“Fusing Knowledge Management practices into Traditional Risk Management – Moving towards a person-centric approach” A Unilever case study

1. Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information
Division of Knowledge Management
K6213 – Knowledge Management Technologies
“Fusing Knowledge Management practices into Traditional Risk Management –
Moving towards a person-centric approach”
A Unilever case study
Submitted By
Ronit Naor Tal (G1101786J)
Thangavelu Muthu Kumaar (G1101765E)
Venkataramanujam Kannan (G1101791L)

2. Members Contribution Peer Evaluation
Thangavelu Muthu Kumaar KM frameworks and RM =
framework fusion and
conceptualization
Ronit Naor Tal Unilever interview and =
Enterprise tools in
Unilever that can be
associated with RM and
KM
Venkataramanujam Kannan Risk Map and KM =
Actions that can be
associated to manage risks
in Unilever

3. Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Theory of Risk.................................................................................................................................. 5
3. Traditional Risk Management ......................................................................................................... 6
4. KM and RM fusion and Conceptualization...................................................................................... 6
4.1 SECI Model - KM as an enabler of RM .......................................................................................... 6
4.2 Identifying the Risk flow by relating to K-flow in KM Systems Process ........................................ 7
4.3 The impact of fusion – KM and RM in the organization ............................................................... 8
5. Unilever as a Case Study ................................................................................................................. 8
5.1 Potential Risks to corporate assets – Risk Analysis (Traditional RM framework)......................... 9
5.2 Applying OLSM in the Unilever Organization Setting to demonstrate the effectiveness of RM
and KM Fusion .................................................................................................................................. 14
5.2.1 Learning frame 1 - Environmental Interface to Adaptation ................................................ 14
5.2.2 Learning Frame 2 - Meaning and Memory to Culture ......................................................... 15
5.2.3 Learning Frame 3 - Dissemination and Diffusion to Integration.......................................... 19
5.2.4 Learning Frame 4 - Action and Reflection to Goal attainment ............................................ 19
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 22
References ............................................................................................................................................ 23

4. Abstract:
“Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up.
It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed.
Every morning in Africa, a lion wakes up.
It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.
It does not matter whether you are a lion, a gazelle, or an enterprise.
When the sun comes up, you’d better be running to meet the needs of the day.”
A thoughtful extension of Dan Montano’s (1985) quote is to reflect the competitive nature of
present day’s enterprises. The essence of winning or even survival rests on maximizing the
value of the corporate assets. The organization should not only stand to create value and
defend their assets, but also proactively manage the risks in the competitive landscape,
operating environment and markets. Risk management involves measuring the identified
risks in all dimensions and mapping with its prime axes – likelihood and business impact.
The traditional solutions of risk management has a financial and operational focus
implemented by the executives and managers often to cut down costs of low priority tasks,
divest, change their product or service pricing, change their operating mechanisms and
practices. The paper recommends a broader solution to manage risks in a Knowledge
perspective seeking into identification of inadequate knowledge at process and strategic
layers of communication, collaboration and cognition, which in turn can aid in better risk
management. This paper in the latter part offers insight of the conceptualization with tools
and technologies that can be directly attributed to Risk Management (RM) and Knowledge
Management (KM) in a globally present and one of the most successful enterprises in the
world, ‘Unilever’. It starts with the measurement of risks with a ‘Risk Map’ and transitioning
into a ‘Knowledge Map’ with Know what’s and know how’s for risk mitigation, then
applying Knowledge Management practices to act upon and learn the broad spectrum of
Knowledge in processes and technologies with a long term focus to proactively manage the
risks in the future. Knowledge Management is the central theme for the day to enhance
learning, thereby eliminating risks and maximizing performance strategically and proactively.
In this study, Traditional RM framework is fused with KM frameworks to create a better RM
solution – Risk Map Framework is fused with Schwandt’s Organization Learning Systems
Model (OLSM) and associated with traditional KM theories – SECI and KMS process.

5. 1. Introduction
“Risk comes from not knowing what you're doing” (Warren Buffett, 2007) – As the quote of
the billionaire’s investor and the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway states, risk is where the action
and reflection is unaware of the business intent. This means risk arises from the act of ‘not
knowing’, the lack of knowledge. The traditional risk management practices has a financial
perspective balancing the costs, revenue and investments or an operational focus acting upon
the processing mechanisms, standards and alternatives. The objective of this study is to
demonstrate the knowledge perspective of risk management by fusing RM and KM with the
existing KM technology stack. Traditional RM uses a data-centric analysis tool integrated
with the Decision Support Systems (DSS) (Olszak & Ziemba, 2003). This is a Bottom- Up
approach looking more at numbers to gain insights for action. Dougherty argues that
‘Knowledge is about people, not databases’ (1999). A right strategy is with a mix of Bottom-
Up and Top-Down approaches guides in a positive way of managing risks in a Person-Centric
approach with appropriate use of technology (Neil, Allen, Woodhead et al, 2009). Knowledge
Management is a people centred process driven by learning strategies - people to documents
as in ‘codification’ and people to people as in ‘personalization’ (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney,
1999). A fusion ERM and KM principles can set a road map to efficient risk management,
driving organizations with the power of learning and doing, hence improving the business
performance with the right strategy and vision in long term.
2. Theory of Risk:
Risk literature separates ‘risk’ from ‘uncertainty’ and defines the risk as a measurable
probability that something will happen. In common usage the words ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’
are often synonymous (Lupton, 1999 p9)
According to Ghosal, Any Multi National Corporation faces four major risks -
Macroeconomic, Political, Competitive and Resource risks (1987).
Macroeconomic – Wars and natural calamities, uncertain and random movements in wage,
interest and exchange rates.
Political – Policy actions of national governments, legal and regulatory mechanisms
Competitive – uncertainty about competitor’s actions or development of competitive
technology

6. Resource – lack of human resources and technology capital
This classification is adopted to categorize the risks in the Unilever case study in the later
part. Hansson argues that: risks are inextricably connected with interpersonal relationships.
They do not just ‘exist’; they are taken, run or imposed (2000 p4).
3. Traditional Risk Management:
The traditional technocratic and objective approaches of managing risks tend to lose the
‘person’. Alaszewski and Alaszewski (2002) argue that taking a narrow leader centric
approach to risk will contribute to common people’s disempowerment in the organization and
a sense of irresponsibility during a crisis. The business executives and leaders should insist
and allow employees to be exposed to the strategic and operational risks that an organization
is facing and motivate them to contribute proactively to manage risks with a long term
perspective. “Risks are results of actions that are neither necessary nor impossible; they are
contingent” (Thompson, 1985) and depend on human actions. Solving risks involves
identifying what is important to a person from his or her own perspective and find out
appropriate solutions (DH, 2007 p4). Power (2004) calls for ‘intelligent’ risk management
without swamping managerial attention and relying on independent critical imagination
characterised by learning and doing rather than rule-based processes. Most Enterprises driven
by technology now have increasingly high focus on financial and operational capability when
it comes to managing risks. The Enterprise Risk Management approach should carry a social
construction where there is a long term vision of knowledge embodiment in processes and
practices.
4. KM and RM fusion and Conceptualization:
4.1 SECI Model - KM as an enabler of RM:
KM and knowledge management systems are based on the interactions among people, which
correspond to the movements from tacit and explicit knowledge to tacit and explicit
knowledge on the individual and organizational level (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
“Risk Management is frequently not a problem with lack of information, but rather lack of
knowledge with which to interpret its meaning” (Marshal and Prusak 1996). Once a new risk
is identified it implies that new knowledge is required (Fourie & Shilawa 2005).

7. The process of RM can be applied in SECI model as follows –
Socialization: RM involves a complex decision making process with collaborative efforts of
stake holders, vendors/suppliers, employees and executives and share a common risk
modelling experience and risk knowledge discovered by socialization. (Tacit to Tacit)
Externalization: Codification of risk knowledge and case based RM practices, lessons learnt
by the managers involved in the risk modelling process. (Tacit to Explicit)
Combination: The discovered risk knowledge is combined with existing risk knowledge and
best practices. Reclassifying and synthesizing the existing knowledge is to ease the
application in RM in the future. (Explicit to Explicit)
Internalization: Learning and understanding the risk knowledge to change appropriate work
flow in the process under risk or implementing a holistic RM model considering all the
internal and external risk events of the organization. (Explicit to Tacit)
4.2 Identifying the Risk flow by relating to K-flow in KM Systems Process:
Bosua and Scheepers (2007) investigated for insights in the knowledge flow mechanism and
inferred that “formal and informal SNs (social networks) complemented by a shared network
of integrated information and knowledge-based artifacts are determinants for effective
knowledge sharing in complex environments.”
In RM context (a complex environment), KM processes act as enablers to improve the
efficiency of teams in assessing the risks and sharing a common decision experience by
effectively collaborating with people involved (Wang et al., 2006).
Knowledge Discovery: A new risk implies new ways of measurement and the potential
events and workflow in the organization that could be affected in such a situation. Fusing and
applying the existing risk knowledge can help in understanding the new or current risks.
Knowledge Capture: RM requires the captured risk knowledge to be codified, stored,
organized and indexed within the knowledge base.
Knowledge Transfer: RM is a cross disciplinary, inter-departmental action requiring a
holistic view to support individuals, organizations, inter-organizations, business partners to
learn and transfer risk knowledge to develop the capacity to manage them.
Knowledge Application: Risk knowledge can be embedded into new product development,
converted into competitive advantage by adopting the lessons learnt and best practices.

8. 4.3 The impact of fusion – KM and RM in the organization:
The fusion considers a collaborative RM decision making process considering users, stake
holders, suppliers or vendors associated where there are more chances of solving the risk with
a broader view. It encourages a positive and informed risk management practice with a
‘learning’ based KM approach. Most importantly, it contextualises human behaviour along
with the process and revenue level impacts. It develops a learning culture. It motivates people
to codify case based RM approaches, lessons learnt and new risk knowledge discovered. It
creates a shared risk modelling experience and helps us to adapt to dynamic changes in the
business. Tolerable risks in turn stimulate creativity and innovation. Social networks, portals,
blogs and communities can be a platform for collaboration and group think to probe deep into
issues that the organization is facing and the viable solutions validated and suggested by
peers. This eases the thrust on top management by opening up the new way of looking at
risks, by adding value to employees, empowering them to act on risks. However, the
solutions need not be necessarily taken for implementation of RM, but the employees learn
and it will be visible in the next cycle of product development or process management.
5. Unilever as a Case Study:
About the organization:
Unilever owns many of the prominent brands in the food and beverages (Knorr, Lipton,
Hellmans, Bertolli), detergents (Cif, Comfort, Omo) and personal care products (Axe, Dove,
ponds). It is a dual-listed company consisting of Unilever N.V. in Netherlands and Unilever
PLC in United Kingdom. Both Unilever companies have the same directors, and they operate
as a single business. The current non-executive Chairman of Unilever N.V. and PLC is
Michael Treschow while Paul Polman is the Group Chief Executive.
There are more than 171,000 employees around the world working in Unilever (as of 2011)
and the worldwide turnover in 2011 was €46.5 billion. Unilever products are sold in over
than 190 countries. €1 billion invested in R&D worldwide in 2011. They are already 13 years
as the food Producers sector leader in the Dow Jones Sustainability.
*Unilever Enterprise tools associated with Risk Management and Knowledge Management
mentioned in this paper are based on an interview with a senior finance associate in Unilever,
Singapore (The tools are confidential and can be used in the context of this term paper only)

9. Corporate assets – Intellectual Capital:
Unilever assets can be broadly classified into human, structural and relational capital and
listed below:
Brand Value
Relational Capital
Suppliers, Retailers and Customers Network
Strategic alliances and Outsourcing models
Global Market Investments
Manufacturing processes, practices and methods Structural Capital
Policies and procedures
ICT systems
Enterprise Knowledge Portals
R & D wing Human capital
Knowledge and Intelligence in Human Resources
5.1 Potential Risks to corporate assets – Risk Analysis (Traditional RM
framework):
To study the impact of risks on the corporate assets identified, a Risk Map is created based
on the input from Unilever Annual and Accounts Reports – Outlook and Risks section (2011
& 2010). The factors and events in the report directed in analysing the risks in the dimensions
of traditional RM where the top management looks into potential events affected in the
business, threats to profitability and the likelihood of occurrence. They are often based on
Cause and Effect Diagrams, SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threat) and
PEST (Political, Economic, Social, and Technological) frameworks.

10. Figure 1: Unilever Risk Map
Tool Used: Clear Risk Manager available at www.clearrisk.com
For risk classification, Ghosal’s risk theory (1987) is used.
Risk Risk Event Risk Likelihood Business
ID Category Scale (1-10) Impact
Scale (1-10)
1 Regional political unrest Macroeconomic Low High
2 Forecasting errors and loss of Resource High Medium
key suppliers
3 Change in customer consumption Competitive High High
trends
4 Compliance with and Political Medium Medium
anticipation of new legal and
regulatory requirements
5 Decline in business during an Macroeconomic/ Medium Medium
economic downturn Political
6 Higher shipping costs with Resource Medium Low
increase in oil price

11. 7 Uncertainty of weather patterns Resource/ Low High
and natural calamities Macroeconomic
8 Difficulty in D&E market Macroeconomic High High
investment and procurement with
forex fluctuations
9 Change Management in Mergers Competitive Low Medium
and Acquisitions
10 Maintenance of high social and Competitive High Medium
environmental standards
*Scale: Low (1-3) Medium (4-6) High (7-10)
Source: Unilever Annual and Account Report, Outlook and Risks section (2011 & 2010)
5.1.1 Risk Impact Assertion:
Regional political unrest: Supply chains are exposed to fallout from political unrests; it can
disrupt the entire supply chain like procurement to delivery of finished goods to the end
consumer. Supply chain may be interrupted due to the wars, government change and riots.
Political unrest also can cause the prices to rise and fall passionately. (Oke &
Gopalakrishnan, 2008)
Forecasting errors and loss of key suppliers: Forecasting errors lead to demand
unpredictability and leads to forecasting inaccuracies in certain areas linked with short
product lifecycle, lead-time, and promotions. These are very frequently happening risks that
leads to misallocation of resources in inventory and information management, pricing,
sourcing and bullwhip effect (Niranjan, Wagnera & Aggarwal, 2011). Loss of key suppliers
occurs infrequently its mainly due to not meeting of regulatory standards, instability with
quality standards, running out of the business, not able to meet up with increase in supply
(Oke & Gopalakrishnan, 2008).
Change in customer consumption trends: Product quality, service quality and emergence
of new brands and trends create more switching options for consumers. Promotions lead to
high consumption followed by less consumption during non-promotional pricing period (Huo
& Zhang, 2010).

12. Compliance with and anticipation of new legal and regulatory requirements:
Government regulations may impose more rigorous needs on companies and increases the
cost. Regulatory requirements will vary amid the time period. It is more or less related with
the political party, unpredictable and it leads to medium level risk impact.
Decline in business during an economic downturn: The impact rests on the severity of the
situation and the alternate consumption trends in the region. This has a fair impact on
business where the changes should be addressed with change in production capacity and
change in marketing mix, product promotion and pricing need to be proactively sketched to
fit the needs of the day (Huo & Zhang, 2010).
Higher shipping costs with increase in oil price: Rising oil and transportation costs would
impact profitability of entire supply chain. It is more obvious that the global rise in oil price
impacts the entire business distribution network like trade-off with producing costs and trade-
offs with inventory costs1.
Uncertainty of weather patterns and natural calamities: Weather patterns are predictably
accoutring risks needs to be planned accordingly, while natural calamities like floods,
earthquake, and break out of pandemic diseases occurs infrequently however brutally affects
the supply (Oke & Gopalakrishnan, 2008).
Difficulty in D&E market investment and procurement with forex fluctuations: The fall
and rise currency values will affect the procurement costs, thus influencing the operations of
supply chain performance. It can be associated to higher risks especially in developing and
emerging markets (Huo & Zhang, 2010).
Change Management in Mergers and Acquisitions: This type of risk comes into play for
dynamic and expanding organizations like Unilever and is susceptible to cultural changes
which can change way of sharing information and knowledge and thus can result in a
collision affecting the chain of operations if not properly planned.
Maintenance of high social and environmental standards: Corporate Social Responsibility
recently is an action incorporated in the long term vision of most organization to showcase
their value to society and environment. Particularly direct consumer facing organizations like
1
http://www.scdigest.com

13. Unilever should have a higher perceived value to the end customers through such actions and
the risks incurred from not adopting to such standards can cause a serious threat to their
product and brand value.
Transitioning into a Knowledge Map from Risk Map:
Knowledge management can be seen as a system that integrates together people, process and
technology and makes it possible to increase performance through learning. Schwandt’s four
learning subsystems (environmental interface, action & reflection, meaning & memory,
dissemination & diffusion) are interdependent. If all the four works well, it can be expected
that the organizational learning system will transform new information into valued
knowledge through actions. The OLSM in the Figure 2 show the integration of performance
through learning using KM methods and tools.
The aim of OLSM model is to analyse the relationship between actions of people and their
individual and collective ability to adapt to their environment.
The model raises the following questions:
What do we know as an organization?
How can we apply what we know faster and more efficiently?
How can we generate more and better knowledge faster?
(Carol Gorelick, 2004)
Figure 2: OLSM KM model
Source: Gorelick & Tantawy-Monsou (2005)

14. 5.2 Applying OLSM in the Unilever Organization Setting to demonstrate the
effectiveness of RM and KM Fusion:
To associate and fuse KM practices in the traditional risk management framework (Risk Map
previously derived), the mapped risks are captured into the four frames of learning system.
The knowledge required for managing the captured risk in a person-centric view or the KM
view is analysed and associated with the existing RM/KM solutions in Unilever. (Neef, 2005)
The key aspect of the new conceptual model lies in having ‘people’ as the key actor and
connecting him to people, information, technology and business in the learning environment.
KM tools used by Unilever can be associated directly with the mapped risks and
management. The learning system frames for capturing the risks and associating Unilever
RM tools which are directly associated with KM are also related to the phases in SECI
process and KM systems process.
5.2.1 Learning frame 1 -Environmental Interface to Adaptation:
5.2.1.1 Risks Captured:
Regional political unrest
Decline in regional business during an economic downturn
Higher shipping costs with increase in oil price
Uncertainty of weather patterns and natural calamities
5.2.1.2 Most Prominent solution for RM identified with KM theory:
SECI: Socialization
KMS Process: Knowledge Discovery
5.2.1.3 Knowledge Dimensions of the Risk and KM actions:
Knowledge about regional geo-political events, cost drivers in transportation and knowledge
about alternative energy use, dynamic pricing knowledge during supply demand fluctuations,
alternative suppliers knowledge base, insights from consulting partners about the market –
These knowledge dimensions can help in managing the risks

15. People to People: Market Intelligence and Competitive Intelligence insights from consulting
partners, communities of practice for employees, external customer communities
People to Information: Back up plans, crisis management plans and stories shared in
Enterprise Information Portal
People to Technology: Intelligent agent technologies alerting people in the organization
about dynamic risk events happening around in real time and available solutions
People to Business: What-if analysis to realize the impact of supply demand fluctuations on
business costs and revenue
5.2.1.4 People-Centric RM solutions directly associated with KM in Unilever:
Collaborative Planning, Forecasting and Replenishment:
The process standard adopted by Unilever helps in effective collaboration between trading
partners. KM plays an important role in extending the cooperation and trust needed between
both parties.
Collaboration with consulting partners to reveal trends:
Unilever collaborates with agencies, analytics and consulting partners like Nielsen to reveal
trends about the market and the competitors to plan their pricing, marketing mix and
promotion.
Back-up plan:
SAP ERP portal helps in deciding the alternative suppliers and enables change in workflow
and transactions. Integration of retail demand intelligence (RDI) solution with ERP, where
demand forecasting and analytics are core components underpinning the replenishment
decisions and other core retail processes.
5.2.2 Learning Frame 2 - Meaning and Memory to Culture:
5.2.2.1 Risks Captured:
Change in customer consumption trends
Compliance with and anticipation of new legal and regulatory requirements

16. 5.2.2.2 Most Prominent solution for RM identified with KM theory:
SECI: Externalization
KMS Process: Knowledge Capture
5.2.2.3 Knowledge Dimensions of the Risk and KM actions:
Knowledge about customers, Knowledge about the policies and procedures, best practices,
standard templates and methods (Know hows) of different departments – marketing, sales,
customer service and product development, Collective knowledge in communities and idea
aggregators, Customer and Market intelligence, Knowledge about quality standards
People to People: ‘Know how’s shared through communities and meetings, Shared work
spaces
People to Information: Personalized marketing, customer, business and process insights by
shared in Common Enterprise Information Portal
People to Technology: Conceptual Modelling tools and interactive video and audio based
training and process know how’s
People to Business: Newsletters, magazines and personalized Emails to reveal the
performance of business and participation required from the user’s end.
5.2.2.4 People-Centric RM solutions directly associated with KM in Unilever:
IPM, Innovation Process Management:
This RM/KM solution is the best example to realize the effectiveness of proactive risk
management by fusing KM practices and clearly long term and proactive RM solutions like
this helps Unilever to sustain the competitive advantage in the market.
The program follows the product from concept to market, and examines the market
integration year after its release.
The steps are: idea, feasibility, capability, market ready, market deployment, post launch
After each step there is an internal test that checks the value index for each project, it should
check what is profitable for the company and what isn’t.
It starts as idea: each department may come with the ideas about new concept or product and
it is captured in the system. Every month, there is a team meeting of the heads of all

17. departments like: marketing, R&D, production, and finance, they decide together which
products can go up to the next level. After the product is moved to the next level, it is tested
according to the criteria for the company’s capability and market suitability
Feasibility: Is it possible to do this product?
Capability: Can Unilever do it?
Market ready: Are we ready to launch the product?
Market deployment: After 6 months to one year there is examining of the product to explore
if it is meeting the target in several areas: finance, marketing, advertising, representation,
branding . They analyse the summaries and point out the credentials and the mistakes and
then the idea is moved to the repository for strategic application in the future. Only the
marketing team is allowed to upload a new project to the system and they control the access
and visibility of the dashboard to all other employees.
Learning: The learning centre portal enables employees to register for courses that they are
interest on them. It also gives them option to learn online courses. Each employee has “my
passport” and there he can find all the courses that he did and need to do. Some courses are
professional and some are for general information, the employee receives summons for
courses through the site and the employer may require him to take courses relevant to his
work area.
SharePoint: Each and every department can upload relevant documents and useful electronic
material to work and share them with others. SharePoint have options to direct and invite
people for sharing knowledge, there is collaboration zone that explains how to open this share
point and certainly use it for effective collaboration. The index can include employee’s
preferences like: forms, list, support team, training materials, dissuasion, feedback, groups.
5.2.3 Learning Frame 3 - Dissemination and Diffusion to Integration:
5.2.3.1 Risks Captured:
Forecasting errors and loss of key suppliers
Difficulty in D&E market investment and procurement with forex fluctuations

18. 5.2.3.2 Most Prominent solution for RM identified with KM theory:
SECI: Combination
KMS Process: Knowledge Sharing
5.2.3.3 Knowledge Dimensions of the Risk and KM actions:
Knowledge about experts, Information shared in corporate blogs and advanced
communication software like tele presence and video conference, knowledge about customers
from social CRM, Knowledge about business processes and supply chain from ERP,
Knowledge and insights from BI tools, knowledge from research databases like Forrester
People to People: Expert locator, Office communicator, Desktop sharing, Video
conferencing
People to Information: Enterprise Resource Planning, Customer Relationship Management,
Corporate blogs, Secure Enterprise Application Integration to shared research databases,
Enterprise Information Portal housing Exchange rate and dynamic economic indicators from
Bloomberg, Reuters and IQ Capital for people in finance department.
People to Technology: Telecommuting, Remote Process monitoring, Process simulation,
Intelligent Routing and communication devices for efficient logistics
People to Business: Business Intelligence tools provide insights for managers to decide on
the market expansions and helps them to perform ‘What If Analysis’ to take key decisions
5.2.3.4 People-Centric RM solutions directly associated with KM in Unilever:
‘I need to’: This is another unique example for KM/RM fusion to create value for employees
and proactively engage them in RM. This application in Unilever clearly had Person-Centric
view and empowers employees.
Inside this application, we can find all the available jobs within Unilever, it is possible to
order business trip (flight, hotel) and report on expense instantaneously.
Travel and expense: Each employee is entitled to hold a credit card provided by Unilever that
can connect with citi bank directly; all expenses are instantly processed. If the expenditure is
not personally marked by the employee, the system helps in identifying the section budgets to
move it in. After the expenses are marked online, the direct manager checks and passes along

19. with the receipts to finance and they give the final approval. This saves a lot of time and
autonomy to employees to work and claim to their ease, particularly in uncertain or
demanding situations.
Centralized Chat and phone book: All the employees can chat by portal site with all other
employees in Unilever, but it is a closed group where u can decide your chat list. Also,
employees can reach out to experts or process specialists from any department, anywhere in
the world by locating them in the centralized phone book.
Corporate Blog: Allows employees to connect with each other on a social platform to share
personal and professional stories, lessons learnt. This allows the employees to open up and
speak about the work and environment
Single Sign-On Authentication: Enables highly secure and ease of access by making instant
personalization without having to log on.
ERP, CRM, BI tools: Unilever uses tools SAP (ERP), Oracle Siebel (CRM), Cognos (BI)
for managing the internal and external information to act on the risks with insights from data.
5.2.4 Learning Frame 4 - Action and Reflection to Goal attainment:
5.2.4.1 Risks Captured:
Maintenance of high social and environmental standards
Change Management in Mergers and Acquisitions
5.2.4.2 Most Prominent solution for RM identified with KM theory:
SECI: Internalization
KMS Process: Knowledge Application

20. 5.2.4.3 Knowledge Dimensions of the Risk and KM actions:
Knowledge about environment and sustainability practices, Social network structure,
knowledge of carbon foot print of process, knowledge about employees and their needs,
vision, mission and core values
People to People: Volunteering and initiating external social events, specialized hiring
practices, rewarding sustainable and green ideas from internal and external communities like
schools and universities.
People to Information: Environmental standards, sustainable practices, news feeds,
Communities of practice, Social media, blogs
People to Technology: Simple, intuitive and personalized Human Resource Management
(HRM) processes
People to Business: Spreading brand identity and corporate culture internally and externally
by programmes with Environmental NGOs and Universities
5.2.4.4 People-Centric RM solutions directly associated with KM in Unilever:
Unilever Business Challenge: To display their corporate social responsibility and to drive
external communities with their corporate image, the organization offers business challenge
case studies every year to selected universities in the globe. The main themes would be to
address future water scarcity, alternative energy sources usage, healthy and hygienic food,
social standards improvement in under developed countries. For instance, In Singapore, the
event was open to NTU, NUS and SMU students.
Corporate University: This program runs through for a year for the newly hired
management associates from universities to expose them to culture, vision, mission, core
values, process and projects to stimulate the strategic thinking and to have a clear insight on
how to work towards achieving Unilever’s business goals. This adds value and empowers
employees by exposing them the assets, risks and management in all departments of the
organization to appreciate the nature of business.

21. Figure 3: Transitioning to a Knowledge Map from a Risk Map (KM and RM fusion synthesis
in a snap shot)

22. 6. Conclusion:
The conceptualization of the KM and RM fusion and application of such a practice in an
organizational setting has clearly demonstrated better, proactive and long term envisioned
risk management. The 80-20 (People to Technology) rule applies well in the new RM-KM
setting. Adding value to people and empowering them with risk knowledge to think and act
upon, enables better RM rather than just relying on technology to work out statistics,
mathematical forecasting and analysis for the top management. KM based Learning allows
organizations to avoid the risks by incorporating the risk knowledge in new product and
process development in most cases rather than handling after it is encountered. KM enables
people in the organization to understand the culture, live the culture, get influenced with the
environment and apply knowledge to solve business problems and there by enables the
organization to manage its risks to the corporate assets effectively.

23. 7. References:
Gorelick, C., & Tantawy-Monsou, B. (2005), “For performance through learning, knowledge
management is critical practice”. The Learning Organization, 12(2), 125–139.
Neef, D. (2005), ‘‘Managing corporate risk through better knowledge management’’, The
Learning Organization, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 112-24.
Neill, M., Allen, J., Woodhead, N., Reid, S., Irwin, L. & Sanderson, H.(2009) , “A Positive
Approach to Risk Requires Person Centre thinking”, Tizard Learning Disability
Review, Pier Professional Publications
Olszak, C. M., & Ziemba, E. (2003), “Business intelligence as a key to management of an
enterprise”, Proceedings of Informing Science and IT Education, 2003. Santa Rosa:
The Informing Science Institute.
Dougherty, V. (1999), “Knowledge is about people, not databases”, Industrial and
Commercial Training, 31 (7), 262-266.
Hansen, M. T., Nohria, N. and Tierney, T. (1999), “What's Your Strategy for Managing
Knowledge?” , Harvard Business Review (March-April): 106-116.
DH (2007) “Independence, Choice and Risk: A Guide to Best Practice in Supported Decision
Making”, London: Department of Health.
Oke, A., Gopalakrishnana, M. (2009), “Managing disruptions in supply chains: a case study
of a retail supply chain”, International Journal of Production Economics, 118 (1), 168–
174.
Hong Huo and Jing Zhang (2011), “Research on retail enterprise supply chain risk
identification based on SCOR”, Proceedings of International Conference on
Management Science and Industrial Engineering (MSIE), 1302 - 1305
Ghoshal, S. (1987), “Global strategy: An organizing framework”, Strategic Management
Journal, 8(5), pp. 425–440.
Thompson, Paul B. (1985), “Risking or Being Willing”, The Journal of Value Inquiry 19: 301
Tarikere T. Niranjan, Stephan M. Wagnera and Vijay Aggarwal , (2011), “Measuring
information distortion in real-world supply chains”, International Journal of Production
Research

24. Alaszewski A & Alaszewski H (2002), “Towards the creative management of risk:
perceptions, practices and policies”, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 56–62.
Power M (2004), “The Risk Management of Everything; Rethinking the Politics of
Uncertainty”, London: Demos.
Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H (1995), “The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation”, New York: Oxford University Press.
Marshal, C., and Prusak, L (1996), “Financial Risk and Need for Superior Knowledge
Management”, California Management Review 38(3): 77–101.
Fourie, L., and Shilawa, J. (2004), “The Value of Concept Maps for Knowledge Management
in the Banking and Insurance Industry: A German Case Study”, Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Concept Mapping, Pamplona, Spain.
Wang, J. et al (2006), “Knowledge Sharing and Team Trustworthiness: It’s all about Social
Ties!”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice 4(3): 175–186
Bosua, R., and Scheepers, R. (2007), “Towards a Model to Explain Knowledge Sharing in
Complex Organizational Environments”, Knowledge Management Research and
Practice 5(2): 93–109.
Unilever Annual and Accounts Report 2011, “Outlook and Risks section”, available at
http://www.unilever.com/images/RisksAR11tcm13282838.pdf
Unilever Annual and Accounts Report 2010, “Outlook and Risks section”, available at
http://www.unilever.com/images/Unilever_20-F_AR10_tcm13-259486.pdf