Concepts of Knowledge Management: Case Study -KPMG, Calibro,Knova
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Concepts of Knowledge Management: Case Study -KPMG, Calibro,Knova

on

  • 741 views

Concepts of Knowledge Management, Describing Peter Senge Fifth Discipline, and Technologies for KM

Concepts of Knowledge Management, Describing Peter Senge Fifth Discipline, and Technologies for KM

Statistics

Views

Total Views
741
Views on SlideShare
741
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
30
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • HELP:A detailed definition of the Knowledge Management Concept.
    HOW CAN YOU DEFINE?
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Concepts of Knowledge Management: Case Study -KPMG, Calibro,Knova Concepts of Knowledge Management: Case Study -KPMG, Calibro,Knova Document Transcript

  • 1 Name: Uyoyo Edosio Knowledge Management Concept ABSTRACT According to Peter Drucker, knowledge has become a major economic resource and a key source/drive of competitive advantage. Hence, it is important for organizations to understand the key concepts of knowledge and how to manage their knowledge assets effectively. This paper seeks to explain the key fundamentals in knowledge management. The paper is divided into three Chapters as follows: Chapter One: This chapter presents a detailed description of knowledge management, the underlying concepts, differences between Knowledge management and Information management, barriers associated with knowledge management implementation. Finally, this chapter illustrates successful implementation of Knowledge Management using KMPG International as a case study and a failed knowledge management implementation using Calibro Ltd as a case study. Chapter Two: This chapter discusses the Five Disciplines of organizational learning proposed by Peter Senge, strategies of becoming a learning organizations, differences between learning organization and traditional organization and the drivers of a learning organization. Chapter Three: Describes the role technology plays in knowledge management. Also we illustrated this role using a case study of a Knova Knowledge Management Tool. This report contains appendices for further illustration of some key concepts
  • 2 UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD School: Engineering and informatics Department/Division: ITM Module Tutor/Supervisor: Dr. Fatima Mahiedinna Module Number: ENG4065M Module Name: Knowledge Management and Business Intelligencw` Title of Essay Question: Please provide the whole question: Knowledge Management Coursework Your UB Number: 13021305 Date of Submission: 31-03-2014 Mode of Study (on site/distance Learner: On site Word count (not including bibliography and appendices): 5,556
  • 3 Contents 1 Chapter one....................................................................................................................................................4 1.1 What is Knowledge Management?.........................................................................................................4 1.2 Key Concepts in KM .............................................................................................................................4 1.3 Difference between Information Management and Knowledge Management...........................................5 1.4 Benefits of KM to an Organization.........................................................................................................5 1.5 Culture– A Barrier Implementing KM....................................................................................................6 1.6 Case Study I: Successful Knowledge Management in KPMG .................................................................6 1.6.1 KPMG Objective for Implementing KM........................................................................................6 1.6.2 How did KPMG Implement the KM system? .................................................................................6 1.6.3 Features of K-World......................................................................................................................7 1.6.4 Key Success factors in KMPG “K-World” Project .........................................................................7 1.7 Case Study II: Failed KM initiative in Calibro Company ........................................................................7 1.7.1 How KM was in Calibro? ..............................................................................................................7 1.7.2 The End of the BB project .............................................................................................................7 1.7.3 Failure Factors in Calibro ..............................................................................................................7 2 Chapter Two..................................................................................................................................................8 2.1 Five Disciplines for Organisational Learning..........................................................................................8 2.2 The learning organization.......................................................................................................................9 2.3 Drivers for Implementing Learning Organization ...................................................................................9 2.4 Learning organization Vs Traditional Organization .............................................................................. 10 2.5 Top Strategies to Becoming a Learning Organization ........................................................................... 10 3 Chapter Three.............................................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Roles of IT in Knowledge Management ............................................................................................... 11 3.2 Tools for KM – KNOVA Knowledge Management Tool...................................................................... 11 3.1.1 Overview of Knova ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 Features of Knova ....................................................................................................................... 11 3.1.3 Limitations of Knova................................................................................................................... 12 4 References .................................................................................................................................................. 12 5 Appendices.................................................................................................................................................. 14 Appendix 1 –Screenshot of KPMG KM Portal.................................................................................................. 14 Appendix 2 – Architecture of Knova Knowledge Management ......................................................................... 14
  • 4 1 Chapter one 1.1 What is Knowledge Management? Currently there is no single definition for Knowledge Management (KM). Researchers define the term based on different concepts. Some definitions of KM are as follows:  In terms of innovation- (McAdam, 2000) defines Knowledge Management as the process of adapting existing knowledge in order to solve current business challenges and create new solutions by studying patterns in existing knowledge.  (Rosenthal-Sabroux & Grundstein, 2008) Defines Knowledge Management as activities and process geared towards creation and utilization of knowledge in an organization. This definition tends to elude the importance of human factor in knowledge Management (as knowledge is a result of aprior and prior activities as well as retrospective speculations to provide subjective interpretations of such actions (Nonaka, Umemoto, & Senoo, 1996).  Some researchers believe knowledge management is not just about processes, but is greatly hinged on human activities. These researchers define knowledge management is based on human activities, processes, social interactions, experiences and cognitive interpretation of information (Holsapple, 2005). The above definitions present diverse concepts of defining Knowledge Management, however all this definition commonly highlight the need to effectively utilize or harness knowledge, in a manner that will provide insight, proffer solutions based on existing knowledge. In conclusion knowledge management can be simple defined as the processes of utilizing both past and current knowledge, in a manner that is understandable to end user. However for one to fully have deeper understanding of the term knowledge management it is key must first understand what is meant by the word “knowledge”. 1.2 Key Concepts in KM In order to distinguish between knowledge management and information management, one must understand the relationship between data; information and knowledge (Refer to Figure 1 presents a graphical illustration of the difference between these terms) Figure 1: Relationship between data, information, knowledge and wisdom (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002)  Data: Data can be defined as mere, unformatted or raw facts. This could in inform of measurements, statistics, numbers or alphabets (Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Data in itself is usually meaningless as it has no meaning without being interpreted (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002). Examples of data include “101010”, “CUO”, “13031305”.  Information: Information can be simply defined as processed data. It is inference gained from data (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002). Information can also be defined as a set of related data, which can be further interpreted and put into relevant context (Alavi & Leidner, 2001).  Knowledge: According to (Nonaka, Umemoto, & Senoo, 1996) knowledge can be defined as a belief which is held to be justifiable and true. Some authors define knowledge as the application of information (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002).
  • 5 Table 1: Difference between KM and IM 1.3 Difference between Information Management and Knowledge Management IM and KM have similar methodologies processes, and paradigms, and technologies, which makes it very difficult to distinguish between them. Even the definition of knowledge Management and Information Management appear very similar. IM and KM involves the capturing and managing information from either a single or multiple sources and disseminating this information to an audience. Sources of information are either human sources, electronic sources or paper sources. However, “Knowledge Creation” is a unique feature in the knowledge management frame work which distinguishes IM from KM (Ocholla, 2011). Knowledge management goes beyond IM in the sense that both tacit and external knowledge are created and managed in KM. KM does not only involve mere information sharing and analysis, but it is a mixture of experiences, skills, intangible tacit knowledge, together with information, in such a manner that can guide decision making process (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002). . (KNOCO, 2014).Table 1 above presents the major differences between KM and IM. 1.4 Benefits of KM to an Organization Knowledge management can add value to an organization in the following ways: A. Faster Decision Making: KM helps to improve the effectiveness of an organization by reducing decision making time and improving quality of decisions made (Verma, 2012). According (Verma, 2012) to KM and KM technologies help provide:  Lesser time will be spent gathering knowledge resource (this is because KM provides a medium for storing knowledge resources), and more time can be invested in creation and dissemination of knowledge. B. Competitive advantage: Due to the high competition in the business environment, many organizations are harnessing their knowledge assets to provide unique competitive advantages (Gold et al., 2002). Companies are constantly capturing, analyzing, disseminating knowledge resources to guide their decision making process (Wen, 2009).  By adapting such insights and making more informed decision faster, organizations can outwit their competitor and provide better quality service to their customers C. Innovation: The unique organizational knowledge derived from managing and analyzing knowledge resources can help organization deliver innovative products and services to the customers. This will help foster:  More informed and quality decision making  Better customer satisfaction (Birasnav, 2013) S/N KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT(KM) INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (IM) 1 The KM process includes “Knowledge creation” as part of the KM framework. According to (Nonaka, Umemoto, & Senoo, 1996) knowledge is created through interactions amongst different individuals and different types of knowledge According to (Choo, 1999), IM process does not include knowledge creation. It is limited to capturing, processing preserving, storage and distribution of information. (Choo, 1999) 2 KM is more concerned about managing experiences, know-how, skills to create a learning cycle. The knowledge gained can be used to make predictions (Ocholla, 2011) IM is focused on managing of information about a particular context, and storage of information in repositories for easy retrieval and distribution. (KNOCO, 2014) 3 KM involves managing information (inform explicit knowledge),managing process and managing people, creation of innovation and managing of intellectual assets (KNOCO, 2014) Information management is involves managing information only (this is includes all process from capturing to dissemination of information) (Ocholla, 2011) (Bouthillier & Shearer, 2002) Table 1: Difference between Knowledge Management and Information Management
  • 6  Eventually improving sales and revenue generated from that good/service. (Birasnav, 2013) 1.5 Culture– A Barrier Implementing KM Figure 2: Barriers to KM implementation in an organization (Ruggles, 1998) In 1997 Ernest and Young carried out a survey on 413 organizations in USA and Europe (Ruggles, 1998). The aim of the study was to study how knowledge was managed with those organizations. Of these organizations - 54% responded that Culture is one of the greatest difficulty in knowledge management and transfer with their organizations. - 32% responded that Lack of management of top management commitment to KM initiative is a barrier to KM in an organization. - 30% responded that lack of shared KM strategy is a major barrier to KM in organizations. Indeed, organizational culture plays a big role in influencing knowledge management (Ruggles, 1998). Culture influences the interpretations of knowledge and it also influences the way knowledge is shared within the organization (Biygautane & Al-Yahya, 2011). For instance: in an organization where there is a distrust culture, employees may hoard knowledge from one another (in a bid to protect their jobs). Such employees may see each other as competitors rather than a team. Therefore knowledge management in such an organization would not be successful (Biygautane & Al-Yahya, 2011). On the contrary in an organization with high trust culture, team work employees find it much easier to disseminate knowledge amongst themselves (This could be through informal chats, knowledge sharing sessions, using IT collaboration tools) Some authors argue that when knowledge is seen as product of interaction, and not an object, the effect of culture in will be understood better (Long, 1997). A good organization culture creates a platform for social interactions amongst employees; this can create knowledge sharing in an organization (Long, 1997). 1.6 Case Study I: Successful Knowledge Management in KPMG KPMG is a global organization that provides Audit, Tax and Advisory services to its clients. The company comprises of over 138,000 professionals working in 150 countries (Armacost, 2011). Refer to Appendix 1for screenshot of KMPG portal. 1.6.1 KPMG Objective for Implementing KM - The aim of KPMG implementing a KM was to leverage on existing knowledge and create new knowledge, which will add value to their clients, staff and to the capital market (Armacost, 2011). - They also want to harness the knowledge of their staff, with variety of experience in order to derive unique insight that will give them competitive advantages in the market (Armacost, 2011). 1.6.2 How did KPMG Implement the KM system? 1. Creation of KM team: In 2010 KPMG appointed a Global Head of Knowledge and Steering. This function was in charge of selecting a team of professionals that will be part of the KM development team. The Global head and the assigned team agreed and deliberated on the strategy and tools necessary (Armacost, 2011). 2. Developed a KM strategy: The KM team designed a strategy aimed at building a high quality, robust content management system that will ensure employees access right knowledge at the right time to support clients. The second strategy was to implement a KM tool that will foster collaboration amongst staff and encourage team learning across all KPMG offices located globally (Armacost, 2011). 3. Technology: After in-depth research the Knowledge and Steering Committee decided to adopt the use of a portal called “K-world” utilising Microsoft SharePoint as the major technology to help support their agreed strategy. 4. After deployment of the K-word portal there was an active awareness, trainings, and incentive system to encourage KPMG staff share knowledge and exchange content on the platform.
  • 7 1.6.3 Features of K-World According to (Armacost, 2011) the feature of K- World includes:  Unified Access Point to KPMG resources globally.  Single Knowledge repository for all KPMG divisions.  Integration of market trends and news relevant knowledge sourced from the web.  In 2011 K-World‟s functionality was further developed to include: a. a search engine, b. micro blogging tool, c. forums, chats and list of all clients related jobs present and ongoing globally.  KPMG staff can upload and share documents that relate to a particular client. 1.6.4 Key Success factors in KMPG “K-World” Project  KPMG KM was driven and supported by top management, and was supervised by line managers globally.  There was a clear strategy for implementing KM within the organization.  There was a well defined business requirement before adopting technology. In contrast, most companies that adopt technology that is irrelevant to their business.  KPMG advertised and publicised the portal.  They also implemented strategies that foster culture change and acceptance of the systems. 1.7 Case Study II: Failed KM initiative in Calibro Company Calibro is a pharmaceutical company, with its head office located in Switzerland. The company has about 1000 researcher staff located globally. The main aim of implementing KM in Calibro was to create a single environment where staff across the globe can collaborate and share knowledge on new drug research (Akhavan et al., 2005). The plan was to implement: - The Knowledge Store: To store documents, relating to ongoing research. - E-room: it was a forum aimed at facilitating group discussions amongst researchers. . This project was called Baleine Bleue (Project BB). 1.7.1 How KM was in Calibro? 1. Due to cost restriction the management of Calibro delegated only two staff to Project BB initiative. It was to be championed by a new recruit and an intern. 2. Noting the need lack of skill of the team BB, the management decided to send the two staff for trainings and classes (Akhavan et al., 2005). 3. Based in their discussion from just one researcher (out of 1000 researchers) the team designed an intranet website with a discussion forum (e-room) and intranet storage (knowledge store). 4. After designing the portal. email were sent to persuade research staff in other locations to participate in the planning of the knowledge store and e-rooms. 1.7.2 The End of the BB project After nine months of design and implementation the BB team was disappointed to find the following: - There were no discussions on the KM intranet staff. - Some staff felt that the initiative was suspicious, therefore they refused to utilise the KM portal, - A lot of researchers refused to share knowledge, stating lack of time and work pressure as excuses. The project was eventually abandoned (Akhavan et al., 2005). 1.7.3 Failure Factors in Calibro Figure 3: Failure Factors for KM implementation in Calibro Figure 3 illustrates the major factors responsible for failure of KM in Calibro: The major failure factors of knowledge management system implementation are summarized below: - Unfamiliarity of senior management with KM dimensions and requirement. - No support and commitment from senior management. - Selecting inexperienced KM team,
  • 8 - Poor organisational culture, - No dedicated budget for Project BB, - Staff where resistant to change. 2 Chapter Two 2.1 Five Disciplines for Organisational Learning According to (Senge, 1990) there are five models which can be used to understand the underlying and interconnected themes that are required to build a learning organization. Senge refers to these models as “discipline”. The term discipline was deliberate as it requires a tenacious and enlighten leader to maintain these process. The disciplines are as follows:  Systems Thinking- Deals with the ability to examine the underlying interrelationships between systems. The fifth discipline stresses the fact that a system is not merely the sum of its parts, but a system is determined by the interaction of its parts (Senge, 1990). It, allows people understand interdependency, interactions and change in a system (rather than viewing a system as a linear series of cause and effect). By so doing, People/teams learn to deal more effectively with the forces that form the consequences of our actions (Senge, 1990). System thinking also stresses the need for a paradigm shift from isolated systems to interconnected whole system. Systemic thinking is a core discipline, as it is the discipline that unifies and integrates the others, to create a systematic body of theory and practice. Peter Senge advocates that organization/ Leaders use 'Systems Thinking Maps' in analyzing events, challenges and events and causes/courses of action- in order to identify the best solutions/solutions (The Change Forum, 2013).  Personal Mastery - Begins with an awareness of the need for continuous learning throughout one‟s lifetime. It involves a commitment/ strives to become a better person. It is a disciplines that stresses the need be realistic, persistent and focus in achieving personal visions. Senge further states that vision should be viewed more as a personal vocation than a vague idea/ “nice to have” (Senge, 1990). Organizations can only learn if the employees are dedicated to learning. Personal mastery is not a skill or an achievement, but it is a process/ a, which continues throughout one‟s life time. This discipline deals with the need for self awareness- Senge stress the fact that personal mastery transcends skills or competence, spiritual opening and spiritual growth.  Mental Models - Mental Models are combination of assumptions, deep rooted beliefs, pictures/images that influence and dictates the thought process and the actions of an individual. It also involves the act of participating in „learningful‟ conversations where people can expose their perspective of thinking in order to influence other people (Senge, 1990). This process begins with an introspective review of one‟s life. It is an individual‟s subjective understanding of the world. Senge states that focusing on openness can bring about real change. In addition serious discipline is required for one to change his mental model (Senge, 1990). If an organization is to develop a mental model, there will be need for people to learn to adopt new orientations. It entails encouraging openness, division of labor and dismissing internal politics.  Building Shared Visions – This discipline entails establishing a singular shared vision within an organization. People learn to be committed to organizations or groups where there is a mutually upheld vision. Where there is a genuine vision, people strive to achieve this vision willingly as opposed to been told what to do (Senge, 1990). Vision cannot be enforced on individuals; this is because employee have personal visions, which may be conflicting with an organizations vision. Many leaders make the mistake of not translating their personal vision to shared organizational learning. Visions can spread through a process of reinforcement. For instance where people constantly discuss a vision there will be clarity; in turn clarity of vision creates an enthusiasm to commit to the vision (Senge, 1990). The main question to ask when building a shared vision is „What do we seek to create in a team?‟ This should be communicated early, so that members of the team understand the vision which you seek to create.
  • 9  Team Learning – Team learning involves the process of building and enhancing the capacity of a team in order to achieve their shared vision. This process commences when teams think together by; sharing their previous experiences, skills, and knowledge. By so doing team members learn to build reflective, analytical, discussion and inquiry skills (Senge, 1990). This involves team dialogue, vertical communication. This discipline builds on both personal mastery and shared vision; in addition it stresses the need for team work /collaboration. Senge states that team learning is a symbiotic relationship between the organizations and employees, such that the organization attains its organizational goal, while the employees can grow and develop their skills. Dialogue is very important to create a common insight across a team (Senge, 1990). 2.2 The learning organization The term learning organization was first used in the 1980s, referring to businesses that utilized learning to increase growth and gain competitive advantage. Ten years later the term become very popular with the publication of (Senge, 1990). According to (Senge, 1990) the learning organization is one where: - people consistently improve their capacity in order to achieve their desired results, - Creative and innovative thinking is encouraged and natured, - People consciously and consistently engage in learning, - People collectively learn to see the bigger picture,( rather than have an isolated vision Also (Purhaghshenas & Esmatnia, 2012) defines a learning organization is an organization where people constantly strive to achieve shared goals. A learning organization is one which encourages both individual and team learning in order to foster sustainable development. A Learning organization is one which encourages continual organizational regeneration/renewal by creating a set of core processes that increase propensity to learn, change and adapt (Jamali, Khoury, & Sahyoun, 2006) From these definitions, one can observe that the major rationale behind the concept of learning organizations is that an organization and its members can adapt and excel in a rapidly changing environment (through learning). According to Senge, true learning is the core of every human and organization. Therefore it‟s not enough for a „learning organization “to merely survive (“Survival learning”), but adapting is more important (“adaptive learning”). Furthermore adaptive learning must be combined with “generative learning”; learning to improve our capacity to innovate/create. 2.3 Drivers for Implementing Organizational Learning Figure 4: Drivers for Organizational learning (McAdam, 2000) Information Technology Some researchers believe that information technology is a major drive for organizations. According to (O'Keeffe, 2006) 70% of management staff identifies information technology as a major factor influencing competitive advantage. Many organizations and Government have invested huge amount of money in technological tools that aid knowledge management. A learning organization therefore enquires workforce that can skillfully manipulate technological tools (such as knowledge portals) and utilizethem, in learning. Technology provides a platform which facilitates easy storage, retrieval, dissemination and analysis of knowledge. This is crucial in a learning organization as a staff can leverage this knowledge to develop personal mastery. Competiveness According to (Senge, 1990) the rate at which any organization learns may eventually become a source of continuous competitive advantage. To produce the necessary competitiveness an organization has to learn from previous and existing knowledge, and in turn make effective decisions as to what actions to take (Lea et al., 2013) (The Public Service Learning
  • 10 Policy Directorate Canada Public Service Agency, 2007). Knowledge workers The rapid change of technology has fostered similar rapid creation of new knowledge. Knowledge can be accessed over social media, online forums, structured Customer Realtionship Management(CRM) software. Knowledge workers need to constantly learn from such knowledge in order to develop innovative ways to solve issues in an ever changing environment (Lea et al., 2013). 2.4 Learning organization Vs Traditional Organization The table below illustrates and explains the difference between a learning organization and 2.5 Top Strategies to Becoming a Learning Organization - Setting a good tone at the top (Gaining support at top level management): Many organizations are re-orientating senior management to support learning. In fact some organizations have created a function/position where top level staff responsible for championing learning and knowledge management. This helps in ensuring that the learning culture is cascaded all through the organizational hierarchy (Marquardt, 1996). - Creating Dedicated Learning areas and good learning climate: Some organizations have setup special designated areas for staff interaction, studying, reflecting. This can help staff develop a mental model and personal mastery in their fields. This will aid continuous learning in the organisation (Marquardt, 1996). - Policy Reengineering/structuring: Many organisations are restructuring their policies around learning. By minimizing barriers and bottle necks that inhibit knowledge flow around the organization (Marquardt, 1996). - Reward, Recognition and incentives: Many organisations are adopting the strategies of rewarding individuals and teams that have displayed commitment to learning, innovation, personal mastery, teamwork, and knowledge sharing.(Marquardt, 1996) - Conferences/trainings and workshops: Many organizations hold special workshops and conferences where knowledge is shared amongst employees, there is also an opportunity to brain Dimension Learning Organizations Traditional Organizations Ref Organizational Direction Insight and vision are commonly shared across all organizational levels and the major aim of managers is to ensure the existence of a vision Insight and vision are dictated by the supreme managers only. (Purhaghshenas & Esmatnia, 2012) Idea/ Vision Formulation Implementing and forming ideas and innovative is done in all organizational levels. Only the Supreme manager for deciding what to be done. The members of the organizations a merely actors. (Purhaghshenas & Esmatnia, 2012) Thinking Perspective Systemic thinking: Members in learning organization think from a systemic perspective (the bigger picture) on how their actions influence the organization as a whole There is no sense of ownership, people think from isolated point of view (they just want to accomplish their task) (Senge, 1990) Group learning /communication Group learning and discussion is encouraged to facilitate building and achieving shared vision. There is hierarchical approach. Only Top to down communication (Purhaghshenas & Esmatnia, 2012) Leadership and motivation The leader generally fulfills three major roles: designer, teacher and servant. Also the major aim of a leader is to create shared vision, encourage personal mastery, and unify mental models of the people. The role of leader is presenting insight, reward and punishment and supervision (Purhaghshenas & Esmatnia, 2012) Table 2: Difference between a Learning Organization and a Traditional Organisation
  • 11 storm and develop innovative strategies. When staff from different department interact and share - experiences. This helps the organization in team learning d develop a shared vision. 3 Chapter Three 3.1 Roles of IT in Knowledge management Computer-based technology is fundamentally concerned with digitalization of the process involved in knowledge management (this includes digitalizing creation, identification, collection, organization and dissemination of knowledge) (Milton, Shadbolt, Cottam, & Hammersley, 1999). According to (Marwick, 2001) technology in knowledge Management refers to the automatic extraction of deep knowledge from knowledge assets stored in a digital format. Technology does not just assist in storage but is actively used as a tool for knowledge creation. Some technological tools provide insight from analyzing data (Marwick, 2001). According to (Zack, 1999), there are two ways technology can provide support for knowledge management: 1. Codification and personalization: through the codification approach, structured knowledge (explicit) can be codified and stored in a knowledge base. Technology helps to create single point of access to knowledge, for easy retrieval and reuse of knowledge (Zack, 1999) (Marwick, 2001). 2. Personalization approach: Technology creates a platform for sharing tacit knowledge. For instance using online forums and discussion groups people share knowledge (Tacit knowledge) whilst communicating. Examples of such IT tools are knowledge expert directories and video-conferencing tools (Zack, 1999). Technology infrastructure can further help to support KM mainly through the 5 stages:  Acquisition: information can be acquired from within an organization and its environment.  Refining: The technology tool cleanses, labels, indexes, sorts, re-catigorise knowledge acquired.  Storage and Retrieval: Involves creating a single unified point of access for automated knowledge retrieval.  Distribution: The acquires knowledge is distributed throughout the organization network  Presentation: Using business intelligent algorithms knowledge can be presented graphically, analytical to provide business insights. 3.2 Tools for KM – KNOVA Knowledge Management Tool 3.1.1 Overview of Knova Knova knowledge management tool is a tool developed by Aptean Technologies. The tool was designed for customer service and support organizations. The major objectives of the software are to (Knova, 2014): - Help such companies manage knowledge on resolution of customer issues (by storing customer calls, logging issues and resolutions into a unified knowledge base). - Keeps track on how the issues have been resolved (it also allows for updating resolutions to customer issues). - Allows for reuse of knowledge in solving customer issues, and hence improve the efficiency of organizations using the tool (Knova, 2014). 3.1.2 Features of Knova Retrieval, Storage, and Capture of Knowledge
  • 12 - Knova Creates a unified knowledge management platform that provides singular point of access to customer related issues, resolutions, customer details. - The tool can be integrated with a CRM software, in order for customer service representative to analyse customer information and previous history. - Knova has an indexing and categorization tool that categorises customer‟s issues when logged. This allows for organization of issues. - Knova ensures that all this functionality are presented in a single screen to help customer service representative make decisions, reuse knowledge and provide faster and quality service to customers. (Knova, 2014) Visualization of Knowledge (Analytics) Knova KM software has the ability to identify trends and define key support concepts, by analyzing activities from system users. Users can see trends, in a graphically format (inform of pie charts and bar chart). Some of the trends that can be studied using knova include: - Site Traffic – Creates a visual representation of traffic trends, it highlights areas where customers have logged the most complaints - Knowledge Gaps – Graphical illustration of areas where there is high traffic but low knowledge/information on how to resolve such traffic. - Coverage Summary – Presents a summary of all traffic, activities , possible red flags and areas of special attention - Search Outcomes – Keeps tracks of all searches queries to the knowledge base (made by both staff and customers) (Knova, 2014). 3.1.3 Limitations of Knova - Unlike many modern KM tool, Knova does not support collaboration, through: discussion forums, instant messaging, and micro-blogging. These features are necessary as they create a platform for social interaction, which can in turn foster knowledge transfer and conversion of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge. Please refer to Appendix 2 for diagram of Knova Knowledge Management Architecture. 4 References Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2005). Exploring Failure-Factors Of Implementing Knowledge Management Systems In Organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice , 6 (1), 1-10. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly , 107-136. Armacost, R. L. (2011). Knowledge at KPMG. KPMG International Cooperative. Birasnav, M. (2013). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional leadership. Journal of Business Research , 1 (1), 1-8. Biygautane, M., & Al-Yahya, K. (2011, April). Enablers and Barriers to Effective Knowledge Management: The Case of Dubai's Public Sector1. Retrieved March 21, 2014, from Academia: https://www.academia.edu/1049537/Enablers_and_B arriers_to_Effective_Knowledge_Management_The_ Case_of_Dubais_Public_Sector1 Bouthillier, F., & Shearer, K. (2002). Understanding knowledge management and information management: the need for an empirical perspective. Information research , 1-39. Castellón, Y., & Gutiérrez, J. A. (2013). Information Systems: Transforming the Future . 24th Australasian Conference on Information System (pp. 1-10). Melbourne: ACIS. Choo, C. W. (1999). The art of scanning the environment. Bulletin of the American Society for information Science and Technology , 25 (3), 21-24. Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2002). Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems , 18 (1), 185-214. Holsapple, C. W. (2005). The inseparability of modern knowledge management and computer-based technology. Journal of Knowledge Management , 42- 52.
  • 13 Jamali, D., Khoury, G., & Sahyoun, H. (2006). From bueaucratic organizations to learning organizations, An evolutionary roadmap. The Learning Organisation , 13 (4), 337-352. KNOCO. (2014). knowledge-management-FAQ. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from knoco.co.uk: http://www.knoco.co.uk/knowledge-management- FAQ.htm#What%20is%20Knowledge%20Managem ent? Lea, P., Barden, S., & Helmer, J. (2013). The New Learning Organisation How workplace learning and development is being transformed. Retrieved March 19, 2014, from LineCompany Website: http://www.line.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/2014/12/The-New-Learning- Organisation.pdf Long, D. D. (1997). Building the Knowledge-Based Organization:How Culture Drives Knowledge Behaviors. Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation, Working Paper, Boston , 1 (1), 1-29. Marquardt, M. J. (1996). Building the learning organization} (1 ed.). McGraw-Hill New York. Marwick, A. D. (2001). Knowledge management technology. IBM Systems Journal , 40 (4), 814-830. McAdam, R. (2000). Knowledge management as a catalyst for innovation within organizations: a qualitative study. Wiley Periodicals Inc. , 233. MILTON, N., SHADBOLT, N., COTTAM, H., & HAMMERSLEY, M. (1999). Towards a knowledge technology for knowledge Management. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies , 51 (1), 615}641. Nonaka, I., Umemoto, K., & Senoo, D. (1996). From Information Processing to Knowledge Creation: a Paradigm Shift in Business Management. Elsevier Science , 203-218. Ocholla, D. N. (2011). Some thoughts on the trends, issues, challenges and opportunities of information and knowledge management teaching and research in South Africa. Mousaion , 29 (2), 23-40. O'Keeffe, T. (2006). Towards Zero Management Learning organisations (1 ed.). dog ear publishing. Purhaghshenas, s. H., & esmatnia, m. (2012). learning organizations. interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business , 4 (7), 243-249. Rosenthal-sabroux, c., & grundstein, m. (2008). a global vision of information management. modlse- eus, (pp. 55-66). paris. Ruggles, R. (1998). the state of the notion: knowledge management in practice. california management review , 40 (3), 80-90. Senge, P. (1990). Fifth Discipline:The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London: Century Business/Doubleday. The Change Forum. (2013). Five Learning Disciplines... Retrieved March 18, 2014, from thechangeforum.com: http://www.thechangeforum.com/Learning_Disciplin es.htm The Change Forum. (2013). Five Learning Disciplines... Retrieved March 18, 2014, from http://www.thechangeforum.com/Learning_Disciplin es.htm The Public Service Learning Policy Directorate Canada Public Service Agency. (2007). A Primer on the Learning Organization. The Public Service Learning Policy Directorate Canada Public Service Agency. Verma, A. (2012). Institutionalising Organisational Effectiveness Through Knowledge Management. International Journal of Research and Development - A Management Review , 1 (1), 2319–5479. Wen, Y.-F. (2009). An effectiveness measurement model for knowledge management. Elsevier , 22 (5), 363-367.
  • 14 5 Appendices Appendix 1 –Screenshot of KPMG KM Portal Appendix 2 – Architecture of Knova Knowledge Management (Knova, 2014)