You are currently browsing chadlane's articles.
In many of the sources I have researched and other KM documents they point to trust and reciprocity for major reasons to transfer knowledge. In the ever increasing technological world I would argue that the people who would like to transfer knowledge are losing face. When communicating through email or other technological device many times people see that they are communicating with a computer not the person behind the computer. It has been discussed in class that knowledge is more likely to be transferred in a face-to-face interaction. This leads me to question whether the ever increasing capabilities of technology will eventually decrease knowledge sharing because of ones dependence on technology? Are people willing to trust a machine as they do people? Do we have greater ability to transfer and store knowledge but more reluctance to do so? Just something to think about…
Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Firms
Knowledge management is a key factor to the success of multinational firms. Many times in fact it is reverse knowledge transfer that gives the firm competitive advantage in its particular industry. Success to an increasing extent is dependent on the ease and speed in which knowledge is able to flow between the parent company and its subsidiaries. What has been identified as knowledge in this paper is forms of know how, such as product design, business practices, quality issues, distribution expertise, customer handling, and so on. The foreign subsidiaries become dependent on localized knowledge sources and their own local knowledge generation. It is a subsidiary’s ability to be accepted into the context of the society that will bring about product innovation and a better understanding of what this particular market is looking for. This means that local relationships become sources of knowledge that can relate to upgrading products, operation procedures, and business practices. This knowledge can then be transferred back to the parent company in a reverse knowledge transfer practice.
Reverse knowledge transfer is not a practice that is accepted in all organizational cultures. Many times in organizations you see knowledge disseminated by the parent company to its subsidiaries this is called hierarchical knowledge flow. This is a one way flow of knowledge and is less likely to allow a company to gain competitive advantage in localized markets of multinational firms. An external knowledge flow allows for a two way transfer of knowledge among subsidiaries and the parent company. The most progressive flow of knowledge is a network flow of knowledge in which knowledge is transferred from parent company to subsidiary and vice-versa and between peer subsidiaries. This is the most ideal transfer of knowledge as it is free flowing and allows for everyone to benefit from each others best practices.
Many times what prohibits reverse knowledge transfer is the organizational design. The parent company must identify the subsidiary’s ability to generate knowledge, and promote the exchange of that knowledge. In order to promote this exchange there must be direct links not only to the parent company from the subsidiary, but also between each subsidiary giving them a peer-to-peer aspect of knowledge transfer.
In many cases intra-firm linkage is based on trust and a personal relationship between the two subsidiaries. When trust and a feeling of reciprocity are present there is a much greater chance that knowledge transfer will take place. The question remains how a parent company can encourage this linkage between subsidiaries? The transferring of tacit knowledge is also encouraged by a tight link between companies. The basic understanding of tacit knowledge will encourage the transfer of knowledge as it will allow each company to better understand the information and interaction it receives from other subsidiaries.
Reverse knowledge transfer does not necessarily lead to a greater success for the overall corporation. There are times in which one’s ability to integrate this knowledge base and make use of it is hindered. Again this comes back to a company’s culture and their acceptance or capabilities of new methods. It must be reiterated that knowledge from logistically dispersed subsidiaries can be a crucial source of competitive advantage, but it is not always.
When discussing the relevance of reverse knowledge transfer in knowledge management it is essential for the rapid progress of some multinational firms. Reverse knowledge transfer allows the parent corporation to benefit from its subsidiaries and disperse its new knowledge throughout its corporation. Everyone then can benefit from best practices as they see fit in their organization.
Sources:
Rabbiosi, Larissa, comp. The Evolution of Reverse Knowledge Transfer with Multinational Corporations. Vers. 1. May 2005. Politecnico Di Milano. 25 Feb. 2008 http://www.triplehelix5.com/pdf/A108_THC5.pdf
Yang, Qin, Ram Mudambi, and Klaus Meyer, comps. Asymmetries Between ‘Traditional’ and Reverse Knowledge Flows in Multinational Firms: a Study of Acquisitions in Transition Economies. Vers. 1. Sept. 03. Temple University. 4 Mar. 2008 <http://www.klausmeyer.co.uk/publications/yang_mudambi_meyer_knowledge_transfer070328.pdf>.
In the case that I have presented the main focus was on communities of practice. Communities of practice have been recognized by Siemens and they have formalized a connection that many times is an informal connection. A community of practice is a group of people who are linked together by a common ability or a shared interest. This connection allows for these informal groups to establish rules, trust, and respect that lay the grounds for knowledge exchange within the group. The common interest and a desire to gain more knowledge on the interest is what drive these communities to exchange knowledge and benefit from one another’s best practices, successes and failures.
Siemens understood and believed in the wealth of knowledge that their lower level employees had about the product they worked on day in and day out. They also believed that through communities of practice this knowledge could be shared in a reverse bottom-up approach. Siemens intended on allowing their employees to establish these connections and then have them recognized by the corporation. The key element to the implementation of communities of practice is the recognition of potential communities. Siemens was successful at recognizing the potential communities and not making someone fit into a community, but instead allowing them to choose to be a part of that group.
The major difficulty of the formalization of communities of practice is that by nature communities of practice are informal. How can you formalize a process that doesn’t have rules? Siemens sought to not force the rules but foster the connections and this is what has made this project successful.
I have attached my presentation for further information.COmmunities of Practice
Revesrse knowledge Transfer Reverse Knowledge Transfer is a concept that I am continuously coming across within KM. It is simply the flow of knowledge in a direction opposite of the standard hierarchical top-down approach. This promotes company employees to make suggestions to improve the product that they are working with day in and day out. This approach allows for lower level employees to make valuable contributions to the product they are providing to the end consumer. This article gives a great view of this bottom-up approach and discusses the overall positives and negatives of the approach and how it could be implemented in a corporate setting.
This is worth browsing when you get some free time
The mission of BRINT originally was ‘Developing leading edge thinking and practice on contemporary business, technology, and knowledge management issues to facilitate organizational and individual performance, success, and fulfillment.’ Although this mission has since been changed it allowed for the first technology to change their legacy system to a much more user friendly and accessible system. They have taken on new initiatives to manage change, uncertainty and complexity through the exchange of knowledge within their corporation and also helping other corporations also exchange knowledge more freely. With the emergence of the Internet the increase in globalized information along with communication have played a huge role in dampening the effects of large catastrophes. The BRINT corporation is one that has taking up the initiatives to promote KM around the world and establish the benefits provided by KM. This Corporate website can you much information along the lines of KM and emerging technologies within the field.
Communities of practice are the informal formation of a small group with a common interest. This group communicates about experiences in the common field of interest and generates knowledge in order to help each other with day to day experiences. How can these informal groups be used in the corporate setting and be successful? Siemens has found a way to foster these relationships and allow them to flourish within the corporate setting. The first step is to identify potential communities of practice, common interest, work groups. The earlier you are able to formalize the group the less likely you are to meet resistance because formalization becomes a part of the groups culture. Then you must provide infrastructure necessary to interact and grow their common specific knowledge. This knowledge then can be used by the corporation when introducing new members to these assignments. These groups have been recognized within Siemens and have allowed for knowledge to travel in a bottom-up direction innovating the way of communication.
“Knowledge is information put to productive use. A transition from information to knowledge is possible only when a collaborative system does not force individuals to do what they are most reluctant to do-give away their most valued knowledge.(77)” It appears we keep running into this problem with knowledge management. People many times are reluctant to share specialized knowledge because it is what makes them valuable to their respective corporation. How can this selfishness be reduced in order to better peer-to-peer interaction and the free flow of knowledge? This is a question that many researchers and professionals must address if the concept and practice of knowledge management could ever be established on the corporate scene. Tiwana says, “Peer-to-peer netwroking is defined as the sharing of resources via direct exchange among individual systems in a digital network.(78)” These resources include human expertise, including tacit knowledge, insight, rules of thumb, and lessons learned. Peer-to-peer knowledge platforms allow peers to interact, ideally with a free flow of knowledge. These platforms can reduce the reluctance of humans to share information by building a community. When humans see the benefits of sharing their specialized knowledge they may begin to share that knowledge that may be specific to them. They will in return have access to other individuals knowledge and this may alleviate some of the reluctance they hold in sharing specialized knowledge. Amrit Tiwana points to four components of integration: Community building, context sharing, joint-activity tools, and reputation-building mechanisms. The peer-to-peer model is naturally extensible to KM applications because of its ability to facilitate integration of previously unconnected expertise. Amrit also says peer-to-peer platforms can sustain themselves only when their design accounts for how individuals are motivated to use them. This is important to take into account if you are ever considering the implementation of peer-to-peer platforms.
Source:
Tiwana, Amrit. “Affinity to Infinity in Peer-to-Peer Knowledge Platforms.” Communications of the ACM May 2003: 77-80. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Reeve’s, Fulton. 17 Jan. 2008. Keyword: Knowledge Management.
