Knowledge Management Expert Role
Introduction
While there is a growing body of work and focus on the discipline of Knowledge Management and general acceptance of its value to an organization, effective implementation and application in a large enterprise setting remains elusive. The subject area of knowledge management is relatively young and little consensus has been reached on effective strategy for managing the body of knowledge of large organizations. Some organizations address knowledge management in their learning organizations, others through their process and quality functional groups, while others deploy standalone knowledge management teams and create executive level positions dedicated to the task. Each of these deployment strategies impacts the way that knowledge management initiatives are introduced and managed in the organization and has led to a wide variety of systems, theories, and results.
:ad200 Robert Grant (2005) indicates that tacit knowledge cannot be codified in his description of Types of Knowledge. This is contrary to the many knowledge management theories where encoding is considered one of the great opportunities of the discipline. Irma Becerra-Fernandez (2004) indicates that “tacit knowledge can sometimes be converted into explicit knowledge, as happens when an individual with considerable tacit knowledge about a topic writes a book or manual formalizing that knowledge.” While admittedly more challenging, the encoding of tacit knowledge is rewarding to the enterprise by capturing the experience and capabilities of employees as they come and go, creating a reusable and transferable form of knowledge that contributes to competitive advantage.
The discipline of knowledge management became very popular in recent decades and generated a lot of attention. However, this excitement led to ill conceived initiatives which have contributed to tarnishing the reputation of the discipline. Some organizations trumpet their knowledge management systems as a tremendous source of advantage while other organizations have become disenchanted with the concept through failed projects. The reality today is that effective knowledge management has become a point of parity in many industries, rather than a point of differentiation. It is required to compete effectively, and therefore should not be ignored, but rarely provides a significant, let alone sustainable, competitive advantage. The best characterization of knowledge management today may be that ineffective knowledge management is a competitive disadvantage. Regardless of the view on advantage or disadvantage, it is important to remember that the impact of knowledge management is correlated to the size of the organization, making it even more critical for large enterprise.
We will briefly explore three key factors in effective enterprise knowledge management systems and strategy:
Integration
Similar to the way legacy systems built and deployed over many years set the stage for ERP system demand, isolated small-scale deployments of knowledge management throughout a large enterprise is creating pools of knowledge dispersed throughout many organizations today and creating a need for centralization. A disparate strategy creates as many off-setting inefficiencies in having to locate the right knowledge source as it does efficiencies in the knowledge gleaned from those sources. An effective knowledge management system is centralized and gives a role-based view of the most relevant explicit knowledge, supported through integration with enterprise directories and intranets already in place.
Project Funding
In the age of globalization, two conflicting trends are taking place that affect enterprise knowledge management. To remain competitive, many enterprises have had to manage continual cost take-out initiatives and scrutinize the value-add of all activities like never before. The impact of this trend is that while many organizations and managers believe in the importance of knowledge management, they often look for the least expensive way to deploy tools that support it, thus compounding the integration issue.
Dr. Walczak’s Knowledge Management Process Model (Appendix 1) illustrates the cyclical, ongoing process required for effective knowledge management. Initiatives cannot be successfully deployed with linear thinking and processes. The global business environment we operate in today makes knowledge management more valuable than ever as team members must efficiently and effectively share both tacit and explicit knowledge from coast to coast and continent to continent. To empower the organization in this environment, management and funding boards must look for the most cost effective way to deploy knowledge management while still meeting minimum integration and ease of use requirements.
Measurement
Much of the dissatisfaction in knowledge management system deployments has been driven by the challenge of measuring the benefits. Where value is created and how it is counted is a significant challenge with any intellectual capital system. Is the number of pieces of intellectual capital submitted to the system an indication of the value generated? Obviously if no one is searching and reusing the assets, the organization has enjoyed little benefit from this effort.
:ad300 Another common measurement is the number or reads or downloads on the assets available. This is a de facto measurement that is often used as the best measurement of value without incurring additional cost. However, this metric also leaves much to be desired as it does not provide a representation on how the asset was used. To truly capture the value of intellectual capital, there must be a survey component that generates a record of how an asset is used and an estimate of time saved or quality derived from its use. Instinctively, most managers and practitioners balk at an explicit step to measure the value of intellectual capital because it counteracts the very benefit of intellectual capital reuse by taking explicit time away from the practitioner.
Conclusion
Knowledge Management has certainly entered the Trough of Disillusionment as it relates to Gartner’s hype cycle (Understanding hype cycles), but the discipline has much to offer when deployed in a manner consistent with the needs of an organization and addressing the three key factors of integration, funding, and measurement. Grant’s view of knowledge as capability is an effective approach to knowledge management but as with many academic resources on the topic, actionable strategies for deployment are difficult to derive.
If a large enterprise were to plan a knowledge management system that integrated well with other systems across the company, had funding support from management that was focused on the long-term success of the initiative, and carefully thought out the types of measurement that truly equate to value-add activity, the organization would be well positioned to enrich its knowledge capture, sharing, and reuse. Whether this would translate to a competitive advantage or a qualifier to compete depends on the specific industry and competitors and their knowledge management maturity.
References
Bercerra-Fernandez, I., Gonzalez, A., & Sabherwal, R. (2004). Knowledge Management. Pearson Education. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Grant, R. (2005). Contemporary Strategy Analysis. Blackwell Publishing. Malden, Massachussets.
Marketwire(2007). SM&A Promotes Dick Eassom to VP of Knowledge Management. Retrieved June 27, 2007, from marketwire.com
Understanding hype cycles. (n.d.). Gartner, Inc. retrieved 6/27/2007 from: gartner.com
Expert Role
Enterprise Knowledge Management
Bryan A. Harmsen
MGMT 4290 Business Strategy
University of Denver
Daniels College of Business
6/28/2007
Comments ...
No Comments for this page yet, add a comment ...
