UHK - Mckinsey Case Study - Rivadávia - March 2013
HBS -‐ Case Study McKinsey & Company: Managing Knowledge and Learning Bartle=, C. A Dr. Rivadávia C. Drummond de Alvarenga Neto 2013
The Case Method -‐ HBS • The case method is not only the most relevant and pracDcal way to learn managerial skills, it’s exciDng and fun! • Simply stated, the case method calls for discussion of real-‐ life situaDons that business execuDves have faced. • As you review their cases, you will put yourself in the shoes of the managers, analyze the situaDon, decide what you would do, and come to class prepared to present and support your conclusions. Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
How Cases Help You Learn • Cases will help you sharpen your analyDcal skills, since you must produce quanDtaDve and qualitaDve evidence to support your recommendaDons. • In class discussions, each parDcipant brings to bear his or her own experDse, experience, observaDon, and analysis. This diversity of opinion from diﬀering perspecDves oﬀers real opportuniDes for shared learning. • Perhaps the most important beneﬁt of using cases is that they help managers to learn how to determine what the real problem is and to ask the right quesDons. Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
How to prepare a case? • PART I -‐ INDIVIDUAL PREPARATION • the case method calls ﬁrst for you, working individually, to carefully read and to think about each case. • (Typically about two hours of preparaDon Dme for each case are provided in the schedule.) Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
I. Read the professor’s assignment/discussion quesKons. II. Read the ﬁrst few paragraphs, then skim the case. III. Next, read the case more carefully, underlining text and wriKng margin notes as you go. IV. Note the key problems or issues on a pad of paper. Go through the case again. V. Sort out relevant consideraKons for each problem area. VI. Do appropriate qualitaKve and quanKtaKve analysis. VII. Develop a set of recommendaKons, supported by your analysis of the case data. Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
How to prepare a case? • PART II – DISCUSSION GROUP • Discussion groups are characterized by intense interacDon that deepens the parDcipants’ understanding beyond that gained through individual analysis. • This interacDon includes dialogue, shared experDse, and construcDve argument. • Many parDcipants ﬁnd that they not only deepen their understanding of the material, but that they also experience an increase in their comfort level by sharing their ideas and insights later in the large in-‐class discussion. Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
Beneﬁts of a Discussion Group • Be=er understanding of the material • PracDce in teaching and learning from others • OpportuniDes to “test-‐market” ideas and opinions prior to the larger in-‐class discussion • Ability to get to know a handful of people more deeply Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
Discussion Group Best PracDces • One parKcipant is designated as the discussion leader (Facilitator, NOT the CEO!) • AZendance is 100 percent. • All members parKcipate in the discussion and share responsibility for content. • Groups accept diﬀering perspecKves as normal, desirable, and inevitable. Don’t try to reach consensus. • Groups are disciplined, focused, and use Kme wisely. • Members accept the responsibility to learn and teach. Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
PART III – The Classroom Experience • Now… it’s a GO TO MARKET! (I mean, CLASSROOM!) • PASTURES X TAKEAWAYS • COLD CALLS x WARM CALLS • Please, Raise Your Hand! • GRADING at HBS • And now relax. Take a deep breath. Prepare to laugh, learn, and enjoy the wonderfully sDmulaDng classroom environment Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
HBS Learning Best PracDces ① Prepare! ② Discuss the case with others before class! ③ ParKcipate! ④ Share your related experience! ⑤ Constantly relate the topic and case at hand to your business. ⑥ AcKvely apply what you are learning to your own speciﬁc management situaKons, past and future. ⑦ Note what clicks. ⑧ Mix it up! ⑨ Work hard, play hard! Source; GCPCL 2010, HBS
Create your own way! • DescripDon of the Company • Problems • SoluDon • Results • Link to Theory!
BUILDING A QUALITATIVE RESEARCHMETHODOLOGICAL STRATEGY TO UNDERSTANDKNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT: MULTIPLE CASE STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSITION OF AN INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODEL Rivadávia C. Drummond de Alvarenga Neto – FDC, Brazil Beatriz Vladares Cendón – UFMG, Brazil Ricardo Rodrigues Barbosa -‐ UFMG, Brazil ECRM, Malta, 2009
1)THE RESEARCH’S RATIONALE AND MAIN RESULTS• This paper describes the qualitative research methodology utilized in an investigation on how Brazilian firms understood, defined, implemented, evaluated and measured their Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives, what were their motives and what they expected to achieve with such initiatives;• Previous quantitative works in the Brazilian organizational context;• Two presuppositions: i. KM x IM/IT (information reductionism) ii. KM Conceptual Integrative Mapping Proposition (FIGURE 1) ->• The Results: i. Presuppositions confirmed; ii. A Major Shift: • Knowledge as such cannot be managed, it is just promoted or stimulated through the creation of ba or enabling contexts. • From KM to the management of the enabling contexts in Knowledge Organizations
2)RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES• An investigation method should include theoretical foundations, and a set of techniques which allow the understanding of reality and the creative potential of the researcher. In qualitative research, as well as in quantitative ones, the set of techniques, although secondary to theory, is important to guarantee the soundness of the conclusions.• This section presents the procedures and techniques prescribed by the literature on case studies as well as the methodological options chosen in this research which are summarized in TABLE 1.
TABLE 1 Qualitative research strategy (Source: developed by the authors, 2009) COMPONENTS METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES1) Problem approach qualitative research2) Research strategy case studies applied to organizational and managerial studies3) Components of the research project research questions, assumptions, units of analysis, logic connecting data to propositions, criteria for interpreting the findings4) Criteria for assessing the quality of the research project construct validity (MSE) external validity (replication logic – literal/theoretical) and reliability5) Typology of the case study multiple case studies with incorporated units of analysis6) Case studies in three large organizations (allowed control of Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira - CTC (primary sector),environmental variation) - operating in Brazil – one of each sectorof the economy – that have implemented Knowledge Management SIEMENS Brazil (secondary sector) and PricewaterhouseCoopers - PwC Brazil (tertiary sector)7) Units of analysis, sub-units of analysis and units of observation project or process of KM; organization and their members.8) Data collection sources documentary sources (printed and electronic files), semi- structured interviews and direct observation9) Analysis of field data collected data reduction, display and verification/conclusions based on inferences from evidences or premises.10) Final considerations validation or refutation of the research propositions, proposal of new knowledge and recommendations for future studies
Data Collection Data Display Data Reduction Conclusions: Drawing/Verifying Figure 3Components of data analysis: interactive model (Source: MILES & HUBERMAN, 1984).
3) FIELD RESEARCH AND DATA ANALYSIS• The case study protocol included preliminary information, semi-structured interview programs and notes pertaining to documental research and direct observation.• A pilot study was carried out at Siemens do Brazil to test the research instruments used in the semi-structured interviews, documental research and direct observation. Proved valuable: alowwed for the refinement of data collection tools.• All 17 scheduled interviews were conducted and resulted in approximately 530 pages of transcriptions and 35 hours of recording time. The interviews lasted around one hour and 45 minutes and there were about five interviews in each organization.• In addition to semi-structured interviews and direct observation, paper and electronic documents of various kinds were analyzed (.doc., .xls, .ppt, .pdf, intranet screens, e-mails, internet sites & links, pictures, videos, etc.)• Approximately 1600 pages of documents were gathered and analyzed, of which approximately 12% were discarded as they did not suit the research purposes.• On the whole, the field research produced about 2150 pages which later went through analysis and reduction processes. Four reduction cycles (Miles & Huberman, 1984) were needed to incorporate the data collected into the body of the dissertation, as shown in TABLE 6.• Eight matrices or reduction tables were produced based on the categories of analysis.
TABLE 6 ReducKon Processes – Data analysis and ﬁeldwork Reduction processes From (pages) To (pages) 1st 2150 180 2nd 180 100 3rd 100 52 4th 52 final text Source: Alvarenga Neto, 2005.
TABLE 7 Data reducKon matrix of ﬁeld data collected by category of analysis Source: Alvarenga Neto, 2005, 2008. 6) SCENARIOS – PERSPECTIVES – KM BEST ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES 1. Difficulties, problems and obstacles confronted in the implementation of KM; what is the current situation? 2. Focus of change. 3. KM is shared in any closed circle of actors in the external organizational environment (customers, suppliers)? 4. Best organizational practices of KM. ORG. SUMMARY OF THE COLLECTED DATA – FIELDWORK 1. (i) Cultural and behavioral; (ii) “[...] there are people that do not know how to share. They believe that knowledge is power. “ (Applications engineer) Siemens 2. (i) Culture and behavior; (ii) “[...] organization in business units (mini-companies concept), the challenge is to create synergy among businesses.” (Regional director) 3. Yes. (i) Via technology portal of some communities of practice; (ii) “[...] partially; PARTNERSCOM, virtual discussion forum with customers and competitors.” (Human resources manager) (iii) “[...] PARTNERSCOM – partnership development program of Siemens Mobile to develop applications for mobile phones such as games, vending- machines, telemetry, among others.” (regional director) 4. (i) Chats, SHARENET that brings concrete results, communities of practice, competitive intelligence; (ii) creation of sites and spaces (real and virtual) for the sharing, exchange, and search for information and learning; (iii) “HAPPY-HOUR OF KNOWLEDGE for motivation, information dissemination, learning, exchange and sharing.
TABLE 8 Model of Analysis Source: Alvarenga Neto, 2005, 2008 OBSERVATIONS CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS1) Motivation for KM2) Organizational understanding anddefinition of KM3) Aspects and approaches considered byKM4) Scenarios, perspectives, bestorganizational practices of KM5) Sensemaking issues Environmental scanning, competitive intelligence, competitor intelligence, environmental typologies among others (a) Strategic management of information: information on internal records, information6) Issues concerning knowledge creation: systems and information architectures, issues concerning the organization and treatment of information: collection, indexing, storage, recovering, selective dissemination and taxonomies, among others; (b) organizational learning and communities of practice (real and virtual); (c) organizational knowledge (generation codification/coordination and transference of knowledge); (d) management of intellectual capital (human capital, structural capital and customer capital)7) Issues concerning decision making Information sharing (policies, practices, barriers, behavior and organizational culture,8) Issues concerning the enabling context strategies, layout and meeting places for knowledge promotion and information sharing, managerial styles and policies of alignment between knowledge management and business strategy: (management models and architectures, essential competences, environment and enabling conditions, knowledge vision); uses and users of information within organizations.
4) CONCLUSIONS• This article described the qualitative methodology used in a research study that proposes an integrative conceptual model of KM.• For such purpose the construction of a sound theoretic-conceptual structure and consistent research methodology were paramount for the discovery of reliable answers for the questions which guided the study.• Research assumptions were confirmed.• The proposition of the integrative conceptual model of KM, based on the three case studies, is supported by the recommendations of Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2001), who assert that case studies are valid for building theories and models as long as they abide by the rigorous methodological procedures they recommend.• The main contribution of the research – a proposal of an integrated conceptual modeling of KM is described in Alvarenga Neto (2005, 2008).
McKINSEY & COMPANY • What is McKinsey? • When was it founded and by whom? • Any use of external data? • What does Exhibit 1 tell us?
McKINSEY & COMPANY • Founded – (1926) • By – University Chicago Professor – James McKinsey • External data – Site, Wikipedia, Press Notes, Newspapers – Mission, Guiding Principles – Exhibit 2 – What does Exhibit 1 tell us?
Assignment QuesDons • 1) Why is Knowledge at the core of MCkinseys Business? • 2) The case provide a broad view of problems faced by three managing directors -‐ Ron Daniel, Fred Gluck and Rajat Gupta. What kind of problems did each of them face? • 3) Think about the three mini-‐cases presented in the case study. Judging them all, do you think McKinsey was eﬀecDve in its long-‐term process?
Ron Daniel • Problems faced? • SoluDons and Decision-‐Making?
Ron Daniel • SoluDons – A Full Time Director of Traning – New Commitment and Mission Update • “Serve Clients AND Train/Develop its Consultants” Structural Changes – matrix organizaDon – T-‐Shaped Consultants – More FuncDonal ExperDse • K in 2 areas – Strategy – OrganizaDon • RESULTS – Conﬁdence was restored! – New Group to arDculate the ﬁrm’s exisDng K in the organizaDon arena (Tom Peters)
Fred Gluck (not MD yet) • Came from Bell Labs – “wanted to bring an equally sDmulaDng intellectual environment to McKinsey” • CreaDon of Centers of Competence (Daniel was sDll MD) – K Development was CORE, NOT Peripheral! – InsDtuDonalized, NOT temporary! – Responsibility of Everyone – GOALS? • “Develop ExperDse + Renewal of the Firm Intellectual Resources” • SNOWBALL MAKING (pracDce development) X SNOWBALL THROWING (client development)
• “Building a K Infrastructure – “capture and leverage the learning” – Resistance – Launching of a KM Project (1987) • Common Database of K • Hire of a Full Time Coordinator for each PracDce Area • New Career Path • Tools & Managerial PracDces? – FPIS (Firm PracDce InformaDon System) – PDN (PracDce Development Network) – KRD (Knowledge Resource Directory)
FRED GLUCK (MD – 1988) • Problems Faced? • SoluDons and Decision-‐Making?
FRED GLUCK (MD – 1988) • Second Phase for KM – A ConstrucDonist PerspecDve • “[….] K is only valuable when its between the ears of consultants and applied to clients problems.” • SHIFT IN FOCUS – From developing K to BUILDING INDIVIDUAL & TEAM CAPABILITY – NEW ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE (EXHIBIT 4) – From “DISCOVER-‐CODIFY-‐DISSIMINATE” to “ENGAGE-‐ EXPLORE-‐APPLY-‐SHARE” – ET (Engagement team) to CST (Client Service Team) • “to broaden the classic model of a single partner owning a client to a GROUP of PARTNERS WITH SHARED COMMITMENT TO EACH CLIENT” – DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE CAREER PATHS (EXHIBIT 6)
3 MINI-‐CASES PETERS -‐ SYDNEY BRAY – TELECOM EUROPE DULL – B-‐TO-‐B Access to talent, experDse Transfer ExperDse AlternaDve Career Track One ﬁrm culture Documented Learning Building Networks Info-‐Transfer Only Building Networks DiﬃculDes of specialist career
RAJA -‐ GUPTA • “since MarDn Bower, every leadership group has had a commitment to leave the ﬁrm stronger than it found it. It’s a fundamental value of McKinsey to invest in the future of th ﬁrm” • 4-‐Prongued Strategy – CreaDon of new channels, forums and mechanisms for K development and organizaDonal learning (PracDce Olympics) – Emerging Issues important to CEOs – McKinsey Global InsDtute (more af a research agenda) • Put yourselves in the shoes of GUPTA, WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
RESULTS Overall/Long-‐term Results? BUILDING OF ORGANIZATIONAL CAPABILITIES! • RECRUIT AND DEVELOP SUPERIOR PEOPLE • PROFESSIONALISM, SELF-‐GOVERNANCE • STRONG EMBEDDED “ONE FIRM” POLICIES AND CULTURE • GOING BEYOND IT…. • IC & OK
GUPTA’s term was quite successfull! • Global Firm – Fast Growth Strategy – Vast Expansion – MAKE Award • K oriented / KM sDll working – “K is central to what we do” • July, 2003 – Gupta was succeeded by Ian Davis