Critical Factors Affecting KM Success Chapter Four

Chapter Objectives KM has various impacts on people, process, products and overall performance But why might KM solutions have different impacts on performance, depending on the specific organization’s circumstances? What, exactly, are the key factors that determine the suitabilityof alternative KM solutions? What, exactly, is the nature of their impacts?

Universalistic View of KM Historically, much of the KM literature appears to implicitly assume a universalisticview: There is a single best approach of managing knowledge, which should be adopted by all organizations in all circumstances. Eg: knowledge sharing is often recommended as useful to all organizations Yet: we believe that direction may sometimes represent an equally effective but more efficient alternative! In reality, there is no “magic bullet” No single universal KM solution works for all situations.

Contingency View of KM The contingency view suggests that no one approach is best under all circumstances “It depends!” Contingency perspective considers the path to success to include multiple alternative paths, with success achieved only when the appropriate path is selected eg, in organizational design, an organization design with few rules or procedures is appropriate for small organizations an organization design with extensive rules and procedures is appropriate for large organizations

What categories of contingency factors need we examine? Relational factors Organizational factors Psychological factors Knowledge factors KM Task related factors Technological factors

Organizational factors It is complex factors that includes Organization culture Organization structure Organization process (on job training, meetings, etc) Reward and inventive systems Information systems

Organization culture - Definitions The set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution, organization or group (Wikipedia) Wilkins and Dyer (1988) suggest that culture "is [composed] of the values, competencies, and beliefs of a group of people that strongly influence whether and how organizational strategies are implemented. (p. 522)."

Definitions … Schein (1990) defines culture as, "…a) a pattern of basic assumptions, b) invented, discovered, or developed by a given group, c) as it learns to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, d) that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore e) is to be taught to new members as the f) correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems

Factors in culture and impact

Importance of culture Karlsen & Gottschalk (2004) view culture as important because it shapes assumptions about what knowledge is worth exchanging; defines relationships between individual and organizational knowledge; Creates the context for social interaction that determines how knowledge will be shared in particular situations; shapes the processes by which new knowledge is created, legitimated, and distributed in organizations. Lack of technology does not prevent KM activity – it just means that KM activity must be accomplished in different ways.

Importance of culture Without the benefit of a culture that recognizes, encourages, and rewards KM activities, consistent performance of KM activities will not occur. Interaction and collaboration among employees is important to transmit tacit knowledge between individuals or convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge, thereby transforming it from the individual to the organizational level (Gold, et. al., 2001).

Factors in culture and impact Information Systems Combine people, processes, and technology Must be flexible and tailored to the type of knowledge being captured, shared, or created Include formal and informal approaches Impact Build networks that foster conversation, relationships, and trust among employees. Generate a collaborative environment in which employees know who knows what, know what was done before, and use this knowledge to resolve problems quickly and effectively.

Factors in culture and impact Organizational Structure Must be permeable and minimize the focus on organizational silos Must support learning and sharing of knowledge Encourages the formation of teams, work groups, and communities of practice Impact Allows the flow of knowledge regardless of employee role, job function, or other traditional boundaries. Facilitates sharing of knowledge and learning to create even more knowledge. Allows employees to bond socially and technically to share information, build on each others knowledge, and to solve problems.

Factors in culture and impact Reward Systems Consist of a balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators Encourage knowledge sharing across role and functional boundaries; Must not trivialize knowledge sharing efforts Include a formal assessment of achievements against knowledge management objectives Impact Encourage knowledge sharing through formal systems, such as financial incentives and compensation structures; and through informal systems such as peer-to-peer recognition. Acknowledge the value of sharing knowledge, the contributions people make, and the importance of not hoarding information or knowledge. Motivate employees to develop innovations that would help them do things right the first time.

Factors in culture and impact Processes It includes on the job training, mentoring, meetings, etc Connect people with other knowledge people Connect people with information Enable conversation of information to knowledge Encapsulate knowledge Disseminate knowledge throughout organization Impact Promote collaborative problem solving, streamlined workload, consolidated information, and enhanced performance.Enable learning, sharing of cross-functional expertise, and sharing of worker-to-worker knowledge. Develop information systems that enable information to seamlessly cross traditional silos.

Factors in culture and impact People Most significant element of a knowledge management system Employees need reassurances that they are still valued after they give up their knowledge Level of trust greatly influences the amount of knowledge that is shared Impact Fosters an environment where employees trust that their knowledge is valued and ensures that the culture grows at the right pace, with the right people, and in the right mix. Allows employees to do a better job of aggregating useful information, and make it available to others who need it when they need it.

Factors in culture and impact Leadership Provides strong and dedicated commitment to knowledge management initiatives Leads by example Fosters open knowledge sharing by creating an environment built on trust Fosters a belief that organizational learning and knowledge management are critical Develops a customer-centered business orientation Impact Creates the vision, mission, objectives, and ethics code for the organization as it develops its knowledge management system. Endorses and sustains knowledge management initiatives by taking on the role of coach and mentor. Removes barriers to progress. Reinforces and rewards positive behaviors and promotes the right people.Moves the entire organization toward knowledge management.

Psychological Factors These are factors that shape in the individual behavior to engage in knowledge sharing activities Studied usually using Theory of planned beviour The theory has the following constructs Attitude Subjective norms Controlling variables Intention Behavior/ knowledge sharing

Psychological Factors Attitude – it describes one’s favorable/unfavorable feelings of performing a behavior Subjective norms – it reflects one’s perception of relevant others’ opinions on whether or not he or she should perform a particular behavior In the organization context, it refers to the supervisors and colleagues in the office Perceived behavioral control (PBC) – it reflects one’s perceptions of the availability of resources or opportunities necessary for performing a behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). PBC contains two variables self-efficacy (SE) which is defined as individual judgments of a person’s capabilities to perform a behavior. Controllability is defined as individual judgments about the availability of resources and opportunities to perform the behavior

Relation Fiske identified four types of relationships Communal sharing relationship – someone interacts with somebody because that person is the member of the bounded group Knowledge is freely being shared among people belonging to the same group or dyad following the idea “what is mine yours” Authority ranking relationship is based on the model of asymmetry among people who are linearly ordered along some hierarchical social relationship Knowledge shared between superior and subordinate or between expert and novice

Relation … Equality matching relationships are based on the model of even balance or one to one correspondence People share knowledge since they expect to receive similar return in the future Market pricing relationship- people reduce all relevant features and components under consideration to a single value, frequently money that allows rational cost benefit analysis between qualitatively and quantitatively diverse factors Knowledge is shared when the perceived financial reward is sufficiently high

Task Characteristics KM processes that are appropriate for an organizational subunit depend on the nature of its tasks •Lawrence & Lorsch[1967]: Found that subunits that perform certain, predictable tasks were more effective when they were formally structured •Van de Ven& Delbecq[1974]: Task difficulty: problems in analyzing the work and stating performance procedures Task variability: the variety of problems encountered in the tasks •Spender [1996]: Task uncertainty Task interdependence

Task uncertainty Task uncertainty reduces the organization’s ability to develop routines. Hence, knowledge application would depend on direction. When task uncertainty is high, externalization and internalization would be more costly due to changing problems and tasks. Knowledge is more likely to remain tacit, thus inhibiting ability to use combination or exchange. Hence, direction or socialization is recommended. Example: Individuals responsible for product design when customer tastes are expected to change frequently would benefit most from socializing with, and receiving directions from, each other.

Task uncertainty … When task uncertainty is low, routines can be developed for the knowledge supporting them. Benefits from externalizing or internalizing knowledge related to any particular task tends to accumulate through the greater occurrence of that task. Hence, routines, exchange, combination, internalization, or externalization are recommended. •Example: Individuals performing tasks in credit and accounts receivables, large benefits are obtained from routines: eg, credit-checking procedures exchange: eg, sharing of standards and policies combination: eg, integration of explicit knowledge that different credit analysts have generated from their individual experiences externalization and internalization: eg, training and learning of existing policies by new credit analysts

Effects of Task Characteristics on KM Processes

Task interdependence Task interdependence indicates the extent to which the subunit’s achievement of its goals depends on the efforts of other subunits [Jarvenpaa& Staples 2001] For interdependent tasks, performance relies mainly on dynamic interaction in which individual units of knowledge are combined and transformed through communication and coordination across different functional groups

independent tasks For independent tasks, performance primarily requires only knowledge directly available to the individuals within the subunit Tasks rely mainly on distinctive units of knowledge, such as “functional knowledge embodied in a specific group of engineers, elemental technologies, information processing devices, databases, and patents” [Kusonakiet al. 1998] Tasks often require deep knowledge in a particular area Learning processes tend to be personal and individualized

Knowledge characteristics Explicit vs. tacit •Procedural vs. declarative •General vs. specific

Effects of Knowledge Characteristics on KM Processes

Procedural and Declarative Knowledge For knowledge discovery, capture, and sharing, different KM subprocesses are recommended for explicit and tacit knowledge. But the same processes can be used for either declarative or procedural knowledge. For knowledge application, no distinction is needed: direction and routines can be used to apply either explicit or tacit knowledge. But these processes should be used mainly for procedural knowledge. Recall: Procedural knowledge (“know how”) focuses on the processes or means that should be used to perform the required tasks, such ashow to perform the processes needed to achieve the specific product design Declarative knowledge (“know what”) focuses on beliefs about relationships among variables

Identification of Appropriate KM Solutions Assess the contingency factors. Identify the KM processes based on each contingency factor. Prioritize the needed KM processes. Identify the existing KM processes. Identify the additional needed KM processes. Assess the KM infrastructure. Develop additional needed KM systems, mechanisms, and technologies.

Appropriate Circumstances for Various KM Processes

Prioritizing KM Processes for Doubtfire Computer Corporation

Conclusion Distinguished between universalistic and contingency views Taking the contingency view led us to examine why KM solutions might have different impacts on performance, depending on the circumstances We examined a variety of contingency factors, and the effects they have on the suitabilityof alternative KM processes