Sesi 14 km future

CHAPTER 11
Kimiz Dalkir
2005
FUTURE
CHALLENGES for
KM
Partono Arif 2014

Partono Arif 2014
 Describe five major types of information politics model
 Define the paradox of value and its impacts towards the design
of KM solutions
 Compare the different ways for incentives for knowledge
sharing
 List the key challenges for recent and future KM and how to
address them
09 Desember 2014 KM Teaching Group - Universitas TELKOM 2

Partono Arif 2014
 Several challenges in KM ;
Not focusing on people
Overemphasize on technology
Cultural issues
Conducting KM not according to business goals
Ignoring the dynamic aspect of content
Opting quantity from quality

Partono Arif 2014
 KM concept should consider the employee as the owner of the
knowledge & experiences
 Company should reward the employee who willing to share
quality knowledge
 KM is not technology based.
 There is no all inclusive KM solutions
 KM should based on (before choosing the technology)
Who (people)
What (knowledge)
Why (business)

Partono Arif 2014
 Succesfull KM begin with sound strategy combined with
organization culture that enable and reward the sharing
 KM program had no end point, and should identify the gems
from the rocks
 Critical issues discussed
Access issues. The politic and regulations regarding access to
information
Organizational issues. Fostering the culture of sharing
Valuing issues. The impact of shifting from resource-based asset to
knowledge-based

Partono Arif 2014
 Organizations tends to keep everything, believing that someday
someone will need it
 But, how easy that someone retrieve it is the question

Partono Arif 2014
 5 model of information politic to characterize the politic of
organization & context ;
Technocratic utopianism (data)
Anarchy (information - individual)
Feudalism (information – group)
Monarchy (top down)
Federalism (interactive - selfmanage)

Partono Arif 2014
 Technocratic utopianism
Heavily technical approach is taken to information and knowledge
management stressing categorization and the modeling of an
organization’s full information assets
Often in the form of an exhaustive inventory.
There is heavy reliance on emerging technologies, and content tends
to be driven by the information system.
The focus is on detailed corporate data rather than knowledge.
Using assumption that technology will resolve all problems, with the
consequence that little attention is paid to content and its use.
Data is perceived as a corporate asset.

Partono Arif 2014
 Anarchy
Absence of overall information management policy.
Individuals are left to their own devices to obtain and manage their
own information, which is made possible by the introduction of the
personal computer.
Anarchy models are often seen in early stages of start-ups.
They stand at the opposite end of the spectrum from the technocratic
model with little if any classification of corporate information possible
(e.g., of revenues, costs, and customer order levels).
Rarely represents a conscious choice but tends to evolve into some
sort of order.

Partono Arif 2014
 Feudalism
Based on the management of information by individual business units
or functions
They define their own information needs and report only limited
information to the overall corporation.
This is the most commonly encountered model, with its emphasis on
“the control of information” and “knowledge is power.”
The “king” decides on content, language, format, distribution list, and
the analysis.
Key organizational and environmental information is often ignored,
and it is quite difficult to make informed decisions

Partono Arif 2014
 Monarchy
The firm’s leaders define information categories & reporting structures
and may or may not share the information willingly after having
collected it.
The CEO, dictates the rules for how information will be managed.
This model represents an extreme top-down model that is commonly
found in entrepreneurial profiles and among small business owners
and micromanagers.
This model is appropriate when consensus cannot be reached.

Partono Arif 2014
 Monarchy
A constitutional monarchy can evolve directly from feudalism or
monarchies.
There is a document (a “Magna Carta”)—an information management
charter—that states the monarch’s limitations.
This document identifies what information will be collected, rules,
processes, platforms, common vocabulary, and so on.

Partono Arif 2014
 Federalism
Emphasizes an approach to information management based on
consensus and negotiation on the organization’s key information
elements and reporting structures.
The preferred model for most intellectual capital management
applications
It makes extensive use of negotiation to bring potentially competing
and noncompeting parties together.
People with different interests work out among themselves a
collective purpose and a means of achieving it.

Partono Arif 2014
 Federalism
Requires strong (but not too strong) central leadership and a culture
of trust, cooperation, and learning.
Understanding the value of information and the technology that
stores, manipulates, and distributes it.
Federalism encourages the use of cooperative information resources
to create a shared information vision for genuine leveraging of a firm’s
knowledge assets in the form of data marts, not exhaustive data
warehouses.
This model is also a very good fit with communities of practice.

Partono Arif 2014
 Organizational diagnostics
• Assessment of the prevailing culture, attitudes toward knowledge
(sharing vs. hoarding), & the reward systems that can help
understand the level of KM readiness that exists within a given
organization
 Key of the KM-enabled culture lies with incentives to promote
knowledge sharing.
 Culture remains one of the critical KM issues to be addressed,
and change management increasingly goes hand in hand with
any KM objective.

Partono Arif 2014
 Knowledge workers need to have a climate in which knowledge
sharing is encouraged
 Incentives remain one of the more important challenges facing
KM today.
 Human are purposeful creatures (tend to continue to exhibit
behaviors associated with positive rewards & avoid those that
lead to negative consequences)
 It seems reasonable to expect that incentives for knowledge
sharing should lead to more sharing of knowledge.

Partono Arif 2014
 What is perceived as a reward by some may be seen as an
insult by others
 The reward should fit the person being rewarded. At a
minimum, employees should be allowed to choose their reward
from a list of possibilities
 Types of incentives (Callahan, 2004) ;
Remunerative incentives
Moral incentives
Coercive incentives

Partono Arif 2014
 Remunerative incentives
Exist where an agent can expect some form of material reward—
especially money—in exchange for acting in a particular way.
 Moral incentives
exist where a particular choice is widely regarded as the right thing to
do, or as particularly admirable, or where the failure to act in a certain
way is condemned as indecent.
A person acting on a moral incentive can expect a sense of self-esteem
and approval or even admiration from her community; a
person acting against a moral incentive can expect a sense of guilt
and condemnation, or even ostracism, from the community

Partono Arif 2014
 Coercive incentives
Exist where a person can expect that the failure to act in a particular
way will result in physical force being used against him or her (or her
loved ones) by others in the community—for example, by punishment,
imprisonment, firing, or confiscating or destroying their possessions.

Partono Arif 2014
 If there is no economic, social, or personal incentive for any
individual - the work usually will not done
 Value of knowledge sharing should be reflected in the ongoing
personnel evaluation, periodic merit review, or pay bonuses of
the organization, so that everyone can see that knowledge
sharing is one of the principal behaviors that the organization
encourages and rewards
 Informal incentives, (recognition by management & visibility
within the organization) can be more powerful incentives than
the formal incentive system

Partono Arif 2014
 Read the thought of Stevens about what the organization can
do to encourage their knowledge sharing (p.312)

Partono Arif 2014
 The paradox of value
The easier it is to extract the knowledge, the less value it actually
embodies.
The greater the tacitness of knowledge, the greater its value
 Knowledge assets are a source of competitive advantage
The way to translate the knowledge into a competitive advantage is
not well understood.
 Obtaining this advantage does not happen automatically—a
firm has to know how to extract value from knowledge assets

Partono Arif 2014
 Costs of knowledge
Data processing and data transmission costs.
Codification costs due to searching, selections made under
uncertainty.
Abstraction costs arising from generalizing knowledge over wider
problem spaces.
Diffusion costs when communicating with potentially large audiences
in ways that can be understood and can lead to effective responses.
Absorption costs when getting potential recipients of new knowledge
to internalize it and familiarize themselves with it.
Costs of applying internalized knowledge in a variety of concrete
situations

Partono Arif 2014
 Another paradox of KM  knowledge transfer does not require
physical contiguity. It does require codification and abstraction,
however.
 One should only select information with potential value and
utility that will justify the time and effort required.
 The more “transferable” the knowledge, the less scarce it
becomes.
 3 types of intellectual capital needed
Human capital
Customer capital
Organizational capital

Partono Arif 2014
 Intellectual capital  the relationship between human,
customer, and organizational capital that maximizes the
organization’s potential to create value
 What did Gordon Petras does at Dow Chemical (find it on
p.315)

Partono Arif 2014
 Knowledge can be divested by ;
Selling, licensing, and donating a patent.
Spinning off or selling a business unit.
Outsourcing a function of the operating process.
Terminating a training program.
Retaining, relocating, or firing individuals with obsolete or ill-fitted
skills.
Replacing or upgrading information technology systems.
Terminating partnerships, alliances, and contracts

Partono Arif 2014
 The KM “quick fix” needed but often resut in misleading
 The return on KM investments should not be perceived
exclusively as short-term gains but rather should be seen as
long-term process, people, and organizational improvements.
 One medicine can’t cure all
 Too many requirement (culture, maturity, …..)

Sesi 14 km future

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Sesi 14 km future

More from Arif Partono

Recently uploaded

Sesi 14 km future