6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management University of Limerick, Ireland 8-9 September 2005 Edited by Dr Dan Remenyi Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Copyright The Authors, 2005. All Rights Reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission may be made without written permission from the individual authors. Papers have been double-blind peer reviewed before final submission to the conference and the Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management (EJKM). A selection of papers will comprise a special edition of the Journal in November 2005 Initially paper abstracts were read and selected by the conference panel for submission as possible papers for the conference Many thanks to the reviewers who helped ensure the quality of the full papers.

ISBN:

1-905305-06-0

Published by Academic Conferences Limited Reading UK 44-118-972-4148 [email protected]

ECKM 2005 Contents Paper Title

Author(s)

Proceedings Page

Preface

vii

Biographies of Conference Chairs, Programme Chair, Keynote Speaker and Mini-track Chairs

ix

Biographies of contributing authors

x

Keynote Paper: Perspectives on Intellectual Capital

Bernard Marr Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Management, UK

1

A Proposed Study on the Evaluation of Strategic Alignment in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries

Jaflah AlAmmary and Chun Che Fung School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, Western Australia

7

A Framework of Intangible Valuation Areas and Antecedents

Andreas N. Andreou and Annie Green George Washington University, DC, USA

15

Knowledge Sharing: A Critical Success Factor for Risk Management

Athina Anthropopoulou Aston University, Birmingham, UK

26

A Framework of Personal Knowledge Management in the Context of Organisational Knowledge Management

1 2 Dace Apshvalka and Peter Wendorff Riga Technical University, Latvia; 2ASSET GmbH, Germany

34

Promoting People-Focused Knowledge Management in the Engineering Industry: The Case of IDOM

Nekane Aramburu1, Josune Sáenz1 and 2 Luis Ramos 1 ESTE School of Management, University of 2 Deusto, San Sebastián, Spain; IDOM, S.A., Bilbao, Spain

42

At the Crossroads of Knowledge Management with Social Software

Gabriela Avram Interaction Design Center, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland

49

Knowledge Creation and Sharing Complex Methods of Inquiry and Inconsistent Theory

Peter M. Bednar, David Anderson and Christine E. Welch University of Portsmouth, UK

59

The Knowledge Map, A Lubricant for the Firm’s Machinery

Anders Berglund Luleå University of Technology, Sweden

67

Accelerating Technology Transfer by Knowledge-Oriented Cooperation

1 2 Marco Bettoni , Christoph Clases and Theo 1 Wehner 1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology 2 Zürich, Switzerland; Olothurn University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland

74

The Impact of Question Response Structure on Recipient Attitude: A Field Study in Knowledge Sharing

Heather Bircham-Connolly, James Corner and Stephen Bowden University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

83

The First Experiences With IC Evaluation and Measurement in Serbia and Montenegro

Sladjana Cabrilo Faculty of Management, Branimira Cosica, Serbia and Montenegro

91

1

i

Paper Title

Author(s)

Proceedings Page

Intellectual Capital and Value Creation: Evidencing in Portuguese Banking Industry

Maria do Rosário Cabrita and Jorge Landeiro Vaz Technical University, Institute of Economics and Business Administration, Portugal

98

Dynamic Analysis of Knowledge Management Practices in Consulting Firms. An Approach From the Business Dynamics Methodology

Nuria Calvo Babío University of A Coruña, Spain

107

Dynamic Impact of Knowledge on the Innovation Process

Annick Castiaux University of Namur, Belgium

116

Implementing e-Business Through KM: An Empirical Investigation in SMEs

Juan G Cegarra Navarro Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, Spain

122

A Personal Knowledge Management Tool That Supports Organizational Knowledge Management

Larry Cheung, Paul Chung and Roger Stone Loughborough University, UK

130

Combining Scientific Research With Knowledge Work in Finnish Bioindustries

Elena Chukhlantseva and Kaisa Hellström University of Turku, Finland

136

Complexity Theory and Knowledge Management Application

Zoë Dann and Ian Barclay Liverpool John Moores University, UK

145

An Answer Shared is a Problem Solved: Encouraging a Knowledge Sharing Culture in the NHS.

Caroline De Brún National Knowledge Service, Oxford, UK

154

Knowledge Management Strategy – What Happened Next?

John S Edwards Aston Business School, Birmingham, UK

163

Integrating Action Learning and Knowledge Sharing for Developing Cooperation Networks Between SMEs in EU15 and New EU Member States

Tiit Elenurm Estonian Business School, Tallinn, Estonia

171

The Intellectual Capital of the United States

G. Scott Erickson1 and Helen N. Rothberg2 Ithaca College, Ithaca, USA, 2Marist College, Poughkeepsie, USA

178

On the Elicitation of Knowledge in Collaborative Decision Making Settings

Christina E. Evangelou , Nikos 1 2 Karacapilidis , Omar Abou Khaled and 2 Houda Chabbi Drissi 1 University of Patras, Greece; 2University of Applied Sciences of Western Switzerland Switzerland

184

Knowledge Management Strategies of Software Development Organisations

Péter Fehér Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary

190

Lighting up ‘Blind Spots’ While Measuring Knowledge Capital

Andrea Fried and Fabricio Orellana Wüstenrot & Württembergische- InformatikGmbH, Germany

198

The Role of Document Classification Structure in Knowledge Sharing: Improving Knowledge Sharing Within the Organization by Creating Sample Document Repositories

Gyula Fulop1, Laszlo Hernadi2 Janos Kormos3and Zoltan C Kovacs4 1 University of Miskolc, Hungary; 2HERR Ltd. Debrecen, Hungary; 3University of 4 Debrecen, Hungary; KRIPTO Research Debrecen, Hungary

206

Knowledge Management in Technology Networks – A Qualitative Research Study

Waltraud Grillitsch, Alexandra Stingl and Robert Neumann University of Klagenfurt, Austria

213

1

1

ii

Paper Title

Author(s)

Proceedings Page

Knowledge Sharing via Technology

Meliha Handzic and Angela Lee Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Bosnia-Herzegovina

221

A Process Framework for an Interoperable Semantic Enterprise Environment

Jörg Härtwig and Karsten Böhm Institute of Computer Science, University of Leipzig, Germany

227

Knowledge Management in Realist Perspective: Analysing a University’s plan for Strategic Change

Lars Bo Henriksen Aalborg University, Denmark

237

Knowledge Management and Business Intelligence: The Importance of Integration

Richard T. Herschel St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, USA

245

How to measure IC in regional clusters? The Intellectual Capital Cluster Index (ICCI)®

Jose Hervas-Oliver Polytechnic University of Valencia , Spain

251

Managing Project and Process Knowledge in a Pan European Initiative

Ali G Hessami and Kurt Andersen Atkins Global, London, UK

258

How can we Assess Knowledge Management? Constructing a Holistic Assessment Framework of KM

Ying-Hsun Hung 1,2; Seng-Cho T. Chou 2 and Yu-Shu Chen 3 1 Hwa-Hsia Institute of Technology, Taiwan; 2 National Taiwan University, Taiwan; 3 National Taipei University, Taiwan

264

Management Control and the Dynamics of Knowledge Sharing In Knowledge Intensive Organizations

Matti Koivuaho Tampere University of Technology, Finland

279

A Complexity Theory Approach to Knowledge Management – Towards a Better Understanding of Communication and Knowledge Flows in Software Development

Matti Koivuaho and Harri Laihonen Tampere University of Technology, Finland

271

Knowledge Creation and Sharing Mechanisms – Valuating Knowledge Management of Inter-Firm Human Resources

Jeanette Lemmergaard, Line Povlsen and Anna Bay Damholt University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

286

Assessing the Levels of Knowledge Transfer Within E-Commerce Websites of Tourist Organisations in Africa

Tonderai Maswera, Ray Dawson and Janet Edwards Research School of Informatics, Loughborough University, UK

293

Codified Knowledge Management – a Strategic Approach to KM, Based on the Exploitation of Existing Organizational Resources and Capabilities, Using Repository Based KMS

John G McCarthy, Catherine Parkes and Fergal McGrath University of Limerick, Castletroy, Ireland

301

An Integrated (‘Unitas’) Approach to Knowledge Management Strategy

Fergal McGrath and Rebecca Purcell, University of Limerick, Ireland

308

Knowledge Creation and Sharing in a Project Team: An Organizational Analysis Based on the Concept of Organizational Relation

Piero Migliarese and Saverino Verteramo Department of Business Science University of Calabria, Italy

316

Knowledge Creation in Groups: The Value of Cognitive Diversity, Transactive Memory, and Openmindedness Norms

Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas University of Sydney, Australia

326

iii

Paper Title

Author(s)

Proceedings Page

SWITCH ON - Semantic Web Integration Through Converging Hybrid Ontologies

Sandra Moffett and Martin Doherty University of Ulster at Magee, Londonderry, Ireland

334

Knowledge Acquisition for Building Lightweight Ontologies

Eni Mustafaraj1, Martin Hoof2, and Bernd Freisleben1 1 University of Marburg, Germany; 2 Department of Electrical Engineering, Fachhochschule Kaiserslautern, Germany

342

Towards the Development of a Conceptual Framework for Knowledge Enhanced e-Workflow Modelling

John Ndeta and Farhi Marir, London Metropolitan University, UK

351

Communicative Action in Intellectual Capital Creation: An Empirical Test

David O’Donnell1, Peter Cleary2 Nick 3 4 4 Bontis , Philip O’Regan and Tom Kennedy 1 Intellectual Capital Research Institute, 2 Limerick, Ireland; Department of Accounting, University College Cork, Ireland; 3McMaster University, Hamilton, 4 Canada; Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland

357

The Paradox of Sharing Knowledge Despite Providing Incomplete Information Using a Visual Format: The Example of IT Strategy

Gary R Oliver, University of Sydney, Australia

366

Trust and Knowledge Management in the Construction Industry

Anthony Olomolaiye and Charles Egbu Glasgow Caledonian University, UK

375

A Sociotechnical Based KM Solution for Service and Support

Abiodun Dominic Oyeniran Staffordshire University, UK

383

The Applicability of Knowledge Management as an Aid to Pharmaceutical Innovation

Thomas Parsons, Thomas Jackson, Ray Dawson and Holger Adelmann Loughborough University, UK

391

A Prototype Knowledge Management Platform for Modern Rural Energy Services in Thailand

Janjira Payakpate1, Chun Che Fung1, Sukruedee Nathakaranakule2, Dora 1 Marinova 1 School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, Australia 2 Naresuan University, Thailand

398

Competitive Intelligence and Coevolution within an Organisation Population

Mirva Peltoniemi and Elisa Vuori Tampere University of Technology, Finland

404

1 2 Ann Tzu-Ju Peng and Enya Yu-Shih Lee Business Administration Department, 2 Providence University, Taiwan; Department of Business Administration, National Chengchi University, Taiwan

412

Ann Tzu-Ju Peng1 and Johnson C.H.Yang2 Business Administration Department, 2 Providence University, Taiwan; Distribution Business Group, Sinon Co., Taichung, Taiwan

421

Ana Maria Pereira and Isabel Ramos School of Engineering of University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

434

Healthcare Intellectual Capital: A Framework of Analysis at the Hospital Level and the Alliance Level Measuring the Performance of Cooperative Strategies With a Competitor: An Intellectual Capital Perspective of a Case Study in Taiwan Competitive Intelligence an Exploratory Study

1

1

iv

Paper Title

Author(s)

Proceedings Page

A Framework for Characterizing Knowledge Management Systems

Mário Paulo Pinto1, Filomena Castro Lopes2and Maria Paula Morais2 1 ESEIG, Rua D. Sancho I, Portugal; 2 Universidade Portucalense, Porto, Portugal

442

Measurement of Business Intelligence in a Finnish Telecommunications Company

1 1 Virpi Pirttimäki , Antti Lönnqvist and Antti 2 Karjaluoto 1 Tampere University of Technology, Finland; 2 Elisa Corporation, Finland

451

The Impact of Organisational Bureaucracy on the Determinants of Knowledge Acquisition

John D. Politis Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai Men’s College, United Arab Emirates

459

The Requirement for Management of Knowledge Concerning the Assessment of Intellectual Capital

Agnieta Pretorius and Petrie Coetzee Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa

468

The Organizational Mind: A Comprehensive Framework for the Intelligent Organization

Isabel Ramos Information System Department, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

478

Opportunities and Challenges for Collaborative Task Management Based on Enterprise Services Architecture

Uwe V. Riss and Camilla Wagland SAP AG, Walldorf, Germany

485

Absorptive Capacity for R&D Results: What Types of Knowledge Drive it?

Arturo Rodriguez, Stanislav Ranguelov and Markus Hagemeister University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Spain

494

A Conceptual Framework for the Use of Customer Knowledge in Business-toBusiness Markets

Minna Rollins1 and Wesley J. Johnston2 Turku School of Economics and Business 2 Administration, Finland; Center for Business and Industrial Marketing, USA

503

Developing Strategic Communication Strategies for Cultivating Communities of Practice

Donald C. Ropes Inholland University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

510

Knowledge Management Tools to Embed the Logic of Human Capital Analysis Within the Financial Markets: An Open Systems Approach

Carol Royal1 and Loretta O’Donnell2 University of New South Wales Sydney, 2 Australia; Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

518

The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Corporate Culture: An Outlook on Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs)

Soumit Sain and Julia Ihlenfeld University of Bochum, Cologne, Germany

527

Knowledge Management in a Brazilian Engineering and Construction Company

José Renato Sátiro Santiago Junior University of São Paulo, Brazil

535

Supporting the Elicitation of Real Customer Needs Through Customer Knowledge Management for Innovation

Maria Semmelrock-Picej, Wolfgang Ebner, Harald Semmelrock and Marko Anzelak eBusiness Institute biztec, University of Klagenfurt, Austria

544

Competence Upgrades by Knowledge Transfer in Networks of Excellence

Christian-Andreas Schumann; and Claudia Tittmann University of Applied Sciences Zwickau, Germany

551

Knowledge Management and Management Theory: An Analysis of Sullivan’s Conceptualisation of Knowledge Within Organisations

Peter Sheen1 and Neal Ryan2 University of Southern Queensland, 2 Australia; Queensland University of Technology, Australia

557

1

1

1

v

Paper Title

Author(s)

Proceedings Page

The Role of KIBS in the IC Development of Regional Clusters

Anssi Smedlund and Marja Toivonen Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki, Finland

567

Intellectual Capital and National Competitiveness: A Critical Examination. Case Finland

Pirjo Ståhle and Aino Pöyhönen Lappeenranta University of Technology, Finland

575

IC and KM in a Macroeconomic Perspective: The Portuguese Case

Eduardo Tomé Instituto Superior de Serviço Social de Beja (ISSSB), Portugal

584

The Possibilities of Agent-based Modelling in the Context of Knowledge Management

Elisa Vuori and Mirva Peltoniemi Tampere University of Technology, Finland

594

Coordination Mechanisms for Knowledge Work: A Case Study

John Walsh Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, Ireland

601

The Knowledge Management Strategy of Agile Software Development

Peter Wendorff1, Dace Apshvalka2 ASSET GmbH, Germany; 2Riga Technical University, Latvia

608

Inter-Organisational Collaboration; A Social Network Analysis Approach

Eoin Whelan and Brian Donnellan Centre for Innovation and Structural Change, National University of Ireland, Galway

616

Narratives of Knowledge and Intelligence, Beyond the Tacit and Explicit

Roy Williams University of Portsmouth, UK

622

A Multidimensional Trust, Self-Efficacy, and Outcome Expectation Model of Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: A Study of Virtual Community of Professional Societies

1 2 Chia-Hui Yen , Meng-Hsiang Hsu and 2 Cien-Chih Huang 1 Wu-Feng Institute of Technology, Chiayi, Taiwan; 2National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

633

Knowledge Discovery From Unstructured Data

Gopalaswamy Balasubramanian and Ramamurthi Suresh Institute for Financial Management and Research, Chennai, India

641

Case Management in Social Service Organizations: A Knowledge Management Approach

C.F. Cheung, C.S. Leung, K.F. Chu and W.B. Lee The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong

650

1

vi

Preface The 6th European Conference on Knowledge Management (ECKM 2005) is being held this year at the University of Limerick, Ireland. ECKM has once again attracted another set of most interesting research papers from 34 different countries. Furthermore, the quality of these papers continues to improve. This year the conference is very pleased to have attracted two well known figures in the Knowledge Management community to deliver keynote addresses. The first will be presented by Bernard Marr from Cranfield University, who will speak on the topic of Perspectives on Intellectual Capital - the challenges of measuring and managing this critical value driver. The second by Larry Prusak, who is a leading thinker and prolific author in the KM field, is on the topic of The past, present and future of Knowledge Management. The conference has also developed two specialist mini-tracks. One of these is on the topic of IC and KM - the Macro Dimension and is being led by José Viedma Marti from Barcelona. This mini-track addresses issues related to smart cities and regions. The second is on the topic of Measuring and Evaluating IC and Knowledge Assets and is led by Bernard Marr. This mini-track focuses on the key issue of evaluation. It has been a very enjoyable and enlightening experience to have been involved in the preparation of these proceedings and I wish all the researchers and authors concerned well in furthering their research in their chosen topics.

Dan Remenyi Visiting Professor School of Systems and Data Studies Trinity College Dublin [email protected]

vii

Conference Chair: Fergal McGrath, University of Limerick, Ireland Programme Chair: Dan Remenyi, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland Conference Executive: Joan Ballantine, Queens University, Belfast, UK, [email protected] Professor Sven Carlsson, Jönköping International Business School, Sweden, [email protected] Daniele Chauvel, Conservatoire Nationale des Arts et Métiers, France, [email protected] Charles Despres, Conservatoire Nationale des Arts et Metiers, Paris, France, [email protected] Meliha Handzic, Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Croatia, [email protected] Barnard Marr, Cranfield School of Management, UK [email protected] Fergal McGrath, University of Limerick, Ireland, [email protected] Professor Dan Remenyi, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland [email protected] Professor Jose Viedma Marti, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain, [email protected] Dr Roy Williams, University of Portsmouth, UK [email protected] Mini-track Chairs: Measuring and Evaluating IC and Knowledge Assets - Bernard Marr, Cranfield School of Management, UK IC and KM-The macro dimension – Jose Viedma Marti, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain Conference Committee: The conference programme committee consists of key people in the Knowledge Management and IS community: Gabriela Avram (Centre de Recherche Public, Luxembourg), Joan Ballantine (Queens University Belfast, UK), Sue Balint (University of Paisley, Scotland), Frank Bannister (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland), Diane Benjamin (National Health Service, UK), Egon Berghout (Groningen University, Netherlands), Heather Bircham-Connolly (University of Waikato, New Zealand), Janis Briedis (Riga Business School, Latvia), Ann Brown, (CASS Business School, London, UK), John Byrne (RIMT, Melbourne, Australia), Sven Carlsson (Jönköping International Business School, Sweden), Daniele Chauvel (Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers, Paris, France), Reet Cronk (Harding University, USA), Enrique Dans (Instituto de Empresa, Spain), Farhad Daneshgar (University of New South Wales, Australia), John Deary (Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai), Charles Despres (Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers, Paris, France), John Edwards (Aston University, UK), Jamal El Den (American University of Beirut, Lebanon), Tiit Elenurm (Estonian Business School), Mercy Escalante (Sao Paulo University, Brazil), Andras Gabor (Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration, Hungary), Sean Gadman (International Business School, Isle of Man, UK), Andrew Goh (University of South Australia), David Gurteen (Gurteen Associates, UK), Khalid Hafeez (University of Bradford, UK), Matthew Hall (Aston University, UK), Meliha Handzic (Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Croatia), Lars Bo Henriksen (Aalborg University, Denmark), Ali Hessami (Atkins Global, UK), Ashok Jashapara (Loughborough University, UK), Monika Kriaucioniene (Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania), Farhi Marir (University of North London, UK), Olivera Marjanovic (University of New South Wales, Australia), Bill Martin (RMIT, Melbourne, Australia), Fergal McGrath (University of Limerick, Ireland), Sandra Moffett (University of Ulster, Ireland), Arthur Money (Henley Management College, UK), David O’Donnell (Intellectual Capital Research Institute of Ireland), Gary Oliver (University of Sydney, Australia), Kaushik Pandya (University of Luton, UK), Patricia Ordonez de Pablos (Universidad de Oviedo, Spain), Jim Palmer (Caldwell Palmer Group, USA), Tzu-Ju Peng (Providence University, Taiwan), Rajesh Pillania (Institute for Integrated Learning in Management, India), Selwyn Piramuthu (University of Florida, Gainesville, USA), John Politis (Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai),Dan Remenyi (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland), Carol Royal (University of New South Wales, Australia), John Saee (IESEG School of Management, Lille, France), Kamaljeet Sandhu (University of Wollongong, Gwynnveville, Australia), Dave Snowden (IBM Global Services), Siva Sockalingam (Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland), Jolanta Stankeviciute (University College London, UK), Ramayah Thurasamy (Universiti Sains Malaysia), Edward Truch (Knowledgepartners, UK), José María Viedma (Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Spain), Andrey Volkov (Moscow State University of Management, Russia), Roy Williams (University of Portsmouth, UK), Les Worrall, (Wolverhampton University Business School, UK).

viii

Biographies of Conference Chairs, Programme Chair, Mini-track Chairs and Keynote Speaker Fergal Mcgrath is senior lecturer in Information Management at the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick. A graduate electronic engineer, he worked in Australia and the UK and went on to establish an engineering design company, Seagull Electronics Ltd. Having completed an MBA in 1989 he has since pursued an academic career in the area of Information and Knowledge Management. Fergal completed a doctorate in 2000 at the Henley Management College/Brunel University in the UK. His research interests are in the application of Institution Economics to Information and Knowledge Management. He heads up the AIB Research Centre for Information and Knowledge Management, which researches organisational strategies in relation to the Information Knowledge resource. He is also head of the Department of Management and Marketing, University of Limerick. Dr Dan Remenyi is a Visiting Professor in Information Systems Management at the School of Systems and Data Studies at Trinity College Dublin and an associated member of Faculty at Henley Management College in the United Kingdom. His original academic interests are in the field of information systems management and he has researched and been published widely in that area. In recent years he has taken a strong interest in research methodology and the sociology of research. He now works extensively with research candidates and their supervisors at both doctoral and masters level. He conducts a number of seminars to topics related to improving effective academic research and obtaining better results. He has authored or co-authored more than 30 books and some 50 academically refereed papers. He is published in all 4 of the A rated Journals in the United Kingdom in Information Systems Management. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board of Acta Commercii (a general management journal) and the Journal of Information Technology. He is the editor of the Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation and advisor to a number of other electronic journals. Bernard Marr is a Research Fellow in the Centre for Business Performance at Cranfield School of Management and a Visiting Professor at the University of Basilicata, Italy. Prior to joining Cranfield in 1999 he held a research position at the Judge Institute of Management Studies at Cambridge University. Currently, Bernard is chairman of the PMA intellectual capital group and heads various international research projects on strategic value creation and the measurement of intellectual capital. He has produced over 75 publications including books, reports, and articles on related topics such as balanced scorecards, strategy maps, intellectual capital, intangible assets, and performance management software applications. He is a member of editorial boards of many leading journals in the field and is a frequent keynote presenter at international conferences. Jose M. Viedma is a Doctor of Industrial Engineering, a Graduate in Economics and Professor of Business Administration at the U.P.C., Polytechnic University of Catalonia in Barcelona, Spain. He teaches on the subject of knowledge management, intellectual capital management and organisational learning. He has held top executive positions in computer services and management consultancy firms. He is a regular speaker in International conferences and congresses on Knowledge and Intellectual Capital Management such as World Congress on Intellectual Capital and Innovation and European Conference on Knowledge Management. His current field of research and interest is focused on knowledge management and intellectual capital management and he has consulted and developed management frameworks and systems world wide on those matters. Keynote Speaker: Larry Prusak is a researcher and consultant and was formerly the founder and Executive Director of IBM Institute for Knowledge Management (IKM), a global consortium of member organizations engaged in advancing the practice of knowledge management through action research. Larry has had extensive experience, within the U.S. and internationally, in helping organizations work with their information and knowledge resources. He has also consulted with many U.S. and overseas government agencies and international organizations (NGO’s). He currently teaches in the knowledge management executive education program at the Harvard Business School, and is a distinguished Scholar in Residence at Babson College, where he co-directs a knowledge research program.

ix

Biographies of contributing authors (in alphabetical order) David Anderson is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Portsmouth, UK. His research covers Logic and History of Computing among other things. He has significant experience of academic teaching and research and has relevant publications in his research areas. Athina Anthropopoulou is a research student at Aston Business School in the U.K. (Operations and Information Management Group) and is currently at the final year of her PhD on knowledge management in healthcare organizations. She holds a degree in Information Systems (Athens University of Economics and Business, Greece) and a M.B.A. (Athens Laboratory of Business Administration, Greece). She has worked for 6 years in Greek and international consulting groups as an I.T. & Management Consultant, focusing on the public sector. Her research interests are on knowledge management, healthcare management, and risk management. Gabriela Avram holds a PhD in Business Information Systems from the Academy of Economic Studies in Bucharest, Romania. The topic of her thesis was the Evaluation of Information Systems. She used to work as a computer programmer before accepting a teaching position in academia. In 2003, she obtained an ERCIM post-doctoral fellowship that gave her the chance to join successively two different European research institutes: the Fraunhofer Institute of Experimental Software Engineering in Kaiserslautern, Germany, and the Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor in Luxembourg. During that 18 months period, her research topics were Knowledge Management and e-learning, with a special focus on communities of practice, the facilitation of online communities, and open source software development communities. In June 2005, she joined the Interaction Design Centre at the University of Limerick to work on a project dedicated to social, organizational and cultural aspects of globally distributed software development, under the supervision of Prof. Liam Bannon. Her current research focuses on Social Software and online communities facilitation.Her weblog named Coniecto (http://coniecto.blogspot.com) is mainly dedicated to her research topics. Marco Anzelak studied mechanical engineering and computer science at the Universities of Graz and Klagenfurt. He has a degree in computer science from the University of Klagenfurt. In his Master thesis he developed a knowledge management system in a large Austrian company. He is currently employed as researcher at the department for business technologies, eBusiness (biztec) at the University of Klagenfurt. His research interests are: Knowledge management in manufacturing facilities, Content-, Document- and Knowledge management with WEB-Technologies, Knowledge Engineering. Peter M. Bednar is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Portsmouth, UK and is affiliated with the Department of Informatics at Lund University, Sweden. His research covers contextual analysis, organisational change and information systems development, apart from academic teaching and research he also has an industrial background. Marco Bettoni is an independent consultant and guest researcher with the Center for Organizational and Work Sciences of ETH Zürich focusing on knowledge-oriented cooperation. From 1977 to 2003 researcher, engineer and teacher with industrial and academic organizations in the domains of machine design, engineering education, IT development, knowledge engineering and knowledge management. Heather Bircham-Connolly is in her second year of her PhD at The University of Waikato, under the guidance of Jim Corner and Steve Bowden. Her area of research interest is knowledge sharing for decision making, with a focus on how responses to question of a certain structure influence a recipient’s attitude towards the knowledge they receive. At the same time as working on her thesis, Heather has been involved with teaching a number of courses in various departments within The Waikato Management School. She has also had the opportunity to represent the School in a number of business debates on Sustainability. Prior to undertaking her PhD, Heather was based in Australia as a business consultant, specialising in risk, audit and compliance management systems. Caroline De Brún (née Papi) graduated from University of North London, in 1998, with an MA in Library and Information Studies. Her first professional role was as Assistant Librarian for Fair Mile Hospital Professional Library. In 2000, she was appointed Library Manager for Berkshire Health Informatics Shared Services, responsible for providing library services and search skills training to primary care staff, and for developing a knowledge management strategy for the organisation.In 2002, Caroline became the Primary Care Outreach Librarian for Oxfordshire. This role involved travelling to GP practices and teaching primary care staff to search databases effectively for quality health information. Caroline has also been working on a European Union project called EELDA (Evidence-based Electronic Library on Drug Addiction), which aims to provide comprehensive evidence-based information on a number of predefined substances, for the general public and professionals. Caroline is currently working

x

for the Department of Health National Knowledge Service developing the National Library for Health Specialist Library for Knowledge Management for the NHS. Sladjana Cabrilo, is Master of Science in Industrial Engineering and Management. She finished graduate studies, in 1996 at the University of Novi Sad, on the Faculty of Technical Sciences, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. After graduation, she worked mostly on managerial positions. Wanting to improve her managerial career she registered to postgraduate studies at the University of Novi Sad, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management in 2002. Special interest and the great results she had in the field of Knowledge Management. She was promoted to Master of Science in 2005 with Master Thesis: “Assessing and Measuring Intellectual Capital”, thus becoming the pioneer in IC research in Serbia and Montenegro.Currently working as PR Director in Public Utility Company in Novi Sad and teaching assistant at the Faculty of Management Novi Sad. Her field of expertise is strategic management, with emphasis in knowledge management research. She published several papers on intellectual capital and knowledge management topics in conference th proceedings. The first presentation abroad was at the 26 McMaster World Congress, Hamilton, Canada on January 2005. She also attended IC Congress in Helsinki, in September 2004. Nuria Calvo is graduated in Business Administration (Autonoma University of Madrid) and Psychology (Distance University of Spain). She has worked in Andersen Consulting (now Accenture), Inditex and the Galician telecommunications company for more than ten years, involved in human resources projects in Spain and United States. Nuria is currently focused on knowledge management research, developing her professional activities in University of A Coruña. Annick Castiaux is a Professor at the University of Namur. After a PhD in Physics, she was a consultant in KM during 5 years. Recently, she came back to the university to share her experience with students in management sciences and to initiate a research work concerning knowledge transfer phenomena. Dr. Benny C.F. Cheung is an Associate Professor in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and an Adjunct Professor of the Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen Graduate School. He is an active researcher with an emphasis on industry related and applied research. His research interests in knowledge management include knowledge management strategy, knowledge audit, taxonomy, intellectual capital management and artificial Intelligence in KM. Elena Chukhlantseva and Kaisa Hellström are PhD students at the Research Unit for Sociology of Education (RUSE), University of Turku. Elena is M.Soc.Sc in International and Comparative Education with research interests in knowledge work and strategic management. Kaisa is M.Phil in Plant Physiology and M.Soc.Sc in Sociology with research interests in knowledge production at the universityindustry interface. John S. Edwards is Professor of Operational Research and Systems, and Head of Academic Programmes at Aston Business School, Birmingham, U.K. He has an MA in mathematics and a PhD degree from the University of Cambridge. His doctorate was in human resource planning models. His principal research interests now are in knowledge management, especially methods for the development of knowledge-based systems and decision support systems. He has published more than 40 research articles on these topics, and two books, Building Knowledge-based Systems and Decision Making with Computers. He is editor of the journal Knowledge Management Research & Practice. Tiit Elenurm holds the professorship in entrepreneurship at the Estonian Business School. Ph. D. in 1980 for the dissertation “Management of the Process of Implementation of New Organizational Structures”. His vision is to develop synergy between management training, consulting and research activities. Research interests include knowledge management, change management and international transfer of management knowledge. Scott Erickson is Associate Professor of Marketing and International Business in the School of Business at Ithaca College. He holds a PhD from Lehigh University, MIM from Thunderbird, MBA from Southern Methodist University, and BA from Haverford College.With Helen Rothberg, he published the book From Knowledge to Intelligence: Creating Competitive Advantage in the Next Economy (Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann) in 2004. Other publications include Journal of Marketing Management, European Journal of Marketing, International Journal of Technology Management, International Journal of Public Administration, and Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. His research interests include intellectual capital/knowledge management and intellectual property. He consults regularly and worked with Proudfoot before entering academia. Christina Evangelou is a PhD student at the IMIS Lab, University of Patras, Greece. Her thesis work builds around the integration of Collaborative Decision Making and Knowledge Management in

xi

contemporary organizations. Her research work involves Collaborative and Computer Mediated Decision Support Systems, Knowledge Management, Multicriteria Decision Aid, Ontologies, and XML Technologies. Since 2001, she holds a Mechanical Engineering and Aeronautics Diploma from the University of Patras. Péter Fehér, a “Depozit” research fellow, Corvinus University of Budapest, Department of Information Systems. He earned a diploma (MSc) in Economics in 2000, and defended his PhD thesis in 2005. His foreign experiences are: Universität Paderborn (Germany, 1999), HEC (France, 2001), and Kingston Business School (United Kingdom, 2003-2004). He leads courses in the topics of Knowledge-, and Project Management, Management Information Systems. His current research areas are Knowledge Management, especially the problems and difficulties of KM practices, but he is also participating in IT Service Management and organisation development projects. Andrea Fried served as a knowledge and organization studies expert in research and lecture in the Chemnitz University of Technology’s Economics and Business Administration Department, Germany. She is well served in qualitative research. Besides, she holds different lectureships e.g. at the University of Kwazulu-Natal (South Africa) and at the University of Basle (Switzerland). Andrea Fried studied Business Administration at the University of Jena and got a doctoral scholarship of the Hans Böckler Foundation (both Germany). Waltraud Grillitsch is project member of the knowledge management project group of the department for eBusiness/ Business Technologies (biztec) at the University of Klagenfurt. She is writing her Ph.D. Master thesis in the field of Knowledge Management in corporate networks and is studying journalism at the University of Klagenfurt. She is working in specific company projects in the region. Jörg Härtwig is an academic member of the Institute of Computer Science at the University of Leipzig and has led a knowledge management research project for the last 3 years. He worked at the MaxPlanck-Institute for Cognitive Neuro-Science in Leipzig as a software developer. His research interests are in business oriented knowledge and information management and enterprise content management systems. Since 2004 he is a PhD student and he works on his thesis on interoperable semantics between applications in enterprise’s environments. Richard T. Herschel is Chair of the Department of Decision & System Sciences at the Erivan K. Haub School of Business, Saint Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. He received his Ph.D. in Information Systems with a minor in Organizational Theory from Indiana University. His focal area of research is knowledge management and, more recently, its relationship to business intelligence. Hervas Oliver Jose Luis has a Dr. in Strategic Management, Co-director of the Regional Intangibles System Research Group. Research visiting is planned for summer 2005 at Inholland University with Daan Andriessen. Matti Koivuaho is a researcher and a Ph.D. student in the Institute of Business Information Management at Tampere University of Technology. He’s research interest is focused on knowledge management and communication management of healthcare organizations. Harri Laihonen is a Ph. D. student and currently he is a member of a research group studying knowledge intensive services. Mr. Laihonen himself is studying knowledge flows in health care ecosystems. One of the main targets of the research program is to study Complex Adaptive System theories and their applicability to organisations. Enya Yu-Shih Lee is a doctoral student in the Department of Business Administration, School of Management at the National Cheng-Chi University in Taiwan. Her current research interests include corporate and business strategy, power and interdependence, strategic alliance and network. Jeanette Lemmergaard, has been assistant professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Department of Organization and Management since 2003. Besides the PhD dissertation on managerial ambiguity, her publications include articles on values, diversity, simulation models, and collaborative learning. Domains of interest are knowledge management, organization studies, human resource management, psychological and ethical climate. Ana Maria Pereira is Professor in the Biblioteconomy and Documentation Department of the University of State of Santa Catarina, Brazil. She is student of PhD in Information System in the Information Systems Department of the University of Minho, Portugal. Her main areas of research are competitive intelligence, knowledge management, continuous educations, and cataloguing. Dr. Farhi Marir is reader in computer science and he is the leader of the Knowledge Management Research Group (KMG) involving several lecturers, researchers and PhD students. He obtained his

xii

BSC in Computer science (Ingenieur d’etat en Informatique) in 1982 and his PhD in computer science in 1993. In the last sixteen years, he was involved in teaching and researching in computer science. He has published around eighty book chapters, journal papers and refereed conference papers in the domain of database, knowledge base systems, content-based retrieval and knowledge management. He also acted as a consultant for Salford University Business Services and Dubai Department of Urban Planning, and was involved in several UK funded projects (e.g. VIGILANT, CBRefurb and COMMIT) and EU funded projects (e.g. CONDOR and ISHTAR). He is a member of the editorial teams in three international journals and member of the programme committee for several international conferences. Tonderai Maswera is currently in the final year of his PhD in the Research School of Informatics at Loughborough University. He taught at three different State Universities in Zimbabwe before joining Loughborough University in October 2002 .His main research interests are e-commerce and website usability and accessibility issues. Piero Migliarese ([email protected] ) is Full Professor of Organizational Systems at University of Calabria (Italy) and already professor of Organizational Systems at Politecnico of Milan. His research interests are: Organizational Models and Systems, Information Systems, Knowledge Organization Models. He published several papers in national and international journals as, for example, Decision Support Systems, Human Relations, European Journal of Information Systems, Interface, Studi Organizzativi. He has been editor of international books and chairman of International Conferences. Dr. Sandra Moffett is a Lecturer of Computer Science with the School of Computing and Intelligent Systems, University of Ulster at Magee. She has been researching in the field of Knowledge Management for 8 years. In 2001 she completed a PhD entitled ‘Knowledge Management: Issues, Preparation and Implementation. Eni Mustafaraj is a PhD student at the Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Marburg, Germany. She holds a Diploma of Electrical Engineering from the Polytechnic University of Tirana. Her research work focuses on methods and techniques for building adaptive frameworks for problem solving and knowledge management. Dr. Juan G. Cegarra Navarro is an Associated Professor of Business Administration of the Polytechnic University of Cartagena (Spain). His research is focused in Knowledge Management. David O’Donnell, after over twenty years as a practitioner, re-discovered Frankfurt School critical theory, Jürgen Habermas, and research. His main research field is Intellectual Capital, hence the Intellectual Capital Research Institute of Ireland, with parallel interests in Critical Management Studies, eHR and Democracy Studies. He has published widely in journals such as J. of Intellectual Capital (where he co-edits the Special Issue “Becoming Critical” 6(4), 2005), J. of Information Technology, Knowledge & Process Management, HRCA, Cross-Cultural Management, HRD Quarterly, HRD Review, Corporate Governance, J. of European Industrial Training, Intl. J. of Manpower, Intl. J. of T&D, MIT eCommerce Forum, and others. His recent co-authored book, Dimensions of Change: Conceptualising Reality in Organisational Research, was published in 2004 by Copenhagen Business School Press. Fabricio Orellana studied business administration at graduate and postgraduate level in Ecuador and Germany. At present he attends a PhD program. He has gain practical experiences in private and public but also in large and medium sized organisations in an international context. Fabricio Orellana’s research has a strong qualitative and empirical focus. Some of his areas of expertise are change management, process management, controlling, audit systems, information systems, business development, and management consulting. Abiodun Dominic Oyeniran received his Bachelors degree in Computer Science from the Federal University of Technology, Akure (FUTA), Nigeria in 1999 and is currently completing an MSc at Staffordshire University, UK. He has worked on various information systems projects, both in Nigeria and in the UK. His research interests include KM, KM systems, and cyberspace security. He is currently seeking a PhD position in any of these areas. nd

Thomas Parsons is currently in the 2 year of an industry sponsored PhD at Loughborough University, and during this he has been based full time within the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. His main area of research is the use of Knowledge Management as an aid to pharmaceutical innovation, with a research objective of enhancing innovation within the drug development process. Thomas originally studied Medical Biochemistry at BSc level before moving on to work as a chemist within the pharmaceutical industry, he then went on to study for an MSc in Information Systems at Sheffield University before adopting his current role at Loughborough University with AstraZeneca. Mirva Peltoniemi has been working as a researcher and conducting doctoral studies at the Insitute of Business Information Management at Tampere University of Technology since her graduation in

xiii

January 2004. She is a member of the TIP Research Programme (Knowledge and Information Management in Knowledge Intensive Services). Ann Tzu-Ju Peng is an associate professor in the Business Administration Department, School of Management at Providence University in Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. from the National Cheng-Chi University. She used to be a one-year visiting scholar in the Kellogg School of Business at Northwestern University. Her current research interests include healthcare strategic alliance and network, competition and cooperation, intellectual capital and performance. Virpi Pirttimäki works for Tampere University of Technology as a project manager and researcher. She holds a Master of Science Degree in Engineering and is a post-graduate student on the degree program in Information and Knowledge Management. Dr. John Politis is Pioneering Faculty and Subject Co-ordinator of the Bachelor of Business and Engineering Management Programs, Faculty of Business and Engineering, Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. He is also the Chair for the Quality Assurance Program at Dubai Men’s College. John has earned: a Doctoral of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in Management from University of Technology, Sydney, Australia, a Master of Business Administration from Century University, USA; a Graduate Certificate in Enterprise Management from Swinburne University of Technology, Australia; a Master of Science (Mechanical) from Aristotelion University, Greece; a Bachelor of Engineering from the University of Melbourne; Australia; and a Certificate of Technology in Aircraft Engineering from the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia. Agnieta B. Pretorius is a doctoral student and a lecturer in information and communication technology at Tshwane University of Technology, South Africa. Prior to this she was a software developer. Her current domains of research and teaching include technical programming, knowledge management and decision support systems. Rebecca Purcell (BBS) is a PhD candidate in the Centre for Information and Knowledge Management at the University of Limerick, Ireland. Her research interests include, the integrating of organisational knowledge and organisational learning literatures, the application of a ‘unitas’ or oneness philosophy to organisational knowledge strategy and the processes inherent in the organisations search for knowledge. Isabel Ramos has a doctorate degree in Information Technologies and Systems, since 2001. She is an Assistant Professor at Information Systems Department of University of Minho, Portugal. She coordinates a research group in Knowledge Management. She also has research work in the field of Requirements Engineering. She is associate editor of the new International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction. Her research and teaching interests include: requirements engineering, knowledge management, organizational theory, sociology of knowledge, history of science, research methodology. She is author of several scientific papers presented at international conferences and published in scientific journals. Dr, Uwe Riss is Senior Researcher in the Knowledge Management Research Programme at SAP Research. Once a mathematician, Dr. Uwe Riss earned a Ph.D. in Theoretical Chemistry from the University of Heidelberg. In 1998 he joint SAP as a developer taking part in Content Management and Enterprise Portal projects. He worked as a Product Manager for the Knowledge Management component of the SAP Enterprise Portal before he joined SAP Research. In addition, he lectured Knowledge Management at the University of Corporate Education in Karlsruhe. He takes a particular interest in people-focused knowledge management and the possibilities of portal technologies in supporting information flow. Another focus of his work consists in technologies to support knowledgeintensive work. Furthermore, he is interested in the foundations of knowledge management as an interdisciplinary issue between philosophy and computer science. Dr. Don Ropes is a research fellow at the Centre for Research in Intellectual Capital, located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His interest lies in the field of organizational communication through a knowledge management perspective, with emphasis on how communities of practice communicate with their environment. Maria do Rosário Cabrita is assistant professor in Lisbon Institute of Banking Management. She holds graduate and master degrees in business administration and international economics. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Institute of Economics and Business Administration, Lisbon Technical University. She also has several years’ experience in executive positions in international banks. Josune Sáenz is PhD in Economics and Business Administration and member of the Finance and Accounting Department of ESTE School of Management (University of Deusto, Spain). She is

xiv

specialized in Management Accounting and Strategic Management Control and her research focus is currently on Organizational Learning and Intellectual Capital. José Renato Sátiro Santiago Junior is an engineer with broad experience on implementation of technologies and innovations in large worldwide companies that work on the engineering and information technology areas. During his professional career he has been responsible for the creation and management of methodologies and systems for Knowledge Management. He has a master degree in Production Engineering by USP (University of São Paulo) with post graduation degree in Marketing by ESPM (College School of Advertising and Marketing) and Quality Engineering by USP. He also manages the Technological Innovation area of a large Brazilian company, Camargo Corrêa. Last year, he published the book: "Gestão do Conhecimento, a Chave para o Sucesso Empresarial" (Knowledge Management - The Key for the Company Success), which remained on the top list of the most sold books in the Brazilian editorial market. Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Christian-Andreas Schumann, born 1957 in Chemnitz, studied Industrial Engineering in the Technical University of Chemnitz, first doctor’s degree in 1984 and second doctor’s degree in 1987. In 1988 he got a call as associated professor for plant planning and information processes in the TU of Chemnitz. In 1994 he became professor for business and engineering information systems in the University of Applied Sciences Zwickau. Since March 2003 he is dean of the faculty for business and management sciences in the University of Applied Sciences Zwickau. In addition he is director of the Centre for new forms of education and director of the Central German Academy for Further Education e.V. Peter Sheen is from the Department of Management and Organisational Behaviour at the University of Southern Queensland. He holds a PhD in intellectual property from the School of Management at the Queensland University of Technology. His lectures include knowledge management and strategic management of human resources specialising in innovation. Anssi Smedlund is a researcher at Helsinki University of Technology in Innovation Management Institute. Anssi is also a PhD student in Lappeenranta University of Technology. His research interests are in the social aspects of Knowledge Management, in the inter-organizational networks and in knowledge-intensive business services. Eduardo Tome graduated in Economics. He came to Knowledge Management and Intellectual Capital following the study of Human Resources Economics and Sociology of Labour: he made a Master Thesis on the Sociologic and Economic aspects of Vocational Training in 1994, followed by a PhD Thesis, on the Evaluation of the European Social Fund, in 2001. Both thesis were made at the Technical University of Lisbon. Currently he teaches Economics and Social Policy at the Social Service High Institute in Beja, a small town in the South of Portugal. His main research interests are Human Resources/Intellectual Capital/Knowledge Management and Social Policy. Jorge J. L. Vaz has a European Ph.D. in Management by the University of Sevilla and is Professor of Management in the Technical University of Lisbon where he teaches Research Methodology in the Ph.D., MBA and Master in Marketing programms. In the last six years has managed Executive Education at ISEG/UTL. Has been, as well, Scientific Coordinator of more than fifty post graduate courses in Management, Marketing, Public Finance and Tax Management. Saverino Verteramo ([email protected] ) is Researcher at the Department of Business Sciences of University of Calabria – Italy. He received his PhD from the University of Rome “Tor Vergata” in the field of Knowledge Management. His research is primarily concerned with the organizational design of Knowledge Management Systems. Elisa Vuori got her M.Sc. (Eng.) degree on the spring 2005. She has been working in TIP (Knowledge and Information Management in Knowledge Intensive Services) Research Program since January 2004 and as a researcher since February 2005. The Research Program takes place in Tampere University of Technology. Her interests of study are business ecosystems, knowledge-intensive services, complexity and agent-based modelling. John Walsh, lectures in Information Management at the University of Limerick and a Research Fellow Research with the AIB Centre for Information and Knowledge. Research interests centre on the applicability of structuration theory in understanding the implementation of knowledge management systems. Christine E. Welch is a Senior Lecturer at the Portsmouth Business School. Her research interests include systemic thinking, organisational analysis, learning and change. Her academic responsibilities include being the course leader for a proposed MSc Knowledge Management.

xv

Peter Wendorff received degrees in engineering and economics. Since 1993 he has consulted with a number of companies in a variety of technical and managerial roles. You can reach him on [email protected]. Johnson C.H.Yang is the CEO of Distribution Business Group at the Sinon Co. in Taiwan. He received his master degree in Executive BMA from the Providence University. He has had more than 25 years practical experiences in supermarket franchise management, fresh food processing management, distribution management, and agricultural pesticide manufacturing management. Chia-Hui Yen is a lecturer at Wu-Feng Institute of Technology, Taiwan and also a PhD candidate at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. Her research field focuses on virtual community and electronic commerce. She has published research articles in PACIS and several journals in Taiwan.

xvi

Keynote Paper: Perspectives on Intellectual Capital1 Bernard Marr Centre for Business Performance, Cranfield School of Management, UK [email protected]

1. Intellectual capital today Today, many executives recognize the importance of intellectual capital as a principal driver of firm performance and a core differentiator. But not only enterprises are seeing the value in intellectual capital, also governments are recognizing the importance of it. The European Union, for example, aims for their membership countries to invest a minimum of three percent of their GDP into research and development initiatives in order to grow their intellectual capital and become more competitive in the knowledge economy. In the United Kingdom, for example, Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in a recent Government White Paper that creativity and inventiveness is the greatest source of economic success but that too many firms have failed to put enough emphasis on R&D and developing skills. Patricia Hewitt, the UK’s Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, added in a recent report that increasingly it is the intangible factors that underpin innovation and the best-performing businesses. An increasing number of firms start to report more of the intangible aspects of their business, even without the force of regulations. This trend is especially observable in Europe with various initiatives by the European Commission (e.g. projects such as METITUM, E*KNOW NET, PRISM). Another example is presented by the Danish Department of Trade and Industry, which produced guidelines of how companies can produce intellectual capital reports. In Austria the government has passed a law that all universities have to report on their intellectual capital, in the UK companies will be forced to produce an Operating and Financial Review outlining many intangible elements of their business, and countries as diverse as Iceland, Germany, or Spain have started their own initiatives. At the same time accounting guidelines are being amended and standards are being questioned and reviewed to reflect the growing importance on intangible elements. With the introduction of the International Accounting Standards more emphasis will be placed on accounting for intangible components and stricter compliance rules force companies to report on other intangible aspects of their performance. Leading software companies such as SAP, Hyperion, Oracle, 4GHI or Peoplesoft are developing applications to address this, and even governments are beginning to measure the intellectual capital of cities, regions, and countries. Also many consulting companies have discovered different areas of this increasing awareness and interest in intellectual capital and now offer their services. PricewaterhouseCoopers, for example, offer their services to help companies in their value reporting initiatives to increase transparency in corporate reporting or WatsonWyatt who offer human capital audits. In recent reports or marketing material from different consulting firms this trend is apparent: Accenture writes that today's economy depends on the ability of companies to create, capture, and leverage intellectual capital faster than the competition. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young believes that intangibles are the key drivers for competitive advantage and KPMG states that most general business risks derive from intangibles and organizations therefore need to manage their intangibles very carefully. PricewaterhouseCoopers writes that in a globalized world, the intellectual capital in any organization becomes essential and its correct distribution at all organizational levels requires the best strategy integrated solutions, processes and technology. Even though the leading management consulting firms recognize the importance of intellectual capital – they seem to suffer from the same predicament as the field as a whole. Intellectual capital is defined differently and the concept is often fuzzy. As a result, many firms provide point solutions only addressing particular isolated aspects of a firm’s intellectual capital such as: Help with implementing accounting for some intangibles, Legal advice of how to protect intellectual property such as patents, copy rights, etc. Guidance on building customer or stakeholder relationships Improved stakeholder dialogue and value reporting Human capital or capabilities assessments Solutions for valuing brands 1

This article is based on the book Perspectives on Intellectual Capital: Multidisciplinary insights into management, measurement, and reporting (Marr, B., 2005, Elsevier) as well as other recent articles by the author.

1

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Even though these are all important areas, the danger is that organizations are missing out on the big picture. What is often not clearly understood is that intellectual capital is a truly multidisciplinary field. Below we will expand on this problem.

2. Misunderstanding intellectual capital as a barrier for convergence The multidimensional nature of intellectual capital, as defined by many members of the community, is often not well understood which means definitions are not always very clear and neither are the boundaries of what people mean when they talk about intellectual capital. In a recent book to address exactly the multidimensional nature of intellectual capital, I outline that it could happen that when one talks to accountants they might refer to intangibles as ‘non-financial fixed assets that do not have physical substance but are identifiable and controlled by the entity through custody and legal rights’ as defined by the Accounting Standards Board in FRS 10, their main standard for reporting intangibles and goodwill. Such a stringent definition excludes many commonly accepted intangibles like customer satisfaction, knowledge and skills of employees as they cannot be controlled by the firm in an ‘accounting’ sense. If one then went to a HR manager she might refer to intellectual capital as skills, knowledge, and attitude of employees. A marketing manager might argue that intellectual capital such as brand recognition and customer satisfaction are at the heart of business success, whereas the IT manager might view key intangibles as being software applications and network capabilities. Furthermore, different words are being used to describe very similar constructs from different perspectives, which adds to the confusion. In accounting, most people would refer to intangible assets to explain the nonfinancial and non-physical drivers of success. In Economics the phrase knowledge assets is often used to describe similar ideas and in strategic management they use intellectual or intangible resources or capabilities. The potential power of the field of intellectual capital is to create a truly inter-disciplinary view of these different constructs and ideas. When intellectual capital is defined by members of the intellectual capital community, it is often divided into various components, which refer to the skills and competencies of people in the organisations (human capital), then components referring to relationships with customers or other stakeholders (relationship capital), and components referring to organisational culture, routines and practices, or intellectual property (organisational or structural capital). Even though these components are often defined or bundled slightly differently, it shows how broad the scope of the concept of intellectual capital really is. One key role of members of this community is to make the concept of intellectual capital more accessible to the different fields who often clearly recognise the importance of intellectual capital components, but miss out the big picture and therefore the interdependencies and interconnections between the different elements. Much emphasis has recently been placed on the interactions and interdependencies of different intellectual capital components. Firms are now realising that for example, by valuing their brands companies only get a partial view of the truth since their brand value is linked to other crucial aspects such as their processes that produce high-quality products and services, their relationship, the reputation, and the competencies of their employees. Examples such as Arthur Andersen show how quickly a well recognised brand can disappear over night if some of the other organizational components are missing. What the field of intellectual capital has to offer is a more comprehensive view of the organizational elements and how they deliver value and competitive advantage. By converging some of the point solutions into a more strategic overall package, consulting firms would be able offer their clients a truer and more insightful help. The current misunderstandings and the isolated point solutions offered by many, mostly major firms, does seriously make one question the thought leadership claimed in much of their marketing material. There is a huge opportunity here for scholars to bring together different strands of research to from a more complete picture of intellectual capital management.

3. Evolution of intellectual capital as a theme When we look at the way the theme of intellectual capital has evolved over time it is interesting to note that, against many common believes, the concept is not a new phenomenon – in fact the economist Nassau William Senior mentions ‘intellectual capital’ as an important production factor in his book published more than 150 years ago in 1836. Economists and scholars in the strategy field have long discussed the importance of knowledge-based assets. Also interesting to note is that intellectual capital is often referred to as a ‘practitioner driven concept’. It is often argued that the concept of intellectual capital was developed by visionary companies such as Skandia or Dow Chemical, which started to measure and to report their intellectual capital in the 1990s. There has indeed been a strong practitioner driven movement in the middle of the 1990 towards tools and approaches for measuring, managing, and reporting intellectual capital. This can be seen in Table 1 by the influx of practitioner books starting from 1993. Many of these books propose classification frameworks of intellectual

2

Bernard Marr

capital and approaches to measure and manage it. This triggered a seemingly separate intellectual capital movement that was primarily concerned with practical applications. Most of these approaches were based on initial experiences of firms and were to a large extent developed in isolation from any academic work done previously. The first to discuss the topic academically were economists who highlighted the importance of intellectual capital as a production factor and the different behavior of intellectual capital in comparison to traditional economic assets. A long stream of publications reached its pinnacle in the development of The new growth theory developed by Raul Romer, of the University of Stanford, who proves that economic growth is based on knowledge. The theory is in strong opposition to the classical economic theory and is based in many respects on the works of the Nobel Prize winner Robert Solow. While the parts of the economic model of Solow are capital, technology and labour, Romer has added also knowledge as a superior part that directs the use of capital, technological development and quality of labour. Some of these developments in economics were picked up in the strategic management field. The development of the resource-based theory in the 1980s and the knowledge-based theory in the 1990s challenged the traditional market-based theories. It is argued that a sustainable competitive advantage results from the possession of resources that are inimitable, not substitutable, tacit in nature, and synergistic. With this newly developed emphasis on internal resources, special attention was placed on competencies, capabilities, and knowledge-based assets. It is interesting to note that in the strategic management literature the terminology intellectual capital is rarely used, but the same constructs are referred to. In parallel there were activities in the field of Accounting with attempts of the major accounting bodies around the world to develop approaches to account for intellectual capital. This was to provide a better picture of firms in which intellectual capital are major assets but where stringent accounting principles would prevent recognition of such assets. This debate has been discussed since the 1970s and new guidelines for accounting of intangible assets have emerged regularly. Interesting to note is that accountants also rarely refer to intellectual capital as they seem to prefer the term intangible assets. The theme of intangible assets has become a major subject matter in the accounting field and conferences as well as special issues of journals fuel the ongoing debate on the topic. Accounting takes a statutory inside-out view of the firm in order to externally disclose performance data in a standardized format driven by accounting rules. However, there has also been a movement to better value intellectual capital from an outside-in perspective. On the one-hand side financial analysts, banks, and other investors looked for ways to better understand the potential value for firms, on the other hand firms wanted to better understand the financial value of their investments in intellectual capital. This need was highlighted with the burst of the dot-com bubble. With the absence of reliable tools to value intellectual capital, speculation led to many firms being over-valued. However, after the return to reality many innovative start-up firms, even with a sound business case, still find it hard today to secure funding. Approaches discussed in this perspective include EVA, Discounted Cash Flow, and Real Options Models. Related to the discussion in accounting and finance has been the work of a separate group of researchers that is concerned with the external reporting of intellectual capital. Surrendering to the thought that the rigid postulates of accounting will not allow the deserved treatment of intellectual capital, they associated themselves with the more practitioner orientated management accounting field. The efforts of firms such as Skandia in the 1990s to externally disclose information on their intellectual capital has fuelled this debate. This movement has resulted in various initiatives in Europe to design guidelines for firms to create intellectual capital reports. Most notably an initiative in Denmark where many companies have experimented with producing and disclosing information on their intellectual capital. When it comes to marketing it seems that intellectual capital and much of the above outlined research is often ignored. The term intellectual capital is rarely used; however, customer relationships and brands are often classified as intellectual capital and definitely represent important intangible assets for firms. One of the issues in marketing is the drive towards demonstrating the importance of investments into building assets such as brands or relationships with customers. The same issue applies to human resource management. However, here the topic of intellectual capital is addressed but more from a personal perspective – how do we assess the knowledge and capabilities of individuals? It seems that in both of these fields accounting and finance driven models have hindered developments. External valuations of brands or Human Resource Accounting were brought into the disciplines from other, maybe more financially and measurement driven perspectives. Another view on intellectual capital developed in complete isolation is provided by the legal perspective. Work in this perspective is primarily concerned with how to legally protect intellectual capital such as patents, trade marks, or copy rights. These are generally referred to as intellectual property. With an exception of maybe the pharmaceutical industry, this topic has rarely been discussed outside legal departments. However, many

3

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

recent publications are trying to raise awareness among executives about the strategic importance of intellectual property. Above I have summarized how intellectual capital as a theme has evolved in different academic disciplines. Many of these disciplines have developed the intellectual capital theme in isolation and with little awareness of developments in other fields. The second part of this book includes inter-disciplinary views on intellectual capital. These establish starting points for cross-disciplinary knowledge transfer, open new research streams, or provide views that could add insights to new developments. One interesting development outlined is lifting the level of analysis from an individual or firm level towards an inter-firm or even regional or national level of analysis. Closer supply chain integrations and more inter-firm collaborations mean that intellectual capital issues between firms need to be addressed. On an even higher level is the question of whether we are developing the right intellectual capital in cities, regions, counties, and countries. These are exciting new avenues for future research. Other interesting insights can be gained from philosophy and epistemology – the oldest disciplines to influence the theme of intellectual capital. Intellectual capital is related to knowledge and the debate about what knowledge means goes back to Plato (427-347 BC), who defined knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, which trigged an unremitting epistemological discussion throughout the evolution of philosophy among philosophers including Decartes, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, to name just a few. The way we perceive the world and our role in it influences our view of intellectual capital. These insights open up interesting research opportunities and offer new insights into the way intellectual capital is managed, measured, and reported.

4. Towards convergence - Some possible ways forward The multi-dimensional and diverse nature of thinking on the topic of intellectual capital is appealing; however, as a consequence there is no cohesive body of literature on intellectual capital. The developments of specialist publications such as the Journal of Intellectual Capital (established in 2000) and the International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital (established in 2004) are attempts to channel diverse thinking into single outlets. However, these journals are still in the process of finding their acknowledged position and have not yet managed to bridge all the disciplinary silos. The diverse nature of thinking on intellectual capital poses many challenges as well as immense opportunities for inter-disciplinary and cross-functional learning. Below I outline some of the major issues to be addressed as well as some possible avenues of how to take this important field forward.

5. Terminology and definitions The construct of ‘intellectual capital’ has existed in management research for many years. However, different terminology used in different disciplines and different taxonomies of the same constructs have caused significant confusion and have restricted the potential for generalization and comparability of application and research in this area. To date there is no commonly agreed terminology or definition for the construct ‘intellectual capital’. Every discipline has different assumptions, every definition (whether made explicit or not) is linked to specific roles of intellectual capital, which in turn are often linked to the disciplinary assumptions. It is important to note that there is no right or wrong definitions of intellectual capital, however, what does exist are adequate and inadequate definitions of intellectual capital. The least adequate case is when authors fail to define intellectual capital at all and leave it to the reader to interpret the construct. This book has hopefully highlighted the differences in interpretations and therefore the resulting risk of misinterpretation due to a lack of adequate clarification. It is therefore important that whenever we use terms such as intellectual capital, intangible assets, or knowledge resources, we explain what we mean by them. In addition, it would be useful to explain the perspective from which the topic is discussed.

6. Interdisciplinary research The field of intellectual capital seems to offer immense room for knowledge transfer between the individual perspectives and functions outlined in this book. It seems that the theories and insights developed in the economist and strategy perspectives provide a good grounding for other ‘less developed’ intellectual capital perspectives. Theories such as the new growth theory and the resource-based theory could inform the thinking in disciplines such as marketing, HR, and accounting.

4

Bernard Marr

This book has provided a comprehensive overview to the complex and interdisciplinary research and practice on the management, measurement, and reporting of intellectual capital. It is now up to managers and researchers to take the insights from the many perspectives and apply them to further our understanding across disciplines and between academia and practice. I would call for more interdisciplinary research projects and more collaboration between academics and managers.

7. Methodological implications It seems that there are different implications for different disciplines and research streams. Below I outline some implications offering future opportunities. One opportunity seems to be to empirically test some of the practitioner driven frameworks. As outlined above, in the middle of the 1990s many classification and reporting frameworks were developed from experience of sometimes one or a very small number of firms and sometimes only based on anecdotal evidence. Many of those frameworks have never been subject to rigorous empirical tests. This offers great opportunities for researchers to test the wider applicability of some of those frameworks. Another opportunity is to ground some of the practical frameworks in theory. Many theoretical foundations outlined in this book should offer an excellent starting point. Much of the academic work published on intellectual capital is of theoretical nature and often attempts to build theory. There is immense room for convergence here, the theories developed in academia can be used to ground the practical work; and the practical experience can be used to support or reject theories. Economics and strategy are the disciplines with the longest track record of research on intellectual capital. However, theory testing research in these disciplines is traditionally performed using quantitative and large sample methodologies, often using secondary sources of data. It is important that we produce some of those studies, however with the developments of new theories in strategy, for example, these traditional positivistic methods have been questioned. Rouse and Daellenbach (2002; 1999) for instance, argue in their influential article that research based on the resource-based view must be done not only on organizations but also in organizations, since the research methodologies traditionally used in strategy research will not unambiguously uncover the sources of sustainable advantage. Rouse and Daellenbach continue to argue that uniqueness springing from intangible resources (perhaps especially forms of knowledge) should form the focus of research. Thus, generalizable codifiable knowledge available from secondary sources is probably irrelevant to the core research agenda of the resource based view (Rouse and Daellenbach, 2002). What we need is rigorous and theoretically grounded empirical research not only provided by classical large sample, cross-sectional research projects but complemented by rich, longitudinal case studies that will allow us to understand the specific context which seems to be critical for the analysis of intellectual capital. Research methods such as ethnography, participant observation, and other more phenomenological approaches might be appropriate.

8. The level of analysis Most publications on intellectual capital have concentrated on the firm level and reported on issues related to the management, measurement, and reporting of intellectual capital. More recently we have seen that the level of analysis has been raised. Contributions in this book have outlined some attempts to address intellectual capital on an inter-firm level and on a national or regional level. On the other hand research on epistemology, for example, is often conducted on a personal level and rarely discussed on an organizational level. Moving between these different levels of analysis offers exciting new avenues for future research and application. An interesting question that need further exploration is how applicable are the insights, approaches, and tools developed on a firm level, to a regional or national level. On the other side it would be interesting to apply and test the insights from epistemology and the way we handle and process knowledge on an individual level when looking at higher levels of analysis such as organizations, cities, regions, and nations.

9. Theme versus field Maybe instead of a field, as often referred to by many practitioners, it might be better to talk about the intellectual capital theme or even a lens that allows us to gain new insights in different disciplines and fields. The challenge here is to learn from each other’s insights and develop a bigger understanding of intellectual capital without re-inventing the wheel all over. I hope that this book has provided both managers and academics with a richer insight into the multi-dimensional nature of intellectual capital as an important

5

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

construct in today’s business context. It is now up to you to take the ideas and insights and utilize them for rigorous research and practical applications.

Further reading Carlucci, D., Marr, B., Schiuma, G. (2004) The Knowledge Value Chain – How Knowledge Management impacts Business Performance, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 27 No 6/7, pp 575-590 Marr, B. (ed.) (2005) Perspectives on Intellectual Capital – Interdisciplinary Insights into Management, Measurement and Reporting, Elsevier, Boston Marr, B., Chatzkel, J. (2004) Intellectual Capital at the Crossroads: managing, measuring, and reporting of IC, Journal of Intellectual Capital (editorial), Vol 5 No 2, pp 224-229 Marr, B. (2004) Measuring Intangible Assets – the state of the art, Measuring Business Excellence (editorial), Vol 8 No1, pp 3-5 Marr, B (2004) Mapping the Dynamics of how Intangibles Create Value, International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1, No. 3. pp. 358-369. Marr, B. (2004) Measuring and Benchmarking Intellectual Capital, Benchmarking – An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 559-570 Marr, B; Schiuma, G, Neely, A. (2004) Intangible Assets – Defining Key Performance Indicators for Organisational Knowledge Assets, Business Process Management Journal, Special Issue, Vol. 10 No 5, pp.551-569 Marr, B. Adams, C. (2004) The Balanced Scorecard and Intangible Assets: Similar Ideas, Unaligned Concepts, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 8, No. 3. pp. 18-27. Marr, B.; Spender, J-C, (2004) Measuring Knowledge Assets – Implications of the Knowledge Economy for Performance Measurement, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 18-27 Marr, B.; Moustaghfir, K. (2005) Defining Intellectual Capital, Management Decision (Forthcoming) Pike, S. Roos, G. Marr, B. (2005) Strategic management of intangible assets and value drivers in R&D organizations, R&D Management, Vol. 35, No. 2. pp. 111-124 Spender, JC; Marr, B. (2006) How a Knowledge-based approach might illuminate the notion of human capital and its measurement (forthcoming)

6

A Proposed Study on the Evaluation of Strategic Alignment in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries Jaflah AlAmmary and Chun Che Fung School of Information Technology, Murdoch University, Western Australia [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: The effective use of knowledge to drive competitive advantage depends upon using a holistic approach that spans five key business considerations: KM (KM), business strategy, information technology (IT) strategy, organization culture, and human factors The current paper proposes a study to investigate the strategic alignment between KM strategy and business strategy pursued by the banking sector in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Using the recommended model, the study will explore the impact of this alignment on the organizations’ performance. Keywords: KM strategy, strategic alignment, business strategy, and IT strategy, banking sectors

1. Introduction There are already a large number of Knowledge Management (KM) activities implemented in many organizations. Most of these initiatives lack the ability to link KM to strategic and competitive advantages (Zack, 2002a; Maier, Remus, 2002). Most of these initiatives have considered KM as a stand-alone exercise and not as a holistic approach that covers business strategy, information technology (IT) strategy, organization culture, and human factors. Business strategy is considered as a crucial factor in the implementation of KM. The KM strategies should be drawn based on the organizational goals and objectives. It should also be a function of the business strategy in order to achieve an effective use of knowledge that drives competitive advantage (Sabherwal & Sebherwal, 2003). This proposed study proposes to investigate the strategic alignment between KM strategy and business strategy pursued by the banking sector in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Moreover, using the recommended conceptual model, the study will explore the impact of this alignment in the organizations’ performance. It focuses on GCC because there is a need for a context specific model for KM in such countries. It was noted that most of the available models and frameworks proposed to guide KM implementation and strategy in organizations are based on skills, practices and studies in Western industrialized countries (such USA and UK). Most of these countries are already becoming knowledge economies. In addition, most of the models have not considered the national environments, regions and specific local organizational factors that could affect KM and its performance. It is possible that the application of these models and frameworks in the developing Gulf countries may or may not yield the expected results. The reason may be due to contextual, cultural, and technical factors that could have a crucial effect on the KM. Hence, such factors should therefore be considered in the design of any KM frameworks. This paper is articulated into six sections including the introduction. Next section surveys and summarizes the related studies. Section 3 describes the stages of the proposed research model. Sections 4, 5 and 6 outline the proposed research objectives and methodology to be conducted in this research study. The paper then concludes with Section 6.

2. Research background 2.1 Knowledge management strategy and knowledge strategy The terms KM strategy and Knowledge strategy are not the same. Knowledge strategy is defined as a competitive strategy built around a firm's intellectual resources and capabilities. It is oriented toward understanding what knowledge is strategic and that have a high impact on the business key performance (Zack, 2002b; Hofer-Alfeis, 2003). In contrast, KM strategy can be defined as a high-level plan that describes and outlines the processes, the tools and infrastructure (organizational and technological) required to manage knowledge gaps or surpluses and to permit knowledge to flow effectively (Zack, 2002b). Various strategic options are available to an organization for planning a knowledge and KM strategy. Some of them concentrate on the origin or the type of knowledge, while others identify different types of knowledge strategy according to the process of capturing, presenting, retrieving and using knowledge. A summary is shown in Appendix A. These strategies are not mutually exclusive, but usually one of them better describes

7

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

the focus of the organization. The choice of one or a combination of these strategies should reflect the strength of the organization, the nature of its business and the inclinations and expertise of its personnel (Wiig, 1997).

2.2 The alignment between business strategy and KM strategy The analysis of eleven current KM frameworks, which have been classified as descriptive, perspective and hybrid frameworks, revealed that most of the perspective and hybrid frameworks placed an emphasis on the alignment of the KM strategy and organizational strategy (Sunassee, Sewry, 2002). Furthermore, they agreed that this alignment considered as one of the critical success factors for the KM implementation (Sunassee, Sewry, 2002). There are few attempts in the literature to link KM strategy and business strategy (Hansen, et al, 1999; Zack, 2002a; Smith & McKeen, 2003; Sabherwal & Sebherwal, 2003). Hansen’s work (Hansen, et al, 1999) provide an excellent guide for choosing KM strategy that reflect, and be compatible with the organization’s structure, strategies and its overall objectives and goals. However, the proposed approach does not present a model for the integration between these organizational components. Zack’s framework takes traditional strategic concepts and investigates how they relate to knowledge-based resources. Smith and McKeen (2003) however, addressed two broad perspectives on aligning KM and business strategy: knowledge as an input to business strategy and knowledge as a support for business strategy. Vera (2001) declared that there is a need for research into the strategic alignment that based on the idea of the knowledge strategy which may replace the firm’s business strategy, or, a business strategy which may evolve to become a knowledge strategy, or, the two strategies may complement one another.

2.3 KM at the GCC countries The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries comprise of six Arab states. These include the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Kingdom of Bahrain (KB), Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirate (UAE), and Oman. These countries share many characteristics that united them. The common factors include a common language (Arabic), shared religious and cultural heritage, similar geographical conditions, infrastructure, and similar economics (Abdul-Gader, 1997). The GCC countries are considered as a significant world economic power. The export of crude oil from the GCC countries constitutes more than 30 percent of the total world’s oil exports (Abdul-Gader, 1997). While the majority of these countries are highly dependent on the export of oil, they are trying to diversify their economies and increase the participation of the private sector in the development efforts (Al-Jasser & AlHamidy, 2003). The GCC countries like others developing countries need to find an effective way to leverage their knowledge internally and externally, in order to survive and compete and to gain profit from the global market place of today (Hussain, Wahba, 2002). The organizations in the GCC countries realized that the knowledge transfer and knowledge sharing become a core competence of the current workforce (Storey, 2004) and their competitive edge is mostly the brainpower or intellectual capital of their employees and management (Hussain, Wahba, 2002). For example, Bahrain has an aim of becoming the knowledge-based services hub of the GCC region. The country is focusing on implementing the most advantaged technology in all aspect of it business. Moreover, most of the public and private sectors are adapting the electronic applications as the preferred procedural method (EDB, 2004). In UAE, home of the Dubai Internet City DIC, 17% of the population use the Internet. On the other hand, organizations are committed to recruiting and developing UAE national talent. But according to Storey (2004) one of the key successes in achieving positive result will most definitely be impacted by their approach to KM. In Kuwait, in contrast, around 50% of the public and private organizations are considering KM as an important factor to their organization, as it can help them in launching a new product or services, and help their employees to increase their productivity (Almashari et al., 2002). Despite the considerable emerge of the KM efforts in the GCC countries specifically and much attention is being devoted to the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in the Arab world, this knowledge remains indefinable and is only a promising resource. There are many factors related to social culture, socio-economic, and politic issues embedded in the Arab context, that have a significant effect on the implementation of KM in the GCC countries. Fergani (2003) demonstrated that there are no rational policies to ensure that institutional values and structure supportive of a knowledge society are embedded into the political and social culture.

3. Research model and hypotheses This research study focuses on the relationship between alignment and organizational performance, based on the argument that strategic fit has performance implications. The research model hypothesizes that there is an

8

Jaflah AlAmmary and Chun Che Fung

alignment between the business strategy and the KM strategy pursued by the GCC Banking sector and that this alignment associated with a better business performance. It based upon previous work on strategic alignment between IT strategy and business strategy. Given the social and cultural differences, we would expect the KM strategy and business strategy pursued by the Gulf countries to differ from those practised at the western countries. Another aim of the study is to explore the influences of factors such culture, ICT, IT infrastructure and the organizational structure in adapting KM strategy in the GCC. Figure (1) summarizes the overall model underlying this paper. Business strategy is defined as actions taken by an organization to reach its objectives. As Venkatraman (1989) suggested, business strategy is studied at the business level to discover how firms compete effectively in their product-market segments. Business strategy types have been viewed in terms of Miles and Snow’s (1978) typology of Defenders, Analyzers and Prospectors. This typology is especially appropriate for this study because it is most frequently and widely used in empirical research and it focuses on a firm’s behaviour at the total system level rather than subunit levels (Gupta, et al., 1997). It is therefore useful to analyse the ways in which firms interact with their environment.

Figure 1: The proposed research conceptual model Although there has been less discussion of KM strategy in literature on the characteristics of Defenders, Prospector and Analysers, there is strongly believed that there are different KM strategies that would be appropriate for the three business strategies. Sabherwal and Sabherwal (2003) investigated the effect of the alignment between the organization’s business strategy using Miles and Snow’s (1978) typology and the nature of the KM announcement on the organization value. They have identified the profiles of KM effects most suitable for each business strategy as shown in Appendix B. Three KM strategies have been selected among the available options which include: Knowledge Aggressive Strategy (KAS), Knowledge Transfer Strategy (KTS) and Knowledge Conservative Strategy (KCS). These strategies are well established in the KM literatures and have been investigated and discussed in many studies (Syed-Ikhsan, Rowland, 2004; Rollo, 2002; Sharkie, 2003; Bloodgood, Salisbury, 2001). Table (1) shows the definition of each strategy. Moreover, the prior literatures on Miles and Snow’s (1978) typology of business strategy identified several aspects related to the selected KM strategy (Gupta et al., 1997; Sabherwal & Sebherwal, 2003; Sebherwal, et al., 2001). Such as Prospectors pursue an aggressive competitive strategy pioneering products and markets (Gupta, et al., 1997); Defenders attempt to maintain and protect their position in existing products and markets through improving operational efficiencies (Tan, 1997); and Analysers locate and exploit new products and market opportunities while maintaining an organization base of traditional products and customers (Segev, 1989). Table 1: Definitions of the selected KM strategies KM Strategy Knowledge Aggressive Strategy (KAS) KM Strategy Knowledge Transfer Strategy (KTS)

Definition It emphasizes the innovation and creation of new knowledge (Rollo, 2002). It views knowledge as ongoing process of creative destruction (Zack, 2002b) and innovation as a set of interacting knowledge process (Skyrme, 1999). It involves external, internal, tacit and explicit knowledge. Definition This strategy focuses on rapidly disseminating explicit knowledge through the organization units (Bloodgood, Salisbury, 2001) and promoting the exchange of tacit knowledge through knowledge networks (Hansen, et al, 1999). It is a process aims to transfer knowledge and best practices in order to improve operational quality and

9

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Knowledge Conservative Strategy (KCS)

efficiency (Wiig, 1997). Knowledge Conservative Strategy view knowledge primary as an objectified proprietary asset to be protected and financially exploited (Zack, 2002b).It focuses on maintaining knowledge in its original and constructive state and keeping knowledge from unauthorized transfer to other organization. (Bloodgood, Salisbury, 2001). Moreover it relies on the effective utilization of existing assets and resources, including the existing level of knowledge (Sharkie, 2003).

Based on a comprehensive review of the literatures on Miles and Snow (1978) (Appendix B), and built on the previous studies on the KM strategies which provided insights into the most appropriate business strategy types, the following relationships between the two have been established as follow: Knowledge Aggressive strategy (KAS) can support the Prospectors in creating new knowledge which helping them in finding new opportunities for innovation in product, services, process and structures (Bierly, 1999; Bloodgood, Salisbury, 2001). In addition creating new knowledge will allow them to maximize the advantage to be obtain from future opportunities and building their own capabilities they can use to defend against future threats and the actions of rivals (Sharkie, 2003). KAS, by leveraging and reducing the hazard of overtaxing knowledge and resources can help prospectors to secure their future profitability and manage their risk (Bierly, 1999; Sharkie, 2003). Knowledge Conservative Strategy (KCS) helps defenders, which are low in development and innovation and that emphasize efficiency through reutilization, in improving operational efficiency to achieve excess profit and overlook new business opportunities that lie outside their familiar domain. The effective utilization and protection of existing assets and resources allow defenders to achieve efficiency and an excellent reputation in certain market (Das et al., 1991). This also permits them to lead products and services that are difficult to imitate (Bierly, 1999). Moreover KCS support the defenders to refine and become very efficient at their current practices and maximize the organization short-term profits by optimally using its current resources (Bierly, 1999). As Analysers differentiate the organization’s structure and process to accommodate both stable and dynamic areas of operation, they can benefit from both Knowledge Transfer Strategy (KTS) and KCS. KTS encourages value innovation that can help analysers in minimizing risk while maximizing opportunities for growth. This can be achieved by promoting the exchange of tacit knowledge through knowledge networks (Hasen et al., 1999) and capturing and sharing best practices, lessons learned and other reusable assets (Smith, McKeen, 2003). KCS maintains a stable domain of core products for the defenders by utilization and protection of existing assets and resources. So, the alignment between organization’s KM strategy and its business strategy would be considered when Prospector banks aggressively create knowledge, Analyzers pursue both Knowledge transfer strategy and knowledge conservative strategy, and Defenders aim to conserve and protect their knowledge. Accordingly, the following research hypotheses were constructed: H1: The business strategy in the GCC’s banking sector are aligned with the KM strategy H1.1: The defender banks in the GCC countries are pursuing a knowledge conservative strategy H1.2: The analyzer banks in the GCC Countries are pursuing either a knowledge conservative strategy or knowledge transfer strategy H1.3: The prospector banks in the GCC countries are pursuing knowledge aggressive strategy Moreover, the previous literature has implicitly described the notion that the alignment between an organization’s business strategy and KM helps enhance organizational performance (Sabherwal, Sabherwal, 2003). Bloodgood and Morrow (2003) contended that the proper alignment between the type of business strategy that has been chosen by the organization and the knowledge resources that an organization needs to successfully implement this strategy can enhance firm performance. Greater alignment between business strategy and KM indicates that the organization is pursuing the business strategy most suited for its KM capabilities (Sabherwal, Sebherwal, 2001). This expected relationship between alignment and the performance leads to the following hypothesis: H2: Alignment between business strategy and KM strategy in the banking industry at the GCC countries is associated with better performance

4. Research instruments 4.1 Business strategy In this study, only business strategy that has been realized, not one which is merely intended is measured. This approach follows the recommendation by Mintzberg (1979). The three types of business strategy-

10

Jaflah AlAmmary and Chun Che Fung

Prospector, Analyzer, and Defender, will be examined using the 23 items of Segev’s instrument (1987) rated on a Likert-type scale varying from 1 to 7 (highly disagree to highly agree).

4.2 KM strategy In the absence of an existing instrument to measure KM strategy, the KM strategy measure will be developed for the purpose of this study using some available studies. These previous studies have considered the Arabic and GCC countries context in their measurement. Examples of these research have been reported by researchers such as Syed-Ikhsan, Rowland, (2004) and Almashari et al., (2002).

4.3 Performance Return on assets (ROA) is used as a measure for organization performance. It is the most frequently used measure in the strategic management literature. ROA is measured as net income divided by total assets. It has been shown that ROA relates to several other measures of financial performance and it is the best overall measure of financial performance (Dehning, Stratopoulos, 2003). ROA focuses on the overall performance of the firm.

5. Research methodology The current study is exploratory in its nature. However to achieve the objectives of this study, both quantitative and qualitative data will be required. The study will follow two research methods: survey and case study. A sample of 30 top commercial banks selected from the six GCC countries will be used in the survey. There will be 6 case studies which include the top performance commercial banks from each country. Three questionnaires will be developed. One is concerning business strategy which will be addressed to the Chief Executive Officer. The second and the third will concern KM strategy and the strategic alignment respectively. They will be addressed to the Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) if available, or both the CEO and CIO.

6. Conclusion This paper has described the initial phase of a research study on the efficient use of KM to improve the organizational performance among the banking industry in the GCC countries. Despite the considerable number of KM initiatives in the GCC countries, much attention has only been devoted to the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge in the Arab world. This knowledge remains indefinable and is only a promising resource. The current study proposed a conceptual framework to evaluate the relationships between KM strategy and the overall business strategies in the GCC banking industry. It will investigate the effect of these relationships (alignment) in the organizational performance and the outcomes of this study aim to provide a GCC-based KM strategic alignment model which will include the contextual, cultural and technological factors embedded in the GCC countries.

Acknowledgement This study is conducted by the Centre of Enterprise Collaboration in Innovative Systems at Murdoch University. Miss Jaflah Al-Ammary is supported by a scholarship provided by the University of Bahrain.

References Abdul-Gader, A.H. (1997),“Information system strategic for multinational companies in Arab Gulf Countries”, International journal of information management, Vol. 17, Issue 1, pp. 3-12. Al-Jasser, Muhammad & AlHamidy, Abdulrahman (2003), “A common currency area for the Gulf region”, Bank of International Settlements (BIS) Paper, No. 17, pp. 116-132. Almashari, M; Zairi, M. and Alathari, A. (2002), “An empirical study of the impact of Knowledge Management on organization performance”, The journal of computer information systems, Vol. 42, Issue 5, PP. 7472. Bierly, Paul E. (1999), ”Development of a generic knowledge strategy typology” Journal of Business Strategies, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp.1-26. Bloodgood, James M. & Salisbury, Wm. David (2001), Understanding the influence of organizational change strategies on information technology and KM strategies, Decision support systems, Vol. 31, pp. 55-69 Das, Sidhartha R., Zahra, Shaker & Warkentin, Merrill E. (1991), Integrating the content and process of strategic MIS planning with competitive strategy, Decision sciences, Vol. 22, Issue 5, pp. 953 Dehning, Bruce & Stratopoulos, Theophanis (2003), “Determinants of a sustainable competitive advantage due to an IT-enabled strategy”, Journal of Strategic Systems, Vol. 12, pp. 7-28 Economic Development Board (EDB) (2000), Information and communication technology, http://www.bahrainedb.com/default.asp?action=category&id=53#1

11

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Fergani, Nader (2003), “Second Arab human development report: the need for knowledge society”, Newsletter of the economic research forum, for Arab countries, Iran & Turkey, Vol. 10, Issue 4. Gupta, Yash P.; Karimi, Jahangir & Somers, Toni M. (1997), “Alignment of a firm’s competitive strategy and information technology management sophistication: the missing link”, IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, Vol. 44, Issue 4. Hansen, Morten t.; Nohria, Nitin & Tierney, Thomas (1999), “What’s your strategy for managing knowledge?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 77, Issue 2, pp. 106-119. Hofer-Alfeis, Josef (2003), “effective integration of KM into the business starts with a top-down knowledge strategy”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Vol. 9, Issue 7, pp. 719-728. Hussain, Ahmed and Wahba, Khaled (2002), “The readiness of information and decision support center in Egypt to adopt KM”, in Mehdi Khosrowpour, Issues and trends of information technology management in contemporary organization: information resources management association international conference Seattle, PP. 827-831, Idea Group Publisher IGP, USA. Maier, Ronald & Remus, Ulrich (2002), “Defining process-oriented KM strategies”, Knowledge and process management, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 103-118. Miles, R. &. Snow, C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process, McGraw-Hill, New York. Mintzberg, H. (1979), The structuring of organization, Prenctice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp.512. Rollo, C. (2002) “The knowledge strategy within a business context”, Presented at The Third European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens, Greece, April 5-6. Sabherwal, Rajiv & Yolande, Chan (2001), “Alignment between business and IS strategies: a study of prospectors, analysers, and defenders”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp.11. Sabherwal, Rajiv & Sabherwal, Sanjiv (2003),”How do knowledge announcement affect firm value? A study of firm pursuing different business strategies”, Working paper. Segev, Eli (1987), “Strategy, strategy-making, and performance in a business Game”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8, Issue 6, pp.565 Sharkie, Rob (2003), “knowledge creation and its place in the development of sustainable competitive advantage”, Journal of KM, Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 20-31 Skyrme, D. (1999). Knowledge: the strategic imperative, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Smith, H & McKeen, J. (2003), “Developing and aligning a KM strategy”, Queen’s Center for KnowledgeBased Enterprises, May, Ontario, Canada. Story, Karen (2004), Are UAE company really managing knowledge to support UAE National integration and development, Emiratisation, http://www.emiratisation.org. Sunassee, Nakkiran & Sewry, David (2002), A theoretical framework for KM implementation, Proceeding of SAICSIT, The Boardwalk, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, September 16-18, pp. 235-245 Syed-Ikhsan, Syed Omar S. & Rowland, Fytton (2004), KM in a public organization: a study on the relationship between organizational element and the performance of knowledge transfer, Journal of KM; Vol. 8, Issue. 2, pp. 95-111. Tan, F.B. (1997), “Strategy Type, Information Technology And Performance: A Study Of Executive Perceptions”, Proceedings Of The AIS Americas Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, August, pp. 848850. Venkatraman, N. (1989), "The Concept of Fit in Strategy Research: Toward Verbal and Statistical Correspondence," Academy of Management Review Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 423-444. Vera, D. (2001). CO-alignment between business strategy and knowledge strategy and impact on performance, Paper presented at Academy of management conference, Washington, DC, USA. Wiig, K. M. (1997), “KM: where did it come from and where will it go?”, Expert system with application, Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 1-14. Zack, Michael H, (2002a) “A strategic Pretext for Knowledge Management”, Proceeding of The Third European Conference on Organisational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens, Greece, April 5. Zack, Michael H, (2002b) “Developing a Knowledge Strategy: Epiogue” , in The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organisational Knowledge: A Collection of Readings, N. Bontis and C. W.Choo (eds.), Oxford University Press, March 2002, U.K.

12

Jaflah AlAmmary and Chun Che Fung

Appendix A Summary of classifications of knowledge and KM strategies Classification dimensions

Origin of knowledge

Knowledge domain and knowledge process

Knowledge process

Process of capturing, networking and using of knowledge

Different nature and strength of organization

Type of strategy

Reference

Conservative knowledge strategy Aggressive knowledge strategy Knowing what you know Faster and better innovation strategy Explorer Exploiter Loner Innovator Leveraging strategy Expanding strategy Appro-prating strategy Probing strategy Knowledge creation strategy Knowledge transfer strategy Knowledge protection strategy Knowledge creation Knowledge application Knowledge scope Knowledge systemic competencies Knowledge governance Knowledge creation strategy (knowledge asset) Knowledge transfer strategy Knowledge creation and innovation (KM as an innovation strategy) Codification Personalization

Zack (1999, 2002) (Anncu, Ivascu, 2003) Skyrme (1999)

Tacit oriented Explicit oriented Pure expertise Pure procedure Codification Experience accumulation Explicit System strategy Tacit system strategy Explicit Human strategy Tacit human strategy KM Strategy support business strategy as capability KM strategy support business strategy as position in the market place Knowledge creation strategy (Innovation and knowledge creation) Knowledge transfer strategy (Transfer knowledge and best practices) Personal asset responsibility strategy Intellectual asset management strategy Knowledge strategy as business strategy Customer focus knowledge Developing and Transferring Best Practices Creating a new industry from embedded knowledge Shaping Corporate Strategy around knowledge Fostering and Commercialising Innovation Creating a standard by releasing proprietary knowledge

13

Bierly and Chakrabarti (1996)

(Krongh, et al., 2001)

Bloodgood and Salisbury (2001) (Droge, Claycomb, Germain, 2003) Abou-Zeid (2003) Syed-Ikhsan, Rowland, 2004) (Forcadell, Guadamillas, 2002) Jennex, Olfman and Addo (2002) Rollo (2003) Hansen; Nohria and Tierney (1999) (Kelly, 1999) (Earl, 2001), (McMahon, Lowe, Culley, 2004) Jordan and Jones (1997) Bohn (1994) Singh and Zollo (1998) Choi and Lee (2002)

Smith and McKeen, (2003)

Wiig (1997) American Productivity and Quality Center APQC (1996)

Day and Wendler, (1998)

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Appendix B Characteristics and features of miles and snow’s model (1978) Defenders

Analyzers

Prospectors

References

Attribute Defensiveness

High

Medium

Low

Risk-aversion

High

High

Low

Aggressive-ness

Medium

Medium

High

Proactive-ness

Low

Medium

High

Analysis

Medium

Medium

High

Fruity

High

Medium

Medium

Strategic Management concern Administrative Management concern

the cope with the major shift in the market produce and distribute goods or service as efficiently as possible

protect the firm from a changing environment maintain flexibility & effectiveness in decentralized units & project

Technological Management concern

make continuous improvement in the single core technology to maintain efficiency

keep the balance between stability & flexibility Differentiate the firm’s structure & processes to accommodate both stable & adynamic areas of operation. Deal with technological base that is not completely effective or efficient.

Sebherwal, et al. (2001); Segev (1989); Hambrick (1983); Venkatraman (1989) Venkatraman (1989)); Sebherwal, et al. (2001); Segev (1989); Doty et al. (1993) ; Sebherwal, et al. (2001); Shortell & Zajac (1990); Sebherwal, et al. (2001) ; Venkatraman (1989) ;Venkatraman (1989) Segev (1989); Segev (1989); Miles & Snow (1978); Sebherwal, et al. (2001) Doty et al. (1993); Sebherwal, et al. (2001) ; Hambrick (1983) ; Miles & Snow (1978); Shortell & Zajac (1990); (Gupta, et al., 1997)

maintain a good deal of technological flexibility

(Gupta, et al., 1997)

High

Medium

Low

Sabherwal & Sabherwal (2003)

Knowledge sharing

Medium

High

Medium

Sabherwal & Sabherwal (2003)

Knowledge creation

Low

Medium

Low

Sabherwal & Sabherwal (2003)

KM process Knowledge utilization

14

(Gupta, et al., 1997)

A Framework of Intangible Valuation Areas and Antecedents Andreas N. Andreou and Annie Green George Washington University, DC, USA [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: This paper presents a validated taxonomy of intangible strategic value drivers and attempts to identify areas that knowledge workers have knowledge in as antecedents. The taxonomy turns the mirror inward and surfaces internal views of a business that define the strategic value drivers that are aligned with organizational performance. The initial decomposition of the taxonomy is a suggested human capital knowledge asset index (HC-KAI), which is developed by answering the following two questions through focus groups: (a) what performance focus area the organization needs to focus on? and (b) what knowledge employees need to leverage within each focus area? Keywords: intellectual capital; human capital value drivers; critical success factors; knowledge valuation system; intangible asset taxonomy

1. Introduction Intangible assets have been identified as the most critical resource of today’s business enterprise. Yet, most businesses cannot clearly define this business driver. Businesses have not defined what an intangible asset is, or the best approach to valuing intangible assets. The business enterprise in this knowledge era has a need to become “intelligent” about its environment to gain knowledge from its environment and subsequently value its intangible resources. Businesses need to look inward and rigorously scrutinize their business processes/functions to: codify business intelligence and place emphasis on the synthesis and simulation of its processes/functions; embody certain features that are essential when modeling business activity; and provide definitions, attributes and constraints of business intelligence that align with the performance of the business. Intangibles are significant factors in value creation within the business enterprise and need to be managed like traditional factors of labor, capital and raw materials (VonKrogh et. al. 1998). Successful management of intangible assets within the business is to positively affect the performance and market valuation of a business enterprise (Sullivan 1998). There are numerous efforts by researchers and individual companies to develop methods and tools to account for intangible assets (Sveiby 2001; Bontis 2000; Hurwitz et. al. 2002; Shand 1999). The methods are not consistent, standard, or validated to be used by industry at large (Stewart 2001; Bontis 2000; Shand 1999) and these intangible assets models are under much scrutiny from industry about their viability (Bontis 2000; Shand 1999). The accounting of intangible assets needs to be defined and standardized as current accounting (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)) does not convey the relevant and timely information with respect to intangible assets (Lev 2001). Standard accounting practices present major hurdles in achieving intellectual capital valuation (Eccles 2001; Lev 2001; Barth 2000; Skyrme 1999; Brooking 1996; Edvinsson & Malone 1997; Sullivan 1998; Sveiby 1997). Standard accounting of intangible assets needs to be reflected in a company’s accounting valuations and the methods used to account for the value contributed by them (Sullivan 2000; Edvinsson & Malone 1997; Reilly & Schweihs 1999; Sveiby 1997). Green’s (2004) empirical research provides significant evidence that use of standard and consistent intangible asset taxonomy to define corporate intangible valuation models could increase a firm’s ability to identify and account for more intangible assets for measurement and valuation. The results of the research identified that three of the four models evaluated against the intangible asset taxonomy did not adequately represent all of the value drivers. The relative importance of the value drivers not represented in the three existing intangible asset models was of significant importance to the value contribution of intangible assets within IT firms that responded to the survey. Concomitantly, if these IT firms were to use any of the three models, their valuation would not represent a significant portion of its intangible assets. An intangible valuation model needs to be a flexible and adaptive to represent the fluid and dynamic mix of the value contribution of intangible assets. FIVA represents the dynamic intangible asset valuation model, and can be applied across all industries. There are characteristics within the business environment that influence the value components of the firm and that these value components are related to the business strategy. This paper presents the first step to construct a performance based intangible asset valuation approach that models intelligence within the context of the business enterprise, identifies the independent components of business intelligence, and establishes the capability to determine the importance of interactions between

15

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

intangible mechanisms, processes, intangible representation and goals of the enterprise that compose the basic concepts of business intelligence; being knowledgeable about the how, who, what, why, when and where that surrounds the business processes/functions performed to successfully get the product/service out the door.

2. Framework of intangible valuation areas The Framework of Intangible Valuation Areas (FIVA) (Green 2004) is an initial step toward the development of a network and dynamic model to value and report intangible assets. FIVA leverages existing balance scorecard valuation models and business value chain models by extracting their value components and aligning them with performance-based activities to define a common Intangible Asset Taxonomy (IAT) of value drivers of intangible assets shown in table 1. The value drivers that compose FIVA are a consolidated group of value components extracted from four scorecard (SC) models: (a) Skandia Navigator™ (Edvinsson and Malone 1997), (b) Intangible Asset Monitor (Sveiby 1997), (c) IC-Index™ (Roos et al. 1997), and (d) Balanced Score Card (Kaplan and Norton 1996), Sveiby’s (2001) categorization of intangible asset management models and two value chain models: (a) the Generic Value Chain (Porter 1985) and (b) the Work System Framework Value Chain (Alter, 2002) respectively. The broad scope of value components extracted aims at providing a holistic view of the business environment with respect to internal and external value drivers. Table 1: Intangible asset taxonomy (IAT) of value drivers of intangible assets

1

Value Driver Customer

Definition

The economic value that results from the associations (e.g., loyalty, satisfaction, longevity) an enterprise has built with consumers of its goods and services. 2 Competitor The economic value that results from the position (e.g., reputation, market share, name recognition, image) an enterprise has built in the business market place. 3 Employee The economic value that results from the collective capabilities (e.g., knowledge, skill, competence, know-how) of an enterprise’s employees. 4 Information The economic value that results from an enterprise’s ability to collect and disseminate its information and knowledge in the right form and content to the right people at the right time. 5 Partner The economic value that results from associations (financial, strategic, authority, power) an enterprise has established with external individuals and organizations (e.g., consultants, customers, suppliers, allies, competitors) in pursuit of advantageous outcomes. 6 Process The economic value that results from an enterprise’s ability (e.g., policies, procedures, methodologies, techniques) to leverage the ways in which the enterprise operates and creates value for its employees and customers. 7 Product/ The economic value that results from an enterprise’s ability to develop and deliver its Service offerings (i.e., products and services) that reflects an understanding of market and customer(s) requirements, expectations and desires. 8 Technology The economic value that results from the hardware and software an enterprise has invested in to support its operations, management and future renewal. Source: Green 2004, table 20 Knowledge management (KM) practitioners and academics validated the taxonomy and the IAT was then used to construct FIVA using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP represents decisions in a hierarchical form (Saaty 1980). The hierarchical structure of AHP provided a decision hierarchy to allow objectives, sub-objectives and alternatives to be compared on a pair wise basis with respect to the element in the next level of hierarchy using a ratio scale. The methodology to construct FIVA uses a bottom up structuring that identifies the advantages and disadvantages of each value driver of intangible assets to identify the KM objectives shown in table 2. Table 2: Knowledge management objectives. Source: Green 2004 Objective Innovation Organization Socialization Culture

Objective Description The generation of new ideas to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of identifying and implementing new products, new services, advance skills, improved activities and best practices for economic gain. The structuring of resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of capturing, transferring and sharing knowledge throughout the enterprise for economic gains. The establishment of interactions between resources to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of capturing, transferring and sharing knowledge throughout the enterprise for economic gain. The establishment of an environment of visions and values to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of collaboration, creativity, communication, trust and sharing throughout the enterprise for economic gain.

16

Andreas N. Andreou and Annie Green

FIVA aligns the value driver of intangible assets with KM objectives. The combination of the value drivers of intangibles and the KM objectives are depicted in figure 1. The FIVA model is a tool that provides significant insight into the value drivers of intangible assets that contribute towards the achievement of a specific KM objective. The design of the FIVA model supports a dynamic mix of value drivers of intangible assets based on the business environment. FIVA is a validated framework for organizing and studying the breadth of intangible assets to surface and organize intangible asset measurement and performance indicators. P r io r it iz a t io n o f S o u r c e s o f I n t a n g ib le A s s e t s b y R e la t iv e O r d e r o f Im p o r ta n c e G oal P r i o r i t iz a t i o n o f S o u r c e s I n t a n g i b l e A s s e t s

In n o v a tio n

C u s to m e r

C o m p e tito r

O rg a n iz a tio n

E m p lo y e e

G oal

S o c ia liz a tio n

In fo rm a tio n

P a rtn e r

C u ltu re

P r o d u c t/ S e rv ic e

P ro c e ss

C r it e r i a

T e c h n o lo g y

A l t e r n a t iv e s

Figure 1: Framework of intangible valuation areas (FIVA). Source: Green 2004 The FIVA model provides familiar concepts to represent the complex business enterprise and divides the business enterprise into its discrete activities. FIVA provides a path to examine groupings of business activities and establish boundaries that align with both tangible and intangible drivers of value. FIVA incorporates intangible assets in the business enterprise value chain, which is a first step to aligning intangible assets to value creation and business strategy. The alignment of intangibles with strategic objectives and value drivers allows companies to focus their resources and activities on a set of objectives to achieve them more effectively and efficiently. FIVA supports a more fluid value network model that reflects the knowledge age business enterprise.

3. Antecedents of intangible value drivers The antecedents of FIVA is a concept that allows a business to identify and link performance measurements/indicators to its intangible value drivers and subsequently capture measures to monitor and evaluate leading and lagging indicators in the achievement of its KM strategy. The paragraphs that follow describe an approach to identifying knowledge assets that is supported by the eight value drivers of the FIVA model and discuss the interactions between the value drivers that generate numerous business value exchanging activities. According to the simplified process model shown in figure 2, the goal is to link knowledge assets (i.e., critical success factors) to their associated work functions and activities within the context of strategic intent (Bontis et al. 1999). Green’s (2004) FIVA offers a link between strategic intent and required knowledge assets. The author suggests that FIVA could be extended to represent the different business performance focus areas (PFA) and critical success factors (CSF). Both the PFA and CSF can be derived from the interaction of the different value drivers. The eight value drivers of the FIVA model in a matrix format compose thirty-six (36) business performance/learning focus areas as shown by the shaded areas in table 3.

Identify relevant categories of IC Create an IC measurement system

Strategy

Identify KSF and indicators Figure 2: The simplified process model Source: Bontis et al. 1999, fig. 2

17

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Table 3: Performance focus area matrix Employee Customer Competitor Partners Information Technology Process

Product/ Service

Employee Customer Competitor Partner Information Technology Process Product/ Service The scope of the proposed research is row 1 in table 3: that is, to identify the performance focus areas and their respective critical success factors (i.e., knowledge assets) resulting from the interaction of employees with the different value sources of the organization (i.e., customers, competitors, partners, information, technology, processes and products/services). Partners as described under stakeholder theory represent both the external (i.e., allies, government, consultants, suppliers, etc.) and internal stakeholders (i.e., colleagues) of the organization (Baron 2000; Wheeler et al. 2003). Therefore the interaction between colleagues is covered under the partners’ domain. Performance/learning focus areas can be thought of as strategic imperative objectives. Hunt’s (1999) review of strategic theory describes a firm’s strategic imperative as: “sustained, superior financial performance…that…can be achieved through a sustainable competitive advantage in the marketplace.” Through literature review of many disciplines: (a) strategic and operations management, (b) human resources and competency management, (c) marketing, (d) information technology, and (e) stakeholder theory six (6) PFA have been identified. The respective interaction domains and a description of their performance focus areas are shown in table 4. The domain of this interaction will be called the human capital knowledge asset index (HC-KAI). It represents a set of PFA and related CSF that individual workers can leverage to facilitate organizational performance. The value of this interaction makes intuitive sense (Zack 1999); the firm that knows more about its customers, products, technologies, markets, and their linkages should perform better. Table 4: Employee interactions with value sources and performance focus areas Employee – “Value Source” Interaction Employee - Customer Employee - Competitor Employee - Partners Employee - Information Employee – Technology Employee – Process Employee – Product/Service

Performance Focus Area Customer Intimacy: Find out what your customers really want that they don’t already have and find a way to provide it, such that value exceeds cost for both parties (Kampmeier 1997, 75). Competitive Intelligence: Knowledge of what one’s competitors are doing by having information regarding their capabilities, vulnerabilities and intentions (Erickson and Rothberg 2000). Enterprise Intelligence: Scanning the business environment to gather information that can reduce environmental uncertainty with regards to business objectives (Thomas et al. 1993). Leveraging Competencies: The ability to reduce noise in information by managing effectively the complete decision-cycle and information processes that add value to the information (Nutt 2002; Simpson and Prusak 1995). Leveraging Technology: The adoption of a people-centric framework for extending leadership, enhancing collaboration, improving operational efficiency and accelerating learning (Morello 2002). Leveraging Processes: Managing and leveraging mission critical processes for strategic advantage and capitalizing on new opportunities (Hammer and Stanton 1999; Garvin 1995). Innovation Strategies: Selecting innovation strategies that will meet customer needs in an efficient manner (Schilling and Hill 1998).

The next step is to identify the levers; that is the critical success factors or knowledge assets that drive each performance focus area in table 4.

4. A theory based HC-KAI The real motive in constructing IC models is learning (Sveiby 2001). A valid question to ask in finding out value creation opportunities within each performance/learning focus area is: “what learning elements that drive

18

Andreas N. Andreou and Annie Green

value need to be captured when value sources interact with each other? For example, what is the value of learning when employees interact with customers, competitors, colleagues, processes etc.? The following question guided the conceptualization and operationalization of the theory based index: ‘What knowledge (i.e., critical success factors) do employees need to leverage within that focus area?’ Critical success factors refer, as the name implies, to ingredients, components, drivers, contingencies, critical elements, and core competencies that need to be present in order to achieve success (Rockart 1982; Antony and Banuelas 2002; Andal-Ancion et al. 2003; Hong and Kim 2002). Overall, the definition given by Rockart (1979) will be used to conceptualize the domain of CSF for each performance focus area: “the limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization.” For example the operationalization question for customer intimacy is: “what are the critical success factors in achieving effective customer intimacy?” Kampmeier (1997) describes three different types of customer knowledge that drive customer intimacy: (a) interpersonal knowledge, (b) understanding customer needs, and (c) understanding customer business. Twenty-seven (27) critical success factors have been identified in total. The review and analysis of the literature on the interaction between employees and product/service resulted in new product development (NPD) and innovation as the performance/learning focus area. However the critical success factors for effective NPD and innovation span the whole spectrum of employee-“value driver” interaction investigated under the scope of this study. That is innovation is viewed more as an outcome or objective founded on the different value drivers. As shown in table 2 above innovation is one of the four KM objectives emerging from the prioritization of the respective value drivers per FIVA. The six (6) PFA and twenty-seven (27) CSF that comprise the proposed human capital knowledge asset index (HC-KAI) are shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: A theory based human capital knowledge asset index (HC-KAI)

5. Validating the theory based HC-KAI Qualitative data through focus groups was collected to ensure the dimensionality and conceptual saturation of the proposed index by eliminating, confirming or adding new constructs and dimensions as appropriate (Jarvis et al. 2003; Diamantopoulos and Winklfofer 2001).

5.1 Description of focus groups Six focus groups with twenty-seven participants in total were conducted, with high technology federal contractors in the U.S. High technology federal contractors were chosen because: (a) to be consistent with Green’s (2004) sample population of information technology firms in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, and (b) the high technology sector is a knowledge intensive business with significant contribution to the economy of the D.C. metro area (A report card on the Washington D.C. metropolitan area technology

19

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

economy 2003). Four focus groups were from Northrop Grumman Corporation and two from Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). The two organizations together they represent about 30% of the total amount of contracts awarded during 2003 and they employ about 23% of the total workforce in the industry (Top 100 Federal Prime Contractors 2003). The focus group size for this study was between 4-5 participants on average. The subjects recruited were from operations management across the different capability areas of both companies holding job positions such as senior system engineers, project engineers, project managers, technical professionals and senior analysts. The focus groups were conducted during February – March 2005 at the premises of the participating companies; that is, El Segundo, California and McLean, Virginia respectively. The average time for each focus group was one hour. The template analysis technique (also known as thematic coding or codebook analysis) was used to analyze the data from the focus groups. The approach is appropriate for the purposes of collecting and analyzing unstructured data (i.e., text) and producing a list of codes (i.e., template) representing different themes (King 1998). The range of coding is two levels. The first level is the performance or learning focus areas. The second level is the critical success factors for each area. A total of 729 data items was collected from the six focus groups with an average of 121 data items per group. The range was from 82 to 122 data items. Table 5 shows the overall treatment of the 729 data items. Table 5: Treatment of focus group data items Treatment

Total number of data items used

Critical success factor category Primary CSF thematic dimensions & descriptors Secondary CSF thematic dimensions & descriptors Not coded (e.g., too general, not clear, duplicates) Total

82 212 320 115 729

Percentage (%) 11 29 44 16 100

Items treated as primary thematic dimensions or as descriptors were chosen based on: (a) how clear they were in representing the conceptual domain of their respective CSF category and (b) their frequency (i.e., number of times mentioned). Items treated as secondary CSF thematic dimensions or descriptors are still valid thematic indicators of their respective CSF category but less clear in indicating the conceptual domain of the CSF category they represent. Items not coded represent concepts that were deemed too abstract, unclear to their meaning or represented duplicates of primary or secondary instances. In section 5.2, the main types of modification made whilst revising the initial theory based index are described.

5.2 Focus group results 5.2.1 Insertion Insertion indicates that data items relevant to the respective question were identified that were not covered by the scope of an existing critical success factor category. Therefore a new critical success factor category is added. One new critical success factor category has been added in this case under personal competencies. The new category is labeled as “context knowledge.” It represents context parameters such as “What are you going to do with the information?” “who is involved?”, place (i.e., where), time (i.e., when), and purpose (i.e., why), among others that one takes into account in applying content knowledge and skills. For example understanding the mission of the organization could be a key driver in managing information: I have different filters that I put on information depending what I want in my department [pause] and one of my filters is I understand where SAIC is going [pause] doesn’t seem that information fit in or doesn’t, it helps me with my filtering process. In addition the performance focus area of “personal competencies” was renamed to “leveraging competencies.” The new name shows better the value orientation or operational value of the particular performance focus area. It is also consistent with the operational value names of two other performance focus areas: (a) leveraging technologies, and (b) capitalizing on processes.

5.2.2 Deletion A code can be deleted when it is found to significantly overlap with other codes. This is especially the case when the scope of a code is redefined. On the initial tentative index under “personal competencies” it was

20

Andreas N. Andreou and Annie Green

found that there was overlap in the data items representing the two codes of “self-concepts” and “perceptions.” Therefore the two codes were deleted and replaced with a new code labeled “personality” representing elements such as ego, curiosity, and passion among others. Similarly, the scope of business intelligence under enterprise intelligence was found to include thematic elements from the domain of supplier intelligence. Therefore the category of supplier intelligence was deleted or merged with the category of business intelligence. Furthermore, in the course of analyzing the data it was observed that there was data parallelism under the following three performance focus areas: (a) competitive intelligence, (b) enterprise intelligence, and (c) customer intimacy. Therefore it was decided that common CSF categories dimensions could be used for the three performance focus areas above. The three common categories are: (a) community intelligence, (b) political intelligence, and (c) business intelligence as initially defined under enterprise intelligence. In addition the initial scope of business intelligence (i.e., business strategy, marketing strategy and resources used) was broaden to include experience (i.e., lessons learned, failures, mistakes, successes, etc). Overall the main theme of business intelligence was the working environment, history and experience. For example in the context of customers: The whole working environment of the customer [pause] is good to know that [pause] for example if you have a customer who habitually is appearing a difficult customer to deal with, where you can’t get a contract through getting you to the point that is costing you, that’s a consideration. It could be culture, the management of the organization they just work slowly [pause] or have a lot of bureaucracy [pause] their processes. It seems to go up and down from management down to labor [pause] to everything you need to know...you need to know whether you are compatible with them. ‘What’s their history?’ how they have evolved over the last ten years, is this been something that’s a pain for them for the last ten years or this is a new initiative that just hit them ...their struggles, and their successes as well, ‘where are they in the learning curve?’

5.2.3 Changing scope When a code is found to be either too narrowly defined or too broadly it might not be useful in specifying clearly the scope of its conceptual domain. In this instance the code might be redefined at a lower or higher level. One code (i.e., category) was redefined at a higher level in developing the final template. The category “social intelligence” which represented information derived from the interaction between colleagues was redefined as a level-one code (i.e., represented a distinct performance focus area) from its original definition as a second-level critical success factor category. The data items describing social intelligence were found to spam the whole spectrum of interpersonal performance dimensions identified by Carpenter (2003). Therefore the five high order categories used to classify these dimensions as identified in Carpenter’s (2003) taxonomy were used to represent the critical success factors under “social intelligence.” The five categories are: (a) building and maintaining relationships, (b) receiving direction, (c) energizing, (d) work information, and (e) staffing information. For example the theme of cross-marketing opportunities under the domain of staffing information was discussed: If you are working with a specific customer doing different kinds of work for them while you are in with them you see other needs that they might have [pause] your group doesn’t do that but you know somebody else to go to [pause] so you help your customer when you say ‘hey we have people who can do that, is not in my area but I can bring someone in to talk to you about that.’ In addition themes of energy and extending relationships or bonding were discussed too: You draw energy from each other, someone who is motivated [pause] ‘What drives them?’ ‘What excites them?’ Their network, ‘Who do they know?’ [pause] Especially what services is their background: ‘air force’, ‘army’, ‘navy’,...I do a lot of interaction with the navy because of our navy background. Monday I was pitching and they introduce me as having my husband do thirty years navy, I did fourteen, my daughter is on a ship and my dad was on the Korean war, I mean they just love the fact that you are one with their service In addition a new capital construct called human capital has been added to the revised inventory and linked to social intelligence. Human capital as a new performance dimension measures the quality and effectiveness of the organization’s workforce. According to Carpenter (2003) understanding interpersonal performance criterion is important in improving job performance models.

21

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

In summary the analysis resulted in: (a) identifying six (6) new CSF categories, (b) merging four CSF categories from the tentative index into two, and (c) reclassifying one CSF category as a performance focus area. The final index or inventory consists of thirty-one (31) CSF categories at level two grouped into seven (7) PFA at level one. Figure 4 shows the revised suggested index. The critical success factor categories with their primary thematic dimensions and descriptors are available upon request

Figure 4: Revised human capital knowledge asset index (HC-KAI)

6. Theoretical saturation The theoretical saturation of the CSF was determined by estimating the percentage (%) change of new thematic dimensions added in each focus group. For example in the case of ‘leveraging competencies’ there were 7 thematic dimensions classified under “cognitive skills.” Five out of the seven dimensions (i.e., 71%) were identified by the completion of the third focus group. Table 6 shows the addition of new thematic dimensions per focus group and the percentage change of the cumulative total. When the percentage change drops dramatically it is indicative that the analysis reached a theoretical saturation. Table 6: Theoretical saturation of focus groups Number of new thematic dimensions added: Cumulative total: % change

FG 1 33 33 N/A

FG 2 26 59 79%

FG 3 34 93 58%

FG 4 20 113 22%

FG 5 19 132 17%

FG 6 7 139 5%

As shown in table 6 the percentage change of new thematic dimensions fell to 17% by focus group 5 and to 5% by focus group 6 which is indicative of reaching theoretical saturation of the domain under study. That is, the focus groups have become repetitive in their input and there was little diversity to the observations and comments of the participants (Morgan 1998, 78). Thus, the number of focus groups conducted for the purposes of this study was sufficient and according to the guidelines of Morgan (1997, 43) more groups would not provide any additional data that would create a new understanding.

7. Future research Upon completion of the focus groups and in accordance with research practice (Carpenter 2003; Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer 2001; Pulakos and Arad 2000) the empirical validity of the proposed taxonomy or index model will be further assessed with the development and testing of an instrument administered to a larger scale sample. The purpose of the instrument is to collect data to evaluate the relationship of the knowledge asset antecedents with intellectual capital and business performance indicators. Currently the research is at the stage of administering the survey and collecting data for assessing the empirical validity of the structural model shown in figure 5. Results are expected in the fall of 2005.

22

Andreas N. Andreou and Annie Green

Figure 5: Proposed structural model

8. Conclusion Although strategy, leadership and other tangible factors of production (i.e., monetary and physical assets) have and will always proclaim their contribution to business performance and organizational success the people factor has become the dominant driver for organizational success. This is especially true in a knowledge driven economy where the most valuable assets of the company (i.e., intellectual brainpower and capacity) can walk out the door overnight. A recent publication from the Hay Group (2004) a global organizational and HR consulting group discusses the importance of people management and alignment with strategy by stating that: “while the role of human capital in driving business performance is widely recognized, human assets are less well understood and less well managed in many organizations than financial or operational factors.” Research so far has only touch the surface of this problem by testing empirical models of IC using reflective indicators as proxy measures. The proposed study aims at pushing research in the field one step forward by testing empirical models of IC using formative indicators as antecedents to IC proxy measures and financial indicators. These antecedents comprise a suggested human capital knowledge asset index (HC-KAI). A first attempt in developing a HC-KAI could provide a common ground for understanding the levers behind HC performance and their impact on the organization’s value proposition.

Acknowledgements The contribution of the participating organizations and the individuals in the focus groups is greatly appreciated. Special thank you to my advisor Dr. Stankosky for his insights, Dr. Green for her encouragement, assistance and advice in all aspects of the research from day one, Dr. Murray for sharing his experience and insights in analyzing qualitative data and the doctoral peer group of our institute for providing a beta test avenue and creative thinking to resolving roadblocks.

References Alter, S. (2002) Information Systems: the foundation of e-business, 4th Edition: Prentice Hall, NJ. Andal-Ancion, A., Cartwright, P.A. and Yip, G.S. (2003) “The digital transformation of traditional business”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol 44, No. 4, p.34. Antony, J., and Banuelas, R. (2002) “Key ingredients for the effective implementation of six sigma program”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol 6, No. 4, p. 20. Barth, S. (2000) “KM Horror Stories”, Knowledge Management Magazine, October, p.37-40 Baron, D. P. (2000) Business and its Environment, Prentice-Hall Inc., NJ. Bontis, N. (2000) Assessing Knowledge Assets: A Review of the Models Used to Measure Intellectual Models. Doctoral Dissertation, DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University Bontis, N., Dragonetti, N.C., Jacobsen, K. and Roos, G. (1999) “The knowledge toolbox: a review of the tools available to measure and manage intangible resources”, European Management Journal, Vol 17, No.4, pp391 - 402.

23

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Brooking, A. (1996) Intellectual capital: core asset for the third millennium, International Thomson Business Press, Boston. Carpenter, T. (2003) Toward a comprehensive taxonomy of interpersonal performance in organizations. Ph.D. Diss., Dept. of Psychology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. Center for Information Technology and the Global Economy (CITGE) (2003) A report card on the Washington D.C. metropolitan area technology economy, KOGOD School of Business, American University. Diamantopoulos, A., and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001) “Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol 38, No. 2, p. 269. Eccles R. G., et. al. (2001) The value reporting revolution, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Edvinsson, L. and Malone, M. S. (1997) Intellectual capital : realizing your company's true value by finding its hidden roots, HarperCollins, New York. Erickson, S. G. and Rothberg, H. N. (2000) “Intellectual capital and competitiveness: guidelines for policy”, Competitiveness Review, Vol10, No. 2, p. 192. Garvin, D. A. (1995) “Leveraging processes for strategic advantage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 73, No. 5b, p. 76. Green, A. (2004) Prioritization of sources of intangible assets for use in enterprise balance scorecard valuation models of information technology (IT) firms. Doctoral Dissertation, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Engineering Management and Systems Engineering Department, George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1999) “How process enterprises really work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol 77, No. 6, p. 108. Hay Group (2004) Employee surveys: essential tools for strategic HR professionals, [Online], Available: http://www.haygroup.com/Library/Newsletters/Hay_Insight_Selections.asp. [October 7, 2004] Hong, K. K., and Kim, Y.G. (2002) “The critical success factors for ERP implementation: an organizational fit perspective”, Information & Management, Vol 40, No.1, p. 25. Hunt, S. D. (1999) “The strategic imperative and sustainable competitive advantage: public policy implications of resource-advantage theory”, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol 27, No. 2, pp. 144 - 159. Hurwitz, J., Lines S., Montgomery, B. and Schmidt, J. (2002) “The linkage between management practices, intangibles performance and stock returns”, Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol 3, No. 1, pp. 51-61. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003) “A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 30, No. 2, p. 199. Kampmeier, C. (1997) “Customer intimacy: Pick your partners, shape your culture, win together”, Journal of Management Consulting Vol 9, No. 3, p. 75. Kaplan, R. S. and Norton, D. P. (1996) The Balanced Scorecard: translating strategy into action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. King, N. (1998) ‘Template Analysis’, in Symon, G. and Cassell, C. (ed.) Qualitative methods and analysis in organizational research, SAGE Publications, London. Lev, B. (2001) Intangibles, management, measurement and reporting, Brookings Institution Press. Morello, D. (2002) “Invest in people to reap economic value from IT”, Research Note: SPA-17-2305, Gartner Research. Morgan, D. L. (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research, SAGE Publications, CA. Morgan, D. L. (1998) Focus group kit, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Nutt, P. C. (2002) Why decisions fail: avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, CA. Porter, M. E. (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance, The Free Press, New York. Pulakos, E. D., and Arad, S. (2000) “Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 85. No. 4, pp. 612 - 624. Reilly, R. F. and Schweihs R. P. (1999) Valuing Intangible Assets, McGraw-Hill, New York. Rockart, J. F. (1979) “Chief Executives define their own information needs”, Harvard Business Review MarchApril, pp 81-92. Rockart, J. F. (1982) “The changing role of the information systems executive: a critical success factors perspective”, Sloan Management Review, Vol 24, No. 1, p. 3. Roos, J., Roos, G., Edvinsson, L. E. and Dragonetti, N. C. (1998) Intellectual capital: navigating in the new business landscape, New York University Press, New York. Saaty, T. L. (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York. Shand, D. (1999) “Return on Knowledge”, Knowledge Management, April, pp.33-39. Simpson, C. W. and Prusak, L. (1995) “Troubles with information overload , moving from quantity to quality in information provision”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol 15, No. 6, pp. 413-425. Schilling, M. A. and Hill, C. W. L. (1998) “Managing the new product development process: strategic imperatives”, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol12, No. 3, p.67. Stewart, Thomas A. 2001. “Accounting gets radical”, Fortune 500. April, pp.184-194.

24

Andreas N. Andreou and Annie Green

Skyrme D. J. (1999) Knowledge Networking, Creating the Collaborative Enterprise, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Sullivan, P. H. (1998) Profiting from intellectual capital: extracting value from innovation, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Sullivan, P. H. (2000) Value-driven intellectual capital: how to convert intangible corporate assets into market value, John Wiley & Sons, New York. Sveiby, K. E. (1997) The new organizational wealth: managing and measuring knowledge-based assets, Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc., CA. Sveiby, K. E. (2001) Methods for measuring intangible assets, [Online], Available: http://www.sveiby.com/articles/IntangibleMethods.htm. [April 1, 2004]. Thomas, J. B., Clark, S. M. and Gioia, D. A. (1993) “Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 36, No. 2, p. 239. Von Krogh, G., Roos, J. and Kleine, D. (Eds.) (1998) Knowing in firms: understanding, managing, and measuring knowledge, Sage, London. Washington Technology (2003) Top 100 Federal Prime Contractors 2004, [Online], Available: http://www.washingtontechnology.com/top-100/2003/. [May 1 2004]. Wheeler, D., Colbert, B. and Freeman, E. R. (2003) “Focusing on value: reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world”, Journal of General Management, Vol 28, No. 3, p. 1. Zack, M. H. (1999) “Developing a knowledge strategy”, California Management Review, Vol 41, No. 3, p.125.

25

Knowledge Sharing: A Critical Success Factor for Risk Management Athina Anthropopoulou Aston University, Birmingham, UK [email protected] Abstract: The paper investigates how risk-related knowledge, which originates from multiple sources and different groups of highly specialized professionals in healthcare organizations, is communicated in the course of established risk management processes. The paper concludes with a proposal aiming to integrate knowledge about risk management within the organization, as a means of achieving higher levels of proactive and reactive risk management. The findings of the paper are derived from a case study on a NHS (National Health Service) Trust, in the United Kingdom. Keywords: Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Integration, Risk Management, Healthcare Management

1. Introduction Existing literature on risk management and knowledge management is exceptionally rich. Nevertheless, existing knowledge management approaches neglect the idiosyncrasies of specific business operations, as risk management. Equally important, the literature on organizational risk management challenges the integration of the factors that influence risk management; however, it does not explore knowledge and its manipulation throughout risk management. In every organization, risk management is part of the overall strategy, structures, culture, people, processes, and technology, and is simultaneously performed on these organizational elements. Indeed, risk management is recognized as one of the major concerns for health care organizations. Whereas information about almost every part of the organizational reality can be characterized as the “fuel” for the risk management processes, knowledge is the essential resource used to determine where this information is located, and how it should be interpreted and exploited, in the course of organizational risk management. Knowledge valuable to risk management originates from multiple sources and different groups in the organization. Each group plays a distinctive role in the risk management lifecycle, based on its area of expertise. This paper investigates how risk related information is perceived by different groups, how risk-related knowledge is used by different groups, how it is communicated between different groups, and how it feeds the risk management processes. Finally, the paper proposes a set of actions aiming to integrate knowledge about risk management from all over the organization, as a means of achieving higher levels of proactive and reactive risk management.

2. Organizational knowledge management context Literature in the area of organizational knowledge and organizational learning provides definitions and classifications of organizational knowledge (Polanyi, 1966, Argyris and Schon, 1978, Nonaka, 1994, Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, Wiig, 1999, Zack, 1999, Probst et al., 2000, Bose, 2003). Additionally, literature in the area of knowledge management focuses on defining knowledge, distinguishing knowledge from information, and developing the appropriate methods and techniques to manage knowledge efficiently and effectively. The following paragraphs discuss these issues. The term ‘knowledge’ is often confused with ‘information’. Wiig (1999) names information as ‘the facts and data organized to characterize a particular situation, condition, challenge, or opportunity’. On the other hand, he defines knowledge as ‘the truths, beliefs, perspectives and concepts, judgments, and expectations, methodologies and know-how which is possessed by humans, agents, or other active entities and is used to receive information, recognize, identify, analyse, interpret, evaluate, synthesize, decide, plan, implement, monitor, and adapt’. In other words, ‘knowledge is applied to interpret the available information about a particular situation and to decide how to manage it’ (Wiig, 1995). Probst et al. (2000) define knowledge as the whole body of cognitions and skills which individuals seek to solve problems, including theories and practical everyday rules and instructions for action. In an attempt to identify the relationship between information and knowledge management in health care organizations, Bose (2003) argues that knowledge management treats knowledge as a resource by exercising selectivity and imposing order on information resources, adding structure to information, and proactively capturing information that might be useful in the future.

26

Athina Anthropopoulou

In view of the epistemology of knowledge, Nonaka (1994) focuses on knowledge creation and distinguishes between the explicit and tacit knowledge possessed by individuals. Further to the ‘individual’ nature of knowledge, Spender (1994) adds collective knowledge and recognises four types of organizational knowledge: Conscious, as an individual’s explicit knowledge. Automatic, as an individual’s implicit knowledge. Objectified, as collective explicit knowledge. Collective, as collective implicit knowledge. In the same context, Brown and Duguid (1998) focus on collective knowledge as a crucial factor for the development of competitive advantage for an organization. In particular, it is proposed that organizations move from the ‘know-what’ which is the explicit knowledge and the core competencies to the ‘know-how’ view of knowledge, which refers to the particular ability to put know-what into practice. They (Brown and Duguid, 1998) argue that collective organizational knowledge is created and possessed by ‘hybrid groups of overlapping and interdependent communities’, known as ‘communities of practice’. ‘Collective practice leads to forms of collective knowledge, shared sense-making, and distributed understanding that doesn’t reduce the content of individual heads’. Organization must reach to synergy. A valuable classification of knowledge comes from Holsapple and Joshi (2000). Based on this, knowledge might exist independently of the organization (e.g. stakeholders’ knowledge), or with reference to the organization (e.g. culture, infrastructure, strategy, roles, and structures). Beyond the different typologies of knowledge the fact that knowledge exists somewhere in the organization does not mean that the whole organization benefits from it (Szulanski, 2000). Undoubtedly, knowledge has to be delivered at the right place & the right time (Wiig et al., 1997). However, since ‘knowing is not a static embedded capability or static disposition of actors, but rather an ongoing social accomplishment, constituted and reconstituted as actors engage the world in practice’ Orlikowski (2002), organizational knowledge is distributed in a sense that ‘nobody knows in advance what that knowledge is or need be’ (Tsoukas, 1996). Therefore, organizations face the challenge of continuously seeking for knowledge that might relate to a particular situation and transforming it.

3. Organizational risk management context The following paragraphs present some basic definitions of risk and risk management, and focus on the factors that affect organizational risk management. . Namely, risk is defined as ‘the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon objectives’ (AS/NZS 4360, 1999). Meanwhile, risk management based on the British Standard 4778 (1991) is defined as ‘the process whereby decisions are made to accept a known or assessed risk and/ or the implementation of actions to reduce the consequences or probability of occurrence’. Namely, the Australian standard (AS/NZS 4360, 1999) recognizes risk management as an integral part of good management practice, related to any activity, function or process of the organization, and proposes a generic approach to the implementation of risk management with seven steps that need to be followed at every and any organizational level: (a) establish the context of risk management, (b) identify risks, (c) assess risks, (d) treat risks, (e) monitor and review risk management, and (f) communicate and consult risk management based on a risk-aware culture. Since risk management affects and is affected by the organization reality, the perceptions on risk and the way they are communicated within the organization seem to play a significant role in risk assessment and treatment. Notably, the Council of the Royal Society decided to institute an updated study (Royal Society, 1992) on risk management focusing on risk perception, risk assessment, and risk communication. Regarding risk perception there are four trends in the literature (Pidgeon et al., 1992, Royal Society, 1992): The social scientists’ perspective focusing on the existence of ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ risk, arguing that whatever definition we might adopt for risk, the assessment of its parameters requires judgement and modelling assumptions. Risk modelling, whether based on quantitative, or qualitative methods of analysis is bounded by ignorance that might arise from our distorted and incomplete knowledge (Smithson, 1989). The perspective of sociologists and anthropologists attempting to adopt a multi-disciplinary approach, including social, cultural, and institutional factors in the process of risk perception (Krimsky and Golding, 1992). Based on the cultural theory (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982) human attitudes towards risk and danger are not homogeneous but vary systematically according to the attitudes and beliefs shared by a group, defined as cultural bias.

27

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

A third framework comes from Wynne (1989b), who observed that the assessments on a risk made by experts incorporate their implicit assumptions widely shared and accepted by a scientific community, which members have been exposed to a common body of accepted knowledge and similar methods of training. Finally, the ‘risk communication’ perspective that pinpoints the influence of the way risk is communicated on risk perception. From a practical point of view, risk assessment deals with the degree of acceptability or tolerance towards unexpected events, managed through: (a) professional judgement, embodied in individual professional skills and knowledge or in professional standards, (b) use of formal methods of analysis (e.g. cost-benefit analysis), and (c) ‘bootstrapping’, based on risk comparison tables created after summarized behaviour towards existing risks. However, it is often the case that risk acceptability and tolerance is a decision made not upon scientific but on political grounds (Health and Safety Executive, 1991). As far as the National Health Service (N.H.S.) in the United Kingdom is concerned, risk management is included in the priorities for health improvement, in the modernized NHS (Department of Health, 1998): Clinical risk management should focus on the identification and prioritisation of those at most risk of adverse effects. Organizational risk management should ensure that the systems and procedures necessary to achieve excellent clinical management are continuously in place. Concluding, risk management involves a multi-dimensional decision-making and communication process, strongly linked to the organization reality and highly affected by the quality and type of existing information and knowledge.

4. Research setting 4.1 Background information As already mentioned, risk management is recognized as one of the major concerns of the National Health Service (N.H.S.) in the U.K. and is included in the priorities for health improvement, in the modernised N.H.S. Risk management in the N.H.S. Trusts is under the “umbrella” of clinical governance (Department of Health, 1998). The current research is based on a case study in a N.H.S. Trust that has developed a coherent Risk Management Strategy for 2003/06, in order to define the respective objectives and organizational structure. Moreover, a document of relevant Policies and Procedures has been developed to support the implementation of the Risk Management Strategy. Based on this documentation, risk management is built on the respective Australian Standard (AS/NZS 4360, 1999). In addition, the fundamental tool around which the risk management cycle functions is the ‘Risk Register’, a log that contains all the information regarding risks and the suitable actions to eliminate, avoid, transfer, or accept those risks. The risk management cycle includes four processes: Risk identification: The process is the responsibility of all the members of the organization. Risk can be identified by various sources. Each risk that is identified is logged in the Risk Register. Risk assessment: The process involves the evaluation and prioritisation of risk, which is based on a ‘risk assessment matrix’, created to assess the likelihood and consequences of potential risks. Risk treatment: The members of the Trust have to agree on a programme of actions for the identified risks. Risks might be avoided, reduced, transferred, or accepted. Risk review: The Risk Registers have to be reviewed on a regular basis, namely every quarter. During such reviews, risks have to be assessed again, given that the appropriate action has been taken. While, risk identification is the responsibility of the whole Trust; the departmental managers and directorate managers are liable for risk assessment and treatment. Additionally, each directorate has appointed a ‘lead’, a person who is accountable for the administration of the Risk Register and communication with other people outside the directorate. Furthermore, a specialized team, the Clinical Governance Support Unit, reviews all the risks, collates them on a Trust Risk Register, identifies special areas of concern, and communicates with the directorates with reference to the Risk Registers. Finally, the Trust Board, the Operational Board, and specialist Risk Management Committees overview the risk management cycle and decide upon the management of the most significant risks.

28

Athina Anthropopoulou

4.2 Methodology The objective of the study was to identify how the different groups that participate in risk management at the Trust communicate what they know to facilitate the identification, assessment, treatment, and review of risk. The findings are based on an exploratory case study approach aiming to identify the “how” and “when” of the knowledge sharing process in risk management (Gummesson, 2000, Yin, 2003, Stake, 1995). Data collection was based on empirical data from interviews, observations, and existing documentation regarding the Risk Register, risk management standards, reports, policies and procedures, papers relevant to the hospital, and the N.H.S., etc. The Trust has provided the researcher with full access to relevant people, places, and documents. In total, the study involved 13 interviews and 8 observations, while the volume of documents and reports is not quite easy to estimate. In particular, data collection was based on empirical data from unstructured and semi-structured interviews. The unstructured interviews were addressed to informants from the upper level management; while for people involved in the daily tasks of risk management semi-structured interviews have been conducted. The interviews were based on an Interview Protocol (Creswell, 1994, Creswell, 1998). In addition, the researcher has attended (a) meetings between the Clinical Governance Support Unit and the directorates that own local Risk Registers, and (b) internal meetings of the Clinical Governance Support Unit. The researcher was an observant in these meetings. During each observation, the objective was to capture the context within knowledge is manipulated in such meetings. It is noteworthy, that during the meetings between the Clinical Governance Support Unit and the directorates, the participants have to share the information and knowledge they possess regarding risks. Such meetings might involve either the development or the review of Risk Registers. Moreover, during the internal meetings of the Clinical Governance Support Unit, the participants have to share their problems, concerns, and suggestions with reference to what they have experienced throughout their communication with the directorates. Finally, the researcher has gathered existing documents related to risk management, its environment, strategy, culture, processes, policies and procedures, structures and initiatives regarding knowledge management. The majority of the documentation was in electronic format. Data collected have been coded in categories based on the requirements of the study with the support of the tool QSR N6.

5. Findings To summarize the context of risk management in the organization under study, the main groups that participate actively in the development and maintenance of the Risk Registers are the Clinical Governance Support Unit and the directorates. The data collected through interviews, observations, and existing documentation have been organized around the four risk management processes to show what kind of information and knowledge is required, and which group possesses the knowledge needed for each one of these processes (see Table 1, Appendix 1.). In particular, risk identification requires close collaboration and exchange of experience to manage the existing risk-related information. In essence, the Clinical Governance Support Unit contributes a general view of the environment of risk management (e.g. how the operation of one directorate might affect the operation of another) and the elements that indicate the existence of a risk for the directorate, such as trends of existing problems, reports of incidents, clinical guidelines that have to be introduced, etc. On the other hand, the directorates have a clear and coherent picture of their internal affairs. Likewise, risk assessment demands powerful teamwork between the two groups to achieve a high degree of objectivity while scoring the potential risks. Even though the members of the directorates have the expertise required to evaluate the likelihood and severity of a risk, the detached glance of the Clinical Governance Support Unit that takes into consideration what happens Trust wide contributes to the desired elimination of subjectivity. On the other hand, risk treatment is mostly a directorate concern, while the Clinical Governance Support Unit can offer the experience gained from the Trust-wide risk management (e.g. how other directorates dealt with a similar situation, what relevant projects, or funds might be in place, what risks affect more than one directorate etc.).

29

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Finally, risk review requires information and knowledge that reside in the directorate. At this point, the role of the Clinical Governance Support Unit is merely administrative. In other words, they have to confirm that the information presented in the Risk Register is updated in order to proceed to further actions. In short, the directorates are required to possess enough experience to identify, assess, and treat the risks in their area, whereas the Clinical Governance Support Unit provides information from the environment (e.g. guidelines, standards) and the knowledge regarding risk assessment gained while communicating with all the directorates. In other words, the members of the Clinical Governance Support Unit circulate within the Trust the knowledge they capture during their communication with the directorates. (‘When you identify your risk you have to meet with somebody who’s doing well, it’s the information sharing that is the vehicle...’) (‘We transfer solutions from directorates that we think are applicable to other directorates. That’s the minute of our input. We can’t help them with the action plan.’). In ever case, risk management involves knowledge of the organization and its idiosyncrasies, but also knowledge of the tools and standards of risk management per se. It is apparent that knowledge sharing and communication between the directorates and the Clinical Governance Support Unit is crucial in order to achieve the goals of each risk management process. While the data collected have shed light on how the Risk Registers should be developed and maintained and how the different groups should communicate (Table 1, Appendix 1.), they have also supplied this study with enough evidence regarding how the risk management processes are actually carried out and the limitations of the communication that takes place. That is to say: Although every member of the directorate is responsible to report risks, the pragmatic involvement depends on the culture of each directorate. (‘In some directorates people are encouraged to report (risks)’). The willingness of directorates to share their problems with members of the Clinical Governance Support Unit is not given. (‘When there is change, the directorates are more willing to talk about their risks.’) (‘Some directorates in their meetings are open and discuss the issues. In some directorates it’s harder and not so many people participate.’) (‘It’s a change of culture to ‘no blame’. But the directorates need proof that the Trust means this culture.’) There is no direct communication among different directorates. The way the message regarding a risk is transferred, depends on the understanding, experience, and ability to synthesize of the Clinical Governance Support Unit member. Each member of the Clinical Governance Support Unit is accountable for a certain number of Risk Registers, a fact that indicates limited knowledge. The requirements for effective communication within the Clinical Governance Support Unit are quite high. Nevertheless, the volume of the administrative tasks the members of the Clinical Governance Support Unit have to perform is not minor. There is no control over the risks reported by the directorates (‘The risks on the Risk Registers are what people tell you.’, ‘In terms of identifying risks more people have to be involved.’). The Clinical Governance Support Unit and the directorates do not always achieve common understanding (‘you have to ask them the right questions’, ‘they (the directorates’) often describe an issue without clarifying what the risk is’). The members of the Clinical Governance Support Unit have more knowledge on the risk management standards, processes, procedures and guidelines, while the directorates are more aware of the clinical or corporate issues of their area. Each of the participants sometimes uses terminology unknown to the other part. Regarding risk assessment there is a discrepancy between the ‘scores’ given by the directorates and the ones expected by the Clinical Governance Support Unit. The directorates seeking for justification of funding of their projects regarding risk management tend to present risks as of high significance (‘they (the directorates) believe that if they score high they will receive extra funding’). On the other hand, the Clinical Governance Support Unit having in mind the risks that occur all over the Trust are obliged to maintain a uniform way of risk evaluation (‘They have to be as objective as possible, so we have to ask them questions to make risks lower, by existing controls in place.’). Nonetheless, the members of the Clinical Governance Support Unit do not have specialised knowledge of each clinical or corporate area; the negotiation is not always easy. ('They (the directorates) know how likely it is/ what the consequences might be’) ('Maybe something that they (the directorates) see as high risk and looking at it from a high level it isn’t really that big. There is a little bit discrepancy there cause sometimes they insist on medical issues/ they go ‘how could you know?’ ')

30

Athina Anthropopoulou

6. Discussion As presented above, the existence of a coherent strategy does not imply its automatic implementation. The original objective of the Risk Registers was to create a consolidated picture of risks, in order to achieve high levels of proactive and reactive risk management for the organization. This would be accomplished by capturing all risks (potential and occurring), reaching high levels of objectivity in risk assessment, and planning the treatment of risks on a Trust wide level, based on their severity and likelihood of occurrence. With reference to the aforementioned literature on the distinction between information and knowledge (Wiig, 1995, Wiig, 1999, Probst et al., 2000, Bose, 2003), it is quite apparent that the organization owns a significant volume of risk-related information. In fact, the organization also holds the knowledge required to manage this information. However, this knowledge is dispersed among groups, with different perceptions of the organization reality, a fact that might affect the comprehensiveness of risk capturing and the objectivity of risk assessment as already stated in the literature (Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982, Smithson, 1989, Wynne, 1989b, Health and Safety Executive, 1991, Krimsky and Golding, 1992, Pidgeon et al., 1992, Royal Society, 1992). Undoubtedly, it is essential to facilitate communication and knowledge sharing among different groups of professionals within the organization. It is obvious that the members of the organization place unique interpretations to the circumstances they face. For instance, depending on the degree experience and the specific point of view the same risk might be perceived differently by different groups in the organization. Hence, it is crucial to coordinate the different perceptions that are shaped constantly in the organization reality in order to generate an ‘articulated background of common understanding’ (Tsoukas, 1996). In any case, it is crucial to exploit not only the explicit knowledge, but also the one that resides in the heads of each member of the different groups (Nonaka, 1994, Spender, 1994). Knowledge from different sources should be consolidated and made available in the organization, in order to eliminate ineffective and lengthy meetings, where people might be unwilling to share what they know, or participants might negotiate on different grounds. People from the directorates should learn to transfer their knowledge in the Risk Registers (e.g. write down arguments for the risk assessment, record the reasons why action plans fail), while the Clinical Governance Support Unit should record what is learned after the meetings or any other type of communication with the directorates. The Risk Register as mere log of risks has to be enhanced to include lessons learned and experiences gained while the risks are recorded, evaluated, treated, and reviewed. All the above, indicate the need for a movement towards integration of risk-related knowledge. Actually, Grant (1997) discusses the mechanism of ‘direction’ for knowledge integration. ‘Direction involves specialists in one area of knowledge issuing rules, directives and operating procedures to guide the behaviour of non-specialists and specialists in other fields’ (Grant, 1997). Based on the current situation, risk management is indeed organised in a set of rules and directives, dictated by the management of the Trust. However, the views of the directorates are not encountered. The involvement of the specialists from the directorates in planning the more technical parts of risk management, such as criteria for risk assessment and treatment, will encourage their participation and willingness to share in every step of the risk management processes. Further, we have to bear in mind the nature of the organization in which collaboration has to be achieved. Bate and Robert (2002) pinpoint the importance of the cultural shift while trying to create horizontal networks in the N.H.S. in order to stimulate collaboration and integration of knowledge existing within organizations. They argue that ‘maintaining motivation and commitment from hard-pressed staff for over a year requires strong local leadership and support…’ while ‘identifying appropriately skilled frontline staff to lead and participate’… ‘may hamper progress’. They add that knowledge transfer is not straightforward, and it is ‘naïve to assume that by facilitating meetings between individuals the desired knowledge flows will simply occur’. In view of this, (McDermott and o'Dell, 2001) accentuate the importance of culture, i.e. the shared values, beliefs, and practices of the organization. The Trust has to invest more on the current channels of communication and enhance existing relationships among groups (e.g. communication among the directorates), rather than imposing new relationships through rules and regulations. Once the first positive results of the process are revealed to the directorates, the organization will have more chances to succeed in the creation of additional channels. Finally, in order to increase the risks reported the organization has to focus on communicating the ‘no blame’ culture throughout all the levels of the hierarchy.

7. Conclusions In every organization, risk management is an integral part of the overall strategy, structures, culture, people, processes, and technology. Indeed, risk management is recognized as one of the major concerns for health care organizations. Knowledge is the essential resource used to determine where this information is located, and how it should be interpreted and exploited, in the course of organizational risk management. Knowledge valuable to risk management originates from multiple sources and different groups in the organization. Each

31

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

group plays a distinctive role in the risk management lifecycle, based on its area of expertise. Hence, high levels of collaboration among specialized groups are required. However, the way different groups share their knowledge on risk management is bounded by their experience on the issue. A certain lack of trust of the expertise of each other or even lack of common knowledge often inhibits effective communication. Moreover, the absence of involvement of every participant in the way(s) communication is organized provides more difficulties. This paper argues that the organization should focus on applying ways of sharing compatible with its culture and values, and do not underestimate the dynamics of the different perceptions on similar issues. In an organization that possesses the information and expertise needed, it is integration of knowledge that will lead to the desired results for consolidated risk reporting, objective risk assessment, and efficient risk treatment,

Acknowledgements The researcher wishes to thank the people of the Trust who have supported the study.

References Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1978) Organizational learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading. AS/NZS 4360 (1999) Risk Management Standards Australia/ Standards New Zealand. Bate, S. P. and Robert, G. (2002) Public Adminstration, 80, 643-663. Bose, R. (2003) Expert Systems with Applications, 24, 59-71. British Standards Institution (1991) British Standards Institution. Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1998) California Management Review, 40, 90-111. Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches, Sage Publications, Inc., U.S.A. Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions, Sage Publications, Inc., U.S.A. Department of Health (1998) Health Service Circular, 113. Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers, University of California Press, Berkley. Grant, M. R. (1997) Long Range Planning, 30, 450-454. Gummesson, E. (2000) Qualitative methods in management research, Sage Publications Inc. Health and Safety Executive (1991) HMSO, London. Holsapple, C. W. and Joshi, K. D. (2000) Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 235-261. Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (1992) Theories of risk, Praeger, New York. McDermott, R. and o'Dell, C. (2001) Journal of Knowledge Management, 5, 76-85. Nonaka, I. (1994) Organization Science, 5, 14-37. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-creating company, Oxford University Press, New York. Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) Organization Science, 13, 249-273. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B. and Gibson, R. (1992) In Risk: analysis, perception, and management(Ed, Society, R.) The Royal Society, London, pp. 89-134. Polanyi, M. (1966) The tacit dimension, Doubleday and Company Inc., New York. Probst, G., Raub, S. and Rombhardt, K. (2000) Managing knowledge building blocks for success, Wiley. Royal Society (1992) Royal Society Study Group, London. Smithson, M. (1989) Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Spender, J. C. (1994) International Business Review, 3, 357-367. Stake, R. (1995) In The handbook of Qualitative Research(Ed, Denzin N. K., L. Y. S.). Szulanski, G. (2000) Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82, 9-27. Tsoukas, H. (1996) Strategic Management Journal, 17, 11-25. Wiig, K. (1995) Knowledge management methods: Practical approaches to managing knowledge, Schema Press Ltd., Arlington, Texas. Wiig, K. (1999) In Knowledge Management Handbook(Ed, Liebowitz, J.) CRC Press LLC. Wiig, K. M., De Hoog, R. and Van der Spek, R. (1997) Expert Systems with Applications, 13, 15-27. Wynne, B. (1989b) In Environmental threats: reception, analysis, and management(Ed, Brown, J.) Belhaven, London. Yin, R. K. (2003) Case study research: design and methods, Sage Publications Inc. Zack, M. H. (1999) MIT Sloan Management Review, 40, 45-58.

32

Athina Anthropopoulou

Appendix 1. Table 1: Knowledge sharing between different groups in the course of risk management Risk Management Process Risk Identification

Risk Assessment

Risk Treatment

Required knowledge of how the Directorates operate what problems do the directorates face new standards for Directorates how the Trust operates

what is the likelihood for a risk to occur what will be the consequences if a risk occurs how should the 'risk assessment matrix' be filled in who has the expertise for treatment the appropriate treatment

Risk Review

Required information of

Contributor of required knowledge D

incidents, claims, complaints & trends

D, CGSU

clinical guidelines risk issues of other directorates organisational structures responsibilities of each directorate relationships among directorates interdependence among directorates

CGSU D, CGSU D, CGSU D, CGSU D, CGSU D, CGSU

incidents, claims, complaints

D

existing controls in place

D

incidents, claims, complaints & trends risk issues of other directorates

CGSU CGSU

previous involvement with relevant issues type of risk previous cases availability of resources, budget

D D D D

risk issues of other directorates

CGSU

action taken & progress

D

what happens in other directorates which risks have been treated reasons why action plans have not been completed

D

(Note: D: directorate; CGSU: Clinical Governance Support Unit)

33

A Framework of Personal Knowledge Management in the Context of Organisational Knowledge Management Dace Apshvalka1 and Peter Wendorff2 1 Riga Technical University, Latvia 2 ASSET GmbH, Germany [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: KM initiatives in organisations have often run into difficulties at the implementation level. Research into the causes of these problems has shifted attention to the human dimension of KM. Recently some researchers have focused on personal knowledge management skills and practices to emphasise this dimension. How are these three concepts ‘personal’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘management’ interrelated in a concept of PKM? What role does PKM play in the context of organizational KM? Keywords: Personal KM, Organisational KM, Knowledge

1. Introduction Knowledge management (KM) is widely acknowledged as a critical factor for organisational performance. However, KM initiatives in organisations have often run into difficulties at the implementation level. Research into the causes of these problems has shifted attention to the human dimension of KM. Recently some researchers have focused on personal knowledge management (PKM) skills and practices to emphasise this dimension. They claim that PKM is the most important success factor in organisational KM. In this paper we discuss the role of individuals in organizations and clarify the basic concepts of PKM: personalisation, knowledge and management to get a clearer understanding of PKM and to assess whether it is a realistic option or just a utopian fad. In section 2 we explain the individual’s role in organizational performance. In section 3 we shortly describe some basic aspects of organizational KM (OKM). In section 4 we look at three interrelated concepts, "knowledge", "personal knowledge" and "management", to achieve a better understanding of PKM as a holistic concept.

2. Individual and organisation An organization is defined as a systematic arrangement of people brought together to accomplish some specific purpose (Robbins and Decenzo 2004). Schein (1994) elaborates two perspectives on organisations: (1) the perspective of the individual, and (2) the perspective of the manager. He uses the term "perspective" to characterise a view of organisations as opportunities to fulfil needs. Using this idea the individual's perspective is focused on the fulfilment of individual needs, for example, economic livelihood, social contact, self-actualisation, etc. By the same token the manager's perspective is ideally focused on the achievement of organisational goals and objectives. The notion of organisational goals and objectives has to be applied with care. Schein (1994: 4) rightly notes that while this "organizational perspective" is appealing, it "should not be construed to mean that the organization acts as an abstract entity; rather, it acts through the individual behaviour of certain key members in crucial managerial or leadership roles." Koontz and Weihrich (1990) use the traditional functional approach to investigate management and claim that it still provides a useful perspective, defining the functions planning, organising, staffing, leading and controlling as core activities of managers. Following this concept we can characterise the manager's perspective in terms of these functions. He sees the organisation as a system where he is responsible for planning, organising, staffing, leading and controlling. In this way he coordinates activities of individuals or groups to ensure that they contribute to given goals and objectives in an effective and efficient way. Individuals who join an organisation bring with them their personalities as important drivers of their behaviour. Organisations, on the other hand, develop cultures, that reflect their histories and are manifested in the behaviours of their members (Brown 1998). Consequently the relationship between organisations and their members is one of mutual dependency and adjustment. Schein (1994: 22) calls this voluntary, largely implicit,

34

Dace Apshvalka and Peter Wendorff

mutual agreement a "psychological contract" between an organisation and its members. This psychological contract is dynamic, because human needs usually develop over time, based on personal factors (e.g., age, experience) or situational factors (e.g., family situation). Handy (1999: 253), points to survival as a typical goal of organisations when he writes: "The law of the survival of the fittest is as inexorable for organisations as it is in nature". This remark draws attention to the need of organisations to adapt to their environments, for example, markets and cultures. This adaptation requires the development of an appropriate organisational structure that is able to balance the often conflicting requirements of different stakeholders. Handy (1999) discusses these requirements under the headlines "uniformity" and "diversity" and concludes, "the designer of organizational structures needs to tread a tight-rope stretched between the pressures for uniformity on the one hand and diversity on the other" (Handy 1999: 255). Uniformity in that sense refers to organisational elements, for example, hierarchies, roles and standards. These elements of organisational structure guide, limit and control their members, and thereby infringe on individual freedom. The intention behind these measures is to ensure coordination of different activities within an organisation to achieve overall effectiveness. Schein (1994: 21), notes that organisational structures, "that ensure organizational effectiveness may often leave individual needs unsatisfied", resulting in alienation, insecurity or bitterness. It is obvious that organisational measures can even run counter to individual needs, often to the detriment of individual performance. Rollinson et al. (1999) suggest five dimensions to characterise organisations: configuration, centralisation, specialisation, formalisation and standardisation. An organisational designer has to make decisions regarding these dimensions. These decisions mean that some aspects of the organisation are explicitly defined in the organisation's official blueprint, while others are deliberately left open. The hope is, of course, that organisational members will fill in the gaps in the blueprint appropriately. Often, emergent self-organisation occurs in these situations, a phenomenon called "informal organisation". It can be substituted for formal organisation in an organisational design. Informal organisation can result in stable patterns of work that are voluntarily, intentionally, predictably, reliably and repeatedly followed within organisations, and that can lead to superior performance. Handy (1999) and Rollinson et al. (1999) suggest that an appropriate division of labour between formal organisation and informal organisation is a key determinant of organisational performance. This view is shared by many commentators, for example, Robbins and Coulter (1999) and Schermerhorn (2001). This consensus can be stated in the following way: Formal and informal organisations are complementary approaches to organisational design, and an appropriate balance of these two forces is necessary for good organisational performance. Naturally the question how formal organisation is related to organisational performance has been a key area of research in management since its inception, but there exist no simple, prescriptive, universal theories yet (Besanko, Dranove and Shanley 2000).

3. Organisational knowledge management Schermerhorn (2001: 66) expresses the prevailing view of writers on management when he explains: "A new term is earning a significant place in management theory and practice. The concept of knowledge management is used to describe the processes through which organizations develop, organize, and share knowledge to achieve competitive advantage. The significance of knowledge management as a strategic and integrating force in organizations is represented by the emergence of a new executive job title - Chief Knowledge Officer, or CKO." It is certainly no surprise that Schermerhorn (2001) and many other writers on management adopt a view on knowledge management that we characterised as managerial perspective in section 2. In that view an organisation is seen as a tool in the hands of skilful managers who plan, organise and control KM. The managerial perspective on KM sees it as something that organisations do to satisfy their needs. The organisational perspective on KM is very limited, however, because it tends to ignore three aspects of KM: A substantial part of the informal organisation created by organisational members addresses KM. Their motives in doing so are not necessarily close to those of the organisation. Appropriate informal KM enhances organisational performance. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995: 13, 72), writing about knowledge creating companies, point out that

35

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

"although we use the term 'organizational' knowledge creation, the organization cannot create knowledge on its own without the initiative of the individual and the interaction that takes place within the group. […] Tacit knowledge of individuals is the basis of organizational knowledge creation." Recently these concerns have been addressed by writers on KM under the label "Personal Knowledge Management" (PKM). Barth (2002a), for example, succinctly sums up his views on them in "The PKM Manifesto" in the following way: "I’m calling this work 'self-organization' because it lets me make three key points about personal knowledge management: that you don’t have to be organized to be effective; that these days the 'self' is the basic organizational unit; and that self-organizing systems are the nature of professional teams and communities today—and therefore the foundation of knowledge work." This is an enthusiastic statement by a popular proponent of PKM. It illustrates the potential conflict between the individual view of KM and the managerial view of KM in an organisational context. We look at Barth's three key points from a managerial perspective to show this. "You don’t have to be organized to be effective" (Barth2002a) is a true statement. Indeed sometimes effectiveness is the result of accident, luck or circumstance, and this applies to individuals and organisations alike. However, the beliefs motivating management are different, for example, Koontz and Weihrich (1990) make the point that (a) appropriate organisation generally contributes to sustained organisational success, and (b) individual effectiveness is only one of the many factors contributing to organisational effectiveness. "These days the 'self' is the basic organizational unit" (Barth2002a) is an ambiguous statement that needs clarification. If Barth meant it in the sense that individuals are important elements of any organisation, he would be in agreement with the consensus in management. However, if he meant it in the sense that individuals are the most important organisational units, then this would be seen as a controversial statement in management, as teams are important organisational units, too (Robbins and Coulter 1999). "Self-organizing systems are the nature of professional teams" (Barth2002a) is a questionable statement. Regarding humans, the consensus in management seems to be that the nature of humans is a very elusive notion (Schein 1994). Regarding teams, the consensus in management seems to be that many empirical phenomena relating to teams in organisations are not well understood at present (Rollinson et al. 1999), and this makes the notion "nature of professional teams" very obscure from the perspective of management science. Based on our discussion in section 2 and the statements by Schermerhorn (2001) and Barth (2002a) on KM in the context of organisations we can conclude the following: The KM activities in an organisation naturally entail OKM and PKM as complementary activities that inevitably result from the presence of formal organisation and informal organisation. Jashapara (2004) develops an integrated approach to KM that, in our opinion, is clearly informed by an organisational perspective. Nevertheless he acknowledges the existence of PKM as a subject of scientific research in KM, and defines it as "ways of developing and managing an individual's personal capital" (Jashapara 2004: 310). He points out that PKM has attracted surprisingly little attention from the scientific community so far, when he remarks: "If knowledge is likely to be the core commodity of future 'knowledge' markets, there is relatively little literature on its implications for the individual. Each individual's worth on the market could be described as their personal capital. [...] In a knowledge era, it is argued that each of us needs to take our personal capital seriously and take ownership for the development and maintenance of our knowledge. Like many commodities, it may soon become outdated and valueless" (Jashapara 2004: 300). We generally agree with Jashapara (2004) regarding PKM, but we think that two issues should be given more attention in order to get a clearer picture of the relationship between PKM and OKM: PKM is certainly concerned with "ways of developing and managing an individual's personal capital" (Jashapara 2004: 310). As organisations may well be interested in enhancing the personal intellectual capital of members, their OKM may include measures to improve PKM, in the same way as specific forms of formal organisation can be used to encourage specific forms of informal organisation (cf. section 2). PKM has certainly to do with "each individual's worth on the market" (Jashapara 2004: 300). But even in an organisational context there is no reason to believe that PKM efforts by members are mainly motivated by market considerations. For example, our discussion in section 2 suggests that PKM activities can also be motivated by self-actualisation needs, etc.

36

Dace Apshvalka and Peter Wendorff

4. Personal, knowledge, and management The concept ‘Personal Knowledge Management’ has three interrelated components: ‘personal’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘management. Each of these three components is complex and a subject of deep research itself. In this section we look at each of these components to understand the whole concept of PKM better.

4.1 Knowledge Knowledge is a diverse concept consisting of many interrelated concepts. Scientists and philosophers have tried for centuries to define what knowledge actually is. Because of its complexity and comprehensiveness, it seems to be impossible to give one clear, overall and universal definition of knowledge. We are integrating three different definitions of knowledge to achieve a broad understanding of this complex concept. The first definition is given by Davenport and Prusak (1998: 5) who defines knowledge as “a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluation and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms.” The second definition is offered by Iske and Boekhoff (2002) who define knowledge as a “combination of facts, experiences and perceptions that are being used to make a decision or to select an action by which a situation is changed into a more valuable situation.” The third definition is provided by Wilson (2002) saying that “knowledge involves the mental processes of comprehension, understanding and learning that go on in the mind and only in the mind, however much involve interaction with the world outside the mind, and interaction with others.” From these three definitions we infer that knowledge is not a material and not a process. It is both process and material, combined together in special dynamic structures and able to persist and function in a special environment. The three definitions above suggest the following ontological view of knowledge: Knowledge is an interrelated structure of such ‘materials’ as: experiences, values, contextual information, insights, facts, and perceptions. Informally they might be called ‘knowledge materials’. Knowledge involves a knowledge material handling process that includes the following sub processes: evaluation, incorporating, decision making, action selection, comprehension, understanding, and learning. Knowledge material handling processes can only occur in a specific environment, called ‘mind’, as Wilson (2002) stresses: “in the mind and only in the mind”. Similarly Ortner (2002) writes that “knowledge does not exist per se. It is supposed to reside in our minds when we select pieces of our experience and form patterns that we assume to fit to a given situation.” Ortner (2002) writes that information acts like a command or trigger that prompts the selection of a specific pattern in the mind. These impulses from outside are essential for ‘actuating’ knowledge or for arranging specific combinations of knowledge material into a specific structure and starting specific knowledge processes. It means that knowledge is context and outside impulse dependent. These impulses from outside are received as a form of information. Knowledge creation in the mind or learning occurs when perceived information is understood. Understanding means that an interconnection is found between received new information and existing knowledge. From this perspective knowledge and information are strongly related and maybe, therefore, often confused. Ortner (2002) writes that “there is no knowledge on a hard disk or anywhere else in IT. So what is there then? Commands, instructions and recommendations on how to select something in our minds. It is up to us to follow these commands and believe in them and turn them into meaningful, senseful knowledge or not”. Knowledge transmitted outside of the mind becomes information for an outside observer. Wilson (2002) writes “whenever we wish to express what we know, we can only do so by uttering messages of one kind or another – oral, written, graphic, gestural or even through ‘body language’”. Polanyi (1964: 252) indicates that “only a speaker or listener can mean something by word, and a word in itself can mean nothing. […] The words I have spoken and am yet to speak mean nothing: it is only I who mean something by them”.

37

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

However aspects described above don’t make such processes as knowledge sharing, capturing and the like impossible or utopian fad. If we receive or transfer knowledge from one source to another (during communication processes) in the form of information, it certainly is not the same complete knowledge as it was in its source. As Wilson (2002) rightly points writing that “knowledge built from messages can never be exactly the same as the knowledge base from which the messages were uttered”. But anyway this uttered knowledge still contains potential for triggering selection of certain patterns in the receiver's mind. Special tools and techniques may and should be used and skills have to be developed to be able to utter and transmit knowledge as well as to capture received knowledge (although in the form of message or information) as much as possible close to its original meaning. Existence of hidden/tacit/unconscious knowledge makes this original and uttered knowledge approximation process more complicated because very often even the owner of original knowledge doesn’t know its real and/or complete meaning. Polanyi (1964: 252) writes: “I can say nothing precisely. […] I do not focally know what I mean, and though I could explore my meaning up to a point, I believe that my words (descriptive words) must mean more than I shall ever know, if they are to mean anything at all”. Summing up this short knowledge survey, we conclude that knowledge is a delicate network of dynamically linked information chunks (knowledge material) embedded in a special environment or mental space (mind) and performing information handling processes. Knowledge is closely related to information so that outside its environment it takes the form of information.

4.2 Personal knowledge From our knowledge survey in the previous section (4.1), we see that knowledge is something very personal and belonging and strongly embedded in its owner’s mind. Davenport and Prusak (1998: 5) write that “knowledge exists within people, part and parcel of human complexity and unpredictability”. Because of these human aspects, knowledge is embedded in an individual’s personal, subjective mental space and is strongly related to an individual’s psychological features, volition, motivation and emotional intelligence, where emotional intelligence is sometimes even more important than traditional intelligence. Meredith and his colleagues represent human knowledge as residing in a three dimensional space. These dimensions are (Meredith et al. 2000): cognition – conscious play of words and images through our mind; affect – feelings and mood; conation – connects cognition and affect to behavior. As they say, these dimensions come from the traditional model of human mental processes espoused by philosophers and psychologists. The three processes or dimensions are closely interwoven. Each process pervades the other to a great extent. The same external stimulus results in responses from all three processes. None of the three exists in a vacuum without the other two. Since knowledge is at least cognitively based, it is impossible to know something without having an affect and conative reaction to it, these reactions adding to and becoming a part of knowledge (Meredith et al. 2000). Much about the personal element in knowledge can be found in Michael Polanyi’s writings. For example, his book ‘Personal Knowledge’ is especially devoted to this subject. However, Polanyi was not the first to recognize this personal element in knowledge. In the ‘Transcendental Analytic’, Kant argues that into all acts of judgment there must enter a personal decision that cannot be accounted for by rules (Karori 1998). Another important aspect is, as Polanyi (1964) indicates, that ‘personal’ does not definitely mean ‘subjective’. There is a connection between the individual’s world and reality. Polanyi (1964) calls it ‘universal intent’ which is an effort to uncover a hidden reality. Polanyi (1964) says that when we claim to know anything, we are in fact tacking a risk. Any act of factual knowing “presupposes somebody who believes he knows what is being believed to know. This person is taking a risk in asserting something, at least tacitly, about something believed to be real outside himself” (Polanyi 1964: 313). According to Karori (1998) this statement by Polanyi means “that we don’t have strict criteria of telling when we have made contact with the hidden reality. So, although our claims are made with ‘universal intent’, this does not guarantee their truth”.

38

Dace Apshvalka and Peter Wendorff

4.3 Management According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, management is the “judicious use of means to accomplish an end”. Basic management processes or processes for ‘judicious use of means’, as it was indicated in section 2, are planning, organising, staffing, leading and controlling. In the context of this paper the essential question is: Can we manage and how can we manage knowledge? Wilson (2002) writes that “knowledge can never be managed, except by the individual knower and, even then, only imperfectly. […] We often do no know what we know: that we know something may only emerge when we need to employ the knowledge to accomplish something. Much of what we have learnt is apparently forgotten, but can emerge unexpectedly when needed, or even when not needed. […] We seem to have very little control over ‘what we know’.” We argue that ‘little’ doesn’t mean ‘not at all’. Individuals can enhance their ability to control what they know. And they can manage what they know, even if imperfectly. According to the above definition, management contains three basic components: goals, means and mean handling processes. We can’t manage anything if we have no goal we want to achieve by managing certain assets (knowledge in this case). If we have no goal, we don’t know where we are going, what we need to do and what we need to know. Without a goal our life is like catching a wind and our resources are wasted (Apshvalka 2004). If we have a goal, we can make a plan how to achieve it. We are using our previous knowledge, experience and skills and trying to get new knowledge, new skills and experiences to achieve the goal faster and more effectively. Consequently, we need to know our past problems, past decisions and past solutions, as well as get some new knowledge from our internal and external sources to find out how to solve future problems and what decisions to take. To avoid waste of knowledge resources, it is necessary clear understanding what we need to know and why we need to know and then it is necessary to manage these resources to achieve our objectives and goals. (Apshvalka 2004) For example, if we want to manage our personal knowledge and are trying to achieve any goal in our lives (either short term, like preparing food, or long term, like becoming a professor, or beyond, like ‘getting in heaven’) we have to manage our knowledge. This management process starts from getting the right means. Therefore we have to plan and decide what books to read, what TV broadcasts to watch, what websites to browse, with whom to communicate and the like. And we have to plan and decide strategies how to trigger selection of right patterns in our mind when it is necessary (cf. section 4.1). This refers to decisions and actions of storing our knowledge also somewhere out of our mind, trying to approximate as much as possible this uttered knowledge to our inside knowledge that is embedded in our deeply personal and tacit environment. So, we can decide to write a book, or to make a video, or to make a multimedia presentation and so on. These are only some possible activities regarding management of personal knowledge, that show that it is necessary to manage our personal knowledge for personal effectiveness. Managers in organizations have to take into account essential aspects which were discussed in previous sections. As we indicated in section 2, an organization acts through the individual behaviour of certain key members (Schein 1994), and individuals who join an organisation bring with them their personalities as important drivers of their behaviour (Brown 1998). Only the individual himself/herself can manage what is in his/her mind (i.e., knowledge). But a manager coordinates activities of individuals or groups to ensure that they contribute to given goals and objectives in an effective and efficient way. In the context of OKM, managers have to take care that knowledge workers have appropriate and positive emotional environment and that they are well motivated to achieve organizational goals. If they suffer a lack of motivation and positive emotions, their knowledge management capabilities will be very limited (cf. section 4.2). Many aspects have to be addressed regarding how to turn employees’ personal knowledge management systems to work for organizational goals.

5. Conclusion An organization is an arrangement of people brought together to accomplish organizational goals. People are organizations’ main resources and therefore have to be managed very carefully. The problem is that humans

39

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

are quite closed, self-managed systems and therefore difficult to manage from outside. But this ‘problem’ can be turned into an advantage if addressed well. As people are ‘self-managed’ systems, organizations don’t need to plan, organize or control their employees’ personal knowledge. It is everybody’s personal decision, will and responsibility to manage his/her knowledge. Organizations can offer tools, techniques, processes and procedures, but managing knowledge still will remain a deeply personal affair. But managers have to care that knowledge workers have an appropriate and positive emotional environment and that they are well motivated to achieve organizational goals. If workers lack motivation and positive emotions, their knowledge managing capabilities will be very limited. Thanks to modern technologies we can do more than mere information management. Nowadays we can not only read and write, but we can also see and create audios, videos, pictures, animated pictures, and diagrams. There are even some incipient possibilities of smell transmitting over the networks of the future. So, the possibilities to receive and transmit knowledge material that is closer to the original source knowledge, is more real than it was some time (years, months and even days) ago. Our opinion is that knowledge management is definitely no utopian fad. We agree and also stress that the most important ‘elements’ in managing knowledge are independent individuals and that the most important knowledge assets reside in their minds. Therefore, every individual’s personal knowledge management is essential for organizational knowledge management success. We agree with Ortner (2002) who writes that “the need for a better theory of information and knowledge creation is best illustrated by the fact that whilst the most sophisticated computers can be used for both criminal, inhuman purposes and for creating a more peaceful world, advanced IT cannot deal with the human emotions, beliefs and social cultural behavior that determine or at least influence economic, political, technical and practical decision-making. Such a theory should give insight into how emotions, knowledge, belief systems and reified knowledge (artifacts, symbol systems, etc.) are interlinked and work together. What contribution can we expect here from IT and IT-related research?” (Ortner 2002) The time has come when we need to address subject of PKM because modern age offers us a lot of possibilities, alternatives, opinions, and so on. If we don’t manage our knowledge, we are just ‘wind catchers’, unable to make rational decisions, set goals and achieve them. Our intention was not to make an explicit list of activities and strategies for PKM in this paper, but to indicate that PKM is an essential subject to be addressed by further research.

References Apshvalka, D. (2004) Personal Knowledge Management. In Remenyi, D. (ed.): Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Information Technology Evaluation (ECITE), Amsterdam, Netherlands, November 11-12, 2004, pp.17-22. Barth, S. (2000) "The Power of One", Knowledge Management Magazine, December, http://www.destinationkm.com/articles/default.asp?ArticleID=615 (last visited on 15/05/2005) Barth, S. (2002a) The PKM Manifesto, http://www.global-insight.com/pkm/ (last visited on 23/05/2005) Barth, S. (2002b) "Personal Knowledge Management", InfoToday, New York, May, http://www.globalinsight.com/pkm/PKM%20NY%205-02-B.pdf (last visited on 15/05/2005) Bernstein, D.A., Clarke-Stewart, A., Roy, E.J. and Wickens, C.D. (1997) Psychology, Houghton Mifflin. Besanko, D., Dranove, D. and Shanley, M. (2000) Economics of Strategy, John Wiley & Sons. Brown, A.D. (1998) Organisational Culture, Financial Times Pitman Publishing. Davenport, T.H. and Prusak L. (1998) Working Knowledge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Frand, J. and Hixon, C. (1999) Personal Knowledge Management : Who, What, Why, When, Where, How?, http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/jason.frand/researcher/speeches/PKM.htm (last visited on 15/05/2005) Grey D., (2003) PKM, Denham Grey’s Blogs: Knowledge-at-work. Personal thoughts about learning, community and social affordances for knowledge creation, December 28, 2003, http://denham.typepad.com/km/2003/12/pkm.html Handy, C. (1999) Understanding Organizations, Penguin Books. Iske, P. and Boekhoff, T. (2002) A Framework for Valuing the Potential of Knowledge, In Karagiannis and U. Reimer (Eds.): Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management, 4th International Conference, Vienna, Austria, December 2002, Proceedings, pp. 632 – 638. Jashapara, A. (2004) Knowledge Management, FT Prentice Hall. Karori, M. (1998) Micael Polanyi and the personal element in science. South African Journal of Philoophy. May 98, Vol. 17, Issue 2. Koontz, H. and Weihrich, H. (1990) Essentials of Management, McGraw-Hill.

40

Dace Apshvalka and Peter Wendorff

Meredith, R., May, D., Piorun, J. (2000), Looking at Knowledge in Three Dimensions. An Holistic Approach to DSS Through Knowledge Management, Monashh DSS Lab Publication, http://dsslab.sims.monash.edu.au Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, http://www.m-w.com/ Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company, New York, Oxford University Press. Ortner, J. (2002) Knowledge in an Electronic World? , In Karagiannis and U. Reimer (Eds.): Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management, 4th International Conference, Vienna, Austria, December 2002, Proceedings, pp. 281 – 300. Polanyi, M. (1964) Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York: Evanston: Harper & Row. Robbins, S.P. and Coulter, M. (1999) Management, Prentice-Hall. Robbins, S.P. and Decenzo D.A. (2004) Fundamentals of Management: essential concepts and applications, th 4 ed. Pearson Prentice Hall. Schein, E.H. (1994) Organizational Psychology, Prentice-Hall. Schermerhorn, J.R. (2001) Management, John Wiley & Sons. Wilson, T.D. (2002) The nonsense of 'knowledge management. Information Research, 8(1), paper no. 144, http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html

41

Promoting People-Focused Knowledge Management in the Engineering Industry: The Case of IDOM Nekane Aramburu1, Josune Sáenz1 and Luis Ramos2 1 ESTE School of Management, University of Deusto, San Sebastián, Spain 2 IDOM, S.A., Bilbao, Spain [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: This paper presents the results of a case study of a leading Spanish company in the Engineering industry: IDOM, S.A. The study includes the analysis of the organizational culture and values, and the features of the management system implemented in this organization, geared towards fostering a people-focused management of knowledge. Specifically, the survey is aimed at examining what the values and the elements of the management system are that facilitate the exchange of knowledge among people and the collective learning processes through which new knowledge is created. Keywords: Case Study; Knowledge Sharing; Organizational Culture; Management Systems

Socialization

Processes;

Organizational

Learning;

1. Introduction The literature review on Knowledge Management gives clear proof of the prevalence of the Information Technology (IT) focused research in this domain. On the other hand, people-focused research represents a minority trend. In a recent survey on the focus of the research into Knowledge Management (Swan, Robertson & Newell, 2001), it is proven that the dominant discourse in this area is not related to the development of people in the organizations, but to the technologies that facilitate the acquisition, codification and exploitation of the knowledge people possess. In this sense, the most widespread Knowledge Management practices supported by IT foster the exchange and assimilation of explicit knowledge (internalisation and combination processes, Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). However, such practices leave aside the social construction (Berger & Luckmann, 1966) and the organizational learning processes underlying the externalisation and socialization processes, where tacit knowledge is more relevant. Managing this kind of knowledge involves taking other facets into account, such as those related to the behaviour of individuals and attitudes and cognitive skills on which said behaviour is based (Swan, Robertson, & Newell, 2001). In particular, the creation of an organizational culture based on trust and commitment on the part of individuals is crucial (Argyris, 1990; Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996; Allee, 2003; Friedman, Lipshitz & Overmeer, 2003; Wiig, 2004). To support this culture, it is necessary to adapt assessment and reward systems (Allee, 2003), career development systems and organizational designs accordingly (Hedlund, 1994; Swan, Robertson & Newell, 2001). Considering this, our attempt in this paper is to present the experience of a leading Spanish engineering company, IDOM, S.A., in order to promote people-focused Knowledge Management and socialization and learning processes within the company. Firstly, the values and philosophy which lay the foundations for creating the basis for company behaviour (“behavioural world”, according to the terminology of Argyris & Schön, 1996) are examined. Then, we analyze the different elements of the organizational context of the company that are feeding its culture and, as a result of this, helping to promote learning and socialization processes. Among such elements, special mention should be made of the organizational structure, the career development system and the assessment and reward systems implemented in this organization. Finally, the last section includes the main conclusions drawn from the study of the IDOM case.

2. The IDOM experience 2.1 The company IDOM is a company providing professional engineering services. It was set up in Bilbao (Spain) in 1957 by the Catalan engineer Rafael Escolá. Referring to the meaning of the Latin word from where the term engineering derives (“ingenium”), IDOM defines its activity as the application – with judgement and creativity – of scientific knowledge, along with the experience of hundreds of professionals – engineers, architects and consultants – 42

Nekane Aramburu, Josune Sáenz and Luis Ramos

for the benefit of society. Therefore, the very essence of IDOM is that of a company intensive in terms of knowledge. IDOM currently covers 18 areas of activity: architecture; advanced design and analysis; building; energy; studies and consultancy; project management; territorial management; civil engineering; industrial engineering; innovation services; environment; operations and logistics; city and country planning; chemistry, petrochemistry and process; information systems; telecommunications and transport. Moreover, it has 22 offices spread over 3 continents: 17 in Europe (Spain, Portugal, Belgium, United Kingdom and Romania), 3 in South America (Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela) and one in Africa (Morocco). Over the last few years, IDOM has experienced spectacular growth. Its staff and its turnover have doubled in barely five years. Thus, the company has grown from having 770 professionals in 1999 to 1,401 in 2004, and from a turnover of 65 million euros in 1999 to a turnover of 143 million euros in 2004. Over the next few years, IDOM’s ambitions focus on the international sphere of activity. From being a benchmark company in the Spanish market, the company aspires to do the same on a worldwide level. To do so, it must enter the United States and Asian markets and ensure that 50% of its turnover derives from overseas by 2010. Table 1 includes the main magnitudes of the company during the years 1999 and 2004. Table 1: DOM’s figures Value indicators Number of new customers Number of people (as at 31 December) Portfolio (millions of euros as at 31 December) Investment in innovation (millions of euros) Investment in training (millions of euros) Economic indicators Total turnover of the group (millions of euros) Professional services (millions of euros) Integrated services (millions of euros) International turnover in professional services (millions of euros)

1999 n.a. 770 n.a. 1.6 0.7 1999 65.2 n.a. n.a. 6.9

2000 n.a. 1,115 n.a. 1.8 0.8 2000 118.1 n.a. n.a. 11.3

2001 101 1,287 57.3 2.1 0.9 2001 210.6 n.a. n.a. 13.0

2002 207 1,315 72.8 n.a. 1.1 2002 159.0 100.1 58.9 14.1

2003 301 1,397 154.8 4.2 1,0 2003 138.2 98.1 40.1 11.0

2004 337 1,401 208.8 5.4 1,1 2004 143.3 103.0 40.3 17.8

2.2 The cultural dimension: The “behavioural world” As we have said earlier, the basis for promoting tacit Knowledge Management and externalisation and socialization processes related to it is the creation of an organizational culture based on trust and commitment on the part of individuals. Indeed, if one had to point out what the most valuable asset of IDOM is, it would without doubt be its organizational culture, constructed on the basis of the outstanding personality and leadership of its founder, Rafael Escolá, who has at all times tried to equip the organization with solid and very deep-rooted values. Along these lines, the notion of “commitment” and, more precisely, the concept of “associative commitment” is the first distinct feature of IDOM’s culture. According to the company’s philosophy, “IDOM is an Association of Professionals who are grouped together at the heart of a consultancy firm, that are related by their work and by their ownership of the firm and that cooperate to bring about its greater professional and human development and the best customer service.” All ownership of the company is distributed among 200 individuals who, by working in the company, have the status of partners. The partners are partners in the work, ownership and business performance of the company. Therefore, it is something totally different from the employer-employee relationship prevailing in companies. Among other requirements, it is necessary to have over 8 years’ experience in the company in order to become a partner. Furthermore, the notion of “trust” is embedded in IDOM’s philosophy in the following way: describing the company credo it is stated that “the organization of IDOM is geared towards really understanding customer needs, meeting their demands, surprising them with new initiatives and including them in business decisions.” Thus, “IDOM’s competitive advantage lies in the professional level of its individuals. To this end, the basic nucleus of the firm comprises those professionals who are capable of contributing to and implementing 43

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

solutions that may provide a permanent response to customer needs. In this sense, the provision of a quality service, professional development and the proposal of solutions and initiatives is strongly promoted, facilitated and appreciated, all within a framework of trust in individuals’ capacity and respect for personal freedom.” This climate of trust is really essential to IDOM’s corporate culture and Rafael Escolá embodied this in an emotive letter to all company employees when, for reasons of age, he gave up his chairmanship: "Keep the trust each of you now has forever. Nobody should even imagine that another person would maintain a less than noble attitude towards him or her. Even less so in the case of the managers who one must always believe will wish the best for each other and who will always say exactly what they mean rather than something else. They must really feel like that and, furthermore, look the part: they should always report (verbally and in writing) on points of view when faced with the realities of each month, regarding their plans and even as to their intentions … So far, this climate of trust in IDOM has been incomparable to any we see in other environments; as long as you preserve it, you will continue to form work teams that provide engineering services efficiently to the extent that you will have no competitors. At the present time, unity is of vital importance: how inappropriate it would be today to lose this value owing to the bad luck or bad temper of but a few! I don’t want to think of a group of individuals from IDOM losing a customer who had sought us out, having seen our unity. Yet this fact of being vital is not the most important reason for not losing this value, the true crux of the matter lies in the fact that without it there can be no friendship among us or a worthwhile working environment.” In order to keep these values alive, the profile of each professional level in IDOM (9 in total) includes attitudes, skills and responsibilities related to them. Specifically, a desire to learn and improve in one’s capacities, teamwork, capacity to listen, commitment to training and the development of other individuals, an attitude of collaboration, a desire to help, availability and attitude in terms of service, transfer of knowledge and transmission and teaching of values, among others. Similar values can be found in the proposals made by several authors in order to promote individual and collective learning processes. For instance, Argyris (1990) established that the set of values which may favour the aforementioned processes are: Integrity: fostering the assessment of principles, values and one’s own beliefs. Help and backup: increasing the capacity of others in order for them to face their own ideas, open their minds and recognise their assumptions, prejudices and hidden fears. Respect for others: contrasting ideas with others, attributing the capacity for self-assessment and selfreflection to them. Strength: defending one’s own attitude and accompanying it with self-reflection and assessment. Honesty: encouraging oneself and encouraging others to express what they know and what they wouldn’t normally dare to say. Fully in accordance with the values indicated, other authors such as Friedman, Lipshitz & Overmeer (2003) consider four basic values as a basis for creating optimum behavioural contexts in order to favour learning processes: transparency, inquiry, disconfirmation – or the capacity to admit mistakes – and accountability.

2.3 The organizational context 2.3.1 The organizational design The type of organizational design may favour or, conversely, inhibit the socialization and learning processes in the organization. In this sense, the contribution made by Nonaka and his collaborators (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka, Toyama & Byosière, 2003) is of great interest. Firstly, their proposal of the so-called “hypertext organization model” is noteworthy. This model defends the implementation of hybrid organizational structures that combine a hierarchical layer with an adhocratic one, which is articulated around projects. The adhocratic layer would favour the creation of new knowledge, whereas the hierarchical one would be geared towards the exploitation and use of knowledge. Added to the aforementioned hypertext layers – hierarchical structure and project-based structure – is a third stratum comprising organizational mission, vision, philosophy and culture. This third layer is the key to ensuring organizational integrity, in addition to preserving the maintenance of knowledge generated and used in the organization. In other words, philosophy and culture constitute key elements in retaining the knowledge created and exploited in the organization, as we have already seen earlier. In IDOM, the basic organizational unit is the order or project: “The management and development of each order must be carried out in such a way that the real needs of the customer are perfectly dealt with and that 44

Nekane Aramburu, Josune Sáenz and Luis Ramos

the latter is fully satisfied; learning among individuals taking part occurs; and the economic results envisaged are obtained.” Each order received leads to the setting up of a specific project team which is formed from a joint decision on the part of managers from the technical and geographical areas involved. In other words, over the adhocratic organizational layer corresponding to the projects there is a matrix-type hierarchical stratum. The selection of candidates for a specific project is carried out according to, among other things, the possibilities of professional development. In this way, it is considered that: “the assignment of individuals to a specific job is perhaps the most important managerial task for the development of individuals in a company providing professional services.” Indeed, it is within the framework of development of a specific project in which the greatest possibilities of exchange of tacit knowledge may occur. As far as the hierarchical layer of the organization is concerned, this was initially of a divisional nature (according to geographical areas) rather than matrix-type. This organization caused each geographical area to tend to cover exclusively those projects for which it had professionals ready (irrespective of what IDOM as a whole was capable of carrying out), which limited the possibilities of diversification and the development of new areas of specialization. Furthermore, the fact that specialists from the same technical areas were scattered over different areas prevented knowledge from being suitably transferred among professionals from the company and also failed to provide the appropriate specialization of human resources. Each member of IDOM was assigned to a specific geographical area and would take part exclusively in projects that were emerging in that area. Therefore, there existed few possibilities of working continuously on projects of the same type. Expressed graphically: “It is not the same to take part in the design of a power station every 6 years as to do so 3 times in one year. In this way, if a professional who works indiscriminately in 3 areas of different technical specialization focused solely on one of them, the business performance of the organization would be better”. Consequently, it would seem clear that there is a need to recognise different areas of specialization as specific organizational units, for which there would be someone in charge of defining the strategy and channelling their specialists’ knowledge.

2.3.2 The role of middle managers Another interesting aspect of the approach of Nonaka and others is that relating to the key role played by middle managers in the so-called “hypertext organizations”. Middle managers are those in charge of facilitating the different knowledge conversion processes as well as the learning processes of human groups – work teams – which they are responsible for. They act like a “drive” or link between top management and the basis of the organization, helping to create spaces for the exchange of knowledge (both tacit and explicit) or “BAs” (Nonaka, Reinmoeller & Senoo, 1998). These middle managers also play a fundamental role in implementing assessment and control systems established by top management, ensuring the optimum application of such systems through their actions. Finally, middle managers are responsible for the materialization of the vision and philosophy outlined by top management (Nonaka, Toyama & Byosière, 2003). In this sense, their work proves essential when promoting the learning processes of work teams, helping to align the mental models or individual “theories in use” with the underlying organizational mental models in the vision and philosophy (Kim, 1993a, 1993b), or what Argyris & Schön (1978) refer to as “organizational theories-in-use”. In IDOM, managers of the aforementioned technical and geographical areas correspond to the middle managers referred to by Nonaka and other authors. Specifically, the features of the professional profile of such managers, and by means of which they are assessed, include the characteristics of the role attributed to them by such authors. Thus, managers of technical and geographical areas must, among other things, show off an attitude of service and cooperation, they must have an integrating capacity, they must motivate people, they must set an example, they must contribute towards the professional development of their teams and assume a responsible role in transferring knowledge. Along the same lines, when the Career Development System document at IDOM refers to “bosses” in the broadest sense of the word, it affirms that the latter, in addition to being very good professionals (one learns with them) and being deeply involved in the IDOM philosophy, should meet the following characteristics: Devote time to teaching. Be used to teamwork. Decision and optimism. Urge to improve. 45

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Know how to provide autonomy and acknowledge the work of others. Moreover, those who work as bosses must demand that those individuals making up their team meet ambitious professional objectives and help them to do so by commissioning them to carry out difficult tasks which may put their powers to the test and which, once these tasks have been overcome, may have helped them to learn what they are capable of doing, among other things. Furthermore, and as the same document sets out, a good boss knows how to make use of things in order for people from his or her team to be able to learn a lot at work, without the need for having major additional time devoted to it. At the same time, a good boss feels proud when members of his or her team are promoted and deal with tasks involving greater responsibility, and even when they show capacities which they themselves do not possess: “to create a team, one has to promote individuals who are bigger than oneself. If this is achieved, the opportunity is there to admire and learn from the fruits of it.”

2.3.3 The career development system In order to support the role played by middle managers, special mention should be made of the Career Development System of IDOM. The firm possesses formal and detailed policies based around the individualized design of professional careers for its members. The purpose of such policies is to establish a general framework aimed at guiding individual learning processes and knowledge flows among members of the company and, so, promoting professional excellence. These policies are based on the following basic principles: Any IDOM professional must maintain and permanently foster an attitude towards continuous learning and opening to new challenges. Promotion in the company is linked to very demanding individual professional development, based on a strong capacity for learning, an urge to achieve, and a spirit of service and trust. Any IDOM professional must be in contact with the customer. The experience gained in the course of this relationship is the real source of learning and professional maturity. Professional development is the responsibility of the individuals themselves, in which their superiors also participate by helping them to apply their best resources in designing a career over time, in harmony with their possibilities and opportunities. Specifically, IDOM is duty bound to create the conditions for achieving a balance in each case between the short and long term, and providing – within what is deemed reasonable – the means and opportunities for fostering the professional development of each person. This commitment on the part of IDOM materializes in: Placing each person in certain working conditions: boss assignment; working environment; assignment of duties; and the laying down of short and long term objectives. Direct actions, namely: 1. Specific advice via the immediate boss, tutor or career adviser, depending on the case. 2. Courses and training activities. 3. Joining certain representational, advisory or decision-making groups, both internal and external. 4. Professional experiences outside the customary working environment at IDOM. As far as specific advice is concerned, the figure of tutor should be applicable during the first few years after joining the company, whereas the career adviser plays a role at a later stage (2 or 3 years after joining the firm). The tutor may be the immediate boss or another person. The tutor’s mission consists of guiding and observing the person who has recently joined the company and enabling the person to see himself/herself in a series of standard situations, by analyzing behaviour and reactions. In short, this involves assessing the key aspects relating to his/her presence at IDOM (appraisal of the work carried out, degree of satisfaction of the person at IDOM and his/her progress in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes), to decide about this and promote and subsequently correct as necessary. On the other hand, the career adviser constitutes a key figure at IDOM. Their mission consists of guiding the persons in designing their career, advising them in establishing the most suitable means in each case, helping them to set this in motion and monitoring what they do. The guidelines drawn up by the career adviser shall be reflected in an annual objective system – or one over several years with an annual estimate – and shall be carried out according to the contrast shown by the person’s evolution with regard to the milestones laid down by the professional profile at IDOM. To be able to carry out this work, the following features – among others – are considered essential: real interest in the 46

Nekane Aramburu, Josune Sáenz and Luis Ramos

individuals who are going to be helped, being or having been an excellent professional, sensitivity with regard to human issues, a wide vision, capacity to understand different ways of being a good professional inside and outside IDOM, knowledge of the professional and learning development processes, and imagination and ease in suggesting opportunities for personal promotion. The career adviser complements the work of the immediate boss. In fact, good coordination should exist between them and they should agree upon the means, effort, and so on required to develop a joint action regarding an individual. Lastly and as far as attendance on courses and training activities is concerned, IDOM promotes the organization of such actions and their professionals’ participation on them. Along these lines, special mention should be made of the organization of courses by IDOM professionals themselves in those subjects on which they are experts. The experts in each area are thus responsible for designing and giving training activities which are open to the whole company, thus facilitating the transmission of know-how to the organization as a whole. It therefore constitutes a formal process aimed at sharing and unifying knowledge and ways of working in order to solve problems. In order to coordinate all the activities and policies regarding career development, there exists an organizational backup unit which is known as the Area of Career Development. In view of the complexity of business, technological incidence, the growing speed of changes and the current size of IDOM, it proves essential to have this backup function which acts as a revitalizing, catalysing and guiding element, helping the Career Development System to be applied well and for it to function properly.

2.3.4 Assessment and reward system With regard to the Career Development System, and reinforcing it, there exists an assessment system which is understood as being a structured process of communication between assessor and assessee and which must be used to: favour the development of the individuals, improve their performance, align them with the IDOM strategy and philosophy, favour communication, acknowledge the effort made and work carried out and help to advance their career. This assessment comprises three components: Assessment of the degree of adjustment of the professional profile: this helps to assess people’s future at IDOM and, where appropriate, propose their promotion or suggest that they leave. This gives rise to a reward system according to duty. Assessment of results: this is geared towards promoting and specifying the participation and contribution of individuals towards the development of IDOM and its business. This gives rise to a specific reward system according to results. Assessment for change in levels of assignment: this is geared towards confirming and reinforcing the commitment between the individual and IDOM. It is specified in evolution via the different levels of assignment. Among these three components, the first and third are those which are most directly linked to the career development process of the individuals who make up IDOM.

3. Conclusions The most important conclusion to be drawn from the IDOM case is that relating to the paramount importance of the philosophy and culture of the company in creating a basis for behaviour, which acts as a backup to the collective socialization and learning processes. Along these lines, the “organizational theories-in-use” reinforce behaviour aimed at promoting such processes. These “organizational theories-in-use” or, in other words, corporate values, correspond to those defended by the literature in this field. In particular, the values of trust, associative commitment and service are especially noteworthy in IDOM’s culture. Additionally, another aspect of the philosophy and culture of IDOM which is particularly of note is the presence of the values mentioned at all levels, impregnating all corners of the company. Thus, said values are not only included in the formal definition of the company’s mission and philosophy, in corporate policies and manuals, but are also present on intermediate levels of the organization and on the most operative ones. This is thanks to the organizational structure and management systems installed. The latter enable values to be “fractalized” or reflected at all levels in such a way that they may end up inspiring the actions of all individuals who work at IDOM. The middle managers play an essential role in this “fractalization” process.

47

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Likewise, the middle managers become the focus of collective socialization and learning processes by fostering the creation of and revitalizing project teams making up the “BAs” or most important spaces for the exchange of knowledge in the organization. Finally, special mention should be made of the career development system which, without doubt, provides a backup to the work carried out by middle managers and favours the alignment of individual values and “theories-in-use” of people, making it possible for them to transfer their actions and convert individual learning processes into organizational learning processes (Kim, 1993a, 1993b).

References Allee, V. (2003): The Future of Knowledge: Increasing Prosperity through Value Networks. Elsevier. Massachusetts. Argyris, C. (1990): Overcoming Organizational Defences. Allyn and Bacon. Boston. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1978): Organizational Learning: a Theory in Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Massachusetts. Argyris, C. & Schön, D. (1996): Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Addison-Wesley. Massachusetts. Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1966): The Social Construction of Reality: a Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. Doubleday. New York. Friedman, V.J., Lipshitz, R. & Overmeer, W. (2003): “Creating Conditions for Organizational Learning”. In: Dierkes, M., Berthoin, A., Child, J. & Nonaka, I.: Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Kim, D. (1993a): A Framework and Methodology for Linking Individual and Organizational Learning: applications in TQM and Product Development. Doctoral dissertation. MIT. Massachusetts. Kim, D. (1993b): “The Link between Individual and Organizational Learning”, Sloan Management Review, vol.35, nº1, p.37-50. Nonaka, I. (1991): "The Knowledge-Creating Company", Harvard Business Review, Vol.69, No. 6, pp.96-104. Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995): The Knowledge-Creating Company. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P. & Senoo, D. (1998): “The Art of Knowledge: Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge”, European Management Journal, Vol.16, No. 6. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Byosière, P. (2003): “A Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation: Understanding the Dynamic Process of Creating Knowledge”. In: Dierkes, M., Berthoin, A., Child, J. & Nonaka, I.: Handbook of Organizational Learning & Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Swan, J., Robertson, M. & Newell, S. (2001): “Knowledge Management: The next fad to forget people?”. In: Barnes, S.(Ed.), Knowledge Management Systems: Theory and Practice. International Thomson Business Press. London. Wiig, K. (2004): People-Focused Knowledge Management: How Effective Decision Making Leads to Corporate Success. Elsevier. Oxford.

48

At the Crossroads of Knowledge Management with Social Software Gabriela Avram Interaction Design Centre, University of Limerick, Ireland [email protected] Abstract: The growing phenomenon of Social Software seems to provide a chance of complementing the top down approach based on central knowledge repositories with tools that are simpler, smarter and more flexible. Our paper includes a brief description of the main categories of Social Software – weblogs, wikis and social networking sites, followed by an analysis of their utilisation in relation to the five core Knowledge Management activities of the Knowledge Management taxonomy proposed by Despres & Chauvel in 1999. A couple of examples meant to illustrate the support Social Software could provide for knowledge management are presented. Finally, some of the problems that hinder the usage of social software tools, together with some of the latest developments and trends in the field are mentioned. Keywords: social software, weblog, wiki, social networks, knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing

1. Introduction Knowledge Management (KM) and collaboration are considered to be a pre-requisite for more innovation and enhanced creativity. Until recently, most of the KM efforts were focused on the creation of central knowledge repositories, encouraging knowledge reuse and collaboration based on these repositories, in a typical topdown approach where knowledge was seen as a separate entity. The growing phenomenon of social software offers the chance of complementing this approach with tools that are simpler and more flexible. This type of software is actually not new at all – these software applications having some common traits have been around now for quite some time – but it is only recently that they were labelled as “Social Software”. Social Software is the term used to designate “the use of computing tools to support, extend, or derive added value from social activity—including (but not limited to) weblogs, instant messaging, music and photo sharing, mailing lists and message boards, and online social networking tools” (Lawley 2004). What could Social Software do for knowledge management? Knowledge emerges in conversations, actionable knowledge is mainly the result of collaboration, and more and more importance is given to social capital. Social Software provides the necessary support for conversations and collaboration, for knowledge creation, sharing and publication, for identifying experts and getting access to expert opinions worldwide. It leaves the control on knowledge to the individuals owning it. Each individual is able to maintain his own space for which he has complete control over the information he chooses to share. This creates a bottom-up style of information sharing and collaboration, rather than a corporate imposed top-down strategy. (Fisher 2005) The second section of this paper includes a brief description of the various types of Social Software – such as weblogs, wikis, social networking sites, social tagging, events management, geo tagging. Probably the specific tools, permanently evolving, are not as important as the social phenomenon generated around them – through spontaneous interaction, pro-active attitudes, enhanced knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and transfer. Section 3 contains an analysis of three important categories of Social Software (weblogs, wikis and social networking) in connection with the core KM activities included in the taxonomy of applied Knowledge Management proposed by Despres and Chauvel in 1999 (Despres 1999). Several examples extracted from different sources presented in section 4 are meant to illustrate the various ways in which social software is able to support knowledge management. Section 5 considers some of the problems that hinder the usage of Social Software tools and points to some of the latest developments and trends in the field.

2. Social software What types of software are actually included in the category of Social Software? There is a tendency to include email, discussion lists or message boards under the umbrella of Social Software. And to a certain degree, they are social interaction tools too. But there’s an important distinction between traditional communication software - forming people into groups with a top-down approach and assigning membership,

49

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

as discussion lists and forums usually do, and social software - with its bottom-up approach, enabling people to organize themselves into a network based on their preferences (Boyd 2005). According to Stowe Boyd, social software encompasses one or more (not necessarily all) of the following elements Support for conversational interaction between people or groups. That includes real time conversations like instant messaging, and what Boyd calls “slow time” conversations that occur in collaborative virtual spaces. Support for social feedback. Reputation and trust are crucial in online interactions, as demonstrated by the importance placed by sites such as eBay on a seller’s rating and reputation. Support for social networks. Many social software applications create a digital layout of a person’s social network and facilitate adding new connections. (Kaplan 2005): The sudden popularity of social technologies is attributed to the increase in low-cost tools and the critical mass of millions of people who are now connected to the Internet (Boyd 2005), to the growing tendency of people to rely more on their own personal social networks than on traditional company structures (Nardi 2004), and to the people’s need for feeling a community (Bryant 2003). Jack Vinson depicts some more characteristics of the Social Software tools: they are extremely easy to use; they provide for networking and allow for self-forming networks; usually, readers are also contributors and vice versa, this virtual environment enforcing much less sense of hierarchy than in the real world; relationships are nothing but flows – one person can be at the same time part of several networks (Vinson 2005). The key areas of Social Software are likely to be the weblogs, the wikis, and the social network services of different kinds (Boyd 2003). Social network services range from some focused purely on networking, to others designed to share different types of resources or meant for open coordination purposes (Figure 1). A precise classification is hard to derive, because these categories of Social Software tend to intertwine and to rely on each other.

Figure 1: Key areas of social software

2.1 Weblogs A web log or simply a blog is a web application enabling periodic posts on a common webpage with public access. These posts are usually in reverse chronological order. Editing a weblog does not require any special training, so this enables anyone to publish content on the web. As with any other website, the public can use any HTML browser to visit its pages. Weblogs range from personal diaries meant for family and friends, and lists of visited links seasoned with short comments, to personal knowledge repositories maintained by professionals, learning journals or networking instruments. The entries - called posts - are usually short. The most recent ones are displayed on the weblog homepage, while old posts can be retrieved from archives ordered chronologically and possibly on topics. A post can be as short as just a link to an on-line article or as long as to contain an essay. Many posts link to interesting online articles, earlier discussions or related readings. They enable readers and other weblog authors to add comments or link back to a particular post using its permalink (permanent URL), which is usually automatically generated by all popular weblog systems. Most of weblogging tools do not only generate HTML pages, but can also encode the post content in a format derived from XML known as RSS (Really Simple Syndication, or Rich Site Summary). The RSS format can be read by news aggregators, a type of software who checks automatically the weblog feeds for updates and display their content. These enable readers to keep up with many weblogs (and an increasing number of other websites), without navigating the actual web pages. (Efimova 2004) Besides weblog editing and publishing tools and news aggregators, weblog search tools give the users the chance to find weblog posts or connections between them.

50

Gabriela Avram

Unlike an official web site, a weblog is highly subjective, reflecting the thoughts, opinions and preferences of its author(s). Most weblogs are written by individuals (also known as webloggers, or bloggers). These coexist on the World Wide Web with group weblogs, project weblogs and organisational weblogs. Many weblogs also exhibit blogrolls, lists of weblogs that their authors read regularly. Through these lists, occasional readers can find trusted "sources" that influence the thinking and writing of a particular weblog author. These links are not only referrals to specific sources, but also signs of value and personal recommendation. In this sense, hyperlinks between weblogs fulfil a similar function like references in scholarly publications (Mortensen 2002).

2.2 Wikis A Wiki or wiki is a website (or other hypertext document collection) that allows users to add content, as on an Internet forum, but also allows anyone to edit the content. "Wiki" also refers to the collaborative software used to create such a website.

A wiki enables documents to be written collectively in a simple markup language using a web browser. A single page in a wiki is referred to as a “wiki page”, whiles the entire body of pages, which are usually highly interconnected via hyperlinks, is called "the wiki." A defining characteristic of wiki technology is the ease with which pages can be created and updated. Generally, there is no review before modifications are accepted, and most wikis are open to the general public — or at least to anyone who has access to the wiki server. In fact, even registration of a user account is not always required. Most wikis offer a title search, and some also provide full text search. WikiWikiWeb, the first wiki site that created the concept, defines a wiki as a “composition system, a discussion medium, a repository, a mail system, a chat room, and a tool for collaboration.” In the vision of Ross Mayfield of Social text, wikis are tools for “transparent collaboration” (Kaplan 2004 ). There is a sort of safety clause in the wiki design: one page always lists recent changes to the page and enables users to revert to previous versions. That, says WikiWikiWeb, allows people to correct mistakes, erase spam, and generally keep the content “meaningful”. Two core assumptions are incorporated in the wiki mechanism. The first is that knowledge is transitory, not static. There's always some new piece of information to add, some old piece to delete or revise. The second assumption is that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Through each individual’s contribution, the resulting product is made better and better. The most known example of wiki usage is Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org), a free, multilingual online encyclopaedia created and maintained collaboratively (Kaplan 2004).

2.3 Social network services The so-called “social networks” are circles in which people make a living and connect with other people. They transcend strict delineation between personal and business (there's often overlap between the two), and tend to transcend organizational boundaries and hierarchies. Social networks can provide the essential context needed to make knowledge sharing possible, valuable, efficient and effective. (Pollard 2003)

2.3.1 Social networking sites The first online social networks started appearing in 2002, when the term was used to describe the means of networking in virtual communities, and became popular in 2003, with the advent of websites such as Friendster, TheHoosierWeb, Tribe.net and LinkedIn. The number of social networking sites currently available exceeds 300, and it is steadily growing. (Wikipedia 2005). Part of them are wide-ranging online social networking sites, such as Friendster and orkut; there are others dedicated to business networking (Ryze, OpenBC, LinkedIn) or location-based interaction (Meet Up, Plazes, Tribe), and others organised around business concepts, as for example in the case of ReferNet or Shortcut. Another category focuses almost exclusively on dating.

51

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

In these communities, an initial set of founders sends out messages inviting members of their own personal networks to join the site. New members repeat the process, growing the total number of members and links in the network. Sites then offer features such as automatic address book updates, viewable profiles, the ability to form new links through "introduction services," and other forms of online social connections. Some social networking sites are also facilitating music sharing (Kazaa) and photo sharing (Yahoo 360, Flickr, Phlog). In order to allow computers to link people to one another, a computer-readable social networking data format was created. FOAF (Friend-Of-A-Friend) is a simple and easily extendable text-based data format defined using OWL (the Web Ontology Language).

2.3.2 Social tagging and folksonomies Social book marking is another type of online services, allowing users to save and categorize a personal collection of bookmarks. The individual bookmarks are public, so that anyone can see the bookmarks that have been saved by others and add them to their own collection, as well as to subscribe to other people’s feeds (Wikipedia 2005). There are several such sites, but the most well known seem to be CiteULike, del.icio.us, furl, and spurl. Sharing and searching for bookmarks, photos and weblog content was made easier by the initiative to provide the users with the opportunity of adding tags to these types of content. Users are now able to categorise themselves these various types of content as they wish. This is how social tagging was born, a sort of general taxonomy emerging from the individual tags. Social tagging was discovered to be one way to get some relatively reliable content classification out of a large number of people. Folksonomy is a neologism for a practice of collaborative categorization using freely chosen keywords. This feature began appearing in a variety of social software in 2004. There are currently several examples of online folksonomies: del.icio.us (http://del.icio.us/) and Jots (http://jots.com/) which are bookmark sharing sites, Flickr(http://www.flickr.com/), for photo sharing, 43 Things(http://www.43things.com/), for goal sharing, and Tagsurf (http://tagsurf.com/), for tag-based discussions. (Wikipedia 2005) Folksonomies work best when a large number of users all describe the same piece of information. Discussions are taking place if folksonomies should be taken into account as a possible basis for building the Semantic Web.

2.3.3 Time and proximity management social tools Several Social Networking services already contain tools (Calendar, Agenda) for managing community events. One of the most well-known services of this type is Meet up, meant for intermediating and managing face-toface meetings on different topics in locations placed all over the world. Some of these tools are focused on time management and events information sharing. For example, RSSCalendar is a sort of new way for individuals and organizations to share their calendars with family, friends, and co-workers – making use of the latest developments in RSS technology; including RSS channel creation and aggregation. More complex than RSSCalendar, evnt (http://www.events.org/) is a service provided by a London-based team for tagging events and sharing this kind of information. A whole range of other web based applications for handling events, location and calendaring are currently under development. These could give individuals the chance of looking for other people who are going to attend the same event, or be in the same place at a specific moment in time. Another group of tools of this category are dedicated to geographic location management – the so-called geo tagging applications – making possible to add geographic metatags (geotags) to web pages and to process RSS feeds. The GeoURL(http://www.geourl.info) is another pretty popular service amongst bloggers. It offers a way to register a weblog in a directory for certain geographical coordinates. Furthermore, it also offers the possibility to get a list of other blogs near to a specific blog. Multimap (http://www.multimap.com/) and World kit (http://brainoff.com/worldkit/index.php) are both services allowing the visualization of websites geographically situated in a specific area. A series of search engines (such as Google Local, A2B Location Based Search Engine, GeoTags Location-Based Search Engine, RSS Weather) are able to search websites using geotags. Plazes (http://www.plazes.com ) is a social networking site offering the possibility to register Internet access sites, based on their IP number. Each member of the network is considered a discoverer of new Internet

52

Gabriela Avram

access points and can invite others to join. It mainly offers the possibility to find other people connected to the Internet in a specific area or to identify public access Internet access spots when travelling.

3. Social software in the service of knowledge management The success of Social Software is regarded as being based on the availability of these low-cost, high bandwidth tools, coupled with a critical mass of millions of self-motivated, gregarious and eager users (Boyd 2002). This kind of tools gives individuals the chance to network in online versions of the real world social systems. Social Software is transforming group interaction and has a notable impact nowadays on how businesses reach their markets, changing the way collaboration and communications are managed within and across businesses.

3.1 The KM taxonomy by Despres and Chauvel In their paper titled “Knowledge management(s)”, Despres and Chauvel proposed a framework for categorising Knowledge Management (KM) regions of practice, taking into account five types of processes (activities) and three different contexts (individual, group and organization) (Despres 1999). The KM activities mentioned in their paper are: Scan/map - pointing to the world of business intelligence, perception; Acquire/capture/create – associated with the world of research, development and creation; Package/codification/representation/storing – related to the world of databases, information and knowledge bases, organizational memory; Apply/share/transfer – related to the world of competencies, teamwork, intranets and cross border sharing; Reuse/innovate/evolve/transform – associated to the world of leverage, intellectual assets and innovation.

3.2 Social software as support for knowledge activities We will attempt now to analyse the three categories of Social Software mentioned above (weblogs, wikis and social networking) using the framework of these core KM activities. Deliberately, we chose not to include the three different contexts (individual, group and organization) of the Despres and Chauvel taxonomy, for an almost obvious reason: Social Software is meant for individuals to enhance their social interaction in groups, organisations and across them, so that separating these three different contexts would not make much sense in this case. Let us now review some of the uses of Social Software from the perspective of the activities included in the Despres and Chauvel taxonomy:

3.2.1 Scan/map: For business intelligence, blogs reading proves to be an excellent way of collecting information on markets, competitors and latest innovation, and also of locating experts both inside and outside an organization; for marketing, blogs monitoring is a new opportunity for examining customer opinions; weblogs run by individuals known as working for famous companies also provide feedback from customers and have an influence on the public image of the company (as in the famous case of Robert Scoble from Microsoft). News aggregators make subscribing to specific searches and monitoring the content of an extended number of blogs regularly much easier. In order to be able to adapt rapidly, businesses have to know who speaks about them and their products, and in what terms. Wikis can also be seen as an emerging source of information. More and more people are using Wikipedia today, and there are other wikis on specific topics coming to public attention. These sources of information have the advantage that they are updated almost in real time, and bring together the contributions of thousands of people. Browsing other people’s tags, bookmarks, photos- especially if these persons are known to share the same interests - can save hours of work and is an effective alternative to Google and catalogue searches. These other people invested time in collecting those items, and agreed to make them public – so they are free resources that should be taken into consideration. Social networking sites may provide information on potential contacts, partners and customers; by using the available information, specific expertise can be located and potential job candidates screened. LinkedIn, for example, is famous for bringing together employers, job seekers and multi-level marketing salespeople.

53

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

The time and proximity management social tools can be used for scanning events (fairs, conferences, workshops) in a particular field of interest, or for scanning places in search of people with specific expertise. Plazes, for example, can give the chance of finding local peers when travelling, or online acquaintances happening to be in the same town or even in the same hotel, creating the opportunity to meet in person.

3.2.2 Acquire/capture/create: Blog authors use this type of tools for capturing their own ideas and those of other people during research work, project development or simply during regular work; it is a method for exposing work-in-progress and for getting feedback, for storing drafts that could later develop into some form of deliverables (articles, reports, books) and for commenting on other people’s ideas. The open editing facility provided by wikis enables individuals to capture knowledge and afterwards to jointly participate in its refinement. Knowledge can be restructured and reorganised at any time, due to the remarkable flexibility offered by this category of tools. Inside organisations, wikis can be used for coordination purposes and for acquiring a common understanding of the concepts and procedures. Social network sites browsing may result in acquisition of new customers, employees or consultants. It is mainly focused on finding out about the needs, expertise and offers of other people and indirectly of other organisations. Book marking interesting pages found during the web browsing activity is an excellent method for organizing and storing links; bookmarks, photos, audio and video files can be stored on specialised sites providing the respective services, their owner having the right to decide if he wants to make them public or not. The opportunity to tag these artefacts enables their classification and organisation.

3.2.3 Package/codification/representation/storing: In order to be available for a large category of public, Social Software is typically very easy to use and intuitive - at least at a basic level. The packaging, codification and storing activities are usually transparent for the users, and frequently they are associated with the acquire/capture/create activities: in the case of social networking sites, information is discovered, acquired and stored immediately, without intermediaries, just by pushing a button; blogs make web publication extremely easy and wikis facilitate collaborative editing without requiring any previous knowledge. The representation aspects differ from one tool to another. Some of them (like those dedicated to photo sharing, or book marking) do not allow for much personalisation and innovation; some others – especially blogging software- let their more advanced users to intervene on the representation of the stored information. Together with the text entry, the aspect and form of a blog, the images, audio sequences and links can contribute to a great extent to the delivery of the intended message to its public.

3.2.4 Apply/share/transfer: The sharing facility is the essential feature of any Social Software application. Weblogs, wikis and social networking sites have as core purpose knowledge sharing, and RSS feeds have made sharing easier; by subscribing to RSS feeds, the users can stay up-to-date with the latest developments on a specific topic. Information travels around the world, across professions and organisational boundaries, and is accessible to anyone, apprentice or scholar. Weblogs posts usually reflect personal knowledge and competencies in their original context, and their content can be used as log, illustration or source of inspiration for the author’s own work, but, on the same time, by peers and novices in the field. Distributed teams can use group blogs for coordination and information exchange. Wikis can be used as repositories for more structured knowledge by teams, communities of practice, or networks of various types. When people are sharing their links and photos by storing them on specialised sites, they first think of the advantage of re-using them from wherever they are, whenever they need them. Using other people’s links and photos is a secondary, but not less important, purpose. The tag search facility enables people to search blogs, link and photo repositories for information on a particular topic, making the search a lot easier.

54

Gabriela Avram

3.2.5 Reuse/innovate/evolve/transform: Weblogs reading incites reflection and instigates weblog writing; some time controversies are fuelled; synergy and creativity are encouraged this way. Bloggers read each other’s posts and start conversations across weblogs: these conversations can become starting points for forming social networks, based on joint interests. This phenomenon happens across teams, professions, organisations, countries and continents. The pace of knowledge transformation is amazingly fast: few hours after an idea was born, there are people all over the world who have already retained it and adapted to fit their own purposes, shaping their own domains. Wiki pages are edited and improved, sometimes reorganized; new knowledge emerges; open editing stirs up discussions, concepts and meanings are often vividly negotiated, definitions are continuously polished and facts updated. Synergy arises from collaboration, ideas exchange, amalgamation of knowledge from different domains. What does Social Software offer more than the traditional communication tools? E-mail and instant messaging, discussion lists and forums involve messages sent to a person or a group. It is usually short-lived communication (synchronous or asynchronous) and destined to a specific, already known, public. The content of weblogs and wikis, the profiles, the tags and the comments left on social networking sites remain available for a longer period of time(if not forever) and they could be meant for everybody (in the case of public access) or for all the members of a group (in case of limited access). The most interesting thing about Social Software is the fact that it is social 1) in the way it is conceived – a networked approach to fitting connected tools around users 2) social in its purpose - augments and extends online and offline social interaction to promote mutual understanding, and 3) social in the way it behaves - it adapts to the user, instead of forcing the user to adapt to it; becomes part of the user’s means of representation, and augments human interaction, instead of narrowing it down ( Bryant 2004).

4. Few selected examples of social software usage We selected a few examples to illustrate how Social Software tools are used to support knowledge management activities.

4.1 Reasons for using weblogs The first example is a reflection on weblogs usage, extracted from a post made by Lilia Efimova in her weblog “Mathemagenic”(Efimova 2005): “There are two sides of it, reading and writing. Reading weblogs as a way for prevention, preparation, relation and expertise building. It's like everyday exercise to stay fit - knowing what is going on, what are the trends, who are the people. It may feel as not very important in everyday scale, but every time when I face a new big challenge I appreciate it - like appreciating everyday exercises and being fit if time comes to run for your life. Reading is also about taking time to develop ideas (I often think of "being pregnant with ideas" :), having time to explore, bit by bit, creating a space for emergent connections and associations. This is where writing comes into play* as well. For me writing is about catching ideas on the fly, growing and connecting. (Here I can go into a body of research on how artefacts support thinking and knowledge creation, but I wouldn't :) Somehow the process of articulation is largely the process of idea development as well. Like a sculpture that exists only in a head of sculptor and needs to be moulded into physical shape to get a life, writing gives shape and life to fuzzy ideas in my head.”

4.2 Wiki usage A wiki can be useful for different collaborative activities, such as jointly writing a paper, coordinating a project or preparing an event. A brilliant example is the KmWiki, an initiative of Denham Grey, which became in time an excellent collective repository of KM references (KmWiki 2005). Another example is the Knowledge Management Summer Camp wiki (KMSC04 2004). The 2004 edition was organised in Portugal with the support of Knowledge Board. The mentioned wiki was used for participants’ registration, for preparing the actual event, exchanging ideas between the online and on-the-site participants, for storing references and publishing ideas that emerged during the camp.

55

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

The following is an example of how a wiki can be used for collaborative work inside a company, encountered in Alexander O’Neill’s weblog, „The Hallway“(O’Neill 2005): „At my company the development team is currently making heavy use of Wiki technology to allow us to easily share and edit documents with each other. A wiki essentially lets you edit content directly on the web server without having to upload HTML files or keep track of a local file tree. So, for example, you can go to a site like WikiPedia, click the 'edit' link, and suddenly you can make whatever changes you like to the page. The wiki software also helpfully keeps track of revisions people make, so if some unthinking soul deletes everything you just have to click the 'rollback to previous revision' button and the damage is undone. We’re finding this model very useful for editing and fixing up each other's work. We also don't seem to have any trouble with people feeling like they 'own' a piece of material. Everyone works on everyone else's stuff, to improve it and look for mistakes, and everyone also then has a better understanding of the overall project.“

4.3 del.icio.us – A social network service for bookmarks management del.icio.us is a social software web service for sharing web bookmarks. It was developed by Joshua Schachter and “it is meant for people who are keeping track of their URLs for themselves, but who are willing to share globally a view of what they're doing, creating an aggregate view of all users' bookmarks, as well as a personal view for each user”. (Shirky 2005) Our next example is taken from a weblog post of Stephen Spaeth, who works for the Centre for Teaching, Learning and Technology (CTLT) of the Washington State University (Spaeth 2005): “At CTLT, we have been trying to find ways to build collaborative communities around web resources. We have been exploring the intersection between two tools: delicious and wikalong. Nils discovered a small community (four people as of 2005-01-14) that have posted Wikalong's homepage to delicious. Nils recognized that by virtue of registering a common interest in wikalong at delicious the four are an incipient interest group. He created a wikalong for that page in order to provide the group with a common resource on which to build their interest. While four people is a start, that number seems too small. There must be others who have this common interest. I added the term wikalong to the tags for my post to delicious and discovered a larger community of eight citations using the term wikalong. Some of those pointed to the page which a much larger number of users (129 as of 2005-01-14) had noted. In creating the link to the delicious home page, I discovered another convergence of interest in delicious and wikalong. That community is starting to identify themselves in the wikalong for that page.” (Note: Wikalong is a Firefox Extension that embeds a wiki in the Sidebar of the Firefox browser, indexed off the URL of the current page.)

4.4 Social software tools integration The various Social Software tools can be easily combined and aggregated to suit the needs of a particular community and to support its culture. An interesting example in this direction is the system designed by Head shift for the National Institute for Mental Health in England (Bryant 2004). The system (http://kc.nimhe.org.uk/) was designed for creating joined-up knowledge and for promoting collaboration and understanding to bridge organisational divides (e.g. local health services, charities, professional bodies), occupational divides (e.g. clinician, policy maker, academic) and different perspectives (e.g. service user, carer, researcher, etc.) within the Mental Health field. Head shift envisaged the deployment of simple, usable social software to create new and interconnected opportunities for informal knowledge sharing between key stakeholders in the Mental Health field. Rather than seek to mediate these different perspectives and produce a single ‘official’ version of events, they decided to promote self-representation by encouraging individual ‘voices’ from their network to stimulate informal knowledge sharing within an innovative framework of top-down and bottom-up metadata and controlled vocabularies. The use of connected individual and group weblogs was central to this process, not only in terms of the final product itself, but also in the way it was developed. Building such a system was considered more than a technical exercise, requiring an organisational commitment to building a knowledge-sharing culture, and involving various communities in both on- and off-line activities. Head shift created a network ecology of individual and group weblogs (including other social software tools) for an initial population of more than 10 000 users and linked these together using common top-down metadata and bottom-up terms and categories to create a genuinely joined up knowledge sharing environment where every node, group and category is syndicated both within the network and outside to other agencies via web services and XML. (Bryant 2004)

56

Gabriela Avram

5. Unsolved problems and future trends Social Software is rapidly evolving, new features being thought of and made available almost every day. Probably the most interesting trend is the participation of users in the development of new features and the speed of developers trying to bring in new applications. Users with programming skills provide add-ons and make them available to the public. Some of them are rapidly adopted on a large scale, while some others remain barely used. The social phenomenon generated around the development and the use of Social Software tools is continually evolving. Probably the most important characteristic of this category of tools is their extreme simplicity (anyone can use them) and the fact that they involve social interaction and a fun factor. Adding new features can cause difficulties for users. Keeping the balance between user-friendliness and new appealing features is not an easy task for the developers. Making the use of this kind of tools compulsory in companies will probably take the fun factor away – and this is a problem that needs attention. There are several visible trends at this point in time. Upon users’ request, weblogs and wiki merged into Bliki (blog+wiki) type tools, the spontaneity of the weblogs marrying the structure of wikis. Some sites dedicated to weblog hosting, such as Live Journal and Greatest Journal, encourage the interconnection of weblogs forming social networks. Further evolution of this idea is the Semantic Social Network, which interconnects both people and weblogs, such as Stumble Upon and Funchain. Real Time social networking is the name given to a hybrid of web-based social networks and instant messaging technologies emerged recently and gaining popularity. Another current trend is collaborative real time editing, referring to the process of editing a text or media file by different participants to an event from different internet accounts.(Wikipedia 2005) The typical social networking sites, storing individual profiles and facilitating contacts, are blamed for excessive data centralisation and their lack of standardisation. Each time an individual registers to a new social networking service, almost the same information has to be filled in again and again. Then, the respective information is stored on that site, instead of being held on a personal site and having the social networking sites link to it. After a boom when hundreds of thousands of people subscribed to such social networking sites, the current trend shows many of them are currently opting out. In spite of some widely publicised success stories, membership in most of these networks has failed to prove its loudly claimed advantages. An interesting initiative regarding the social networking phenomenon is The Augmented Social Network (http://asn.planetwork.net/), a public initiative meant to build identity and trust into the architecture of Internet, in the public interest, in order to facilitate introductions between people who share affinities or complimentary capabilities across social networks.Another interesting development is the possible usage of folksonomies (collaborative categorization using freely chosen keywords) as a basis for the Semantic Web.

6. Conclusions The bottom-up approach of Social Software encourages responsibility and content ownership, and on the same time opens wide opportunities for collaboration and interaction. The benefits of using Social Software tools for individual knowledge creation and sharing are already highly visible. Professionals sharing the same interests (sometimes having very different backgrounds) find them extremely useful for locating expertise worldwide, keeping up-to-date with the latest developments in multiple fields, and for connecting to each other. The approach supported by this category of tools is an informal, innovative and flexible one giving enhanced support to the user centric perspective – because it really empowers users, bringing the tools to them, and not the opposite. A sort of reluctance still hinders the usage of these tools on a large scale in organisations. Possible causes can be the control they are giving to the individual on his own generated content – as opposed to the hierarchic control on central knowledge repositories, and their bottom-up approach - as opposed to the classic top-down one. Our paper attempted to provide a succinct presentation of Social Software, followed by an endeavour to describe its utility from the perspective of the five core KM activities included in the Despres & Chauvel taxonomy. The four examples of utilisation were meant to give an idea on the possible contributions of Social Software to knowledge management.

57

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

In our perspective, far from being a substitute, Social Software tools could provide a useful complement to existing central knowledge repositories (Ras 2005). It is noteworthy that the results of Social Software deployment consist not only in the generated content, but also in the social interaction triggered and in a shared understanding of concepts and facts, as basis for joint actions. The huge number of available tools and features and the rapid pace of innovation in the field bring the advantage of a wide choice, adapted to the users’ needs and continually evolving to serve them better. This kind of flexible and rapidly evolving tools in the hands of innovative users will be probably one of the major sources of competitive advantage in the Knowledge Economy of the future.

References Angeles, M.(2004) “Supporting enterprise knowledge management with weblogs: A weblog services roadmap”,[online],URLGreyHot , http://urlgreyhot.com/personal/cil2004?PHPSESSID=81c712287cc7519dec6d65ffc54067e5 Boyd, D. (2005) “The significance of social software”,[online], apophenia, http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2005/05/08/the_significance_of_social_software.html Bryant, L. (2003) “Smarter, Simpler, Social” [online], Headshift, http://www.headshift.com/moments/archive/sss2.html Bryant, L. (2004) “Informal, joined up knowledge sharing using connected weblogs in pursuit of Mental Health service improvement” [online], Headshift, http://headshift.com/archives/blogtalk/blogtalk_web.htm Despres, C., Chauvel, D. (1999) “Knowledge management(s)”, Journal of Knowledge Management, MCB University Press, Vol.3, No.2 , pp 110-120 Efimova, L., Fiedler, S. (2004) “Learning webs: Learning in Weblog Networks”, Paper presented at the Webbased communities 2004, 24-26 March 2004, Lisbon, Portugal, [online], Telematica Instituut, https://doc.telin.nl/dscgi/ds.py/Get/File-35344 Efimova, L. (2005) “Blogging as creating space for important”, [online], Mathemagenic, http://blog.mathemagenic.com/2005/02/21.html#a1499 Fisher, T. (2005),” Social Software in the Enterprise”[online], Java Developers Journal, http://timothyfisher.javadevelopersjournal.com/read/1247839.htm Kaplan-Leiserson, E. (2004) “We Learning: Social Software and E-Learning, Part II”, [online], Learning Circuits , http://www.learningcircuits.org/2004/jan2004/kaplan2.htm KmWiki (2005) [online], http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?KmWiki KMSC04 (2004) [online], http://wikifarm.roell.net/kmsc/KnowledgeManagementSummerCamp Mortensen, T., Walker, J., (2002) “Blogging thoughts: personal publication as an online research tool. Researching ICTs in context”, [online], eg-no, http://blogs.intermedia.uib.no/happy/archives/var/www/html/happy/Researching_ICTs_incontextCh11-Mortensen-Walker.pdf Nardi, B. (2000)“It’s Not What You Know, It’s Who You Know”, [online],First Monday,http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue5_5/nardi/index.html O’Neil, “A. (2005) Using Wiki Software for Small Scale Collaboration“ [online], The Hallway, http://tvt.blogspot.com/2005/01/using-wiki-software-for-small-scale.html Pollard, D. (2003) ”Social Networking, Social Software and the Future of Knowledge Management”,[online], How to save the world, http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2003/05/28.html Ras, E., Avram, G., Waterson, P., Weibelzahl, S. (2005) “Using Weblogs for Knowledge Sharing and Learning in Information Spaces”, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Volume 11, issue 3, ISSN 09486968 Shirky, Clay (2005) “Ontology is Overrated: Categories, Links and Tags”, [online], Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet, http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html Spaeth, S. (2005) “Using Del.icio.us and Wikalong to find and build communities of interest”, [online], Transforming Learning, http://pbj.ctlt.wsu.edu/spaeth/archive/2005/01/14/1476.aspx Stowe B. (2003) “Are you Ready for Social Software?”,[online], Darwin Magazine, http://www.darwinmag.com/read/050103/social.html Vinson, J. (2005) “There is something about social software” [online], Knowledge Jolt with Jack, at http://blog.jackvinson.com/archives/2005/04/29/there_is_something_about_social_software.html Wikipedia (2005) Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, [online], http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

58

Knowledge Creation and Sharing - Complex Methods of Inquiry and Inconsistent Theory. Peter M. Bednar, David Anderson and Christine E. Welch University of Portsmouth, UK [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: Recent research and practice have led to the development of relatively complex methods for inquiry which can be applied by human analysts. However, it has appeared until recently that these could not be supported by software tools, since the limitations of traditional mathematical algorithms constrained their development. We suggest a model which lays the foundations for the development of software support, based on a paraconsistent approach. Some of the methods available to analysts are based on the SST (Strategic Systemic Thinking) framework. This framework recognizes contextual dependencies, and enables analysts to include, as part of their analytical resolutions, conclusions which are in themselves contradictory. Software support for this kind of thought process would have been impossible to achieve in using traditional mathematical models. Tools supporting analytical work have, in the past, fallen into one of three categories:- those which support data manipulation, those which provide support for process, and those which attempt to support analysis directly. Until recently, for complex analytical models such as the SST framework, only the first of these categories was realistically available. However, making use of developments in the field of paraconsistent logic, it is now possible to envisage development of tools in the second category – process support. Paraconsistent logic was developed to provide a framework for inconsistent but non-trivial theories. Since the th early 20 century the field has become very fruitful. Many thousands of papers have been published and important applications in computer science, information theory and artificial intelligence owe their origins to insights gained from paraconsistency. The application suggested in this paper is very much in the spirit of this well established tradition. Keywords: Knowledge Creation, Contextual Dependencies, Paraconsistent Logic, Analytical Support.

1. Introduction Opinions differ about the meaning of the term ‘knowledge’. Before turning attention to the processes of knowledge creation and sharing, it is useful to consider, in this context, what we mean. One useful discussion is offered by Davenport & Prusak (in Gamble, R P and Blackwell, J 2001, p.3) “Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, expert insight and grounded intuition that provides an environment and framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms.” It is possible to consider the phenomenon of knowledge as objective – i.e. efforts could be made to express and document ‘knowledge’ of individuals so that it could be used to inform others about ‘meanings’, and it might therefore be stored for later retrieval or transmitted from one person to another through some kind of conduit. However, an alternative view regards ‘knowledge’ as subjective in the way it is perceived and experienced. ‘Meaning’ is constructed and attributed by individuals themselves through sense-making processes, related to a multitude of contextual dependencies (Seely Brown and Duguid, 2002; Bednar & Mallalieu, 2001). Taking a subjective view, it is necessary to recognize that ‘knowing’ is an on-going construction of meaning and not a product which can be stored or transported. It is not possible to access directly what other people know. We can only explore one another’s individual constructions of meaning indirectly, through dialogue and inquiries into sense-making. Thus, a suggestion that knowledge may be ‘embedded’ in documents or organizational practices must be treated with caution. It may be better to consider repositories to contain descriptions expressed by individuals in their attempts to record, or convey to others, what it is that they know. Knowing as a creative process is inextricably linked to learning. Bateson (1972) suggests that information may be defined as ‘a difference that makes a difference’, existing only in relation to a mental process. It might be argued that this process is what leads to an individual’s ‘knowing’. Bateson goes on to describe a hierarchy of

59

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

different orders of learning. At level zero, learning represents no change since the same criteria will be used and reused without reflection. Such might be the case in rote learning of dates, code words, etc which is contextually independent and in which repeated instances of the same stimuli will produce the same resulting ‘product’. All other learning, according to Bateson’s hierarchy, will involve some element of trial and error and reflection. Orders of learning can then be classified according to the types of error and the processes by which correction is achieved. Level I involves some revision using a set of alternatives within a repeatable context, level II represents revision based on revision of context, and so on. Bateson’s hierarchy finds an echo in the work of Argyris and Schon, in which they propose the ideas of single and double-loop learning. Double loop learning comes about through reflection on learning processes in which individuals may attempt to challenge prejudices and assumptions arising from their experiences. (Argyris 1990, Argyris and Schon 1996). Learning experiences of different types may result in different kinds of ‘knowing’. For instance, a person may memorize the capital cities of different countries and can ‘know that’ the capital of Surinam is Paramaribo. However, this kind of knowing is very different from ‘knowing how’ to drive a car, and comes about through very different mental processes. In the second instance, knowing is fundamentally contextually dependent and derived from action and reflection in practice. Such knowing can also be described as tacit rather than explicit, since the individual may realise that he can drive but he cannot easily express, or pass on to anyone else, the essence of his knowledge out of context. (Polyani 1967). Tacit knowledge has been said to have a number of cognitive dimensions, incorporating at the same time aspects of technical skill and ‘mental models, beliefs, and perspectives so ingrained that we take them for granted and therefore cannot easily articulate them.’ (Nonaka, in Starkey 1996, p21.)

2. Background In the context of this paper, the authors wish to highlight knowing processes, rather than ‘knowledge’ as a product. Thus, there is a focus on the quality of knowing processes through individual and collective contextual inquiry. Radnitzky (1970) discusses approaches to research based in different philosophical traditions. Logical empiricist models give great attention to the precision and clarity with which a problem situation may be expressed. Efforts to achieve precision may in turn lead to an artificial separation between observations made and the unique perspectives of observer and observed (Maturana and Varela 1980), and between theoretical frameworks and practice (Bateson 1972). Research based in hermeneutic dialectics, on the other hand, involves a recognition of the uncertainties and ambiguities inherent in socially-constructed views of human activity. Transparency rather than clarity is sought, in order to emphasise the self-awareness of individuals. The authors of this paper wish to place emphasis on the desire for transparency, whilst regarding the two perspectives as complementary to one another. Ciborra points to a tendency within the discipline of informatics to adopt a ‘common, unified paradigm’ to deal with very disparate phenomena – human, social and technological - which make up the field of study. In his view, a danger may arise that experiences of participants - the messy, situated acting of every-day practice may be disregarded. Undue privilege may often be accorded to methodologies and business process models which offer a stable and less messy view. He goes on to highlight the real danger that the key element – human existence – may come to be overlooked in consequence. (Ciborra 2004). Clearly, such warnings as these must be taken seriously by any researcher into organizational learning and knowing processes. Ciborra also highlights a problem which can arise in business researchers’ unconscious readiness to deploy taken-for-granted ideas and models as an unquestioned context for grasping aspects of the world under study. Generalised models of organizational structure are pointed out as an example of what Heidegger called ‘illusory appearances’. Researchers may be enthusiastic to seize a generalised idea in their searching for a framework of study for a contextually-unique situation. Ciborra suggests that such an idea may in fact act as ‘a show stopper, a model that biases, deflects and ultimately blocks reflection.’ (Ciborra 2002, p.177). There is a need to transcend domination by a paradigm which separates analysis of human activity systems into discrete realms of technology, symbols and organisation. Much attention has been given in recent years to a concept of ‘knowledge management’, although it is by no means universally agreed that ‘knowledge’ can be managed independently of those who ‘know’. (see e.g. Wilson 2002). It is not proposed in the current paper to engage in this debate, but to focus instead on the dimensions of creation and sharing of ‘knowing’ within organizational settings. How can ‘management’ recognize and embrace that ‘fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, expert insight and grounded intuition’ referred to above – in order that human creative powers may be nurtured, developed and harnessed within such an organizational environment? Problems of this kind resonate with those which have long been recognized within the wider field of informatics research. For instance, Bednar highlights the following as problematic issues: “ – To make relation and acquaintance with different ways in which individual and organizational identities, structures and cultures emerge and develop; - To develop and evolve conceptual

60

Peter M. Bednar, David Anderson and Christine E. Welch

and empirical understandings of selected issues such as informational vs organizational systems, subjectivity and objectivity, and to place these issues in a multidisiciplinary perspective.” (Bednar 2001) Our intention is to promote inquiry into organizational knowledge creation and sharing which avoids an artificial separation of theory and practice, which seeks transparency as well as clarity, and which takes into account the messiness of everyday experience, and individuals’ attempts to search for meaning through sense-making activity. Many researchers have turned to methodologies intended to simplify organizational problem spaces, in a desire to steer a manageable path through rich and diverse sources. However, the authors of this paper propose instead a structured, systemic complexification in the form of inquiry into contextual dependencies. Such an inquiry will focus on unique individual beliefs, actions and perspectives in specific organizational situations, and upon the living history of an organizational group from each individual’s point of view. It is suggested that processes through which people create and recreate their knowing are at once deeply personal, contextual and social. Drawing upon Gregory Bateson’s idea of a ‘difference that makes a difference’ (Bateson 1972,) it may be suggested that knowing comes about through perception of change. This theme finds agreement in the work of Seely Brown and Duguid: “The background has to be in place for the information to register. The forces that shape the background are, rather, the tectonic social forces, always at work, within which and against which individuals configure their identity. These create not only grounds for reception, but grounds for interpretation, judgment, and understanding.” (Seeley Brown and Duguid 2002, p.139). Whilst it is common to speak of individual ‘genius’ as a creative force, in agreement with Karl Weick (1995) the authors would argue that knowledge creation takes place more readily through individual and collective sensemaking activities within the cultural context of an organization. It has been suggested that organizational culture is formed over time through shared goals (Schein, 1992), achieved through a negotiation of differing perspectives (weltanshauungen) held by individuals (Checkland, 1999). As such, it is always possible for the individual to select from a range of possible meanings. Organizations can be seen as comprised of individuals, interacting within social communicational networks. Individual’s ‘knowing’ within an organizational context is formed by on-going construction of meanings through synthesis of new data with past experience. (Langefors, 1966). If individuals are to be empowered to express their knowing in a process of creative development, there are barriers to be overcome, since it may be deeply embedded and inaccessible to the individuals concerned. Nonaka makes use of the concept of ba (which translates to ‘space’ in Japanese) in considering the conditions under which knowledge creation and sharing may take place (Nonaka and Konno, 1998). Ba may be physical, virtual or mental, and the space which, in their view, contributes to socialisation – originating ba – is that where individuals share feelings, emotions, experiences and mental models. Knowledge sharing is essentially a communicative action which is more than a simple transmission of messages, such as a conduit metaphor would suggest. ‘Knowing’ may be constructed through teamwork in which individuals make a collaborative exploration of a problem-space. However, the conditions in which effective collaborative communication can take place may be constrained in practice. As Habermas pointed out, differences in power and status which can exist within social groups may distort the process by which communication takes place. Habermas went on to specify an ‘ideal’ situation for dialogue to take place in which individuals are equally possessed of information, equally skilled for debate and have agreed on common precepts of logic, reason and mutual respect. (Habermas 1989). However, such conditions are unlikely to be a regular feature of everyday, messy organizational life. The importance of context for effective dialogue is also emphasized by Bruner: “We shall be able to interpret meanings and meaning-making in a principled manner only in the degree to which we are able to specify the structure and coherence of the larger contexts in which specific meanings are created and transmitted”. (Bruner 1990, p.64). Vehicles are needed in which individual and group sense-making activities, and the organizational contexts within which they take place, may be explored. One possible vehicle might be the Strategic Systemic Thinking Framework (Bednar 2000). Complex analytical work, such as inquiry into contextual dependency, the authors believe to be a knowledge management task. Such tasks can be done by human analysts, but can easily become overwhelming in their scope and complexity. For this reason suitable analytical support tools would be of great value. IT support for analytical work can be described with the help of three types of support system. Our description (see figure

61

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

below) of three types of support system is inspired by work in Decision Support Systems presented by Prof Sven Carlsson at Lund University, Sweden. Analysis Support Process Support Data Support

Documentation Presentation Calculation Processing etc

Artificial intelligence Decision-making etc

Walkthroughs Expert systems Intelligent scenarios etc

Figure 1: Three types of support systems Key aspects and relationships of these three types are as follows: Data support: Software that supports structure, description, modelling, presentation of data etc. Process support: Software that supports process of analysis, administration of modelling and analysis practice. Analytical support: Software that is capable of imitating human intelligence in making analyses and is able to draw conclusions (indistinguishable from human beings). The authors believe that IT tools currently available to support inherently complex analytical work fit into the category of data support only. The reason for this is that a feature of such complex inquiry is a recognition that contradictory perspectives are natural to human understandings. Human beings have no difficulty in keeping contradictory understandings in mind whilst considering resolutions – whether complementary, alternative or incompatible. Traditional algorithms upon which software is built, on the other hand, have difficulties in dealing with the maintenance of underlying contradictions as valid parts of resolutions. The framework for Strategic Systemic Thinking is described in the figure below. The three main aspects of the framework, which together support the creation of a learning circle, are intra-analysis, inter-analysis, valueanalysis.

Inter-analysis Exploration and creation of individual perspectives

Intra-analysis

Value-analysis

Group sharing communication and development of individual perspectives

Validation Prioritization from political and cultural perspectives

Figure 2: Overview of the SST framework The framework represents a systematic attempt to support systemic inquiry into uncertain and complex problem spaces. It involves exploring a problem space from each individual’s unique perspectives, both separately and in a group context. Clearly one outcome of such an inquiry is the expression of inherently contradictory resolutions, as has been discussed above. The complex process and the amount of data involved in such an inquiry can make the whole analytical task overwhelming. This means that new software tools giving support to process would be a great asset. The following section contains an introduction to paraconsistent logic.

62

Peter M. Bednar, David Anderson and Christine E. Welch

3. Paraconsistent logic It has now been recognized that developments in paraconsistent logic may open the way for new software tools. Using paraconsistent logic it may be possible to create and develop IT solutions that cover the second category in our figure, process support for complex inquiry. Such solutions may assist human analysts in their efforts to apply a special case of a model such as the SST above. To propose a model upon which relevant software tools could be built, we believe that further cross fertilization between research in complex analysis and paraconsistent logic is necessary. Paraconsistent logic represents an alternative to the conventional logic of algorithms which form the basis of traditional computer software. Results of research in this area suggest that contradictions as part of a problem solution need not be regarded as a bad thing. Paraconsistent logic was, indeed, developed to provide a framework for inconsistent but non-trivial theories. The field has now a long-established record. It is recorded that Charles Sanders Pierce (1839-1914) was responsible for extending the truth table method to three-valued logic as early as 1909 (Recher, 1969). Pioneering work in many valued logic was also done by Scottish logician Hugh MacColl (1837–1909). In his 1906 book ‘Symbolic Logic and its Applications’, MacColl proposed a ‘logic of three dimensions’ – the modal values of ‘certainty’, ‘impossibility’ and ‘variability’. In the early 20th century, formal paraconsistent systems were introduced by Jan Lukasiewicz, working in the newly re-founded Polish university in Warsaw, and independently by Nikolai Vasil’ev in Russia. In more recent times this field has flourished and many developments have been made. Research has prospered, and academic debate has given rise to a large volume of publications. Important applications in computer science, information theory and artificial intelligence owe their origins to insights gained from paraconsistency, including software engineering, database theory, model checking, theorem proving, logic programming, data mining, evolutionary computation, semantic web and model-based reasoning (Marcos, 2005). It is very much in the spirit of this well- established tradition that applications such as that suggested in this paper should ensue. Forcheri and Gentilini, for example, presents an application of paraconsistent logics to formal epistemology. (Forcheri and Gentilini, 2005). A formalism is presented to express conjectures as formal objects. ‘The deductive apparatus of conjecturing agents is conflated with some given environment system. In such an interaction of agents with environment, inconsistencies might quite reasonably emerge.’ (Marcos op cit). Further work which combines the two areas of paraconsistency and complex methods of inquiry may well result in further important developments.

4. Implications and possibilities. It has been seen that the conjunction of complex analytical frameworks such as SST with developments in paraconsistent logic may open up possibilities for software development. We will now elaborate on selected features of the SST framework. The framework for Strategic Systemic Thinking (SST) consists of three main aspects: intra-analysis, interanalysis, value-analysis. Each aspect of the framework draws upon three ‘dimensions’ represented by carriers: Process: an inquiry and formation of a systems view regarding a problem world. This could be expressed as related to the task performed by an analyst which might be described as ‘ontological’ in its character. Generally this is focused on worlds consisting of ‘processes’. Here we refer to problem re-definition, creativity and uncertainty. Dynamics: an inquiry and formation of a reflective systems view regarding thought processes leading to above mentioned ‘process’. This could be described as ‘epistemological’ in its character. Generally this dimension is related to a second order of learning and thinking about the process of thinking. Here we refer to critical reflection, learning and re-evaluation of process of ‘problem re-definition’. Perspective: an inquiry and formation of a responsible systems view regarding the value processes, leading to boundary setting framing the abovementioned inquiries. This could be described as ‘axiological’ in its character. Generally this is focused on value ethics and observational transparency. We refer to value ethics related to observers and Hermeneutics Dialectics. The figure below describes the carriers’ relationships with the three main aspects of the framework and highlights the learning circle (i.e. a combination of the intra-analysis, inter-analysis and value-analysis in action).

63

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Inter-analysis Process Dynamics Learning circle

Perspective

Intra-analysis

Value-analysis

Figure 3: Carriers of the SST framework In themselves, none of the dimensions shown represents what we are looking for. The purpose is to explore the created inter-dimensional space in order to develop a knowledge base upon which action can be founded. The figure below visualises a three dimensional model of a general aspect with general carriers described metaphorically as dimensions (e.g. process, dynamics and perspective).

Process

Perspective Problem space Dynamics

Figure 4: Carriers as Dimensions Information systems have a function of providing support to people taking purposeful action (Checkland & Holwell 1998, p.110). In the same way a knowledge system may be usefully viewed as entailing two linked systems: there is a system to be served and a serving system. Development of useful support systems therefore requires that careful consideration is given both to the nature of the system served (in this case relating to organistional agents and stakeholders) and to the serving system (here, support for analysts in their knowledge creation and sharing) (cf Checkland 1999). Both systems views mentioned above would seem to fit within the concept of ‘notional’ systems as expressed by Checkland. We do not find Checkland’s view of ‘real world’ systems helpful in this context, and would challenge whether this concept is meaninful for our purposes. An hermeneutic dialectics perspective may be helpful to us here in our efforts create an understanding. The carriers shown above frame a problem space in a number of ‘dimensions’. Knowledge creation and sharing efforts are circulating around such a problem space. Each of the carriers is intended to support a different order of analysis and learning. Since this analysis is based upon each participating actor’s efforts to inquiry into, create and share knowledge, messages are being created and exchanged. These messages are derived from different perspectives and therefore, if truthful, will contain contradictions. When applying an analysis based upon the SST framework, or something similar, a human analyst does in practice take these contradictory matters into account, and can thus follow through the whole complex analytical process. To do so is, however, a challenging task.

5. Summary and conclusion In practicing complex analysis built on a model such as the SST framework, there will be many different intraanalyses from different perspectives. Not only is the analysis done by different people, but also each individual analyst may have several, and sometimes incompatible, perspectives. As each individual analyst makes

64

Peter M. Bednar, David Anderson and Christine E. Welch

efforts to develop her/his own understandings about relevant problem spaces, ‘messages’ will be created. These messages are later used as a basis for further elaboration, as part of self-reflection and sharing (the form of this can be associated with storytelling). In the inter-analysis there is a conscious exchange of messages for the purpose of knowledge sharing, knowledge creation and rationalization. The rationalization aspect comes into place through a purposeful classification of messages (‘stories’). Such a classification exercise is based upon negotiation regarding what characterizes each ‘story’. Examples of four types of ‘stories’ are: compatible, incompatible, complementary or different. This classification exercise is not intended to bring about exclusion of alternative (for example ‘incompatible’) perspectives or ‘stories’. The purpose of inter-analysis is rather to widen understanding of different perspectives - no single alternative is excluded (no matter how ‘different’ or ‘crazy’ they may seem). The result is not only rationalization, (similar stories are grouped to limit the number of alternative stories but not the ‘scope’ of them) but also further complexification and acceptance of contradictions etc. In the value-analysis, the participating analysts are elaborating and reflecting upon hierarchy and priority. Here again, it is not intended to create a consensus or compromise. The whole purpose of complex analysis and knowledge management, in our perspective, is not ‘to make’ decisions but ‘to be able to make’ informed decisions. The purpose is to enrich the foundation upon which decisions could be made while still keeping an overview of available ‘knowledge’. In conclusion, we believe that further efforts to develop models upon which useful process support tools could be built, with the assistance of paraconsistent logic, would be worthwhile to pursue.

References Argyris, C (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning. Englewood Clifs, N J, Prentice Hall. Argyris, C and Schon, D (1996), Organizational Learning II – Theory, Method and Practice. Reading Mass: Adison Wesley Bateson, G (1972), Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Ballantine Books, New York Bednar P M (2000), A Contextual Integration of Individual and Organizational Learning Perspectives as Part of IS Analysis. Informing Science Journal. Vol. 3. No 3. 2000. Bednar, P M (2001), Individual Emergence in Contextual Analysis – Amsterdam paper Bednar, P M & Mallalieu, G M (2001). Romancing the stone: play between romance and affection. The 17th EGOS Colloquium: The Odyssey of Organizing: Knowing as Desire, July 5-7, 2001 Bednar, P M and Welch C (2005), IS, Process, Organisational Change and Their Relationship with Contextual Dependencies, Proceedings of 13th European Conference on Information Systems, University of Regensburg, Germany, 25-28 May 2005 Bruner, J (1990), Acts of Meaning, Cambridge Mass, Harvard University Press Checkland, P and Holwell, S (1998), Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field. Wiley, Chichester. Checkland, P (1999), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: a 30-year retrospective', Wiley, Chichester. Ciborra, C (2002), The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems, Oxford University Press, pp 176-177 Ciborra, C (2004), ‘Encountering Information Systems as a Phenomenon’, in Avgerou, C, Ciborra, C and Land, F editors (2004), The Social Study of Information and Communication Technology: Innovation, Actors, and Contexts, Oxford University Press, Chapter 1, p.18/19 Davenport, T and Prusak, L (1997), Working Knowledge, Harvard Business Press Forcheri, P and Gentilini, P (2005), Paraconsistent Informational Logic, Journal of Applied Logic, Vol.3, Issue 1, pp 97-118 Habermas, J (1989), The Theory of Communicative Competence: The Critique of Functionalist Reason, Vol 2, Cambridge, Polity Press Langefors, B (1966), Theoretical Analysis of Information Systems, Studentlitterature Lukasiewicz, J. (1970), Philosophical Remarks on Many-Valued Systems of Propositional Logic, in Selected Works pp.153-178.. Edited and translated by O. Wojtasiewicz. North-Holland, Amsterdam MacColl, H (1906), Symbolic Logic and its Applications, Longmans, Green and Co. London Marcos, J, Diderik, B and Carnielli, W (2005), “A Paraconsistent Decagon”, Journal of Applied Logic, Vol.3, Issue 1, March 2005, pp 1-5 Maturana H. R. and Varela F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Reidel Publishing Company. Nonaka, I (1991), ‘The Knowledge Creating Company’, Harvard Business Review, 69 Nov-Dec 1991 Nonaka, I and Konno (1998), ‘The concept of ‘Ba’: building a foundation for knolwedge creation,’ California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54 Polyani, M (1967), The Tacit Dimension, Gareden City, N Y, Doubleday Radnitzky, G (1970). Contemporary Schools of Metascience. Gothenburg: Akademiforlaget.

65

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Recher, N (1969), Many-valued Logic, McGraw Hill, New York Seeley Brown, J and Duguid, P (2002), The Social Life of Information, 2nd edition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts Schein, E (1992), Organizational Culture & Leadership, 2nd edition, Jossey-Bass Weick, K (1995), Sense-making in Organizations. London, Sage. Wilson, T D (2002), ‘The nonsense of ‘knowledge management’, Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, October 2002

66

The Knowledge Map, A Lubricant for the Firm’s Machinery Anders Berglund Luleå University of Technology, Sweden [email protected] Abstract: Like machinery, all institutions and firms need to run smoothly to be efficient. Metaphorically speaking, a key function for accomplishing this is the lubricant. In the organizational setting, this lubricant is an in-house service provider: the knowledge map. Thus, the general objective of this paper is to describe how corporate knowledge can trigger the service level of a firm. In this way, a knowledge map functions as a guiding tool for visualizing knowledge sources and identifying relationships among knowledge artifacts. Using an exploratory approach with a qualitative method, multiple case studies were used. Focusing on three multiinternational knowledge-based service firms, the evidence was collected using a combination of interviews with local office managers and questionnaires with employees. Old habits and daily routines are often the basis of hasty and short-sighted solutions. This convenient way to retrieve knowledge can create dependency on routines and procedures, thereby also favoring less suitable know-how. Thus, a number of factors that may improve the internal processes of a firm and ultimately speed up connectivity and increase openness between individuals are presented. Hopefully, this will help to overcome some of the risks of using knowledge in a job situation simply because that knowledge has worked before. As business is more turbulent than ever, it can be very costly to neglect the right knowledge, and even worse, to have to duplicate it due to irretrievability. In addition, the study shows that formalization of an outspoken knowledge strategy which incorporates knowledge repositories can create ground for effective sharing and collaboration. However, an overwhelming fear of information overload emphasizes the importance of a solid knowledge structure, provided, suggestively, by a knowledge map. Still, knowledge mapping is a process that is considered a form of mental activity or a conceptual and metaphysical state. Keywords: Knowledge management, knowledge mapping, service provider

1. Introduction The days are numbered for old Tayloristic ideas that view workers as non-thinkers with standardized routines. The evolution of the business landscape has brought a new contrasting view that is exemplified by problemsolving, self-driven workers. In today’s knowledge society, capital and labor have weakened their positions in contrast to the growing factor of knowledge as the only meaningful economic resource (Drucker 1993). It is the individuals and their unique competencies that determine how management should be practised, not the other way around. Businesses are struggling with how to work with their intellectual resources and as a result, a knowledge deficit has emerged. With no effective reuse or preserving system, valuable knowledge has been estimated to cost the Fortune 500 firms a stunning $12 billion per year ($31.5 billion by 2003) due to a ’knowledge deficit’ (Hanley 2000). The knowledge deficit could be seen as a measure of the cost of work that is redone, or substandard, or where there are problems in locating the right knowledge, either information or expertise. ’A great deal of business success depends on generating new knowledge and on having the capabilities to react quickly and intelligently to this new knowledge.’ (Tidd, Bessant and Pavitt 1997: 53) However, with fast advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) and with an increasing amount of knowledge-based enterprises, organizations are beginning to show greater interest in the field of Knowledge Management (KM). With ICTs as a commodity worldwide, processes and people form a more critical part of the KM-enabled business performance equation (Malhotra 2003). Yet, many organizations are unable to function as knowledge-based organizations, because they suffer from learning disabilities (Senge 1990). Still, organizations have recognized that successful KM initiatives depend on the commitment of top management, and the contribution of senior consultants or experts (Rowley 1999). KM enables organizations to be much more efficient in the transfer of data, sound and video (Abell and Oxbrow 2001). By adopting collaborative software and the Intranet, the modern corporation converges and forges the foundation of a new workplace (Pape 1997). Often an organization's informal networks, rather than a database or some other form of knowledge repository, provide the necessary knowledge. With an increased number of individuals participating in the networks, both the needs and wants of knowledge sharing will intensify (Joy-Mattews and Gladstone 2000). Shared knowledge functions during business hours as working capital in team formations and spurs fruitful relationships. Relationships are sometimes coordinated and initiated as strategic incitements in terms of virtual teams (Kristof 1995). In a sense, this informal fabric of communities and shared practices makes the official organization effective and, indeed, possible (Wenger 1998). With continuous improvements

67

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

made in ICTs, companies must be prepared to change their way of doing business. Put in general terms, ICTs have brought to life a new dimension in how information and knowledge can be shared, interpreted and understood. The changes have in particular affected the way groups interact and gather information (Raghuram et al. 2001). However, to make it work, the involved people must see value in it; otherwise abandonment of ICT supporting elements may occur (Högberg and Edvinsson 1998). To accomplish high user satisfaction, the network should help people find answers and solutions that can increase the knowledge level per se. Looking at a firm’s machinery, one must not forget that nowadays, the parts needed for the firm to run at full throttle may be spread over a vast setting. Thus, processes and people are less and less captive to organizational or geographic boundaries (Malhotra 2003). There has been an attempt of binding people and technology together with the use of a so called knowledge map (Liebowitz 2000; Junnarkar 1997; Weick 1995). As a valuable supporting tool to the KM strategy the recent evolution of knowledge maps is concerned with both the analytical and actor paradigms of KM (Hellström and Husted 2004). The knowledge map can be considered a supporting mechanism, catalyzing strategic implications for knowledge profiles and strategy. Knowledge maps are excellent ways to capture and share explicit knowledge as well as serving as pointers to the holders of tacit knowledge (Vail 1999). Some researchers actually picture the knowledge map as the very core of KM (Kang et al. 2003). Why it can be labelled as the centrepiece is because it is manifested in explicit knowledge activities and ideas in terms of understandable representations. However, the knowledge map also involves two aspects: knowing how individuals learn and create knowledge, and knowing how teams create insight (Liebowitz 2000). Once located, the important knowledge needs to be publicised, either in some sort of list or picture; the important aspect is that this facilitates the retrieval process (Davenport and Prusak 1998). This means that knowledge maps include links to all sorts of knowledge carriers regardless of whether theay are individuals, documents or databases. Utilizing knowledge maps involves a process of screening and mapping, also known as knowledge mapping. Knowledge mapping can be seen as a process that tries to sort out elements, creating structure and guidance in various knowledge contexts. In short, it is a diagrammatic representation of corporate knowledge (Kim et al. 2003). In fact, knowledge mapping as a multi-faceted approach for creating structure out of an overabundance of potentially useful information (Wexler 2001). The umbrella concept of KM is a crucial value-adding activity for organizations. It encompasses both technological toos and organizational practices and it appreciates the subjective and dynamic nature of knowledge (Newman and Conrad, 1999). What KM involves can be summarized in the following: avoidance of costly mistakes, sharing of good practice, faster problem-solving, faster development times, better customer solutions, acquiring new business, improving customer service and reduction of risks (Skyrme 1999). The area of knowledge mapping has been scarcefullly is an area worthy of more attention from academia and business (Kang et al. 2003). Use of KM can be improved and encouraged on many different levels, of which service is one. Yet, the pragmatic use of knowledge maps as in-house service providers can be divided into two aspects. First, knowing how individuals learn and create knowledge. Secondly, knowing how teams create insight. The more these aspects become apparent, the sooner organizations will change and adapt. In this way, an in-house service provider such as the knowledge map strengthens the quest for increasing overall profitability and competitiveness. With this in mind, the purpose of this article is to present a set of key factors central to the understanding of how organizations with entirely knowledge-based services can facilitate knowledge mapping activities.

2. Research method To see whether organizations with entirely knowledge-based services use knowledge mapping for validation and updating repositories, the study was conducted based on multiple case studies. Choosing a multiple-case sampling technique also adds to the validity, precision and the stability of the findings. The sample criteria were based on knowledge-intensive corporations. Three accounting firms were randomly selected. All responding companies were also active internationally and had local offices in the same geographic region of northern Sweden. This opened the door to finding out more about the backbone of the KM incentives in each firm. A qualitative study was undertaken using semi-structured interviews (Spender 1989). The interviews were made with each leading representative together with 20 questionnaires provided with the insights of the employees. The main components asked for were the same in both questionnaires and interviews. Namely, questions related to the ability of organizing strategic knowledge, systems that simplified complex isssues and how knowledge was distributed and incorporated. Initially questions relating to learning incentives were provided to open up doors for probing questions. During interviews respondents contributed their personal experiences, opinions and views, as well as a few thoughts from a team perspective. An equal number of men and women participated in the questionnaires. However, all the leading representatives were men. The concept of KM was briefly explained in the

68

Anders Berglund

questionnaire to minimize any misunderstandings. Further, all interviews were recorded to achieve increased reliability and reduce errors in handling the data. A combination of theories and theoretical frameworks was used when stating the findings. With this support, it has been possible to distinguish values and limitations of certain ICTs together with KM ideas and tools.

3. Foundations of the knowledge map To mark the terrain and better understand the concept of the knowledge map, definitions based on the insights of Davenport and Prusak (1998) are used. By using a system or process perspective on how knowledge is established, the following is to be considered. Data are discrete, objective, non-contextual facts about events. Usually codified, these facts describe or quantify events (i.e., down times of machines, cycle times of production, turnover). Information is data that has been endowed with relevance and purpose. This adds context by organizing information or categorizing it with a particular purpose in mind. Knowledge can be seen as actionable information that is evolved from a mix of framed experiences, values, contextual information and expert insights. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), knowledge exists explicitly, available and expressed in symbols or tacitly contained within oneself. Once knowledge is out in the open it gets to be information to anyone else. Information becomes knowledge when meaning is given to a piece of information, depending on the skills and the context in which the individual involved judges the information. Since the information needs to be internally processed to become knowledge, out of nature, it therefore belongs to a subjective dimension. Based on the given fundaments, a knowledge map can be defined as ‘a type of mental diagram by means of which complex ideas can be easily and quickly set out in a logical order’ (Gomez et al. 2000). The knowledge map takes both individual and team level interactions and processes into consideration. Basically, the knowledge map is made to better understand the ability to identify the business value of KM activities in both team and organizational contexts. It is made up of a number of skills in terms of strategy and business, management, intellectual and learning capability, communication and interpersonal skills, information management and IT. The main skills include a number of sub-components that together can form a designated map of top skills and desirable attributes for team compositions. Knowledge maps increase the probability of successful communication when map makers and users either share the same symbols or representations or the legend which accompanies the knowledge map is sufficiently clear, simple and useful (Wexler 2001). It is important to remember that knowledge maps vary greatly depending on the user experience and intentions. It may vary from being a tool that socializes new team members and employees to be more of a supporting mechanism on a heuristic level to nurture the more experienced members. The motivation aspect of using the knowledge map is what determines its usability. Basic orientation maps intended for new or unfamiliar members will therefore simply be discarded by more experienced members. This requires systems for the knowledge creation and maintenance of knowledge repositories. It also demands methods of cultivating and facilitating the sharing of knowledge (Rowley 1999). Thus, it is necessary to distinguish both tools and structure in terms of how the underlying functions and procedures will be performed. In the effective organizations, the process of knowledge mapping becomes natural and essential in terms of who knows what, regardless of distance or boundaries. Again, this is a strong reason for taking knowledge maps into consideration as a supporting mechanism in the KM strategy.

4. The process of knowledge mapping In the daily job, the knowledge map functions as a solid back-office function in terms of a generative information retrieval resource that provides users with the required knowledge and ability to find relative knowledge. Knowledge mapping could be seen as ‘a diagrammatic representation of corporate knowledge, having nodes as knowledge links as the relationships between knowledge, and knowledge specification or profile’ (Kim et al. 2003:36). It is a multi-faceted approach for coordinating, simplifying, highlighting and navigating in complex knowledge contexts (Wexler 2001). Recent attempts to describe the process of knowledge mapping have been made by both Kim et al. (2003) and Eppler (2003). Both procedures are similar. According to Kim et al. (2003), the process consists of six steps: defining organizational knowledge, process map analysis, knowledge extraction, knowledge profiling, knowledge linking and knowledge map validation. Eppler (2003), on the other hand, uses a five-step procedure for creating high-quality knowledge maps. Step one involves identifying particular knowledgeintensive processes, problems or issues. The second step relates to recognition of relevant knowledge sources and assets underpinning ability to perform in processes and problem-solving activities. Step three views the codification procedure as an initiator to make the elements accessible for the whole organization. Step four aims at establishing user-friendly retrievable interaction mode, integrating and codifying reference information in either a physical or a virtual interface allowing users to navigate and to allocate the needed

69

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

knowledge. The final, fifth step highlights means for procurement and updating procedures for assuring the map quality. Managers can be helped by the fact that the map can indicate knowledge levels, help plan strategies and make workflow more efficient. As part of the knowledge strategy, the knowledge map works as a supporting mechanism, catalyzing strategic implications for the knowledge profiles and knowledge strategy. If knowledge mapping is to work in virtual environments or equivalent functions, it should focus on illustrating the planning, integration, operation and standardization of KM solutions. Huff and Jenkins (2002) describe three key contributing benefits obtained by the organization initiating knowledge mapping: 1. Connects and organizes strategic knowledge 2.

Simplifies complex issues such as decision making

3.

Being able to represent knowledge on different levels of abstraction.

Knowledge mapping can be broken down into non-expert activities, which makes it easier for management and organizations to take advantage of mapping techniques. One issue that affects both the variety of ICTs and the usage level is the dominating culture in the organization. If the management supports and facilitates the development of the ICTs, the rate of use will increase. Another issue that affects use of the ICTs is the knowledge and skills that the employees attain. Here, the role of knowledge sharing and interaction becomes essential. It is through these two factors that knowledge is transferred in the organization. In accordance with Wiig (1996), testing and validation of knowledge should be an ongoing process. This given success factor will also make the acceptance of, and motivation for, the knowledge map more enduring.

5. Results Across all companies, there was a unanimous view that activities supporting education and learning capabilities are strong contributors to the maintenance of a high overall knowledge standard. Interpersonal and communication skills were found to be highly desirable when working in team settings. It was found that means of stimulating natural team formation and task groups were new learning, new tasks and job rotation. Work roles are shifting as time goes by; having the opportunity to influence development stimulates working processes. The research showed a clear understanding of the importance of strategies among the studied organizations. Concerning the role of the KM strategy, results pointed towards designating a specified position for handling the knowledge flows. Most organizations had a tendency to rely strongly on the leading manager to nurture the knowledge domains. In teams, a large part of strategy involves developing and maintaining knowledge. Yet, some differences were found among the different companies. It seemed as if virtual teams might shift and adopt new strategies more easily. This was found to be based on the flexibility of the team structure, which allowed new ideas to be expressed more easily. In contrast to the larger context of the whole organization, it was easier to manage the knowledge resources and invest the necessary effort to develop both teams and their members. The study showed that team formations in virtual environments were more dynamic than regular formations. Still, they performed weak in some vital strategic aspects, management support being one. Another issue that became apparent was the question of what happens when organizations lose control over knowledge storage. The organization that favored stronger use of ICTs and KM tools could risk loosing control over the information flow in the organization. Special concern was expressed over mail server capabilities. The research also revealed that employees have difficulty finding the searched topic due to information overload. At times when the amount of information becomes pressuring and almost too extensive, the virtual team still acts redundantly, whereas the overall activities on the organizational level may suffer in efficiency. A reduced capacity in searching and keeping track of the necessary information is the foremost common obstacle. Yet, none of the investigated companies were seeking KM systems, as they prioritized mapping of their knowledge representations. There was a unanimous view that it is crucial for management to put in systems that work well in the filtering of undesired e-mails that interrupt workflows and efficiency. Aspects of the findings concerning internal and external interaction activities showed that the companies with routines for allowing external interaction show a greater development in KM related activities. They also showed a tendency to regularly facilitate new ideas and input for the organization. Concerning KM awareness, the organizations and teams that focus on renewing their knowledge domains seem to be the ones nurturing the transfer and sharing.

6. Discussion If a machine can be used as a metaphor for an organization, this paper proposes a lubricant oil for making the organizational engine run smoother and more efficiently. Introducing a knowledge map as an in-house service provider speeds up connectivity and networking without sacrificing quality. The findings indicate that without a strong coordinating function like a knowledge manager, there is a need for integrating a navigating tool such

70

Anders Berglund

as a knowledge map. Factors such as creating, fostering and nurturing knowledge repositories and, most importantly, providing the best match for the sought after knowledge, are strongly favored. This may also draw attention to the fact that knowledge is more than just a thing. Introducing the knowledge map could shift the way individuals and teams within the organization retain and share knowledge, helping them to manage knowledge in a more efficient way. The urge for early adoption of a structure supports the contention of Rowley (1999), who places responsibility for initiatives to successful knowledge management on the top management aided by senior consultants or experts. As emphasized by Kristof (1995), the contrast is manifested in virtual teams, where members remain in different locations and often are accountable to different individuals. The moulding process in which the desired knowledge and competencies are structured to a competitive team formation is based mostly on mentor-apprentice approaches but also on job rotation, new tasks and knowledge renewal. From an individual-based perspective, the codification process of knowledge mapping is in many teams based on the individuals’ belief that the end result will contribute to the overall work process. In line with what Eppler (2003) mentions, the codification of elements is performed, but in a limited way, to extend the knowledge accessible to the organization as a whole. Yet, establishing a well used and user-friendly approach to overcome this obstacle has not been fully accomplished. Knowledge mapping can improve work processes by overcoming the problem of accessing the right content at the right time, without greater time constraints. Improvements may be realized both in terms of more efficient codification methods and the people-oriented retrieval phase. If the correlation between the sought-after information and interpreted knowledge is to be improved, the organizations must know how to control the flow and size of information. In order to take control over the domestic chaos the facilitation of the following activities can be seen as key factors contributing to the efficiency of the knowledge map. A strategy for effective usage and storage of information is needed; with knowledge mapping, the explicit elements can be visualized and better sought after. Less complexity in decision-making processes; small coherent teams face the same potential benefits as the company as a whole if a more structured procedural representation map is established. A basic representational knowledge map should at least include day-to-day procedures and activities that affect workflow efficiency together with an increase in the external customer value delivery. There is risk that tools will not be used if not properly taken care of, causing valuable information structure to fade and dissolve. Poorly managed databases and storage artefacts are like ticking bombs; when the company loses control over the growth and massive volume they may explode. Information overload makes it impossible for employees to find proper information, due to problems of retrieving it from the databases. Notably, most key factors have either a direct or indirect impact on the customer service delivery. The existence of a clear-cut, easy-to-access knowledge map may be what captivates external parties such as banks and venture capitalists. Perhaps downsizing will be the outcome if the organization is perceived as being capable of achieving its goals and expectations. Central aspects for organizations include an understanding and natural acceptance of KM where the ability to identify business value through KM activities is concerned. Important, too, is the approach participants adopt in the range of activities and initiatives created in the working environment. Effective knowledge creation, sharing and usability to increase competitive advantage and customer satisfaction will only come through openness. Having a continuous renewal system in place for explicit forms of knowledge may inspire the formation of a metaphorical anti-dust carpet, a carpet that automatically brushes away dusty old habits and routines under the feet of employees. The trick is just to see that it is laid out for everyone to step on. Not until then can the best suited knowledge for the given purpose automatically upgrade the old version. The final fifth step discussed by Eppler (2003) highlights this issue of how updating the map is crucial for its existence and for assuring a certain quality. Appointing certain KM people who are responsible for, among other things, editing the knowledge map, is advisable. However, an overstated belief that one employee alone can facilitate that which is to affect all other employees is ill-advised. The backbone construct is one thing; but when released to the organizations, the mapping should be a self-generating process, handled by the employees themselves. This, however, is restricted to groupings of individuals and in most cases spread through word-of-mouth and in some cases e-mail. The knowledge map as a supporting tool may, in contradiction to Kim et al. (2003), Huff and Jenkins (2002) and Eppler (2003), be working against the firm’s machinery. The dusty way may be the most convenient way in the search for knowledge, creating path dependency of routines and favoring perhaps not the most suitable knowledge, but knowledge that worked last time. This ultimately means that the development of fresh new knowledge may stagnate and eventually decline at the expense of the competitive working knowledge. Perhaps the logical mental diagrams mentioned by among others, Gomez (2000), are not yet available to the outside world in terms of applicable systems?

71

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Yet another risk is the effect of having knowledge about certain routines and procedures well protected and irretrievable inside peoples’ minds, withheld from giving birth to new knowledge. This would mean using existing techniques and routines until new know-how is born. By mapping know-how, organizations would be able to better allocate the right knowledge as well as facilitate formations of working teams. This can proceed by linking team-specific knowledge requirements with the greater organizational knowledge pools, creating a multidimensional map. Thus, the multidimensional map can be used to position the company in the context of its KM strategy, and based on strategic implications, shift its position. With such a highly sophisticated knowledge landscape the associated distances between positions on the map can be used as navigational instruments for knowledge utilization. Thus, organizations able to regenerate existing knowledge and innovate new knowledge through improved alertness and accessibility are the ones best positioned for future challenges. In this sense, knowledge maps can bridge the gap between people and IT, better incorporating individual knowledge in the organization as a whole.

Acknowledgements What would a man be without love? Well, probably a short-lived-super-effective-workaholic. Therefore, I give my deepest appreciation to Magdalena and my daughter Evelina for all your inspiration and love. You have created a new dimension for me to work in. Boosted by your jet fuel I am ready to take on future challenges that lie ahead.

References Abell, A. and Oxbrow, N. (2001) Competing with Knowledge, the information professional in the knowledge management age, Library Association Publishing, London. Davenport, T.H. and Prusack, L. (1998) Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Drucker, P. (1993) Post-capitalist Society. Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY. Eppler, M.J. (2003) “Making knowledge visible through knowledge maps: concepts, elements, cases”, in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 187205. Gomez, A., Moreno, A., Pazos, J. and Sierra-Alonso, A. (2000) “Knowledge maps: an essential technique for conceptualization”, Data and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 169-90. Hellström, T. and Husted, K. (2004) “Mapping knowledge and intellectual capital in academic environments”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 165-180. Hanley, S. (2000), Creating a Knowledge sharing Culture, APQC Högberg, C. and Edvinsson, L. (1998) “A design for futurizing knowledge networking”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, No. 2. pp. 81-92. Huff, A. and Jenkins, M. (Eds) (2002) Mapping Strategic Knowledge, Sage Publications, London. Joy-Matthews, J. and Gladstone, B. (2000) “Extending the group: a strategy for virtual team formation”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 24-29. Junnarkar, B. (1997) “Leveraging collective intellect by building organizational capabilities”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 29-40. Kang, I., Park, Y. and Kim Y. (2003) “A framework for designing a workflow-based knowledge map”. Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.281-294. Kim, S., Suh, E. and Hwang, H. (2003) "Building the knowledge map: an industrial case study". Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 34-45. Kristof, A. L. (1995) The virtual team: A case study and interactive model. Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Knowledge work in teams, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT Liebowitz, J. (2000) Building organizational intelligence: a knowledge management primer, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. Malhotra, Y. (2003), “Is knowledge the ultimate competitive advantage?” Business Management Asia, September, Q3/4, pp. 66-69. Newman, B.B., and Conrad, K.W. (1999) “A framework for characterizing knowledge management methods practices and technologies”, [online], http://www.tdan.com Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge creating company, Oxford Univerity Press, New York. Pape, W. (1997) "The Book of Virtuals", INC Technology, Vol. 19, No. 17, pp. 26. Raghuram, S., Garud, R., Wiesenfeld, B. and Gupta, V. (2000) "Factors contributing to virtual work adjustment", Journal of Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 383. Rowley, J. (1999) "What is Knowledge Management?”, Library Management, Vol. 20, No. 8, pp. 416-420. Senge, P. M. (1990) The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday/Century: New York. Skyrme, D.J. (1999) Knowledge Networking. Creating the Collaborative Enterprise, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Spender, J. (1989) Industry Recipes: An Enquiry into the Nature and Sources of Managerial Judgement, Oxford: Blackwell

72

Anders Berglund

Tidd, J., Bessant, J. and Pavitt, K. (1997) Managing Innovation, Wiley, Chichester. Vail, F. (1999) “Knowledge Mapping: Getting started with Knowledge Management”, Information Systems Management, Fall issue. Weick, K. E. (1995) Sensemaking in Organisations, Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks, CA. Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Wexler, M. N. (2001) “The who, what and why of knowledge mapping” Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 249-263. Wiig, K. (1996) Ensuring That We Capitalize on the Use of Knowledge, Knowledge Research Institute. Arlington, Texas.

73

Accelerating Technology Transfer by KnowledgeOriented Cooperation Marco Bettoni1, Christoph Clases2 and Theo Wehner1 1 Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich, Switzerland 2 Olothurn University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: The technology gap between research institutions as suppliers and industrial firms as customers of key technologies grows continuously. For meeting this challenge we propose a knowledge-oriented technology transfer network (TTN) between technology firms. We analyze current challenges for bridging the gap and examine the possibility to cope with them by means of a 2nd generation network approach. We describe the need for a generational change towards new forms of knowledge cooperation and outline an organizational model, which is inspired by the „Community of Practice” conception. Keywords: Communities of practice, knowledge-oriented cooperation, second generation network, technology transfer network, participation.

1. Introduction Cooperation between industry and science was in the early stages of western industrialization one of the critical success factors in national and international competition. Between 1805 and 1891 some machine building companies of repute like EscherWyss, Sulzer or also Brown Boveri were founded in Switzerland, which cooperated with the likewise internationally renowned laboratories of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and of the Polytechnic of Winterthur, founded in the same period. What has changed nowadays? In Europe the trend towards handing over university research to the private sector on the one hand and towards outsourcing of industrial R&D activities on the other hand remains unbroken and mature technologies are taken over by threshold and development countries; through that, research and development in the European industry decrease compared with the USA: „ because it is a sad fact, that Europe in research and technological innovation is more and more dropping back behind the USA.” (Schatz 2004). What remains has only a short-term perspective. The main problem with this is the following: The care of long-term projects tends to be neglected more and more, so that both the danger of drifting away into technological offside and the inhibition of technology transfer - in particular in the case of pacing technologies - become more and more urgent.

2. Technology gap and technology interface The problematic nature of the effect of this evolution onto technology transfer can be well illustrated by means of a technology life diagram (Fig. 1). Research institutes as suppliers of pacing technologies (P) and industrial enterprises as technology customers and appliers of base technologies (B) pursue different objectives: the first focus preferably on an academic perspective while the second must primarily follow the market demand for ripe products. Due to this divergence of perspectives a gap emerges in the life curve of a technology, which - at least in principle - should be bridged through technology transfer. Technology transfer in form of research cooperation between universities and industry is increasingly becoming more important. However, existing transfer initiatives and centres often seem only ICT platforms for example the Swiss Network for Innovation or the German portal “Kompetenznetze.de” - lacking practical cooperative practice: their effects remain limited in scope because without adequate organizational means and tools also the best intentions are almost useless. Since new technologies are increasingly becoming more complex, more expensive and more short-lived and since “the revolutions of the scientific system are probably nowhere as strong today as at the interfaces between industry and universities” (Nowotny 2001, p. 9) the technological gap between research institutions and industrial companies grows in spite of various attempts to foster cooperation (Fig. 1).

74

Marco Bettoni, Christoph Clases and Theo Wehner

Figure 1: Technology transfer today: „Technology gap” (Räber, 2003) The problem here is particularly the design of interactions - especially for understanding each others between technology suppliers (TS) and technology customers (TC). Their individual interests diverge in part strongly. Technology transfer over the gap between research institutions and industry proceeds today mostly directly, rarely through intermediary actors, which have established themselves within the space delimited by the technology gap. The direct transfer from a technology supplier to a technology customer is - for the previously pointed out reasons - problematic: different time horizons, different objectives or alternatively an insufficient maturity of the supplied technologies are among the main obstacles here.

Figure 2: Technology transfer tomorrow: „Technology interface” (Räber 2003) What would happen if technology firms (TF) worked as bridge or as we said as a „technology interface” (Fig. 2) between TS and TC? In this case a technology transfer process might work in about so: a TF acquires in an early stage from a technology supplier pacing technologies based on basic research, increases then their maturity up to the stage of key technologies (K) and sells them finally to technology customers which either develop from that marketable basic technologies (B) or integrate these technologies into their own processes. Such technology companies would take over the function of a technology facilitator, which might positively affect technology transfer: time horizons would be more congruent, objectives better agreed and the maturity would rather achieve the necessary level. Due to their condition as individual actors in the market, these technology mediators would have to fight, however, with the problem that they would remain restricted in the width of their technology spectrum and could only in limited cases offer innovative technology combinations or integrations.

75

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

TS

TF

TS

TSb

TF

T

TS

TF

TF

Market

Figure 3: Individual technology transfer paths Technology companies which already work as technology facilitators today, typically walk the technology transfer path individually (Fig. 3). Frequently only the own relational network and the own – exclusive interactions with technology suppliers and technology customers are maintained. Neglected remain - so our viewpoint of the current state of the art - networking options with other actors which also function as technology facilitators. Technology suppliers are on the other hand often intensely busy with repeating again and again similar interactions with different partners, without becoming aware that these redundancies can hinder also their own technology transfer. The preceding considerations let us presume, that technology transfer between pacing and base technologies is today not - or only insufficiently - realising the chance of its potential synergies.

3. Dealing with the “technology gap” and current challenges In fact the gap between pacing and base technologies can less and less be bridged by an individual company alone, since the available time is becoming increasingly shorter and the needed tasks more complex and more expensive. Resource problems are so the rule for technology transfers. In addition the technology gap leads to a further difficulty: it has to do with the problem of “risky decisions”, a situation which is well known in companies. What is new is that the time factor plays also here an increasingly critical role today: therefore acting and developing under insecurity cannot be coped with anymore only in an isolated way within the boundaries of the enterprise. Moreover the necessary investments have become immense so that not only the acquisition of financial resources is a problem but principally the related risks, since they can no longer be carried by an individual company alone. The connection of enterprises into partnership networks could increase the internal efficiency and effectiveness through the inter-organizational sharing of resources during the preparation of a risky decision under insecurity. For this task the enterprises already own a set of instruments and tools - as for example market observation, technology monitoring, innovation field observations, expert meetings, expert exchanges, workshop circles, scenario techniques etc. - that could be shared in networks. Since in the process of decision preparation these instruments are applied by working from the bottom up like when building levels of a pyramid, collecting and connecting them in the network could create additional synergies.

Co-opetition Competition

Cooperation

Competition

Virtual factory

tk

t

Figure 4: Synchronicity and interplay between competition and cooperation: co-opetition But what happens, when this process does not run within companies, but in the context of a partnership network? What happens in the next stage after the mentioned cooperative decision preparation? Does the interaction change into competition? Or can cooperation during the product development phase lead to a virtual factory? As the example of cable technology for automobile industry shows (Endres & Wehner 1996), the inter-organizational logic normally leads to an interplay between competition and cooperation (Fig. 4).

76

Marco Bettoni, Christoph Clases and Theo Wehner

On the highest level of the pyramid - in the development phase - the strength of competition reaches its highest value and that of cooperation its lowest one. Nevertheless, from bottom to top the entire interactive process is characterized by bringing together competition and cooperation in a win-win interplay between complementors, a process for which a new word has been coined in the nineties: 'co-opetition' (Brandenburger & Nalebuff 1996).

4. Knowledge-oriented technology transfer network Networking is increasingly becoming a central action model of enterprises and/or business units and through that subject of different theoretical approaches as well as numerous investigations in economics, sociology, business and computer science (Endres & Wehner 1996; Fleisch 2000; Sydow 2003). In fact cooperation of enterprises in networks represents an organizational model that can solve resource problems and thus safeguard and improve the competitive market position. Networks are able, at least in principle, to achieve a maximum of competence and flexibility with a minimum of structural overhead - i.e. structurally generated transaction costs. Indeed costs arise also in the case of networking. They can, however, be smaller, than by externally accessing the needed resources (engagement of consultants, procurement of capital, personnel acquisition, etc.). In addition cooperation facilitates the reduction of insecurities and the distribution of risks (Kösel 1992). Accordingly, the already mentioned use of synergies in an enterprise network could contribute, that the necessary spectrum of competences and resources is covered in common instead of individually and thus help the network partners to realize their technology transfer in shorter time, to smaller costs, distributed over a greater spectrum and by enabling participation in more complex projects. Last but not least partnership networks are understood as a form of cooperation in which the logics of cooperation and competition can coexist (Funder 2000; Sydow 2003). For a technology transfer on the way from pacing to base technologies we suggest therefore a network of technology facilitators hence a technology transfer network (TTN). Within such a network ideas, knowledge and experiences are not only shared and individually used, but also and primarily cooperatively stewarded (Fig. 5).

TS

Network of TF

TSa

TS

TSc

TFi TFj TF

TC

Market

Figure 5: Knowledge-oriented technology transfer network The characteristic function of such a knowledge-oriented network consists in facilitating a coordinated technology transfer between technology suppliers and technology firms (partners of the network). Thanks to the efficiency increase (benefit) that can be obtained through that, by functioning as interface the network could improve the entire technology transfer and thus lastingly support the innovation and competition ability of whole industry branches.

5. Second generation cooperative networks Organizationally most cooperative networks are mainly based on enterprise network models arisen in the nineties (Sydow 2003), which were supported worldwide through state programs - especially in Denmark, Norway, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Subsequently similar networking strategies were realized also through newer cooperative networks as for example the Virtual Factories in North-West Switzerland or in the area Euregio-Bodensee (both focused on short-term, venture cooperation for exploiting specific opportunities; cf. Schuh et al. 1997) or „Sonet” the socially oriented network for sharing innovative ideas (Vollmer et al. 2003). Such early stage networks - 1st generation of cooperative networks - represented primarily a kind of

77

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

learning spaces in which the value of inter-organizational cooperation could be recognized. The awareness for cooperation could be achieved; in most cases however, a changed practice could not be established. Daily cooperative practice mostly remained too much opportunistic - short-term cooperation, ad-hoc integration, constant alternation of the value chain configuration - for establishing lasting common relationships. However, times seem now ripe for a second stage of promotion, for a second generation of cooperative networks. To this aim we need to develop instruments, models and ways to concretize the awareness for cooperation into a corresponding practice of cooperative business performance, in order to realize so the further objectives of inter-organizational cooperation. Investigations are needed here in order to clear among others also which internal conditions and/or foundations are needed. These aspects belong to the business case investigations that an enterprise needs in order to evaluate its potential membership in the network. Within the context of „Sonet” it became for example clear that the organization-wide sharing of ideas can only succeed if the internal conditions, i.e. for example a successful practice with Total Quality Management or Staff Suggestion Scheme systems, are available (Vollmer 2003). Further also processes and means already used by network members belong to the set of internal conditions that are in need of clarification in order to deal successfully with the technology gap. As virtual organization studies show (Franke 2002; Vollmer et al. 2003) clarification is required often also concerning the management of cooperative networks - for example the search for suitable partners, needed trust level, need for cooperation management, stages and success factors of network development, and so forth. They point in particular to the fact, that in virtual organizations a common identity and mutual trust between the partners are of greatest importance (Jansen et al. 2002; Clases et al. 2003a) and that knowledge management methods are indispensable for a successful network construction and sustainable network operation (Warners & Witzel 2002; Hoffman & Zadek 2003). On the operational level during the setup of second generation cooperative networks, mastering skills and processes of cooperation between the member companies is of course essential, for example for product or order processing in order to implement proactive product innovation (Schuh 2003).

6. Knowledge management as management of knowledge cooperation Although enterprises recognize the value of knowledge and the need to develop an intentional knowledge strategy, how to do that is for many executives still unclear (Wenger et al. 2002; Ortega 2003). However, researcher and business companies have in the meantime at least discovered that even the best information and communication system does not alone solve the problem of how to manage knowledge processes. Companies that had invested their entire knowledge strategies in such ICT systems discovered the hard way that knowledge is not a thing that can be managed like other corporate assets and can not be stewarded in a purely technological way - for instance by means of database solutions. Knowledge is bound to human action. Knowledge cooperation - the cooperation of different domain experts with the aim of generating, preserving or transforming knowledge – is a living process with both tacit and explicit elements, with both individual and social components, a process that constantly changes and further develops through actions and interactions. Knowledge in such processes can not be completely reduced to an object of managerial actions, but must be treated as a kind of organic entity, bound to persons, to interactions as well as to social contexts (Wenger et. al 2002; Bettoni & Schneider 2003; Bettoni et al. 2004 b). On this background the point of view of work psychology becomes more relevant: thanks to its focus on social dynamics the work psychological approach views knowledge management as analysis and organization of knowledge oriented cooperation (Clases & Wehner 2002; Dick & Wehner 2002; Clases, Dick & Wehner 2002; Clases 2003; Clases et al. 2003 b). From this perspective one recognizes, that human interactions and relationships are of greatest importance for knowledge management and it appears thus more reasonable, to design the management of organizational knowledge processes by resorting to socially oriented approaches and methods, like for instance “Communities of Practice" (Wenger et al. 2002; Huysman et al. 2003).

7. Organizational model In a technology transfer network member companies seek observation and reporting about new technical developments or, if possible, also cooperative manufacturing. These tasks will require knowledge creation and will have to be accomplished mainly through cooperative knowledge processes. Therefore, for a successful bridging of the gap between technology suppliers and technology customers, knowledge oriented cooperation will be necessary. Through that it becomes possible to identify the existing challenges, collaboratively work on nd them and implement solutions in a 2 generation cooperative network. Since “cooperation is a matter of communication, learning, and knowledge sharing” (de Michelis 2001) and since the biggest value of knowledge cooperation lies not only in exchanging information, but primarily in sharing individual and collective insights as well as experiences of participating actors, we suggest to design both the structural and the stage model of the network following the organizational model of „Communities of Practice (CoP).

78

Marco Bettoni, Christoph Clases and Theo Wehner

A CoP can be defined as a group of persons that functions like a rather informal organisational structure, in which members participate voluntarily and without reciprocal reporting relations; they don’t necessarily work together every day but they meet because they share a concern or a passion about a knowledge domain or topic; by interacting for cooperatively stewarding their common knowledge they build valuable relationships based on respect and trust. CoP members come together from different hierarchical levels and functional fields of the organization because they find individual value and identity in their interactions; step by step they contribute to cultivate an open group of persons developing organically (Bettoni et al. 2004a). Following the structural model, that puts this CoP concept into practice (Wenger et al. 2002, p. 27 ff) and considering the central design categories for knowledge processes in organizations (Derboven et al. 1999, p. 20 ff) we distinguish in the structural model of our technology transfer network three core elements or elementary organizational dimensions that mutually necessitate each other and should be held in a balance. These are a knowledge domain, a community of people and a shared practice (Fig. 6).

Community

TTN Knowledge Domain

Practice

Figure 6: Structural model of a knowledge oriented technology transfer network (modified from Derboven et al. 1999) The knowledge domain is a collection of topics, problems and open issues that are of great importance for the network members and inspires them to contribute and participate. A shared knowledge domain is not clear and fixed from the beginning; instead it must be identified through an intense dialogue among partners. Further on, shared meanings of objects, situations and ideas have to be negotiated within a dialogical process (consensus). This process of social understanding is decisive for the formation of a common basis and the emergence of a collective identity. The community consists of personal and institutional relationships between network members and includes the members as persons or companies, their ties, their interactions (regularity, frequency, and rhythm), the atmosphere, the development of individual and collective identities and the spaces for meeting each other. nd Community is an essential element for a 2 generation network design; in fact it is here that the foundations for solidarity and cohesion of the network are laid. Community is the proper place for developing the mutual relationship potentials in form of trust, norms, regulations, interaction standards as well as behavioural rules (Reiss 2000, p. 221). The practice covers approaches, reference frameworks, standards, ideas, tools, cases, stories, experiences and common documents that the members of the network share. The focus here is primarily on specific, collectively elaborated knowledge over how a certain task can be performed (know-how). Through repeated utilization, this knowledge is reproduced and adapted. By that also the subjective and collective strategies for the fulfilling of the tasks are modified and optimized. Tasks and knowledge condition each other here and continuously further develop in a reciprocal way (Derboven et al. 1999 p. 20). Together these three elements – when they function well - can form an ideal social knowledge structure which at the same time also represents the basis for a successful and sustainable creation and cultivation of common knowledge within the network.

8. An Example: Biomedical informatics research network (BIRN) The Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN 2004) promotes advances in biomedical and health care research through the development and support of a cyber infrastructure that facilitates data sharing and multiinstitutional collaboration. Sponsored by the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), the BIRN’s charter is to create an environment encouraging biomedical scientists and

79

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

clinical researchers to make new discoveries by facilitating sharing, analysis, visualization, and data comparisons across laboratories. The three top goals are: • Encourage collaborations among members of diverse research institutions and scientific domains that traditionally conducted independent investigations. • Allow hypotheses testing through sampling of sparse, distributed patient populations. • Develop an infrastructure that enables sharing and collaborative use of distributed biomedical databases, analysis and modeling software, and visualization tools. By synchronizing developments in advanced wide area networking, distributed computing, distributed database federation, and other emerging capabilities of e-science, the BIRN has created a collaborative environment that is paving the way for biomedical research and clinical information management. This pioneering project has resulted in a new suite of tools that allows scientists to share, aggregate, analyze, and interpret larger sets of data than are possible in the traditional single-institution study paradigm. The BIRN infrastructure is already leading to new insights into such disorders as unipolar depression. BIRN is transforming the way scientists conduct research by taking advantage of two revolutions already happening in science and technology: the explosion in the amounts of scientific data about biological systems available to researchers, and the rapid growth of information technologies. But the growth of BIRN also signals a revolution in the sociology of science. Researchers—once known for keeping their data under tight wraps—are now openly sharing their findings with other investigators from a broad range of disciplines. The complexity of problems emerging in research and clinical care can only be addressed through cooperation among scientists coupled with increased reliance on advanced information technologies, said Dr. Mark H. Ellisman, director of the BIRN Coordinating Center (CC), which resides at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine in La Jolla.

9. Conclusions and outlook As regards innovative technological research - particularly for pacing technologies - Europe falls back always further behind the USA. That this is the case is not only due to innovation obstacles like those described by Schatz (2004). What are missing are also concepts for innovation accelerators and organizational means for their conversion into practice. Applying the perspective of knowledge oriented cooperation to technology transfer issues - as outlined in this contribution – enabled us to describe the idea of such an accelerator. Notice however, that we do not consider our ideas of a knowledge oriented technology transfer network as a closed conception, but as a programmatical position. Our sketch is supposed first to outline the framework for new organizational forms of knowledge oriented cooperation, second to stimulate reflections and investigations over tools and means suitable for their implementation and finally to address possible prospective partners for a cooperation in further developing this model both theoretically and in practical settings. In relation to the contemporary state of the art in national and international management theories, in our proposition of a knowledge oriented technology transfer network, the innovative elements and connections are primarily the following five:

9.1.1 Bridge function. The postulate of an independent field of actors („technology interface”), that should arise between technology suppliers and customers and which makes appear reasonable activities with a bridge and transfer function so that the technological gap between pacing and base technologies can be overcome.

9.1.2 Technology transfer network. The idea of a network of technology companies as facilitator between technology suppliers and customers for the exploitation of synergies during the realization of the bridge function.

9.1.3 Second generation network. The concept of an inter-organizational cooperative network of the 2nd generation which is especially sensitized for the social dynamics of knowledge oriented cooperation.

9.1.4 Knowledge oriented cooperation The conscious focusing on the social dynamics of knowledge oriented cooperation - as work psychological perspective on knowledge management - that reflects on it also methodically and thus offers starting points for a successful network construction by means of „Communities of Practice”.

80

Marco Bettoni, Christoph Clases and Theo Wehner

9.1.5 Practice community. Essentially what we propose is that knowledge oriented technology transfer networks be designed and cultivated following the Communities of Practice (CoP) approach. Viewing the tasks of network management from a knowledge perspective has in this case the advantage that two central thoughts gain importance: voluntariness and interest. Vouluntariness of participation in the network interactions as condition for successful cooperation on the level of shared (knowledge oriented) interests. What unites these elements to a whole is the hypothesis, that voluntariness and interest should be understood and applied in the management of a technology transfer network as critical success factors for the creation of a lively cooperation around knowledge (consensual negotiation in knowledge processes). Up to now no business model for knowledge oriented cooperation has been successful. Only by leaving the tier of a competence, service and business oriented exchange, we will be able to ascend to the upper tier of knowledge oriented interest and there, to successfully manage the inter-spaces necessary for an open meeting and cooperation. With that, a supposed weakness of the technology transfer process - the described technology gap - could be redefined as a starting point for a new strength. With other words: Knowledge oriented dynamics in partnership network structures should transcend the established thinking in (interorganizational) interfaces and open the perspective to a management of (organizational) inter-spaces. To this aim these inter-spaces must be, however, first created. A way to this goal could be provided by the second generation cooperative network management approach sketched in this paper, if we understand it as a - still to be invented – “Inter-Management”.

References Bettoni, M., Clases, C. & Wehner, T. (2004a). “Communities of Practice” im Wissensmanagement: Charakteristika, Initiierung und Gestaltung. In: Reinmann, G. & Mandl, H. (Eds.). Psychologie des Wissensmanagements. Perspektiven, Theorien und Methoden. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Bettoni, M., Clases, C. & Wehner, T. (2004b). “Communities of Practice” as a way to a more human-oriented Knowledge Management. International Conference on HRM in a knowledge-based economy, June 2004, Ljubljana, Slovenia. Bettoni, M. und Schneider, S. (2002) Experience Management - Lessons Learned from Knowledge Engineering, Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI) Vol. P-10, Gesellschaft für Informatik (GI), Bonn, 117-128. Bettoni, M. und Schneider, S. (2003). The Essence of Knowledge Management: A Constructivist Approach. In: Proc. of the Fifth Intern. Conf. on Enterprise Information Systems, ICEIS 2003, Angers, France, April 22-26, Vol. 2, 191-196. BIRN (2004). Overview Brochure. http://www.nbirn.net/Publications/Brochures/BIRN_overview.pdf (document updated October 2004, last site visit June 2005). Brandenburger, A.M. & Nalebuff, B.J. (1996). Co-opetition. New York: Currency Doubleday. Clases, C. (2003). Das Erinnern einer anderen Zukunft. Das organisationale Gedächtinis als sozialer Prozess der Koordination wissensorientierter Zusammenarbeit. Münster: Waxmann. Clases, C. & Wehner, T. (2002). Steps across the border. Cooperation, knowledge production and systems design. Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. The Journal of Collaborative Computing, 11 (1-2) 39-54. Clases, C., Dick, M. und Wehner, T. (2002). Vom Wissensmanagement zur Analyse und Gestaltung wissensorientierter Kooperation, Journal Arbeit, Herbst 2002. Clases, C., Bachmann, R. & Wehner, T. (2003a). Studying trust in virtual organizations. International Studies of Management and Organization, 33 (2), 7-21. Clases, C., Räber, R. & Wehner, T. (2003b). Zur Entwicklung der wissensorientierten Kooperation bei Sulzer Innotec. Von der Abteilungsstruktur zu Knowledge Clustern. Wirtschaftspsychologie 5(3), 72-78. de Michelis, G. (2001). Cooperation and Knowledge Creation. In: Nonaka, I. & Nisiguchi, T., 124-144. Dick, M. & Wehner, T. (2002). Wissensmanagement zur Einführung: Bedeutung, Definition, Konzepte. In: Lüthy, W. Voit, E. & Wehner, T. (Eds.), Wissensmanagement-Praxis. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag. Endres, E. & Wehner, T., (Eds., 1996). Zwischenbetriebliche Kooperation. Die Gestaltung von Lieferbeziehungen. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union. Franke, U. J. (Eds., 2002). Managing Virtual Web Organizations in the 21st Century: Issuses and Challanges, Idea Group, Hershey. Funder, M. (2000). Konkurrenz und Kooperation in Organisationsnetzwerken. In M. Funder, H. P. Euler & G. Reber (Eds.), Entwicklungstrends in der Unternehmensreorganisation: Internationalisierung, Dezentralisierung, Flexibilisierung, Linz: Trauner, 111-132. Hoffman, B. und Zadek, H. (2003). Zukunftsorientiertes Wissensmanagement in Unternehmensnetzwerken, Wissensmanagement, 1, 12-15. Huysman, M., Wenger, E. & Wulf, V., eds. (2003). Communities and Technologies. Proc. 1st Int. Conf. on Communities and Technologies. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

81

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Jansen W. et al. (2002). The Virtual Corporation and Trust: Balancing between Identity and Innovation. In: Franke U.J. (Hrsg), 43-60. Kösel, M.A. (1992). Technologiekooperation und –verflechtung von kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen. Dissertation, Hochschule St. Gallen. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nonaka, I. & Nisiguchi, T. (2001). Knowledge Emergence. Social, Technical and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nowotny, H. (2001). Wissen zwischen Industrie und Universitäten, Bulletin ETH Zürich, 283. Ortega, C. (2003) Es kommt wieder Bewegung ins Spiel, Wissensmanagement, 1, 50-52. Räber, R. (2003). Academia and Markets from an Interface and Business Perspective. Bridging the Gap between Lab and Market - Part 2. SARMA Annual Conference, Berne. Reiss, M. (2000). Koordinatoren in Unternehmensnetzwerken. In: Kaluza, B. & Blecker, Th. (Eds.): Produktions- und Logistikmanagement in Virtuellen Unternehmen und Unternehmensnetzwerken, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 217-248. Schatz, G. (2004). Was hemmt die Innovation in der Schweiz? Antworten auf eine dringliche Frage. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Nr. 218, 18. September 2004, 45. Schuh, G. (2003). Erfahrungen mit der Virtuellen Fabrik – Wo die Potenziale wirklich liegen. Tagungsband der Tagung "Vernetzt planen und produzieren VPP 2003" an der Technischen Universität Chemnitz, 1923, Chemnitz. Schuh, G., Katzy, B. & Eisen, S. (1997). Wie virtuelle Unternehmen funktionieren: Der Praxistest ist bestanden. Gablers Magazin, 11 (3), 8-11. Sydow, J. (2003). Management von Netzwerkorganisationen – Zum Stand der Forschung. In: Sydow, J. (Eds.), Management von Netzwerkorganisationen (3. Aufl.) (S. 293-354), Wiesbaden: Gabler. Vollmer, A., Lehmann, K., Ostendorp, C., Weber, W. G. & Wehner, T. (2003). Sonet – Sozialorientiertes Netzwerk für Ideentausch: Erfahrungsbericht. Ideenmanagement, 29 (1), 18-26. Warner, M. and Witzel, M. (2002). Which Way is Forward? Direction and Control in Virtual Space. In: Franke U.J. (Eds.), 28-42. Wenger, E., McDermott R. and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

82

The Impact of Question Response Structure on Recipient Attitude: A Field Study in Knowledge Sharing Heather Bircham-Connolly, James Corner and Stephen Bowden University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: This paper extends earlier research on how the structure of a question asked of a source and the subsequent structure of the response influences a recipient’s attitude towards knowledge received. Employing a field experiment, the study replicates findings from an earlier laboratory experiment conducted by the authors. The paper also explores the potential interaction between a recipient’s cognitive style and their attitude. Findings suggest that when questioning is used as a mechanism to share knowledge, the structure of questions requires careful consideration. Keywords: Knowledge Sharing, Question Structure, Recipient Attitude

1. Introduction In recent years, research on knowledge sharing and transfer has increased, as both academia and business attempt to understand why some firms competitively outperform others. Some consider employee knowledge to be the “most strategically important resource” (Grant 1996, p.376) to an organisation. However, unless employee knowledge is shared it cannot be exploited by the organisation. While research on knowledge sharing and transfer is rapidly gaining the attention of researchers, their focus has been on the factors influencing knowledge transfer at the macro level; within large multi-national organisations (Bjorkman, BarnerRasmussen, & Li 2004; Gupta & Govindarajan 2000; Tsai 2002) or between organisations (Hansen 2002; Lane & Lubatkin 1998; Simonin 1999, 2004). Only recently have researchers begun to empirically unravel the complexities of the micro level, individual-to-individual knowledge sharing. Their attention has for the most part been directed towards exploring the factors that impede or enhance the source individual sharing their knowledge, rather than the recipient receiving knowledge. Furthermore, except for the enquiry into information technologies as enablers for organisational sharing, few have examined other communication aspects that may influence knowledge sharing; for example, questioning. This paper takes up this challenge and investigates the influence of question structure upon the sharing of knowledge. More specifically, it updates and extends understanding on how the structure of a question asked of a source and the subsequent structure of the response, influences a recipient’s attitude towards knowledge received. The goal of this study was to both validate the theoretical model proposed by Bircham (2003) and to determine whether or not the results from an earlier laboratory experiment (Bircham-Connolly, Corner, & Bowden 2005) could be replicated in the field. The study also explores and offers insight into a potential interaction between an individual’s cognitive style and their attitude towards knowledge received.

2. Background literature 2.1 Knowledge sharing and learning Knowledge sharing can be regarded as the movement of knowledge from a source to a recipient; one where the source does not relinquish ownership of their knowledge, rather the result of sharing is joint ownership of the knowledge (Ipe 2003). Theory and more recently empirical findings suggest that there are a number of factors that may impede or enhance the knowledge sharing process. These include trust (Andrews & Delahaye 2000), motivation (Kalling 2003), attitude (Bock & Kim 2002; Ryu, Hee Ho, & Han 2003) and the innate ability of the source to share (Foss & Pedersen 2002) together with absorptive capacity (Szulanski 1996) and more recently question structure (Bircham-Connolly et al. 2005). Knowledge sharing and learning are said to be interdependent (Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995) as individuals learn through both internalising knowledge shared by others and externalising their own knowledge. An organisation is considered to learn as it acquires and exploits the knowledge that is shared by the individuals that comprise it (Argyris & Schon 1978). Therefore, for an organisation to learn its member must learn, and the ability of an organisation to learn quicker than its competitors is crucial to competitive advantage (de Geus 1988). Some suggest that an individual’s learning will be more productive when knowledge sharing and assimilation matches their cognitive style (Hayes & Allinson 1998). Cognitive style can be defined as:

83

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

“A person’s preferred way of gathering, processing, and evaluating information. It influences how people scan their environment for information, how they organize and interpret this information, and how they integrate their interpretations into the mental model and subjective theories that guide their actions” (Hayes & Allinson 1998, p.850). Often metaphorically referred to as left-brain/right-brain (Leonard & Strauss 1997) or analysts/intuitive (Schweiger 1983), cognitive style has been shown to influence the way individuals seek knowledge from knowledge management systems (Taylor 2004). Taylor (2004) found that individuals with a more analytical disposition tended to search and seek out work related knowledge using these management systems more than intuitive individuals. His findings support the notion that analytical individuals make decisions based on sound logical reasoning, often requiring greater information than their intuitive counterparts. Intuitive individuals are considered to make decisions based on feelings, not necessarily requiring the same amount of hard information (Allinson & Hayes 1996). In view of the fact that cognitive style is suggested to influence the way that individuals processes information, it befits consideration for future research within the context of knowledge sharing.

2.2 Questioning Recently there have been calls for more research into the influence of questioning as a means to eliciting knowledge from individuals (Cooper 2003). Questioning has been found to be a more productive way to integrate individual knowledge into group knowledge, in comparison to sharing (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt 2002). Research has also found that the tone of a question, whether it is worded in a negative, positive, or neutral manner, influences depth of response and subsequently the generation of new ideas (Brennan 1997). It has also been suggested that the structure of a question (i.e., binary, open-ended, directed) and the corresponding response structure will have an effect on a recipient’s attitude towards shared knowledge (Bircham 2003). This relationship was explored by the authors using a laboratory experiment (BirchamConnolly et al. 2005). Results found that recipients were more favourably disposed towards responses to questions with a complex structure (open-ended or directed), rather than a simple structure (binary). However, because the experiment used a fictitious scenario case and a student population, some may consider the results not indicative of the real world (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt 1986).

2.3 Current study The objective of this study was to ascertain if the findings from the laboratory experiment could be replicated in the field using managers, consultants, corporate executives etc., from diverse fields and companies. It was considered that replication would strengthen the external validity of the entire study and the proposed relationship between question response structure and a recipient’s attitude towards knowledge received (Bircham 2003). Accordingly, the field experiment tested the same hypothesis as stated in the laboratory experiment. The purported hypotheses are: H1a: The responses elicited from open-ended structured questions will result in the recipient having a more favourable attitude towards the knowledge received than for binary questions. H1b: The responses elicited from directed structured questions will result in the recipient having a more favourable attitude towards the knowledge received than for open-ended questions. H1c: The responses elicited from directed structured questions will result in the recipient having a more favourable attitude towards the knowledge received than for binary questions.

3. Research design In an attempt to reduce potential difference between the two studies in terms of research design, this experiment used the same questions and responses developed and collected during phase one of the laboratory experiment (for further detail see Bircham-Connolly et al. 2005). In summary, a scenario was constructed involving a fictitious senior manager who had asked his employees for their views on an investment opportunity. The manager achieved this by asking questions in one of three different styles. In the first style the questions could only be responded to in a binary manner. The second style allowed responses to the same questions to be open-ended. Finally, in the last style the questions were more directed and again permitted responses in an open-ended format. Participants in the study were asked to assume the role of the senior manager and to review the responses they had received from their employees and to use the knowledge they so obtained to complete the assessment questionnaire instrument. The measurement instrument for this study was slightly adapted in response to the findings of the earlier laboratory experiment. However, the same operationalised measure for the dependent variable attitude was employed. This measure is a construct in the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), which purports that attitude

84

Heather Bircham-Connolly, James Corner and Stephen Bowden

towards a behaviour is a precursor of an individual’s intention towards performing that behaviour. Therefore, attitude can be used as a predictor of behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen 1975). Other studies that have investigated a source individual’s attitude towards sharing knowledge (Bock & Kim 2002; Ryu et al. 2003), corroborate the legitimacy of the attitude measure. The 5-item measure for attitude was measured using a seven-point Likert scale, with 1 = strongly agree, through 4 = neutral to 7 = strongly agree. In recognition of the literature that suggests that the cognitive style of an individual may influence the way they process information, an additional measure was added to the instrument to examine the cognitive style of the participants. The Cognitive Style Index (CSI) developed by Allinson and Hayes (1996) was selected because not only was it developed with managers and business individuals in mind, it had also been validated in both the knowledge management literature (Taylor 2004) and other management related fields (see Hayes, Allinson, Hudson, & Keasey 2003, for a detailed discussion of validation). Further, the CSI was easily attached to an existing survey, as unlike other measurement instruments (for example Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers I & McCaulley 1985) it only took 5 to 10 minutes to complete.

4. Results After a pre-test of the three questionnaires (binary, open-ended, directed) using both academics and the business community, ninety questionnaires (30 of each question response structure) were sent out to random businesses. Forty-eight questionnaires were returned (53% response rate, all were usable), with 15 binary, 18 open-ended and 15 directed. Demographics (Table 1) show there to be a greater number of responses from men compared to women. Further, the majority of respondents regarded their position within their respective organisations to be line or middle management, which collaborates with their reported age group (majority fell within 20-40 years) and organisational tenure (majority had < 5 years). Table 1: Demographic Information Measure Gender Age

Position Position Years with Company

Items Male Female 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+ Senior Management Middle Management Line Management Missing

(1)

Where: A = a finite set of organizational actors; R = a set of Organizational Relations (OR) among elements of A; R is the texture linking agents of an organization.

317

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

Note that, from a logical point of view, the definition (1) is equivalent to that of graph and network. In fact, graph and network consist of a set of nodes (agents) and a set of arcs (relations) whose elements are ordered pairs of distinct nodes (Rapoport, Horwath, 1969; Ahuja et al., 1993; Wasserman, Faust, 1997). Different levels of aggregation could be considered in defining the set A of organizational actors: people, organizational units, organizations. At a lower level of aggregation, actors could be considered a single human agent. At a higher level of aggregation, actors could be considered organizational units or offices or even external institutions or enterprise. In any case, the element of the set A should be an active element, i.e. an active agent with a certain level of autonomy, initiative and awareness; thus any actor is capable of establishing several organizational relations with other actors. From the other part the organizational relations among organizational actors are a complex connection deriving from several and different points of view(economic, organizational, social or interpersonal): an analysis based on a one and only one dimension is not sufficient to capture the complexity and the richness of the relations linking the organizational actors. The concept itself of transaction proposed by O. Williamson, for example, is mainly a mono- dimensional concept , specifically an economic based concept, related to the involved exchange. On the other hand, the word “relation” means often just and only a psycho-sociological or an inter-personal relations , and therefore still a mono-dimensional concept . The ‘Organizational Relational Approach’ instead proposes to analyse the Organizational Relations among the nodes, as a whole: the Organizational relation play here the role of an overall conceptual entity, able to characterize globally the existing relation. A method for the analysis of the Organizational Relations has been proposed by Migliarese et al , (1997). This method is derived from the AGIL model (Adaptation, Goal, Integration, Latency), proposed at society level, by T. Parsons. The method of analysis of the OR has been defined looking at four dimensions. (See fig. 2). D1: GOALS

D2: ORGANIZATIONAL RULES

Organizational Relation OR D3: TOOOLS

D4: CULTURAL BACKGROUND

Figure 1: The dimension of an organizational relation D1) The first dimension refers to the goals. An OR exists when there is a set of agents having shared goals and purposes. D2) The second dimension refers to the organizational rules. The nature of the OR depends of the set of rules (formal and informal), of principles, of standards and of regulations describing how people are required to act. D3) The third attribute refers to the tools used to improve coordination, communication and information among agents. In general, the tools indicate the instruments that enable a relation to operate. An OR can be supported by different kinds of tools: technological, economic and organizational. D4) The fourth attribute refers to the cultural background of the actors. An OR requires also the existence of some agreement among actors about values and beliefs that is about culture. The common assumptions reduce the need for negotiation and information exchange. For each OR between two organizational nodes, it is possible to analyse the four proposed dimensions. In accordance with the proposed method of analysis, it is possible to evaluate: the degree of sharing of the goals (D1) the degree of definition and effectiveness of organizational rules (D2)

318

Piero Migliarese and Saverino Verteramo

the effectiveness of technological , economic , institutional etc. tools, supporting the relation (D3) the level of implicit assumptions and common culture background among the nodes (D4) The more the analysed OR is characterised by a high level in all the four dimensions, the more the analysed OR could be considered a “Rich” Organizational Relations (OR*). Rich Organizational Relations means more effective, less ephemeral, more motivating. Moreover , in the context of knowledge transfer characterizing our case study, Rich organizational Relations means besides more knowledge intensive organizational relations. In an OR characterized by a high level for all the four proposed dimensions, that is in an rich relation (OR*), the two organizational actors involved are able to select an action coherent with the organizational goals and effective from an organizational point of view. Then, in our case , they are able to create, transfer, and reuse knowledge. Thus, we can say that there is a knowledge intensive Organizational Relation (OR*). In fact, a high degree of agreement and homogeneity among agents regarding strategic goals is a necessary condition for the existence of a knowledge intensive OR. This provides the organization with the information needed to design and to manage its own work structure and process. In other words, understanding organizational goals is a first step toward understanding organizational effectiveness. Incompatibility of goals is probably the greatest cause of conflict and failure in knowledge oriented organizations. In fact it does not encourage collaboration, knowledge sharing and knowledge creation (Dimension of Goals). Without organizational rules, an OR cannot exist. Besides, a high degree of regulation and self regulation is a further necessary condition for the existence of a knowledge intensive relation OR* (Dimension of Rules). The existence of an OR* requires sophisticated and specific tools at the technological, institutional and economic level. An example of a technological tool may be an Information Technology System (ITS). (Dimension of Tools). A high degree of common cultural background is another necessary condition for a knowledge intensive OR*. This assumption makes faster the communication; but common cultural background does not mean same education or same technical language. Instead a common culture is the groundwork (values and beliefs) on which the organizational knowledge is based (Dimension of Cultural Background). Thus, in an OR*, the actors are strongly linked and oriented to the achievement of the organizational goals. Ambiguous or ill defined situations can be effectively faced: the significance and the richness of the relation, in fact, enables actors to have a proactive orientation and behaviour even without precise and clear directions. However the good will of the actors is not enough without the support of the Organization: availability of tools and the definition of rules are an example of this support. A common cultural background allows to reduce the information exchange and to act under the guidance of common values.

3. A success case of technological transfer from the aerospace field to health care field: an application of the organizational relations method of analysis The analysis of the role of the Organizational Relations has been already successful applied. These applications have permitted to foresee some critical points during the implementation of two distinct Knowledge Management Projects within two Research and Education Centres by the University of Calabria, Italy (ICAR-CNR and CIES) (Verteramo et al. 2002; Migliarese et al. 2003, 2004) and in a Health Agency (Migliarese et al., 1997). It in this paper an application to a successful case of knowledge creation and transfer from the aerospace to health field is described. The process is illustrated leading to the design and commercialisation of an external bone-setting device, radiolucent, in carbon fibre, with patented techno-polymer spherical joint, including telemetry for data transmission on Internet. The project represents a success case of technological transfer carried out by the ASI (Italian Space Agency), the Ferrari DTM (Design Technological Material), and the Orthopaedics Departments of Careggi Hospital (Florence) and of Umberto I General Hospital (Rome). In fact, the phase of medical experimentation, developed in the two Orthopaedics Departments, has given positive results. The interest of the orthopaedic medics, due to the innovative use of material and telemetry, has convinced ASI and DTM to start with the industrial production of this bone-setting device.

319

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

This case points out that the processes of knowledge creation and transfer, in a network of different organizations, particularly in a inter-organizational project team, could be analysed through the concept of Organizational Relation and the four proposed dimensions.

3.1

The involved organizations: ASI (Italian Space Agency), Ferrari DTM and Orthopaedics Departments of Careggi Hospital (Florence) and of Umberto I General Hospital (Rome)

The ASI (Italian Space Agency) has the responsibility to encourage, to manage and to carry out the Italian space activities. The ASI has in fact the task to set up and accomplish the Space National Plane related to the Italian strategic choices in space context. The ASI operates in connection and coordination with the Italian Ministry of Education and Research. Within the Italian Space Agency, a new organizational unit has been recently created in order to transfer the technologies and know-how achieved during the performance of space projects in “land” technologies. The “Technology Transfer Program” encourages the theoretical and applied research projects, also with the collaboration of private firms, which have the aim to transfer space technologies in different application contexts. The Ferrari DTM (Design Technological Material) is a specialised high performance engineering group, born from the Space Division of Ferrari, the well known sport car manufacturer. DTM operates using Ferrari knowhow and facilities: it is a S.M.E (Small Medium Enterprise) certified by ASI and ESA (the European Space Agency) to develop design, manufacturing, testing and certification of Space apparatus. It is launched as independent society (DTM) in the 2002, as consequence of a societal re-organization process, and it originates from the pre-existent Space Division, that for long time had already made experimentations in the aerospace field. This Division, on the basis of the renewed competencies in precision mechanics field, has quickly acquired a remarkable competence in the study and experimentation field of innovative materials, in particular of carbon fibres. The Orthopaedics Departments of Careggi Hospital of Florence and of Umberto I General Hospital of Rome represent two advanced structures in the medical-orthopaedics branch in Italy.

3.2

The obtained results of the inter-organizational team project: the characteristics of the “external bone setting device” in carbon fibre

For institutional reasons, Italian Space Agency and Ferrari Space Division have kept up various collaborative relations for several years. But, when in ASI a specific new organizational unit was in charge for the ‘Technology Transfer Program’, Ferrari’s managers were contacted. The problem was to study and analyse if some of Ferrari’s technologies could be transferred to other application domains. The medical domain was firstly selected. The first idea was to study the application of innovative materials (carbon fibres with distinctive physical and chemical properties) for the production of an adequate “bony-setting device”, as physical support, for recovery of broken bones. Currently the material used for the production of these supports is aluminium. This solution, however, is not optimal both because of the weight of the splint and because of a problem of “radiotransparency”, that is of fracture visibility using frontal radiograph (X-ray). The project team thought to produce the device in carbon fibres in order to solve these problems. At the beginning of 2001 the project was financed, with the Ferrari sharing investment at 50%. The project team was composed by three persons of Italian Space Agency (included the ‘Technology Transfer Program’ manager), some engineers of the Ferrari Space Division, and some medics of the Orthopaedics Departments of Careggi Hospital and of Umberto I General Hospital (included the two head physicians). A specific and dedicated agreement among the three organizations has been drawn up to regulate roles, economic commitments and property rights. In 2003 the prototyping phase has been concluded and an international patent has been released for the external bone setting, radiolucent, in carbon fibre with patented techno-polymer spherical joint (see Fig. 2)

320

Piero Migliarese and Saverino Verteramo

Figure 2: The external bone setting device in carbon fibre The main goal of the project team was achieved. In fact the characteristics of the designed device are: Use of high-performance composite materials and relevant manufacturing technologies, to achieve a lighter, stronger and more reliable product, for the sake and the comfort of the patient. Use of exclusive technologies, tuned by TDM, to allow a perfect radiolucent product, to favour the operations during surgery for bone reduction. In this way a perfect matching between the two fractured portions can be achieved. Use of specific means, developed by DTM for Space applications, allowing to reach a perfect and custommade geometrical shape of the device. The research on this innovative device allowed DTM and the Italian Space Agency to deposit an international patent, in order to protect this invention. Anyway, during the project, other innovative and not foreseen features have been developed: Use of Telemetry (borrowed from Ferrari Formula 1 car) to transfer data via radiofrequency. For this application it allows acquisition of the data, related to the stress level acting on the patient’s one, in real time, directly on the surgeon PC. Thanks to the Telemetry, embedded into the DTM device, the stress level acting on the bone can be transmitted via radio, in real time, to the PC of the surgeon. The data bank can be also sent to a specific Internet site, to allow surgeons and doctors worldwide to take advantage from the experience achieved in all the hospitals and clinic centres in the whole world. The lack of wires and cables allows the maximum freedom to the patients. This is important in order to collect always reliable and useful data on Internet and, consequently, to favour the increase of knowledge in this basic medical-orthopaedic branch. This is very efficient also for the surgeon, which can tune always in the perfect way the therapy and convalescence progress of his patient. Eventually, the number of X-ray examinations can be reduced and the best and speedy recovery of the broken bone can be achieved.

3.3 The application of the organizational relations method of analysis The described case represents an interesting case of knowledge transfer and creation in an interorganizational team project. In fact the project team has reached the scheduled project goals (design of an external bone setting, radiolucent, in carbon fibre). Furthermore, the team has been able to develop new ideas during the project, in addition to the specific project goals (the patented techno-polymer spherical joint, the innovative use of the telemetry). The starting phase of commercialisation, due to the interest of surgeons and medics, demonstrates the success of the project. On the basis of the conducted interviews, it has emerged that the project success can be explained through the synergy of several aspects: the strong motivations discovered during the project (both the top management sponsorship and the personal motivations were crucial); the team-working management style of the team leader, able to propose a creative mix of formal and informal rules; the efficacy of the ASI project management tools.

321

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

the common ethical background of the involved people, which has allowed to overcome the “linguistic barriers” among engineers and medics and has supported the commitment of the involved people. The results of the Organizational Relations analysis can be summarized as follows: The actors are the three distinct organizations : A.S.I. Italian Space Agency Ferrari DTM Orthopaedic Departments of Florence and of Rome

Figure 3: The organizational actors and the OR analysed Note that, from the analysis point of view, the two Orthopaedic Departments can be considered as a single node because their characteristics and role in the project has been similar. Applying the proposed methodology to the case study, we obtain the following evaluation of the existing Organizational Relations:

3.3.1 D1) Goals We can analyse the goals of the involved nodes both at an institutional and at a personal level. At institutional level, the recent creation in ASI of a specific organizational unit for the “Technology Transfer Program”, shows a new interest on “land” applications of space technologies. Recently in ASI a new financing policy, has been introduced, because of reduction of public funds. This project has been co-financed (50%) by ASI (public funds) and DTM (private capital). The co-financing practice in this context is meaningful. So far in ASI it was praxis to resort completely to public financing: the contribution of private risk capital is a cue of DTM interest too. With regards to the Health System, the commitment of the top clinicians of these two important structures and the effective collaboration during the experimentation, are an evidence of their strong attention: lower use of resources and a greater level of the offered services are in fact possible. Also the personal motivations have been crucial. The project has been the first task for the new organizational unit in charge of “ASI Technology Transfer Program” and its executive responsible: his commitment has been decisive to contrast in his organization the inertia which is typical in innovation processes. The good results of this project have promoted the launch of other similar initiatives. The strong commitment of DTM Ferrari team can be explained, from a psychological point of view, as a homage to the charismatic figure of Enzo Ferrari. Having lost a son because of a bones disease, Enzo Ferrari always pushed his collaborators to not neglect social solidarity activities. The Ferrari manager involved in this project was just one of his closer collaborators. The chief physicians, in addition, have been the first to study the medical aspects related to this experimentation and to its feasible developments (see the published research in [Cassese et al. 2003]) Thus, there is an high degree of agreement and homogeneity among agents for the goals of the Organizational Relations.

3.3.2 D2) Rules The team leader has been able to propose a creative mix of formal and informal organizational rules.

322

Piero Migliarese and Saverino Verteramo

In fact the team leader chosen to leave, at the start of the project, long time for informal discussions and brainstorming during the project meeting. His problem was the heterogeneity of the involved people (doctors and engineers operating in very different field): time and informality have favoured mutual knowledge and a more clear definition of the goals. The self-regulation mechanisms and the cooperative style emerged during the project have supported the creative commitment of the involved people. However, during the project, the milestones of the project have been well defined. The ASI project management style comes from a consolidated praxis in the joint management of research projects. The agreement among these organizations defined the main features of the research project. Then a formal set of organizational rules was defined together the informal ones. The coordination Obtained through these organizational rules has been important and crucial for the work conducted by people daily operating in their own organization. Thus, a high degree of overall coordination through formal and informal rules characterized the Organizational Relations going on among the nodes (the four different organizations).

3.3.3 D3) Tools ASI has developed a well-established experience in the management of research project. The choice made to propose to the partners to work within a specifically designed semiautonomous project team involving the four organizations, can be considered as a specific organizational tool. At the same time, the agreement among the four organizations has to be seen as an economic and juridical tool. The agreement, in fact, provided the team with resources, financial funds, technical structures for the experimentation and gave to the organizational actors certain degree of autonomy to define the way of working. Moreover several Project Management tools have been employed to schedule the deadlines and to control the work progress of the project. So the ASI project leader, due to his project competence , has become a “catalyst” of the whole knowledge transfer process. Obviously also ICT instruments have been widely used because of the distances among the agents. These organizational, contractual and technological tools have been able to improve coordination, communication and knowledge sharing. Thus, these tools, provided by ASI, DTM and Orthopaedic Departments, have supported adequately the Organizational Relations.

3.3.4 D4) Cultural Background The “linguistic barriers” among engineers and medics has been the main difficulty at the beginning of the project: often, for example, also the units of measurement for the same phenomenon are different. The time spent for brainstorming and mutual knowledge allowed to discover the common approaches and to emphasize the richness arising from heterogeneity. So, for example, during the activities an unexpected common groundwork emerged. The possibility to build a device helpful for suffering people, applying knowledge developed within space activities to medical field, has become meaningful for DTM and ASI engineers, careful to social value of their work. In fact, there is in Ferrari an historical tradition of attention to social solidarity activities, as previously noted. Also the scientific approach to problem solving, typical of ASI and DTM engineers, have become an interesting common point with the doctors, interested to improve their services and, for some of them, to develop scientific researches in the medical field. These ethical values and scientific interests have become the common ground between engineers and doctors, fostering the creation of shared codes of communication. Thus, the shared ethical values and the problem solving orientation represent the common cultural background. This was initially a critical point, but the team leader has been able to highlights the common values rather the different ones. Taking into account the overall discussion, the organizational analysis so far developed, shows a high level for all the four proposed dimensions. Some critical aspect has been detected and some actions have been designed to improve the level of goal sharing and of effectiveness obtained by the organizational rules. We can say that the managerial decisions were aiming to improve the ‘organizational rules’ and the ‘cultural background’ dimensions.

323

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

In fact the high level reached along all the four dimensions (goal, rules, tools, cultural background), enabled the team members to create new ideas and to develop some innovative and unforeseen solutions (for example the patented techno-polymer spherical joint, the innovative use of the telemetry). The good will would have not been able to reach the same results: a synergy along all the four dimensions has been useful. Thus, we can say that the Organizational Relations developed in this inter-organizational team project are rich and knowledge intensive. In fact, as a result of our case study analysis and the application of the OR method, we can say that: from an empirical point of view the project of knowledge transfer obtained very good results (knowledge transfer from the aerospace sector to the orthopaedic one) and that the relations among the nodes, evaluated through the OR method, has been “rich and knowledge intensive”. In this sense the method of analysis, based on the organizational relation analysis obtained a validation from the examined empirical case study.

4. Conclusion and managerial implications The literature points out that the juxtaposition of several “components” not necessarily leads to knowledge transfer and/or to knowledge creation.. In the described case study different actors, coming from deeply different cultures and organizations, have originated a profitable and collaborative project team. This team obtained excellent results , overcoming the starting research project goals itself . In fact , it was decided to start with the industrial production and this is the proof of the success of this inter-organizational project and of its capability to create and transfer relevant knowledge. This case study has been analysed with a method based on the concept of organizational relation, defined by four different elements : the ( shared ) goals , the ( designed ) organizational rules , the ( employed ) tools , and the existing cultural background . During the method application, if the analysis highlights a low degree of goals sharing among the involved actors , or ill defined organizational rules, or insufficient tools, or too much different cultural background, then these critical points have to be monitored and specific actions have to be designed. If the project team members belong to different organizations, then goals, rules, tools and implicit assumptions have to be well defined and monitored. This is a critical point regarding the success of the venture. Instead team project leaders, often, take care of only technical aspect (for example ICT instruments supporting cooperative work, project management activities, etc). The presented case study highlights instead that the actions taken by the team leader made were aimed to improve the level of all the four proposed dimensions (shared rules, lack of common background). These actions have been effective: we can say in this case that the OR has been transformed into knowledge intensive ones as a result of these managerial actions. Moreover this case study points out that a certain level of autonomy of the actors proved positive: the actors have been able to set new goals, to establish by themselves some behavioural or organizational rules and to choice more effective tools. But, the only psychological motivations and good will of the involved people would not have been sufficient without an adequate support of the organizational systems and structures to the actors. Organizational rules have been established during the project, top-down or bottom-up. These shared rules allowed to focus on the final goal and to avoid confusion and wasting of time and resources. Several tools have been used to manage the coordination meetings and the specific tasks (contracts, project management tools, ICT technology). The common cultural background has made the interdependent tasks of the actors easier. This paper shows that these aspects have to be integrated within an overall attention to the OR existing and future. The more the actors are “distant” (different organizations, different functions), the more attention has to be paid to the comprehension and sharing of the goals, to the implicit assumptions, to the expected behaviours, to the new facilitating tools. Thus, the Organizational Relations analysis is able to highlight quite a lot key success factors for knowledge intensive activities and to the organizational design and interventions. The coherence between the results

324

Piero Migliarese and Saverino Verteramo

obtained in this case study through the organizational analysis and the observed empirical situation constitutes a validation of the proposed method of analysis. This method can help the project team leaders, and, more generally the management, to design effective organizational actions.

References Ahuja R.K., Magnanti T.L., Orlin J.B. (1993), Network Flow, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Alvesson M. (1995), Management of Knowledge-Intensive Companies, De Gruyter Studies Blacker, F., (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organisations: an overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, vo 16, pp. 1021-1046. Cassese, F., Calderoni, C., Ziparo, E., Cotronei, V., Piperno, W. And Mariani, D. (2003), External bone-setting device, radiolucent, in carbon fibre, withpatented techno-polymer spherical joint, including telemetry for data transmission on Internet, Giornale Italiano di ortopedia e traumatologia, vol. XXIX, no 3, pp 87-99. Drucker, P.F. (1988), The Coming of New Organization, Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb, 3-11 Fong, P. S. W., (2003), ‘Knowledge creation in multidisciplinary project team: an empirical study of the processes and their dynamic interrelationships’, International Journal of Project Management, vo 21, pp. 479-486. Fong, P.S.W. (2005) Knowledge Creation in Multidisciplinary Project Teams, In Schwartz, D.G. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management, Idea Group Inc. Holland, S., Gaston, K. And Gomes, J. (2000). Critical success factors for cross-functional teamwork in new product development. International Journal of Management Reviews, vo 2, pp. 231-259. Laise D., Migliarese P., Verteramo S. Knowledge organization design : a diagnostic tool, Human Systems Managent ,Vol 24,n.2, 2005-06-17 Love, P., Fong, P.S.W. and Irani, Z. (Eds.) (2005) Management of Knowledge in Project Environments. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann McDermott, E.F., Kahn, K.B. and Barczak, G. (2001). Why information technology inspired but cannot deliver knowledge management. California Management review, vo 41 pp. 103-117 Migliarese P., Ferioli C., (1996), Supporting organizational relations through information technology in innovative organizational forms, European Journal of Information Systems, vol 5, n. 3, pp. 196-207 Migliarese, P, Ferioli C. (1997),The Organizational Relational model: proposal and results in Humphreys P., Ayestaran S., McCosh A., Mayon-White B. (eds), Decision Support in Organizational Transformation, Chapman & Hall, London, 1997 Migliarese P., Verteramo S, (2003), Organizational based Method for Knowledge Management Systems Design”, SCI 2003, The 7th World Multi-Conference on Systemics Cybernetics and Informatics”, July 27-30, 2003, International Institute of Informatics and Systemics, Orlando, Florida (USA), Vol. XII, pag. 124-129 Morrison, R., Kennedy, J., (1996). Advanced in databases. Paper presented at the 14th British National Conference on Databases, Edinburgh, Scotland. Nonaka I., Takeuki H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford, UK Rapoport A., Horwath W.J. (1969), Thoughts on Organization Theory, in Buckley W. (eds), Modern System Research for the Behavioral Scientist, Aldine Pub. Company, Chicago Salas, E., Shawn Burke, C. and Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (2000). Teamwork: emerging principles. International Journal of Management Reviews, vo 2, pp. 339-356. Sapsed, J., Bessant, J., Partington, D., Tranfield, D. and Young, M. (2002), Teamworking and knowledge management: a review of converging themes, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 4, no 1, pp. 71-85. Tuomi. I. (2002), The future of Knowledge Management, Lline, Vol. VII, 2 Verteramo S., Migliarese P., Miglionico G. (2002), Strategies and critical points for Knowledge Management Projects inside Knowledge Intensive Organizations, Proceeding of the Third European Conference on Knowledge Management, MCIL Reading UK, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, 24-25 September 2002 Wasserman S., Faust K. (1997), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

325

Knowledge Creation in Groups: The Value of Cognitive Diversity, Transactive Memory, and Openmindedness Norms Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas University of Sydney, Australia [email protected] [email protected] Abstract: This paper contributes to our understanding of knowledge creation by developing a comprehensive model of the knowledge creating process in organisational work teams. It subsequently synthesises contemporary theory across research streams to develop hypotheses relating to three factors capable of facilitating the knowledge development process - cognitive diversity, transactional memory and openmindedness norms. In combination, the conceptual rationale and empirical support act to substantiate three key relationships in the knowledge creation process. Keywords: Knowledge creation, cross-functional teams, cognitive diversity, group dynamics.

1. Introduction According to the knowledge-based view of the firm, an organization's ability to create knowledge is a source of competitive advantage (Conner & Prahalad 1996, Grant 1996, Kogut & Zander 1992, Spender 1996, Tsoukas 1996). Research into innovation and new product development provides empirical support for this perspective by demonstrating that knowledge generation is linked to new product and organisational performance (Calantone et al 2002, Cummings & Teng 2003). In view of the potential benefits accrued by developing knowledge creating capabilities, and the numerous failed attempts by organizations to do so (Dachler 1992), it is unsurprising that knowledge creation continues to be an area of research focus. Yet a review of the knowledge management literature reveals disappointing progress both theoretically on how knowledge is created (Hargadon 2002) and practically on how managers implement knowledge creation mechanisms. This paper responds by developing a comprehensive model of the knowledge creating process in organisational work teams. In addition, three hypotheses are developed and tested relating to factors capable of facilitating the knowledge development process - cognitive diversity, transactional memory and openmindedness norms. In combination, the conceptual rationale and empirical support act to substantiate three key relationships in the knowledge creation process.

2. Knowledge creation model This paper views the individual and group level of analysis as complementary in knowledge creation, and presents a model that reflects their dual consequence. This recognises both the general consensus that it is individuals who learn and that new knowledge in organisations is a product of its constituent individuals’ learning (van der Sluis & Poell 2002), as well as the validity of social learning theories that emphasise the context of knowledge and suggest that meaning and comprehension is inseparable from its relationship to the environment (Brown et al 1989).

2.1 Group knowledge creating processes A review of the relevant literature reveals conceptual and empirical support for a number of distinct phases in the knowledge creation process (Crossan 1999, Drach-Zahavy & Somech 2001, Gibson 2001, Jarvinen & Poikela 2001). Previous analysis of this research reveals four group processes, which in combination provide a comprehensive representation of knowledge generation (Mitchell & Nicholas 2004b). The first process, accumulation, reflects the congress of accumulated individual inputs of knowledge that are theoretically available to the team. The idea of accumulation is extended retrospectively to include the development of knowledge within individual members’ originating functional area or community-of-practice (Brown & Duguid 1991). Through extended in-depth interaction, and shared practice, members of the same functional area and, to a greater extent, community-of-practice have similar experiences and interpret those experiences similarly. These shared experiences lead to the development of shared tacit knowledge bases (Brown & Duguid 1991, Brown & Duguid 2001). The connection of segregated functional areas provides an opportunity for exchange of knowledge that is unique to each area. Unlike sources within an individual’s dominant work environment, the weak ties formed in cross-functional teams provide access to novel information and tacit knowledge (Granovetter 1973).

326

Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas

Interaction is the second group process. Within teams, the term is used to describe the use of language and other symbols to develop enriched and shared understanding. The aim of interaction incorporates a desire to evolve deeper and shared understandings, which encompasses and is partly directed by the objective of boundary-spanning (Isaacs 1993). Boundary-spanning reflects the understanding that members with different backgrounds operate from different perspectives underpinned by distinct cognitive structures (Fong 2003) based on their different work-related experience (Bhatt 2000). Effective interaction relies on, and may be thwarted by, the ability to interact across the cognitive boundaries that underlie functional differences (Carlile 2002, Tsoukas 2002). The third process is analysis, during which group members’ debate points of view, assumptions and the merits of possible solutions. The group’s analytical discussion impacts individual analytical processes by highlighting certain pieces of knowledge, drawing attention to faulty logic and presenting arguments in support of particular conclusions (Gibson 2001). Such reasoning facilitates creative solutions because it allows group members to link their inventory of past experiences to the current situation (Hargadon & Sutton 1997). By bringing together members from diverse backgrounds, group analytical reasoning has the potential to result in the application of a broader variety of experiences and knowledge than would be available to individuals operating alone. While the source of information regarding a previous problem or solution is the individual, the invocation, negotiation and manipulation of this information occurs through group interactions (Hargadon 1999). Group analogic reasoning builds on itself as discussion of one member’s experiences prompts the introduction and exploration of further experiences from other members – one suggested previous experience shifts the groups’ perspective in ways that make another seem relevant (Hargadon 1999). The fourth process is integration and creation. The objective of this phase is the articulation of an agreed position or solution which integrates the best of knowledge available to members and incorporates new knowledge created on the basis of the previous phases. Integration and creation may be described as the externalised construction of problem solutions or decisions, involving the manipulation and integration of knowledge through debate, bargaining and agreement.

2.2 Individual (group member) knowledge creating processes An examination of extant models evidences three individual processes that are identified as central to the process of new knowledge creation within a team. These processes occur in repeated patterns, with each process capable of stimulating another. The first individual process is transmission. The transmission process encompasses the development of an explicit representation of what is known and the interpretation of received messages through application of the receiver’s tacit knowledge. In cross-functional groups, this interpretation can be described as a process of construal in which the meaning of words and phrases is investigated with the aim of converting the decoded message into a meaningful message. Members’ ability to accurately interpret other member’s messages is dependent on their ability to successfully apply their own mental models to message content. If an individual with tacit knowledge markedly different to the original knower is asked to interpret knowledge codified by the latter, the process of interpretation may lead to generation of a novel construal (Brown & Duguid 2001). Novel construal is an important component in the development of creativity (DeDreu & West 2001). The second process is cognition encompassing accommodation and assimilation. Assimilation occurs as new knowledge is integrated into existing cognitive structures, and accommodation occurs when structures are altered or recreated to more comprehensively reflect new knowledge (Piaget 1969). The process of cognition also incorporates intuiting, described as the perception of patterns or possibilities in a personal stream of experience (Crossan 1999). Intuiting occurs during the process of applying tacit knowledge to new experiences, and is related to the level and depth of tacit knowledge available. A highly complex mental model, associated with the development of expertise, facilitates the perceptions of patterns that may not be apparent to novices (Crossan 1999). Within cross-functional groups, the application of complex mental models to knowledge presented from different functional areas provides an opportunity for new patterns to be recognised. The third process is task-focused positioning. This involves individual thought processes aimed at deciding strategies and tactics. As their understanding of issues related to the task and others’ perspectives develops, members prioritise, search for possible alliances and agreements, and opportunities to collaborate and/or compromise.

3. Factors facilitating new knowledge creation The

knowledge creation model outlined above provides an informative context for understanding how different group dynamics and processes may facilitate or thwart group creativity efforts. These dynamics and

327

6th European Conference on Knowledge Management

processes inform the construction and management of groups as knowledge creating mechanisms. As organizations become expert at manipulating these factors, their knowledge creation capability increases. In addition, as the manipulation of these factors is unlikely to be observable and likely to be socially complex, the ability of competitors to imitate or acquire this capability decreases as expertise increases. In the first step towards verifying the utility of this model, a number of propositions relating to such factors are developed relating to two of the group processes – accumulation and interaction.

3.1 Accumulation - Cognitive diversity and transactive memory The first group process, accumulation is based on acquisition of knowledge by groups. Accordingly, the success of the accumulation phase can be understood to include the dimensions of cognitive diversity and transactive memory. Cognitive diversity is defined as the extent to which the group reflects differences in knowledge, including beliefs, preferences and perspectives (Miller et al 1998). If accumulation of diverse knowledge is critical to knowledge creation efforts, as is predicted from the model outlined above, then cognitive diversity will increase the likelihood of creative new knowledge emerging in groups. Conceptually, this connection is primarily based on the understanding that, through the integration of diverse knowledge, groups have the potential to overcome the factors constraining the development of new knowledge imposed by the social relations into which all economic activity is embedded. This includes the institutional and task-related pressures identified by institutional theorists, which parallel the paradigmatic boundaries described by path dependency theorists, and pragmatic concerns about criticism identified by decision theorists. If new knowledge is developed that extends beyond the parameters of current functionally specific concepts it is more likely to contribute to the development of group outputs with truly novel features. Cognitive diversity may also be linked to enhanced knowledge creation efforts through a secondary mechanism. The debating of dissenting issues consequent to different approaches and perceptions associated with cognitive diversity has been found to stimulate divergent thinking in individual members, which is closely linked to creativity output (Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown 2003). Hypothesis 1: Cognitive diversity will be linked to the emergence of creative new knowledge in groups. The process of accumulation theoretically relies not only on the existence of a broad range of information and tacit knowledge, but also the ability to access this knowledge. Such access relies on members’ knowing ‘who knows what’. Transactive memory is described as a teams understanding of who has access to what specialised information within the team (Yoo & Kanawattanachai 2001). Groups with high transactive memory have good understanding of the knowledge and skills available to each individual member, and this has been found to facilitate both access to information and co-ordination. The importance of this to cognitively diverse teams relates to enhancement of group performance through the accurate understanding of the information available to the group and where it is located in terms of member expertise. Hypothesis 2: High levels of transactive memory will increase the likelihood of creative new knowledge emerging in teams.

3.2 Interaction – Openmindedness norms The second group process, interaction, is based on a process of communication focusing on investigation, reflection and efforts to understand. As such, the interaction process relies on members to actively and openly listen to the information provided by others. Such an approach to communication is encompassed by the notion of openmindedness norms. Open-mindedness norms are beliefs relating to the way in which members approach the views and knowledge of others, and incorporates the beliefs that others should be free to express their views and that the value of others’ knowledge should be recognised (Tjosvold & Poon 1998). Researchers have found that openminded interaction leads to curiousity and information-seeking when members are confronted with an opposing position (Tjosvold & Morishima 1999, Tjosvold & Poon 1998). In addition, while the majority of research undertaken on open-mindedness norms has focused on conflict and negotiation, much of this has found a strong link with information sharing and enhanced shared understanding (Tjosvold & Morishima 1999, Tjosvold & Poon 1998, Tjosvold & Sun 2003). If effective interaction is critical to knowledge creation efforts, as is predicted from the model outlined above, then openmindedness norms will increase the likelihood of creative new knowledge emerging in groups. Hypothesis 3: High levels of openmindedness norms will increase the likelihood of creative new knowledge emerging in teams.

328

Rebecca Mitchell and Stephen Nicholas

4. Method 4.1 Procedure and sample In order to test the hypotheses, a survey study was conducted. The questionnaire was constructed using, for all but one construct, scale items that were developed, tested and used effectively by other researchers. In addition, the questionnaire was pilot tested with twenty business professionals and subsequently revised to ensure clarity in wording. The questionnaire was distributed with a covering letter which instructed the participants to choose a work group of which they were a member and that had at least two other members; to refer to the most recent situation in which the group made a non-routine, complex decision at work; and to complete one questionnaire themselves and request another member of the team to fill out an additional questionnaire. Five hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed to postgraduate management students at a university in Ireland and a university in Australia. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were distributed to eighty public sector employees and seventy private sector employees. Seventy-two questionnaires were returned completed, representing an acceptable response rate of ten percent.

4.2 Measures Three items measured knowledge creation. All items were measured on a graphic line scale. Based on the current literature, three items were used to measure cognitive diversity. Items were scored on a seven-point Likert scale. As the measure for cognitive diversity was developed for the purposes of this research, they were evaluated using face, predictive and convergent validity assessment techniques. Transactive memory was measured using three items. All items were measured using a 7 point Likert scale. Measures were taken from a scale by (Yoo & Kanawattanachai 2001). Three items measured Openmindedness Norms based on measures developed in previous research into conflict resolution (Tjosvold & Morishima 1999, Tjosvold & Poon 1998). All items were measured on a 7 point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all four measures was over .78 suggesting that the internal consistency was satisfactory. Group size and tenure were used as control variables as these variables have been shown to impact on the cross-functional team performance (Chen & Tjosvold 2002, Pelled et al 1999).

5. Results and discussion Regression analysis was used to test all hypotheses. To test hypothesis 1, new knowledge was regressed against cognitive diversity. Table 1 presents the results of this regression analyses. Table 1: Hypothesis 1 Knowledge Creation (Dependent Variable) Cognitive Diversity Standardised Coefficient β Standard Error 2 Adjusted R

.33** .68 .24

**p