{"id":90,"date":"2010-12-23T08:16:43","date_gmt":"2010-12-23T01:16:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/erich1200965203.blog.binusian.org\/?p=90"},"modified":"2011-01-07T06:58:34","modified_gmt":"2011-01-06T23:58:34","slug":"knowledge-management-strategies-that-create-value","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/erich1200965203.blog.binusian.org\/index.php\/2010\/12\/23\/knowledge-management-strategies-that-create-value\/","title":{"rendered":"Knowledge management strategies that create value"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/span><\/p>\n

A firm that had invested millions of dollars in a \t\tstate-of-the-art intranet intended to improve knowledge sharing got some bad \t\tnews: Employees were using it most often to retrieve the daily menu from the \t\tcompany cafeteria. The system was barely used in day-to-day business \t\tactivities.<\/p>\n

Few executives would argue with the premise that knowledge \t\tmanagement is critical\u2014but few know precisely what to do about it. There are \t\tnumerous examples of knowledge-management programs intended to improve \t\tinnovation, responsiveness and adaptability that fall short of expectations. \t\tResearchers at the Accenture Institute for Strategic Change have been exploring \t\tthe roots of the problem and have developed a method to help executives make \t\teffective knowledge management a reality in their organizations.<\/p>\n

Much of the problem with knowledge management today lies in \t\tthe way the subject has been approached by vendors and the press. Knowledge \t\tmanagement is still a relatively young field, with new concepts emerging \t\tconstantly. Often, it is portrayed simplistically; discussions typically \t\trevolve around blanket principles that are intended to work across the \t\torganization. For example, companies are urged to emulate knowledge-management \t\tleaders such as British Petroleum and Skandia. And most knowledge-management \t\tinitiatives have focused almost entirely on changes in tools and technologies, \t\tsuch as intranets and Lotus Notes.<\/p>\n

These approaches have little relevance for executives \t\tcontending with the day-to-day reality of running a company. Knowledge \t\tmanagement is complex and multifaceted; it encompasses everything the \t\torganization does to make knowledge available to the business, such as \t\tembedding key information in systems and processes, applying incentives to \t\tmotivate employees and forging alliances to infuse the business with new \t\tknowledge. Effective knowledge management requires a combination of many \t\torganizational elements\u2014technology, human resource practices, organizational \t\tstructure and culture\u2014in order to ensure that the right knowledge is brought to \t\tbear at the right time.<\/p>\n

Many companies have implemented sophisticated intranets, \t\tcommon repositories and other systems, largely ignoring the complex cultural \t\tissues that influence the way people behave around knowledge. By and large, \t\tthose companies have seen little improvement in their ability to manage \t\tknowledge. Too often, companies implement state-of-the-art technology and then \t\tdiscover that culture and behavior are slow to change.<\/p>\n

In short, simplistic solutions and “one-size-fits-all” \t\tapproaches leave executives with little in the way of practical advice about \t\thow to transform the entire knowledge-management system. What’s more, this \t\tfuzziness makes it difficult for executives to see a clear link between their \t\tknowledge-management investments and business value.<\/p>\n

To help executives, the Institute has developed a framework \t\tthat associates specific knowledge-management strategies with specific \t\tchallenges that companies face. This Knowledge Management Framework is based on \t\tthe premise that the focus should be placed on the way knowledge is used to \t\tbuild the critical capabilities a company needs in order to succeed\u2014on the core \t\tprocesses and activities that enable it to compete. Enhancing a bank’s know-how \t\tin evaluating credit risk, for example, should result in reduced loan losses; \t\timproving a consumer products company’s understanding of customer preferences \t\tshould increase its percentage of successful new products.<\/p>\n

The framework begins by assessing and categorizing the way \t\twork is done in the core process. Work can be evaluated along two dimensions. \t\tFirst is the level of interdependence involved\u2014that is, the degree to which \t\tindividuals and organizations need to collaborate and interact. Second is the \t\tcomplexity of work involved\u2014the degree to which employees need to apply their \t\tjudgment and interpret a variety of information. Using these two factors, the \t\tInstitute has identified four distinct categories of work, or “work models”:<\/p>\n