Information and knowledge management for managers - Term Paper Example

?Information and knowledge management for managers  Executive Summary Gathering and sharing tacit knowledge is one of the biggest challenges faced byorganizations. Web Windows advertising agency has been struggling to identify the various barriers related to knowledge sharing, especially tacit knowledge sharing. Furthermore, there was no specific model for knowledge sharing and the general practices used for knowledge sharing were not found to be effective. Through review of literature as well as with the help of empirical studies, the various gaps in knowledge transfer such as knowledge being subjective, lack of motivation and a non-cooperative culture were identified. For Web Windows, the knowledge management framework developed by Nonaka in 1995 is most suitable because it helps in facilitating the knowledge management of both explicit as well as tacit knowledge. Scope of the Paper The organization sees the highest attrition and transfer during the months of May to July (a high churn over happens because employees get back to studies). The rate of hiring is also the highest during this period. While there is a documented process to exchange knowledge regarding advertising budget, advertising history as well as goals of advertising of each client, there is a considerable amount of tacit knowledge that the experts have. Some examples include negotiating with clients and understanding their general as well as specific requirements. The scope of this paper would cover understanding the barriers in knowledge sharing in account management teams as well as between the sales team and the account management teams. Identifying the stakeholders necessary for effective transfer of knowledge and making sure that the process happens within a proper and organized framework falls within the scope of the organization. Background of the Organization Web Windows is an advertising agency based in Stamford, Lincolshire and has been providing advertising solutions for well over a decade. Organization Vision The organization has the vision to become leading provider for the clientele of the organization include top organizations from the retail, technology as well as healthcare sector. The mission of the organization is to provide high quality end to end advertising services to their clients. Goals and Objectives The organization aims to provide high quality solutions at the most cost effective prices for its clients, so that it establishes a distinct image in the market. Type and Range of Products Initially, Web Windows specialized in print advertising and radio advertising, but now, it has diversified into online advertising also. Web Windows specializes in display as well as social media. Knowledge Management Vision The clients have the option to choose for advertising in specific sectors such as radio, social media or display or decide for a combination of marketing mix to reach their advertising goals. At present, there are several clients who opt for an advertising mix that spans across various mediums and there are some other clients who are keen on focusing on one particular avenue. Each of the client accounts are assigned to an account management team who work very closely with the clients are deliver what they require. This team consists of various experts in different avenues such as print advertising expert and online advertising experts. The team also has industry analysts who played a key role in providing market and industry inputs to the team. Apart from advertising experts, each account management team also has Client relationship managers who deal directly with the clients and serve as point of contacts. Therefore, it is clear that the organization operates at multiple levels because numerous roles and experts have to come together to meet a common goal. The knowledge is highly tacit in nature because of the dynamic set up of the advertising industry. With attrition as well as internal transfers, effective knowledge transfer, including transfer of tacit knowledge becomes really important. [THIS PARA JUSTIFIES managing its tacit knowledge] Review of Literature Knowledge Management Theories Knowledge Management is a process that incorporates strategies as well as practices that have been adopted in order to facilitate the identification, creation, compilation, distribution and transfer of knowledge, experiences as well as insights (Bratianu and Orzea, 2010). In the field of Knowledge Management, the sharing and transfer of knowledge is considered to be one of the major areas of focus. It is important because knowledge management proves to be a connection between some critical aspects such as the individual knowledge that an employee has, understanding where knowledge lies, the levels in the organization where knowledge attains its value, the importance and the necessary of knowledge and so on (Riege, 2007). Across industry, the level of competition has become very high during the past decade. This has increased the importance of effective knowledge sharing and knowledge transfer. As organizations have moved ahead to bring about a system that is effective, they have unearthed some processes that are barriers from being knowledge management effective (McDermott and O'Dell, 2001). These factors are mostly unique to particular organizations, but some of the most common factors are inadequacy of organizational structures, cultures that do not encourage information sharing, denominational segregation, lack of proper framework and so on (Riege, 2005). Additionally, it is also important to consider whether employees are motivated enough to share the information or not (Groff and Jones, 2003). There are different schools of thought that center around knowledge transfer. The techno-centric school of thought primarily focuses on how knowledge related to technology is transferred where as the organizational school of thought focuses more on how an entire organization can adapt to knowledge transfer (Hislop, 2003). Ecological school of thought has a high focus on understanding how people interact, and how knowledge transfer is in fact a complex adaptive system (Jashapara, 2003). The concept of knowledge transfer or information management itself is not very new in many organizations. In most instances, this information transfer happens only in cases of explicit knowledge. For example, an employee passing on information on the software program that he or she has developed. Among the managers also, the information management happens on explicit issues, such as sharing information regarding the appraisal process of the reportees. In such a process, even though technical details are passed on, there is a gap because the tacit knowledge does not get passed on (Kogut and Zander, 1993). Tacit knowledge transfer is extremely critical when it comes to management level. The responsibilities of the management cannot be just shared on with the help of documents, but they have a high dependency on factors such as experiences, insights and instincts to some extent (Lin and Lee, 2004). The process of knowledge transfer becomes very complex when tacit knowledge is involved. Tacit knowledge is that knowledge which cannot be articulated, captured and stored independently because it belongs to the cognitive thought process of an individual (Macneil, 2001). The challenge with tacit knowledge is that it is very difficult to express it and is extremely specific to the context. Hence, it is not only difficult to share this knowledge with anyone outside the team, but also is difficult to study with the help of the research tools that are available currently (Bock et al, 2005). In the case of tacit knowledge, data or basic information only gains a higher competitive value when it has been integrated with individual experiences as well as insights (Dougherty, 1999). In many organizations, the research regarding knowledge transfer is done at an organizational level (Chen and Eddignton, 2005), which leaves an ample scope for research on knowledge transfer at an individual level. Hence, factors such as intuition, hunches, subjective insights and know-hows. Researchers have identified three main challenging elements that prove to be barriers to effective sharing of tacit knowledge. These are tacitness, dependence and complexity (Davenport and Prusak, 2000) Tacitness represents the difficulty in expressing in known codes or languages, when compared to explicit knowledge and such kind of knowledge is often acquired through experience. Tacit knowledge also has a high dependence on the context. Without the understanding of context, tacit knowledge may look incomplete or meaningless. Many scholars have done research on understanding what the major barriers are when it comes to effective knowledge transfer. According to the research done by Leonard in 2007, even in corporate environments, knowledge is very subjective (Leonard, 2007). What constitutes knowledge to be for one person may not have much relevance for someone else. This holds true especially in the case of tacit knowledge. Therefore, the first step that is essential before even starting the knowledge transfer process is to identify what constitutes knowledge in that particular organization or team. There are two other factors which prove to be challenges in knowledge transfer, especially at the managerial level. One is trust and other is culture (Locke, 1991). In many organizations, the managers are pitted against each other in a competitive mode and this creates lack of trust. Many employees feel that the information they share could be misused or used in a way that may not be appropriate. According to the research done by De Long and Fahey in 2000, culture has an influence on the behaviour which is critical to creation and sharing of knowledge (De Long and Fahey, 2000). When it comes to tacit knowledge, it needs a much more detailed consideration because there may be specific barriers related to it that need to be highlighted as critical in supporting the business strategy (Van Beveren, 2002). In a business strategy, there may be obvious caveats that cannot be mentioned explicitly, such as sensitive information that cannot be articulated easily. In such cases, it is necessary to transfer this information, but cannot be done directly and needs to be articulated in an implicit manner. For example, there may be certain obvious shortcomings in product features, but it is important to mention this implicitly, so that the sales team does not form a negative perception. Similarly, if the strategy is framed around the culture of the organization, then again it becomes difficult to share explicit knowledge because all the aspects of the culture are not explicit. Empirical studies In the research performed by Szulansky in 1996 on eight companies, the effort was to understand the reasons of internal stickiness of knowledge transfer. Stickiness can be defined as the challenges and difficulty in the transfer of knowledge. According to this study, the most important barriers are the lack of absorptive capacity of the recipients, the ambiguity in communication and arduous relationship (Szulansky, 1996). Absorptive capacity not only refers to the ability of a person, but also the amount of knowledge that they have before the transfer. Ambiguity in knowledge transfer happens because of inconsistencies in the depth of knowledge. Furthermore, lack of good relationship between the recipient and the person who gives knowledge can also affect smooth knowledge transfer. In a study conducted by the University of Technology at Mara, Kedah, Malaysia, 390 responses were collected with the help of questionnaires in a manufacturing organization in Malaysia. The study revealed that only 53% of the participants felt that Knowledge sharing among colleagues is normal in the work environment. It also revealed that only 48% of the respondents fell equipped with enough expertise needed for sharing knowledge effectively. It also revealed how 43% of the respondents fell that most other colleagues could provide knowledge that is much more valuable than they themselves can provide (Sawal et al, 2011). This study establishes the blatant holes in the process of knowledge transfer as the employees themselves feel that they are not sufficiently equipped to transfer knowledge effectively. In the research done by Papoutsakis, survey data was collected from 51 medium to large manufacturing organizations that represent the industrial sector across industries like automotive, chemical and pharmaceutical. The study explored how information technology is used in knowledge sharing. The major barrier that was identified was the discrepancies among the different versions of knowledge at different places. Another barrier was the over dependence on sharing explicit knowledge because tacit knowledge was difficult to share. Because of lack of tacit knowledge sharing, there was loss of skill because of poor coordination. In addition, there was an over dependence on the network and system, which has minimized knowledge transfer from a face to face manner, thereby, reducing the tacit knowledge transfer considerably (Papoutsakis, 2007). Barriers to Knowledge Sharing Environment in Web Windows In Web Windows, the knowledge sharing environment largely depends sharing of facts and data points. In most cases, knowledge transfer takes place in a formal setting where the data points are shared between the concerned people. Furthermore, knowledge sharing is not an ongoing process even within teams and happens only in cases when there is attrition or when there is a replacement of an employee. At times, this transfer of knowledge happens only in a virtual mode and not directly between team mates or managers. This is because information is written and recorded in a document and sent to the recipient. In such a process, there is not much scope for the transfer of tacit knowledge between the employees and hence, a huge gap in knowledge happens. Being an advertising agency, knowledge transfer should happen smoothly within a particular function and also among the different functions. For example, within the account management team, members like client relationship managers, industry experts and account managers should work in tandem with each other, sharing both tacit as well as explicit knowledge all the time. The barriers to knowledge sharing in Web Windows are at many different levels. 1. First and foremost, as knowledge sharing happens based on needs. Depending on how much time is available, the information is transferred in the easiest possible manner, sometime even over email. For example, only when an employee leaves the organization, he or she transfers the knowledge based on the time available. 2. Another barrier to knowledge sharing is the lack of a proper framework to guide the employees. There is no set format or regulation around the sharing of tacit as well as explicit knowledge, often leading to incomplete or incorrect sharing of knowledge. This has even led to instances of loss of knowledge. 3. One of the main barriers to knowledge sharing in Web Windows is the lack of motivation. The culture of the organization is such that employees are not actively encouraged to share the knowledge with each other. As mentioned earlier, knowledge transfer happens only when there is a need and not on a regular basis. Therefore, the environment has become closed and employees are not open to a culture of sharing knowledge. In general, it has been noticed that the various account management team do not communicate with each other on a regular basis and hence, motivation to share any form of knowledge or even information is very less. While each employee has good information or knowledge, this knowledge does not get transferred to a larger group. 4. Open Communication among the employees is also less in Web Windows. The day to day interaction among various groups is less, which has created an environment of isolation of various teams from each other. Only if the lines of communication are open between the various departments and the managements, then only knowledge transfer can take place effectively. 5. Another barrier to knowledge sharing is the high level of competition among the managers that has created closed and isolated groups of employees. The level of competition between the various managers is so intense that it often blocks the knowledge from getting transferred to the various sections in a seamless manner. This becomes even more critical in the case of tacit knowledge, because unhealthy competition can prove to be an obstacle to the goals of the larger organization. 6. In Web Windows, there is hardly any social interaction between the employees. A good and healthy level of social interaction is necessary to create that foundation where tactic knowledge can be transferred easily. Hence, transferring tacit knowledge remains a big challenge. 7. The organization also faces the challenge of lack of technological support. As there is no proper framework, employees often feel the lack of technical knowledge and there is no mechanism in place to fill this gap. Due to these reasons, a lot of gap of knowledge is seen when a new employee takes over or when employees move on to other teams. Framework for Effective Knowledge Transfer There are many different models for knowledge transfer that has been developed by various researchers. One of the major ones is by Leonard-Barton in 1995 that is based on four basic concepts - shared and creative problem solving, importing and getting knowledge from outside the organization, experimenting and prototyping and implementation & integration (Leonard-Barton, 1995). The framework developed by Arthur Andersson and APQC in 1996 follows the tenets of sharing, creating, identification, collection, adaptation, organization and application (Anderson, 1996). Another framework developed by Wiig in 1993 is much simpler as it is based on creation of knowledge, manifestation, use of knowledge and eventually its transfer (Wiig, 1993). The framework of Choo in 1996 has three basic principles, that of sense making, knowledge creation and decision making. The model developed by Nonaka in 1995 is also known as the SIEC model because of its focus on socialization, internalization, combination and externalization (Nonaka and Takeouchi, 1995). Alavi's framework developed in 1997 talks about acquisition of knowledge, indexing it, filtering, linking and distributing and finally application (Alavi and Leidner, 1997). Szulanski's model focuses on the process of initiation, implementation, ramp up and finally integration (Szulanski, 1996). Among all these different models, the framework of Nonaka and Takeouchi seems to be the one that suits the challenge that Web Windows faces currently. Tacit knowledge transfer in a continuous manner is one where the organization lacks considerably and this models helps in addressing that factor. Additionally, aspects of both explicit and tacit knowledge is addressed. Considering these factors, the framework that was developed by Nonaka and Takeouchi in 1995 seems to be the one that is appropriate in developing a robust as well as dynamic knowledge management system (Nonaka and Takeouchi, 1995). This framework has four major aspects that are socialization, internalization, combination as well as externalization. Socialization – socialization can be described as the process of exchanging tacit knowledge between individual, groups or teams with the help of strategies such as spending time, collaborative activities, working together on handles issues and solving problems and so on (Tsai, 2002). Unless good communication and socialization happens, tacit knowledge transfer cannot take place. For example, if an employee has gathered the right tone to speak to a customer, this knowledge can be transferred only when there is interaction between the recipient and the employee. Internalization –This stage involves the conversion of explicit knowledge into the tactic knowledge in the organization. It has been noticed that tacit knowledge is much more actionable than explicit knowledge (Wasko and Faraj, 2005). Internalization is a process that would prove helpful in actualization of concepts and methods either by action on stimulation. In Web Windows, internalization would prove to be a very useful strategy as it can help in two-way knowledge transfer, from individual to collective and vice-versa. Combination – The stage of combination already exists to an extent in the organization. Here, explicit knowledge is transferred through explicit methods. Here, knowledge is transferred mainly through emails, documents, databases, meetings and sessions (Zander and Kogut, 1995). Main steps include collective information, processing this information and disseminating it. This facilitates knowledge transfer among various groups and teams within the organization. In Web Windows, the key strategy is to incorporate the process of combination with all other processes. Externalization – It is a process of making tacit knowledge explicit. This is a complex process involving articulation of one person’s tacit knowledge through ideas, images, words, examples or metaphors (Andriessen, 2004). This is the most important step as far as Web Windows is concerned. It can be carried out through dialogues and face to face communication. Once this framework is established properly, the framework of flow of information that was researched by Szulanski in 1996 can be adapted. The principals put forth by Nonaka will form the basic framework for knowledge transfer, but the way in which the knowledge transfer process will take place would be done according to the theory of Szulanski (Szulanski, 1996) through the process of initiation, implementation, ramp up and integration. Effective Knowledge Transfer Practices to Be Implemented in Web Windows The analysis of knowledge transfer practices in Web Windows revealed that there are a number of practices that not only need to be adopted, but also need to be incorporated as an integral part of organization culture to ensure that knowledge transfer is effective and complete. To work towards such a scenario, the following practices should be adopted and implemented. 1. Facilitating interaction and communication – When it comes to knowledge transfer, the main issue in the organization has been that there is very less interaction and communication that happens between members of the organization (Alaviand Leidner, 1999). Hence, the first step is to give enough opportunity for people to interact so that they feel comfortable enough to share information. Right now, most people operate as individual contributors even in a team environment. The change would ensure that people become team players and the communication lines between them are open. 2. Making Knowledge transfer an on-going process – At present, knowledge transfer is a static process that happens only when the need arises. However, it is necessary to make this an on-going process (Dalkir and Liebowitz, 2011). For example, holding quarterly business reviews where representatives from each of the functions are involved is a good method. 3. Tacit knowledge transfer for managers – For managers, having tacit knowledge is much more critical (Collins, 2001). Hence, much more scope for effective interaction between different managers would be encouraged. 4. Allocating formal knowledge transfer time– Apart from encouraging casual conversation and discussion, a formal process would be set up so that there is enough opportunity to share information (Frappaolo, 2006.). For example, weekly sessions of interaction between employees where they specifically share and discuss information related to the work that they carried out in that particular week. 5. Fostering a culture of openness and sharing –In addition to all the factors mentioned above, a culture of openness and sharing would be encouraged so that there is no hesitation among the employees to share information (Van Beveren, 2004). This culture has to be developed from the management level and slowly it would reach down to the employees. Conclusion Through an analysis of the knowledge transfer process in Web Windows, it was clear that there are many barriers that prevent smooth flow of information. To overcome this challenge, strategies need to be incorporated at multiple levels because there were issues in both explicit as well as tacit knowledge transfer. The best possible method to overcome the barriers is by following the practices within the framework and by ensuring that sharing of information does not remain as a one-time process. References The link to the company website is - http://www.webwindows.co.uk/ Andersen A.,1996. The KM Assessment Tools: External Benchmarking Version. Houston: The American Productivity and Quality Centre Press Andriessen, D., 2004. Reconciling the rigor-relevance dilemma in intellectual capital research. The Learning Organization, 11(4), pp.393–401 Alavi, M. and Leidner, D., 1999. Knowledge Management Systems: Issues, Challenges, and Benefits. Communication of AIS, 1(14), pp. 36-42. Bock, G., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y. and Lee, J., 2005. Behavioural intention formation in knowledge sharing:examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 87-111. Bratianu, C and Orzea, I., 2010. Tacit knowledge sharing in organizational knowledge dynamics.Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 11(2), pp. 73-75 Collins, H.M., 2001. Tacit Knowledge, Trust and the Q of Sapphire. Social Studies of Science, 31(1), pp. 71-85 Chen, A.N.K. and Edgington, T.M., 2005. Assessing value in organizational knowledge creation: considerations for knowledge workers.MIS Quarterly, 29(2), pp. 279-99. Dalkir, K and Liebowitz, J. 2011. Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: The MIT Press Davenport, T and Prusak, L., 2000. Working Knowledge. Boston : Harvard Business Press De Long, D. W.; Fahey, L., 2000. Diagnosing Cultural Barriers to Knowledge Management.Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), pp. 113-127 Dougherty, V., 1999. Knowledge is about people, not databases.Industrial and Commercial Training,31(7), pp. 262-6 Frappaolo, C., 2006. Knowledge Management. London: Capstone Groff, T; Jones, T.,2003. Introduction to Knowledge Management: KM in Business. Burlington. MA :Butterworth-Heinemann Hislop, D., 2003. Linking human resource management and knowledge management via commitment.Employee Relations, 25(2), pp. 182-202. Jashapara, A., 2003. Cognition, culture and competition: an empirical test of the learning organization.The Learning Organization, 10(1), pp. 31-50. Kogut, B. and Zander, U., 1993. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation.Journal of International Business Studies,. 24(4), pp. 625-46. Lin, H. and Lee, G,. 2004., Perceptions of senior managers toward knowledge-sharing behaviour. Management Decision. 42(1), pp. 108-25. Locke, E., 1991. The motivation sequence, motivation hub, and the motivation core.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), pp. 288-99. Leonard, D., 2007. Knowledge transfer within organizations. In K. Ichijo;I, Nonaka, eds. Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers, Oxford : Oxford University Press, pp. 57-68 Leonard-Barton, D., 1995. The Wellsprings of Knowledge. Cambridge : Harvard Business School Press Macneil, C., 2001. The supervisor as a facilitator of informal learning in work teams. Journal of Workplace Learning, 13(6), pp. 246-53. McDermott, R. and O'Dell, C., 2001. Overcoming Cultural Barriers to Sharing Knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), pp. 76-85. Nonaka, I., and Takeouchi, H., 1995.The knowledge-creating company. NY: Oxford University Press Papoutsakis, H., 2007. Sharing Knowledge in the Organization: a Retrospective Analysis and an Empirical Study. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(2), pp. 231 - 244 Riege, A., 2007. Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(1), pp.48 – 67 Riege, A., 2005. Three-dozen knowledge sharing barriers managers must consider.Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), pp. 18-35 Sawal, M., Alhady, S., Hussin, Z., Noordin, N., and Zakaria, Z., 2011. Individual Behavior toward Knowledge Sharing : An Empirical Study. Institute of Professional Development and Educational Research, 6, pp.133-136 Szulansky, G., 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm.Strategic Management Journal,17(1), pp. 27-43 Tsai, W., 2002. Social structure of ‘coopetition’ within a multiunit organization: coordination,competition, and intraorganizational knowledge sharing, Organization Science, 13(2), 179-91. Van Beveren, J., 2002. A model of knowledge acquisition that refocuses knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(1), pp.18-22 Wasko, M.M. and Faraj, S., 2005. Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledgecontribution in electronic networks of practice.MIS Quarterly, 29(1), pp. 35-57. Wiig, K. M.,1997. Roles of knowledge-based systems in support of knowledge management. In J. Liebowitz & L. C. Wilcox, Knowledge management and its integrative elements (pp. 69-87). New York: CRC Press. Zander, U. and Kogut, B., 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organization capabilities: an empirical test.Organization Science.6(1),pp. 76-92. Read More