siemens knowledge sharing

1. Lugeen Rayaz Bailur - 141202029
Rani S Shetty - 141202035
Roshan Mammen - 141202046
Chethana - 141202039
Prakrithi B -141202049
GROUP 7 SECTION ‘A’
MIS ASSSIGNMENT

2. History...
• Founded in Berlin in 1847 by cousins Werner and Johann Georg Siemens along
with Halske
• Started as small engineering workshop
• Manufactured telegraph systems, warning bells for railways and wire insulation
• Established branches in many countries
• Werner Siemens discovered dynamoelectric principle
• Series of power-engineering innovations followed in quick succession
• Expanded products in electrical and medical appliances
• Many other components were added during world war II
• Employed over 416,000 people in 190 countries
• Had decentralized corporate structure
• Each company unit has its own groups and services

3. About the company
 First stage:
• Till the mid 90’s there was fair competition in telecommunications
industry
• The company manufactured quality products for high specialized
customers
• At the end of the decade, the companies were forced to change from
‘simple’ product provider to a complex customer-oriented
organization that provided customized solution and service

4. Continued...
 Second stage:
• Siemens underwent a significant restructuring in 1998
• The carrier and telecom network branches of Siemens merged with
Information and Communication Networks(ICN)
• Due to the restructuring and industry shift, Siemens sought the
importance of knowledge management as a tool to exploit its people’s
capabilities and to keep up with fast-paced changes and demand for
the market
• The BTP decided the knowledge management project should focus on
ICN’s sales and marketing staff

5. Evolution of Share Net
• From the two process, tacit and codified knowledge, companies used
to omit either one of the process
• But most of Knowledge management systems were focusing on
codified knowledge
• For True knowledge sharing both the process are important
• Therefore the ICN started its knowledge management initiatives by
developing a system called Share Net in 1998 where both the
process were included

6. ShareNet
• Share Net is a community of Siemens were people come together to
share and discuss their knowledge
• It connects experts of Siemens globally
• Employees of Siemens connect with each other to share and develop
their knowledge to build superior client solutions and solve their
problems
• ShareNet has two parts: library and urgent requests
• The main idea of Share Net is to capture and share explicit company
information

7. Success of ShareNet
• It allowed for the easy sharing of market based knowledge
• For example: a ICN project manager who wanted advice on laying
cable in amazon rain forest sent an urgent request on Share Net
which was answered by a manager in Senegal who had undertaken a
similar project before. Knowledge sharing led to the company
saving millions of dollars
• In Switzerland the company won a contract to build
telecommunications network for 2 hospitals even though it had an
higher bid. This was due to data for Share Net about a similar
project and the reliability of the company in that case
• Became a tool for intra-organizational knowledge sharing

8. Problems
• People were reluctant of knowledge sharing due to the
perception that their ideas were their alone.
• Another perception was the negative perception regarding
reuse of the ideas in the organization
• There was difficulty in extending Share Net to be a knowledge
sharing tool across global R&D divisions of Siemens

9. Problems
• Telecom industry market collapse and demand for routers fell globally and Siemens
was not immune to the problem
• Siemens had to go for cost cutting and undertook restructuring and layoffs in end of
2001
• In 2002, ICN was reorganized and ShareNet was placed into Competence and
Knowledge Management department
• ShareNet operations were made lean by cutting down the team
• ShareNet was considered a non essential cost and ShareNet managers had to justify
its benefits
• Share Net had 18200 users by the end of 2001 but out of that only 5% were heavy
users, 15% were moderate users contribute and 80% were just readers

10. Problems: Future of Share Net
• By July 2002 Share Net had 19000 subscribers
• Over 20000 knowledge objects had been deposited in the
system
• There was a dilemma on whether to keep Share Net a free
Intra Knowledge tool or to charge the users and thereby realize
the cost of its operations

11. ShareNet Team Challenge
• Cost of maintain such a knowledge sharing network was a major
challenge
• If any division decided it did not want ShareNet, whether its users
had to be cut off
• If any division did not take ShareNet, price for other divisions
would rise to cover entire network costs due to which other
divisions too would turn it down
• Linking ShareNet to ICN’s strategy
• If ShareNet had to be kept as a single network or split into different
networks

12. ShareNet Team Challenge
• Justification for the need of Share Net in sales is the number of projects it has
won in each various countries
Country No of Projects won
due to Share Net
Country No of Projects won
due to Share Net
Belgium 1 Brazil 1
China 1 Columbia 2
Ecuador 1 Hungary 1
India 2 Italy 2
Jordan 1 Mexico 1
Netherlands 1 Poland 1
Portugal 4 Romania 2
Russia 1 South Africa 1
Thailand 2 Turkey 2
United
Kingdom
1

13. Revenue Calculations
Average number of active contributors 300
Number of knowledge objects per
contributor
15
Number of knowledge objects in the
system
4500
Percentage of reused objects 10%
Number of reused knowledge objects 450
Cost saving per reused object 3000
Total projected cost saving 1350000
Percentage of reused objects resulting
in new projects
10%
Projected number of new customer
projects
45
Revenue per project 2500000
Additional revenue 112500000
Additional profit(5% of revenue) 5625000

14. Need for Knowledge Sharing
• From the given figures it is understood that the advantages of
having a easily accessible knowledge network far outweigh the
costs
• The average cost of maintenance at the end of 2000 was 7.8
million and in comparison the revenues earned due to it was
staggering 11.25 million euros plus additional profit
• In a Cost vs Payoff analysis, It can be easily observed that the
Pay Off of having Share Net is extensive knowledge sharing
and increasing the competency of the company globally vs the
cost of maintaining servers for this purpose and remuneration
of share net managers
• Payoff exceeds cost and hence it is advisable to continue with
Share Net

15. Alternatives and Recommendations
The various alternatives that could be applied to cut down costs are as follows:
• ShareNet users could be given free usage for knowledge sharing and for
other uses of Share Net they could be charged a reasonable fee which
would be deducted from the division funds
• Users giving quality answers to urgent requests could be rewarded with
bonus shares
• The shares system which would include rewarding an employee with
shares if he could convince another employee to subscribe
• Shares could be used during performance appraisal of the employee instead
of redeeming it in exchange of gifts

16. Continued..
• The ShareNet team will have to justify to the management regarding
increases beyond reasonable usage of Share Net
• The users who are inactive for a period of more than 6 months will
loose the earned shares
• During months of low usage the number of shares allotted to each
user for feedback, sharing of knowledge and processes, providing
feedback and answering urgent requests must be doubled to ensure
active participation
• Using Data Analytics tools to compile the Big Data in more user
friendly manner and effective manner, thereby creating a virtual
repository for future use