Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

The Impact of Organizational Culture on the Use of ICT for Knowledge Management

1,608 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

The Impact of Organizational Culture on the Use of ICT for Knowledge Management

  1. 1. The Impact of Organizational Culture on the Use of ICT for Knowledge Management Lopez-Nicolas C. & Meroño-Cerdán A. Electron Markets (2009) 19:211-219 UNIVERSIDAD DE MURCIA Comunicación y Documentación MÁSTER GIO Nuevos paradigmas para la economía a partir del desarrollo de las TICs SAMANTHA BERNARDIS a.a.2012/2013
  2. 2. CONTENT AIM HOW To analyse the impact of diverse organizational cultures (hierarchical culture, clan culture, adhocracy culture, market culture) on the use of ICT for strategic Knowledge Management literature review of some concepts: KM, ICT for KM, Organizational Culture proposing a theoretical model , testing it in a sample of more than 300 Spanish firms (exactly 310) CLAN + ICT FOR KM Personalization THEORETICAL MODEL HIERARCHY + ICT FOR KM codification ADHOCRACY + ICT FOR KM personalization codification MARKET vs ICT FOR KM personalization codification
  3. 3. LITERATURE REVIEW
  4. 4. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT the explicit and systematic management of vital knowledge—and its associated processes of creation, organization, diffusion, use and exploitation (Skyrme 2001) Knowledge, namely Tacit Knowledge → source of advantage … however knowledge has to be managed KM STRATEGIES Personalization Codification → ICT USE strategic advantage Tacit Knowledge Explicit knowledge (Hansen at al, 1999)
  5. 5. ICT FOR KM Nowadays, in order to capture, store and share the large amount of Information/knowledge technology support is NECESSARY ICT support on KM differs from codification to personalization, Also depending on the types of Knowledge (TACIT OR EXPLICIT) (Hansen at al, 1999) FIRST KM PROJECTS FAILED → Over-focus on technologies, no on people and process. No manage differently tacit and explicit knowledge ICT FOR KM LIMITATIONS → → They reduce the richness of codified knowledge Management and sharing of tacit knowledge is problematic
  6. 6. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE flexibility, discretion and dynamism Assumptions OC Values Artefacts stability, order and control CVF internal orientation, integration, and unity External orientation, differentiation and rivalry CLAN HIERARCHY ADHOCRACY MARKET (Cameron & Quinn, 1999)
  7. 7. ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE, KM & ICT OC & KM OC is believed to be the most significant input to effective KM OC must be considered as an antecedent of KM and not as a result → Organizations have to build their KM strategy aligning that to their culture OC & ICT The implementation of technologies is considered a critical social process of change → Some studies focusing on ICT use or ICT implementation or failure
  8. 8. INVESTIGATION PROBLEM METHOD & MEASURES USED
  9. 9. INVESTIGATION PROBLEM The impact of different OC on the use of ICT for KM - using the CVF model - focusing on understanding how corporate values interact with ICT features (orientations to knowledge CODIFICATION or PERSONALIZATION) CLAN + ICT FOR KM Personalization HIERARCHY + ICT FOR KM codification ADHOCRACY + ICT FOR KM personalization codification MARKET vs ICT FOR KM personalization codification
  10. 10. METHOD TARGET 310 firms of different sectors in the region of Murcia, with minimum 10 employees. DATA COLLECTION METHOD Close-ended questions Face-to-face surveys given to CEOs
  11. 11. MEASURES Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) FOR OC → FOR ICT FOR KM Lee and Choi Scale (2003) Dominant Characteristics, Organizational Leadership, Management of Employees, Organizational Glue, Strategic Emphases and Criteria of Success → six items allows the researcher to distinguish the strategic approach (CODIFICATION/PERSONALIZATION) a company follows for KM
  12. 12. MEASURES 2 SURVEY
  13. 13. RESULTS
  14. 14. HYPOTHESIS RESULTS CLAN + ICT FOR KM personalization HIERARCHY + ICT FOR KM codification SI NO ADHOCRACY + ICT FOR KM personalization codification SI MARKET vs ICT FOR KM personalization codification NO
  15. 15. CONCLUSIONS LIMITATIONS FUTURE PROJECTS
  16. 16. CONCLUSIONS Positive effects on KM, specifically in the case of cultural values associated with clan and adhocracy none of the values of the OC (hierarchy, clan, adhocracy and market) have a significant negative impact on the use of ICT for KM OCs featured by flexibility, innovation and dynamism (CLAN - ADHOCRACY) are found to have a greater influence on KM through ICT ERGO managers may feel more confident in managing OC and values for KM
  17. 17. LIMITATIONS - FUTURE PROJECTS Reduced Target (only Murcia firms) → a sampling frame that combines firms from different countries could be used in order to provide a more international perspective to the subject An investigation conducted in a specific period of time. → a longitudinal study could be carried out, because OC is malleable over-time This investigation has focused on the OC, leaving outside others flattering elements which have an impact on KM. → A detailed analysis of Organizational Learning is required to be carried out in a future research, as well as the analysis of the impact of human resources and organizational design on KM strategy.
  18. 18. PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION
  19. 19. PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION Supporting the article's results because : → In the general vision of KM, PEOPLE is one of three dimensions comprised , PEOPLE is central in codification and personalization too (people to document, people to people). PEOPLE is an important central element in the organizational culture as well. → An example of a company that fits the clan culture is the Finnish conGlomerate Nokia and also it fits: (Greenberg, 2012) → Nokia develops KM strategy personalization (Tacit knowledge is the most important one) IT is part of its Knowledge Management strategy. ICT for KM (Culture of collaboration and information sharing ) (Gottschalk 2005)
  20. 20. REFERENCE GOTTSCHALK, Petter. Strategic Knowledge Management Technology, 2005. 306pp. GREENBERG, Jerald. Managing Behavior in Organizations, Sixth Edition, 2012.
  21. 21. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION ANY QUESTIONS OR DOUBTS?

×