycle of creation, mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge. The diagnostic instrument, KIAT with its fifty Factors and the Guidelines to use it, adds to academic research on the subject of organisational readiness for knowledge management in the way that it provides a readiness snapshot. Without such an instrument that helps to assess readiness, organisations are unable to progress in preparing themselves for KMS implementation. KIAT fills this gap. It provides a comprehensive list of Factors and a measurement mechanism for a framework of organisational readiness to implement a system to

manage knowledge across the life-cycle stages. Executives wondering how to get started with managing knowledge can refer to KIAT in order to first assess their organisation’s readiness prior to the decision on an investment for a knowledge management system and then during its implementation. Applying KIAT to assess organisational readiness and bringing Factors to the required level are ways that both academics and practitioners can consider.

Proposition 1: Measuring Organisational Readiness is a prerequisite for implementing knowledge management systems.

KIAT addresses the implementation of knowledge management systems across the knowledge life-cycle stages

In establishing the attributes responsible for effective KMS implementation, a Means- End Chain approach was used and the result is presented in a Hierarchical Value Map (HVM). In my research the HVM illustrates the relationships among the attributes, the high-level strategies and the beneficial results. This is further discussed in Chapter Four: Project One. The HVM shows that the attributes responsible for an effective KMS implementation are neither neatly interlinked nor linear to the stages of the knowledge life-cycle. The way KIAT assesses an organisation for its readiness to implement KMS to manage the creation, mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge takes this into account. The same Factors can contribute to readiness for the different stages of the knowledge life-cycle. This raises a question as to whether knowledge management can mean managing knowledge creation only or knowledge mobilisation only or knowledge diffusion only. One subset of knowledge management literature deals mainly, if not solely, with the management of the knowledge creation (Un and Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004; Obstfeld, 2002; von Krogh, 1998; Nonaka, 1994). Similarly, another subset deals mainly, if not solely, with the management of the knowledge diffusion (Majchrzak et al., 2004; Storck and Hill, 2000; Brown and Duguid, 1998). The knowledge creation school advises that competitive advantage is sustained only when firms can sustain knowledge creation. The knowledge diffusion school focuses on how knowledge can be diffused and reused to ensure the return of investment of the knowledge creation, and argues that knowledge diffusion, thus knowledge reuse, gives competitive advantage.

Un and Cuervo-Cazurra (2004) take the view that firms are distributed knowledge systems composed of individuals who embody knowledge. In their work, they suggest that developing the capability to create knowledge in firms brings competitive advantage and to achieve it firms need to develop both an organisational strategy that integrates facilitation to create knowledge among individuals and project-team strategy that facilitates the creation of knowledge within projects. Obstfeld (2002) suggests that innovation is generated from the involvement of individuals who are knowledgeable and articulated within a dense social network. Innovation refers to efforts to change product or process based on new ideas, and firms that wish to be innovative require knowledgeable and articulated individuals who interact within a densed social network. Von Krogh (1998) suggests that firms need to build the social and organisational conditions that encourage and facilitate knowledge creation because competitive advantage is sustained through the

generation of new knowledge. Taking a similar stance on where competitive advantage is derived, Nonaka (1994)’s suggests a socialisation, externalisation, combination, and internalisation (SECI) mechanism which is an interplay between tacit and explicit knowledge for knowledge creation. The SECI mechanism takes place in both individual and organisational knowledge creation. Organisational knowledge creation is a “knowledge spiral process”, starting at the individual level and moving up through expanding communities of interaction, that crosses sectional, departmental, division and organisational boundaries.

Knowledge creation is an important part of translating knowledge into competitive advantage. A central concern to the members of the knowledge creation school is a question that can be posed to them, “ What do we do with the created knowledge?” Knowledge is useful, at least in the business environment, only when it is put into action (Ghoshal and Gratton, 2002; Weick, 2002). I argue that implementing KMS should not, therefore, be reduced to only supporting knowledge creation.

The Majchrzak et al. (2004) study shows that knowledge diffusion is exploited for innovations to products and services. This work is intended to ground knowledge diffusion research in a relatively unexplored context: innovation. In this context, as Grant (1996) aptly explains, knowledge is being reused, but how? The study of Majchrzak et al. (2004) addresses this question. Storck and Hill (2000) examine how knowledge is diffused and suggest that knowledge is diffused through what they call strategic communities, that is communities of practice designed specifically for the purpose of diffusing knowledge for business performance. Brown and Duguid (1998) explain how knowledge is diffused within the Xerox company’s technicians in performing their duties to serve customers, and that this diffusion has created competitive advantage.

Knowledge is being diffused and the capability to implement KMS for knowledge diffusion may bring competitive advantage to the firms (Majchrzak et al., 2004; Grant, 1996). The concern to the members of the knowledge difffusion school is what knowledge to diffuse and how is this knowledge created? In other words, if there is no relevant knowledge to diffuse then there is also no competitive advantage that can be created. Therefore, organisations that have the capability to create, mobilise and diffuse knowledge, that is to manage knowledge across its life-cycle, will have distinct competitive advantage.

Hansen et al. (1999) suggest that firms need to decide their knowledge strategy either focusing on knowledge creation or focusing on knowledge diffusion. They recommend that organisations should not straddle the two knowledge management strategies. Birkinshaw and Sheehan (2002), however, suggest a different way to look at managing knowledge. They contend that firms need to look into the stages of the knowledge life-cycle, namely, creation, mobilisation and diffusion – to define their knowledge strategy. Depending on the stages of the knowledge life-cycle, firms can focus on knowledge creation and mobilisation (for example, at the research department) or on the knowledge diffusion (for example at the field operations). Therefore, I posit that the strategy to pursue knowledge management depends on the nature of the knowledge in question. Therefore, organisations need to have the capability to manage the stages of the knowledge life-cycle, hence to implement a KMS that manages the creation, mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge.

The findings of my study show that effective KMS is used for the creation, mobilisation and diffusion stages of the knowledge life-cycle. Taking Schlumberger’s technical service delivery process as an example, InTouch is used to facilitate the

creation, mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge. Knowledge creation starts to happen when field users ask questions to which the answer cannot be found in the knowledge repository. Experts then get together and try to come up with innovative solutions. In the process of finding the answers, experts interact with each other and with the field users to validate the solutions – knowledge is being mobilised. Once the anwers are validated, knowledge is then diffused, facilitated by the InTouch Manager. All these activities happen within the InTouch system. Furthermore, the second-stage knowledge creation happens when feedback to the available knowledge in the repository is given by the field users. In this case, a validation process takes place – knowledge is being mobilised, and once validated, knowledge is again diffused. The research department of Schlumberger, located in different parts of the world, can also access the knowledge interaction data related to their relevant subjects and take them as inputs to their research programme – knowledge creation and diffusion happen at the same time. Empirically, therefore, InTouch shows how a KMS has effectively been used to manage knowledge across its life-cycle. The Power International case shows a similar condition of KMS implementation. Power International manages the creation, mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge in the customer service delivery process.

KIAT is designed to measure organisational readiness in the three different stages: knowledge creation, knowledge mobilisation and knowledge diffusion. Theoretically, KIAT results can show major differences of a certain socio-technical system (STS) dimension between the different stages of knowledge life-cycle. However, the three cases where KIAT is applied, i.e. in Power International, Friends Provident and Schlumberger LMS, do not show this phenomenon. This implies that KMS is effective when the readiness for the three different stages of the knowledge life-cycle are integratedly addressed. March (1991) suggests that there is a healthy tension between exploration and exploitation of knowledge, and it is a reflection of the more fundamental organisational tension between efficiency and innovation, that has long been recognised in the organisation literature. He further argues that organisations need to have the capability to handle both the exploration and exploitation of knowledge. In March’s own words, “maintaining an appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation is a primary factor in system survival and prosperity” (March, 1991:71). In their recent work, Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) contend that the current economic situation has reaffirmed to managers the importance of adaptability – the ability to move quickly towards new opportunities, to adjust to volatile markets and to avoid complacency; however, successful companies have an equally important capability in what they call alignment – a clear sense as to how value is being created in the short term and how activities should be coordinated and streamlined to deliver that value. They further argue that for a company to succeed in the long term, it needs to master both adaptability and alignment – or

ambidexterity. Therefore, there is little use in being ready to implement a KMS that supports the creation of knowledge but not for the mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge. The created knowledge will have little contribution to the organisations if it is not diffused, used and reused, within those organisations. Equally, there is little use in being ready to implement a KMS that supports the diffusion of knowledge but not for the creation and mobilisation of knowledge. If there is no knowledge that is created and mobilised within the organisations then there is nothing to diffuse. My research in four organisational cases and the above argument lead to a conclusion, expressed as:

Proposition 2: Implementation of knowledge management systems is effective when it integrates the creation, mobilisation and diffusion of knowledge.

1.5.2 Managing the Creation, Mobilisation and Diffusion of