November 8th, 2009
With its 10,000 employees scattered all over the world, the World Bank faces a challenge — building a knowledge management program that works. Realizing that this system is vital in helping its clients fight poverty, the World Bank invested around 53 million dollars in its knowledge management initiative by upgrading its technological capabilities and launching its employee training program. Yet the process is not easy and the obstacles are numerous. One issue is developing soft and hard knowledge. Can they harmoniously co-exist after the rebirth process takes place?
What academics say
Jasimuddin (2008) conducted a study that covered several British companies and included 100,000 employees. The goal of the study was to determine which is better for organizations — soft knowledge or hard knowledge? Though some employees believed that staff expertise is indispensible for any knowledge sharing process, others argued that without technological infrastructure, knowledge management is unachievable. However, all employees agreed that soft and hard knowledge should be used according to the situation.
On the other hand examining the various factors that impact knowledge sharing through soft or hard systems can help the organization choose which one to capitalize on to reach its goals for a particular period. For instance, the human factor–with all its internal complexities, such as fear of humiliation, ambition, and greed, or the external complexities, such as culture and traditions–can dramatically affect one’s decision to participate in the knowledge sharing process through either system. Conversely, technology can facilitate knowledge transfer, but it can not monitor the quality of this knowledge or its credibility, according to Edwards, Shaw, and Collier (2005). Trying to “push” any technological tool that stores predetermined knowledge to employees can lead to failure of the whole process, according to Malhotra (2005).
The World Bank experience
Because it’s a multicultural organization, the World Bank had no option but to create a knowledge management system that promotes the use of both processes — the soft and the hard.
What the World Bank did (check out baselinemag.com for more information on how the World Bank developed its knowledge management system):
–Create an infrastructure that allows people in developing countries to make a videoconference with World Bank employees
–Translate documents and reports into different languages and make them available for its clients
–Train employees to use the newly installed technological tools
–Meet with employees to promote the knowledge management initiative
–Enhance its internet potential
Results
Suffice it to say that a doctor in Zaire can access the World Bank website or its affiliates, such as CDC, to take a look at the treatments available for Malaria or HIV and take the necessary measures to protect human life.
-Asia
October 16th, 2009
17 billion dollar debt… a sign of hope?!
With revenue that exceeds 300 billion dollars in 2008, one may assume that British Petroleum (BP) did not have its share of financial problems for a long time. However, BP had suffered several setbacks in the previous two decades, which had threatened its operations throughout the world.
It was not until John Browne was assigned as its CEO that the end of the tunnel could be seen. The inefficient way of running the company had cost it 17 billion dollars of accumulated debt. Something needed to be done, and Browne believed that, “Any organization that thinks it does everything the best and need not learn from others is incredibly arrogant and foolish.”
What Can Be Done?
Creating a learning environment is crucial for the survival of organizations in this information-driven economy, as Browne argued. There are several factors that indicate whether the KM system (KMS) adopted is successful or not.
According to Conely and Zheng (2009), there are ten elements that contribute to the KMS success; three are of utmost importance:
- Organization structure
- Training and education
- The roles of top executives
While the top executives have to promote KMS and raise awareness to its benefits, they must provide continuous training and education to their employees throughout the implementation process. This opens up the organization’s culture and makes it more likely to accept KMS (Kimble, 2008).
Additionally, altering the organization structure in a way that facilitates the integration of KMS into various business units can have a positive impact on the overall implementation process. Fostering the use of soft mechanisms such as face to face interaction may lead to better results than the sheer dependence on technology to collect, store, sort, and retrieve knowledge (Jasimuddin).
Browne’s Approach
In 1993, Browne decided to separate the regional exploration centers into forty-two entities. The goal was to give each entity the freedom to create solutions according to its own needs and the best knowledge obtained from these entities would be utilized by the company on a global level. As a result, Browne decentralized BP’s structure to allow for maximum communication between employees and executives. In fact, he headed the planning team responsible for the implementation process to monitor the project progress. The organizational culture changed gradually from an individual based to a teamwork based culture.
Browne emphasized the importance of educating his teams. In fact, half the budget allocated for the pilot project was spent on training the teams about KMS. Furthermore, face to face communication was reinforced by the use of videoconferencing as a tool not only for interaction between the teams but also as a way to innovate new concepts that will the help company thrive.
Lessons Learned
- Technology is a means to an end. IT departments can only prepare the infrastructure needed to introduce KMS.
- KMS can not survive without the collaboration and dedication of the employees.
- Top executives should be the first adopters of KM.
- An organization that stops learning is an organization that is doomed.
Indicators That You May Be Working for a Foolish Company
- Does your company resist creative thinking?
- Does your company foster innovation?
- Is teamwork at your company viewed as a waste of time?
- Is your company dependent on technology as the solution for every problem?
- Does your company offer incentives to its employees for sharing their experiences and knowledge?
~asia
Bp key facts and figures. Retrieved October 10, 2009 from http://www.bp.com/extendedsectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9021229&contentId=7039276
Conley, C. & and Zheng, W. (2009). Factors critical to knowledge management success. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3), 334-348.
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations know what they know. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Jasimuddin, S. (2008). A holistic view of knowledge management strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 57-66.
Kimble, C., & Bourdon, I. (2008, December). Some success factors for the communal management of knowledge. International Journal of Information Management, 28(6), 461-467. Retrieved September 23, 2009, doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.08.007.
Wetlaufer, S. (2000) Harvard Business Review interviews with CEO’s. Boston: Harvard Business School.
Loading ...