Commentary on Principles of KM

After reading Carolyn’s post and the article entitled “Ten Principles for Knowledge Management Success,” it was exciting to see how many of the principles I plan on covering my literature report regarding E-business and KM related directly to the principles in this article.  This leads me to believe that the KM community may not have branched off and adapted for the e-business of the future, but that the whole direction of KM management is changing. 

One of the largest areas where this new direction of KM can be seen is in Principle 5 of the article, where the author proposes it is necessary to stay strategic in an ever changing business world.  KM cannot be determined a project because it has no definite ending, rather, you initiate KM, build it, and maintain it, adapting constantly to stay up to date.  Furthermore, constant monitoring of a KM database is required to prevent the containment of stale knowledge that no longer applies.  While this could be a benefit, providing employees with a description of past successes and failures, at the same time too much reliance could be placed on older knowledge rather on the development of new knowledge.  Because of this, extreme caution should be taken in the implementation and monitoring of knowledge databases.

principles of KM

http://www.crmadvocate.com/required/knova080805.pdf

This site gives ten principles to follow in order to achieve KM success. They are basically the same concepts we discussed in class. First realize its more than just a technology but a discipline for people. It needs to be supported by more than a single individual and motivated from the top. If people arent used to sharing, then management plans need to be rearranged in order to appease new KM structures. Sensativity towards organizational culture is crucial. KM cannot succeed if it becomes a distraction or burden. Information needs to stay current and to the point, but employees should not be discouraged if the system is challenging or too involved. Part of Km is consistent updates. Technology changes, just as information and knowledge is created, modernized, used, and passed along, and sometimes ‘thrown out’. Making a KM system part of a daily routine by incorporating it into existing systems or making it a required job task will get people involved in it as they see it with higher purpose. And train people to use it, not just once, but continually as it changes. The easier and quicker it is to use, the more people will find it a useful and efficient source. If the purpose of KM is to be the most efficient and gain knowledge for competitive advantage, what good is a system that wastes time on technological mishaps?

Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Firms

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>.

KM and Leadership

The U.S. Office of Personal Management characterizes leaders and KM by saying, “leaders must assume responsibility for the development of future leaders as coaches, mentors, teachers, and most of all, exemplars within and without leadership development programs.”

“The Leadership and Knowledge Management system focuses on identifying and addressing agency leadership competencies so that continuity of leadership is ensured, knowledge is shared across the organization, and an environment of continuous learning is present.”

http://www.opm.gov/hcaaf_resource_center/4-1.asp

KM Decline?

While searching the internet for something new to add to this blog, I came across another blog site that contained numerous other blog threads pertaining to knowledge management in www.knowledgeboard.com.  A post that caught my attention immediately, entitled “Is KM going down?” began a thread of posts with the suggestion that what we have learned in class is a growing trend could actually be a declining fad.  Although this is based off some rather bold assumptions (check out the article to find them out) it lead to a rather detailed explanation by several other bloggers clarifying that while it may appear that KM is on the decline, it is simply diversifying and expanding into new areas.  If you are looking at more information concerning the evolution of knowledge management, or would simply like to laugh at one guy’s idea getting shot down by a series of bloggers, take a look at:

 http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/discuss.cgi?thread_id=25

Corporate Blogging

I found this article on the BBC News about how there is a profession for writing blogs for corporations who are interested in getting their company name and product out there. It kind of sounds like a marketing gimmick for corporate leaders. This profession is known as “digital marketing consultants” who write blogs that anyone can read.

Check it out, it sounded interesting to me.

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03/the_business_of_blogging.html

Enterprise 2.0: The Cat is out of the Bag

I have purposefully sheltered the KM class up to this point from literature centered around Enterprise 2.0, as in my experience it really muddies the waters in the “Does KM = technology?” discussion.

I’m glad that happy state of affairs continued until you turned in your draft essays. As I reviewed the blog tonight, though, I’ve caught a number of you mention Enterprise 2.0 in your posts, and I’m not sure you know what it is. Since there are certain people who will have convulsions if you tell them you took a KM class and yet do not recognize the term, let me give you a couple of links.

First, here is the abstract of McAffee’s original article that introduced the term. As you can see, it addresses a lot more than technology, but the impetus (reflected in the name, following software naming conventions) is technology, and that focus persists even more strongly in the following discussions by academicians, consultants, and IT providers alike. Many of the latter used the term for “search and replace marketing” and Microsoft embraced it in its “People-Ready Business” campaign, with SharePoint (which we have also brushed upon in class and your blog posts) in the center.

Lately, folks are podcasting debates on whether Enterprise 2.0 can deliver its promise, or if that promise can ever be realized with mere technology, which brings us back full circle to KM, of course. And here’s a blog post by Tom Davenport (who has tended to argue against Enterprise 2.0) that makes that same connection. Now that the cat is out of the bag, you can find any number of blogs and articles on the subject, which of course relate to our KM debate. “The nonsense of Enterprise 2.0,” anyone?

Another KM blog!!!

I have been doing some extra blogging on the topic of KM and I have found that we are not the only crazy people out there (sorry, bad attempt at being funny). A man by the name of Ray Sims has a blog called “43 Knowledge Management definitions – and counting…” Sims started this blog in order to get a grasp on lack of consensus on a KM definition. Though Sims does not agree with the term “Knowledge Management” and describes it as an oxymoron, he realizes that if his title is going to include KM than he should know something about it. Anyway, check out his blog, I believe that there is now 54 different definitions on it. So, if anyone is still having trouble with your “what is KM” essay, maybe this will help.  Enjoy.

http://blog.simslearningconnections.com/?p=279 

E-Business Literature

The following articles compose the research for my literature presentation on knowledge management and its influence on E-Business.  I believe that this is a very important subject of knowledge management due to its increasing make-up of the overall business being done in the world today.  As more and more business begins to take place over the Internet, we will need new forms of knowledge management that aren’t just extensions of current knowledge management models, but rather models that apply specifically to knowledge being used in the Internet world.

 My primary article is:

Malhotra, Y. (2000). Knowledge Management for E-Business Performance:  Advancing Information Strategy to “Internet Time”. Information Strategy, The Executive’s Journal, 16 (4), 5-16.

While a lot of knowledge management focuses on the management of knowledge within corporations, little emphasis seems to be placed on the e-business and its management of knowledge.  This article considers the main assumptions of any information management strategy and refreshes them for modern business in an Internet embracing world.  I felt this would be an interesting topic to choose considering e-business is an enormous part of business being done today and knowledge management is just as important for this sector of business as well.

My secondary article is:

Fahey, L., Srivastava, R., Sharon, J.S., Smith, D.E. (2001). Linking E-Business and Operating Processes: The Role of Knowledge Management. IBM Systems Journal, 40 (4), 889-907.

E-business has made great strides in creating new methods in which business is accomplished, but has not yet completely incorporated into the knowledge management landscape.  This article focuses on how e-business knowledge management contributes to customer relationship management, supply chain management, and product development management. 

The most important difference I see between traditional knowledge management and the kind associated with e-businesses is the human relationship factor.  While even though sometimes limited in a traditional business setting, in-person human interaction is the decisive difference between traditional business models and their e-business counterparts.  Because of this knowledge management systems must be designed to take this factor into account.  Additionally, on-line accessibility plays an even larger role when dealing with e-businesses due to the fact that there is no physical place to turn to for help when on-line communication fails.  Overall, these and several other factors constitute specific elements of the knowledge management design that need restructuring when considering an e-business.

literature presentation and ‘nonsense in KM’

Today’s literature research presentation over effective ways to implement knowledge management and communities of practice in businesses targets many of the problems brought up by the ‘nonsense of KM’ article. One of the biggest challenges is getting people to trust the system. Knowing where and who their knowledge is going to, and its professional use will help people in their confidence to share. One of the 14 ways to get successfull sharing was having direct request to do so from supieriors, bosses, or other companies/co-workers. Knowing that the effort and time taken to ’share’ will be recognized and looked upon positively will be encouraging. It may also give opportunity for promotion and positive feedbacks and evaluations which help the employees. Also have specific questions that are straight forward and not ongoing will cut down on the time it takes to answer. The person providing information won’t have to guess what the question they are being asked is. They can provide direct answers that will also cut out possibilities of several follow up questions. Having direct access to these questions will also allow people to save time searching trough information bases. Time and incentives are as influencial in knowledge sharing as trust of job security and accountability. Addressing directly the problems involved and offering solutions such as the presentation today did, will help in building a stronger knowledge base and community of practice/sharing.