Increasing Productivity & Improving Knowledge Management in Amdocs

IncreasingProductivity& ImprovingKnowledge Management in Amdocs
i
Annexure I
(Note : - Please print this matter in golden print on the front
cover of black hard bound cover)
Project Report
On
Increasing Productivity & Improving Knowledge
Management in Amdocs
Submitted By
Deepraj Pathak
(AM617)
AMDOCS, Batch VI
Submitted in partial fulfillment of
Executive Post Graduate Diploma in Business
Management
(EPGDBM)
Symbiosis Centre for Corporate
Education
(Symbiosis International University)

ii
Project Report
On
Increasing Productivity & Improving Knowledge
Management in Amdocs
Submitted By
Deepraj Pathak
(AM617)
AMDOCS, Batch VI
Submitted in partial fulfillment of
Executive Post Graduate Diploma in Business
Management
(EPGDBM)
(Symbiosis International University)

iii

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Every project big or small is successful largely due to the effort of a number of
wonderful people who have always given their valuable advice or lent a helping hand.
I sincerely appreciate the inspiration; support and guidance of all those people
who have been instrumental in making this project a success.
Every work accomplished is a pleasure – a sense of satisfaction for what I have taken
efforts in this project. However, it would not have been possible without the kind
support and help of many individuals and organizations. I would like to extend my
sincere thanks to all of them.
I am highly indebted to Sitanath Chattopadhyay for his guidance and constant
supervision as well as for providing necessary information regarding the project &
also for his support in completing the project.
I would like to express my gratitude towards my Amdocs colleagues for their kind co-
operation and encouragement which helped me in completion of this project.
I would like to express my special gratitude and thanks to my friends and colleague
for giving me such attention and time.

v
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................6
2. Introduction..........................................................................................................7
2.1. Importance of Productivity Increasing & Knowledge Management....................8
3. Company Overview..............................................................................................9
4. Objectives............................................................................................................10
5. Productivity Increase & Knowledge Management...................................... 111
5.1. Literature review on Productivity Increase.....................................................11
5.1.1 Productivity Measurement……………………………………………….12
5.1.2 Strategy for Productivity Improvement…………………………………..12
5.2. Productivity increase at Amdocs ...................................................................11
5.3. Literature review on Knowledge Management...............................................30
5.4. Improving Knowledge Management at Amdocs.............................................40
6. The Field Work and Study................................................................................43
6.1. Questionnaire...............................................................................................43
6.1.1. DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE .............................................................43
6.1.2. Development and structure of questionnaire......................................................44
7. Data Analysis and Interpretation .....................................................................47
8. Conclusions.........................................................................................................48
9. Recommendations ..............................................................................................49
10. Annexure A.........................................................................................................50
11. Bibliography .......................................................................................................53

6
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Analysis of new Productivity Increase & Improve Knowledge Management
Process (PIIKMP) showed that in Productivity area there is a lot of scope of
improvement in Amdocs, also Amdocs(For that matter every company in Knowledge
Industry) is having an eternal problem of knowledge loss with employee attrition.
However, the transition is far from completion. Stronger dedication from every
employee and increased knowledge documentation is needed in order for PIIKMP
system to truly become a tool to help increasing productivity & improving knowledge
management. Dissertation research methodology was used for collecting data &
analyzing it. A descriptive analysis was followed to measure the productivity &
knowledge level of all team-members.
Overall Characteristics of PIIKMP Systems
 Team-members were more satisfied with traditional system, but after a long
effort in establishing new system they have become more energetic, proactive
& accountable wherever Delivery and Knowledge management are concerned.
Planning and Evaluation
 Proper training need identification needs to be identified for organization and
employees’ growth.
The Future
 This PIIKMP process is now under discussion to be implemented in whole
Amdocs.

7
2. INTRODUCTION
Productivity Increase & Improve Knowledge Management Process
The Productivity Increase & Improve Knowledge Management Process (PIIKMP) at
Amdocs has been designed with an objective to manage expectations between
employee, manager and company goals. The process provides more opportunities for
both managers and employees to influence individual performance and development
by sharing continuous knowledge on project area & making a habit of documenting
the newly earned knowledge.
Productivity Increase & Improve Knowledge Management Process results in:
 High productivity of team
 High morale of team-members
 Commitment of team-members to the team
 Less Erroneous & faster delivery of resolution
 Making Everyone an Expert technically, hence team will not be
dependent on 2-3 peoples' potential – so nobody in the team can take
undue advantages.
 Retaining the knowledge even if the current owner of the knowledge
will quit the team.

8
2.1. Importance of ProductivityIncrease & Knowledge Management
We are a Production Support Team of AT&T U-Verse OMS (Order Management
System) application. In production, every single issue is a critical one & needs faster
resolution, as system downtime is directly proportional to Customer's revenue loss.
To work in production support team, every individual requires below necessary
qualities:-
1. Knowledge(Technical Skill)
2. Confidence
3. Communication Skill
4. Customer Handling Skill
5. End-to-End Ownership
However in our current team-members these skills are missing/lacking. Only 2-3
senior members are fully ready. They use to take undue advantages at times as team is
dependable on them. Also, being the leader of this team, I have to ensure faster
delivery of resolution with quality.
To achieve that we will follow these below mentioned steps:-
 Hiring the right candidate
 Training them properly
 Giving them the exposure to handle customers
 Delegating the right task to right people
 Letting them take end-to-end ownership
 Creating back-up of senior team members.
The need of this project is quite obvious: Creating a much stronger team with high
potential over a period of 3 months & lead this team to make it a success.

9
3. COMPANY OVERVIEW
 Amdocs is the market-leader in customer experience software solutions and
services for the world’s largest communications, entertainment and media service
providers. Our portfolio powers The New World of Customer Experience™, where
a wide array of innovative and personalized services is delivered seamlessly to
end users, regardless of device or network.
 For more than 30 years, Amdocs solutions, which include BSS, OSS, network
control and optimization, coupled with our professional and managed services,
have accelerated business value for our customers by streamlining complex
operating environments, reducing costs and speeding time to market for new
products and services.
 Amdocs and our more than 25,000 employees serve customers in over 90
countries.
 Listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, Amdocs had revenue of $3.6
billion in fiscal 2014-15.
 Global CEO:– MR. Eli Gelman, Amdocs India CEO:– MR. Anshoo Gaur
 Clients:- AT&T, Bell Canada, British Telecom, France Telecom, Astro, Globe,
Reliance, Telstra, Cablevision, Telkom SA, T-Mobile, AMX, Claro & many more
telecom giants all over the world.

10
4. OBJECTIVES
The main Objectives of the project are as follows:-
 High productivity of team
 High morale of all team-members
 Commitment of team-members to the team
 Less Erroneous & faster delivery of resolution
 Making Everyone an Expert technically, hence team will not be
dependent on 2-3 peoples' potential – so nobody in the team can take
undue advantages.
 Retaining the knowledge even if the current owner of the knowledge
will quit the team.
 This culture will be so deep-rooted that it will be part of our team's
DNA.

11
5. INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY & IMPROVING
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
5.1. Literature review on productivity Increase
In general, productivity is often defined as a measurement of output relative to
an input. At lower levels, various methods are used to track productivity
performance and identify opportunities for productivity improvement, but
there is still a wide gap between productivity measurement and managerial
behavior. The output can be any outcome of the process, whether a product or
service, while input factors consist of any human and physical resources used
in a process. It follows that, in order to increase productivity, the system must
either produce more or better goods from the same resources, or the same
goods from fewer resources. Stated differently, productivity improvement
refers to an increase in the ratio of produced goods or services in relation to
resources used.
As the foregoing discussion indicates, the concept of productivity
refers to a purely physical phenomenon and must therefore be defined as one,
despite the difficulty that even such a definition imposes for the measurement
of different quantities that do not correspond to the same standard.
Productivity is closely related to the use and availability of resources as well as
to value creation. This means that a company’s productivity is reduced if its
resources are not properly used or if there is a lack of resources.
Accordingly, an increase in productivity is characterized by a shift of
the production function and a consequent change to the output/input relation.
The formula of total productivity is normally written as follows:-
According to this formula, changes in input and output have to be measured
inclusive of both quantitative and qualitative changes in practice, quantitative
and qualitative changes take place when relative quantities and relative prices
of different input and output factors alter.

12
5.1.1 Productivity Measurement
Put simply, productivity measurement is the quantification of both the
output and input resources of a productive system. The intent is to
come up with a quantified monitoring index. The goal of productivity
measurement is productivity improvement, which involves a
combination of increased effectiveness and a better use of available
resources.
While productivity can be given the sort of shorthand definition as the
ratio between output and input, what productivity really is as well as
how it can be measured has always provoked a great deal of
controversy among experts. In essence, it can be said that the
measurement of productivity is only simple conceptually. In practice,
however, both measurement of outputs and inputs involves aggregation
problem, and this problem alone has situated productivity measurement
in the realm of complexity.
5.1.2 Strategy for Productivity Improvement
According to Bheda's Strategy for productivity improvement research
the eight final recommendations for productivity improvement are
summed up as follows (Bheda, 2009)
Strengthen work measurement and methods improvements:
Works study and industrial engineering practices need to be
strengthened in all factories. The dependence on past time standards
must give way to scientific work measurements and method
improvements. Factories could gradually move towards a fully
developed industrial engineering department.
Initiate supervisor and manager training:
A Study of the factors associated with productivity levels clearly
establishes that the factory management must adopt modern practices
to achieve higher productivity.
Set up operations training cell:
It is absolutely essential to start an in house operator training program
for skill as well as work culture, so that the operators are made aware
of how to achieve world- class performance.

13
Strengthen quality system:
It is important that factories implement quality systems for the total
organization. The aim should be to eliminate rejects and to reduce
repair levels substantially.
Strategic technology upgrade:
Technology level has shown significant positive correlation with
productivity. Factories need to use more specialized machines in all
possible areas. It is important that the factories draw up a strategic plan
for the technology up grading
Introduce productivity measurement systems:
After implementing the above stated recommendations for productivity
improvement, the factory should be ready to implement productivity
measurement and comparison systems. This will help the factory to
record, measure and communicate performance at different levels as to
provide data for internal and external benchmarking
Strengthen production planning and scheduling:
As the management team is likely to equipped with better techniques,
operators are well trained and productivity measurement systems are
put in place , so that the factory can concentrate on strengthening
production planning and scheduling. The aim should be the maximum
utilization of productive resources of the factory.
Introduce incentive scheme:
The productivity gains will not be sustainable if the workers and staff
do not reap the benefits of higher productivity. As the factories are
likely to have already gained substantially through implementation of
the recommendation on productivity measurement, it is the right time
to draw up an incentive plan for the workforce that encouraged higher
performance and rewards it suitably.

14
5.2. Productivity Increase at Amdocs
To increase the Productivity, we need to measure the current productivity.
To measure the current productivity, we need to know what kind of tasks we do.
But even before that we should know the position, strengths, weaknesses and size of
our team.
Hence starting with, let me describe my project first.
We are working for the most prestigious client of Amdocs called “AT&T”, one of the
top telecom giants worldwide. AT&T contributes to 70% of Amdocs’s total annual
revenue.
AT&T deals in Telecom service providing in wireline & wireless domain. AT&T’s
wireline domain is called “U-verse” & wireless domain is called “Mobility”.
We work in “U-verse” project. In U-verse there are total 150 software applications
which are talking to each other to support the IT backbone of AT&T’s wireline
business.
Amongst those 150 software applications in U-verse area, OMS (Order
Management System) is the heart of U-verse.
Through OMS, CSRs (Customer Service Representatives) place the orders every
day for new customers to activate telecom services in their premises as well as
existing customers to modify/change the type of services earlier taken by them.
Volume of Orders/day – 1 Lac orders per day
U-verse deals with three major services:-
1. HSIA(High Speed Internet Access)
2. IPTV(Internet Protocol Television)
3. CVOIP(Customer’s Voice over Internet Protocol)
Why we are in picture?
If during order placing CSRs face any software issue, then they create a ticket to us.
This ticket comes to our queue for analyzing the Root-Cause of why this issue
happened & providing Work Arounds to clear those orders as soon as possible to
avoid customer dissatisfaction. Apart from that we have lots of maintenance work
every day of the OMS servers. We are the owner of OMS application running for
AT&T.

15
Describing the team:-
Our team name is AT&T Lightspeed U-verse OMS Tier1 team.
We have Onshore team (12 people) & Offshore team (12 people).
Onshore team is in Dallas(USA) & Offshore team is in Pune(India).
Fig 5.2.1:-AT&T U-verse OMS Tier1 Team Structure

16
We can see from above mentioned figure that from onshore team people are more
experienced & hence there is a myth that onshore people are more knowledgeable than
offshore people.
Profiles in our team & their R&R(Roles & Responsibilities):-
1. Manager  Responsible for planning, Organizing,
Monitoring & controlling of team’s work Via Team Leader &
Expert
2. Team Leader  Responsible for generating various reports
related to team’s work, grant leaves to Team-members,
Approve Team-member’s weekly Timesheet/Work Hours.
3. Expert  Responsible for Technically leading the team &
every tasks, assigning the tasks to team-members, mentoring
team-members, working closely with them, customer
interfacing etc.
4. SSE(Software Support Engineer)  Responsible for doing all
the technical works at ground level, Attending KT (Knowledge
Transfer) sessions, doing R&D work as well.
Tasks Offshore OMS Tier1 does:-
1. Ticketing Tasks
1.a. EM(Exception Manager) Tickets(Complexity - Low)
1.b. WR(Work Request) Tickets(Complexity - Mixed)
1.c. RFI(Request For Information) Tickets(Complexity - High)
2. Non-Ticketing Tasks
2.a. OMS Synthetic Order Validation(Complexity - Low)
2.b. Adhoc Mail requests(Complexity - Mixed)
2.c. Chatrooms support(Complexity - Mixed)
2.d. Outage Bridge Handling(Complexity - High)
2.e. EF(Emergency Fix) preparation & validation(Complexity -
High)
2.f. Daily Takeover from Site & handover to Site(Complexity -
Low)
2.g. Mail checking(We get ~400 mails a day, which we need to
check every day) (Complexity - Mixed)

17
We are measured on the delivery of above mentioned tasks with quality & within
time-bound.
Skills required to work in OMS Tier1 Team:-
1. Technical Skills (Java, Unix, SQL, XML, Weblogic)
2. Behavioral Skills(Tenacity to deep dive in issues,
Patience, Soft-Skills, Communication Skills, Customer
Handling Skill)
In a nutshell, Productivity is an outcome of Confidence in work, Confidence varies
with Knowledge, To grab the knowledge we need to have the responsibility to learn
more & grow more every day, Discipline & Punctuality are required to grow the
responsibility to learn, Discipline comes from either inside motivation or outside
motivation, most of the employees are not motivated enough, hence to motivate them
from outside Reward, Recognition, Appreciation etc. are required.
We measure Productivity in quantitative term putting weight per complexity:-
ComplexityLow(weight=0.2)
ComplexityMedium(weight=0.3)
ComplexityHigh(weight=0.5)
All ticketing & non-ticketing work with below formula:-
Productivity = (complexity weight*no. of items resolved)/effective team size
Where effective team size = 10, who actually solve the issues/tickets (Because GL &
Expert of the team are busy in lots of meetings, managerial works etc every day)
At the starting of this project we use to get escalations from onsite team for our poor
performance & low knowledge level.
I started measuring the productivity of offshore OMS Tier1 team.
Offshore OMS Tier1 team used to clear around 12 WRs a day(7 low complexity
WRs,4 medium complexity WRs & 1 high complexity WR), 5 EMs a day & 1 RFI a
day.
Total productivity of team earlier= {(7*0.2+4*0.3+1*0.5)+5*0.2+1*0.5}/10 = 0.46,
which was no doubt a very low productivity.

18
I started finding the gap throughout the whole process, eventually I found out the
below gaps:-
 Poor knowledge level of individuals (2-3 people were good in terms of
knowledge).
 Lack of accountability & ownership.
 Extended Tea Time & Lunch time
 Lack of Motivation
 Frequent Sick-leaves taken by team-members
 Lack of punctuality
 Lack of Discipline
 One team-member doesn’t know what others are doing
Behind all these gaps, there was a major gap – Low monitoring & controlling.
Corrective measures takenfor every gap
After I found out the gaps, I started taking corrective measure for all those gaps,
mentioned below:-
Poor Knowledge Level of Individual:-
Before I joined the team, there was a concept of On-Job KT, which is worthless to
me. Because I think to begin with every engineer needs a kick-start in terms of
knowledge so that he/she can go with the flow & then later on On-Job KT will be
provided.
On-Job KT is a very slow process, every day as you are assigned new work, you will
hunt for some new knowledge by asking your peers & that’s how gradually over a
period of time you will get some knowledge about OMS application.
That’s why Apart from 2-3 senior team members (who are there in our project since
long time), everyone was less knowledgeable. Having less knowledge is not the worst
thing, but having no intention to gather new knowledge is a crime to me.
To make everyone knowledgeable I started providing daily 1 hour mandatory KT
(Knowledge Transfer) about OMS application knowledge & process knowledge.
Then on the same day I tried to assign the work to the team-members on which area,
that day’s KT was completed.
Gradually I can see that they are getting interest in handling tickets & other tasks. Our
productivity got increased because of the same.

19
Lack of Accountability & Ownership:-
Earlier, Team-members didn’t want to take end-to-end ownership of any task because
simply they were scared as they have less knowledge. After I found out the gap I
motivated them by making everyone a VL (Virtual Lead) for a particular day &
continued the process so far.
Before doing that I proposed about the same in front of my manager & director. I’ve
told them that I will track the performance of every VL & will give you the data-sheet
about how they are performing as VL.
My manager & director approved it & also said that by doing the same we will be able
to know who can lead the team better & it will help them to promote the team-
members as Team-leader in future.
Once they approved, I started this practice in my team. For a particular day, I make
anyone randomly a VL & told him/her that –
 For today you are the owner of this team.
 Any appreciation comes for team today from external stakeholders, will be
credited to your account.
 Any escalation comes for team today from external stakeholders will be your
discredit.
Trust me, it worked like a magic. They started taking this initiative so seriously that
our productivity is really improved.

20
Extended Tea-time & Lunch-Time:-
I saw a trend that apart from me, Vikash (Team-Leader), Kushal & Pournima
everyone goes for Tea & lunch in group.
Morning time they go for tea in a group of 8 people & come back after 1 hour, so
there is a loss of 8 Man-hours in the morning.
Afternoon time they go for lunch in a group of 8 people & come back after 1 & 1/2
hour, so there is a loss of (1.5*8) = 12 Man-hours in afternoon.
Evening time they go for tea in a group of 8 people & come back after 1 hour, so there
is again a loss of 8 Man-hours in the evening.
Total (8+12+8)=28 Man-hours loss a day, i.e. 28/8=3.5 Man-Day’s loss a day.
Effectively our team size became (10-3.5) = 6.5 people. It is a significant loss.
Fig 5.2.2: Tracking of Man-hours loss example

21
After getting this statistics immediately I sent a mail to my manager & director &
asked them to approve below process:-
1. No team-members can go for tea in a group.
2. They will go for tea in a round-robin fashion,
once one member will come back from tea,
another member will go for tea both in morning
& evening.
3. Everyone will have to come back in 10 minutes
from tea.
4. Team can go for lunch in group but they must
come back in an hour.
After getting the approval from my manager & director I immediately called a team-
meeting & rolled out the process formally. Team-members got disappointed but then I
show them the Man-hour loss calculation of our team & they understood a bit at least.
But their bad luck is that they have to abide by the rule, hence productivity again got
increased.
Lack of Motivation:-
I started 1-to-1 meeting every week to get their feedback about our team, project and
management to identify why they are demotivated.
Their input is mentioned below:-
1. Management doesn’t appreciate their good work.
2. Salary Increment is below average.
3. Annual Bonus is very less as compared to their expectation.
4. Onsite Travel opportunity is also less.
5. Only 2-3 senior members go for Onsite Travel every time.
I took corrective actions here, mentioned below:-
1. I started appreciating their good work & also asked my manager to appreciate
their good work.
2. I had a word with my manager in July, 2015 regarding the extra salary hike of
really needy Team-members’. They got extra salary hike.
3. Annual Bonus is such a component which is given only to top performers. I
asked all of my team-members individually to work really hard so that they
will not miss this year’s Annual Bonus, which will be distributed in Jan,2016

22
4. I made travel roaster for my team to make sure that each & everyone will get
onsite travel opportunity. But I didn’t communicate to the team. I asked each
of them individually that if they want to go to onsite, then they have to really
outperform each other – because “Survival of the fittest is everywhere
applied”. This way I’ve created healthy competition in my team.
5. Also, earlier our onsite opportunity was really less, because offshore
management didn’t push it hard. I created technical requirement in Onshore to
make onshore manager feel that they should provide more onsite opportunity
to Offshore OMS Tier1 team.
Fig 5.2.3: Travel Roaster of Offshore OMS Tier1 Team

23
Also I saw that in our team-members, one thing is missing called “Sense of
Belongingness”, they were not feeling happy – hence I again took corrective measure
here by organizing some parties & potluck from project budget.
Please have a look at their smile on the day of potluck:-
Fig 5.2.4:- Time of happiness on the Potluck event
Fig 5.2.5:- Time of happiness on the Potluck event

24
Frequent Sick-leaves taken by Team-members:-
I was seeing that frequent sick-leaves were being taken by team-members, but at the
time of reporting Time-sheet, they were cheating i.e. they kept on filling the timesheet
for even those days when they took sick-leaves. They were pretending as if they were
present on those days even. Because Sick-leave monitoring was not proper – they
were taking undue advantages.
All employees of Amdocs are allotted 10 Sick-leaves a fiscal-year.
But surprisingly our team-members’ Sick-leaves balances were never ending even
after taking so many sick-leaves.
I got that there is a gap & immediately took corrective action here, mentioned below:-
I started tracking their sick-leaves in our Shift-roaster silently without informing our
Team-leader because it was actually his flaw because of which this fraud happened.
Person
17-Aug-
15
18-Aug-
15
19-Aug-
15
20-Aug-
15
21-Aug-
15
Pournima V V V V S2
Aditya S3 SL S3 S3 S3
Swapna S3 V S3 S3 S2
Vinay S3 S3 S3 SL S3
Nitika S3 S3 S3 S3 C
Priyanka S1 S1 S1 S1 S1
Kushal S1 S1 SL SL C
Vinesh S3 S3 S3 S3 S2
Gagan C S3 SL S3 S2
Ankit S1 S1 S1 S1 S1
Deepraj S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Vikash S3 S3 SL S3 S2
Fig 5.2.6:- Shift Roaster of Offshore OMS Tier1 for a particular week
Leave
C Comp-off
V Vacation
SL Sick Leave
H Holiday
O
Optional
Vacation

25
After gathering the data continuously for 2 months I generated the graph & emailed to
the management about the Sick-leaves taken by our Team-members’ in last 60 days.
Fig 5.2.7:- Sick-Leaves taken by Offshore OMS T1 team-member’s since May till
date
Total 39 sick-leaves were taken so far but lots of sick-leaves were not reported.
My manager asked our Team-leader to keep close track of Sick-leaves & all the
timesheets of the team-members’ were scrutinized, those got corrected & it was
clearly communicated to the team not to indulge this kind of mal-practices.
Also, to motivate them here, Offshore management announced the “Most Regular
Employee of the Quarter” Award worth INR15000/-.

26
Vinaya Singh got the AWARD & other’s got the GREED to get it next time & they
stopped taking too many sick-leaves. Below is the recent week’s Shift Roaster of our
team:-
Person 7-Sep-15 8-Sep-15 9-Sep-15 10-Sep-15 11-Sep-15
Pournima S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Aditya Site Site Site Site Site
Swapna C S3 S3 S3 S3
Vinay S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Nitika S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Priyanka C C S3 S3 S3
Kushal S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Vinesh S1 S1 S1 S1 S1
Gagan S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Ankit S1 S1 S1 S1 S1
Deepraj S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Vikash S3 S3 S3 S3 S3
Fig 5.2.8:- Shift Roaster of Offshore OMS Tier1 for recent week
Lack of Punctuality:-
People were coming to Office at any time of the day & they were leaving at any time
without even asking Team-leader. I already told earlier that in our team there was a
huge scope of improvement when I joined this team, especially in team monitoring.
So, I took one step further to make them punctual by created Shift Roaster for
everyone. Figure is already given in above.
We divided our team into 3 shifts:-
1. S1  8:00 AM – 5:00 PM(Shift allowance INR400/- is given by AT&T for
this shift)
2. S2  9:30 AM – 6:30 AM
3. S3  11:00 AM – 8:00 PM
We created the shifts also to make proper handovers happen between Onshore &
Offshore Teams.

27
Lack of Discipline:-
We saw that throughout the day what every team-member does; there is no track on
that. Here also I stepped in & started a process of sending Task Assignment Mail in
the Morning & Team needs to send Individual Handover Mail at the EOD (End of
Day) every day to the Team Distribution List/Team’s Email ID.
Sample Task Assignment Mail is depicted below:-
Fig 5.2.9:- Sample Task Assignment Mail to our team

28
Sample Individual Handover Mail is depicted below:-
Fig 5.2.10:- Sample Individual Handover Mail of our team-member
As they are supposed to send an Individual Handover Mail every day at EOD, hence
they can’t send wrong data in that mail because we are tallying this email with all the
tasks we assigned him/her in Task Assignment Mail in the morning. So, Productivity
is bound to be increased here.
They started to take undue advantages here as well, but we monitored every Individual
Handover Mail so closely, they didn’t repeat bluffing here.
One team-member doesn’t know what others are doing
We thought that everyone in the team should know in brief that what other team-
members are working on. Hence we started a concept called “Daily Huddle Meeting”
to reduce the dependency on that particular person who is currently working on a
critical task so that if tomorrow similar work needs to be done & that particular person
is absent on that day, another person can deliver the task independently.

29
New Productivity Measurement
I started measuring the productivity of offshore OMS Tier1 team for now.
Offshore OMS Tier1 team now clears around 25 WRs a day (17 low complexity
WRs,5 medium complexity WRs & 3 high complexity WR), 10 EMs a day & 3 RFI a
day.
Total productivity of team earlier= {(17*0.2+5*0.3+3*0.5)+10*0.2+3*0.5}/10 =
0.99, which is no doubt a very good productivity.

30
5.3. Literature review on knowledge management
In this paper, I suggest and review four perspectives within the literature surrounding
knowledge management (KM) research at the organizational level:
Information systems, management, organizational learning and strategy
perspectives. Each perspective informs the other perspective.
From an Information System literature perspective:
Alavi and Leidner’s (2001) MISQ article represents the seminal review piece on KM
and information systems; often cited in subsequent works. Their article frames the
knowledge-based view of the firm, extending earlier research by Argote and Ingram
(2000), Nonaka (1994), and Grant (1996) in this area.
Specifically, Alavi and Leidner propose that knowledge represents information
possessed in the minds of individuals, specifically “personalized information (which
may or may not be new, unique, useful, or accurate) related to facts, procedures,
concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations, and judgments” (p. 109).
Their review article suggests other alternative representations of knowledge as
well, to include knowledge as representing a state of mind, object, process, access to
information, or a capability. In each case, information systems play roles in supporting
the “management” of knowledge. Additionally, Alavi and Leidner develop a
framework for analysis of the supporting role of an information system with KM,
specifically four sets of socially enacted, interdependent knowledge processes:
(1) Knowledge creation
(2) Knowledge sharing (to include storage and retrieval)
(3) Knowledge transfer
(4) Knowledge application
I now highlight six research articles within the IS literature, subsequent to Alavi and
Leider, researching KM at the organizational-level. After this initial review, I will
return to earlier research by some of the aforementioned non-IS researchers, in
addition to several others.
First, research by Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001) consider the link
between knowledge processes and an outcome of KM, specifically KM satisfaction
among users. Their research suggests that task characteristics moderate the
relationship between these two variables, with task orientation comprising
internalization, externalization, combination, or socialization. Their research finds

31
either focused or broad knowledge content task-orientation positively moderates the
relationship between knowledge processes and KM satisfaction.
Second, research by Gold et al. (2001) also considers the link between
knowledge processes and outcome of KM, specifically a single organizational
construct called “organizational effectiveness” in their model. Gold et al. suggest four
knowledge processes of acquisition, conversion, application, and protection, in
parallel to three KM infrastructure capabilities of an organization’s technology,
structure, and culture. Their research finds both KM infrastructure capabilities and
knowledge processes positively influence organizational effectiveness.
Third, research by Markus (2001) considers steps toward a theory of
knowledge reuse, specifically situations and factors surrounding successful knowledge
reuse. Her research suggests that each type of knowledge reuse activity possesses
different requirements for the design of a KM repository. Further, Markus suggest
that, owing to the design process for many knowledge reuse repositories, different
users’ requirements frequently remain unmet. Markus suggests that knowledge
producers rarely have the resources or the incentives required to do a good job at
repurposing knowledge.
Fourth, research by Markus et al. (2002) links a design theory for information
systems supporting emerging knowledge processes (EKP’s). The authors define EKPs
as organizational activities that exhibit:
(1) An emergent process of deliberations with no best structure or
sequence
(2) Complex knowledge requirements distributed across people and
evolving dynamically
(3) An unpredictable actor set in terms of job roles or prior knowledge
Markus et al. believe that new product development, strategic business planning, and
organizational design include EKPs and represent unique requirements not supported
by familiar classes of information systems such as expert systems, organizational
memory systems, or repositories. The lasting contribution of this article links
organizational design with design of a KM system, arguing that EKP design theory
links both organizational and information systems aspects of design considerations.
Fifth, research by Lee and Choi (2003) hybridizes research by both Becerra-
Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001) and Gold et al. (2001), to consider organizational
performance as including KM satisfaction, return on assets, return on sales, and
organizational effectiveness. Their model includes KM processes, to focus on
socialization, externalization, combination, and internalization within the knowledge

32
creation process, and KM enablers, to include culture, structure, people, and
information technology.
Sixth, Tanriverdi (2005) finds that IT relatedness of business units enhances
the cross-unit KM capability of the firm, which then has a direct impact on corporate
performance. Tanriverdi’s model theorizes that KM capability creates and exploits
cross-unit synergies from the product, customer, and managerial knowledge resources
of the firm. These synergies increase the financial performance of the firm. IT
relatedness also indirectly influences corporate performance through the mediation of
KM capability.
From a Management perspective:
Argote and Ingram (2000) argue that knowledge transfer serves as a competitive
advantage for firms. Borrowing from cognitive psychology, the authors define
knowledge transfer as “the process through which the experience of one unit affects
another.” Compared to individuals across firms, individuals within a single firm
usually share a greater number of similarities. Consequentially, the authors argue,
interactions involving people allow greater knowledge transfer within firms than
between firms. Argote and Ingram conclude that knowledge embedded in the
interactions of people and tasks affords a competitive advantage in firms.
Though published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
the logic presented in Argote and Ingram’s article parallels additional KM arguments
made in either the Harvard Business Review or Management Science. I now consider
KM from six articles aligned with a management perspective.
First, Drucker (1992) coins the term “knowledge society” and argues that in
the future, knowledge will represent the primary resource for individuals and for the
economy overall. Land, labor, and capital become secondary since, with specialized
knowledge, organizations can easily obtain these resources. Yet Drucker also argues
that knowledge by itself produces nothing; only when integrated into a task does
knowledge benefit society. Drucker then argues the knowledge society also represents
a society of organizations, since he believes the purpose of every organization
comprises the integration of specialized knowledge into common tasks.
Second, Hansen et al. (1999) considers the balance between automating KM
vs. relying on people to share knowledge through more traditional (i.e. non-IS) means.
Codification, through information systems, opens up the possibility of large-scale
reuse for businesses, whereas a personalization approach invests more moderately in
information systems, with the primary goal of facilitating conversations and the
exchange of tacit knowledge. The authors argue the right strategy depends on the

33
volume of explicit vs. tacit knowledge available within a firm and the value of such
knowledge.
Third, Davenport and Glaser (2002) recognize that knowledge-sharing
programs often fail by introducing unforeseen obstacles making it harder for people to
do their jobs. The authors suggest that success depends on integrating specialized
knowledge into the day-to-day routines of highly skilled workers, thereby making the
knowledge reuse extremely accessible and unavoidable. Davenport and Glaser also
acknowledge the difficulty of such embedded knowledge initiatives.
Fourth, Levin and Cross (2004) consider the mediating role of trust in
knowledge transfer. Their research reveals two important findings. One, competence-
and benevolence-based trust among individuals in an organization influences the link
between the tie strength of two individuals and receipt of useful knowledge. Two, the
researchers find a benefit of weak ties (i.e. between dissimilar individuals who do not
routinely interact) antecedent to knowledge transfer, contrary to Argote and Ingram
(2000) earlier research yet supporting other research suggesting weak ties provide
access to non-redundant information.
Fifth, Cummings (2004) considers the influence of structural diversity on work
group performance in a global organization context. Like Levin and Cross (2004),
Cummings also finds that when members of structurally diverse work groups share
knowledge external to the group, their performance improves. The author theorizes
this improvement stems from active exchange of knowledge through unique sources.
Sixth, Singh (2005) extends management research to consider collaborative
networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Unlike Cummings (2004),
Singh hypothesizes that individuals within an organization (from either the same
region or same firm) possess closer collaborative links; thereby influencing a greater
probability of knowledge flows. The researcher finds intra-regional and intra-firm
knowledge flows represent stronger ties influencing knowledge diffusion among
individuals when compared to those across regional or firm boundaries. Curiously, the
effect of regional or firm boundaries on knowledge flow decreases when Singh
accounts for interpersonal ties in. Belonging to the same region or firm has little
additional effect on the probability of knowledge flow among investors who already
share close network ties.

34
From an OrganizationalLearning perspective:
Research on the management side complements research from an organizational
learning perspective. Nonaka (1994) represents the seminal article from such a
perspective, commonly cited by almost all KM studies. Nonaka defines knowledge as
“justified true belief” that increases an entity’s capacity for effective action.
Nonaka recognizes tacit and explicit as two dimensions of knowledge in
organizations. Tacit knowledge comprises cognitive elements, such as mental models
of paradigms, and technical elements, such as concrete “know-how” or contextual
skills. Explicit knowledge comprises articulated and codified knowledge in symbolic
form. While some researchers view the two knowledge dimensions as distinct, Alavi
and Leidner (2001) suggest the two represent “not dichotomous states of knowledge,
but mutually dependent and reinforcing qualities of knowledge” (p. 112). Tacit
knowledge provides the background necessarily for development and interpretation of
explicit knowledge.
Nonaka suggests four modes of knowledge creation, with knowledge “from” on the y-
axis and knowledge “to” on the x-axis. These four modes include internalization,
externalization, combination, or socialization, which later inform research by Becerra-
Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001). Nonaka suggests that a “knowledge spiral” occurs
as knowledge moves from individual, to group, to organizational, to inter-
organizational levels via continuous conversations among individuals in an
organization.
I now consider six articles from an organizational learning perspective that inform
KM research.
First, March (1991) presents a seminal model of organizational learning, pre-dating
coinage of the term “knowledge management” in the literature. March’s model
considers an external reality, individual knowledge about external reality, and an
organizational code representing an approximation of external reality. March defines
an individual knowledge level as the proportion of external reality correctly
represented by an individual knowledge vector. Separately, the proportion of reality
correctly represented by the organizational code defines an organizational knowledge
level. Both individual and organizational knowledge levels potentially change via
organizational learning.

35
Both March and Nonaka (1994) suggest viewing knowledge as either individual or
collective. For each iteration of March’s model, every individual has the potential to
change any belief to conform to the corresponding knowledge of the organizational
code with a probability p1 representing the probability of an organization to exploit
existing knowledge. This represents exploitation. This approximation of exploitative
behavior serves to model individual learning from the organizational code. Equally,
for each iteration, the organizational code has the potential to alter any belief to match
the dominant knowledge of expert individuals with a probability p2 representing the
probability of an organization to explore new knowledge. This represents exploration.
This approximation of explorative behavior serves to model organizational learning
from experts. Organizational experts represent individuals who approximate reality
better than the organizational code.
March expands his formative model to consider a more open system,
comprising personnel turnover and environmental turbulence. For each iteration, every
individual has the potential to leave an organization and be replaced by a naïve
individual, with a probability p3 reflecting this personnel turnover. New individuals
enter with randomly distributed beliefs. Additionally, every dimension of external
reality has the potential to flip, with a probability p4 reflecting external environmental
turbulence. March’s model intentionally precludes both individuals and an
organization from directly observing external reality. Instead, improvement in
individual and organizational knowledge levels comes either from the organizational
code adapting to the knowledge of expert individuals or from individuals conforming
to the knowledge of the organizational code. The organizational code can only
distinguish expert individuals by their optimal individual knowledge levels, and
cannot pinpoint which specific beliefs are true or false for a given dimension of
reality.
Second, Carley (1992) also employs an organizational model to consider
organizational learning and personnel turnover. Again representing research prior to
the coinage of the term “knowledge management”, Carley finds that institutionalized
memory, embodied in the memories of distributed individuals and the relationships
between individuals, determines the consequences of personnel turnover. Her research
regarding personnel turnover informs research regarding knowledge retention and loss
within organizations of mobile personnel.

36
Third, Cramton (2001) extends research by both March and Carley to consider
the problems associated with maintaining mutual knowledge among geographically
dispersed collaborative individuals. The researcher identifies five types of mutual
knowledge failures:
(1) Failure to communicate and retain contextual information
(2) Unevenly distributed information
(3) Difficulty communicating and understanding the salience ofinformation
(4) Differences in speed ofaccess to information
(5) Difficulty interpreting the meaning ofsilence (or non-contribution of
information)
Though Cramton explicitly considers information sharing, her research informs KM
research. Cramton defines mutual knowledge as knowledge that communicating
parties share in common and know they share. Cramton argues for the importance of
such knowledge since her research suggests mutual knowledge increases the
likelihood of understanding between parties.
Fourth, Orlikowski (2002) argues that knowing in practice does not represent a
static embedded capability or stable disposition of actors, but rather an ongoing social
accomplishment both constituted and reconstituted as actors engage the world in
practice. She suggests that global product development, and ostensibly any modern
enterprise, requires both competent collective and distributed knowledge, grounded in
the everyday practices of individuals belonging to an organization. Orlikowski’s views
from an organizational perspective parallel Markus et al.’s (2002) views regarding
information systems supporting emerging knowledge processes.
Fifth, an article by Galbraith (1982) also represents research relevant to KM,
yet prior to the coinage of the term. Galbraith suggests organizations should combine
their structure, information and decision processes, rewards, and people in a unique
way to help create an innovating organization. Of greater note, Galbraith argues that
organizational design tries to match the complexity of an organization’s structure with
the complexity of its environment and technology. Galbraith’s research mirrors Alavi
and Leidner’s (2001) knowledge-based view of the firm as supported by information
systems, as well as Argote and Ingram’s (2000) argument that knowledge embedded
in the interactions of people and tasks affords a competitive advantage in firms.

37
Sixth, Weick and Roberts (1993) present a narrative illustrating the importance
of conceptualizing a collective mind in organizations to explain organizational
performance in situations requiring nearly continuous operational reliability. Similar
to subsequent proposals by Orlikowski (2002) and Markus et al. (2002), the authors
conceptualize a collective mind as a pattern of interrelations and actions in a social
system. Weick and Robert argue that as heedful interrelating and inter-individual
comprehension increase, organizational errors decrease, similar to empirical findings
by Gold et al. (2001) concerning improved organizational efficiency resulting from
KM.
From a Strategyperspective:
For the final perspective involving KM at the organizational level, I consider a
strategy perspective. In 1996, a Winter Special Issue of the Strategic Management
Journal published several papers discussing a knowledge-based theory of the firm, to
include a seminal article by Grant (1996). Grant (1996) takes strong steps toward a
knowledge-based view of the firm, suggesting that:
(1) Firms apply knowledge to the production of good and services
(2) Knowledge represents the most strategically valuable resource
of a firm
(3) Individuals create and hold knowledge, not organizations
(4) Firms exist because of the high costs involved with markets
attempting to coordinate the knowledge of individual specialists
Of note, Grant’s points on why firms exist mirror earlier points contained with the
resource-based view of the firm and agency theory (for details on these two theories,
see the discussion in my second research focus). Specifically, Grant proposes that
even with cooperation, firms face difficulties attempt to coordinate specialized
knowledge, similar to acknowledgements later made by Davenport and Glaser (2002).
Rules, sequencing, or routines can help coordinate specialize knowledge by
minimizing requested costs of such activities. Coordination also depends on common
knowledge shared among individuals in an organization, to include language, shared
meaning, and recognition of different knowledge domains.

38
Three other articles within that Winter Special Issue also consider a knowledge-based
theory of the firm. First, Liebeskind (1996) suggests that firms have unique
institutional capabilities to protect knowledge from imitation more effectively than
market contracting. Second, Spender (1996) revisits sociotechnical systems theory to
adopt heuristics from the social constructionist literature to suggest that knowledge
can be conscious, automatic, objectified, or collective. Of note, Spender suggests that
a dynamic knowledge-based theory of the firm should recognize that organizations
represent “activity” systems, similar to Weick and Robert’s conceptualization of a
collective mind as a pattern of interrelations and actions in a social system. Third,
Tsoukas (1996) employs a constructionist approach to suggest that a firm’s knowledge
represents the indeterminate outcome of individuals attempting to manage the
inevitable tensions between normative expectations, dispositions, and local contexts.
Tsoukas also suggests no single individual can fully know in advance what kind of
knowledge will be relevant, when, and where.
A subsequent article by Dyer and Nobeoka (2000) considers the creation and
management of a high-performance knowledge-sharing network that:
(1) Motivates members to participate
(2) Prevents free riders
(3) Reduces the costs associated with finding and accessing different
types ofvaluable knowledge.
Dyer and Nobeoka suggest strong ties between individuals in their network, alongside
institutionalized routines, facilitate knowledge flows among suppliers. Further, the
authors suggest that this dynamic learning capability creates a competitive advantage,
both for the firm and its partners. Their research parallels several research findings
discussed earlier in this review across multiple perspectives.
Finally, two books provide insightful perspectives into KM and strategy. First, Polanyi
(1967) represents the initial grandfather of future work investigating KM,
distinguishing the dimension of tacit knowledge prior to Nonaka’s (1994) seminal
article. Polanyi views tacit knowledge representing knowledge contained in the mind
of an individual. In his book, Polanyi also lays the foundation for Markus’ (2001)
consideration of different knowledge reuse scenarios.
Second, Clippinger (1999) includes several chapters applying complex adaptive
systems to business. This book makes an overarching contribution by considering that
the classical view of “management” as a directed, focused, or activity with specific

39
ends may not be possible as organizations confront increasingly turbulent, global
environments.
From a KM perspective, it might be that “management” equally represents a
misnomer; akin to research by Tsoukas (1996) that no single individual can fully
know in advance what kind of knowledge will be relevant, when, and where. Instead,
per Clippinger’s suggestion, an ecosystem approach could foster knowledge exchange
opportunities among individuals comprising one or more organizations and allow
dynamic knowledge exchange activities to evolve. This proposal parallels similar
proposals made by Galbraith (1982) and Markus et al. (2002). Clippinger’s book
presents several arguments proposing that a “bottom-up” approach as ideal for
globally distributed individuals who must exchange time-sensitive knowledge to
increase organizational adaptedness and survivability, whereas top-down approaches
may confront indeterminacy. March’s (1991) research also considers the veracity of
both organizational and individual knowledge when confronted with a turbulent
external reality.

40
5.4. Improving Knowledge Management at Amdocs
Most of the time we see that knowledge cannot be retained once the current owner of
the Knowledge leaves the Project or Organization.
Earlier our management tried to ensure that people document the knowledge but it
didn’t work so well. People don’t take it seriously at all, hence proper Knowledge
Management was not existing in Amdocs.
Knowledge Creation & Knowledge Sharing & Knowledge Transfer:-
For knowledge creation we have taken below steps –
1. Hire knowledgeable candidates, who know Java, Unix, SQL & Telecom
Domain knowledge, hence preferably we take candidates from different
projects within Amdocs.
2. We prepared the Knowledge Roadmap for new comers. We make sure that
every new comer goes through the Knowledge Roadmap after joining our
team.
3. We keep on sending all team-members to multiple relevant trainings.
4. After they got the knowledge from training, we immediately asked them to
provide the trainings to other team-members.
5. After all the team-members get trainings from trained team-member we assign
one person document the knowledge. That’s how we convert Explicit
Knowledge to Tacit Knowledge.
6. We keep on sending our team-members to onsite to gain much more customer
orientation knowledge.
7. After they come back from onsite, we force him to pass on the knowledge
amongst all other team-members.
8. We arrange training session with our onsite counterpart i.e. Onshore OMS
Tier1 team, where they provide the knowledge to Offshore team-members.
This is how we create our knowledge base.
Also we provide the VALUE AWARD to the person quarterly who have created the
more number of Knowledge Documents in that particular financial quarter.

41
Knowledge Application:-
Having Knowledge or gaining Knowledge is good but if you are not applying your
knowledge in day-to-day work, then after a certain period of time, your knowledge is
bound to be lost or diminished.
Hence we make sure to assign a person the relevant task about which he/she got the
knowledge recently for a period of time. That’s how his/her knowledge gets utilized in
our project. Also, by this mechanism that person is able to engraft the knowledge fully
after a good number of time’s practice of that knowledge in day-to-day work.
Once we see that this person became comfortable in a particular knowledge area, we
shift him to different knowledge area. That’s how we do role-swap amongst our team-
members. This strategy helps us to create generalists rather than specialists. By this
process we ensure that team is not dependent on any single person, hence that person
can’t even think of taking undue advantages because he/she knows very well that
nobody in our team is indispensable at all.
We motivate our team-members to mentor other new comers & during this process
one thing is utmost noticeable – i.e. his/her show-off power of his knowledge in
front of new comers to gain respect from them. By this strategy they end up giving
the complete knowledge to the new comers & he/she doesn’t even understand that
they are creating their own backup resource. As this process goes on, hence we don’t
have to think of Knowledge Retention.
Knowledge Improvement:-
We measure the knowledge of every team-members in every quarter & arrange
individual 1-to-1 meeting with them to provide them the feedback about their Strong
Knowledge area, their weak Knowledge area & their KL(Knowledge Level) Score.
KL score is given by us (Team-Leader/Expert) based on their day-to-day task
handling & Internal Certifications which they have to appear in every quarter.

42
Sample questions & Knowledge Level measuring mechanism is given in below figure.
Fig 5.4.1:- Sample questions & Knowledge Level measuring mechanism
Knowledge Tracking Mechanism:-
As per the above example, we divided our knowledge areas into three parts:-
1. Basic Level (Weightage – 60%)
2. Intermediate Level (Weightage – 25%)
3. Advanced Level (Weightage – 15%)
Under each level (Basic, Intermediate & Advanced) we have set of questions whose
answer should be in Boolean(Yes/No) i.e. we judge whether one person knows about
the answer of those questions or not. If he/she knows the answer then we put “Yes”
against that question, else we put “No” against that question for that person.
Each Yes carries 1 mark & each No carries 0 mark.

43
Then we use below formula to calculate the Knowledge level:-
Knowledge Score at each level=SUM(Marks of All correct answers)*Weightage
in that level/No. of questions in that level
Overall Knowledge Score = SUM(Knowledge Score at each level)
Overall Knowledge Score will be less than or equal to 1 always.
 If any person’s knowledge score is below 0.2, then his/her Knowledge
Level is 1
 If any person’s knowledge score is between 0.21 to 0.6, then his/her
Knowledge Level is 2
 If any person’s knowledge score is between 0.61 to 0.8, then his/her
 If any person’s knowledge score is between 0.81 to 1, then his/her
Below is the current Knowledge Level of our team-members, average knowledge
level of our team is 3.2, which is good.

44
Fig 5.4.2:- current Knowledge Level of our team-members
Knowledge Retention:-
Also if a person is leaving our team, as per company policy though he/she has to serve
a notice period of minimum 60 days in our team but during that transition time it’s
very difficult to get the knowledge from that person. As the same problem happens
with all the Managers, hence all the managers in Amdocs formed a curtail for all of
their mutual benefit they have created a thumb rule that no resource can leave his old
team before passing on the full knowledge. His/her hiring manager doesn’t take him
till the time his/her old manager confirms that Knowledge Transfer is done by that
person. This is how we retain the knowledge internally.
If a person is leaving Amdocs, he/she has to serve a notice period of 45 days. We
first try to retain the person(if his/her knowledge is really worth to be retained) in
Amdocs by various means like Salary hike, Immediate Onsite Relocation, Promotion
etc. because if the person can be retained then the knowledge will also be retained. If
the person agrees to stay back, then it’s well & good.
If not, then from the 1st day of those 45 days we request him to pass on the knowledge
to other team-members. But frankly speaking this Send-off KT process doesn’t work
well as we don’t have any more control on that person.
***To mitigate the same, I’ve proposed my management to motivate that person to
provide a good Knowledge Transfer to other team-members by a strategy called
“Send-off Bonus” – meaning if a person can really create his own back up within
his/her 45 days’ Notice Period, then at management discretion a good amount of
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4
2
4 4
3 3 3
2 2 2
3
Knowledge Level
Knowledge Level

45
“Send-off Bonus” will be given to them. It’s currently under discussion, the day it will
be implemented in Amdocs, then Amdocs doesn’t have to be concerned about
Knowledge Retention anymore. ***

46
6. THE FIELD WORK AND STUDY
6.1. Questionnaire
6.1.1. DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE
Structured questionnaire (Annexure A) research methodology was used for
collecting data about Knowledge Management. The research instrument is the
technique used to collect data. For the purpose of this study a structured
questionnaire was used. A questionnaire is a more economical method that
supplies answers to a research problem. It is the most frequently used data
collection gathering device in terms of behavioral research in organizations. A
questionnaire also gives clean data, where responses are in uniform format,
making comparison easy. Opinions of the respondents are readily expressed in
numerical format, making analysis more straightforward.
6.1.2. Developmentand structure of questionnaire
The research instrument (Annexure A) that was used as a primary tool for
data collection was a structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was filled
by me after having 1-to-1 interviews with all the team-members to judge their
Knowledge Level. For Productivity Increase, I’ve used Primary Data from
my own observation.

47
7. DATA ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION
As my project is a descriptive one, hence in the Main body of the project; my analysis
of data & corresponding interpretations are given as per the context. Please refer in the
main body of the project.

48
8. CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion here will be that people are opportunist & they take undue advantages
whenever they get a chance. But being a manager/Team-leader of a team we should
monitor the team-members continuously & in parallel we have to get the desired
productivity out of the same team without creating conflicts among the team-members
thereby increasing the overall knowledge level of the team is improved over a period
of time.

49
9. RECOMMENDATIONS
Productivity increasing of a team is a real life need now. It’s the key to ultimate
success as a team. Hence, as a Manager/Team-Leader should constantly focus on the
areas of improvements in Productivity aspects. Also they should inject this culture in
Team’s DNA so that it will be so deep-rooted that Productivity increase will run on
Auto-Pilot mode.
From Knowledge Management Perspective, every manager should focus on
Knowledge Creation, Knowledge Sharing, Knowledge Application & Knowledge
Improvement. If we can make a habit of always “Stay Hungry Sty Foolish” for
knowledge, then the purpose of Knowledge Management will be actually
implemented.

50
10. ANNEXURE A
Questionnaire Area Level
How OMS interactswithotherapplications Architecture Basic
How data istransferredfromOMS to otherapplications Architecture Basic
Doesthe personknowthe OMS Architecture Architecture Basic
Whichtool is usedto build andeditorderingentities Architecture Basic
Doesthe personknowthe differentflows Flows Basic
Doesthe personknowaboutthe OrderLife Cycle Flows Basic
Doesthe personknowhowto launchOMS fromCRM Flows Basic
WhichOMS screenwe can add productsfrom Flows Basic
What are OrderActionMilestones Flows Basic
What all OrderActioncan be performedonSuspendedSubscriber Flows Basic
What all OrderActioncan be performedonActive Subscriber Flows Basic
What all OrderActioncan be performedonCease Subscriber Flows Basic
Doesthe personknowthe differenttype of orders Activities Basic
Doesthe personknowthe differenttype of orderactions Activities Basic
Doesthe personknowthe sequencingof orders Activities Basic
Doesthe personknowhowto run the varioustype of orders Activities Basic
Doesthe personknowwhatis an AssignedProduct Activities Basic
Doesthe personknowaboutthe differentSalesChannel Activities Basic
Doesthe personknow aboutthe differenttype of Activities Activities Basic
What are variousReasonCodes Activities Basic
What isAPM Activities Basic
What are the differentstate of an Product Activities Basic
Doesthe personknowthe variousDB areas Database Basic
Doesthe personknowwhichtable belongstoOMSArea Database Basic
Doesthe personknowwhichtablesbelongstoEPCArea Database Basic
Doesthe personknowdetailsaboutReference Tables Database Basic
Whichtable storesthe AssignedProductDetails Database Basic
Whichtable storesthe OrderInformation Database Basic
Whichtable storesthe OrderActioninformation Database Basic
Whichtable storesthe Activitiesrelatedinformation Database Basic
Whichtable storesthe Exceptiontext Database Basic
Where Charge RelatedInformationisstored Database Basic
Doesa personknowwhatare the attribute value means Database Basic

51
Doesa personknowwhatis the significance of Item_Attribute_list Database Basic
Doesa personknowlocationwhere all Managerserverlogslocatedinserver Logs Basic
Doesa personknowlocationwhere all ICSServerManagerlogslocatedin
server
Logs Basic
Connectorlogslocationsinserver Logs Basic
Doesa personknowhowto search logsforparticularfailed/success activity
inconnectorlogs
Logs Basic
What isthe difference betweenManage ServerandConnectorLogs Logs Basic
Whichtool is beingusedtodefine businesslogicof actionperformedon
product
Architecture Intermediate
WhichFrameworkisusedto design the FrontEnd forOMS Architecture Intermediate
In Provide flow,NCDcomesafterwhichOMSScreen Flows Intermediate
What isthe significanceof the activity Activities Intermediate
What shouldbe the sequence of the activities Activities Intermediate
What are the differentExternal Systems/Waysanordercan be initiated Activities Intermediate
Numberof serverforOMS in Production Activities Intermediate
How to create HF for Data Patch Activities Intermediate
Where we can findthe OfferDetails Database Intermediate
How we maintainrelationbetweenProductOffering Database Intermediate
Doesthe personknowhowto fetchdata frommultiple OMStable effectively Database Intermediate
Doesthe personknowwhatare the primarycolumnsinmainOMS tables Database Intermediate
Doesthe personknowhowto fetchthe count relatedtoparticularexception Database Intermediate
Where we can get the validvaluesforaparticularentity Database Intermediate
How to getthe charge relatedinformation Database Intermediate
Whichtable storesthe OrderInformationanthe start pointif it isinitiated
fromExternal AutomatedSystem
Database Intermediate
Hot Dir locationandsignificance fromOMSserver Logs Intermediate
ColdDir locationand significance fromOMSserver Logs Intermediate
Directorywhere SAPfile putforprocessing Logs Intermediate
How manyICS/Manage serversare there Logs Intermediate
What isPerforce Code Intermediate
How to extractcode fromperforce Code Intermediate
What isthe BB(Code) Structure Code Intermediate

52
What isSalesEngine Architecture Advanced
What are differentSuppotingToolsforOMS Architecture Advanced
How OMS isinteractingwithothersystems Activities Advanced
What are the differentAPI's exposedtoothersystems Activities Advanced
DifferentserversineachapplicationserverforOMSin Production Activities Advanced
Where we can get the name of variousexternal systemAPI Database Advanced
How to create HF for Code Fix Code Advanced
How to docode setupinlocal Code Advanced
How doDebugRemotely Code Advanced
How to enable PortRemotely Code Advanced
How to Buildthe EARon local Code Advanced
Where we define the database connectionconfiguration Code Advanced

53
11. BIBLIOGRAPHY
 Amdocs Portal.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_research_methods_and_discip
lines.
 http://www.academia.edu/3780426/productivity_improvements
 http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=66611208911809000410
20800921040960660190410460440860351080980771220661020250
85099113031012096001011007032125013122092097072021069059
07701006807603111111900709502108905611409212101703007911
50690020700190311150190740160121120260731180280050640131
19&EXT=pdf
 Wikipedia

Increasing Productivity & Improving Knowledge Management in Amdocs

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Increasing Productivity & Improving Knowledge Management in Amdocs

Similar to Increasing Productivity & Improving Knowledge Management in Amdocs (20)

More from DEEPRAJ PATHAK

More from DEEPRAJ PATHAK (7)

Increasing Productivity & Improving Knowledge Management in Amdocs