Experiences from knowledge
management implementations
in companies of the software
sector
Dimitris Apostolou
Planet Ernst & Young, Athens, Greece
Gregoris Mentzas
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Zografou, Greece
Keywords Knowledge management, Software, Knowledge workers, Networks
AbstractThe Know-Net knowledge management solution, that includes a theoretical framework, a consulting method and a software tool, is based on a knowledge asset-centric design that innovatively fuses the process or human approach with the product or content approach of knowledge management. This paper describes how Know-Net was applied in four companies of the software sector. It outlines how speci®c business areas such as an R&D unit, the bid management process and collaboration between geographically-dispersed teams can bene®t from knowledge management. It outlines the role speci®c Know-Net components played within the transformation of existing business processes and structures, and provides key recommendations based on this experience.
Introduction
The management of organisational knowledge has drawn the attention of academics, consultants and practitioners as a key lever for improving performance, boosting productivity and creativity and facilitating innovation in organisational settings. The methods, tools and the actual knowledge management (KM) implementations in various companies have mainly followed one of two perspectives, which in this paper we call process-centric and product-centric approaches (see, for example, Hansenet al., 1999; Ku¨hn and Abecker, 1997; Spek and Spijkevert, 1997):
. The process-centred approach mainly understands KM as a social
communication process. In this approach, knowledge is closely tied to the person who developed it and is shared mainly through person-to-person contacts. The main purpose of information technology in this approach is to help people communicate knowledge, not to store it. This approach is also referred to as the ªpersonalisationº approach.
. The product-centred approach focuses on knowledge documents, their
creation, storage and reuse in computer-based corporate memories. This approach is also referred to as ªcontent-centredº or ªcodi®cationº approach.
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm
BPMJ
9,3
354
Business Process Management Journal Vol. 9 No. 3, 2003 pp. 354-381 qMCB UP Limited 1463-7154 DOI 10.1108/14637150310477939
The Know-Net KM solution[1] (Mentzas et al., 2000) is built around a knowledge asset-centric approach that is a unique fusion of the knowledge-as-a-product (content) and knowledge-as-a-process (context) perspectives to KM. This paper gives a brief overview of the Know-Net solution, highlights the results of the four implementations in the software sector and provides recommendation based on the practical experiences and lessons learned from these initiatives.
A strategic perspective to knowledge assets
The main motivation of the Know-Net solution was the development of a KM platform that would integrate the two approaches, not only from a technological perspective, but in all constituents of the solution (software tool, consulting methodology, measurement system, etc.). A conceptual, theoretical foundation was needed; one that would guarantee this fusion and that would be underlying every aspect of the solution.
Both the process and the product-based approaches aim to support the identi®cation, managing and leveraging of knowledge, through better managing of the organisation’s knowledge assets. In essence, KM is working to better manage the content, quality, value and transferability of knowledge assets.
The focus of the Know-Net approach is on knowledge assets as the critical strategic resources of the ®rm. Such a focus is in line with the recent trend in the strategic management literature to leverage the internal resources of the ®rm in order to create value. The following paragraphs brie¯y outline two commonly used approaches to strategic management: the competitive strategy approach and the resource-based view, and proceed with analysing the knowledge asset-centric approach as the proposed theoretical solution to integrating the product- and process-centric approaches.
The competitive approach to strategy
The competitive strategy perspective posits that competitive advantage is derived from the ®rm’s environment, more precisely from the industry in which it competes (Porter, 1980; Spender, 1996; Belohlav, 1996; Teeceet al., 1997). The competitive strategy perspective can be seen as an ªoutside-inº approach to understanding the basis of competitive advantage. This approach stresses that an effective competitive strategy calls for the ®rm to take offensive or defensive action to create a defendable position against competitive forces. Thus, industry conditions determine the rules of the game when it comes to the nature of competition and the strategies available to ®rms.
A major assumption of this perspective is that all relevant, industry-speci®c resources are distributed homogeneously and are perfectly mobile. That is, the basis for competition is not derived from the ®rm as such, but rather from the characteristics of the industry. Consequently, superior performance in an
Knowledge
management
implementations
industry or strategic group results from this environmentally-derived competitive advantage.
A second assumption of this approach is that both demand and supply conditions are known, and, consequently, market conditions are relatively stable. In a stable demand environment, competition is viewed as a zero-sum market share rivalry between existing and potential ®rms. Also, because the demand side of the market is known or predictable, competitive advantage stems from the supply side.
Consequently, selecting the competitive advantage that yields the highest levels of economic performance requires intensive analysis of the industry structure, of suppliers, buyers, new entrants, and threats from substitutes, as discussed in depth by Porter (1980) and other authors within the industrial organization paradigm.
The resource-based view of strategy
From the resource-based perspective the ®rm is seen as a portfolio of resources. What a ®rm can do to create competitive advantage is not simply a function of the opportunities in the environment (industry) but also of what resources the ®rm can assemble (see, for example, Wernerfelt, 1984).
One of the principal insights of the resource-based view (RBV) is that not all resources are of equal importance or possess the potential to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage. Much attention has focused, therefore, on the characteristics of advantage-creating resources and various approaches have been followed in analysing the characteristics of advantage-creating resources. For example, Barney (1991) proposes that advantage-creating resources must meet four conditions, namely, value, rareness, inimitability and non-substitutability, while Grant (1991) argues that the levels of durability, transparency, transferability and replicability are important determinants.
Although the resource-based view recognizes the importance and role of knowledge in ®rms achieving a competitive advantage, we argue that the RBV does not go far enough. Speci®cally, the RBV treats knowledge as a generic resource, rather than having special properties, and subsequently, does not make any distinction between different types of knowledge-based capabilities. Intrinsic characteristics of knowledge assets
Knowledge assets are different from other organizational resources (see, for example, Glazer, 1991; Day and Wendler, 1998).
Knowledge assets are not easily divisible or appropriable. This means that the same information and knowledge can be used by different economic entities at the same time. Moreover, knowledge assets are not inherently scarce (although they are often time-sensitive). This implies that they are not depletable.
BPMJ
9,3
Knowledge assets are essentially regenerative. This means that new relevant knowledge may emerge from a knowledge-intensive business process as additional output, besides products and services.
Knowledge assets may not exhibit decreasing returns to use, but will often increase in value the more they are used. This characteristic is of crucial importance for senior management (see, for example, den Hartigh and Langerak, 2001). Most assets are subject to diminishing returns, but not knowledge. The bulk of the ®xed cost in knowledge products usually lies in creation rather than in manufacturing or distribution. Once knowledge has been created, the initial development cost can be spread across rising volumes. Network effects can emerge as knowledge assets are used by more and more people. These knowledge-users can simultaneously bene®t from knowledge and increase its value as they add to, adapt, and enrich the knowledge base. In traditional industrial economics, assets decline in value as more people use them. By contrast, knowledge assets can grow in value, as they become a standard on which others can build.
As knowledge assets grow, they tend to branch and fragment (Drucker, 1997). While knowledge assets that become standards can grow more and more valuable, others, like expiring patents or former trade secrets, can become less valuable as they are widely shared. A successful company must therefore continually refresh its knowledge base. The rapid and effective re-creation of knowledge can represent a substantial source of competitive advantage. Conceptual foundation of Know-Net
Our perspective is that ªknowledge assetsº can be human ± such as a person or a network of people, structural ± such as a business process, or market ± such as a brand name of a product.
Naturally the product-centric approach is more concerned with accessing and organising knowledge assets, while the process approach makes direct connections between the organisational knowledge assets ± both explicit and tacit. Both approaches, however, are using some form of knowledge representation as a means of packaging and transferring knowledge, either from a person to a system and vice versa, or between people.
If we de®ne ªknowledge objectsº as the means of representing knowledge, then the following statement outlines the relation between knowledge assets and knowledge objects:
A knowledge asset creates, stores and/or disseminates knowledge objects
For example:
. A person is a knowledge asset that can create new ideas, learnings,
proposals, white papers (knowledge objects).
. A community of interest is a knowledge asset that can create new ideas,
best practices (knowledge objects).
Knowledge
management
implementations
. A process is a knowledge asset that can create and/or store and
disseminate best practices, company standards, R&D material (knowledge objects).
. A vision is a knowledge asset that can create a new mission statement,
strategic plan, goals (knowledge objects).
A knowledge object represents the information required to be processed by humans and transformed into knowledge (see Figure 1). Knowledge derives from information through knowledge-creating activities, that take place within and between humans. Typical knowledge-creating activities include (Davenport and Prusak, 1998):
. Comparison: how does information about this situation compares to other
situations known?
. Consequences: what implications does the information have for decision
and actions?
. Connections: how does this bit of knowledge relate to others? . Conversation: what do other people think about this information?
The knowledge objects aim to facilitate and leverage such knowledge-creating activities, by providing to humans the information need. A knowledge object has the following characteristics:
(1) It acts as a catalyst, enabling the fusion of knowledge ¯ows between people, with knowledge content discovery and retrieval, through technology. That is to say, a knowledge object acts, amongst other things, as the primary connecting node for all key components in a KM system ± strategy, people, process, content, technology ± ªthe KM glueº. (2) It facilitates the knowledge transfer from person to person, or from
information to person.
Figure 1.
How the ªknowledge objectº relates to the process- and product-centric approaches
BPMJ
9,3
(3) A knowledge object is created and maintained by a KM process. (4) A knowledge object is used to search, organise and disseminate
knowledge content.
We conclude that the knowledge assets and knowledge objects are the common uni®ers of the holistic Know-Net KM solution that incorporate and integrate process and content. We have used these concepts as the ªresultant manifestationº in the design of the Know-Net solution that fuses the process-centric approach with the product-process-centric approach.
Integrating the product- and process-centric approaches in the Know-Net solution
The practical application of the approach described so far is the Know-Net KM solution that comprises three components:
(1) A holistic conceptual framework that can be used by managers as a roadmap for ensuring integrity of the KM effort.
(2) A KM methodology that helps organisations de®ne and document their KM strategy, audit and design business processes that enhance and facilitate corporate learning, establish related organisational roles, facilitate knowledge sharing between people in the organisation, and explicitly measure and evaluate the quality and business value of the organisation’s intellectual capital.
The method is designed to be modular so that an organisation can choose to start at different levels depending on its readiness, needs and requirements.
In Stage I of ªstrategic planning for KMº an organisation determines: the vision and readiness for a KM initiative; and the scope and feasibility of the project. The main steps of Stage I are:
. provide leadership;
. link KM strategy with corporate strategy; . perform knowledge analysis;
. assess risk and change readiness; . develop the case for KM;
. obtain top management approval.
In Stage II of ªdeveloping the knowledge organisationº the structure and the design of a holistic solution (that covers processes, people and technology) are iteratively developed, tested and reviewed.
Stage III is the company-wide implementation of the KM initiative, while the measurement part of the method aims to provide consistent support for measuring the creation, sharing and use of knowledge assets within the company.
Knowledge
management
implementations
(3) An intranet-based tool that supports the collection and categorisation of internal and external information, the re-use of stored knowledge using ¯exible and customisable knowledge navigators and advanced search mechanisms that include keyword-based as well as concept-based searching (the latter supported by a graphical visualisation of the concepts organising the information space), and the collaboration via on-line workspaces that allow people to work together from different locations.
The three components of the Know-Net total KM solution ± i.e. the framework, the method and the tool ± have clear and consistent interdependencies which exploit the knowledge-asset-centric nature of the solution and facilitate the amalgamation of the process-centric and product-centric perspectives to KM. Figure 2 highlights the overall interdependencies of the Know-Net framework, method and tools.
The Know-Net framework (Mentzas, 2000) can be used as an awareness tool as well as for developing a common language among the people of a company. The framework is useful as an enabler for discussing which are the critical knowledge areas, which ones are under-developed and should be further enhanced, and which are already valuable and should be protected and cultivated. In addition, the elements of the framework (strategy, structure, processes, systems) help share a ®rst draft picture of the level of knowledge awareness within the company. Finally, the ®rst discussions about KM should
Figure 2.
Interdependencies of the Know-Net framework, method and tool
BPMJ
9,3
focus on the various levels for leveraging knowledge assets (i.e. individual, team, organisational and inter-organisational levels) in order to help identify possible areas for intervention. These rough analyses can provide useful input for the application of the Know-Net method (especially Stage I: strategic planning for KM), as well as facilitate the smooth introduction of the concepts and terms used in the Know-Net tool.
The application of the method may be tightly linked to the use, customisation and roll-out of the Know-Net tool. In any case, however, each one of the two (method and tool) is also self-sustained and can be independently applied ± actually, the method has already been applied to companies without the use of the tool.
The coupling between the method and the tool is mainly accomplished through the eight modules of Stage II (developing the knowledge organisation) of the Know-Net method, as outlined in Table I. Each module of Stage II is a self-contained, value-adding entity and therefore not all modules are mandatory in a KM implementation. Ideally, however, just as the knowledge assets are the main uni®ers of our approach, module 7 (develop the knowledge asset schema) acts as the frame of the Know-Net method that is being constructed with input from the ªauditº modules 1, 3, and 5, while it supports the consistent execution of the ªdesign/implementº modules, 2, 4, and 6.
All ªauditº modules, among other issues, aim to identify in detail the knowledge assets, and corresponding knowledge objects and their attributes. Module 1 (analyse business processes) for instance, produces processes maps that depict key knowledge assets that are being used or created in selected business processes. Module 7 (develop the knowledge asset schema) collects this information, along with similar information, from modules 3 and 5, arranges possible overlappings, logically groups content, and creates the formal schema (knowledge asset schema) on which the ªdesign/implementº modules are based. Consider another example: module 4 (leverage knowledge networks) designs and organises communities of practice and interest around the core knowledge assets of the organisation and proposes the already speci®ed knowledge objects as units for knowledge representation within these communities. Table I broadly describes how each module relates to the integration of the process- and product-centric approaches and to the functionalities and characteristics of the Know-Net tool.
Case summaries of the Know-Net application in IT services companies
In the following section we present a brief description of Know-Net implementations in four companies: Delta-Singular, MDA, AlphaNova and Debus IT. The objective in all four cases was to undertake KM initiatives at the business unit, function, or operational process level, where they expected to have the most immediate impact on their performance. Within this context, the
Knowledge
management
implementations
M od u le D es cr ip ti on R el at io n to p ro ce ss an d p ro d u ct in te g ra ti on R el at io n to K n ow -N et to ol 1. A n al y se b u si n es s p ro ce ss es T h is m od u le h el p s th e k n ow le d g e au d it of b u si n es s p ro ce ss es .I n or d er to u n d er st an d h ow b u si n es s p ro ce ss es , p eo p le , sy st em s an d co n te n t ar e re la te d in or d er to re v ea l w h o n ee d s w h at k n ow le d g e an d w h en th ey n ee d it D et ai l id en ti ® ca ti on of k n ow le d g e as se ts an d ob je ct s in v ol v ed in b u si n es s p ro ce ss es (p ro d u ct v ie w ) D et ai l id en ti ® ca ti on of th e k n ow le d g e ¯ ow s w it h in b u si n es s p ro ce ss es . (p ro ce ss v ie w ) P ro v id es re q u ir em en ts fo r th e cr ea ti on /c u st om is at io n of K M ap p li ca ti on s (i n cl u d in g fu n ct io n al it y , u se r ri g h ts , et c. ) P ro ® le s p eo p le an d ro le s in v ol v ed in p ro ce ss es (t o b e u se d in p er so n al is ed fa ci li ti es of th e to ol ) P ro v id es a ª® rs t cu tº of th e k n ow le d g e ob je ct s th at co rr es p on d to th e k n ow le d g e as se ts 2. L ev er ag e k n ow le d g e in b u si n es s p ro ce ss es T h is m od u le h el p s th e en h an ce m en t of K M w it h in ex is ti n g b u si n es s p ro ce ss es an d th e d es ig n of n ew b u si n es s p ro ce ss es an d co rr es p on d in g ro le s fo r m an ag in g sp ec i® c k n ow le d g e as se ts D es ig n of fo rm al b u si n es s p ro ce ss es an d ro le s fo r K M (p ro ce ss v ie w ) In co rp or at io n of k n ow le d g e ob je ct s, re la ti on s, an d at tr ib u te s (m et ad at a, cl as si ® ca ti on , in d ex in g , et c. ) to b u si n es s p ro ce ss es , e. g . w h o cr ea te s a k n ow le d g e ob je ct , w h ic h m et ad at a sh ou ld b e u se d , h ow is th e in d ex in g b ei n g d on e, et c. (p ro d u ct v ie w ) D e® n it io n of ac ce ss ri g h ts fo r k n ow le d g e ob je ct s/ ap p li ca ti on s C u st om is at io n of K M ap p li ca ti on s to su p p or t b u si n es s p ro ce ss es 3. A n al y se k n ow le d g e n et w or k s T h is m od u le h el p s an al y se th e in fo rm al ¯ ow of k n ow le d g e w it h in n et w or k s of p eo p le in th e or g an is at io n D et ai l id en ti ® ca ti on of k n ow le d g e as se ts an d ob je ct s in v ol v ed in in fo rm al co m m u n ic at io n /c ol la b or at io n of em p lo y ee s (p ro d u ct v ie w ) C om p re h en si on of p at te rn s of in fo rm al k n ow le d g e ¯ ow , co ll ab or at io n h ab it s an d re q u ir em en ts fo r im p ro v em en t (p ro ce ss v ie w ) P ro v id es re q u ir em en ts fo r th e cr ea ti on /c u st om is at io n of K M ap p li ca ti on s. E m p h as is h er e is on th e g ro u p w ar e su p p or t of th e to ol , e. g . ap p li ca b il it y of sp ec i® c co ll ab or at io n re q u ir em en ts su ch as v id eo /a u d io co n fe re n ci n g , cu st om is at io n of co m m u n it y /t ea m su p p or t ap p li ca ti on s of th e to ol , et c. P ro ® le s p eo p le an d ro le s in v ol v ed in n et w or k s (t o b e u se d in p er so n al is ed fa ci li ti es of th e to ol ) P ro v id es a ª® rs t cu tº of th e k n ow le d g e ob je ct s th at co rr es p on d to th e k n ow le d g e as se ts ( co n ti n u ed ) Table I. Relation of Know-Net methodology modules to the product- and process-centric views and support by the Know-Net tool
BPMJ
9,3
M od u le D es cr ip ti on R el at io n to p ro ce ss an d p ro d u ct in te g ra ti on R el at io n to K n ow -N et to ol 4. L ev er ag e k n ow le d g e n et w or k s T h is m od u le h el p s th e d es ig n an d st im u la ti on of k n ow le d g e n et w or k s u si n g a se t of ªn on -m an ag em en t te ch n iq u es º. T h e m od u le ad d re ss es C S F s fa ct or s fo r th e n et w or k , co n te n t q u al it y as su ra n ce is su es , m ot iv at io n an d re w ar d is su es , et c. D es ig n of in fo rm al n et w or k s (c om m u n it ie s of p ra ct ic e/ in te re st ) in su p p or t of K M (p ro ce ss v ie w ) In co rp or at io n of k n ow le d g e ob je ct s, re la ti on s, an d at tr ib u te s (m et ad at a, cl as si ® ca ti on , in d ex in g , et c. ) to k n ow le d g e n et w or k s, e. g . w h o h as ow n er sh ip of w h ic h k n ow le d g e ob je ct in th e n et w or k , w h ic h m et ad at a ar e su it ab le fo r th e n et w or k , ® lt er in g ri g h ts , et c. (p ro d u ct v ie w ) D e® n it io n of ac ce ss ri g h ts fo r k n ow le d g e ob je ct s/ ap p li ca ti on s C u st om is at io n of K M ap p li ca ti on s to su p p or t k n ow le d g e n et w or k s. E m p h as is on g ro u p w ar e ap p li ca ti on s 5. A n al y se th e te ch n ol og y A ss es se s th e cu rr en t st at e of IT in th e or g an is at io n an d id en ti fy ex is ti n g in fo rm at io n so u rc es M os tl y re la te d to th e p ro d u ct v ie w , lo ok s at k n ow le d g e ar te fa ct s th at ar e st or ed in in fo rm at io n sy st em s E x am in es th e ap p li ca b il it y of th e K n ow -N et to ol fr om a te ch n ic al p er sp ec ti v e (n et w or k b an d w id th , g eo g ra p h ic al d is tr ib u ti on , et c. ) Id en ti ® es ex is ti n g in fo rm at io n so u rc es w it h in an d ou ts id e th e or g an is at io n 6. L ev er ag e th e te ch n ol og y P re se n ts th e te ch n ol og y el em en t in K M N ot ap p li ca b le N ot ap p li ca b le 7. D ev el op th e k n ow le d g e as se t sc h em a T h is m od u le g u id es th e d es ig n of k n ow le d g e as se t sc h em a th at co m p ri se s: T he kn ow le d g e ob je ct st or e (f or th e fo rm al k n ow le dg e or ga n is at io n ) T h e k n ow le d g e on to lo g y (f or co n ce p tu al /l og ic al st ru ct u ri n g or g an is at io n of k n ow le d g e ob je ct s) P ro d u ct v ie w on ly , as d is cu ss ed in C h ap te r 3 D ir ec t m ap p in g to th e k n ow le d g e se rv er . D u ri n g th is m od u le th e ob je ct st or e an d th e on to lo g y ar e cu st om is ed an d co n ® g u re d fo r th e or g an is at io n 8. In te g ra te th e K M ar ch it ec tu re S y n th es is es an d in te g ra te s al l ch an g es d on e in d if fe re n t m od u le s in on e w or k in g so lu ti on ,s ea m le ss ly in co rp or at ed in th e ex is ti n g b u si n es s en v ir on m en t N ot ap p li ca b le N ot ap p li ca b le Table I.
Knowledge
management
implementations
363
application of the Know-Net solution in each of the four companies focused on a speci®c area of the software development cycle (either in customised software projects or in the development of packaged software solutions; see Figure 3). Debus IT
Debus IT specialises in the development, customisation and training of enterprise resource planning software and systems. It is a Czech company with Dutch management and investment. The specialist nature of the company’s business requires that it gathers technical, marketing and other commercial information from diverse sources, to recon®gure and reuse that information for commercial and competitive advantage. Debus IT has acknowledged as critical factors for future success, the potential ability to speed-up the development and related cycle times through the application of KM principles. To do so there was a need for improved communication and collaboration between Debus IT and its customers and improved quality of Debus IT training courses.
The KM solution created and applied at Debus IT consisted of a number of inter-acting elements, all of which have been applied to the area of creating ªcustomised training coursesº. Debus has had as its major objectives the ability to improve its communication and collaboration, and to reduce the cycle times associated with the delivery of customised training courses. This has been achieved through the following:
. The effective use of the contacts database has enabled the company to log
key skills, knowledge and competencies.
. The application of ideas capture and management has enabled the
company to aggregate critical skills and knowledge, leading to the creation of best practices and best knowledge databases, thereby leading to the re-use of knowledge.
. The knowledge asset measurement techniques incorporated within
Know-Net allowed Debus to appreciate the value of its KM initiatives.
Figure 3.
Focus of KM in the four IT services companies
BPMJ
9,3
A distinct marketing advantage was gained as Debus has the potential to deliver better quality client/business solutions through the ability to access and evaluate a greater number of technical options, and the ability to access information from a wider and more diverse range of sources. Furthermore, the ability to integrate existing databases, marketing and sales records and information has been critical. Through having a central repository of marketing and sales intelligence the company is able to lever the business generation process.
Solution highlight ± introducing KM to the company. By applying the strategic planning stage of the Know-Net method, a strong business case was developed to support and de®ne the KM strategy for Debus IT. The key to successfully implemented KM in Debus was to ensure that the KM strategy was able to manage knowledge to enhance product and service capability. Debus realised that as a consultancy/development company, it is driven by continuous market requests for technology and business knowledge. This knowledge is very dynamic, diverse and constantly expanding, therefore there was a clear need for a mechanism to collect, retrieve and share knowledge throughout the whole company.
Leadership.Debus IT has successfully gained leadership support for the KM initiative. Management was educated on the need and the bene®ts of KM to gain buy-in from the top, before being presented at a company level. An initiation team, consisting of members from different departments, was created to introduce the KM solution and methodology to the rest of the company. The focus of these meetings and presentations was to ensure that all employees gained a clear understanding of the KM concepts and how KM could be integrated into their daily work. Gaining leadership support at this early stage made the implementation of the KM initiative a smoother transition and more acceptable by the company.
Linking KM strategy with corporate strategy.Taking into account Debus IT’s mission to be both a technology and consultancy oriented company and its objective to remain pro®table in the emerging markets of Central and Eastern Europe, it is vital that it can constantly provide valuable solutions to meet market needs; a KM strategy needs to be developed in line with this. Based on this, the critical success factors (CSFs) of the company have been identi®ed as follows: recruitment and retention of the right people; business generation; new product development; management of technical knowledge.
Perform knowledge analysis.A knowledge orientation analysis was undertaken with the results shown in Figure 4. The knowledge orientation matrix shows that Debus was quite ªknowledge awareº in terms of KM. It had management support, a knowledge sharing culture and some means to gauge how KM bene®ts the company. In terms of infrastructure, some level of strategy, processes and systems existed; however, there were no clear roles and responsibilities de®ned within the company to support these. The company as
Knowledge
management
implementations
a whole was accustomed to sharing knowledge, not just at an individual or team level, but also at an organisational level.
Assess risk and change readiness. As a company, Debus IT was not resistant to change and realised that to smooth the path on implementing KM, good preparation for the base of change was required to improve and build on the existing processes, rather than going for a radical change. In order to introduce and smooth the implementation of KM, a gradual process of change was undertaken, through education, by ®rst gaining the acceptance from management, then the project/department leaders. Once these people were on board the company staff were involved. Debus continuously conducted education sessions for the whole company throughout the implementation stage. The change was also made more acceptable as Debus involved the whole company in KM and it was introduced almost simultaneously to all company staff. It was identi®ed that the impact of KM would affect the majority of people within the company, owing to the impact on existing information ¯ow and processes. Debus ensured that any impact would be minimised through management support and training.
From applying Stage I of the KM method to Debus, a strong business case was put forward to senior management for the need for KM. In particular, it Figure 4.
Knowledge orientation matrix for Debus IT
BPMJ
9,3
focused on the need to improve the existing tools and techniques, and initiatives to improve the existing business processes.
Delta-Singular
Delta-Singular specialises in standardised business software covering market requirements in ®nancial, accounting, distribution, logistics, retail, human resource management, and e-commerce systems. In addition, the company provides solutions integration in large-scale projects for public utilities, telecommunication, aerospace and defence, transportation, and public administration organizations. The company operates in all markets of south and Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Asia market.
One of the most valuable commodities for Delta-Singular is the knowledge created within the R&D unit. The innovation originating from the R&D unit drives to a high degree the evolution of the company’s products and services. Members of the R&D unit, as well as other employees from other units of the company, form communities of practice (CoPs) that are formed dynamically in order to resolve speci®c technical problems. There was a need to develop a strategy for learning from the team experience, and organise the knowledge created in a methodological manner. The challenge was to realise effective mechanisms for KM without imposing overheads to these highly dynamic, highly creative teams. The technical infrastructure had to be highly dynamic and adoptable, integrating with existing systems and information repositories. The solution focused on CoPs as a collaborative structure that facilitates the creation and transfer of knowledge. The project addressed not only the creation of new CoPs from the ground up, but also it built upon existing, informal, working networks. New roles, such as subject experts, have been assigned to take responsibility for providing expert opinion and identifying the knowledge assets stemming from the common effort. Mechanisms for information collection during CoP lifetime were put in place, ensuring quality and consistent documentation of knowledge. These mechanisms provided for knowledge transparency, i.e. ability to re-use knowledge identi®ed in a speci®c project to other projects. Furthermore, the R&D unit put in place mechanisms and regulations for reviewing knowledge so that ªagingº knowledge items are collected and disposed of. The Know-Net methodology was used to support the launch of viable communities, the creation of a relevant knowledge base, and the provision of ªcare and feedingº for the communities’ growth.
One year after the launch of the initiative, the creators are positive about their work, since KM has become an integral part of the strategy of Delta-Singular. The KM infrastructure put in place allowed for:
. Savings in cost, e.g. by re-using knowledge on how to tackle speci®c
software development problems.
. Increased returns, e.g. by maximising re-use and exploitation of software
approaches, components and products.
Knowledge
management
implementations
. The alignment of research and development with product development
requirements, by recognising important trends and developments worldwide.
Solution highlights ± the R&D community. Two levels of knowledge networking have been identi®ed in the singular R&D unit as pertinent to the proposal preparing process (Figure 5): at the unit level, collaboration happens within teams that work in speci®c R&D projects and there is informal social networking based on common background; at the company level, networking takes place between employees from other units who are considered subject matter experts.
Knowledge leveraging within the two types of networks was addressed in two phases. At the R&D unit level, during the ®rst phase, the team was organised around a common repository that was used as a place where information regarding the unit’s work was stored and maintained. A procedure was adopted for users to deposit information that could be later retrieved from colleagues in accordance with their access rights to the document repository. A separate procedure was adopted for team members to ask questions on matters that were not found in the document repository. In this case, they sent their question to an e-mail account where the initiative coordinator assessed the question content and, if considered appropriate, it forwarded it to the subject matter expert who was responsible for that thematic area.
In order for the mechanism to be of real value, a number of steps had to be taken before installing the process. These steps included the identi®cation of the Delta-Singular universe of knowledge and the selection of a group of knowledge providers who would be responsible for answering questions in their speci®c thematic area. Department heads identi®ed the Delta-Singular universe of knowledge within their departments and this knowledge segmentation was used for recognizing an expert in each ®eld (i.e. a subject matter expert). Once a question had been submitted to the e-mail account the
Figure 5.
Networks related to the singular R&D unit
BPMJ
9,3
initiative coordinator forwarded it to the appropriate subject matter expert. The expert responded to the initiative coordinator who had the responsibility of forwarding the response to the person who asked the question and simultaneously he/she updated the knowledge repository by posting the item in question or by making public the question published along with its response ± in a frequently asked questions format. The initiative coordinator maintained a log-keeping mechanism that accounts for all knowledge requests submitted. The subject matter expert provided descriptive keywords that were used from the initiative coordinator as ®le metadata for storing the information at the knowledge repository. The initiative coordinator updated the request database with the question submitted and its response according to the expert provided keywords. Finally, the bookkeeping mechanism was updated accordingly (i.e. response supplied within the pre-set time limit, etc.). Based on the information stored in the database during the ®rst phase, the second phase was implemented in the following steps: a new knowledge-brokering mechanism was established and the information recorded in the database was made available through a company-wide intranet that made use of the Know-Net tool.
The knowledge-brokering system utilized in the second phase abides by the same general characteristics as those adopted during the ®rst phase. It is the platform functionality offered by the Know-Net tool that enhanced user access to the new corporate portal. The systems general characteristics are brie¯y outlined as:
(1) The knowledge stored in the database is placed in a company-wide intranet that is implemented with the Know-Net platform.
(2) It is categorized according to knowledge assets identi®ed through the implementation of the Know-Net method.
(3) The identi®cation of all subject matter experts along with their area of expertise has become available through the corporate portal.
(4) Users who do not ®nd the response to their request in the corporate knowledge base are encouraged to submit it directly to the appropriate subject matter expert via e-mail.
(5) Users are advised to consult ®rst the knowledge base before addressing questions to the subject matter experts.
(6) Responses not existing in the knowledge base are deposited to it from the subject matter experts who have the responsibility for maintaining the knowledge base content.
(7) The need for a bookkeeping mechanism has been eliminated.
Three roles have been assigned to the network members in relation to their normal activities. These roles include the author, who is a subject matter expert and is responsible not only for providing expert opinion, but also for
Knowledge
management
implementations
identifying the knowledge assets stemming from the common effort. All information collected is delegated to her/him, who is in charge of documenting it according to pre-speci®ed quality, consistency, and design standards. Apart from authors there are also viewers, who have the right to examine the documents deposited within the common workspace and receive messages every time content of their interest has been updated. When they feel that certain pieces of information should be included in the repository they forward them to the author who is responsible for the speci®c thematic area and she/he decides on publishing the document provided. There is also a system administrator who is responsible for maintaining the system integrity and ensuring its availability to the users.
The adopted approach facilitates the dynamic re-evaluation of the ®rm’s knowledge assets. It introduces the notion of value-added processes that create experience (i.e. knowledge assets) to the company personnel. These elements are code samples, deliverables, technical troubleshoots, case studies, designs, and methodology components that are applicable in various projects. Making these knowledge assets identi®ed in a speci®c project re-usable to other projects requires that the documented material is transparent.
The technical infrastructure implemented provides the technical means so that stored items are indexed and retrieved using a full-text search option to retrieve content and any associated properties (metadata searching). In addition, a semi-automatic categorization process assists users in depositing and retrieving documents by associating them with speci®c categories that group similar documents. The same process was proven immensely useful when the documents already stored in the corporate ®le-structure were migrated to the Web storage facility. It provided an automatic importation mechanism that expedited the migration process. Finally, a subscription service noti®es users about new, or updated, information on topics that match their interests and have found their way into the corporate depository. This mechanism works through a user pro®le where the independent user declares her/his preferences.
MDA
MDA operates in Turkey and specialises in DBMS application development. MDA is a member of the ORACLE business alliance program as well as the value added reseller of the PROGRES corporation. MDA is organised to deliver turnkey systems, and from this perspective it portrays a company which can be described as a systems integrator. MDA also provides IT consultancy services. MDA wanted to improve the effectiveness of the bid preparation process. The company has been experiencing the ªwheel re-inventionº syndrome all too often during bid and proposal preparation. They needed a system to improve collaboration and organisation of bid work.
BPMJ
9,3
The most important areas that MDA focused on were the effective capture and use of contacts from outside the company and the centralisation and collaboration on new bids. The bid management system application of the Know-Net solution was utilized. This allowed for the effective capturing of contacts and it supported employees to work and collaborate centrally on bids. Furthermore, the ideas capture component was utilized. This allowed for new ideas on the best way to carry out the bid process to be logged and processed effectively. Also installed at MDA are best practices, best knowledge and a knowledge assets/objects directory.
The system put in place allows MDA to quickly match the requirements of its customers to the abilities of the staff and specialist associates across the strategic partnerships. Furthermore, the company has improved the bid preparation process effectively, reducing time to prepare a bid, reducing time to locate a relevant bid, improving the success rate of bids, and reducing time to train new employees participating in bid preparation.
Solution highlights ± the ªbid preparationº process. By applying the business process analysis module of Stage II of the Know-Net method, we were able to identify the critical knowledge requirements of the bid preparation business process. Important information needed include ®nancial data related to the funding of the project outlined in the bid, people and external contacts-related data, bid-speci®c information such as deadlines and of®cial documentation, and information about previous bids that could assist in the preparation of the current bid. In considering an improved bid process, we identi®ed the following key areas for improvement:
Knowledge about interest rates.Knowledge about interest rates and the accurate forecast of interest rates are critical to this process, because they determine the safety and feasibility of borrowing money. In order to help with this problem area, Web links were set up in the MDA Know-Net implementation to the best resources and knowledge bases on interest rates and interest rate forecasting. These include the national Central Bank or Foreign Exchange company sites that are being accessed regularly.
Speed of suppliers’ response.The speed of response by suppliers to a bid was usually too slow for the process to be carried out effectively. Suppliers put together the technical and marketing documents, and these can take a long time to arrive. After they arrive, MDA often does not have enough time to study and prepare answers to speci®cations to the quality that they want to. To help speed-up of this communication with suppliers with this issue, a collaborative work area incorporating discussion forums and a central place for working on bids was utilized. The objective was to keep all of the work and communication with suppliers in the one space and increase the speed of supplier response. The common repository can be accessed easily through a Web browser at any time, so suppliers can quickly access the main work area and current discussions on bids.
Knowledge
management
implementations
Reusing best practice knowledge.In MDA there was no organised reuse of knowledge in the bid preparation process, so that previous bids and experience are available in a codi®ed, searchable format. To ensure that the company could start to manage its knowledge effectively in the bid process, a ªbest knowledgeº process was introduced. The effective reuse of important knowledge in the process required a new role within the company; for this to be effective a knowledge manager needed to be appointed and trained in the new KM processes. The knowledge manager oversees the harvesting of knowledge from within the system and ensures that it is transformed into best knowledge for effective reuse in the future. Harvesting is done by ordinary knowledge workers, who also make nominations for the best knowledge base.
Figure 6 depicts the ªbid preparationº business process of MDA. The grey nodes are the knowledge-leveraging steps that have been introduced after the
Figure 6. ªBid preparationº business process
BPMJ
9,3
372
Know-Net implementation. Below we describe these knowledge-leveraging steps.
At the start of any new bid process, the knowledge worker should review the best knowledge process for the current best available codi®ed knowledge to conduct the bid process. If there is speci®c information/knowledge that the knowledge worker is looking for, then they can use the search function to search the databases, or the entire system. The point of this is to encourage the knowledge worker to access codi®ed knowledge, rather than tie up the time of the experts. If none of these methods can help the knowledge worker, as a last resort they can access the best people/expert locator database to contact the relevant expert.
The next new step in the process is a ªbid/no bidº decision step (step 4), just after the bids are reviewed. The advantage of this step, at this early stage, is to prevent any further work being carried out if the bid does not fall within the capability of MDA as a company (e.g. technical capability, ®nancing, and so on). It is important to capture the reasons as to why the bid was not accepted, so that, over time, a checklist for bid acceptance can be de®ned, so that at the review bid (step 3) a formal and knowledgeable process for decision making does not rest on the individual, but on the experience of all.
The knowledge worker now has the ability to consult external Web links for interest rates information (step 10) and is able to make more informed decisions. It is vital that MDA incorporates this to ensure that it knows about interest rate status for ®nancing of bids.
Virtual meetings with suppliers can be carried out in order to speed-up response from suppliers (step 11). This stage is critical in that it helps both MDA and suppliers to have a central place to discuss and work on speci®c bids, to ensure that a thorough response to the bids can be created.
After the result of the bid is known and the bid has been completed, a review of the bid (step 16) carried out by the knowledge manager is a prerequisite for capturing learning and ideas (step 17). A key part of introducing KM to the process is the continual capture of learnings and ideas at every stage of the process. With any new initiative, it is not a natural process for individuals to submit ideas and learnings into the ideas and learnings repositories as and when they conduct their work, therefore, formalised reviews need to be conducted in order for these valuable learnings and ideas to be captured.
At the end of each month, the knowledge manager is responsible for conducting a knowledge harvest of the KM system. The knowledge manager will review all ideas and learnings entered by the knowledge workers, as well as trawl the various discussion databases set up, to identify any valuable nuggets of information that may be useful ideas and learnings.
The knowledge manager is then required to submit all the ideas, learnings and discussion nuggets (known as ªbest knowledge nominationsº ± step 18) to the best knowledge owner of the process to improve the current best knowledge process.
Knowledge
management
implementations
The best knowledge owner reviews each knowledge nomination (step 19) and makes a decision as to whether it is a valuable contribution to improve the current best knowledge process. If not, the best knowledge nomination is rejected or returned to the knowledge worker for further clari®cation.
In addition to the ªbest knowledgeº database, a ªbest peopleº (or ªexpert locatorº) database was introduced to address the tacit dimension of knowledge. It is very dif®cult to be able to codify all knowledge in an organisation and some knowledge will inevitably remain tacit. The best people/expert locator captures the expertise and skills of individuals and allows the knowledge worker to search for experts in order to contact them directly for further information.
The key for MDA is to always provide a current best knowledge bid process for knowledge workers to refer to. It is critical that the best knowledge bid process is always being reviewed and updated through the process described above. Knowledge workers need to actively contribute ideas, learnings and participate in collaborative discussions as part of their day-to-day work, in order for others to bene®t accordingly. There must also be adequate systems and technology to support and facilitate the capture of ideas, learnings, collaborative discussions and best knowledge and best people databases, so knowledge workers can work effectively.
AlphaNova
AlphaNova is a global provider in customer relationship management software and solutions. AlphaNova is supporting companies to take advantage of the changing business environment by using alliances, multiple channels and customer focus to increase growth and pro®tability. Due to rapid expansion and high employee intake, it has become imperative for AlphaNova that the knowledge of existing employees should be harnessed and maintained in an effective manner. AlphaNova has of®ces in the UK, Greece and Cyprus; communicating, collaborating and sharing knowledge within of®ces is critical to the success of the company. The company was faced with the challenge to facilitate and encourage employees to share their knowledge and adopt new methods of work practices in terms of collaboration.
The KM solution focused on the interaction and exchange of knowledge between the product design group and a selected team of people from the sales and consultancy groups. Using the Know-Net methodology, a formalised mechanism of managing ¯ow of knowledge was put in place to ensure that validated and quality knowledge is available to those who need it. The ®rm also used the awareness creation modules of the methodology (that support education, workshops and presentations) to raise levels of awareness and knowledge amongst the employees of AlphaNova.
AlphaNova utilized various components of the Know-Net tool to develop their KM infrastructure, such as: discussion forums and libraries (to store
BPMJ
9,3
commonly used information), AlphaNova Directory (containing information about employees contact details and, more importantly, key skills), Ideas Management, Learnings, Best Knowledge and, Knowledge Assets Directory. The overall result was improved communications and collaboration owing to the use of collaborative workspaces, shared discussion forums and learnings. Solution highlight ± measuring knowledge assets. AlphaNova applied the Know-Net knowledge measurement approach in order to investigate how KM is bene®ting the company, in terms of business measures looking at the success of the KM initiative; and knowledge asset measures.
To derive the speci®c metrics and indicators we started top-down: we identi®ed the organisation’s vision, strategy, CSFs, the business performance measurements for those CSFs and the key knowledge assets that should be associated with the CSFs. We then switched to a bottom-up process: starting with the knowledge assets identi®ed for each of the key CSFs we developed the knowledge asset measurements for them. The three CSFs for AlphaNova are as follows:
. improve the ef®ciency and effectiveness of cross-team communications; . improve the ef®ciency and effectiveness of inter-of®ce communications;
and
. facilitation of such communication with an overall KM system.
Figure 7 provides a summary of the knowledge assets identi®ed for AlphaNova and links them to CSFs and measurements.
Figure 7.
Linking knowledge assets and their measurements to critical success factor
Knowledge
management
implementations
375
Integration issues and concluding remarks
The integration of the product- and process-centric approaches can be seen in the cases presented. The case of Delta-Singular demonstrates how both the process approach (i.e. dealing with communities of practice) and the product approach (i.e. dealing with knowledge as an object that is consumed or produced during R&D projects) can interoperate in practice. For instance, one can see how knowledge developed during an R&D project by a programmer can be codi®ed so that it is accessible not only by another programmer in another project team, but also by a subject matter expert, and through him/her, to a wider community within the company.
It is important to stress that our approach aims to ensure that both the process-centric view and the product-centric perspective can inter-operate, in the sense that they are not isolated from one another and that one can make use of and add value to the other. The aim is not ± and should not be ± for all organisations to try to excel in both approaches at equal proportions. Such an attempt may not be in line with the business environment and could be overwhelming (in terms of resources and organisational and cultural changes needed) for an organisation (Hansenet al., 1999). In practice, in all four cases, there is a varying emphasis on one of the two approaches. For instance, Delta-Singular focused on enhancing collaboration and knowledge sharing within informal networks of people that relate to the R&D unit (process approach), while MDA looked at the knowledge as an artefact produced during bid preparation (product approach). Nevertheless, the holistic approach followed during the design of the KM infrastructure ensures that any additional or future KM initiatives, no matter which approach they lean towards, will not be independent from the existing KM infrastructure.
Practical experience from working with SMEs in the software development sector has revealed the need for a good practice guide for KM: a set of prede®ned and proven guidelines covering all aspects of KM (strategy, structures, people and technology). The Know-Net tool, for instance, contains a library of KM applications/processes covering most usual business areas. The tool could be enhanced with prede®ned knowledge assets, objects and their attributes, from which the user could select as appropriate. Furthermore, the method could include indicative structures of business processes that could serve as templates. Such a prede®ned KM infrastructure is particularly appealing to SMEs that do no whish to invest heavily in consulting and customised solutions.
Some additional recommendations that were drawn from the four cases presented in this paper include the following:
(1) Focus on exploiting knowledge sources. Fundamental to the principles of knowledge, asset management is the utilisation of existing knowledge sources. In keeping with this, Debus IT linked the KM tool with the existing software systems and a variety of external databases.
BPMJ
9,3
(2) Facilitate knowledge exchange in communities. Organizational structure, particularly geographic dispersion, exerts an effect on the management of knowledge. The basis for the transfer of rich, tacit knowledge is personal relationships and geographical proximity. KM seeks to extend the immediacy of this natural contact beyond its boundaries by taking advantage of technology. In so doing, it extends the formerly untapped and often invaluable, bene®ts of local groups, to form communities of practice, unhindered by geographical boundaries, as was the case in Delta-Singular and AlphaNova.
(3) Put emphasis on client needs and requirements. For the successful implementation of KM projects in sales organisations, or those that work closely with clients such as Debus IT, the needs and requirements of the clients must form the backdrop against which all other activities are performed. By paying close attention to the clients, high business value-adding KM solutions can be deployed.
(4) Integrate KM within normal business processes. In order to fully exploit the potential of KM environments, knowledge asset management has to be integrated into standard business processes, like in the case of MDA. At any point in a process, knowledge workers should be able to learn from the experiences of their colleagues, as well as to provide their own experiences as lessons from which others can learn.
Finally, the four cases veri®ed the importance of ®nding the right balance between IT solutions for capturing explicit codi®ed knowledge and leaving enough room to allow for direct personal knowledge exchanges.
Note
1. The Know-Net knowledge management solution was the result of the Know-Net research project (Know-Net consortium, 1999), that ended in 2000. Since then, the Know-Net solution has become a commercial product and service, offered world-wide by Knowledge Associates, a network of KM specialists, and Planet Ernst & Young. During the Lever project (Lever consortium, 2001), Know-Net provided the main platform for enabling KM in four software development companies.
References
Applehans, W., Globe, A. and Laugero, G. (1999),Managing Knowledge. A Practical Web-based Approach, Addison-Wesley Information Technology Series, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
Barney, J. (1991), ªFirm resources and sustained competitive advantageº, Journal of
Management, No. 17, pp. 99-120.
Belohlav, J. (1996), ªThe evolving competitive paradigmº, Business Horizons, March-April, pp. 11-19.
Cap Gemini (1999) ªManaging your knowledge for sustainable competitive advantageº, White Paper.
Knowledge
management
implementations
Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. (1998),Working Knowledge: How Organisations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Day, J. and Wendler, J. (1998), ªThe new economics of organisationº,The Mckinsey Quarterly, Vol. 1, p. 19.
den Hartigh, E. and Langerak, F. (2001), ªManaging increasing returnsº,European Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 370-8.
Drucker, P. (1997), ªThe future that has already happenedº, Harvard Business Review, September-October.
Glazer, R. (1991), ªMarketing in an information-intensive environment: strategic implications of knowledge as an assetº,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55, pp. 1-19.
Grant, R. (1991), ªThe resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulationº,California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-35.
Hansen, M.T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), ªWhat’s your strategy for managing knowledge?º,Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 107-16.
Know-Net Consortium (1999), The Know-Net WWW site, available at:www.know-net.org
KPMG (1999), ªThe knowledge journeyº, White Paper.
Ku¨hn, O. and Abecker, A. (1997), ªCorporate memories for knowledge management in industrial practice: prospects and challengesº,Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 3 No. 8, pp. 929-54.
Lever Consortium (2001), The Lever WWW site, available at:www.kmlever.com
Mentzas, G.N., Apostolou, D., Young, R. and Abecker, A. (2000), ªKnowledge networking: a holistic approach, method and tool for leveraging corporate knowledgeº, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 94-106.
Newbern, D. and Dansereau, D.F. (1995), ªKnowledge maps for knowledge managementº, in Wiig, K.M. (Ed.),Knowledge Management Methods, Schema Press, Arlington, TX. Ovum (1999), ªKnowledge management: building the collaborative enterpriseº, market report. Porter, M. (1980),Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competition,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
Schreiber, G. (1999), Knowledge Engineering and Management: The CommonKADS
Methodology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Spek, R. and Spijkevert, A. (1997),Knowledge Management, Dealing Intelligently with Knowledge, The Knowledge Management Network, CIBIT, Utrecht.
Spender, J. (1996), ªMaking knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the ®rmº,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 45-62.
Staab, S., Studer, R., Schnurr, H.-P. and Sure, Y. (2001), ªKnowledge processes and ontologiesº,
IEEE Intelligent Systems, January/February.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), ªDynamic capabilities and strategic managementº, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 509-33.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984), ªA resource-based view of the ®rmº,Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 4-12.
Wiig, K.M. (1995),Knowledge Management Methods, Schema Press, Arlington, TX.
BPMJ
9,3
Appendix. Overview of KM methodologies (Table AI)
The KM method of Ernst and Young
The KM practice of Ernst and Young (pre-merger) provided a range of knowledge services and solutions that focus exclusively on strategy, process and change management. It does not cover system integration or development services ± which are usually outsourced to another part of the organisation. Ernst and Young (E&Y) advocated a ªpilot-®rstº approach that consists of the three delivery phases: architect, integrate, operate; see also Ovum (1999). The ªarchitectº phase aligns the KM strategy and architecture with the organisation’s business objectives. To a large extent, the services in this phase are aimed towards providing a ªblue-printº for piloting and implementing KM solutions. It re¯ects making choices about where, when and how each type of available solution must be applied in order to realize the intended bene®t. The ªintegrateº phase involves piloting speci®c knowledge-based solutions, such as community enablement, which focuses on the creation of communities of interest and practice; content management, which focuses on managing content generated externally (typically, this solution addresses the need to match content with business needs for research, analysis and business intelligence capabilities); decision making, which addresses the needs of selected high-level decision-makers and is achieved through a combination of content management and the development of explicit decision models, decision work¯ow processes and data warehouse integration; and KnowledgeWeb, which provides a user-centric knowledge brokering system. Finally, the ªoperateº phase involves wide-scale deployment of the KM system throughout the enterprise, and the development of additional pilot solutions outlined in the integrate phase.
The KM method of Cap Gemini
The management consulting company Cap Gemini (pre-merger) offered KM services based on the applied knowledge management framework (Cap Gemini, 1999). This framework distinguishes between phases of operation and focused streams of activity.
The phases of operation provide the logical structure on which the phases of the KM programme may be built. These can be effectively divided into two dominant phases of activity. The initial or ªscopingº phase, which includes business vision and business readiness phases. The second or ªdeliveryº phase includes the iterative phases of solution design, solution development and solution deployment plus operate and evaluate. In ªscopingº, the business vision phase helps to identify the scale of the opportunity for a client and create a vision for a knowledge-enabled organisation. The business readiness phase helps to establish the ability of an organisation to deliver the vision, and determines the effective ambition level for delivery phases to implement elements of the vision. In solution design, the structure and design of the solution is ®nalised, building upon the design outlines in the scoping phases. Solution development creates the new functional capabilities laid out in the design phase. Key issues in solution deployment are to ensure that the dependent functional streams deploy their solutions in a logical sequence to ensure that the programme maintains its desired impact. In solutions operation and evaluation, the impact of the delivery is measured against the forecast bene®ts; any insights or new knowledge captured during the programme are evaluated and measured.
The focused activity streams help to de®ne the activities of the KM programme. Each stream exists in every phase of the programme and addresses the key functional elements. In addition, streams convey the means to overcome issues created when dealing with a business programme on this scale.
The KM method of KPMG
KPMG focuses on optimising the seven key knowledge processes within an organization ± creation, application, exploitation, sharing, encapsulation, sourcing and learning (see KPMG, 1999). Its services cover awareness raising, strategy, systems integration and development, business process engineering and change management. KPMG regards KM as an ongoing process, consisting of a number of integrated projects, phased over time, rather than a single
Knowledge
management
implementations
discrete project. KPMG favours a programme-management approach that involves the three principal service components.
During strategic planning the company utilizes a mixture of standard, in-house and specialist techniques to:
. con®rm strategic objectives and the vision for KM using its KM framework tool; . analyse and benchmark the current status of the organisation’s KM infrastructure, using
knowledge audit and other analysis techniques;
. identify problems and opportunities, and agree on a measurement system for evaluating
the effectiveness of, and the business bene®ts associated with, KM; and
. plan a series of quick win projects and longer-term initiatives based on a clear business case.
KPMG’s implementation activities cover IT implementation and change management. KPMG does not develop its own software products for KM. Rather, its KM solutions are built using tools from Microsoft, with whom the company has a formal alliance, and from several specialist KM tool vendors.
The KM method of IBM Global Services
The relation of Global Services to the rest of IBM and its position as a relative newcomer in the management consultancy business gives it a different perspective to its main competitors. It has no single prescriptive method for KM projects, but it uses several techniques and metrics to help an organization understand and develop its knowledge assets and intellectual capital (Ovum, 1999). A key concept promoted by IBM is the knowledge map. The principle behind knowledge maps is that a company needs a high-level view of its existing knowledge before it can decide on a programme of business improvement. The overall approach is based on identifying an organisation’s key tacit and explicit knowledge assets and its current approaches for managing knowledge processes. These approaches are mapped to types of knowledge in order to identify knowledge ªgapsº. KM solutions, processes and tools are then clearly prioritised with reference to each approach and type. The result is an overall knowledge performance study that serves as the basis for system design.
The KM method of J. D. Edwards
Applehanset al. (1999) developed a KM method that is based on the practical experience gained from the development of Web-based KM systems for J.D.Edwards. Their approach focuses on the design and development of ªcontent centresº as the cornerstone of the knowledge architecture. The method supports the translation of content centres into a networked organisation, including navigation strategies and other issues surrounding the deployment of people, content, and technology. Concepts and tools used in this approach include the audit, the content portfolio and the knowledge architecture.
The purpose of the audit is to help break KM down into manageable projects without losing sight of the ªbig pictureº. It supports the identi®cation of the success factors of the organisation and the relevant business processes; the important points in these business processes were actions or decisions are taken, the people that act or use content and the content itself.
The content portfolio represents the speci®c pieces and types of content that the organisation must effectively package and deliver to people, who can act on them as knowledge. This can include documents, competitive intelligence, product speci®cations, case studies, etc.
The knowledge architecture represents the organisation’s formal recognition that it has important experience and expertise that it must preserve and use to its advantage. The knowledge architecture identi®es the scope of the investment that will be made in managing knowledge in terms of people, technology and content.
BPMJ
9,3
These concepts and tools are utilized in order to design an infrastructure that organises around knowledge by combining content and people. Two additional concepts that are key to this approach are the knowledge storyboarding and the knowledge networks. The purpose of the knowledge storyboarding is to identify the relationships among people, processes and knowledge. It consists of four steps: speci®cation of a business process and related steps within the process; identi®cation of information leveraging points within the business process; identi®cation of organisational roles and people that use information in each step; and identi®cation of detailed content used in each step. An essential objective of this tool is to identify the information needs of users within speci®c business processes. This is accomplished with user-pro®ling techniques.
Other KM methods and techniques
There exist a large number of techniques for auditing, surveying, eliciting, analysing and modelling knowledge. Although these techniques are not stand-alone or complete methodologies, they are used during KM implementations mainly for ®eld knowledge analysis and modelling purposes. Wiig (1995) provides an extensive overview of such methods. Table AI presents a summary of the most characteristic knowledge analysis and modelling techniques.
Method Key characteristics
Task environment analysis (TEA); see Wiig (1995)
TEAs consist of in-depth investigations of how knowledge workers perform business tasks and the conditions under which they work. The focus is on knowledge, its presence and use of knowledge, how the task is performed at present, what its inputs are, what its deliverables are. TEA provides the added perspective of knowledge ¯ows and uses
Basic knowledge analysis (BKA); see Wiig (1995)
Basic knowledge analysis refers to an analysis and
characterization of the knowledge in the task environment. It focuses on how knowledge is held, used in decisions and other knowledge-intensive tasks
Knowledge mapping (Kmap); see Newbern and Dansereau (1995)
Knowledge mapping is used to develop concepts maps as hierarchies or networks. Knowledge mapping systems are used for identifying relevant information from workers, displaying this information and presenting it for training, communicating, planning, problem-solving or decision-making purposes Knowledge use and
requirements analysis (KURA); see Wiig (1995)
KURA is performed to ex
