Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
A Performance Environment Perspective of Knowledge Management Anne P. Massey Indiana University
[email protected] Abstract Knowledge management is a topic that has gained increasing attention since the mid-1990s. A knowledge management strategy involves consciously helping people share and put knowledge into action. However, before an organization can undertake a knowledge management initiative, it needs to first understand what knowledge should be managed and to what performance ends. In this paper, we describe a framework that provides a holistic view of the performance environment surrounding organizational knowledge work. We illustrate the efficacy of this framework to knowledge management using two organizational case studies. Then, based on the framework and insights drawn from our case studies, we present a series of steps – a checklist for action – that may assist organizations and practitioners as they undertake knowledge management initiatives. We conclude our paper with a discussion of implications for practice and future research directions.
1. Introduction Knowledge management is a topic that has gained increasing attention since the mid-1990s. Knowledge about customers, products, processes, past successes and failures, are assets that may produce long-term sustainable competitive advantage for organizations [23][37]. Knowledge management proponents argue that these assets are as important as managing other organizational assets like labor and capital. A recent survey conducted by Knowledge Management magazine and the International Data Corporation suggests that knowledge management is evolving from a discrete undertaking to a strategic component of business solutions [11]. A knowledge management strategy entails consciously helping people share and put knowledge into action by creating access, context, infrastructure, and simultaneously shortening learning cycles
Mitzi Montoya-Weiss NC State University
[email protected] [8][9][21][29]. It takes place within a complex system of organizational structure and culture and is often enabled through information technology (IT) [1][2][3]. To date, knowledge management has considered a broad array of issues and approaches, addressing among other things: capturing and sharing best practices, building databases and intranets, measuring intellectual capital, establishing corporate libraries, installing groupware, enacting cultural change, and fostering collaboration ([1][2][14][18][29][35][37]). Thus, it seems that knowledge management has absorbed all kinds of approaches, practical activities, measures, and technologies. While technology drove the initial interest in knowledge management, both academics and practitioners have begun to realize that effective knowledge management initiatives and solutions will be based on a more holistic view of the knowledge work environment [18][20][25][34]. Specifically, before an organization can realize the promise of knowledge management, a fundamental question needs to be asked: What performance goal(s) is the organization trying to achieve? Addressing this question will direct the organization to what knowledge should be managed and how it should be managed. Improving customer service, shortening product development cycles, growing revenues and improving profits are commonly cited as goals motivating knowledge management initiatives. If the intent of a knowledge management initiative is to enhance organizational performance, organizations need to first understand the performance environment surrounding and driving the underlying knowledge work. For example, improving customer service or shortening product development cycles require that firms look to business processes which may be reengineered to capitalize on or expand organizational knowledge resources and capabilities [16][24]. Generating performance improvements via a knowledge management initiative thus requires a deep understanding of how process work is organized, what
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
knowledge is inherent to and derived from the process, what factors influence knowledge workers tasked with process work, and how all of these factors relate to an organization’s environment [25]. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we describe a framework that provides a useful means to identify, define and analyze, and address knowledgebased problems or opportunities relative to multi-level (business, process, and knowledge worker) performance goals and requirements. We illustrate the efficacy of this framework to knowledge management using case studies conducted at IBM and Nortel Networks. Second, based on the framework and insights drawn from our case studies, we present a series of steps that can assist organizations and practitioners as they undertake knowledge management initiatives. We conclude our paper with a discussion of broader implications for practice and future directions.
2. A performance perspective of KM The general goal of knowledge management is to capitalize on knowledge assets to achieve maximum attainable business performance [4][5][9]. How can a knowledge management solution become a strategic asset? What should an organization consider before undertaking a knowledge management initiative? Drawing from the field of human performance technology (HPT), in Figure 1 we offer a conceptual framework that provides a way to view the performance environment surrounding organizational knowledge work. The discipline of HPT has emerged from the coalescing of cognitive and behavioral psychology, training and instructional support, and human resource development [38]. The framework offers a holistic view of organizational knowledge work by considering the complex interdependencies between the business, its processes, and individual (knowledge worker) performers. When applied, the framework offers a systematic way to identify, define, and analyze performance opportunities or problems, their drivers and causes, at multiple (business, process, and individual) levels. By doing this, desired performance outcomes can be described and the behaviors that will produce those outcomes can be identified [17]. With this robust understanding, organizations can more precisely specify and implement interventions to address problems or capitalize on opportunities and ultimately improve performance [15][25][33][38]. As illustrated in Figure 1, the external environment presents an organization with opportunities, pressures, events, and resources [19]. In response, the organization generates business and process
requirements – a set of actions that allow the organization to capitalize on external opportunities and/or respond to threats. For example, to remain competitive, a strategic business performance goal may be to increase market acceptance of new products, with the associated business-level requirement of increasing the rate of new product introduction into the marketplace [28]. This business requirement generates process-level requirements, e.g., the new product development process must produce a stream of continuous new products and services. Gaps between current process capabilities and defined requirement(s) may force the organization to reengineer the business process [10] – can the process perform at the level required? Recognizing that core business processes are knowledge-intensive [8], reengineering efforts should focus on decomposing and structuring the process such that data, information, and knowledge activities and flows between activities are clearly defined. Importantly, structuring the process and identifying knowledge exchange activities inherent to the process will assist in identifying knowledge worker requirements [23][29]. In particular, what knowledge and what types of knowledge (tacit/explicit) is needed to accomplish activities? Who or what are the sources and receivers of knowledge, e.g. human, archives, etc.? What are the desired performance outcomes of process-level work? When this is accomplished, the next step is to consider the knowledge worker(s) who will be tasked with carrying out process activities. As shown in Figure 1, a knowledge worker’s behaviors and ability to produce desired performance outcomes are influenced by both the external environment and internal factors. As Figure 1 highlights, the performance environment surrounding knowledge work is multilevel and interdependent. Holistically and systematically viewing the environment will drive the organization deeper and deeper toward interventions that will affect performance at all levels. Figure 2 presents a model through which to view the factors that affect the behaviors and performance of a knowledge worker at the task/activity level [36]. The model can be used to analyze and determine the cause of poor performance and/or opportunities to enhance performance such that outcomes align with business and process requirements.
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
2
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
External Environment Opportunities
Pressures
Events
Resources
Generates
Influences
Strategic Goals & Business Requirements Æ Process Requirements
Aligned?
YES
Influences
Creates NO
Knowledge Worker Requirements Requires Changes in
Triggers
Individual Work Behaviors
Performance Outcomes
Results in
Influences
Influences
Internal Performance System Knowledge/Skills Capacity
Performance Specifications
Task Interference
Consequences
Feedback
Figure 1. Performance environment framework (adapted from [38])
Task Interference Can performer easily recognize input requiring action? Can task be done without interference from other tasks? Are job procedures and work flow logical? Are adequate resources available for performance?
Performance Specifications Do performance standards exist? Do performers know the desired output and performance standards? Do performers consider the standards attainable?
(3) Output
(2) Input
(4) Consequences (1) Performer
(5) Feedback
Knowledge/Skill Do the performers have the necessary knowledge and skill to perform? Do the performers know why desired performance is important? Individual Capacity Are the performers physically, mentally, and emotionally able to perform?
Feedback Do the performers receive information about their performance? Is the information they receive: Relevant? Accurate? Timely? Specific? Constructive? Easy to Understand?
Consequences •Are the consequences aligned to support desired performance? •Are the consequences meaningful from the performers viewpoint? •Are the consequences timely?
Figure 2. Internal performance system of a knowledge worker ([36], with permission)
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
3
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
As shown in Figure 2, a knowledge worker’s performance is not simply a function of his/her knowledge, skills, or capacity. Rather, there are other factors that can influence performance, including the nature of the business process work tasks, performance specifications, consequences, and feedback. Knowledge workers process a variety of data, information, and knowledge (inputs) for which there are desired outputs. For every output and action required to produce that output, there are consequences that affect the knowledge worker. Because consequences are usually interpreted as either positive or negative, individual behavior is influenced by consequences. Since knowledge workers will do things that lead to positive consequences and avoid things that lead to negative consequences, feedback is an essential component. Importantly for knowledge management researchers and practitioners, this model suggests that achieving desired performance outcomes is a function of all factors and the cause of poor performance is rarely solely attributable to a lack of individual knowledge, skills, or capacity. When operationally applied, the performance environment framework involves three phases of analysis: performance analysis, cause analysis, and intervention analysis [26][38]. As described above, the objective of performance analysis is to examine process and knowledge worker requirements in light of strategic goals and business-level requirements. Central to this phase is the comparison of desired performance to current performance, thus allowing for the problem identification of performance gaps in terms of their magnitude, value, and/or degree of urgency. The objective of cause analysis is to identify the specific factor(s) that contribute to a performance gap [31], i.e., problem definition. For example, the cause of a business performance gap may be a process level problem that, in turn, is caused by deficiencies in individual work behaviors. Finally, intervention analysis involves the selection, design, development, and implementation of solutions intended to solve performance gaps. Interventions reflect both responses to identified causes of performance problems as well as opportunities for improving performance [15][33]. Potential interventions could include the reengineering of a business process, or solutions that improve the development of individuals or teams (e.g., training), as well as solutions that center on managing and rewarding performance (e.g., incentive/reward systems). Interventions may also include information technology-based knowledge managements systems [2][3][15][33]. Intervention selection should be done in light of appropriateness (internally and externally), economics, feasibility (given organizational constraints
or barriers to implementation), and acceptability to the organization and knowledge workers. Again, by understanding the performance environment first, rather than starting with a solution looking for a problem, interventions can be more appropriately and precisely identified. In the following section, we illustrate the performance environment framework as applied to our work with IBM and Nortel. Both organizations undertook knowledge management initiatives involving problem identification, definition and cause analysis, leading to interventions that enhanced performance at the business, process, and individual knowledge worker levels. Our work reflects longitudinal (three and four years respectively with Nortel and IBM) in-depth case studies. In both cases, data was obtained from multiple sources: (1) multiple interviews with project team leads and members, as well as key executives, (2) researcher observations, and (3) project documentation. The use of multiple methods enhances the validity of case study findings because it helps to eliminate biases that might result from relying exclusively on any one data-collection method, source, or analyst [40].
3. Performance-driven KM initiatives In the later half of the 1990s both IBM and Nortel Networks were facing significant external pressures. With regard to IBM, from 1986 to 1992, IBM’s market share dropped from 30 to 19 percent, with each percentage point representing $3 billion in revenues. Rather than paying attention to customer needs, IBM focused on its own financial needs and tried reducing costs by cutting customer service staff and levels of support. In the end, customers were driven away. Thus, by the mid-1990s, the changing market environment and downsizing necessitated that IBM rethink the basic way they serviced customers to reduce customer defections and increase sales. Through the 1980s and early 1990s, IBM’s primary points of contact with its customers were through business partners, the direct catalog, and the traditional “Blue suits”. Given that these points of contact were not supporting the business goals, an internal task force set forth to reengineer IBM’s customer relationship management (CRM) process. CRM involves attracting, developing, and maintaining successful customer relationships over time [6][12][13]. At the core of CRM is the development of a “learning relationship” that engages customers in a two-way dialogue that is effective and efficient for both customers and the firm [30]. When effective, this knowledge-based process leads to a
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
4
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
relationship that gets smarter and deeper through every interaction. The task force, charged with addressing the business problem, recognized that advanced IT, the burgeoning Internet, and the emerging network-centric environment presented great opportunities for reengineering IBM’s CRM process and leveraging its knowledge assets. Similarly, at Nortel Networks, the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996 produced intense competition in the telecom industry, yielding an explosion in the development of innovative telecommunications technology. The new rules of the deregulated telecommunications marketplace forced Nortel to recognize that differentiation through innovation was one of the few strategies that might allow the company to continue to succeed. Like IBM, an internal group was charged with the task of addressing this business requirement. After preliminary research, the group discovered that the generation and existence of innovative ideas within Nortel was not the issue. Rather, Nortel’s existing new product development (NPD) process had no formal mechanism to systematically capture, develop, and manage internally generated ideas, i.e., ideas that could be developed into product or service concepts and evaluated for funding. Developing ideas and evaluating concepts is knowledge-intensive work based on the individual and collective expertise of employees. Like IBM’s CRM efforts, Nortel’s task force set out to reengineer the front-end of its’ NPD process so as to leverage its knowledge assets. As shown in Figure 3, core business processes like CRM and NPD represent the fundamental link between business and individual (knowledge worker) performance. The reality for both IBM and Nortel was that their respective business requirements would be achieved through processes and both organizations were only as good as its processes. Driven by this performance reality, IBM’s reengineered CRM process was designed to enhance the customer relationship while Nortel’s reengineered NPD process was designed to produce a continuous stream of products and services. Although the specific details of the process reengineering efforts are beyond the scope of this paper (see [26][27] for details), both organizations structured their new processes by decomposing the process into knowledge-based activities, simultaneously identifying the required flows of data, information, and/or knowledge between activities. Importantly, the analyses conducted led to the specification of the knowledgebased drivers (types, sources, and receivers) of each activity, decision, or information flow. The reengineering of IBM’s CRM process and Nortel’s NPD process created new knowledge worker performance requirements, triggering requisite changes
to individual work behaviors. Given this, both organizations sought to understand the internal performance system of its knowledge workers as related to the reengineered processes and requirements (see Figure 2). Specifically, did knowledge workers possess the knowledge/skills/capacity to carry out reengineered or new process activities? Did they possess and/or understand the inputs required to carry out process tasks? Did they understand the desired performance outcomes intended to support business and process requirements? What contextual factors would motivate or de-motivate knowledge workers to share knowledge and carry out the new process, i.e., consequences and feedback? As an example, Nortel’s NPD process called for idea generators (often engineers) to develop a raw product or service idea into a robust concept along the lines of marketing, business, technology, and human factors. While engineers are technically knowledgeable, they do not typically possess sufficient knowledge in the other areas required in the new NPD process. Thus, this drove Nortel’s team to consider interventions to support knowledge workers engaged in this process activity. Similarly, IBM’s team considered the factors that would influence the behaviors of CRM knowledge workers. For example, IBM sales representatives felt threatened by the CRM reengineering effort due to their perception that the customer relationships would be largely transferred from human contacts to technology, thus disintermediating them. In response, IBM undertook efforts to show sales representatives that the new CRM process would, in fact, allow them to more proactively sell and market products and services. Clearly, the bottom line for IBM and Nortel was to increase profitability, sales, share, and return-oninvestment by leveraging and managing its knowledge assets. Both processes called for improvements to cross-functional coordination, learning, and knowledge exchange in business, technology, and marketing (and other relevant areas). As described above, the knowledge management initiatives first involved understanding business and process requirements. With this understanding in hand, both organizations defined knowledge worker performance requirements and desired performance outcomes (as related to the reengineered processes). Furthermore, by gaining a deep understanding of the internal performance systems of knowledge workers, both organizations were able to identify the factors that would influence workers in engaged in knowledge-intensive process tasks.
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
5
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
Customer Fulfillment
New Product Development Increase market acceptance rate
Business Requirements
Increase sales and customer loyalty
Process Requirements Continuous stream of innovative ideas
Knowledge Worker Requirements
Know how to innovate and capture ideas
Enhance customer relationships Increase efficiency and effectiveness of customer contact
Figure 3. Examples of interdependent multi-level performance requirements
Subsequently, both IBM and Nortel designed and implemented technology-based interventions to support an efficient and effective way. Drawing from the disciplines of knowledge management and CRM, IBM developed an Internet-based system called Inside IBM. The system allowed customers to link directly to IBM's Intranet and backend cross-functional knowledge-based resources. Inside IBM was subsequently adopted as a corporate standard leading to IBM’s e-Services as it is known today. Deploying artificial intelligence, information systems, and user-centered design, Inside IBM aggregated IBM's accumulated product support knowledge into a single system and enabled collection of information about its customers. IBM’s efforts led to improved decision-making for both the customer and the organization’s sales and service workforce, leading to increased sales and customer loyalty. Similarly, Nortel developed a knowledge management system called Virtual Mentor. Virtual Mentor supported both the performance of knowledge workers (i.e., engineers) engaged in developing raw ideas into robust concepts and decision makers (i.e., managers) tasked with making funding decisions. Virtual Mentor was subsequently integrated into a broader corporate time-to-market strategy that is in place today. Nortel’s efforts led to decreased time-tomarket, increased time-to-market acceptance, and improved funding decisions. As evidenced, IBM and Nortel’s knowledge management initiatives were guided by a holistic understanding of interdependent multi-level (business, process, knowledge worker) performance goals and requirements. Both organizations took a systematic approach to their respective efforts. These efforts facilitated problem/opportunity identification and definition, diagnoses of the changes required to meet
the performance of knowledge workers, and facilitate the distribution and acquisition of knowledge assets in requirements, and the subsequent design of suitable interventions needed to affect the performance of knowledge workers tasked with process activities. Addressing “what to do” from a performance perspective drove the reengineering of two knowledgeintensive business processes. Considering “how to do it” and simultaneously understanding the behavioral factors that influenced knowledge workers informed the development and implementation of performancecentered knowledge management solutions. In the following section, we present a series of steps, a “checklist for action”, based on knowledge management principles, our work with IBM and Nortel, and the performance environment framework presented in Figure 1. In concert with the performance environment framework, this checklist may assist other organizations considering and undertaking a knowledge management initiative.
4. Checklist for KM initiatives Step 1: Select a target business process. A knowledge management initiative should identify a firm's key leverage points for achieving business results. Since knowledge is context-specific [39], and as evidenced at IBM and Nortel, knowledge management will likely be most powerful when it addresses a particular domain such as new product development, operations, sales, and customer service. Organizations should start where advocacy exists for doing something different. Processes such as those targeted for improvement by the organizations we studied is where work is accomplished. Once the
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
6
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
process is identified, establish a process and project owner and ensure that the new initiative is managed as a business change project, not an information technology project (as many early knowledge management projects were managed). In this step it is also important to establish performance measures for the business case. Demonstrating success with a single process may lead to acceptance for other processes. Step 2: Decompose and structure the process into activities and flows. Oftentimes, process activities and the data, information, and knowledge flows between activities are poorly defined. This step requires that the inherent, underlying structure be found or defined in order for an initiative to move forward. Clarifying activities and promoting an integrative view of the whole process is the starting point for managing knowledge and improving performance. For example, in the front-end of the NPD process, idea-to-concept development and concept selection activities are often called the “fuzzy” because they involve ill-defined activities and ad hoc decisions carried out by multiple and diverse stakeholders [7]. Via careful analysis and benchmarking, Nortel reengineered and enhanced the front-end of its NPD process by defining a consistent and structured approach for developing, screening, and cataloging new product ideas. Step 3: Identify activity-based knowledge exchange processes. This step requires understanding the context of work, i.e., the knowledge needs associated with each process activity defined in step 2. For example, in IBM’s CRM process, in order for customer representatives to proactively target sales and marketing, they had to first acquire and possess knowledge concerning customer requirements – how could they acquire this from customers? Similarly, at Nortel, different knowledge workers and functions had different pieces of data, information, and knowledge relevant to the NPD process. How could these pieces be exchanged so as to create a common and logically organized bank of knowledge about a product or service concept? The objective of this step is to identify the knowledge exchange processes that are, or must be, in place to support value-creating activities. Knowledge exchange processes support the flow of knowledge between activities and between the process and business units. Step 4: Identify desired knowledge exchange performance outcomes. When individuals exploit knowledge in a business process, it is reflected in the quality of a valued outcome that benefits the organization. This step involves specifying the performance outcomes that should be derived from the knowledge exchange processes identified in step 3. For example, in Nortel’s NPD process, one desired outcome was that a decision maker (manager) could
make an informed decision regarding further funding for product development. Another desired outcome was when the right combination of product-related data (e.g., marketing, business, and technology) needed to be readily accessible in the right format for different tasks and functional areas. Alternatively, in the IBM’s CRM process, a desired outcome was that the right people, information and services would readily accessible to the customer. Step 5: Identify the knowledge drivers of each process activity, decision, and information flow. This step requires the identification of the types of knowledge (explicit, tacit) required, the sources of that knowledge (internal and/or external people, archived data), and the receivers of knowledge (people, other databanks). In Nortel’s case, this step required identification of the specific knowledge required by an idea generator (i.e., knowledge worker source) so he/she could develop a raw idea into a robust concept in the areas of marketing, business, human factors, and technology. With this knowledge in hand, a raw idea could be developed into a complete and robust concept such that decision-makers (i.e., knowledge worker receiver) could evaluate the concept and make a funding decision. Step 6: Map requirements for knowledge routing, navigation, and language translation. In concert, steps 2-5 specify the knowledge inputs, exchange processes, and desired outcomes associated with the targeted and defined business process. These earlier steps also clarify the sources, receivers, types and quality of knowledge associated with process activities and knowledge workers. With this information, an organization can now more precisely specify its’ knowledge management interventions or solutions. As evidenced at IBM and Nortel, it was at this point that their respective initiatives began to consider the role of information technology. That is, rather than thinking of a knowledge management initiative as working forward from a technology solution, organizations can move forward based on a keen grasp of knowledge needs and a recognition that multiple knowledge workers are often engaged in a business process. As an example, the navigation needs of a customer representative in the CRM process seeking to acquire customer requirements differs significantly from the needs of a customer seeking information. Furthermore, organizations must recognize knowledge workers deploy “local languages” relative to their areas of expertise. Successfully enabling the flow of data, information, and knowledge between process activities and diverse knowledge workers may require “language translation”. For example, in our Nortel’s case, we found that idea generators (engineers) did not speak the
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
7
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
language of decision-makers (managers) who deployed SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis. As such, the organization needed to develop a knowledge management solution, i.e., Virtual Mentor, with interfaces that translated and depicted knowledge in a form appropriate for different audiences.
5. Implications for practice Successful organizations, like IBM and Nortel, are searching for ways to improve performance by leveraging knowledge assets more effectively. New products and services and customer relationships are key drivers of growth for sales and profitability, particularly for firms facing intense competition and rapid technological change [3][22]. Viability often hinges directly upon the competitive quality and exploitation of a firm's underlying knowledge base. What is perhaps most striking about knowledge management is the realization that it cannot be generically applied. Relative to their own performance environment, every organization will respond differently to the fundamental question posed earlier in this paper: What performance goal(s) is the organization trying to achieve by managing its knowledge assets? The performance environment framework and checklist we have offered may assist
Based on Business Goals & Requirements, Select a Process
Identify Desired Knowledge Exchange Outcomes
organizations in addressing this question and help direct it to what knowledge should be managed and how it should be managed. Evidenced in our work with IBM and Nortel, by taking a holistic and systemic view of the performance environment surrounding knowledge work, both organizations were able to develop knowledge management solutions that supported multi-level performance requirements. At the same time, it is important to highlight several additional factors – strategic, operational, technical, and cultural – that need to be considered when considering the “fit” of a knowledge management initiative to a particular organization (see Figure 4). First, any knowledge management initiative must be aligned with the existing strategic environment [34]. An organization should assess the relationship of the initiative to current value chain processes, the level of change and resources required to implement the envisioned solution, and the level of senior management support. Senior level leadership establishes an appreciation of knowledge assets relative to core business processes. Leadership is also essential for providing on-going funding and investment for necessary human and technical resources [19].
Decompose & Structure Process into Activities & Information Flows
Identify Activity-based Knowledge Exchange Processes
Identify the Knowledge Drivers of Each Activity, Decision, and Information Flow
Map Requirements for Knowledge Routing/ Navigation & "Language Translation"
Culture
Assess "Fit"
Strategic
KMI
KMI Operational
Technical
Figure 4. Knowledge management initiatives and organizational context
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
8
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
Second, a knowledge management initiative must fit with the operational environment. Changes in workflow and interpersonal relationships may necessitate new roles and/or skills for knowledge workers. The internal performance system model (Figure 2) [36] provides a useful means to assess the current capabilities of knowledge workers. Third, deploying information technology in the form of a knowledge management system requires consideration of the existing technical environment [19][22]. Is the solution compatible with networks and platforms? Is the organization ready to deal with the level of investment and change necessary to implement desired technical functionality? Finally, and perhaps the most challenging issue, is the assessment of the fit between a knowledge management initiative and the cultural environment. Creating a culture of knowledge sharing is critical to success [8][14][18]. Given this, an organization needs to assess incentive and reward systems and identify internal inconsistencies. As described earlier, understanding the internal performance system of a knowledge worker will assist in identifying factors that (positively or negatively) influence behaviors. As an example, IBM’s CRM process called for customer representatives to share knowledge about their customers. However, representatives were historically rewarded for sales and service support, not for sharing knowledge with other representatives. As such, IBM’s organizational reward systems needed to be changed before the full benefits of their knowledge management initiative could be reaped.
knowledge management with the complexities of organizational phenomena, but also possesses prescriptive and descriptive components [2][34]. We believe our efforts provide a starting point in this direction. Specifically, we offer direction on how knowledge management can be accomplished, while at the same time identifying attributes of knowledge management that will ultimately influence success or failure. However, future research is needed to test efficacy and generalizability of our framework and checklist via more case studies. Both do provide a foundation for further exploration by researchers interested in exploring organizational issues and for hypothesis generation and testing.
6. Conclusion and future directions
[5] Becerra-Fernandez, I. and Sabherwal, R. Organizational knowledge management: A contingency perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (1), 2001, 23-55.
A knowledge management strategy entails developing a portfolio of strategically focused initiatives required to achieve business results. Organizations must prioritize these initiatives based on business value, enterprise support and funding. As such, holistically and systematically understanding the performance environment surrounding organizational knowledge work takes on heightened importance. In the end, knowledge management initiatives will be most effective when they are aligned with the performance goals and requirements of a business, its processes, and its people. Our primary contribution to practice is the performance environment framework and checklist for action offered and demonstrated in this paper that may assist practitioners interested in undertaking and leading knowledge management initiatives. Our primary contribution to research is to response to a recent call for a framework that not only places
7. References [1] Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges, and benefits. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 1 (Article 7), February 1999, http://cais.isworld.org/articles/1-7/article.htm [2] Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25 (1), March 2001, 107-136. [3] Alavi, M. Managing organizational knowledge. In R.W. Zmud, Ed., Framing the domains of IT management research: Glimpsing the future through the past, Cincinnati, OH: Pinnaflex Educational Resources, 2000. [4] Barney, J.B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1) 1991, 99-120.
[6] Berry, L.L. and Parasuraman, A. Marketing Services, New York, NY: Free Press 1991. [7] Cooper, R, and Kleindschmidt, E. An investigation into the NPD process: steps, deficiencies, impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12 1995, 374-391. [8] Davenport, T.H., DeLong, D.W., and Beers, M.C. Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Management Review, 39 (2) 1998, 43-57. [9] Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998. [10] Davenport, T.H. Process innovation: Reengineering work through information technology, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1983.
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
9
Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2003
[11] Dyer, G. and McDonough, B. The state of knowledge management. Knowledge Management, May 2001, 31-36. [12] Day, G.S. The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing, 58 (4) 1994, 37-52. [13] Day, G.S. Managing marketing relationships, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (1) 2000 24-31. [14] Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40 (3) 1998 265-276. [15] Gery, G. Granting three wishes through performancecentered design. CACM, 40 (7) 1997, 54-59. [16] Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A.H. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (1), Summer 2001, 185-214. [17] Gordon, J. Performance technology. In D. Zielinski (Ed.) The effective performance consultant. Minneapolis, MN: Lakewood Publications 1996, 1-7. [18] Grover, V. and Davenport, T.H. General perspectives on knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (1), Summer 2001, 5-21. [19] Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. An investigation of factors that influence the management of knowledge in organizations. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 9, 2000 235-261. [20] Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. Knowledge management: A three-fold framework. The Information Society 2002, in press. [21] Holsapple, C.W. Knowledge management support of decision making. Decision Support Systems, 31, 2001, 1-3. [22] Huber, G.P. Transfer of knowledge in knowledge management systems: Unexplored issues and suggested studies. European Journal of Information Systems, 10 (2), June 2001, 72-79. [23] Leonard, D. and Sensiper, S. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40 (3) 1998, 112-132. [24] Maier, R. and Remus, U. Towards a framework for knowledge management strategies: Process orientation as strategic starting point. Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2001. [25] Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M., and O’Driscoll, T. Performance-centered design of knowledge intensive processes. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (4) 2002, 37-58.
[26] Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M., and O’Driscoll, T. Knowledge management in pursuit of performance: Insights from Nortel Networks. MIS Quarterly, in press. [27] Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M., and Holcom, K. Re-engineering the customer relationship: Leveraging knowledge assets at IBM. Decision Support Systems, 32, 2001, 155-170. [28] Moorman, C. and Rust, R.T. The role of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 63 1999, 180-197. [29] O'Dell, C. and Grayson, C.J. If only we knew what we know: Identification and transfer of internal best practices. California Management Review, 40 (3) 1998, 154-174. [30] Peppers, D., Rogers, M., and Dorf, R. The One-to-One Fieldbook. New York, NY: Currency and Doubleday 1999. [31] Ramakrishna, H. and Brightman, H. The fact-net model: a problem diagnosis procedure. Interfaces, 16 1986, 86-94. [32] Raybould, B. Performance support engineering. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8 (1), 7-22. [33] Rosenberg, M. Performance technology, performance support, and the future of training. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 8 (1) 1995. [34] Rubenstein-Montano, B., Leibowitz, J., Buchwalter, J., McCaw, D., Newman, B., Rebeck, K. and the Knowledge Management Methodology Team. A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 31, 2001, 5-16. [35] Ruggles, R. The state of the notion: Knowledge management in practice. California Management Review, 40 (3) 1998, 80-89. [36] Rummler, G. and Brache, A. Transforming organizations through human performance technology. In H.D. Stolovitch and E.J. Keeps (eds.), Handbook of human performance technology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass 1992, 32-49. [37] Stewart, T. The wealth of knowledge: Intellectual capital and the twenty-first century organization. New York, NY: Doubleday 2001. [38] Stolovitch, H.D. and Keeps, E.J. What is human performance technology? In H.D. Stolovitch and E.J. Keeps (eds.), Handbook of human performance technolog, 2nd Edition.. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer 1999, 3-23. [39] Sviokla, J.J. Knowledge workers and radically new technology. Sloan Management Review, Summer 1996 25-40. [40] Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1994.
0-7695-1874-5/03 $17.00 (C) 2003 IEEE
10
