UHK - Mckinsey Case Study - Rivadávia - March 2013

3,124
-1

Published on

Apresentação para aulas na Universidade de Hong Kong - Professor Rivadávia - Março 2013

Slides for my class at the University of Hong Kong - Dr. Rivadávia Drummond - March 2013

Published in: Business
1 Comment
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,124
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
138
Comments
1
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

UHK - Mckinsey Case Study - Rivadávia - March 2013

  1. 1. HBS    -­‐  Case  Study   McKinsey  &  Company:  Managing   Knowledge  and  Learning   Bartle=,  C.  A              Dr.  Rivadávia  C.  Drummond  de  Alvarenga  Neto   2013  
  2. 2. 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  
  3. 3. 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  
  4. 4. 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  
  5. 5. 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  
  6. 6. 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  
  7. 7. 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  
  8. 8. 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  
  9. 9. 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  
  10. 10. 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  
  11. 11. Create  your  own  way!  •  DescripDon  of    the  Company  •  Problems  •  SoluDon  •  Results  •  Link  to  Theory!  
  12. 12. CASE-­‐STUDY  WRITING  Research  Methodology  
  13. 13. 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  
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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.
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. Data Collection Data Display Data Reduction Conclusions: Drawing/Verifying Figure 3Components of data analysis: interactive model (Source: MILES & HUBERMAN, 1984).
  18. 18. 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.
  19. 19. 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.    
  20. 20. 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.    
  21. 21. 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.
  22. 22. 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).
  23. 23. Source: Alvarenga Neto and Choo, 2009
  24. 24. Source: Alvarenga Neto and Choo, 2009
  25. 25. McKINSEY  &  COMPANY  •  What  is  McKinsey?  •  When  was  it  founded  and  by  whom?  •  Any  use  of  external  data?  •  What  does  Exhibit  1  tell  us?    
  26. 26. 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?  
  27. 27. 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?  
  28. 28. Marvin  Bower  •  Problems  Faced?  
  29. 29. Marvin  Bower  •  Problems  Faced   –  Economic  Turmoil   –  Broad  Generalists  x  In-­‐Depth  Knowledge   –  CompeDDon  (BCG)   •  Experience  Curve   •  Growth-­‐Share  Matrix  
  30. 30. Ron  Daniel  •  Problems  faced?  •  SoluDons  and  Decision-­‐Making?      
  31. 31. 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)      
  32. 32. 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)  
  33. 33. •  “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)  
  34. 34. FRED  GLUCK  (MD  –  1988)  •  Problems  Faced?    •  SoluDons  and  Decision-­‐Making?  
  35. 35. 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)  
  36. 36. 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  
  37. 37. RAJA  -­‐  GUPTA  •  4-­‐Prongued  Strategy?  
  38. 38. 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?  
  39. 39. 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  
  40. 40. 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  
  41. 41. THANK  YOU!  Obrigado!     谢谢   riva.drummond@unibh.br  

×