Knowledge Management
in Practice: An
Exploratory Case Study
by Shan L. Pan & Harry Scarbrough
Presented by: Jonathan Cullum
Kelly Powell &
LaPortia James
Case Study of Buckman Laboratories
Introduction: Researchers have outlined the
theoretical case for knowledge management.
Claim: with product life-cycles shortening and
technologies becoming more imitable,
organizational knowledge emerges as a
competitive advantage by virtues of its tacitness,
difficult in being copied, and immobility.
Problem: Difficult to relate to business
Partly due to the very qualities of tacitness
which lend this importance is an elusive
item for practitioners.
Absence of a framework for managing
knowledge is becoming a more critical
problem for managers
An attempt to shed some light
2 Specific objectives:
Develops an analysis of knowledge management
from an integrated socio-technical perspective.
Study uses case study of Buckman Laboratories
to examine the dynamics of successful
knowledge management practices, and to
consider the extent to which these practices can
be used by other companies.
Towards a Socio-technical Perspective on
Knowledge Management
In proposing the socio-technical perspective there are
some considerations.
1- number of studies recognizes holistic view (more than
sum of parts) between social and technical factors.
2- refocuses attention on the work process itself
3- compatibility between social and technical
subsystems is the key to meeting the needs of
customers
4- provides a suitably synthetic analytical space to
consider all factors in a even-handed way.
Socio-technical perspective (aka STS) defined
Describes a method of viewing
organizations emphasizing the interrelated
functioning of the social and technological
subsystems of the organization and the
relation of the organization as a whole to
the environment in which it operates.
Analyzing Knowledge Management
Socio-technical thinking originated from
the “systems perspective” on organization.
More recently analyses stress the interplay
between technology and the organization.
Relevancy
Need to distinguish between different
types of knowledge- tacit and explicit
Explicit knowledge is systematic and hard
data.
Tacit knowledge- resides in the heads of
those working
Structuring of Knowledge
Management Systems
Three major layers or interaction:
Infrastructure: hardware/software enabling
contact
Infostructure: formal rules governing
exchange of network
Infoculture: stock of background
knowledge
Method of Research
Qualitative approach




Single Case Study
Semi-structured Interviews
On-site Observations (6 Weeks)
Secondary Data
Case Study:
Buckman Laboratories
Organizational Background
Manufacturer of specialist chemicals
for aqueous industrial systems
$300 million company (Sept 1999)
International – 102 countries
1000 specialty chemicals
K’NETIX®
Customer knowledge
Competitive intelligence
Process knowledge
Product knowledge
Corporate Knowledge
Factual corporate knowledge


Technological know-how
Market know-how
Behavioral corporate knowledge

Social interaction of individuals and
organizations
Proprietary knowledge

Codified
KM Development
Historical (1945-1991)



International expansion
Problem-solving
Knowledge vision
Transformative (1992-1998)


Knowledge sharing
Organizational learning
Analysis of Infrastructure
Knowledge Architecture



Elements: humans, organizational entities,
documents, books, other knowledge
repositories, and operating entities
Process: Knowledge Management Transfer
Department
K’Netix®: connecting knowledge suppliers
and users worldwide
Organizational Knowledge Repository
(Memory)

K’Netix®: electronic forums, bulletin boards,
virtual conference rooms, libraries, and e-mail
Analysis of Infostructure
Knowledge sharing process
Customer Questions/
Concerns
Posted to forum
Technical-sales People/
Field-based associates
Forum Specialist
Volunteer Section
Leaders
Subject matter expert
Analysis of Infostructure
Global Access

Region-focus Forums
TechForum (US)
EuroForum (Europe)
LatinoForum (Latin America)
AAAForum (Asia, Australia, & Africa)
Outcome
At Buckman, the system encouraged trust
and far ranged thinking.
Many associates credit Bob Buckman with
getting managers thinking 5 to 10 years
ahead rather than just 60 days.
Conclusion
The Buckman case study shows an
example of how one organization
successfully developed its systemic
capability to effectively share tacit
knowledge from on-going practice and
created organizational knowledge for
future events.