Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
Knowledge Management:
A Review of Theawetical Frameworks and Industrial Cases
Hsiangchu Lai, T’sai-hsinChu
Department of Information Management
National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, R.O,C
hcali@mail.nsysu. edu.tw, d8642806@student.nsysu. edu.tw
Abstract
It has been observed that the major competition
advantage for a corporation lies in the corporation’s
knowledge and therefore ‘<knowledgemanagement” has
become a critical issue. In order to accelerate the
research progress in knowledge management, this paper
has integrated previous
knowledge management
frameworks into a comprehensive theoretical framework.
Based on this framework, eight cases involving
knowledge management were collected and analyzed.
The analysis results gave us a clear picture about why,
what and how knowledge management was performed in
these industries. Hopefully, the integrated theoretical
framework
and a whole picture of knowledge
management in practice will serve as ,foundations of
further research and development.
1
Introduction
The society we live in has been gradually turning into
a “knowledge society,”
What is knowledge?
The
organization’s knowledge is professional intellect, such
as know-what, know-how, know-why, and selfmotivated creativity, or experience, concepts, values,
beliefs and way of working that can be shared and
communicated (Davenport, et al., 1996; Quinn, et al.,
1996; Allee, 1997), It has been observed that the major
competitive advantage for a corporation lies in the
corporation’s knowledge (Drncker, 1968; Bell, 1973;
Toffler, 1990, Nonaka, 1994).
Compared with
information systems, knowledge is a kind of asset that is
more difficult to be duplicated, therefore the knowledge
advantage is much more sustainable. The awareness of
the importance of knowledge results in the critical issue
of “knowledge management.” Knowledge management
(KM) is managing the corporation’s knowledge through
the processes of creating, sustaining, applying, sharing
and renewing knowledge to enhance organizational
performance and create value (Allee, 1997; Davenport, et
al., 1998).
Up to now, several knowledge management
frameworks have been proposed, such as Wiig’s model,
Leonard-Barton model, Arthur Andersen and APQC’S
model, and Choo’s model (Holsapple & Joshi, 1999),
Wiig’s model proposes three pillars of knowledge
management based on a broad understanding of
knowledge creation, manifestation, use, and transfer
while the Leonard-Barton model summarizes four core
capabilities and four knowledge building activities
around the core capabilities.
Arthur Andersen and
APQC’S model introduces seven processes, which
operate from a corporation’s knowledge: create, identify,
collect, adapt, organize, apply, and share.
Choo’s
model argues that an organization can use information
strate,gy for sense making, knowledge creation, and
decision making.
Although all of these frameworks focus on how
organizations manage their knowledge they are still
different in some aspects. In order to accelerate the
research progress in knowledge management, it is time to
review these models in detail and integrate them into a
comprehensive fi-amework to serve as a foundation for
further research. It is the first purpose of this paper.
Basecl on such a comprehensive theoretical tlamework,
we cam examine the practical development of knowledge
management in industries. That is, we can have a clear
picture about why, what and how knowledge
management has been performed in industries and related
organizations. Accordingly, the second purpose of this
paper is to proceed case studies.
Currently, we have collected eight cases of
knowledge management projects from the Web. They
are Ernst & Young (Davenport, 1998a), HP consulting
(Marl.iny, 1998), Arthur Andersen (Bukowitz, 1996),
Coopers & Lybrand (Knapp, 1997), Teltech (Davenport,
1998b), HP (Davenport, 1998c), Microsoft (Davenport,
1998d) and IBM (Huang, 1998). We will examine their
differences in why, what, and how they performed
knowledge management,
Hopefhlly, the integrated
theoretical ftamework and the entire of knowledge
management picture will serve as a foundation for fiwther
research and development.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In
Section 2, the definition of knowledge and knowledge
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
management will be reviewed and then a comprehensive
framework of knowledge management will be proposed
by integrating previous frameworks.
Based on the
integrated knowledge management framework, we
examined knowledge management in practice using case
studiesin Section 3. Finally, we end the paper with
conclusions,
separately,
Table! 1. Summary of identified knowledge resources
E’r
L
Leonard-Barton (t995)
Sveiby (1997)
1
2 An Integrated Framework of Knowledge
Management
Petrash (1996)
2.1 Knowledge
Stewart(1997)
The definition of knowledge in Webster’s dictionary
(1976) is “the fact or condition of possessing within
mental grasp through instruction, study, research, or
experience one or more truths, facts, principles, or other
objects of perception,”
In general, knowledge can be
experience, concepts, values, or beliefs that increases an
individual’s capability to take effective action (Alavi &
Leidner, 1999; Allee, 1997), It is important to address
the differences between knowledge, information, and
data. Data is raw numbers and facts, wh,ile information
is a flow of messages or processed data. Knowledge is
actionable information that is possessed in the mind
(Maglitta, 1996; Nonaka, 1994).
In other words,
knowledge is created and organized by the very flow of
information, anchored by the commitment and beliefs of
its holders (Alavi & Leidner, 1999). Furthermore,
Alavi and Leidner (1999) argued that information
becomes knowledge when it is processed in the mind of
an individual and knowledge becomes information when
it is articulated or communicated to others in the form of
text, computer output, speech or written words, etc.
The identified knowledge resources are summarized
in Table 1. Although the terms in literature are different,
we believe the three kinds of intellectual capitals
proposed by Stewart (1997) include every knowledge
resource. The first is human capital which refers to the
capability to solve a problem and is the source of
creativity.
This is similar to the terms “employee
knowledge, “ “employee competencies” and “professional
intellect” proposed by Leonard-Barton (1995), Sveiby
(1997) and Quinn, et al. (1996) separately. This is
relevant to employees and their experience, competencies,
know-what, know-how, know-why, and self-motivated
creativity (Mayo, 1998; Davenport, et. al., 1996).
The second intellectual capital is structural capital,
It is the organizing capability of an organization in order
to satisfy the needs of the market. The organizing
capability refers to organizational structure, processes,
systems, patents, culture, documented experience and
knowledge, and the capability to leverage knowledge
through sharing and transferring (Stewart, 1997;
Holsapple & Joshi, 1999; Mayo, 1998). This is similar
to the terms “internal structures,” “organizational capital”
proposed by Sveiby (1997) and Petrash (1996)
%urce: Modified
resources
IKnowledge
Employee knowledge
Mowledge embedded in physical systems
External structures
Internal structures
Employee competencies
Human capital
Organizational capital
Customer capital
Human capitat
Structure capital
Customer capital
from Holsapple
& Joshi, 1999
I
9
The third kind of intellectual capital is customer
capitad.
It concerns the relationship between an
organization and its stakeholders, such as a supplier or
customer relationship, brands, and reputation (Stewart,
1997; Holsapple & Joshi, 1999), Sveiby (1997) called
it “external structure.”
2.2 Knowledge management
Knowledge has limited value if it is not shared. The
ability to integrate and apply the specialized knowledge
by organization members is fundamental to a firm to
create and sustain a competitive advantage (Grant, 1996).
Knowledge management is managing the corporation’s
knowledge by means of a systemic and organizational
specified process for acquiring, organizing, sustaining,
applying, sharing and renewing both tacit and explicit
knowledge by employees to enhance the organizational
performance and create value (Davenport, et al., 1998;
Allee, 1997; Alavi & Leidner, 1999). It is quite often
that companies, particularly those that compete on the
basis of services and expertise, facilitate the codification,
collection,
integration,
dissemination
of
and
organizational knowledge using computer systems
because they can facilitate communication
and
information sharing (Alavi & Leidner, 1999),
According to Davenport et al.(1 998), there are four
kinds of knowledge management projects. They are (1)
creating knowledge repositories in which knowledge can
be retrieved easily. (2) Improving knowledge access to
facilitate its transfer between individuals. (3) Enhancing
a knowledge environment to conduct more effective
knowledge creation, transfer and use, (4) managing
knowledge as an asset and concern about how to increase
the effective use of knowledge assets over time.
2.3 Knowledge management activities
To date, several knowledge management frameworks
have been proposed from different perspectives.
However, they are similar in many aspects. Before
investigating knowledge management in practice, we
must integrate these knowledge management frameworks
2
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
2
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
into one to serve as an analytical framework for such an
knowledge management, it might involve seven activities.
Table 2 summarizes the seven activities in contrast to the
activities included in previous frameworks.
In the
following, we describe each activity in detail
investigation
All of the activities included in the previous
frameworks were integrated based on the “content” of
the activities rather than the “name” of the activities.
We concluded that when an organization conducts
Table 2. Analysis of the knowledge management activities
!
~lntegratedframework
Activities
I
~lnitiatimr
]GeneMicm
Ihlodeting
II
Itlf?prxitwy lD$#~~n&
lUse
!Exp’O’ngknow’e~
Leonard-Barton (1995)
Nonaka & Takeucti (1995)
Arthur Anderaen (19$3)
Choo(1995)
Szulanski (1996)
Taylor(1996)
,
Sensemaking
Justifying concepts
Cross leveling
knowfedge
Building an
archetype
Identify
Collect
Create
Organize
Share
Apply
implementation
Ramp-up
Knowledge creating
Identify
Create
Index
Filtering
Linking
Capture
Select
store
Construction
Conceptualize
Reflect
Determine
rawirement
Integration
Knowledge use
(atcring, distributing, applying, review)
Knowledge development
(created knowtedge)
Beckman (1997)
Adapt
Decision making
Initiation
Demarest (1997)
Experimenting and
prototyping
Creating
concepts
Acquisition
Davenport & Prusak (1997)
1
‘*1 ,
Sharing tacit
knowfedge
Alavi (1997)
van der Spek & Spijkervet
(1997)
Appraiae and
evaluate
i
Shared &creative
Implementing and integrating new
problem solving
Importing and absorbing methodologies and tools
technologies
lRMrmpect [
Distribution
Application
Share
Apply
sell
;;b:;:;:
Use
Retrospect
Act
Distribute
Capture
Use
awareness of the requirement for change, identifying
knowledge requirements and creating knowledge
management strategies.
(1) Initiation
Initiation requires a plan for change before launching
a project or information system (Lewin, 1952; Schein,
1961; Kolb & Frohman, 1970; Kwon & Zmad, 1987).
This means that, if the organization can create a climate
for change or make their members aware of the need for
they launch the project,
the
change before
implementation process will be smoother. At this stage,
people begin to notice the importance of knowledge
management and start to campaign for it. This is a
concern with an awareness of the need for knowledge
and/or the recognition of strategic capabilities and a
knowledge domain. This can be accom]?lished through
research or identi~ing the knowledge requirements and
Furthermore, knowledge is
core competencies.
valuable only when it is put into an organization’s
Making a strategy of
strategies (Stewart, 1997).
knowledge management is another critical issue in this
stage.
In general, this stage involves creating an
(2) Generation
This stage refers to generating knowledge.
Knowledge can be generated by identifying what
knowledge exists in the organization, who owns it, and
who are thought leaders, or collecting and importing
knowledge and technologies from outside or learning
from existing knowledge.
(3) Modeling
Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) proposed that there is an
appropriate time to conduct a screening process. After
the concepts have been created, the organization should
justify the generated knowledge in order to preserve the
most critical information. This stage is concerned with
justifying and structuring the generated knowledge. For
3
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
3
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
example, we can classify similar knowledge by index.
Then we can link, combine and integrate this knowledge.
In other words, this stage is concerned with organizing
knowledge smd representing it into the knowledge
repository for fiture retrieval,
knowledge, experience and perspective sharing, the
externalization mode occurs after rounds of successive
meaningful “dialogues,” which help the team members
articulate perspectives and tacit knowledge and combine
this with existing data and external knowledge into a
more concrete and sharable specification. Therefore,
tacit knowledge will be converted into explicit
knowledge through the dialogue processes.
The
combination mode is facilitated by coordination between
team members and other sections of the organization as
well as the documentation of existing knowledge.
FinalIv. the internalization mode refers to that ext)licit
know~edge is gradually translated into tacit knowiedge
through participants’ interactions and a trial-and-error
process. The spiral model is presented in Fig. 1.
(4) Repository
The generated knowledge is very precious to the
organization.
In order to maintain the explicit
knowledge and facilitate firther sharing, it is important
to have a repository for maintaining all critical
knowledge. What knowledge and how it should be
placed into the repository are major issues.
(5) Distribution and Transfer
This stage is concerned with how to distribute
knowledge to other people, Knowledge can be made
available to people by establishing human interactive
processes or an information technology infrastmcture.
There are two distribution strategies: push and pull
(Davenport & Prusak, 1997). The push strategy has a
central provider, who decides what information is to be
distributed to whom, while in the pull strategy it is the
user who judges what he needs and is motivated to seek
and retrieve the knowledge.
Tacit
knowledae
Internalization
Socialization
I
Individual Group
OrEanizatio;ql
➤
InternroQni72tinnnl
Fig. 1 Spiral of organizational knowledge creation
Source: Nonaka, 1994, PP. 20
(6)Use
The value of knowledge can only be realized when it
is applied to solving problems. This stage is concerned
with how to utilize knowledge in order to produce
It can be improved through
commercial value.
measurement, symbolic action, the right institutional
context, andl performance evaluations (Davenport &
Prusak, 1997)
The spiral model of organization knowledge creation
is relevant to the activities of generation, distribution &
For example, through
transfer, use, and retrospect.
tacit knowledge sharing, team members can create
well
as
through
socialization
as
knowledge
Knowledge can also be created by
externalization.
combination with existing explicit knowledge, such as
documents (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Furthermore,
when using knowledge, people may create new tacit
knowledge through the process of trial-and-error. This
relates to use and retrospect activities.
(7)Retrospect
This stage is concerned with reviewing the process,
performance and impact of knowledge management and
detecting if new knowledge was created. In order to
keep pace with knowledge creation and management in a
changing environment, retrospect is imperative.
It is not necessary for these seven knowledge
management activities to be a sequential process. Each
activity may have feedback to and from the others.
Different horn other frameworks, Nonaka (1994)
proposed a model which emphases the conversion
between tacit and explicit knowledge in creating
According to Nonaka’s
organizationid knowledge.
Spiral model. (1994), organizational knowledge creation
results from four modes: socialization (tacit-to-tacit),
internalization
(tacit-to-explicit),
externalization
(explicit-to-tacit), and combination (explicit-to-explicit).
The knowledge creation process is a continual cycle,
which consists of a series of shifts between different
modes of knowledge conversion.
While the socialization mode starts from the
interactions of team members, which facilitates tacit
2.4 Influence on the knowledge management
Some fi-ameworks have recognized the influences on
knowledge management.
Holsapple & Joshi (1999)
summarized the influences on knowledge management.
leadership,
technology,
included
culture,
This
adjustment,
goveming/administrating
organizational
knowledge manipulation activities and knowledge
resources, evaluation of knowledge management
activities and/or knowledge resources, employee
motivation and external factors. Arthur Anderson and
AQPC identified influence as an enabler, while LeonardBarton and van der Spek and Spijkervet identified it as
both an enabler as well as a barrier. The influences
proposed in previous frameworks are summarized in
Table 3.
4
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
4
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
Table 3. Identified influences on knowledge management
Culture Leadership Measurement Technology Education Reward and incentive systems Values and norms Others
Arthur Andersen and APQC (1999)
d
van der Spek and Spijkervet (1997)
d
Leonard-Barton( 1995)
d
4
4
d
d
d
d
‘J
4
Szulansld (1996)
r
Holsapple & Jodhi (1999)
2.5
Knowledge
d
d
d
d
management
44
d
E“
d
–
4
-
-
(Davenport, 1998a), HP consulting (Martiny, 1998),
Cooper & Lybrand (Knapp, 1997), Arthur Andersen
(Bukowitz, 1996), Teltech (Davenport, 1998b), HP
(Davenport, 1998c), Microsoft (Davenport, 1998d), and
IBM (Huang, 1998). In this group are four consulting
companies and four high-tech companies. Both types
of companies belong to highly knowledge-intensive
industries. Table 4 provides a brief description of each
case, in terms of its business type, stimulus for the
knowledge management campaign~”and objectives.
framework
Based on the previous discussion, the knowledge
management framework consists of three aspects,
knowledge resources, knowledge management activities,
and knowledge influences. It is shown in Fig.2. The
knowledge resources are targets of the knowledge
management activities. The knowledge management
activi~ies will be enhanced by all kinds of enablers:
Tabla 4. Brief descriptions of the cases
hany
Business
Stimulus
Objectives
Consulting
Competition
Capturing and leveraging
knowtedge from
consulting engagement
Arthur Andersen consulting
(AA)
Competition
Building knowiedge
sharing system
Information
provider
Commercial
opportunity of
providing
knowtedge
Offering access to a
network of technieal
experts
HP
High-tech
To investigate
current Sharing knowtedge
knowtedge
management of
business units
Mcrosoft
WV
L
Ems! &Young
(E &Y)
I__
1Teltech
Fig. 2 knowledge management framework
3
Case studies
k
There are eight cases being analyzed in this section.
Five of the cases were collected from the Web site,
which
http:llwvvw.brint.comJ km/kmindex, htm#or@,
collected relative works of knowledge management,
while Arthur Andersen, HP consulting and Cooper &
Lybrand were collected from UMI database. Only the
cases well described are discussed in this paper.
Because of the time limitation, we didn’t collect more
data about the cases from the other data resources. That
is, all analyses are based on above data. only. In thk
section, first, we have brief descriptions about all cases.
Next, we analyze these cases based OrII the analytical
framework presented in previous section.
3.1 Brief descriptions of the cases
The cases collected include Ernst
&
1
IBM
development
High-tech
To adapt to rapid Identifying and maintaining{
industry change knowledge competence:
Competition
Finding and applying
methodologies to
Knowfedge sharing and
More than half of these companies were stimulated
by competition to begin a knowledge management
campaign. Teltech and HP were two exceptional cases.
Teltech found that providing knowledge is a commercial
opportunity while HP wanted to understand the current
status of knowledge management in it’s business units.
To leverage knowledge by sharing was a very common
objective in consulting companies, such as HP consulting,
Young
5
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
5
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
Cooper & Lybrand, and Arthur Andersen. For example,
Ernst & Young shared knowledge in order to speed up
deliveries to their customers and develop thought
management leadership.
HP consulting wanted to
provide high quality business results to clients and
increase profits by enhancing the knowlec[ge sharing and
leveraging environment.
Knowledge and expertise
were the most important assets to these companies and
therefore how to capture and leverage knowledge were
critical issues. Many of these companies began with
collecting experiences and the best knowledge
management practices.
For companies in the high-tech industry, the
objectives of knowledge management were diverse.
For example, Microsoft and IBM tried to manage their
intellectual capital while HP engaged in proactive
activities to solve some business problems. Although
both Microsoft and IBM tried to manage their
intellectual capital, their main objectives were different.
Microsoft wanted to improve the training of it’s
employees in order to cope with the rqpid changes in
technology while IBM wanted to utilize knowledge more
efficiently and effectively.
Most of the companies
managed knowledge to help internal employees, but
TeReeh built an expert network and provided the names
of ap~?ropriateexperts to their clients who called for help.
3.2 Analysis of the cases
After having an overview of all cases, we analyzed
all cases based on the theoretical framework presented in
theprevious section. Hopefully, this analysis helped us
to develop a whole picture of knowledge management
development in practice and to identifj the related issues
3.2.1 Initiation
Here, the practices related to initiation were analyzed
from four angles: who was responsible, the way to
investigate current statns of knowledge management, the
way to find knowledge management topics and issues,
and whether it has fut~re visio~plan (Table 5),
Table 5. Case comparison: initiation stage
KMtopics&issues identification
Interview
4
d
i
Innovation team
Team
Future
start at the one having the
most immediate result
d
4
‘Workshops
d
i
ICM team
(1) Organizational structure for knowledge management
Similar to CEO, CFO, and CIO, a new position called
Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) was created by Ernst &
Young and Cooper & Lybrand. In addition to CKO,
Ernst & Young also created three knowledge-oriented
formal organizations and two committees. The three
knowledge-oriented formal organizations were the
Center of Business Innovation (CBI) to create new
knowledge, Center of Business Technology (CBT) to
structure knowledge into methods and automated tools,
and Center of Business Knowledge (CBK.) to gather and
The two
store acquired and external knowledge.
committees are the Knowledge Process Committee and
Global Knowledge Committee. In adclition to CKO,
Coopers & Lybrand also had an innovation team.
Meanwhile, IBM created an Intellectual Capital
Management team and Arthur Andersen had team, too.
(2) Warm-up activities
Once the knowledge management is initiated, it is
important to create climate of change and make the
organization members aware of the need of knowledge
management. However, only two cases were reported.
While HP consulting conducted interviews with
managers, consultants and clients to have better
understanding of how they are aware of knowledge
sharing, HP held workshops to understand the existing
knowledge management project within the business units.
Arthur Andersen suggested that it may not be necessary
to have warm-up activities, but should update the
prototype quickly.
(3) KM topics and issues identification
It is very critical o find knowledge management
topics and issues at this stage. To have a pilot program
is the most popular activity. HP consulting, Arthur
Andersen and Microsoft all chose this method in order to
have an incremental process in the initiation stage.
Ernst & Young not only found the topics of knowledge
through strategy forums and research but also accepted
recommendation from the two committees. Knowledge
Process Committee recommended both topics on which
knowledge was necessary and means to integrate the
knowledge into Ernst & Young, while Global
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
6
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
Knowledge Committee addressed the issues across
consulting, auditing and tax. Furthermore, HP has
several independent knowledge management projects
within the Corporate Education Organii~ation in HP’s
personnel function, library function within HP
laboratories, Product Processes Organization (PPO), and
Computer product Organization (CPO).
Where should one start among the rns.ny knowledge
management topics? The criteria adopted by Cooper &
Lybrand included finding the topic which has the most
immediate, tangible result. It should be noticed that this
exploration was based upon the corporate strategies.
domain of knowledge and knowledge focus groups for
narrow topics such as shared corporate services in U.S.
practices. The learning community is another form of
team to gather and generate knowledge, e.g. HP
consulting, IBM and HP. Either the groups or teams
meet face-to-face or through an on-line Information
syste]m.
For example, the Education organization in HP
built an on-line discussion database in which the
educutors could opine the worth of the course materials.
(2) To identify knowledge
Tlhe alternatives for identifying knowledge are very
different. Both Ernst & Young and Cooper& Lybrand
identified experts or thought leaders to acquire
knowledge, while Arthur Andersen and CPO in HP
collected hot questions. Another way was to identi~
knowledge from discussions among experts, e.g. Ernst &
Young and Education Organization in HP, Cooper &
Lybmnd emphasized the importance of quality rather
than the quantity of knowledge and therefore found the
thought leaders of the organization using knowledge
and
maintained
their
knowledge,
audit
then
Furthermore, while HP consulting drew a knowledge
map and HP created expert profiles, Microsoft developed
a structure of competencies and then identified the
competencies required for each job and evaluated each
employee’s competency.
(4) Vision or plan of the future
In order to produce a lasting knowledge management
campaign or to motivate people using a dream for the
fbture, it is important to have a plan or vision of the
future.
While HP consulting initiated knowledge
management with a vision of the future, lErnst & Young
drew a plan, ❑, to reach its vision. IBM suggested that
employees strive toward the same goal with a singularity
of purpose and one set of principles.
3,2,2 Generation
This stage is concerned with the generation of
knowledge. At this stage, the practices of all cases can
be discussed in two aspects (Table 6). The first is about
what kind of team takes charge of the responsibility.
The second is how and whereto identifj knowledge.
3.2.3 Modeling
This stage is concerned with the method for justifying
and structuring the generated knowledge. Because of
the absence of the justification criteria for these cases,
we focused on how the organization structured their
knowledge.
The comparisons among cases are
summarized in Table 7.
Table 6. Case com~arison: generation sta9e
H
I
. .
m“
II
I
Educati-.
Idenbfy subject experts and then keep
Identify knowledge from the discussions
.C4w
“,
“..,”!,!”!
,.4.-”,
”!
=
Table 7. Case comparison: modeling stage
Method
To develop knowtedge archkecture based on Knowledge taxonomy
E&Y
To create new model to evaluate and describe competencies
To structure discussions of learning communities
HP ‘—
F‘m ‘e+nkfiok a process for capturing feedback from learning into
-,,.... ..ries
To keep the c-allato database into business categories
PA
To develop best practices content and diagnose tools
Teltech
To organize knowiedge by thesaurus approach and search by keyword
L
—
To provide sb‘,andardization and methodology to capture and retrieve
IBM
information
!
Create through DiscussIon
7
L~
Collect fre uentl -as,ked uestlons
Develoo structure O(comrzetencies
Identify the Competemdesrequired for each
job
Evaluate the com~etencies of each
MS
IBM
How and from where to identify knowledge
, v,
I
Id
-3
1
L~
n
I
d
Any
The methodologies are quite diverse.
organization may find ways to classify knowledge, For
example, Ernst & Young developed a knowledge
architecture to specify the categories and terms for
searching database and document files, while Teltech
found it might be better to organize knowledge following
the thesaurus approach and searching using the keyword
In addition,
approach instead of categories.
organizations also structured knowledge from team
discussions. For example, HP consulting and Arthur
d:’::own:~d
Identdy intellectual capdals
(1) ‘I’earn
Among all cases, Ernst & Young was the only one to
organize a formal knowledge network for each key
7
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
7
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
Andersen structured the content of the discussion and
lessons learned into anecdotal stories or best practices.
Furthermore, there are still organizations establishing a
modeling fi-amework to standardize and capture
knowledge.
For
example,
IBM
provided
standardization and methodologies for capturing and
retrieving information.
3.2,4 repository
What is kept in repositories?
Repositories hold
much diverse information. Skill and expertise is among
the most popular content. For example, IEmst & Young
maintained consultant skills.
HP and Teltech kept
expert profiles. IBM collected its intellectual capital,
MS held each employee’s competence level and the
required competencies for each job. Best practice was
another popular content, e.g. Ernst & ‘Young, Arthur
Andersen, and IBM. In addition, both Ernst & Young
and the Education Organization of HP maintained
discussions between it’s learning communities while
HP’s CPO and Teltech collected FAQs. However,
instead of maintaining the knowledge of experts, Teltech
maintained only the names and locations of experts.
All of these comparisons are summarized in Table 8,
Table 8. Case comparison: repository stage
Vlscu.Best
ssion
E&Y
HP consulting
C&L
AA
Education i
~actice
FAQ Skill/expertise
Anecdotal stories
I.ibrary of best thinkin$
Call categories
Training document
d
Library
HP
CPO
I
MS
Expert profiles
Product development
knovdedge
PPO
Teltech
Others
Consultant skill
d
4
Expert profile
I.iterature &
~ourws
vendc
Comr)etenca
Ieveli of each
job
Competence structure
Rating database
of employee’s
Lotus Notes also provided web interface. In addition to
the Web and Lotus Notes, many other applications were
adopted, such as GroupWare in HP consulting, Connex,
Knowledge Link and HP Network News in HP
consulting, KnowledgeScope in Teltech, ICW AssetWeb
collaboration systems in IBM.
Table! 9. Case comparison:
stage
distribution
Channel of transfer
Human
IT
Platform &System
E&Y
HP consulting
C&L
Current Lotus Notes
Future Web
GroupWare
& transfer
d
4
4
Intranet
Education Lotus Notes
Web
Library
Connex
Web
Hp ppo
Knowledge Link
Lotus Notes
Cpo
HP Network News
Lotus Notes
Teltech
4
Knowtedge%ope
MS
On-line system
Lotus Notes
IBM
d
ICW AssetWeb collaboration system
d
AA
!
t
i
d
d
d
4
d
(2)Channel of transfer
It was not surprising that all companies shared their
knowledge through IT infrastructure because IT is an
important enabler of knowledge sharing, In addition to
IT imk-astructure, human infrastructure is also important.
Explicit knowledge can be stored and transferred through
IT. However, tacit knowledge can be shared only
For example, HP
through human interaction,
consulting suggested better performance might result
from sharing knowledge through discussions within
learning teams even though explicit knowledge could be
kept h-sthe repository. Similarly, Teltech suggested that
people were effective guides to information and
knowledge and therefore it was better to provide the
names of experts and let these experts interact with their
clients rather than allowing the client to access the
repository directly.
3.2.6 Use
3,2.5 Distribution & Transfer
The fundamental method for leveraging lknowledge was
to share knowledge through distribution and transfer.
These cases revealed different ways to distribute
knowledge. The distribution and transfer of knowledge
is depicted in Table 9.
(1) Platform & systems
It seemed that Lotus Notes was the most popular
However, the Web was
platform in these cases.
recognized as the main stream in the future. In fact,
This stage is concerned with how to use knowledge
to produce commercial value. Most of the cOmpanieS’
objectives involved leveraging knowledge by knowledge
sharing, i.e. using a little knowledge to generate greater
value.
Most of the consulting organizations used
knowledge to speed up the process of providing
consulting solutions, such as Ernst & Young, HP
consulting, Coopers & Lybrand, Arthur Andersen (AA).
In addition, some organizations structured intellectual
capital for reuse and transfer, such as HP, Microsoft and
IBM,
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
8
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
3.2.7 Retrospect
Retrospect is an important activity for improving
knowledge management. However, among the cases,
studied in this work, only Arthur Andersen reported this
kind of activity.
Arthur Andersen evaluated the
satisfaction of clients through formal surveys, informal
assessment, and analyzed the records of user requests
f%omthe support hot line to improve their system and
knowledge content.
changes in culture may create challenges. In Ernst &
Young, for example, a new knowledge management
approach, which provided more conceptual-oriented
knowledge, allowed consultants to be more flexible in
imprcwising an approach to suit each particular client.
However, it found that it is not easy to change the
habitual searching behavior of consultants.
To
managers, the challenge was how to change the culture,
Further, some organizations suggested integrating a
reward system into the knowledge management project.
For example, the HP Education Organization and IBM
suggested that rewarding the submission and/or reuse of
knowledge could encourage people. Cooper & Lybrand
suggested that the reward should be based on who shared
best, :notwho knew best,
To Ernst & Young, HP consultant, and IBM, the
values and norms of the organization were other
important enablers. These companies created norms by
establishing a vision.
For example, HP promoted
knowledge sharing using a pilot test and made others
eager to share knowledge as well as leverage others’
experience to deliver more value to customers,
In
addition, Ernst & Young and HP consulting suggested
that h>adership commitment was an important enabler.
In addition to the management system, technologies,
such as Lotus Notes, intranet, e-mail, and linked
telephone systems, were enablers of knowledge
With the increase in the use of
management.
knowledge management systems, challenges also
increased For example, Ernst & Young found that due to
the rapid technological changes, the requirements of
technological support grew with increased use.
At
Teltech, knowledge came from different resources, and
therefore the challenge was to develop sofiware to
integrate this knowledge fi-om varying sources.
Technology cannot solve everything. Some types of
consulting knowledge, such as building a relationship
with clients, which is tacit and difficult to extract from
the minds of people cannot be easily supported by
technology.
3.3
Influence on the knowledge management
In this section, we will discuss the influences on
knowledge management revealed in the cases and
summarized in Table 10. These influences can be
reviewed from two aspects, managerial systems and
technology.
‘y-m
Table 10. Influence of the cases
Mana erials stem
~ulture Leader- Measure- Education
Ship
ment
r F&Y
4
v“
d
Reward Value Tachnology
and
and
motivation norms
44
As shown in Table 10, it is obvious that the
measurement of knowledge management performance or
people was the moat popular mechanism that influenced
knowledge management. For example, )Ernst & Young
attempted to measure the effectiveness of knowledge
management by assessing number of telephone and
computer-based request for its service in comparison to
sales, while Arthur Andersen measured performance by
assessing user satisfaction through both formal and
informal approaches.
Some organizations also
developed criteria to measure the performance of people.
IBM, for example, evaluated consultants based on their
contributions to and use of knowledge, while Microsoft
defined a model for supervisors to assist in the evaluation
of competency.
Culture, reward and motivation and value and norms
were the next three popular knowledge management
enablers. The employee culture of HP produced open
cubicles in which most were shared by engineers, who
For
enjoyed learning and sharing their knowledge.
Microsoft, its key strategy was to hire Ihigh competent
people because of facing the fast-changing nature of the
This culture enabled a knowledge
environment.
management project to measure employees’ competence
and then link those employees with the correct
educational program. Although culture is an enabler,
4
Conclusion
It has been observed that the major competitive
advantage for a corporation lies in the corporation’s
knowledge and therefore “knowledge management” has
become a critical issue. In order to accelerate the
progress of research in knowledge management, this
paper has integrated previous knowledge management
frameworks into a comprehensive theoretical framework.
Based on this fi-amework, we produced a clear picture
about why, what and how knowledge management has
been performed in industries through analyzing eight
cases. Hopefilly, this integrated theoretical framework
and the whole picture of knowledge management in
practice will serve as a foundation for further research
and development.
9
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
9
Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2000
However. there are some limitations in this studv.
First, we could not find all of the answers to o~r
concerns because all cases were based on second-hand
materials and the analysis of each case was therefore
limited. In other words, the limited data may not mirror
all of the knowledge management related activities,
hence the limited analysis result, Second, all eight
cases were based on highly knowledge-intensive
companies and therefore knowledge management done
in other industries might be different. Third, because of
the convenient samples provided by these cases, the
results of this case study cannot be generalized for other
information management sitnations.
There were some challenges reported in these cases,
e.g. the rapid changes in technology and culture.
It
would be worthwhile to challenge
fhture.
Furthermore, in these cases,
knowledge modeling methodologies,
retrospect processes of knowledge
these issues in the
few descriptions of
knowledge use and
management imply
other future research area. This paper may provide
several starting points for these future researches.
5
Reference
Allee, V., The knowledge evolution expanding,organizational
intelligence, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997
Alavi, M., KPMG Peat MarWickU.S.: One Gain Brain,
Harvard Business School (Case), July 11,1997
Alavi, Maryam& Leidner,Dorothy,” KnowledgeManagement
Systems:EmergingViewsand Practivesform the Field:’
Proceedingsoh the 32nd HawaiiInternationalConference
on System Sciences, 1999
ArthurAndersenand The AmericanProductivityand Quality
Center,The knowledgeManagementAssessmentTool:
External BenchmarkingVersion,Winter1996
Bell, D., The Coming of Post-industrial Society Forecasting,
New York, Basic Books, 1973
Bukowitz, W., “Arthur Andersen: In the Know: How Arthur
Andersen Does It;’ CIO, April 15, 1996,
http://www.cio. coro/archive/O4l596_ins.hlml
Choo, C. W., The knowing Organization: How organization
Use Information to Constmct Meaning, Create Knowledge,
and Make Decisions, The Knowing Organization, Oxford
University Press, December 1997.
Davenport, T. H. et al., “Improving Knowledge Work
Processes:’ Sloan Management Review, Summer 1996, pp.
53-65
Davenport, T. H. et. al., ” Successful Knowledge Management
Projects;’ Sloan Management Review, Winter 1998, pp.
443-57
Davenport, T. H., “knowledge management at Ernst & Young,
1997; http:/hvww.bus.utexas.edu/kmarr/E&Y.htm,
February 01, 1998a
Davenport, T. H., “Teltech: The Business of Knowledge
Management Case Study ;’
http:/Avww.bus.utexas.edrdkmarrhelcase.htm, February 01,
1998b
Packard, Early 1996~
http://www.bus.utexas. edu/kman/HPcase. htm, February 01,
1998~
Davenport, T. H,, “Knowledge Management at Microsotl,
1997: http://www.bus.utexas. edrr/kmarr/microsoft.htm,
February 01, 1998d
Davenport, T.H. & Prnsak, L., Information Ecology Mastering
the Information and Knowledge Environment, Oxford,
New York, 1997
Demarest, M, “Understanding Knowledge Management;’ Long
Range Planning, Vol. 30, No. 3, 1997, pp. 374-384
Drucker, P., The Age of Discontinuity Guidelines to Our
Changing Society, New York, Harper & Row, 1968
Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D., “Description and Analysis of
E~isting Knowledge Management Frameworks:’
Proceedings oh the 32nd Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences, 1999
Huang, K. T., “IBM: Capitalizing Collective Knowledge for
Winning, Execution and Teamwork: Knowledge
Management at IBM;
http://www.ibm,com/services/articles/intelcap.html,
December 1998
Leonard-Barton, D., Wellsprings of knowledge, Harvard
Business School Press, 1995
Knapp, E., “The Art of Knowledge Management ~’
Computerworld, March 17, 1997
Maglitta, J, “Marten Up!” Computerworld, VO1.29,No.23, June
4, 1995, pp.84-86
Martiny, M., “knowledge management at HP consulting;’
Organizational Dynamics, New York, Autumn 1998
Mayo, A., “Memory bankers: people management, Vol. 4, No.
2, January 1998, pp.
35-38
Nonaka, Iknjiro, “A Dynamic Theory of Organizational
Knowledge Creation:’ Organization Science, Vol. 5, No. 1,
Febrnary 1994, pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, Iknjiro, & Takerchi, Hirotaka, The Knowledge
Creating Company, Oxford, New York, 1995
Quinn, J. B. et al,, “Managing Professional Intellecfi Making
the Most of Best: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74,
March-April 1996, pp. 71-80
Stewart, T. A., Intellectual capital: the New Wealth of
Organizations, Bantam Books, 1997
Sveiby, K., The New Organization Wealth, San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler, 1997
Taylor, R., Unisys Decision Support Systems Programrne, City
Gate London, Feb 1996
Toffler, A., Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth and Violence at the
Edge of21 st Century, New York, Bantam Books, 1990
van der Spek, R, & Spijkervet, A., “Knowledge Management:
Dealing Intelligently with Knowledge: Knowledge
Management and Its Integrative Elements, Liebowitz, J. &
Wilcox, L.C. cd., CRC Press, New York, pp. 31-59
W]ig, K. M., “Roles of Knowledge-Based Systems in Support
of Knowledge Management,” Knowledge Management and
Its Integrative Elements, Liebowitz, J. & WIICOX,
L. C. cd.,
CRC Press, New York, pp. 69-87
Davenport, T. H., “Knowledge Management atHewlett-
0-7695-0493-0/00 $10.00 (c) 2000 IEEE
10