KSF S For Knowledge Management

MASTER THESIS
MBA: International Business Management& Consulting

KAVINDRA MATHI

Key Success Factors
For
Knowledge Management

SUPERVISOR: PROF. DR. CHRISTOPH DESJARDINS

INTERNATIONALES HOCHSCHULINSTITUT LINDAU,
UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES/ FH KEMPTEN,
GERMANY; DECEMBER 2004

SUPERVISOR: MR. STEFAN THEELEN, CIO
METZELER GmbH, LINDAU, GERMANY; DECEMBER 2004

ii
ABSTRACT

The pur pos e of t hi s t hes i s i s t o gai n a bet t er under s t andi ng of how
s ome f act or s ar e cr i t i cal f or t he s ucces s f ul appl i cat i on of Knowl edge
Management ( KM) . KM cover s a wi de r ange of f unct i onal i t i es and
s uppor t di f f er ent s et s of act i vi t i es . Ther ef or e, t o achi eve t he r es ear ch
obj ect i ve, t hi s wor k l i mi t s t he f i el d of i nves t i gat i on t o t hat KM,
devot ed t o t he f or mal i zat i on and t he s har i ng of bes t pr act i ces and
exper i ences wi t hi n t he or gani zat i on. The s t udy as s umes t hat t o eval uat e
t he s ucces s of a KM, ar e t he Key Succes s Fact or s ( KSFs ) on t he qual i t y
and quant i t y of t he cont r i but i ons t o t he s ys t em f r om t he empl oyees .
Then a Lear ni ng and Adapt at i on Suppor t Sys t em t hat has been appl i ed
el s ewher e ar e des cr i bed i n exampl es pr ovi ded. Bas ed on t he exi s t i ng
l i t er at ur e r egar di ng I T adopt i on, accept ance and Key Succes s Fact or s
( KSFs ) , a r es ear ch hypot hes i s has been devel oped and t es t ed t hr ough a
qual i t at i ve and a quant i t at i ve s t udy i n one of t he i nt er nat i onal mi d-
s i zed aut omot i ve pr of i l e s ys t ems compani es . The out come of t hi s
empi r i cal r es ear ch pr ovi des i ndi cat i ons on t he l ever ages f or t he
ef f ect i ve devel opment and management of KM t hr ough Key Succes s
Fact or s ( KSFs ) . The eval uat i on conf i r ms t he cr i t i cal s ucces s f act or s , as
dependent on bot h i nt er nal and ext er nal knowl edge s har i ng and
i nt er act i on.

iii
Decl arat i on Form

I her eby decl ar e t hat :
I have s i ncer el y endeavour ed t o pr oduce a paper of out s t andi ng
academi c qual i t y.
I have pr oduced t hi s paper mys el f wi t hout any out s i de as s i s t ance
except f r om t he peopl e and document s I quot e.
I have not copi ed t hi s paper f r om ot her paper s or document s avai l abl e,
except wher e I have expl i ci t l y s t at ed s o.
I have not us ed t hi s paper f or exami nat i on pur pos es i n any ot her cour s e
or i ns t i t ut e.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kavi ndr a Mat hi , Li ndau, Ger many, December , 2004

iv
Acknowl edgement

The t hes i s cover s an ar ea t hat has had ver y l i t t l e at t ent i on f r om
r es ear cher s . I have put ef f or t s i n bl endi ng t wo key ar eas f r om moder n
wor kpl ace t o one ext ens i ve t opi c. To accompl i s h t hi s mi xt ur e I have
had i mpor t ant s uppor t f r om var i ous peopl e. Ther ef or e, I woul d l i ke t o
expr es s my s i ncer e t hanks t o s ome of t he i ndi vi dual s . The f ol l owi ng
i ndi vi dual s as s i s t ed me dur i ng t he pr oces s of compi l i ng t hi s t hes i s .
1. Pr of es s or Dr . Chr i s t oph Des j ar di ns , ( Depar t ment of Bus i nes s
Admi ni s t r at i on, I HL and FH Kempt en)
2. Pr of es s or Dr . J ochen Sei dl , ( Depar t ment of Bus i nes s Admi ni s t r at i on,
FH Kempt en) and Pr of . Dr . Thomas Kat t l er ( Dept . of I T& MI S, I HL)
3. Dr . Sven Ber ger t , I HL St af f & Management , FH- Kempt en and I HK.
4. Mr . St ef an Theel en, CI O, Met zel er . GmbH, Pr oj ect Leader ( 2004)
5. Mr . Hol l ander , HRD Chi ef of Met zel er GmbH
6. Mr . Sr i Kar an, I T- Eur o member and Mr . Cal um Gr i gor of Met zel er
7. Mr . Ger d Sei del , ( Ex) VDMS& Manager , Eur opean Excel l ence Gr oup
( Pr oj ect Manager , 2003)
8. Mr . Er har d Wal l enf el s , Mr . Ar men Sar ki s s i an, The Knauer f ami l y,
Mr . Mar k C Rei nol ds , Mr . J ens St oet zner , Mr . Dr aza Kr aj nj anc, Her r
( Mr . ) Al exander von Br onews ki and The Schi ndl er s .
9. The I nt er vi ewees and t her e ar e many ot her s t oo numer ous t o ment i on
t o whom I m i ndebt ed. I t r us t t hat t hey wi l l not be of f ended by my
i nabi l i t y t o l i s t t hem al l her e.

Li ndau/ B, Ger many, December 2004
Kavi ndr a Mat hi

v
Abbrevi at i ons -

I HL
FH
KM
KMS
KSF
I CTs
TM
EED
EET
KP
I nt er nat i onal es Hochs chul i ns t i t ut Li ndau
Fach Hochs chul e
Knowl edge Management
Knowl edge Management Sys t ems
Key Succes s Fact or s
I nf or mat i on and Communi cat i on Technol ogi es
Top Management
Eur opean Exper t Dat a bas e
Eur opean Exper t Tool
Knowl edge Pr oces s

Content
1 THEORETICAL PART.................................................................................................... 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 1
1.2 DEFINITION ................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 KM STRATEGY, ICTS AND KM-TOOLS ...................................................................... 4
1.4 KNOWLEDGE AS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE............................................................ 5
1.5 DISTRIBUTED KM-SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 6
1.6 KM IN PRACTICE........................................................................................................ 7
1.7 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS ............................................................................................. 9
2 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................... 15
2.1 RESEARCH METHODS AND ITS PRESENTATION: INSTRUMENTS................................. 15
2. 1. 1 Met hods of t he s t udy .................................................................................. 15
2. 1. 2 Qual i t at i ve Res ear ch Des i gn ................................................................. 16
2.2 INTERVIEWS: SPECIFIC TARGET GROUP SELECTION AND TIME PERIOD.................... 20
2. 2. 1 Quant i t at i ve Anal ys i s : .............................................................................. 20
2. 2. 2 St r uct ur e of t he Ques t i onnai r e and Res pons e ............................... 23
3 EMPERICAL PROJECT ................................................................................................ 29
CASE ANALYSIS METZELER..................................................................................... 29
3.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 29
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................. 30
3.3 PROJECT WORK SEPT.03-NOV.03 ............................................................................ 33
3.4 PROJECT STATUS 2004............................................................................................. 33
4 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 35
4.1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 35
4.2 QUALITATIVE RESULTS ............................................................................................ 38
4.3 KEY SUCCESS FACTORS QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS .............................................. 42
4. 3. 1 Cul t ur e ............................................................................................................. 44
4. 3. 2 KM Or gani z at i on ......................................................................................... 47
4. 3. 3 St r at egy, Sys t ems & an I T I nf r as t r uct ur e ......................................... 49
4. 3. 4 Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es ......................................................... 50
4. 3. 5 Meas ur es ......................................................................................................... 52
4.4 SUMMARY................................................................................................................ 53
5 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 56
5.1 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS............................................................................................ 56
5.2 PERSONAL RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 64
5.3 POINTS TO NOTE ...................................................................................................... 68
5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT........................................................................... 68
6 ANCILLARIES.................................................................................................................. I
6.1 SOURCES& REFERENCES............................................................................................. I
6.1.1 LITERATURE............................................................................................................ I
6.1.2 INTERNET .......................................................................................................... VIII
6.2 LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... IX
6.3 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. IX
Introduction
I
1 Theoretical Part

1. 1 Int roduct i on
Dr ucker ( 1993) des cr i bed knowl edge, r at her t han capi t al or l abour as
t he onl y meani ngf ul r es our ce i n t he knowl edge s oci et y, and Senge
( 1990) has war ned t hat many or gani zat i ons ar e unabl e t o f unct i on as
knowl edge bas ed or gani zat i ons , becaus e t hey s uf f er f r om l ear ni ng
di s abi l i t i es . Al t hough, t her e i s r ecogni t i on t hat t he knowl edge s oci et y
and t he knowl edge economy have ar r i ved, and t hat knowl edge i s a key
bus i nes s as s et , or gani zat i ons ar e s t i l l i n t he ear l y s t ages of
under s t andi ng t he i mpl i cat i ons of knowl edge management . Rowl ey
( 1999) and Bhat t ( 2000) det er mi ned by or gani zat i onal capabi l i t i es and
cor e- compet enci es . Pr ahl ad and Hamel ( 1990) cont i nue by s t at i ng t hat
t he i ncr eas ed r eal i zat i on of knowl edge as t he cor e compet ence i s
becomi ng a cr uci al s ur vi val f act or .
The r ecent advances i n t he mer gi ng f i el d of comput i ng and hi gh-
s peed communi cat i ons have i ncr eas ed t he or gani zat i ons i nt er es t i n t he
t opi c of KM. Thi s gr owi ng f i el d i s cat egor i s ed wi t h t he I nf or mat i on
and Communi cat i on Technol ogi es ( I CTs ) . Wi t h i ncr eas i ng capabi l i t i es
of I CTs , an under s t andi ng of di f f er ent knowl edge s t r at egi es has become
much mor e i mpor t ant ( Bur r ows , 1994) . St r at egi es t o i nves t i gat e
Knowl edge Management ( KM) woul d be t o i ncr eas e t he l evel of s oci al
i nt er act i on t hat occur s i n t he or gani zat i on, as onl y s ome of whi ch may
be t echnol ogi cal l y as s i s t ed, Ear l and Scot t ( 1999) , Bont i s ( 2001) .
Raghur am, Gar ud, Wi es enf el d and Gupt a ( 2001) , ment i on t hat I CTs
pr ovi de i nf or mat i on and knowl edge s har i ng wi t h a new di mens i on.
To s ome ext ent , ever y human pr oces s i s s ue i s a key s ucces s
f act or . Ever y one has been i mpor t ant s i nce peopl e f i r s t f or med
or gani zat i ons t o accompl i s h t as ks t oo bi g t o be per f or med by
i ndi vi dual s wor ki ng al oneand ever y one wi l l cont i nue t o be a
chal l enge as l ong as peopl e wor k t oget her . The f or m each t akes i s
Definition

2
cons t ant l y evol vi ng t o f i t changi ng ci r cums t ances , but ever y once i n a
whi l e, maj or s hi f t s occur whi ch dr amat i cal l y change what i s r equi r ed i n
each of t hes e key ar eas . We ar e exper i enci ng s uch a s hi f t r i ght now
movi ng f r om t he i ndus t r i al age t o a knowl edge- bas ed economy.
( Cul t ur e- bui l di ng. com, 2003) .
Key Concept : What i s Knowl edge Management ?

1. 2 Def i ni t i on
Al t hough KM concept s have been ar ound f or a l ong t i me, t he t er m
knowl edge management s eems t o have ar i s en i n t he mi d- 70s .
Ni chol as Henr y ( 1974) us es knowl edge management i n a manner t hat
r es embl es our cur r ent under s t andi ng of t he expr es s i on.
Def i ned br oadl y, KM i s t he pr oces s t hr ough whi ch or gani zat i ons
ext r act val ue f r om t hei r i nt el l ect ual as s et s ( Kapl an, 2002) . By
adopt i ng t hi s bel i ef of KM, t he f ol l owi ng def i ni t i on of KM i s s ui t abl e.
" Knowl edge Management cat er s t o t he cr i t i cal i s s ues of or gani zat i onal
adapt at i on, s ur vi val and compet ence i n f ace of i ncr eas i ngl y
di s cont i nuous envi r onment al change. Es s ent i al l y, i t embodi es
or gani zat i onal pr oces s es t hat s eek s yner gi s t i c combi nat i on of dat a and
i nf or mat i on pr oces s i ng capaci t y of i nf or mat i on t echnol ogi es and t he
cr eat i ve and i nnovat i ve capaci t y of human bei ngs " ( Mal hot r a, 1997) .
To cl ar i f y, a cl as s i f i cat i on of knowl edge management i s made i n
t wo di mens i ons : one di mens i on i s t o manage exi s t i ng knowl edge, whi ch
i ncl udes devel opi ng of knowl edge r epos i t or i es ( memos , r epor t s ,
pr es ent at i ons and ar t i cl es ) , knowl edge compi l at i on, ar r angement and
cat egor i zat i on. Anot her i s t o manage knowl edge- s peci f i c act i vi t i es ,
t hat i s , knowl edge acqui s i t i on, cr eat i on, di s t r i but i on, communi cat i on,
s har i ng and appl i cat i on ( St enmar k, 2001) .
Knowl edge management cons i s t s of t he admi ni s t r at i on of
knowl edge as s et s of an or gani s at i on and t he, s har i ng and enl ar gement
Definition

3
of t hos e as s et s . Knowl edge model l i ng pl ays a cr uci al r ol e i n t he
achi evement of t hes e goal s ( Di gnum, 1999) . I n pr act i ce, knowl edge
management of t en encompas s es i dent i f yi ng and mappi ng i nt el l ect ual
as s et s wi t hi n an or gani s at i on, gener at i ng new knowl edge f or
compet i t i ve advant age, and maki ng vas t amount s i nf or mat i on
acces s i bl e, cons i der i ng and enabl i ng al l of t he above.
Knowl edge Management l ooks at how an or gani zat i on adapt s t o
changi ng condi t i ons i n or der t o s ur vi ve; i n t he s ame way t hat ani mal
and pl ant s peci es change over t i me t o adapt t o changi ng condi t i ons ,
uns ucces s f ul f i r ms di e of f or ar e s wal l owed up by mor e s ucces s f ul
compet i t or s ( Bur n, Mar s hal l and Bar net t , 2002) . KM i s concer ned wi t h
t he expl oi t at i on and devel opment of t he knowl edge as s et s of an
or gani zat i on wi t h a vi ew t o f ur t her i ng t he or gani zat i on s obj ect i ves
( Sanchez, 2000; Abel l and Oxbr ow, 2001) .
Knowl edge maps can be a us ef ul met hod t o s uppor t t he KM
s t r at egy s i nce i t t akes bot h i ndi vi dual and t eam l evel i nt er act i ons and
pr oces s es i nt o cons i der at i on. ( i bi d)
Publ i c s ect or agenci es t hr oughout t he wor l d ar e at t he f or ef r ont
of i mpl ement i ng KM. Cl os er ci t i zen engagement , cr os s - agency
col l abor at i on and ef f i ci ency di vi dends ar e dr i vi ng agenci es t o adopt
i ni t i at i ves t hat f ocus on maki ng t he bes t us e of knowl edge. Many
gover nment depar t ment s and agenci es have i nves t i gat ed ways t o bes t
us e knowl edge r es our ces t o i mpr ove t hei r oper at i ons . Knowl edge
management ( KM) bui l ds on ear l i er appr oaches of dat a management and
i nf or mat i on management and adds a hi gher l evel of compl exi t y wi t h t he
i ncl us i on of meani ng, net wor ki ng, col l abor at i on and bus i nes s pr oces s
i mpr ovement ( AGI MO Knowl edge Management , 2004) . Thus ,
Knowl edge management ( KM) i s a pr oces s t hat hel ps or gani zat i ons
f i nd, s el ect , or gani ze, di s s emi nat e, and t r ans f er i mpor t ant i nf or mat i on
and exper t i s e t o gai n bus i nes s advant age.
KM Strategy, ICTs and KM-tools

4
1. 3 KM St rat egy, ICTs and KM- t ool s
I n t he eEconomy, t oday s compet enci es become t omor r ow s cor e
r i gi di t i es wi t h unpr ecedent ed s peed. Under t hes e condi t i ons , i t i s
i ncumbent upon compani es t o r ut hl es s l y r econs i der t he val ue of
es t abl i s hed pr oces s es and ways of doi ng bus i nes s , t o gear t he
or gani zat i on t owar ds pur pos ef ul at t endance of i t s mos t val ued as s et
i t s knowl edge bas e. Bes t pr act i ces s houl d be s har ed wi t hi n t he
company s net wor k, t hough i t i s under s t ood t hat i n t he cur r ent ,
net wor ked, eEconomy, compani es t hat har ves t and hoar d t hei r
knowl edge wi l l be at a compet i t i ve di s advant age. Compani es t oday l i ve
i n knowl edge ecol ogi es wher e one company f eeds knowl edge i nt o
anot her . What count s i s a net wor ked appr oach t o Knowl edge
Management , i nvol vi ng i nt er nal as wel l as ext er nal par t i es .
The l ogi c behi nd t hi s i s as s i mpl e as i t i s compel l i ng: i f you cut
of f t he out f l ow of knowl edge, you wi l l al s o cut of f t he i nf l ow.
Ther ef or e, t he f i r m s opennes s t o ext er nal exper t s and t he s har i ng of
i deas wi t hi n a br oad net wor k wi l l be a key dr i ver i n mai nt ai ni ng
compet i t i ve s ucces s . ( Thomas Davenpor t and Gi l ber t Pr obs t , 2002) .
An or gani zat i on s houl d have t he capaci t y t o expl oi t i t s knowl edge
and l ear ni ng capabi l i t i es bet t er t han i t s compet i t or s s houl d i f i t deci des
t o as s ume a gi ven compet i t i ve s t r at egy ( Gr ant and Gnyawal i , 1996;
Rot h, 1996) . Thi s capaci t y depends on i t s KM t ool s , t he us age of I CTs
and t he or gani zat i onal s t r uct ur e. I t i s t her ef or e i mpor t ant t o i nves t i gat e
how or gani zat i ons and t hei r empl oyees t ake advant age of t he
t echnol ogi cal t ool s t hat can make communi cat i on mor e conveni ent and
l es s expens i ve. Bef or e des cr i bi ng t he t ool s i n det ai l i t i s i mpor t ant t o
r emember t hat t he knowl edge r epos i t or i es cons i s t s of al l t he document s
wi t h knowl edge embedded i n t hem, s uch as memos , r epor t s ,
pr es ent at i ons and ar t i cl es ( Kapl an, 2002) . Thes e r epos i t or i es ar e us ed
when knowl edge goes t hr ough t he f ol l owi ng phas es : acqui s i t i on,
cr eat i on, di s t r i but i on, communi cat i on, s har i ng and appl i cat i on
( St enmar k, 2001) .
Knowledge as a competitive advantage

5
Today or gani zat i ons of t en have el ect r oni c di r ect or i es and
dat abas es t o nur t ur e t hes e knowl edge phas es . However , i t i s s ai d, I f
KM i s j us t handed over t o I T, i t ens ur es f ai l ur e. - Bor n Wr i ght ,
r ef er r ed by Kapl an, 2002

1. 4 Knowl edge as a compet i t i ve advant age
The ques t i on i s , how can compani es us e knowl edge t o s ecur e a
s t r at egi c advant age? Conci s el y, i t i s about gener at i ng gr eat er val ue
t hr ough t he knowl edge i n pr oduct s , peopl e, and pr oces s es . That i s ,
Knowl edge i n Technol ogy or Pr oduct s i mpl i es Tool s and i nf r as t r uct ur e,
l eadi ng t o I nt el l i gent or s mar t pr oduct s whi ch can command
pr emi um pr i ces and be mor e benef i ci al t o us er s . One exampl e i s t he
i nt el l i gent oi l dr i l l t hat bends and weaves i t way t o ext r act mor e oi l
t han ever f r om t he pocket s of oi l i n under gr ound f or mat i ons .
Knowl edge i n Peopl e, wher ei n i s Communi cat i on- i s Our mos t
val uabl e as s et , accor di ng t o many company r epor t s . Al t hough t he
act ual way t he Peopl e i s s ues ar e t r eat ed and managed may of t en
bel i es t hi s , i t s t i l l r emai ns t he mos t i mpor t ant f act or . For exampl e, t he
Lear ni ng Or gani zat i on pr ogr ammes , i s one way of nur t ur i ng and
appl yi ng under ut i l i zed t al ent . Knowl edge i n Pr oces s es , whi ch i s t he
KM- Pr act i ces , i n many compani es ; t her e ar e of t en di f f er ences i n
per f or mance l evel s among di f f er ent gr oups per f or mi ng t he s ame
pr oces s . Cl os i ng s uch a gap s aved Texas I ns t r ument s t he cos t of one
new s emi conduct or f abr i cat i on pl ant ( a $1bi l l i on i nves t ment ) . ( Skyr me,
DJ and Ami don, DM 1997) .
Thes e ar e not t he onl y ways t hat compani es ar e cr eat i ng s t r at egi c
advant age t hr ough knowl edge but gi ve a f l avour of what i s pos s i bl e.
Ot her s i ncl ude act i ve management of i nt el l ect ual pr oper t y por t f ol i o of
pat ent s and l i cens es , and cr eat i ng new bus i nes s es t hat expl oi t
i nt er nal l y gener at ed i nf or mat i on and knowl edge.

Distributed KM-Systems

6
1. 5 Di st ri but ed KM- Syst ems
The gr owi ng i mpor t ance of di s t r i but i on of knowl edge has gi ven r i s e t o
t he devel opment of s ever al i nf or mat i on s ys t ems f or t he s uppor t of
di s t r i but ed knowl edge management wi t hi n an or gani s at i on ( Schmi d and
St anoevs k- Sl abeva, 1998) . Exampl es of s uch s ys t ems ar e:
Document Management Sys t ems : dat abas e or i ent ed s t or age,
management and acces s i bi l i t y of document s .
Gr oupWar e: s uppor t co- or di nat i on of cooper at i ve wor k by
capt ur i ng a r epos i t or y of ( uns t r uct ur ed) pi eces of i nf or mat i on cr eat ed
by a t em dur i ng t hei r common wor k.
Or gani s at i onal Memor y I nf or mat i on Sys t ems ( OMI S) : OMI S
i nt egr at e cont ext , document s and uns t r uct ur ed i nf or mat i on, ai med at
enhanci ng i t s acces s and r eus e.
I nt r anet s and Ext r anet s : appl y t he bas i c pr i nci pl es of DMS and
OMI S s ys t ems , can be enhanced wi t h Gr oupWar e f unct i onal i t y and
have br ought t he mul t i - medi a as pect t o knowl edge management .
Thes e i nf or mat i on s ys t ems f or di s t r i but ed knowl edge management
have t o gr eat ext ent i mpr oved i nf or mat i on avai l abi l i t y but have not
r eached t he goal t o pr ovi de an ef f i ci ent s uppor t f or knowl edge
management . The maj or weaknes s es can be s ummar i s ed as f ol l ows
( Di gnum, V and Hei manns f el d, K 1999) .
The concept s and s ol ut i ons concent r at e expl i ci t knowl edge l eavi ng
t he f l ui d t aci t knowl edge of humans and t he human car r i er s out s i de of
t he s ys t em. Thus , an i mpor t ant i nt egr al par t of or gani s at i onal
knowl edge i s not i nt egr at ed i n t he s ys t em.
Knowl edge i s cons i der ed wi t hout t he cont ext wi t hi n whi ch i t was
cr eat ed. Thi s l i mi t s i t s r eus abi l i t y t o empl oyees havi ng backgr ound
knowl edge about t he cont ext .
KM in Practice

7
The s ys t ems ar e not des i gned t o be an i nt egr al par t of knowl edge
cr eat i on. I n or der t o r ecei ve added val ue of t he s t or ed i nf or mat i on,
addi t i onal t as ks have t o be per f or med. Thes e addi t i onal t as ks do not
pr ovi de i mmedi at e val ue and t her ef or e, of t en omi t t ed even t hough
t hey may be of i mpor t ance i n t he mi d or l ong t er m.
The meani ng of t he t er ms us ed as par t of s t r uct ur ed or uns t r uct ur ed
i nf or mat i on i s not expl i ci t l y s t or ed i n t he s ys t em. As t he meani ng of
wor ds mi ght change over t i me t he s t or ed knowl edge mi ght be
mi s under s t ood.
Mos t s ys t ems f ur t her mor e f ocus on knowl edge management wi t hi n
a s peci f i c ar ea of appl i cat i on. As a r es ul t , t hey do not pr ovi de a
gener i c s ol ut i on and do not pr ovi de s uppor t f or knowl edge
combi nat i on acr os s or gani s at i onal boundar i es as depar t ment s or
f unct i onal ar eas . Thus , exi s t i ng s ol ut i ons appl y t he convent i onal
paper - bas ed knowl edge management concept s wi t hout t hei r adopt i on
t o t he pot ent i al s of t he new medi um.

1. 6 KM i n Pract i ce
The wor ki ng def i ni t i on of knowl edge i s t hat Knowl edge mus t i nvol ve
an agent , who us es knowl edge t o per f or m act i ons neces s ar y t o r each a
goal . Knowl edge can and s houl d be eval uat ed by t he deci s i ons or
act i ons t o whi ch i t l eads ( Davenpor t and Pr uzak 1998) .

When knowl edge i s of es s ent i al i mpor t ance f or t he r eal i s at i on of
t he s t r at egi c goal s of t he or gani s at i on, s uch or gani s at i ons ar e cal l ed
knowl edge i nt ens i ve. I n or der f or an or gani s at i on t o move f r om a
knowl edge- i nt ens i ve s t r uct ur e t o a knowl edge- bas ed s t r uct ur e, i s
neces s ar y t o s t ar t by i dent i f yi ng or gani s at i on s t r uct ur e f r om a
knowl edge per s pect i ve. The l evel of knowl edge or i ent at i on of an
or gani s at i on i s bas ed on s even char act er i s t i cs : s t r at egy, or gani s at i onal
s t r uct ur e, t echnol ogy, per f or mance meas ur ement , HRM, cul t ur e and
KM in Practice

8
l evel of expl i ci t nes s of knowl edge ( Di gnum, V and Hei manns f el d, K
1999) .
Havi ng i dent i f i ed t he knowl edge s i t uat i on of t he or gani s at i on, t he
next s t ep i s t o eval uat e t he s peci f i c knowl edge pr obl ems i n t he
or gani s at i on, or i n one of i t s depar t ment s , pr oces s es or act i vi t i es . The
mos t us ual knowl edge pr obl ems ar e unbal anced di s t r i but i on,
f r agment at i on, unavai l abi l i t y and i nacces s i bi l i t y of knowl edge. Thi s
pr ocedur e, cal l ed a knowl edge audi t , i s bas ed on t he f ol l owi ng s t eps :
( Wi s dom Team 1998) .
I dent i f i cat i on of or gani s at i on goal s ( or depar t ment goal s , pr oces s goal s
or act i vi t y goal s ) .
I dent i f i cat i on of pr obl ems whi ch hi nder t he achi evement of t hes e
goal s .
I dent i f i cat i on of t he or gani s at i onal pr oces s es t o achi eve
or gani s at i on goal s .
Anal ys i s of t hes e pr oces s es f r om a knowl edge per s pect i ve.
Anal ys i s of t he pr obl ems f r om a knowl edge per s pect i ve.
I dent i f i cat i on and def i ni t i on of knowl edge pr obl ems and gener i c
s ol ut i ons .
I mpl ement at i on of concr et e s ol ut i ons .
Al t hough KM i s as an ent er pr i s e- wi de goal , many compani es ki ck-
of f an i ni t i at i ve i n one depar t ment and t hen ext end t he pr act i ces
t hr oughout ot her par t s of t he or gani zat i on. Of t en KM pr act i ces r el at i ng
t o s er vi ce and s uppor t can be def i ned as knowl edge- power ed pr obl em
r es ol ut i on - us i ng a knowl edge bas e, knowl edge s har i ng, col l abor at i on
and knowl edge r ecycl i ng t o ef f i ci ent l y s ol ve cus t omer ques t i ons
( Ser vi ceWar e 2003) .

Key Success Factors

9
1. 7 Key Success Fact ors

I nt r oduct i on:
Maki ng t he t r ans i t i on t o becomi ng a f i r m t hat manages al l as pect s of
knowl edge wel l , i s cl ear l y goi ng t o be di f f i cul t , wi t h t he emphas i s on
i t s commi t ment and r es ol ve, and t o f i nd t he r es our ces t o get Knowl edge
Management of f t o a good s t ar t . Meas ur es wi l l depend on t he concept
of knowl edge. Thus t he var i ous appr oaches and popul ar t heor i es and
pr act i ces i n vogue t hat have been s ucces s f ul ; ar e deal t wi t h bel ow.

Popul ar Theor y& Pr act i ce
A key s ucces s f act or i s a per f or mance ar ea of cr i t i cal i mpor t ance i n
achi evi ng cons i s t ent l y hi gh pr oduct i vi t y. Ther e ar e at l eas t t wo br oad
cat egor i es of key s ucces s f act or s t hat ar e common t o vi r t ual l y al l
or gani zat i ons : bus i nes s pr oces s es and human pr oces s es . Bot h ar e
cr uci al t o bui l di ng gr eat compani es . Our f ocus i s on t he human pr oces s
ar eas .
When t he s ucces s f act or s ar e s t udi ed f ocus f al l s on t he human
as pect s . A s t r ong academi c maj or i t y r ai s es a bi g concer n ar ound t hi s
ar ea. Al l agr ee t hat t he i nt el l ect ual as s et s of t he empl oyees ar e t he
f or emos t cr i t i cal s ucces s f act or . Us ual l y peopl e begi n a KM pr oj ect by
f ocus i ng on t he t echnol ogy needs . But t he key i s peopl e and pr oces s .
( Shi r Ni r , 2002) . The key t o s uccess f ul knowl edge management ( KM)
pr oj ect s i s f ocus i ng on peopl e f i r st , not cut t i ng- edge t echnol ogy. The
bi gges t mi s concept i on t hat I T l eader s make i s t hat knowl edge
management i s about t echnol ogy, " s ays Shi r Ni r , Ther e i s no " cooki e-
cut t er appr oach" t o adopt i ng knowl edge management .
Ever y or gani zat i on and company has i t s own def i ni t i on of
knowl edge and how i t s houl d be gat her ed, cat egor i zed and made
avai l abl e t o empl oyees . What wor ks f or one company wi l l not wor k f or
Key Success Factors

10
anot her becaus e or gani zat i onal knowl edge i s s o s ubj ect i ve. The one-
s i ze- f i t s - al l ment al i t y, coupl ed wi t h t he t endency t o f ocus on
t echnol ogy r at her t han peopl e and pr oces s , has obs cur ed t he r eal
benef i t s t hat KM can br i ng, accor di ng t o Ni r ( 2002) . I t does not hel p
t hat knowl edge management means di f f er ent t hi ngs and of t en i nvol ves
di f f er ent ki nds of t echnol ogi es at di f f er ent or gani zat i ons .
Bi xl er ( 2002) devel oped a f our pi l l ar model t o des cr i be s ucces s
f act or s f or a KM i mpl ement at i on. To achi eve a bas i c ent r y l evel KM
pr ogr am, i t has been det er mi ned t hat al l ` ` f our pi l l ar s ` ` mus t be
addr es s ed. The f our ent er pr i s e engi neer i ng pi l l ar s ar e l eader s hi p,
or gani zat i on, t echnol ogy and l ear ni ng i n s uppor t of ent er pr i s e wi de
knowl edge management i ni t i at i ves . Leader s hi p means t hat manager s
devel op bus i nes s and oper at i onal s t r at egi es t o s ur vi ve and pos i t i on f or
s ucces s i n t oday s dynami c envi r onment . Thos e s t r at egi es det er mi ne
vi s i on, and mus t al i gn knowl edge management wi t h bus i nes s t act i cs t o
dr i ve t he val ue of KM t hr oughout t he ent er pr i s e. Focus mus t be pl aced
on bui l di ng execut i ve s uppor t and KM champi ons .
The s ucces s f act or or gani zat i on des cr i bes t hat t he val ue of
knowl edge cr eat i on and col l abor at i on s houl d be i nt er t wi ned t hr oughout
an ent er pr i s e. Oper at i onal pr oces s es mus t al i gn wi t h t he KM f r amewor k
and s t r at egy, i ncl udi ng al l per f or mance met r i cs and obj ect i ves . Whi l e
oper at i onal needs di ct at e or gani zat i onal al i gnment , a KM s ys t em mus t
be des i gned t o f aci l i t at e KM t hr ough out t he or gani zat i on. Technol ogy
enabl es and pr ovi des t he ent i r e i nf r as t r uct ur e and t ool s t o s uppor t KM
wi t hi n an ent er pr i s e.
The Gar t ner Gr oup def i nes 10 t echnol ogi es t hat col l ect i vel y make
up f ul l - f unct i on KM. The f unct i onal r equi r ement s t hat ent er pr i s es can
s el ect and us e t o bui l d a KM s ol ut i on i ncl ude: capt ur e and s t or e,
s ear ch and r et r i eve, s end cr i t i cal i nf or mat i on t o i ndi vi dual s or
gr oups , s t r uct ur e and navi gat e, s har e and col l abor at e, s ynt hes i ze,
pr of i l e and per s onal i ze, s ol ve or r ecommend, i nt egr at e wi t h
bus i nes s appl i cat i ons , and mai nt enance.
Key Success Factors

11
No t echnol ogy pr oduct meet s ever y r equi r ement , and bef or e
s el ect i ng a s ol ut i on, ent er pr i s es need t o cl ear l y def i ne t hei r KM
s t r at egy, s cope and r equi r ement s , and per f or m pr oduct eval uat i ons t o
i dent i f y t echnol ogy pr oduct s t hat ef f ect i vel y meet t hei r needs . Bi xl er
( 2002) .
Or gani zat i onal l ear ni ng mus t be addr es s ed wi t h appr oaches s uch
as i ncr eas i ng i nt er nal communi cat i ons , pr omot i ng cr os s - f unct i onal
t eams and cr eat i ng a l ear ni ng communi t y.
Davenpor t & Pr obs t ( 2002) devel oped a s i mi l ar , yet mor e
ext ens i ve l i s t of s ucces s f act or s f or i mpl ement i ng knowl edge-
management i ni t i at i ves . Thei r s ucces s f act or s ar e l eader s hi p,
per f or mance meas ur ement , or gani s at i onal pol i cy, knowl edge s har i ng
and acqui s i t i on, i nf or mat i on- s ys t ems s t r uct ur e, and benchmar ki ng and
t r ai ni ng.
Al s o empi r i cal s t udi es s how t he i mpor t ance of di f f er ent f act or s
f or t he i mpl ement at i on of KM. The r es ul t s of a KM i mpl ement at i on
pr oj ect of company Nat ur a ( Wal di r Ar evol o, Es t eban Kol s ky and Kat hy
Har r i s , 2003) i ndi cat e t hat cul t ur al and t echnol ogi cal bar r i er s had t o be
over come s ucces s f ul l y, as t he key f act or s f or ens ur i ng s ucces s f ul KM
i mpl ement at i on.
The Supr eme Cour t i n t he USA vent ur ed on a KM pr oj ect t hat
l as t ed f or mor e t han s i x mont hs and event ual l y came out wi t h f l yi ng
col our s on t he s ucces s f ul i mpl ement at i on of KMS. Her e t he f ocus was
on Top- l evel management dr i ve, t he or gani zat i on s t r uct ur e s t ar t i ng
wi t h t he own I T Depar t ment , Communi cat i on: i nt er nal and ext er nal ,
and Phas ed I mpl ement at i on was f ound t o be t he key ar eas t hat l ed t o
t he s ucces s f ul i mpl ement at i on ( Bur ger , 2003) .
Ruggl es ( 1998) poi nt s out t hat t he s ucces s f act or s peopl e, pr oces s
and t echnol ogy needs t o be bal anced i n a 50/ 25/ 25 r el at i on. Peopl e
need t o be t he maj or f ocus wi t h 50% of t he t i me and budget of a KM
Key Success Factors

12
i mpl ement at i on pr oj ect whi l e pr oces s and t echnol ogy onl y need 25%
each.
Si nce, f or a whi l e peopl e i s s ues may be endemi c t o any change
i ni t i at i ve, knowl edge management act i vi t i es s eem t o br i ng t hem out i n
abundance. However , mor e del i ber at e management i s r equi r ed, t o
l ever age t he knowl edge exi s t i ng i n an or gani zat i on t o a hi gher degr ee,
s i nce l ever agi ng or gani zat i onal knowl edge i s not onl y i mpor t ant , but ,
i s t he mos t i mpor t ant j ob management has . However , i t i s al s o cr uci al
t o r eal i ze t he condi t i ons f or s ucces s . Ruggl es ( 1998) .

Condi t i ons f or s ucces s
The s ucces s of t he i ni t i at i ve i s ul t i mat el y det er mi ned by s uf f i ci ent
combi nat i on of t he above- ment i oned f act or s and t hei r i ncor por at i on
wi t hi n t he l i ne or gani zat i on. Succes s f ul i mpl ement at i on r equi r es not
onl y t hat knowl edge i s col l ect ed and di s t r i but ed, but al s o, mor e
i mpor t ant l y, t hat knowl edge wi t hi n t he or gani zat i on i s eas y t o us e i n
dai l y pr oces s es , t hat i t i s accur at e and up- t o- dat e, and t hat peopl e can
qui ckl y cont act s ubj ect mat t er exper t s f or f eedback and ques t i ons .
Of t en t he knowl edge pr oces s es r equi r ed and t he l evel of or gani zat i on
needed ar e f r agment ed and i ncompl et e, endanger i ng t he moment um
cr eat ed by t he i ni t i at i ve i n t he or gani s at i on. Focus on i mpl ement i ng t he
cont i nuous and demand- dr i ve knowl edge pr oces s es needed f or t he
knowl edge ar ea at hand, and ens ur e enf or cement of t he neces s ar y r ol es
and goal s wi t hi n t he or gani s at i on, wi t hout addi t i onal s t af f i ng needs .
( KPMG, 2003) .

Summar y
Bas ed on t he above r es ear ch s t udy, i t i s cons i der ed t hat t he mos t
r el evant f act or s f or t he s ucces s f ul i mpl ement at i on and s us t enance of
moment um f or t he KM i ni t i at i ves ar e:
Key Success Factors

13
( 1) A Cul t ur e of per vas i ve knowl edge s har i ng needs t o be nur t ur ed
enabl ed wi t hi n and al i gned wi t h or gani s at i onal obj ect i ves . The
under l yi ng concer n i s empl oyees do not want t o s har e i nf or mat i on.
Succes s f ul or gani s at i ons empower empl oyees t o want t o s har e and
cont r i but e i nt el l ect ual i nf or mat i on, by r ewar di ng t hem f or s uch
act i ons . And, wi t h or gani s at i onal l eader s r ol e model s of i nf or mat i on
s har i ng and i nt er f ace r egul ar l y wi t h s t af f , t eams and s t akehol der s i n
r evi ew s es s i ons and openl y t al k about s ucces s es and f ai l ur es .
( 2) KM Or gani zat i on: The f i r s t i mpor t ant var i abl e i s l eader s hi p wi t h a
vi s i on, s t r at egy and abi l i t y t o pr omot e change of t he management t o a
compel l i ng knowl edge management act i vel y pr omot ed by t he Chi ef
Execut i ve t hat cl ear l y ar t i cul at es how knowl edge management
cont r i but es t o achi evi ng or gani zat i onal obj ect i ves . A s peci al i s t t eam t o
aggr es s i vel y manage knowl edge pr oper t y i . e. , manage i nt el l ect ual
as s et s as r out i nes - pr oces s , appr opr i at e t echnol ogy, i nf r as t r uct ur e f or
s oci al and el ect r oni c net wor ki ng t o al l ow f or i nnovat i on and
l ever age or gani zat i onal knowl edge. Fol l owed by
( 3) Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es cr eat i ng a knowl edge
envi r onment wi t h pr oces s es t o capt ur e t he knowl edge as s et s of t he
or gani zat i on i s i mpor t ant , but i t wi l l pr obabl y be mos t s ucces s f ul once
mos t of t he t echnol ogi es of el ect r oni c commer ce have been
i mpl ement ed. Thus , t he need f or
( 4) St r at egy, Sys t ems & I nf r as t r uct ur e es t abl i s hes a cl ear def i ni t i on of
al l r equi r ed KM el ement s and an over al l s ys t em appr oach and
i nt egr at i on.
( 5) Fi nal l y t he Meas ur es t he s ucces s of knowl edge management can be
meas ur ed agai ns t pr agmat i c mi l es t ones , s uch as t he cr eat i on of
pr oduct s , t he devel opment of new cl i ent s and an i ncr eas e i n s al es
r evenue.

Key Success Factors

14
METHODOLOGY AND I TS PRESENTATI ON
Meas ur i ng Knowl edge Management i s a cr i t i cal bas i s f or devel opi ng
i ncent i ves f or f ur t her s t i mul at i ng knowl edge s har i ng and net wor ki ng on
l ocal and gl obal l evel s .
Wi t hout quant i f i abi l i t y, meas ur ement endeavour s r emai ns el us i ve.
Fur t her , i t i s cr i t i cal t o ens ur e t hat exi s t i ng knowl edge as s et s ar e
cons t ant l y chal l enged i n a pur pos ef ul way. Es peci al l y i n t he cur r ent
I nt er net Age , wher e t oday s cor e compet enci es qui ckl y t ur n i nt o
t omor r ow s cor e r i gi di t i es , i t i s i ncumbent upon compani es t o ens ur e
t hat t he knowl edge t hey nur t ur e i ns i de i s s t i l l r el evant t o t he mar ket .
Thus , t he need t o expl i ci t l y addr es s t he i s s ue of devel opi ng met r i cs and
i ncent i ves f or Knowl edge Management . Thes e i s s ues wer e addr es s ed i n
t he year 2003 hypot hes i s ( See AA. 10 Appendi x J Res ear ch Hypot hes i s
2003) and s ubs equent l y f ol l owed up i n 2004 agai n, af t er mor e
f eedback.
Bas ed on t hes e and t he above t heor et i cal obs er vat i ons and
eval uat i ons of t he cr i t i cal s ucces s f act or s f or i mpl ement i ng KM t he
f ol l owi ng hypot hes i s has been def i ned:
The Key Succes s Fact or s of i mpl ement i ng Knowl edge Management i n
or gani zat i ons ar e:
Cul t ur e,
KM Or gani zat i on,
St r at egy, Sys t ems & I nf r as t r uct ur e,
Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es and
Meas ur es .

Research Methods and its Presentation: Instruments

15
2 Methodology

2. 1 Research Met hods and i t s Present at i on: Inst rument s

2. 1. 1 Met hods of t he s t udy
When conduct i ng a r es ear ch, one of t en makes t he choi ce of us i ng ei t her
a quant i t at i ve or a qual i t at i ve met hod. The qual i t at i ve appr oach has
al s o been r ef er r ed t o as i nt er pr et at i ve and i s t hus di r ect l y connect ed
t o t he her meneut i c s chool . ( Br yman, 1995)
Bas ed on t he nat ur e and t he pur pos e of t hi s s t udy, t he qual i t at i ve
met hod appl i es t o t he pr oj ect wor k bas ed on t he es s ay f or mat . The
ot her i s t he quant i t at i ve met hod bas ed on numer i cal s cor i ng and
gr adi ng. Fi nal l y, t he r es ul t s cl ubbed t oget her i n t he mi xed appr oach, a
nat ur al choi ce. I n addi t i on, t he s t udy i s a f our - model i nt er vi ew gui de
s pr ead over a per i od of one year . I t i nvol ved mor e t han t wo di f f er ent
t ypes of ques t i onnai r es . The compl et e model i ncl uded a ques t i onnai r e
wi t h numer i c var i abl es , anot her es s ent i al l y i nt er vi ews wi t h a dr i ve t o
get t o know t he s ubj ect bet t er and cr os s check t he numer i c var i abl es
t oo. Thus , i t i ncl uded ques t i ons t hat over l apped i nt o bot h qual i t at i ve
and quant i t at i ve appr oaches . Thi s gave t he i nt er vi ewees opt i ons t o
r es pond qual i t at i ve, quant i t at i ve, a combi nat i on of bot h or j us t one of
t hem.
Accor di ng t o Al as uut ar i ( 1995, p 13) , a qual i t at i ve r es ear ch
pr oces s i nvol ves t wo phas es : t he Pur i f i cat i on of Obs er vat i ons and t he
Unr i ddl i ng.


16
2. 1. 2 Qual i t at i ve Res ear ch Des i gn
On qual i t at i ve r es ear ch bas i s f or t he cour s e of act i on Br yman ( 1995, p.
29) ment i ons t hat t her e ar e f i ve t o choos e f r om- exper i ment , s ur vey,
qual i t at i ve r es ear ch, cas e s t udy and act i on r es ear ch.
The emphas i s i s on i ndi vi dual s i nt er pr et at i ons of t hei r
envi r onment , behavi our ( s el f & ot her s ) and t he pr es ent at i on of dat a
l i es i n under s t andi ng t he par t i ci pant s and t hei r t er ms ( Br yman, 1995) .
The mai n pur pos e of qual i t at i ve r es ear ch i s t o s t udy a s oci al r eal i t y
( Br yman, 1995) . I n t hi s cas e s t udy, t he f ocus i s on a company i n
s out her n mos t par t of Ger many, al s o cons i der ed as t he Dr ei Lander
Regi on t hat i s t he 3 Nat i on Regi on of Aus t r i a, Ger many and
Swi t zer l and. The s t udy i s on how t he f i r m wor ks i n r el at i on t o key
s ucces s f act or s f or knowl edge management .

2. 1. 2. 1 Qual i t at i ve Anal ys i s
The r es ul t s f r om Par t 2 of t he Ques t i onnai r e i n t he Appendi x A and B
i n t he Ger man and t he Engl i s h Language wer e mai nl y us ed f or deduci ng
Qual i t at i ve Anal ys i s . However , t he Ques t i onnai r es i n Appendi x C& D
wer e gr eat l y i n us e f or t he i nf or mal par t of t he i nt er vi ews conduct ed.
Some of t he qual i t at i ve r es ul t s f r om t hes e i nf or mal i nt er vi ews wer e
par t i al l y, conduct ed i nt er vi ews i n t he cour s e of pr epar i ng t he I nt er vi ew
gui de f or EED ( Eur opean Engi neer i ng Dat abas e) . Thes e i nt er vi ews
wer e f or t he t hen EED whi ch cat er ed excl us i vel y t o t he Exper t s and
Vi r t ual Team Member s i n Sept ember 2003, have been i ncl uded. Thus ,
t hes e encount er s wer e bas i cal l y wi t h t he member s of t he EED t eam and
al s o t he pr os pect i ve member s of t he EED t eam who mos t l y decl i ned t o
cooper at e f or var i ous r eas ons . Al s o i ncl uded i s t he qual i t at i ve f eedback
f r om t he Ques t i onnai r e For m pr epar ed on l aunchi ng EED i n Nov 2003
f or Exper t s and Vi r t ual Team Member s . The col l ect i ve r es ul t s ar e put
f or war d as par t of t he Qual i t at i ve Anal ys i s . Bef or e s t ar t i ng col l ect i ng
dat a, an i dent i f i cat i on of t he phenomenon i s neces s ar y. The t opi c and

17
t he per s pect i ve f or t he s t udy have t o be chos en. Thi s i s done i n chapt er
1. Thi s t hen i s f ol l owed by qual i t at i ve anal ys i s as ment i oned above,
whi ch i n t ur n i s f ol l owed up by quant i t at i ve anal ys i s , as ment i oned i n
t he s ubs equent par agr aph s ub chapt er .
Thi s i nt er vi ew gui de was us ed dur i ng al l t he i nt er vi ews .
However , s epar at e i nt er vi ews wer e us ed, f or each depar t ment al head or
t he of f i ce di r ect or . Bef or e conduct i ng t he i nt er vi ews , t he HR
Depar t ment was cont act ed t o as s i gn t he r es pons i bl e or gr ant per mi s s i on
t o cont act t he r ecogni zed exper t i n t he concer ned ar ea or f i el d of
act i vi t y f or t he t opi c. A cont act wi t h t he per s on was i ni t i at ed,
r eques t i ng an appoi nt ment t o i nt er vi ew t he i ndi vi dual on t he s ubj ect of
Knowl edge Management . Thi s was f ol l owed up by s endi ng an emai l , on
t he s ubj ect s t hat wer e cent r al t o t he di s cus s i on dur i ng t he i nt er vi ew, s o
t hat t he r es pondent s woul d be abl e t o pr epar e t hems el ves . The
i nt er vi ew gui de f unct i oned as a s uppor t t ool dur i ng t he i nt er vi ews , f or
al l conver s at i onal pur pos es . Dur i ng t he i nt er vi ews , t he r es pondent was
encour aged t o t al k f r eel y wi t hi n t he s cope of t he i nt er vi ew gui de. The
i nt er vi ew s chedul e t i med out t o t ake appr oxi mat el y 45 mi nut es i n
Engl i s h or mos t l y i n Ger man, whi chever t he cas e maybe. When f aced
wi t h t he s hor t age of t i me, t he i nt er vi ews wer e conduct ed i n a r el at i vel y
s hor t t i me. Her ei n t he i nt er vi ewees wer e r eques t ed t o f i l l out t he
ques t i onnai r e i n t hei r own t i me, and on a l at er dat e, t he i nt er vi ews
wer e conduct ed i n an i nf or mal manner .
Mor eover , t hi s meant i f t he concer ned manager coul d make any
t i me and i f t hey wer e i ncl i ned t o par t i ci pat e i n t he r es ear ch. I ni t i al l y,
emai l s wer e s ent i n t he end of l as t week of Mar ch and a week l at er , i t
was f ol l owed up by t el ephone cal l ( s ) . However , ei ght of t he t en
Met zel er empl oyees who wer e cont act ed, ci t ed var i ous r eas ons and
decl i ned t o par t i ci pat e.
I n a s econd at t empt , i n t he mont h of J une` 04 s ever al i nt er vi ews
wer e conduct ed per s onal l y and mos t l y ar r anged by t he i nt r anet ,
t el ephone and t hr ough web- bas ed e- mai l . Some wer e al s o

18
compl ement ed l at er by per s onal e- mai l cont act and phone cal l s . Mos t
empl oyees chos e t o be anonymous and di d not want t o be t i t l ed,
cons equent l y t hey have been gi ven an al i as ; and s o t hey wer e gener al l y
cat egor i s ed under depar t ment s or by ot her par amet er s wher e i t was
f eas i bl e. The per s onal i nt er vi ews wer e mai nl y conduct ed dur i ng J une
f ol l owed up i n J ul y.

2. 1. 2. 2 I nt er vi ews : Tar get Gr oups and Per i ods
Ther e wer e di f f er ent key r ol es whi l e conduct i ng t he i nt er vi ews . The
l i mi t at i ons of t he i ndi vi dual empl oyees under t he ci r cums t ances wer e
under s t andabl e. The f ocus was pr i mar i l y on t he exper t s i n gener al and
t he t op exper t s f r om t he r es pect i ve depar t ment s i n par t i cul ar , f or t he
l as t quar t er of t he year 2003. The s ame t r end cont i nued i n t he year
2004 but t he f ocus s hi f t ed t o t he ent i r e cr os s s ect i on of t he execut i ves
and t hei r i nvol vement i n knowl edge management . Bel ow i s t he t abl e
cont ai ni ng t he t ar get gr oups f or t he year 2004.
Fi g. 1 Tar get Gr oups
Target Groups Peri od
Top/ Seni or Management or Exper t s 2003& 2004
Execut i ves / Management 2003& 2004
KAM, Eur o Team and Pr oj ect Manager s 2003& 2004
Gener al Admi ni s t r at i on 2004
Techni cal , I T and ETC Res ear ch Per s onnel 2003& 2004
I nt er ns 2004
Ot her s ( Exper i enced Bl ue Col l ar Wor ker s &
Semi Ski l l ed wor ker s )
2004
TOTAL 2004

19
The r es ul t s es s ent i al l y r ef l ect t he vi ews and opi ni ons of t he
execut i ves . I n addi t i on t o t he above, i t was i mper at i ve t hat s ome of t he
empl oyees who wer e exper i enced, execut i ves not connect ed wi t h Bes t
Pr act i ces , s ki l l ed and s emi - s ki l l ed s eni or bl ue- col l ar wor ker s who
s er ved as exper t s i n t hei r f i el ds of oper at i ons wer e i ncl uded i n t he
s ur vey. Thei r number i n t hi s s ur vey was not s i gni f i cant but s er ved t he
pur pos e of bal anced vi ews and out comes i n t he f i ndi ngs f or s ome
i mpor t ant depar t ment s , i nvol ved i n t he es t abl i s hment of Bes t Pr act i ces ,
and f or al l owi ng cr os s checks wi t hi n t he pr ocedur e i nvol vi ng di f f er ent
ques t i onnai r es i n t wo di f f er ent l anguages i n t wo year s .
When conduct i ng t he i nt er vi ews f or t he l at er ques t i onnai r es t he
choi ces di d not depend on s peci f i cs . The pr ocedur e of s el ect i ng peopl e
f or t aki ng par t i n t he ques t i onnai r e was bas ed on r andom s ampl i ng
among exper t s and execut i ves pr i mar i l y, yet i t meant t hat I l os t s ome
cont r ol over how wel l i nf or med t he r es pondent s wer e. Thi s compr omi s e
was i nevi t abl e s i nce s ome empl oyees wer e nei t her awar e of t he
t er mi nol ogy nor act i vel y i nvol ved wi t h s ome f or m of knowl edge
management . Bes i des , t her e was a need t o get t hes e peopl e t o wi l l i ngl y
s har e t hei r knowl edge on t hi s s peci f i c t opi c.
To make i t f as t er f or t he r es pondent , t he l at er Ger man ver s i on
cr eat ed i n 2004 was pr act i cal l y i n us e. Al l t he ques t i onnai r es wer e f i r s t
pr e- t es t ed on a t es t gr oup t hat gave s ome val uabl e i ns i ght s . Then a f ew
ques t i ons amended, i nt r oduct i on br i ef updat ed, a new t es t per s onal f or
each depar t ment wer e appr oached t o get obj ect i ve i ns i ght s . The
s ubs equent at t empt s s aw f ewer pr obl ems i n under s t andi ng t he l ack of
mot i vat i on f r om t he non- r es pondent s t o t he t es t ques t i onnai r es . The
ver i f i ed Ger man ver s i on of t he ques t i onnai r e was us ed t o gat her dat a.
The s el ect i on of r es pondent s was i nf l uenced by t he f act t hat a wel l -
i nf or med per s on on a manager i al pos i t i on i s pr es ent i n al mos t al l
depar t ment s . Thi s made t he ans wer s mor e concr et e, s i nce a cr os s check
and conf i r mat i on was done by t he i nf or mat i on obt ai ned f r om t he t op
management . Mor eover , gener al l y i n pr i nci pl e, t hey ar e t he ones t hat
i mpl ement KM pr oces s es i n t he or gani zat i ons . Thi s al s o cont r i but ed t o
Interviews: Specific Target Group selection and Time Period

20
a mor e enl i ght eni ng s et of ans wer s i n accor dance t o t he mor e s t r at egi c
ques t i ons .
Accor di ng t o Hol me and Sol vang ( 1991) , s el ect i ng r es pondent s
wi t h t he r i ght knowl edge about t he r es ear ch ar ea i s cr uci al f or
qual i t at i ve r es ear ch. I n t he depar t ment al cas e s t udi es , t he r es ear ch dat a
anal ys i s was pr es ent ed by r educi ng i t t o each r es ear ch ques t i on.

2. 2 Int ervi ews: Speci f i c Target Group sel ect i on and Ti me
Peri od

2. 2. 1 Quant i t at i ve Anal ys i s :
Tar get : Speci f i c Gr oups , Speci f i ed Per i ods and Number of i nt er vi ews
f or t he year 2003 and 2004.

Fi g. 2 Tar get Gr oups Dat a i n 2004
Target Groups Reques t ed
Top/ Seni or Management or Exper t s 20
Execut i ves / Management 70
KAM, Eur o Team and Pr oj ect Manager s 10
Gener al Admi ni s t r at i on 20
Techni cal , I T and ETC Res ear ch Per s onnel 30
I nt er ns 06
Ot her s ( Exper i enced Bl ue Col l ar Wor ker s &
Semi Ski l l ed wor ker s )
30
TOTAL 186


21
The s econd s t ep i n t he dat a col l ect i on i s t o gat her pr i mar y i nf or mat i on
f r om di f f er ent empl oyees i n t he company. Toget her wi t h t he
i nt er vi ews , pr i mar y dat a was col l ect ed by us i ng f i l l up ques t i onnai r es
at t he company. The ques t i onnai r e can be cons t r uct ed i n a combi nat i on
of gr adi ng s cal es , mul t i pl e choi ces and open- ended ques t i ons ( Yi n, 44,
1994) . A s el f - i nt r oduct i on f ol l owed by a br i ef expl anat i on i nt r oduci ng
t he concept of Knowl edge Management was made bef or e t he
commencement of t he i nt er vi ew ques t i onnai r e. The ques t i onnai r es had
t he s i mi l ar s et of ques t i ons as i n t he i nt er vi ew gui de.
However , t hes e new ques t i onnai r es wer e s t r uct ur ed t o cover a
wi de r ange of i s s ues , wi t h qui t e a f ew open- ended ques t i ons . The
choi ce f el l t her ef or e on t he us e of gr adi ng s cal es and mul t i pl e
al t er nat i ves . Thi s made i t pos s i bl e t o compar e, ver i f y and der i ve t he
f i nal s t at ement s f r om t he dat a col l ect ed wi t hi n t he company. Thes e
s econd ver s i on of cons t r uct ed ques t i onnai r es f or t he year 2004
devel oped i n t wo ver s i ons , Engl i s h and Ger man ar e at t ached/ encl os ed
as APPENDI X A and B
A f ew l i s t s wer e made at Met zel er f or car r yi ng out t he
quant i t at i ve anal ys i s i n t he f or m of t abul at ed and gr aded f or ms i n
conduct i ng t he i nt er vi ews i n di f f er ent per i ods . Dur i ng t hi s pr oces s es i n
t he quar t er endi ng 2003, t he f ocus was on Exper t s onl y. The pr oj ect
f ai l ed t o gener at e ent hus i as m and s uppor t f or i ni t i at i ng Bes t Pr act i ces
i n t he f i r m. Thi s was a non s t ar t er t o t he ques t i onnai r es i n 2003. And,
t he concept i on of t he pr oj ect on i ni t i at i ng t he ` ` go l i f e` ` s t age dur i ng
t he l as t quar t er endi ng year 2003 f ai l ed t o r evi ve t he pr oj ect
compl et el y. The ques t i onnai r es on f eedback coul d not be i ni t i at ed due
t o di s i ncl i nat i on t o di s cus s a f ai l ed pr oj ect . Ther ef or e, i t was neces s ar y
t o i nt r oduce a s econd s er i es of i nt er vi ew ques t i onnai r es by t he f i r s t
quar t er endi ng of t he year 2004 t o i nves t i gat e t he mat t er . The new l i s t s
t hen i ncl uded an expl or at i on of t he ent i r e cr os s s ect i on of execut i ves ,
exper t s and empl oyees i n t he f i r m, i n a bot t om up appr oach.

22
Fr om al l t hes e l i s t s , s ome empl oyees wer e excl uded, due t o
cons t r ai nt s of t he l ocat i on, t i me, or l ack of any KM bas i s . Fi nal l y, at
t he begi nni ng of t he s econd quar t er of 2004 emai l s wer e s ent t o many
empl oyees t oget her wi t h an i nt r oduct i on, i nt er vi ew ques t i ons i n or der
t o pr epar e t he manager s f or t he KM i nt er vi ew i n a quant i t at i ve anal ys i s
f or m.

Summar y:
The choi ce of us i ng i nt er vi ews , document at i on and Ques t i onnai r es was
made t o i ncr eas e/ s t r engt hen t he val i di t y of t he t hes i s . Bes i des , a par t
of t he r es pondent s f or t he i nt er vi ews wer e t ar get ed by t el ephone
i nt er vi ews . I n t he abs ence of an aut hent i c knowl edge management
per s onal avai l abl e i n a depar t ment , a s ubs t i t ut e or a depar t ment al
s ur vey was car r i ed out - t o make i t cl ear and mi ni mi ze t he
mi s under s t andi ngs . The val i di t y was r ai s ed by conduct i ng cr os s checks
wi t h peopl e t hat wer e i ndi r ect l y i nvol ved i n t he KM pr oces s es . Si nce,
s ome of t hem ar e l i kel y t o become or wi l l come i nt o bei ng i n a
manager i al pos i t i on, i n t he f ut ur e KMS. The val i di t y was f ur t her
af f ect ed by t he r es pondent s degr ee of opennes s and par t i ci pat i on
dur i ng t he i nt er vi ews and t hei r wi l l i ngnes s t o s har e t her e knowl edge.

Concl us i on:
The col l ect ed dat a has been or gani zed i nt o s epar at e s ect i ons wher e
each of t he depar t ment s i n t he company i s pr es ent ed. Thi s
aut omat i cal l y i ncl udes t he r i s k of maki ng t r ans l at i on er r or s . I t was
however t he mos t nat ur al way of conduct i ng my i nt er vi ews . As Yi n
( 1994) br i ngs up i t i s al ways r i s k t hat per s onal bi as es mi ght i nt er f er e
t he i nt er vi ews however caut i ous one t r i es t o be. Ther ef or e, i t i s
under s t ood t hat , t he i nf l uence of t he r es pondent s as wel l as own
at t i t udes and val ues can al ways be ques t i oned.

23
The Scal e:
The f undament al t as k i n t he anal ys es was t o char act er i ze t he s pr ead, or
var i abi l i t y, of t he dat a s et . The s cal e of Zer o t o Fi ve was s i mpl e and
t he bes t at t empt t o es t i mat e t hi s var i abi l i t y. The var i abi l i t y of t he dat a
s et had t wo key component s :
Spr ead of t he dat a val ues near / f ar of t he cent r e
Spr ead of t he l os e ends al s o
Di f f er ent numer i cal s ummar i es gave di f f er ent wei ght t o t hes e t wo
el ement s . The f i nal choi ce of a s cal e es t i mat or was dr i ven by t he
f ol l owi ng component s whi ch needed t o be emphas i zed.
1. The mi xed met hod appr oach was adopt ed.
2. Var i ed i s s ued i nvol ved, r anged f r om t he pr es ent pr act i ces t o f ut ur e
pos s i bi l i t i es .
3. The di f f er ent t ar get gr oups had di f f er ent l evel s of awar enes s and
exper i ence.

2. 2. 2 St r uct ur e of t he Ques t i onnai r e and Res pons e
The s ur vey cons i s t ed of t hr ee mai n ques t i onnai r es . Two des i gned i n t he
year 2003 and t he mai n ques t i onnai r e des i gned and devel oped i n 2004.
The par t t wo of t he 2004 Ques t i onnai r e whi ch was us ed f or qual i t at i ve
anal ys i s al s o was s uppor t ed i n an i nf or mal manner by t he t wo
ques t i onnai r es of t he year 2003.
The pur pos e of t hes e ques t i onnai r es was f i r s t t o handl e t he
i nt er pr et at i on of t he t er m KM and t he company s key obj ect i ve i n KM.
The s econd obj ect i ve was t o handl e t he as pect s t hat come i nt o pl ay i n
KM, s uch as t he exi s t ence of a s t r at egy, t he opennes s of t he cul t ur e,
t he pr oces s es of qual i t y cont r ol of dat a, t he cont ent t hat i s bei ng
managed, and t he f unct i oni ng of communi t i es of pr act i ce. Thes e

24
as pect s ar e as s es s ed i n t hei r cur r ent s i t uat i on and i t i s al s o as ked
wher e t he f ut ur e pr i or i t i es l i e. The t hi r d i s s ue exami nes whi ch t ool s
f oundat i ons us e and how wel l t hey ar e appr eci at ed and al s o wher e t he
pr i or i t i es f or t he f ut ur e ar e. Never t hel es s , al l t hes e cul mi nat e f or t he
f i nal obj ect i ve t o s ubs t ant i at e t he hypot hes i s on t he key s ucces s f act or s
f or KM.
The ques t i onnai r e was pr obi ng i nt o t he ` ` know- how` ` on t he
s ubj ect by addr es s i ng t he i s s ue i n f i ve maj or ar eas . The ques t i ons
der i ved bas ed on t he s t udy of knowl edge management and t he cr uci al
i s s ues f or s ucces s i n knowl edge management . Mor eover , i t was
s ubj ect ed t o l i t er at ur e Revi ew, cr os s checks on t he gr ound and f ur t her
di s t i l l ed t he many i mpor t ant i s s ues t o es s ent i al s i n knowl edge
management s ucces s . Fur t her on, t he es s ent i al s wer e cl ubbed t oget her
t o por t r ay t he el ement ar y i s s ues . The ques t i ons t hen t ook s hape t o
ans wer t he bas i c t heme of each s ucces s f act or and t hus l ed t o t he key
s ucces s f act or s i nt er vi ew ques t i ons .
Some of t he ques t i ons have been bor r owed f r om var i ous s our ces
t hat have us ed t he i nt er vi ew met hod and t he s ur vey met hod t o ar r i ve at
t he knowl edge management s t at us i n t hei r r es pect i ve f i r ms and al s o
i ndi vi dual r es ear ch, bes i des cons ul t ant f i r ms t hat have wor ked on t he
s ubj ect . {Davenpor t & Pr obs t ( 2002) , Ruggl es ( 1998) , Fahey and
Pr us ak ( 1998) , Bi xl er ( 2002) }
Pi l ot i ng t he Ques t i onnai r e ( 2004) and t he I nt er vi ews l eadi ng t o Key
Succes s Fact or s

Ques t i onnai r e:
The exer ci s e i s di vi ded i nt o t wo par t s . One par t cons i s t s of 11
Ques t i ons i n f i ve s ect i ons , s uppor t i ng qual i t at i ve anal ys i s and anot her
par t s uppor t s quant i t at i ve anal ys i s i n f i ve s ect i ons . Thes e t wo par t s
cons i s t of t he s ame f i ve Sect i ons cover i ng t he key ar eas of KM s ucces s
ar eas . Thes e s ect i ons ar e:

25
1) Cul t ur e: Shows whet her t he behavi our s wi t hi n an or gani s at i on
enabl e ef f ect i ve knowl edge management . Awar enes s and Commi t ment
i s conf i r med f r om r es pons es t hat Show whet her s t af f s under s t and t he
concept of knowl edge management and whet her s eni or management i s
commi t t ed t o i t s us e. I ncent i ves gi ven ar e checked f r om whet her t he
or gani s at i on pr oper l y r ewar ds t hos e t hat s uppor t i t s ef f or t s t owar ds
knowl edge management . ( 12 Quant i t at i ve Ques t i ons , 03 Qual i t at i ve
Ques t i ons ) 2) Or gani s at i on: The degr ee t o whi ch t he or gani s at i onal
s t r uct ur e s uppor t s knowl edge management . And i t s Ext er nal Focus
Demons t r at es whet her an or gani s at i on i s at t empt i ng t o l ook beyond i t s
own boundar i es i n or der t o maxi mi s e i t s bus i nes s oppor t uni t i es ( 13
Quant i t at i ve Ques t i ons , 04 Qual i t at i ve Ques t i ons ) .
3) St r at egy: Whet her t he or gani s at i on has commi t t ed t o a pr ogr amme of
knowl edge management i mpr ovement and how i t i s managed t o ens ur e
bus i nes s benef i t . ( 02 Quant i t at i ve Ques t i ons , 03 Qual i t at i ve Ques t i ons )
4) Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es : I T: I ndi cat es whet her t he I T i n
pl ace i s s uf f i ci ent and us ed ef f ect i vel y enough t o s uppor t knowl edge
management . ( 08 Quant i t at i ve Ques t i ons , 01 Qual i t at i ve Ques t i on)
5) Meas ur es : I ndi cat es Us i ng and Appl yi ng Knowl edge: Whet her t he
bus i nes s act ual l y us es and expl oi t s t he knowl edge i nher ent i n t he
company i n an ef f ect i ve manner . ( 04 Quant i t at i ve Ques t i ons , 01
Qual i t at i ve Ques t i on)
The ques t i on- ans wer s wer e es s ent i al l y cr eat ed or modi f i ed at
bes t . The cr eat i ve pr oces s i nvol ved was t he as s i mi l at i on of var i ous
i s s ues of KM and t he l at es t t r ends i n f aci ng t he KM i s s ues and
pr act i ces by t he cont empor ar i es . The l es s ons l ear nt and t he exper i ences
gai ned by ot her s i n t he f i el d of KM have been bor r owed and appl i ed i n
appr oach met hodol ogy. Tom Davenpor t s Knowl edge Management
Cas e Book, Si emens Bes t Pr act i s es i s a maj or wor k t hat has been
r ef er r ed t o i n t hi s mat t er . Knowl edge Management Cas e Book: Si emens
Bes t Pr act i s es i s Edi t ed by Thomas Davenpor t and Gi l ber t Pr obs t and
publ i s hed by J ohn Wi l ey/ Publ i cus Cor por at e Publ i s hi ng, 2002. Thi s

26
Knowl edge Management ( KM) cas e book i s one of t he bes t - document ed
cas e s t udi es of knowl edge t r ans f or mat i on at wor k i n a gl obal bus i nes s
power hous e and Si emens has been r at ed as one of t he t op 10 KM- dr i ven
compani es wor l dwi de accor di ng t o an i nt er nat i onal benchmar ki ng
exer ci s e ( MAKEMos t Admi r ed Knowl edge Ent er pr i s e) , due t o i t s
compr ehens i ve ef f or t s at f os t er i ng, pr omot i ng and opt i mi s i ng
knowl edge ut i l i s at i on.

Pr of i l e of Res pondent s
The r es ear ch was bas ed on s ur vey dat a col l ect ed f r om Oct ober 2003 t o
December 2004. A t ot al of 112 r es pondent s compl et ed t he s ur vey. The
r es ear ch t ar get ed at bot h s eni or and mi ddl e manager s , s i nce t he mi ddl e
manager s ar e t he t r ue knowl edge engi neer s of t he knowl edge- cr eat i ng
company ( Nonaka& Takeuchi , 1995) .

Technol ogi es t o s uppor t Knowl edge Management
Ther e ar e a number of t echnol ogi es commonl y t hought of when t he t er m
" knowl edge management i s i nt oned. Ther ef or e, a di agr am depi ct i ng t he
t echnol ogi es t hat s uppor t knowl edge management s ys t ems was us ed f or
cl ear pr es ent at i on.

Appr oach& Scal e:
The i nt er vi ew ques t i onnai r e was al s o i n us e as a s hor t emai l - bas ed
s ur vey at t he cl os e of each i nt er vi ew, bes i des havi ng qual i t at i ve and
quant i t at i ve par t s t o i t . I t pr ovi des each par t i ci pant f i ve choi ces .
Each choi ce i s anchor ed wi t h a des cr i pt or r angi ng f r om Ver y
Uns at i s f i ed t o Ver y Sat i s f i ed. The r es pons es wer e t hen t o appl y a 5-
poi nt s cal e t o t he r es ul t s wi t h one ( 1) cor r es pondi ng t o Hi ghl y
Uns at i s f i ed, et c. I n or der t o s t r i ve f or a cer t ai n aver age s cor e ( e. g.

27
t hr ee ( 3) or hi gher ) t hr ee ( 3) was t aken t he medi an or i mpl yi ng 50% or
s ome des i gnat ed per cent age dependi ng on t he f r equency of occur r ence.
Thi s was done t o ens ur e t hat t he opt i on of 0 t hat i s Zer o coul d be
chos en t o gi ve a non- commi t t al r es pons e or t o s how l ack of awar enes s
or s i mpl y t o r es er ve comment . Si mi l ar l y f i ve ( 5) s cor ed a hi gh val ue
( e. g. 90% or mor e wi t h an aver age s cor e of 4 or hi gher ) ; f ol l owed by
f our ( 4) was t r eat ed as 4+ and i n agr eement .
Her ei n qual i t at i ve r es pons e t her e i s no " r i ght " ans wer t o a
ques t i on. Bot h goal - s et t i ng opt i ons ar e vi abl e. Typi cal l y, t hough, i t
was neces s ar y and t he r es ear ch r equi r ement woul d s ugges t s et t i ng t he
goal as a per cent age r es pondi ng at s ome poi nt on t he f r equency
di s t r i but i on, e. g. , 90% wi t h 4 r at i ngs or hi gher , s o cal l ed, t op box
r epor t i ng, s i mpl y becaus e i t ' s mor e under s t andabl e t o t he " s t at i s t i cal l y
chal l enged. " A goal of a s i mpl e yes or no i n t he quant i t at i ve anal ys i s
and, 4. 2 or 3. 7 or 4. 0 i n a quant i t at i ve anal ys i s i s not eas i l y
i nt er pr et abl e and does not car r y t he s ame gr avi t i es . However , t her e i s a
downs i de. Wi t h t he s i ngl e per cent i l e goal , t hen i t does not mat t er how
di s s at i s f i ed a r es pondent i s becaus e t he goal s at i s f act i on or at t ai nment
i s not af f ect ed whet her s omeone r at es s er vi ce as a zer o, one, or t wo
and s omet i mes even t hr ee. I t woul d not make a val i d r at i ng, i f one wer e
t o r at e an i s s ue as f our ( 4) , when gi vi ng val ues t o qual i t at i ve
r es pons es . Ther ef or e, t he s cal e val ues had t o pai r . Thus , s ome gr aphs
s houl d have a pai r ed goal , and s o t he val ues have been pai r ed. Any
one of 90% wi t h f our ( 4) or hi gher , t hat i s f i ve ( 5) i s t he maxi mum
gr adi ng, ar e cl ubbed t oget her i nt o t hi s af f i r mat i ve gr oup. Any one l es s
t han t he 5% wi t h a 0 ar e neut r al , 1 and 2 ar e cons i der ed and, or
cl ubbed as di s agr eement . Val ue 3, wher e appl i cabl e r et ai ned t he ol d
s cal e val ue of t hr ee, and s er ved as t he medi an. Thus , t he qual i t at i ve
r epr es ent at i on s cal e i s s i mpl i f i ed t o es s ent i al l y t hr ee val ues : One-
Di s agr eement , Two- Agr eement , and Thr ee- Af f i r mat i ve i n gi vi ng a
gr aphi cal r epr es ent at i on t o qual i t at i ve f i ndi ngs . I n addi t i on, t o anot her
s i t uat i on t he s ame s cal e i mpl i es One- Non Exi s t ent , Two- Par t i al l y and
Thr ee- I n Pr act i ce. Fi nal l y, t he s cal e r eads di f f er ent f or a s i t uat i on i n

28
t he f ut ur e, wher ei n t he s cal e i mpl i es One- Low Pr i or i t y, Two- Pr i or i t y,
and Thr ee- Hi gh Pr i or i t y.
Introduction

29
3 EMPERICAL PROJECT

CASE ANALYSIS METZELER

Met zel er i s a mul t i - i nt er nat i onal aut omobi l e pr of i l e s ys t ems gr oup of
compani es wi t h l ocal and t he Eur o Head of f i ces bas ed i n Li ndau,
Ger many. I n i t s 130- year hi s t or y, Met zel er has s at i s f i ed mar ket
demands wi t h i nnovat i on and an i ndus t r y l eader , s et t i ng t r ends t hat
ot her s ar e s t i l l t r yi ng t o achi eve. Cur r ent l y, Met zel er has over 1100
empl oyees i n Li ndau, Ger many. They ar e oper at i ng mai nl y i n
aut omobi l e pr of i l e s ys t ems s er vi ces i n al mos t al l cont i nent s i n t he
wor l d. I n i t s hi s t or y, t he Met zel er Company i s a congl omer at e.
To t hi s end, t he Eur opean Engi neer i ng Dat abas e ( EED) pr oj ect was
i ni t i at ed i n 2003 f or devel opi ng, modi f yi ng and i mpl ement i ng t he
Vi r t ual Team and an ` ` e` ` Knowl edge Dat abas e cr eat ed on t he Lot us
Not es Pl at f or m f or al l t he Met zel er l ocat i ons of Eur ope. The concept of
Communi t i es of Pr act i ce had t o be exami ned, as a dr i vi ng f or ce f or
ef f ect i ve Knowl edge Management i n t he company. Thus , i t s er ved as a
f or um f or s har i ng knowl edge and a knowl edge communi t y, and as a
t es t i ng l abor at or y f or i nt egr al knowl edge- management s ys t ems . The
ques t i on of how t hi s Communi t y of Pr act i ce, i n a non- cent r al l y
or gani zed and het er ogeneous company, can devel op and at t r act
s uf f i ci ent at t ent i on was exami ned. Toget her wi t h i t s ai m t o br i ng i nt o
t he cent r al cor por at e of f i ce, t he co- or di nat ed s uppor t of t he ot her
Knowl edge Management act i vi t i es . I mpl ement i ng t hi s concept had t o be
engi neer ed car ef ul l y t o i nt egr at e i t wi t h day- t o- day pr act i ce. As i n
Devel opi ng a bas i s f or pr act i ce exchange:
Mobi l i zi ng bes t pr act i ces i n a mar ket pl ace
Project Description

30
I ns t al l at i on of an I nt r anet - bas ed dat abas e s ys t em
Mobi l i zat i on of empl oyees f or t he exchange of exper i ence
Col l ect i on of bus i nes s - r el evant bes t pr act i ces
Communi cat i on

3. 2 Proj ect Descri pt i on

Backgr ound ( 2003)
Met zel er GmbH al r eady have a s ophi s t i cat ed di gi t al l i br ar y i n pl ace,
devel oped cont i nuous l y over t he pas t t en year s . The domai n t echnol ogy
APS- Rubber cul t ur e has a s t r ong f oundat i on of dat a and exper t i s e. The
exper t s wer e al r eady col l abor at i ng wi t h ot her col l eagues who have
t aken t he l ead i n devel opi ng exper t & exper t i s e knowl edge bas ed t ool s
f or var i ous cat egor i es , f unct i ons & pr oces s es .

EED Oct ober 2003
The devel opment of I CTs has come t o a t ur n poi nt , wher e i nves t ment s
i n i mpl ement at i on of new I CTs t ool s and met hodol ogi es need t o be
r epl aced by i ni t i at i ves ai mi ng at l ever agi ng i nves t ment s ( bot h i n t he
or gani zat i onal s t r uct ur e and i n I CTs ) t he company made i n t he pas t .
Such i ndi cat i ons s ugges t concent r at i ng t he ef f or t s of t he r es ear ch
t owar ds t he achi evement of a bet t er and event ual l y compl et e
under s t andi ng of t he f act or s t hat i nf l uence t he ef f ect i venes s and
ef f i ci ency of KM as s oci o- t echni cal .
At t he end of t he s econd quar t er of 2003 i t was moot ed t hat a
t hr eef ol d s ubdi vi s i on of t he mos t di f f us ed I T appl i cat i ons f or KM-
KMS wer e done bas ed on t hei r mai n f i nal i zat i on: ( 1) t o code and s har e
bes t pr act i ces , ( 2) t o cr eat e cor por at e knowl edge di r ect or i es , ( 3) t o
cr eat e knowl edge net wor ks .
Project Description

31
At t he end of t he t hi r d quar t er of 2003, i n t hi s KM( S) wor k, t he
pr oj ect r ef er r ed t o s uch cat egor i es and, mor e pr eci s el y, i t cent r ed t he
anal ys i s on t he f i r s t one, whi ch i s t o code and s har e bes t pr act i ces .
Thus , t he ai m of t hi s wor k i s t o cont r i but e t o t he i mpr ovement of t he
ef f ect i venes s of appl i cat i ons devot ed t o t he codi f i cat i on and s har i ng of
knowl edge.
However , t he f ai l ur e of t he pr oj ect ( EED) due t o i t s non-
accept ance, l ed t o a maj or r et hi nk on why KM( S) f ai l ed. On goi ng back
t o bas i cs , i t was pr oj ect ed at t he end of November 2003 t hat t he pr oj ect
i s l i kel y t o f ai l i n t he f ace of s t i f f oppos i t i on f r om t he exper t s .
However , t hi s was deni ed by t he pr oj ect member s . Event ual l y, i t
pr evai l ed t hat t he onus r es t ed on maki ng t he KM i ni t i at i ve a s ucces s at
t he nucl eus , and s ubs equent l y dupl i cat ed f or t he at omi c and l at er at t he
mol ecul ar l evel s , t o concl ude as an i nt egr al par t of t he el ement . Thus ,
i t was l at er r eal i zed ( f i r s t quar t er of 2004) , t he need t o f i r s t i dent i f y
t he key s ucces s f act or s . Ther eon t he f ocus s hi f t ed f r om t he s t r uct ur al
as pect s t o t he s t udy of key s ucces s f act or s . Thi s s hi f t cos t ed t i me, and
t he ef f or t s i nvol ved doubl ed, i n or der t o unl ear n what was l ear nt on
KMS s t r uct ur es and s t ar t anew on t he KSFs f or KM i n t he f i r m. I n
or der t o do s o, i t was neces s ar y t o per f or m a mul t i - s t aged r es ear ch
pr oces s t hat combi ned t heor et i cal anal ys es and empi r i cal i nves t i gat i on,
bot h qual i t at i ve and quant i t at i ve, t o des i gn and t es t a r es ear ch
hypot hes i s . The t heor et i cal anal ys es and qual i t at i ve i nves t i gat i on have
been pr es ent ed i n t he pr evi ous chapt er s .
Fi r s t l y, t he quant i t at i ve s t at i s t i cal val i dat i on of t he r es ear ched
hypot hes i s i s t r eat ed as i n chapt er t wo and i n chapt er t hr ee, cas e s t udy.
Recal l t he f i r s t chapt er f or t he des cr i pt i on of t he l i t er at ur e r evi ew and
t he qual i t at i ve i nves t i gat i on out put s i n t he s t ar t of t he chapt er f our .
The des cr i pt i on of t he r es ear ched met hod i s cont ai ned i n chapt er t hr ee
and i n i t s s ect i ons . The pr es ent at i on of t he dat a anal ys i s f ol l ows i n
chapt er f our , whi l e t he di s cus s i ons on t he r es ul t s of t he dat a anal ys i s
f i nal l y concl ude t her eaf t er i n t he concl udi ng par t s of chapt er f our and
i n t he l as t chapt er , concl udi ng t he pr oj ect .
Project Description

32
Ai ms and As pi r at i ons : EED s uppor t woul d al l ow
( 1) Devel op exempl ar y new met hods & management of bes t pr act i ces .
Each of t hes e r evi ewed and s t amped wi t h t he i mpr i mat ur of t he bes t
exper t s exper i ence i n t he f i el d pl us an exper t - gl obal , edi t or i al boar d.
( 2) Eval uat e t he wor k wi t h a wi de ut i l i t y and hi gh s chol ar s hi p f or t hi s
new medi um.
( 3) Es t abl i s h a t r ai ned body of t echno- management edi t or s who can hel p
ot her s devel op met hods f or bes t pr act i ces .
( 4) Publ i s h and make avai l abl e onl i ne, s t andar ds and s peci f i cat i ons
t hat new exper t s or empl oyees can us e as model s , as t hey cr eat e t hei r
own met hods or management of pr oj ect or bes t pr act i ces .
Thus , EED was concei ved t o f ur t her t he Met zel er eknowl edge
Dat abas e/ a knowl edge management s ys t em. The over al l goal was t o
hel p change t he cul t ur e of exper t knowl edge and wor kf l ow i n par t i cul ar
and t he knowl edge management of t he l ear ni ng i n al l pr oces s es i n t he
var i ous depar t ment s i nvol vi ng human er r or s i n gener al . The pr opos al
was t o combi ne t he bes t f eat ur es of t r adi t i onal and new el ect r oni c
modes of pl at f or ms al r eady avai l abl e. Thi s i s achi eved by pr ovi di ng t he
qual i t y cont r ol of i nf o- t ech, exper t i s e management and exper t r evi ews
t o or gani ze, manage and make avai l abl e t he s er vi ces onl i ne. Thi s i s
par t i al l y done by par t i al l y publ i ci s i ng t he exper t i s e knowl edge t hat can
f r eel y move about t he Met zel er I nt r anet . Thus , EED woul d have
addr es s ed t he pr obl em of what happens af t er t he di f f er ent nat i onal i t y
el ect r oni c i ns t i t ut i ons at al l Met zel er l ocat i ons ( f or ex. , l i ke t ech
cent r es ) have acces s t o t he I nt r anet at t he Gl obal Level .

The Tas k ( Sept . 03) : The t as k was t o r emodel and r ewr i t e a s et of
i nnovat i ons f or t he commencement of EED. And, t o cont r i but e t o a
f undament al change i n t he r el at i ons hi p bet ween what t echnocr at s wr i t e
and what t he gener al ( t ech) empl oyee r eads .
Project Work Sept.03-Nov.03

33
3. 3 Proj ect Work Sept . 03- Nov. 03
The above t as k was ent r us t ed t o me by Met zel er as par t of t he pr oj ect
wor k. However , t he pr oj ect wor k cont i nued t i l l i t s concept i on i n
November 03 and ceas ed by t he end of t he s ame year . The pot ent i al of
t hi s pr oj ect i s s t i l l t o be r eal i zed.

Achi evement s : Par t i al s ucces s of EED s uppor t and i mpl ement at i on
( 1) I mpr oved pr oduct i vi t y by r es t r uct ur i ng exper t i s e knowl edge and i t s
t echni cal appl i cat i on. The academi c wr i t i ng s t r engt hened t he t i es
bet ween t eachi ng and l ear ni ng on t he hand and ent i r e pr ocedur es i t s el f .
That i s t he var i ous pr oces s es of exper t s ol ut i ons f or execut i on us i ng
exper t i s e knowl edge and exper i ence.
( 2) Us ed t he i nt r anet t o br oaden t he audi ence of pr act i ci ng exper t s and
t hus i ncr eas e t he l i nks bet ween s peci al i s t s and col l eagues .
( 3) Thi s gave t he cer t i f i ed exper t s and t he f ut ur e exper t s t o devel op
t hei r car eer s wi t hi n t he f i r m. I t cr eat ed an envi r onment of gr owt h and
oppor t uni t y. Thi s appr opr i at e pl at f or m hel ped t hem publ i s h hi gh
qual i t y s ci ent i f i c mat er i al s ai med at a wi de audi ence.
( 4) Ser ved as r eadi l y acces s i bl e and a wel l - eval uat ed model
di s s emi nat i ng s peci f i c i nnovat i ons made pos s i bl e by t he new el ect r oni c
medi um.

3. 4 Proj ect St at us 2004
Us i ng t he f l exi bi l i t y of el ect r oni c pl at f or ms and by expl oi t i ng t he
gr owi ng r each of t he i nt r anet , ` ` exper t ` ` aut hor s cr eat e document s t hat
cont ai n f i r s t - r at e cr eat i ve i deas . Such i deas hel p t o br eak out of t he
nar r ow conf i nes of a s chol ar l y r eader s hi p, by s er vi ng bot h s peci al i s t s
and a mor e gener al audi ence. Such a br oadeni ng of audi ence i s
i mpor t ant i n al l ar eas of l ear ni ng, es peci al l y f or t he I T gr owt h,
Project Status 2004

34
I nf or mat i on management , knowl edge- bas ed t ool s , and knowl edge
management . Si nce, t hes e depend upon r eachi ng a wi de s egment of t he
exper t , empl oyee and peopl e- i nvol ved i n var i ous pr oj ect s , f or t hei r
cont i nui ng vi t al i t y. Thi s i n t ur n hel ps i n pul l i ng t oget her a gr eat deal
of wor k t hat i s al r eady under way, and make f ar mor e cons t r uct i ve
pr ogr es s t han woul d ot her wi s e be f eas i bl e. EED pr ovi des publ i cat i on
model s t hat exer t br oad i nf l uence t hr oughout t he t ech- humani t i es .
Introduction

35
4 Findings

The s t udy f ocus es on cr i t i cal s ucces s f act or s . The s t udy r eveal ed
var i at i ons i n how knowl edge i s bei ng managed. The f our s et s of
ques t i onnai r es ( Appendi x A ( Ger man Language Ver s i on) , B, C, &D)
wer e pur s ued dur i ng t he cour s e of one year t o under s t and t he KM i n t he
f i r m as per cei ved by t he empl oyees .
The r es ul t s f r om Par t 2 of t he Ques t i onnai r e i n t he Appendi x A
and B ( f or t he year 2004) i n t he Ger man and t he Engl i s h Language
wer e mai nl y us ed f or deduci ng Qual i t at i ve Anal ys i s . However , t he
Ques t i onnai r es i n Appendi x C& D ( f or t he year 2003) wer e gr eat l y i n
us e f or t he i nf or mal par t of t he i nt er vi ews conduct ed. Some of t he
qual i t at i ve r es ul t s f r om t he par t i al l y conduct ed i nt er vi ews i n t he
cour s e of pr epar i ng t he I nt er vi ew gui de f or EED- Exper t s and Vi r t ual
Team Member s i n Sept ember 2003 have been i ncl uded. Al s o i ncl uded i s
t he qual i t at i ve f eedback f r om t he Ques t i onnai r e For m pr epar ed on
l aunchi ng EED i n Nov 2003 f or Exper t s and Vi r t ual Team Member s .
The col l ect i ve r es ul t s ar e put f or war d as par t of t he Qual i t at i ve
Anal ys i s i n t he f i r s t phas e and Quant i t at i ve Anal ys i s i n t he s econd
phas e and t he combi ned r es ul t s and t hei r deduct i ons ar e pr es ent ed i n
t he chapt er s t her eaf t er .
Gi ven t he t i me cons t r ai nt s , t he r es pons e r at e was ver y good f or
bot h t he ques t i onnai r es i n t he year 2003( Appendi x C& D) and
2004( Appendi x A and B) . However , t he pr es ent f ocus i s on t he r es ul t s
obt ai ned dur i ng t he year 2004 and t he ques t i onnai r e us ed i n t hi s year .
I n addi t i on, t he year 2003 and t he obs er vat i ons f r om t he ques t i onnai r es
i n t hat year ar e cover ed and i nt egr at ed i nt o t he qual i t at i ve anal ys i s f or
t he ques t i onnai r es i n t he year 2004.
Introduction

36
A l ar ge maj or i t y of t he empl oyees do not us e or know t he t er m
knowl edge management ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 10 i n Par t 2 f r om
Appendi x B, Ques t i on 3 f r om Appendi x C, and Ques t i on 1 i n Appendi x
D) ) . However , mor e t han one- t hi r d had come acr os s t he t er m KM i n
ot her ways of des cr i pt i on, i n t hei r s t r at egy or gener al management
document s ( mor e t han hal f of t hos e al s o us e t he t er ms i nf or mat i on
management and/ or knowl edge s har i ng) . A t hi r d of t hem al t oget her us e
t he t er m knowl edge s har i ng. The cat egor y t er med ot her s al s o
i ncl udes j uni or management bes i de bl ue s ki l l ed s eni or company
empl oyees and mos t of t hem concer ned ar e f r om Eur ope. Twent y per
cent us e t he t er m l ear ni ng or gani s at i on ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 1 i n
Appendi x D) ( mor e t han hal f of t hem us i ng t hi s t er m come f r om mi ddl e
l evel management ) . Anot her t hi r d s ay t hat t hey do not us e any s peci f i c
t er m but have onl y r ecent l y hear d or known t he knowl edge
management concept ( mos t of t he or gani s at i ons f r om ot her par t s of
Eur ope have not par t i ci pat ed or cont r i but ed except a f ew f r om t he UK
l ocat i ons ) and t hat t oo ver y f ew. Whi l e hal f of t he f i r m us e t he t er m
i nf or mat i on management , onl y l es s t han 10 per cent of t he company
onl y us e t hi s t er m i n t hei r s t r at egy document s ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 3
f r om Appendi x C) . Thus t he r es ul t s hel p t o i dent i f y t he over al l
per cept i on of t he knowl edge management , t her eby s ubs t ant i at i ng t he
hypot hes i s of t he t hes i s on t he need f or a cul t ur al over haul as one of
t he KSFs .
Accor di ng t o t he r es ear ch r es ul t s , t he s ur vey r es pondent s wer e
pr i mar i l y t he execut i ves ( Tar get ed 70, Res ponded 32 as i n AA. 12
Appendi x L Tar get Gr oups Dat a) . Thi s s ubs t ant i at es t he hypot hes i s
backgr ound l i t er at ur e, t hat t her e i s a gr eat er i nt er es t on KM r el at ed
i mpl ement at i on s ubj ect wi t hi n t hi s empl oyee gr oup. The execut i ve KM
cul t ur e as one of t he key component s , s uppor t t he hypot hes i s i n t he
t hes i s on t he KSFs f or t he s ucces s of KM i mpl ement at i on.
Fi nal l y, i t was neces s ar y al s o becaus e of t he l anguage pr obl em,
t o dr aw t he f ol l owi ng f i gur e 3 i n or der t o br i ng cl ar i t y and l uci d
Introduction

37
r emar ks f r om t he execut i ves and t he empl oyees on t he concept of KM
and i t s i mpl ement at i on.

Fi gur e 3: Technol ogi es cont r i but i ng t o KM

Entities Technologies Process Sponsorship
Business
Strategy
Document
Management
Procedural Top-Down
Initiative CRM Continuous
Improvement
Bottom-Up
Business
Function
Collaboration Total-Quality
Management

IT e-Learning Customer
Relationship
Management

Organizational
Learning
Artificial
Intelligence
Process
Reengineering

Decision
Support
Systems
Best Practises

e-mail

Data
Warehousing

Wi t h r egar d t o t he t echnol ogi es t hat t he r es pondent s f el t
cont r i but ed s i gni f i cant l y t o knowl edge management appl i cat i ons ,
I nt er net i nt er l i nked wi t h I nt r anet ( Lot us Not es ) r anked f i r s t . Sever al
r es pondent s al s o r ecogni s ed t he cont r i but i ons of t echnol ogi es l i ke
Document Management Sys t ems , Gr oupwar e, Dat a War ehous i ng,
Di r ect or i es of r es i dent exper t s et c. Act ual l y, t hes e wer e t he key wor ds
t hat t he r es pondent s wer e mor e f ami l i ar wi t h t hen t he wor d
Knowl edge Management . Thi s s uppor t s t he hypot hes i s of t he t hes i s
on t he i mpact of cul t ur e as one of t he KSFs f or KM i mpl ement at i on.
Fur t her on, 34% s t at ed t hat t he f i r m had no pl ans f or a KM
i ni t i at i ve, 21% s t at ed t hat t hey wer e eval uat i ng t he i mpor t ance of
knowl edge management , 1% s t at ed t hat KM i s per vas i ve i n t he Met zel er
or gani zat i on, whi l e t he r es t 44% ei t her had i mpl ement ed one or mor e
Qualitative results

38
pi l ot appl i cat i ons or pl anni ng a knowl edge management pr oj ect , but
wi t h anot her name or t i t l e, wi t h/ i n a di f f er ent cat egor y or
cl as s i f i cat i on. Among t he r es pondent s who s ai d t hat t he company has
ei t her i mpl ement ed KM or pl anni ng t o i mpl ement KM, 57% of t hem
s t at ed i t i s or wi l l be i mpl ement ed acr os s t he whol e or gani zat i on, whi l e
t he r es t s t at ed t hat i t mi ght or wi l l be i mpl ement ed i n s peci f i c
depar t ment s l i ke Fi nance, HR, Mar ket i ng& Sal es , R& D et c i n t he
f ut ur e. The per cent i l e i n pi ct ur e on KM pl anni ng and i ni t i at i ves , ar e
not convi nced i n t hei r i nvol vement of KM. 51% of t hem f el t t he need
f or t he pos i t i on of a Chi ef Knowl edge Of f i cer f or ef f ect i ve
i mpl ement at i on of KM i n t he f i r m. Thi s cal l s f or mor e i nput s on KM
and s o t he hypot hes i s f i ndi ngs on t he need t o depl oy t he r i ght KSFs i n
KM as der i ved i n t hi s t hes i s endor s ed.

4. 2 Qual i t at i ve resul t s
The f ol l owi ng r es ul t s ar e bas ed on t he qual i t at i ve anal ys i s of t he
r es pons es f r om t he ques t i onnai r es pr edomi nant l y f r om 2004, as i n
appendi x A& B and f r om 2003 as i n appendi x C& D. The r es ul t s ar e
di s pl ayed f or each of t he f i ve Key Succes s Fact or s whi ch t oget her f or m
t he hypot hes es of t hi s t hes i s .

Cul t ur e:
The ques t i onnai r e ans wer s s howed t hat mos t empl oyees don t us e t he
i nt r anet i n an i nf or mal manner and s o, a f ew f ace- t o- f ace, knowl edge-
s har i ng meet i ngs ar e r equi r ed of t en i n s uch f or m of wor k, wher ei n t he
f i r m i s s pr ead over di f f er ent l ocat i ons acr os s t he cont i nent ( Res pons es
t o Ques t i on 1 i n Par t 2 of Appendi x B) . An open or gani zat i on i s l es s
s ens i t i ve t o i ndi vi dual cul t ur al as pect s and al l ows i nt er nal / ext er nal
communi cat i on ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 7 i n par t 2 of Appendi x B) .
Cul t ur e i s becomi ng l es s i mpor t ant i n under s t andi ng KM onl y when
emphas i zi ng t he open or gani zat i on mode ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 6 i n
Qualitative results

39
par t 2 f r om Appendi x B) . Communi cat i on pol i ci es ar e l i mi t i ng t he
knowl edge exchange r at e and l evel ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 9 i n par t 2
f r om Appendi x B) . The ans wer s i n t he ques t i onnai r es f avour ed
communi cat i on, t oget her wi t h pr of es s i onal behavi our ,
knowl edge/ exper i ences and pr evi ous l y t eamwor k as mos t i mpor t ant
f act or s ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 13 i n par t 2 f r om Appendi x B) . They
ment i oned ot her f act or s l i ke s i mi l ar knowl edge and communi cat i on
s ki l l s as key f act or s i n s ucces s i ncl udi ng l ow s t r es s l evel and a
devel opment of bet t er KM t ool s and I CTs ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 13 i n
par t 2 f r om Appendi x B) .

KM Or gani z at i on:
Gr oup meet i ngs once a mont h wher e empl oyees s har e s ome par t i cul ar
knowl edge or exper i ences wi t h ot her s i n t he or gani zat i on i s pr act i ced
( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 9 i n Par t 2 f r om Appendi x B. Thi s knowl edge
i s al s o s har ed t hr ough depar t ment al dat abas es ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 9
i n Par t 2 f r om Appendi x B) . The r es ul t s of t he ques t i onnai r e s howed
t hat t he empl oyees coul d di s t i ngui s h s ever al benef i t s f r om KM i n t he
f ut ur e. They ment i oned i ncr eas ed ef f i ci ency and l ower cos t s
( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 10 f r om Appendi x D, Ques t i on 10 i n Par t 2
f r om Appendi x B) . Accor di ng t o t he ques t i onnai r e r egar di ng how
empl oyees di s t i ngui s h benef i t s f r om wor ki ng i n hi gh t echnol ogy ar eas
or t eams i n a KM envi r onment t her e was a s t r ong pr ef er ence f or f ace-
t o- f ace communi cat i on, whi ch r emai ns es s ent i al as bus i nes s i s
conduct ed at l eas t t owar ds cus t omer s . ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 8 - 13
f r om Appendi x D, Ques t i on 10 i n Par t 2 f r om Appendi x B) . Anot her
i s s ue f ound was t he pol i cy r egar di ng communi cat i on. I t was f ound t hat
t he communi cat i on l evel i s hi gher wi t hi n depar t ment s , whi ch act ual l y
pr act i s ed KM pol i ci es ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 6 i n par t 2 f r om
Appendi x B) . Lack of KM pol i ci es i n s ome depar t ment s coul d pr event
ot her i nf or mal knowl edge s har i ng channel s bet ween t he empl oyees
( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 10 i n Par t 2 f r om Appendi x B) .
Qualitative results

40
St r at egy, Sys t ems & an I T I nf r as t r uct ur e:
The s t udy s hows t hat t her e can be s ome benef i t s f r om us i ng a gi ven
s t r at egy i n KM ( Res pons es t o Ques t i ons 3, 4, 5& 6 f r om Appendi x C
and Ques t i ons 10, 11, 18& 19 f r om Appendi x D) . The empl oyees and t he
management s ee a cl ear pat h or pl an of how t he i ndi vi dual empl oyee
coul d devel op hi s / her knowl edge and exper i ences i f KM i ni t i at i ves
wer e i ncor por at ed i n a phas ed manner . The ans wer s f r om t he
ques t i onnai r e s t at ed t hat empl oyees know t he benef i t s f or t hems el ves
and t hought t hat i t was a good i dea t o have a Knowl edge Management
Sys t ems St r at egy announced and made vi s i bl e f or t he ent i r e Eur o
Oper at i ons .
On t he i s s ue of I T t ool s ; I T Tool s have t he oppor t uni t y t o
i ncr eas e i nt er act i on bot h i nt er nal and wi t h ext er nal par t ner s but i n t he
end, t he company i s ver y dependent on i t s per s onal communi cat i on
s ki l l s ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 13 f r om Appendi x D) . Anot her i s s ue t hat
was di s cover ed i s what happens when t he or gani zat i on l os es cont r ol
over knowl edge s t or age. The us e of any ext ens i ve us e of I CTs and KM
t ool s car r i es an i nher ent r i s k of l oos i ng t he cont r ol over t he
i nf or mat i on f l ow i n t he or gani zat i on. Thi s i s cl ear l y s hown i n t he
r es ear ch wher e t he empl oyees have pr obl ems t o f i nd t he s ear ched t opi c
due t o over l oad of i nf or mat i on ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 8, 9 and 10 i n
Par t 2 f r om Appendi x B) .
A l ar ge amount of dat abas es have an ext ens i ve amount of
i nf or mat i on i n t hem. Par t s of t he r es ul t s f r om f i ni s hed t as ks ar e s t or ed
i n t hes e dat abas es ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 10 i n Par t 2 f r om Appendi x
B) . The company us es t he dat abas es i n a l ar ge amount . Some empl oyees
compl ai n t hat t he dat abas es ar e cr eat i ng pr obl ems due t o t he l ack of a
l ogi cal s ear ch f unct i on ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 8& 10 i n Par t 2 f r om
Appendi x B) . The I CTs t end t o f or ce t he empl oyees t o i nt er act . I t i s
obvi ous t hat t he I CTs and r ol e di vi s i on ar e par t of t he pat t er n, but t he
management of KM cannot wor k al one wi t hout a pr oper s t r at egi cal l y
vi ewed appr oach by t he KM or gani zat i on and i t s member s on how t o do
Qualitative results

41
i t . ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 5 f r om Appendi x C, Ques t i on 3 f r om
Appendi x D)

Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es :
The empl oyees r es ponded on t he i s s ue of knowl edge as s et s as
equi val ent t o I nt el l ect ual as s et s i n r ef l ect i ng t he company i mage and
accor di ngl y have put ef f or t s i n havi ng cont i nuous eval uat i on of
wor ki ng r out i nes i n or der t o pr ovi de t op qual i t y s er vi ces ( Res pons es t o
Ques t i on 1 f r om Appendi x D & Ques t i on 11 i n Par t 2 f r om Appendi x
B) . I nt el l ect ual r i ght s ar e l egal l y pr ot ect ed. The awar enes s among t he
empl oyees i s evi dent , but t he pr ocedur es and t he l at es t devel opment s
ar e not cl ear . Ther e i s a cons t ant f l ow of i deas wi t hi n t he
or gani s at i onal cont ext yet , mos t of t hes e i deas have ei t her been l os t or
not r ecor ded or s har ed wi t h t he r i ght peopl e, accor di ng t o ( mor e t han
70% of ) t he empl oyees . . Thus , t he cl ear need f or KM i ni t i at i ves wi t h
emphas i s on Ef f ect i ve and Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es as advocat ed i n t he
hypot hes i s .

Meas ur es :
Accor di ng t o t he ques t i onnai r e, mos t of t he KM i ni t i at i ves f ai l due t o
i nef f ect i ve us e of i nbui l t meas ur es ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 3 f r om
Appendi x D) . Thus , f or t he s ucces s and s us t enance of KM, s ome
gui del i nes ( Res pons es t o Ques t i on 4 f r om Appendi x D) and meas ur es
ar e r equi r ed. The anal ys i s of t he i mpor t ance of t he f act or s f or t he
i mpr ovement of knowl edge s har i ng and knowl edge t r ans f er pr act i ces or
t he good i mpl ement at i on of KM s t r at egi es s hows t hat r es pondent s have
a br oad vi ew of t he compl exi t y of t he r ef or ms ( Res pons es t o Ques t i ons
5, 6, 10& 11 i n Par t 2 of Annexur e AA Appendi x B ) .

Key Success Factors Quantitative Analysis

42
Summar y
The qual i t at i ve r es ul t s s uppor t t he hypot hes i s of t hi s t hes i s r egar di ng
t he i mpor t ance of t he f i ve KSF f or t he s ucces s of KM i mpl ement at i on
pr oj ect s
Knowl edge s har i ng among depar t ment s i s not act i vel y
encour aged. Thi s conf i r ms t he cul t ur e f act or as one of t he hypot hes i s
key s ucces s f act or s f or KM s ucces s
A gr eat er number of empl oyees bel i eve t hat management of
knowl edge i s a par t of t he company bus i nes s s t r at egy by t he end of t he
i nt er vi ew. Thi s cl ear l y pr oved t hat an expl i ci t char act er f or an
ambi t i ous KM i ni t i at i ve i s ver y i mpor t ant f or awar enes s , accept ance,
adj us t ment and event ual s ucces s .
Undoubt edl y, t he r equi r ement s of an I T i nf r as t r uct ur e f i ne t uned t o KM
i n t he f i r m has been r ei t er at ed and emphas i zed as i n t he hypot hes i s f or
KSFs .

4. 3 Key Success Fact ors Quant i t at i ve Anal ysi s
Overview
KSF Mean Value Indicator
0
1
2
3
4
5
C
u
l
t
u
r
e
K
M
O
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
y
,
S
y
s
t
e
m
s

&

I
T

E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e

&
S
y
s
t
e
m
a
t
i
c
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
S
u
m

o
f

K
S
F
Factors
M
e
a
n

S
c
a
l
e
Mean


43
Figure 4: Mean for Key Success Factors (Mean 3)
1. Culture (Mean 2.9)
2. KM Organization (Mean 2.6)
3. Strategy, Systems& an IT Infrastructure (Mean 3.3)
4. Effective& Systematic Processes (Mean 2.9)
5. Measures (Mean 3.4)

The r es pondent s ci t ed changi ng peopl e s behavi our and over comi ng
i mpedi ment s t o knowl edge t r ans f er wi t hi n t he c omp a ny l oc a t i ons a nd a t t he
e u r o l e v e l ( Cul t ur e, Mean 2. 9) as one of t he i mpor t ant f act or s f or
managi ng knowl edge i n t he company. On a mor e pos i t i ve not e, t he
r es pondent s s ai d del i ber at e management coul d i ndeed over come t hi s
obs t acl e. On t he c o mp a n y s abi l i t y t o compet e bas ed on knowl edge
depends mor e upon peopl e, pr oces s , or t echnol ogy i s s ues , t he aggr egat e
r es pons es pl aced t he emphas i s heavi l y on peopl e, wi t h t he ot her t wo
ar eas car r yi ng equal , s econdar y wei ght . Thi s i s a di r ect cor r el at i on t o
t he l i t er at ur e r evi ewed on KM i n t he chapt er 2. 5 wher ei n, t he l i t er at ur e
s t udy and backgr ound t o t he hypot hes es had f avour ed t he r equi r ement
of peopl e, pr oces s and t echnol ogy r at i o i n t he des i r ed f or mat of
50: 25: 25 f or t he KSFs of t hi s t hes i s i n i mpl ement i ng KM.
( KM Or g, Mean 2. 6) The need f or a knowl edge i ni t i at i ve, whi ch
coul d i nf l uence t he t op management i n j us t i f yi ng t he us e of s car e
r es our ces f or knowl edge i ni t i at i ves and s et up t he appr opr i at e s cope f or
knowl edge i ni t i at i ves i s anot her maj or pr obl em f aced by t he
or gani zat i on. Owi ng t o t he company s KM Or gani zat i onal s t r uct ur e i n
i t s l ack of compl et e owner s hi p of ( KM i mpl ement at i on) pr obl em ( KM
Or g Mean 2. 6) , al s o ar os e f r om i nef f ect i ve meas ur es as s een i n l ack of
s har ed under s t andi ng of s t r at egy of bus i nes s model ( St r at egy, Sys t ems
and I T I nf r as t r uct ur e Mean 3. 3 and Meas ur e Mean 3. 4) .
( Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es Mean 2. 9) Det er mi ni ng what
knowl edge s houl d be managed and t o mappi ng t he or gani zat i on s
exi s t i ng knowl edge t hr ough def i ni ng s t andar d pr oces s es f or
knowl edge wor k and maki ng knowl edge avai l abl e i s anot her i s s ue t hat
as s umes hi gh pr i or i t y.

44
( KSF, Meas ur e 3. 4) Meas ur i ng t he val ue and per f or mance of
knowl edge as s et s , i ncl udi ng t he pr obl ems wi t h f i ndi ng t he want ed
i nf or mat i on r ef er r ed t o Lot us Not es and t he l ar ge amount of dat abas es
hel d wi t hi n depar t ment s .
The need f or f or mul at i ng an over al l s t r at egy f or knowl edge
management comes f or war d ver y s t r ongl y. The means above cl ear l y
conf i r m t he deduct i ons , t he bas i c pos t ul at es made f or t he key s ucces s
f act or s hypot hes i s and s uppor t t he s t r ong r ecommendat i ons t her eaf t er
f or a dynami c knowl edge management i ni t i at i ve. The l ack of whi ch was
r es pons i bl e f or t he f ai l ur e of t he pr evi ous KM i ni t i at i ve t he EED
pr oj ect . Mos t KM i ndi cat or s above cl ear l y i ndi cat e ei t her s at i s f act or y
i n per f or mance or pur el y f unct i onal i n an exi s t ent i al f or m. The key
s ucces s f act or s ( KSF Mean whi ch i s about 3) need t o be mor e ef f ect i ve
and t aken i nt o account t o i ni t i at e a dat abas e on bes t pr act i ces or r evi ve
t he EED pr oj ect t hat f ai l ed i n t he l as t quar t er of 2003.

4. 3. 1 Cul t ur e

Culture
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Question number
S
c
a
l
e
Mean

45
Figure 5: Culture
1. Is recording and sharing knowledge a routine?
2. Is failure seen as an opportunity to learn?
3. Is change accepted as part of working life?
4. Are the employees co-operative and helpful when asked for some information
or advice?
5. Is Knowledge sharing seen as strength and knowledge hoarding as a weakness?
6. Is there good intra-team communication and sharing of knowledge?
7. Is good knowledge management behaviour like sharing, reusing knowledge
actively promoted on a day to day basis?
8. Is bad knowledge management behaviour actively discouraged?
9. Are individuals visibly rewarded for knowledge sharing and reuse?
10. Are people in the organization aware of the need to proactively manage
knowledge assets?
11. Do people at all levels in the organisation participate in some kind of a
community or communities of practice?
12. Is the intranet used to share knowledge in an informal manner (non-routine,
personal and unstructured way)?

I n gener al t he KM cul t ur e at Met zel er i s eval uat ed as aver age. Al l
det ai l ed r es ul t s ( ques t i ons 1 t o 12) ar e s l i ght l y above or bel ow a s cal e
val ue of t hr ee. Ther e ar e t hr ee ques t i ons whi ch have a di f f er ence f r om
1 s cal e poi nt t o t hr ee. Thes e ar e Ques t i on 4 ( Mean 4. 1) , Ques t i on 2
( Mean 3. 6) and Ques t i on 3 ( Mean 3. 4) whi ch i mpl i es t he gener al
appr oach as pos i t i ve, dynami c t o change and co oper at i ve. Thi s i s
mor e a bas i c i ndi vi dual t r ai t and a pr er equi s i t e f or a Company cul t ur e
i n t he HQ l ocat i on. And, knowl edge s har i ng i s not r eal l y s een as
s t r engt h, and def i ni t el y, knowl edge hoar di ng i s not cons i der ed as a
weaknes s ( ques t i on 5, Mean 2. 8) .
Mos t of t he r es pondent s ar e s har pl y di vi ded i nt o t wo gr oups wi t h
s t r ong vi ews on t he i s s ue of knowl edge s har i ng pr act i ces i n t he f i r m
( ques t i on 1, Mean 2. 8) and al s o on t he per cept i on of f ai l ur e as an
oppor t uni t y t o l ear n i s vi ewed as a par t of l ear ni ng and
gr owt h( ques t i on 2, Mean 3. 4) .
Thi s i s f ur t her conf i r med by t he r es ul t t hat change i s wel come
( ques t i on 3, Mean 3. 6) , as t he company emphas i s on i nnovat i on by
pr i nci pl e bot h hi s t or i cal l y and t o s t ay ahead due t o s t i f f compet i t i on.
Thi s i s f ur t her conf i r med by t he r es ul t s howi ng t hat t he empl oyees ar e

46
mor e t han wi l l i ng t o hel p ( ques t i on 4, Mean 4. 1) . They ar e s een as
cooper at i ve and hel pf ul when appr oached f or i nf or mat i on or hel p.
However , knowl edge s har i ng i s not r eal l y s een as s t r engt h, and
def i ni t el y, knowl edge hoar di ng i s not cons i der ed as a weaknes s
( ques t i on 5, Mean 2. 8) . Des pi t e t hi s s i t uat i on, t her e i s a f ai r l evel of
i nt r a t eam communi cat i on and s har i ng of knowl edge ( ques t i on 6, Mean
3. 2) .
Ther e i s not much r eus i ng of knowl edge act i vel y and nei t her i s i t
pr omot ed on a day- t o- day bas i s as an act i ve r out i ne behavi our
( ques t i on 7, Mean 2. 6) . Fur t her on, i t i s a neut r al appr oach, nei t her
di s cour agi ng nor i n encour agi ng knowl edge s har i ng act i ons ( ques t i on
8, Mean 2. 4) . The empl oyees ar e i nf or med about t he need t o
pr oact i vel y manage knowl edge as s et s ( ques t i on 10, Mean 3. 1) . Ther e
ar e no obvi ous or vi s i bl e cr edi t s awar ded or r ewar ded f or knowl edge
s har i ng and r eus e ( ques t i on 9, Mean 2. 3) . Ther e ar e ver y f ew i n
common pr act i ce on knowl edge s har i ng. Nei t her i s t her e any gr oup or
communi t y pr act i ce ai med at t hi s endeavour i n par t i cul ar ( ques t i on 11,
Mean 2) , ot her t han t he nat ur al r equi r ement s t hat demand a gr oup
pr act i ce s har i ng f or a def i ni t e per i od over t he i nt r anet ( ques t i on 12,
Mean 2. 1) , whi ch ot her wi s e i s not us ed i n an i nf or mal manner f or any
s i gni f i cant l engt h of t i me. Thi s i s evi dent f r om t he hi gh per cent age of
r es pondent s cl ear l y i ndi cat i ng t he non- us e of t he i nt r anet i n an
i nf or mal manner and no es t abl i s hed communi t y or communi t i es of
pr act i ces t hat i s common f or al l t he l ocat i ons of Met zel er .
Summar y:
The wor ki ng cul t ur e pr es ent l y i s ver y much f unct i onal but does n t wor k
out f or a maj or KM changeover .

47
4. 3. 2 KM Or gani z at i on

KM Organisation
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Question Number
S
c
a
l
e
Mean

Figure 6: KM Organization
1. Does the top management recognize KM as an important part of the business
strategy?
2. Is there top management representation for KM?
3. Is knowledge management a formal function area in the organization?
4. Is internal staff rotation actively encouraged to spread best practices and ideas?
5. Are the teams in the organization effective? Are self managed teams composed
of individuals capable of learning from each other?
6. Are virtual or remote teams supported effectively in terms of access to
networks or knowledge?
7. Are multi-disciplinary teams effectively formed and managed?
8. Is there a vision for how KM should be integrated into the business?
9. Are there defined responsibilities and budget for KM initiatives? 10. Is there a
clear ownership of KM initiatives either by business units or by the whole
business?
11. Does the organization hone its skills for generating, acquiring and applying
knowledge by learning from other organizations learning process?
12. Does the organization systematically assesses its future knowledge
requirements and execute plans to meet them?

I n gener al t he KM cul t ur e at Met zel er i s eval uat ed as aver age t o f ai r .
Al l det ai l ed r es ul t s ( ques t i ons 1 t o 12) ar e s l i ght l y above a s cal e val ue
of t wo. Ther e ar e t hr ee ques t i ons whi ch have a di f f er ence f r om 1 s cal e
poi nt t o t hr ee, ques t i on 1 ( Mean 3. 2) , ques t i on 5 ( Mean 3. 1) and
ques t i on 7 ( Mean 3. 3) . Thi s i s s el f evi dent f or a cor por at e HQ pr of i l e
i n mos t s ucces s f ul mi d s i zed compani es .

48
The r es ul t s i ndi cat e t op- l evel management s par t i ci pat i on and
execut i on of knowl edge management i ni t i at i ves ( ques t i on 1, Mean 3. 2) ,
but wi t h mi ni mal r epr es ent at i on ( ques t i on 2, Mean 2. 5) . Thi s i s not a
maj or f or mal f unct i on ar ea i n t he or gani zat i on ( ques t i on 3, Mean 2. 3) .
Ther e i s a r eas onabl e amount of s uppor t gi ven t o s pr ead bes t pr act i ces
and i deas by act i vel y encour agi ng i nt er nal s t af f r ot at i on ( ques t i on 4,
Mean 2. 6) . Ther e ar e an accept abl e number of ef f ect i ve t eams wi t h t he
mi ni mum number of i ndi vi dual s , who have di s pl ayed over t he year s t he
capaci t y t o l ear n f r om ot her s ( ques t i on 5, Mean 3. 1) . However , t her e i s
l ow s uppor t f or vi r t ual or r emot e t eams i n pr ovi di ng acces s t o net wor ks
or knowl edge ( ques t i on 6, Mean 2. 2) .
Mos t of t he t eams f or med have a homogeneous compos i t i on and a
s t r eaml i ned appr oach t o t he pr oj ect and f ewer mul t i di s ci pl i nar y t eams
t hat ar e ef f ect i vel y f or med and managed ( ques t i on 7, Mean 3. 3) . Thi s
i ndi cat es a s t r eaml i ned appr oach and an at t empt f or a company vi s i on
t o i nt egr at e KM i nt o t he bus i nes s ( ques t i on 8, Mean 2. 2) . Ther e ar e
onl y a f ew r es pons i bi l i t i es and negl i gi bl e budget f or KM i ni t i at i ves
exi s t , bor der i ng on a f or mal s kel et on i ni t i at i ve ( ques t i on 9, Mean 2. 4) .
I n addi t i on, t her e i s no cl ear owner s hi p of KM i ni t i at i ves ei t her by t he
bus i nes s uni t s or by t he whol e bus i nes s ( ques t i on 10, Mean 2. 4) . Thi s
i s f ur t her s ubs t ant i at ed by t he empl oyee f eedback r es ul t . I t i ndi cat es
t he or gani zat i on has l at el y l ear nt l i t t l e f r om ot her or gani zat i ons
l ear ni ng pr oces s es , es peci al l y i n honi ng i t s s ki l l s f or gener at i ng,
acqui r i ng, appl yi ng and i nt egr at i ng new knowl edge at a r api d pace
( ques t i on 11, Mean 2. 6) . Nor do t he r es ul t s s how t hat t he or gani zat i on
s ys t emat i cal l y as s es s i t s f ut ur e r equi r ement s and execut e pl ans t o meet
t hem at an or gani zat i onal l evel ( ques t i on 12, Mean 2. 4) . Ther ef or e,
mos t empl oyees gave an aver age f eedback t hat t her e i s l i t t l e knowl edge
s har i ng acr os s depar t ment al boundar i es t hat i s act ual l y encour aged
wi t h t he whol e or gani zat i on ( ques t i on 13, Mean 2. 9, Ger man Language
Ver s i on Equi val ent ) .


49
Summar y:
Appar ent l y t he gr aph s hows a r es ul t j us t above t wo t hat i s eval uat ed as
f ai r val ue. The company s KM Or gani zat i onal s t r uct ur e i n i t s l ack of
owner s hi p of t he pr obl em i s al s o evi dent ( KM Or g, Mean 2. 6) . Top
management s f ai l ur e t o s i gnal i mpor t ance i s obs er ved f r om an abs ence
of an i ncent i ve s ys t em. Thes e r es ul t s f ur t her go on t o pr ove t he
hypot hes i s on t he r equi r ement of a r eor gani zed KM or gani zat i on on t he
l i nes of a mor e ef f ect i ve, or gani zed and s ynchr oni zed f or a s t r ong KM
Cul t ur e.

4. 3. 3 St r at egy, Sys t ems & an I T I nf r as t r uct ur e
Strategy, Systems and IT
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2
Question Number
S
c
a
l
e
Mean

Figure 7: Strategy, Systems& an IT Infrastructure
1. Is technology shared with clients and suppliers (where appropriate) to
enhance relationships?
2. Is management of knowledge a part of the business strategy?

The r es ul t i s about an aver age s cal e val ue of 3. I n an E economy t hi s
aver age s cor e i mpl i es t hat t her e ar e due t o t he nat ur e of t he bus i nes s
conduct ed l i mi t s s har i ng of t echnol ogy wi t h cl i ent s and s uppl i er s .
However , a maj or por t i on of empl oyees bel i eve i n s har i ng wi t h cl i ent s
and s uppl i er s t he appr opr i at e t echnol ogy i n an appr opr i at e s i t uat i on
( ques t i on 1, Mean 3. 8) . Though s ome empl oyees bel i eve t hat

50
management of knowl edge i s a par t of t he company bus i nes s s t r at egy, a
s i gni f i cant number of empl oyees ar e of t he opi ni on t hat i t i s not
pr act i ced i n r eal t er ms ( ques t i on 2, Mean 2. 8) .
Summar y:
Ther e ar e s t i l l maj or bot t l enecks t o i mpl ement i ng a s ucces s f ul KM;
t her ef or e, t her e ar e many ar eas f or i mpr ovement . Thi s s uppor t s t he
hypot hes i s f i ndi ngs on St r at egy, Sys t ems and an I T i nf r as t r uct ur e as a
KSF f or KM i mpl ement at i on.

4. 3. 4 Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c Pr oces s es
Effective& Systematic Processes
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Question Number
S
c
a
l
e
Mean

Figure 8: Effective& Systematic Processes
1. Are Key knowledge assets such as customer knowledge identified and
preserved and maintained.
2. Are Effective cataloguing and archiving procedure in place for document
management (not necessarily electronic)
3. Are Intellectual assets legally protected?
4. Are training and development programs in KM behaviour undertaken from
point of recruitment?
5. Is there any duplication of effort in the organisation?
6. In the day-to-day working environment, is it easy to find the right
information?
7. When a team completes a task, does it distil and document what it has
learned.
8. Are ideas for alliances and joint ventures constantly reviewed and acted on
when necessary.

51
The r es ul t i s about an aver age s cal e val ue of 3. Thi s i mpl i es t he
exi s t ence of bas i c pr ocedur es and pr act i ces wher e ef f ect i ve and
s ys t emat i c pr oces s es ar e i nvol ved, whi ch l eads t o t he aver age s cal e
val ue of 3 f or al mos t al l var i abl es . As i n, t he empl oyees vi ews on
whet her t he key knowl edge as s et s s uch as cus t omer knowl edge ar e
i dent i f i ed, pr es er ved and mai nt ai ned ( ques t i on 1, Mean 3. 1) . Si mi l ar l y,
r egar di ng an ef f ect i ve cat al ogui ng and ar chi vi ng pr ocedur e i n pl ace f or
document management t hat i s not neces s ar i l y el ect r oni c ( ques t i on 2,
Mean 3. 3) . The i nt el l ect ual as s et s as l egal l y pr ot ect ed accor di ng t o t he
empl oyees ( ques t i on 3, Mean 3. 8) . I t i s r el at i vel y eas y t o f i nd t he r i ght
i nf or mat i on ( ques t i on 6, Mean 3. 1) by a f ai r amount of navi gat i on i n
t he day- t o- day wor k envi r onment as pos t ed i n t he r es ul t s . However , on
compl et i on of a t as k by t he t eam, t he l es s ons l ear nt ar e not ef f ect i vel y
di s t i l l ed f or document at i on ( ques t i on 7, Mean 2. 4) . Thi s l eads t o t he
concl us i ve r emar k t hat i n s pi t e of an aver age f eedback on ot her
var i abl es and bes i des a f ai r avai l abi l i t y of i nf or mat i on, t her e i s
dupl i cat i on of ef f or t i n t he or gani zat i on ( ques t i on 5, Mean 3) . Fur t her ,
i deas f or al l i ances and j oi nt vent ur es ar e not r egul ar l y r evi ewed t o be
act ed on when neces s ar y ( ques t i on 8, Mean 2. 5) . Al s o, t he empl oyees
r egar d t he r ecr ui t ment pr ocedur e j us t pas s on t he i s s ue of t r ai ni ng and
i mbi bi ng KM behavi our devel opment pr ogr ams ( ques t i on 4, Mean 2. 6) .

Summar y
The knowl edge pr oces s es ar e us ual l y not managed as pr oces s es i n and
of t hems el ves . The s ame was f el t f or t he r es our ces commi t t ed f or
ongoi ng t r ai ni ng and devel opment of i ndi vi dual s . Fur t her t o above, t he
cont i nuous l ear ni ng ent ai l s , i ndi vi dual empl oyee i nvol vement i n t he
f i r m pr oces s es i n knowl edge s har i ng and KM s t r uct ur es f or t he f i r m, as
advocat ed by t he hypot hes i s .
Thes e r es ul t s demons t r at e t he need f or a s t r ong KM Ef f ect i ve and
Sys t emat i c pr oces s es t hat avoi d dupl i cat i on of wor k, cl ear def i ni t i on of
t he ki nd of knowl edge t hat needs t o be s har ed, document ed, and
managed by t he empl oyees . Ef f ect i ve and Sys t emat i c pr oces s es , i s one

52
of t he pr e- r equi s i t es f or KM s ucces s and i s t he f i r s t s t ep t o a
s ucces s f ul KM met hodol ogy. Thus t he hypot hes i s f i ndi ng of t hi s t hes i s
f or Ef f ect i ve and Sys t emat i c pr oces s es as a KSF f or KM
i mpl ement at i on i s s ubs t ant i at ed.

4. 3. 5 Meas ur es
Measures
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
Question Number
S
c
a
l
e
Mean

Figure 9: Measures
1. Is there a participative goal setting, measurement and feedback?
2. Are individuals committed to continual improvements?
3. Is there a constant flow/ generation of new ideas within the organisational
context?
4. Are resources committed for ongoing training and development of
individuals?
5. Are intellectual assets evaluated?

Meas ur es s cor e aver age or s l i ght l y above aver age. Thi s i s due t o t he
f act t hat t her e i s a par t i ci pat i ve goal s et t i ng, meas ur ement and
f eedback accor di ng t o t he r es ul t pos t ed ( MBO: Mi s s i on Bas ed
Obj ect i ves br i ef l y i mpl i es t hat t he company s obj ect i ves coi nci de wi t h
t he cus t omer s obj ect i ves ) ( ques t i on 1, Mean 3) . Al s o, t he empl oyees
r anked t he par t i ci pat i on of i ndi vi dual s as commi t t ed t o cont i nual
i mpr ovement s ( ques t i on 2, Mean 4. 2) . Bes i des , t her e i s a cons t ant f l ow
of i deas wi t hi n t he or gani s at i onal cont ext accor di ng t o mor e t han
Summary

53
s event y per cent of t he empl oyees ( ques t i on 3, Mean 3. 6) . The s ame was
f el t f or t he r es our ces commi t t ed f or ongoi ng t r ai ni ng and devel opment
of i ndi vi dual s ( ques t i on 4, Mean 3. 7) . However , t he r es ul t f or t he
evol ut i on of i nt el l ect ual as s et s s howed a mar ked devi at i on on t hi s i s s ue
wi t h onl y cl os e t o a hal f agr eei ng on t hi s mat t er ( ques t i on 5, Mean 3) .

Summar y:
Ef f ect i ve meas ur es ar e i n pl ace and f unct i onal of knowl edge s har i ng
and r ecor di ng. Yet f r om knowl edge management per s pect i ve much
needs t o be done f or f ut ur i s t i c t eam ef f or t s on s ucces s f ul KM
i mpl ement at i on.

4. 4 Summary
Ther e ar e no dedi cat ed onl i ne communi t i es t hat ar e bui l t and pr oper l y
f aci l i t at ed i n or der t o pr omot e a knowl edge s har i ng di al ogue. Ther e i s
l es s of pus h t echnol ogy ver s us pul l t echnol ogy. Mor e act i ve
anal ys i s and di s s emi nat i on ( ei t her t hr ough i nt el l i gent agent s or a t eam
of i ndi vi dual s anal ys i ng l es s ons l ear ned) i s needed whi l e col l ect i ng,
anal ys i ng and di s s emi nat i ng knowl edge. The i nt er net and t he i nt r anet
by i t s el f have not made s i gni f i cant cont r i but i on t o make t he company
mor e compet i t i ve. Ther e ar e no cl ear meas ur es on t hi s count . Si mi l ar l y,
s t r uct ur ed dat a al mos t pr es umes exi s t ence of s ome ki nd of a dat abas e
i n t he f i r m.
Ther e i s a s t r ong cor r el at i on wi t h many of t he f act or s of s ucces s
of t en des i gnat ed i n t he KM l i t er at ur e s uch as t he r es our ces dedi cat ed t o
KM or t he at t r i but i on of t he over al l r es pons i bi l i t y f or KM ( Ques t i on 9
of 2 i n Appendi x B) . The s t r ong cor r el at i on bet ween s ome of t he
s ucces s f act or s hypot hes i zed i n t he KM l i t er at ur e, i . e. t he l evel of
r es our ces dedi cat ed t o KM pr act i ces , and t he at t r i but i on of
r es pons i bi l i t i es f or KM pr act i ces , ar e di r ect l y pr opor t i onal . The l ack of
r ewar ds f or knowl edge s har i ng, appar ent f ocus of t he f i r m on
Summary

54
t echnol ogy us age f or s ol vi ng pr obl ems under mi ned t he i mpor t ance of
t he human f act or . Shar i ng i nf or mat i on s houl d be a pr i or i t y, but i t i s
not . One of t he t wo bi gges t obs t acl es t o KM i ni t i at i ves i s " f i nanci al
j us t i f i cat i on" and " boar dr oom cr edi bi l i t y. " I n t he mar ket , s ecr ecy i s t he
f i r s t val ue f ol l owed by t he cor por at e cul t ur e, i nf or mat i on s har i ng i s a
pr obl em. The r el at i ve manager i al r es i s t ance t o t he i mpl ement at i on of
KM s t r at egi es ( manager s have t he mos t t o l os e f r om knowl edge t hat i s
mor e hor i zont al s har i ng) and t he abs ence of updat ed dynami c e-
commer ce mechani s ms accompanyi ng t he changi ng r es pons i bi l i t i es ar e
t he l i mi t at i ons t o t he i mpl ement at i on of KM.
The need f or f or mul at i ng an over al l s t r at egy f or knowl edge
management comes f or war d ver y s t r ongl y. The l ack of whi ch was
r es pons i bl e f or t he f ai l ur e of t he pr evi ous KM i ni t i at i ve t he EED
pr oj ect . Mos t KM i ndi cat or s above cl ear l y i ndi cat e ei t her s at i s f act or y
i n per f or mance or pur el y f unct i onal i n an exi s t ent i al f or m. The key
s ucces s f act or s need t o be mor e ef f ect i ve and t aken i nt o account t o
i ni t i at e a dat abas e on bes t pr act i ces or r evi ve t he EED pr oj ect t hat
f ai l ed i n t he l as t quar t er of 2003. Meant i me i t i s al s o i mpor t ant t o
r eal i ze, How t o as s es s t he damage of not havi ng an ef f i ci ent KM
s t r at egy.
The r es pons es al s o i ndi cat ed t hat i deas f or al l i ances and j oi nt
vent ur es ar e not r egul ar l y r evi ewed t o be act ed on when neces s ar y.
Thes e r es ul t s poi nt out f or t he need t o i ns t i t ut e s uf f i ci ent meas ur es and
a change i n t he per cept i on t o t he pr oces s es car r i ed out i n t he f i r m. The
s ame s i t uat i on was r ecor ded wi t h t he ques t i on on t he eval uat i on of
i nt el l ect ual as s et s .
Fur t her , anal ys i s of t he di f f er ent achi evement s r es ul t s conf i r m
t he hypot hes i s f i ndi ngs f or i ncr eas ed opennes s , t r ans par ent pol i ci es ,
i nves t ment s i n I CTs , s t r uct ur al changes and i mpr oved compet i t i venes s
of t he empl oyer t hr ough changes t o ver t i cal and s i l o t ype of
hi er ar chi cal s t r uct ur es ar e r equi r ed. Ther e i s a hi gh l evel of need and
Summary

55
want f or s t r at egi c knowl edge management but t her e exi s t onl y a l ow
l evel of act ual i mpl ement at i on.
Conclusive Remarks

56
5 Conclusion

5. 1 Concl usi ve Remarks
The pur pos e of t hi s t hes i s i s t o gai n a bet t er under s t andi ng of how
s ome f act or s ar e cr i t i cal f or t he s ucces s f ul appl i cat i on of Knowl edge
Management ( KM) . A l i t er at ur e r evi ew i s i n or der t o i dent i f y and
cat egor i ze t he exi s t i ng meas ur es , s ui t abl e f or eval uat i ng t he
hypot hes i s . Then f ol l owed f or each cons t r uct t he exi s t i ng s cal es
i dent i f i ed, adj us t ed f or appl i cat i on t o t he s peci f i c r es ear ch f i el d.
I n t he l i t er ar y r evi ews t he maj or wor k on KM i mpl ement at i on
f ocus ed on t he pr es ent t r ends and appl i cat i ons i n t he eEconomy.
Wher ei n, t oday s compet enci es become t omor r ow s cor e r i gi di t i es wi t h
unpr ecedent ed s peed. An or gani zat i on s houl d have t he capaci t y t o
expl oi t i t s knowl edge and l ear ni ng capabi l i t i es bet t er t han i t s
compet i t or s , i f i t deci des t o as s ume a gi ven compet i t i ve s t r at egy.
Al t hough KM i s and as an ent er pr i s e- wi de goal , many compani es ki ck-
of f an i ni t i at i ve i n one depar t ment and t hen ext end t he pr act i ces
t hr oughout ot her par t s of t he or gani zat i on. To concl ude, Knowl edge
management ( KM) i s a pr oces s t hat hel ps or gani zat i ons f i nd, s el ect ,
or gani ze, di s s emi nat e, and t r ans f er i mpor t ant i nf or mat i on and exper t i s e
t o gai n bus i nes s advant age.
Bas ed on t he above r es ear ch s t udy, i t i s cons i der ed t hat t he mos t
r el evant f act or s f or t he s ucces s f ul i mpl ement at i on and s us t enance of
moment um f or t he KM i ni t i at i ves ar e 1) Cul t ur e, 2) KM Or gani zat i on,
3) St r at egy, Sys t ems & I nf r as t r uct ur e, 4) Ef f ect i ve& Sys t emat i c
Pr oces s es and 5) Meas ur es .
The s ucces s of t he i ni t i at i ve i s ul t i mat el y det er mi ned by
s uf f i ci ent combi nat i on of t he above- ment i oned f act or s and t hei r
i ncor por at i on wi t hi n t he l i ne or gani zat i on. To exami ne t he hypot hes i s a
f i el d s t udy t echni que was empl oyed.
Conclusive Remarks

57
The Li ndau Headquar t er s vi ewed t he s ur vey i n t he r es ear ch t hes i s
as a f eedback. Lat er , i t was i ni t i at ed as a f ul l - f l edged i nt er vi ew
pr oces s , t o ar r i ve at r es ul t s t hat ar e mor e concr et e. The pur pos e of t he
exer ci s e woul d t hen be t o i ncr eas e t he us e of t he s ys t ems , as pr oof t o
t he exper t s , t he advant ages t hey coul d obt ai n f r om i t s adopt i on. At t he
l eas t , i t woul d def i ni t el y amount t o ci r cums t ant i al evi dence.
Bas ed on t he nat ur e and t he pur pos e of t hi s s t udy, t he qual i t at i ve
met hod was appl i ed t o t he pr oj ect wor k bas ed on t he es s ay f or mat . The
ot her i s t he quant i t at i ve met hod bas ed on numer i cal s cor i ng and
gr adi ng. Fi nal l y, t he r es ul t s cl ubbed t oget her i n t he mi xed appr oach, a
nat ur al choi ce. I n addi t i on, t he s t udy i s a f our - model i nt er vi ew gui de
s pr ead over a per i od of one year . I t i nvol ved mor e t han t wo di f f er ent
t ypes of ques t i onnai r es . The compl et e model i ncl uded a ques t i onnai r e
wi t h numer i c var i abl es and i nt er vi ews . Es s ent i al l y t he i nt er vi ews wi t h
a dr i ve t o get t o know t he s ubj ect bet t er and cr os s check t he numer i c
var i abl es t oo. Thus , i t i ncl uded ques t i ons t hat over l apped i nt o bot h
qual i t at i ve and quant i t at i ve appr oaches . Thi s gave t he i nt er vi ewees
opt i ons t o r es pond qual i t at i ve, quant i t at i ve, a combi nat i on of bot h or
j us t one of t hem. The choi ce of us i ng i nt er vi ews , document at i on and
Ques t i onnai r es was made t o i ncr eas e/ s t r engt hen t he val i di t y of t he
t hes i s .
Dat a anal ys i s car r i ed t wo- s t age met hodol ogy: ques t i onnai r e
val i dat i on and t hen appl i ed i n or der , t o t es t t he hypot hes i s . Excel
s heet s ar e us ed f or dat a anal ys i s and f i ndi ngs , whi l e t he met hod( s )
s ect i ons des cr i be t he s t eps of t he pr ocedur e.
A pos s i bl e l i mi t at i on i s t he f act t hat t he us ed s ampl es of 60 out
of mor e t han 150 r eques t ed r es pons es by t he pr es ent met hod i s not a
qual i f i ed s t at i s t i cal account . However , t he s t r engt h of t hi s t hes i s
met hodol ogy l i es i n i t s compr ehens i ve cover age of var i ous as pect s of
KM and i t s i mpl ement at i on at t he Company HQ. I t pr ovi des f or bot h, as
i n- Pos i t i vi s t r es ear cher s adopt a quant i t at i ve met hodol ogy and car r y
out s ur veys and ques t i onnai r es . And, i nt er pr et i ve r es ear cher s adopt a
Conclusive Remarks

58
qual i t at i ve met hodol ogy and car r y out i nt er vi ews and et hnogr aphi es .
Thus t he advant age of t he s t udy i s t he f act t hat i t i s i nf or med by
exper i ence on bot h t hes e f r ont s . Al s o, i t at t empt s t o us e al l avai l abl e
i nf or mat i on t o bal ance t he weaknes s of one met hodol ogy wi t h t he
s t r engt h of anot her met hodol ogy. The mai n weaknes s of t he
met hodol ogy s t ems f r om i t s i nabi l i t y t o col l ect an exhaus t i ve
quant i t at i ve and s t at i s t i cal l y r epr es ent at i ve dat a t hat i s expl i ci t l y
amongs t s ome i mpor t ant KM execut i ves . Bes i des t he r es ul t s need t o be
i nt er pr et ed wi t h gr eat car e, becaus e t he dat a by i t s el f does n t expl i ci t l y
s ay s o. Due t o many i ncompl et e r es pons es t hat wer e r ecei ved and t he
qual i t at i ve r es pons e par t s ar e s omet i mes es t i mat ed bas ed on col l ect ed
i mpr es s i ons , t her e i s a mi nor i nf l uence on t he accur acy of t he es t i mat es
f or key ar eas of weaknes s i n KM i mpl ement at i on. Whi l e t hes e
l i mi t at i ons out l i ne pot ent i al ar eas of weaknes s i n t he met hodol ogy, yet ,
i t s t i l l has been pos s i bl e t o under t ake a compr ehens i ve appr oach
s ucces s f ul l y.
Accor di ng t o t he hypot hes i s and pr evi ous r es ear ches i n t he year
2003 conf i r m t he KSFs advocat ed by hypot hes i s i n t hi s t hes i s t hough
t he i nt er vi ews f aced many chal l enges .
The qual i t at i ve r es ul t s cl ear l y s uppor t t he hypot hes i s of t hi s
t hes i s r egar di ng t he i mpor t ance of t he f i ve KSF f or t he s ucces s of KM
i mpl ement at i on pr oj ect s
The aver age KM cul t ur e can be account ed f or one of t he r eas ons
why t he EED pr oj ect f ai l ed. Thes e t her ef or e conf i r m t he hypot hes i s on
t he r equi r ement of a s t r ong KM Cul t ur e, as one of t he pr e- r equi s i t es
f or KM s ucces s . Thi s was t he r eas on why t he EED pr oj ect f ai l ed due t o
t he non accept ance by t he exper t s , who di dn t r out i nel y s har e a KM
cul t ur e of knowl edge s har i ng and r ecor di ng, f or a f ut ur i s t i c t eam.
EED pr oj ect had br ought up t he r ol es i n t he vi r t ual t eams . Ther e
wer e s ome r ol es s i mi l ar t o or car r i ed t he r es pons i bi l i t i es l i ke a
commi s s i on manager , i ns pect or and as s i s t ant s whi ch was r equi r ed. The
t op management hadn t pr i or i t i s ed t he ai m of KM s t r at egi es i n a t eam
Conclusive Remarks

59
t o make t hei r s er vi ces mor e at t r act i ve f or t he cus t omer s . The Company
does appl y bot h s eni or empl oyees and younger ( new) empl oyees i n t he
var i ous pr oj ect and vi r t ual t eams . However , t he compos i t i on of t he
EED pr oj ect s howed mi ni mal bal ance on t he above as pect s . Fur t her ,
par t i al l y i nduced KM i ni t i at i ve s ubs t ant i at es t he hypot hes i s f i ndi ng f or
a maj or ef f or t i n KSFs f or KM i n t he f i r m. Si nce, t he i mpact of
appr opr i at e cul t ur e per s pect i ve hel ps achi eve KM s ucces s t o bot h t he
s eni or - j uni or empl oyee and cus t omer i nt er act i ons , and out put s i n
knowl edge s har i ng on a compet i t i ve bas i s . A need f or cul t ur e over t ones
i n KM di r ect i ons i s r equi r ed t o br i ng out a heal t hi er and ef f ect i ve
i nt er act i ons ai med i n t he KM di r ect i on, as per cei ved by t he hypot hes i s
i n Cul t ur e KSF.
At t he depar t ment al l evel , i t was di f f i cul t t o car r y out and
pr es ent t he f i ndi ngs of t he Techni cal Cent r e( s ) due t o t he nat ur e of
t hei r oper at i ons and f unct i onal r equi r ement s , whi ch i nvol ve many
r es t r i ct i ons . Thus , an ot her wi s e es s ent i al depar t ment al s t udy f or a KM
r es ear ch i s excl uded f r om t he dat a i nt er pr et at i ons and pr es ent at i ons ,
i ncl udi ng t he f i nal concl us i ve r emar ks .
Top management was vi ewed, as appar ent l y mi s s i ng or not f el t , i n
an ot her wi s e non- exi s t ent s kel et on s t r uct ur e of KM i n t he f i r m. The
s t at e of af f ai r s as r egar ds KM or gani zat i on i s r emar kabl y abs ent and
uncer t ai n wher ei n i t exi s t s , and ver y vague i n t er ms of empl oyee
awar enes s , i n an ot her wi s e s t r eaml i ned envi r onment al or gani zat i on.
Thi s cal l s f or act i ons t o mi ni mi ze l i kel y l os s f r om, l ack of an act i ve
KSFs i n KM i n t he f i r m. Ther ei n t he hypot hes i s f i ndi ngs become s el f -
evi dent . The i nci dence of a hi gh empl oyee awar enes s of a l ack of an
appar ent KM Or g. s t r uct ur e i s bor ne i n t he hypot hes i s as t he maj or
r equi r ement bes i des cul t ur e f or t he s ucces s of KM i n t he f i r m.
A cons ens us on t he i s s ue of exi s t i ng communi t y or communi t i es
of pr act i ce and t he l i kel i hood of us i ng t he i nt r anet i n an i nf or mal
manner dr ew a bl ank. Bot h t hes e i s s ues dr aw a bi g negat i ve r es pons e
and a hi gh i nci dence decl i ned t o r es pond was r ecor ded. KM i s not a
Conclusive Remarks

60
f or mal f unct i onal ar ea i n t he or gani zat i on. Thi s al s o cont r i but es t o t he
l ack of vi s i on on how KM coul d be i nt egr at ed i nt o bus i nes s . Thi s i s
one of t he maj or s et backs t o t he KM i ni t i at i ves , t he l ack of a cl ear
vi s i on or goal s t o es t abl i s h KM i n or gani zat i ons s t r apped of f unds and
r es our ces . Thi s has emphat i cal l y l ai d bar e f or t he need of a s t r at egy i n
t he hypot hes i s f or KSFs f or KM i n t he f i r m.
As r egar ds t he empl oyee awar enes s of t he need f or pr oact i ve
knowl edge as s et management , al mos t al l depar t ment s wer e uni f or ml y
undeci ded on t he s t at us of t he f i r m. On t he i s s ue eval uat i on of
i nt el l ect ual as s et s , a hi gh i nci dence decl i ned t o r es pond was r ecor ded.
Thes e f i ndi ngs gr ound t he f i ndi ng t hat an i mpor t ant i s s ue i s t he t as k of
meas ur es f or any cr i t i cal s ucces s of KM t o ens ur e f ur t her pr ogr es s ,
bes i des es s ent i al s us t enance of t he pr oj ect i ni t i at i ves under t aken.
Seni or empl oyees and younger empl oyees ar e i nt er act i ng and l ear ni ng
f r om each ot her s exper i ence. The pr act i ce of t he hypot hes i s on s har i ng
knowl edge bet ween young and ol d i s commendabl e. However , t he
company does not conf i r m t he evi dent out comes of s uch i nt er act i ons ,
ei t her i n t he f or m of document at i on and al s o by t he l ack of cl ear
meas ur es i ndi cat i ng t he l ack of acknowl edgement f r om t he f i r m
empl oyees on knowl edge s har i ng ef f or t s . Thus , t he pr oces s i s not
compl et e i n i t s el f and t her e i s a KM per s pect i ve l acki ng i n t hi s
di r ect i on f or t he f ut ur e r equi r ement s t hat ar e l i kel y t o i mpos e a
changi ng empl oyee bas e i n a hi ghl y compet i t i ve envi r onment .
Ther ef or e, t he hypot hes i s t akes f ur t her s us t enance on i t s f i ndi ngs of
meas ur e i n s pi t e of i t s good s cor es i n t he quant i t at i ve anal ys i s , as one
of t he key s ucces s f act or f or KM.
No evi dence i s f ound t hat s uppor t any us age of s of t war e pr ogr ams
l i ke t he i nt el l i gent agent s i n a s i gni f i cant number . One ot her company
l ocat i on of t he f i r m conf i r m t hei r Own pr ogr ammes and hi gh
us abi l i t y of t he depar t ment al dat abas es . Thi s i s par t of t he KM
i ni t i at i ves cons t i t ut ed under di f f er ent names f or an ot her wi s e KM
s ucces s i n ext er nal dat abas es . Thi s coul d be mor e ef f ect i ve and
Conclusive Remarks

61
i nt egr at ed wi t h an over al l expl i ci t KM s t r at egy as pr oj ect ed wi t hi n t he
hypot hes i s .
The I CTs and KM t ool s us ed i n t he di f f er ent depar t ment s of t he
company var i ed bot h t echni cal l y and wi t h di f f er ent l evel ( s ) of us age.
The company us ed dat abas es i n a mi ni mum r at e, al s o whi l e i t us ed t he
s ame depar t ment al dat abas es l ar gel y. Thi s bal ance can bes t be achi eved
by i ncor por at i ng t hi s as one of t he obj ect i ves f or KM i ni t i at i ves
The col l ect ed dat a s ugges t s pl ans f or cons t r uct i ng a dat abas e f or
enhanci ng t he col l abor at i on and s har i ng knowl edge wi t h ot her s . Thi s
needs t o be done, keepi ng KSFs at t he f or ef r ont of KM, i n t he f i r m.
Thes e f r om above and ot her f act or s , f ur t her conf i r m t he
compl exi t y and t he ambi gui t y i n t he f i r m t hat can bes t be s i mpl i f i ed
and under s t ood i n a s i ngl e s t r eam by an i ns t i t ut ed KM pr oces s es t hat
woul d gi ve di r ect i on and connect t he var i ous end f act or s and s i t uat i ons
bor ne out of act i ons t o a meani ngf ul cent r al t heme. Thi s i s t he exact
demons t r at ed abi l i t y of t he hypot hes i s i n gi vi ng t he KSFs f or KM i n
t he f i r m. Fur t her on, t her e i s a l ack of owner s hi p t o KM i ni t i at i ves
ei t her by bus i nes s uni t s or t he whol e bus i nes s . Ther ef or e, under t aki ng
KM r es pons i bi l i t y i ni t i al l y i s qui t e chal l engi ng and a daunt i ng t as k i n
an ot her wi s e t i me s t ar ved empl oyee s i t uat i on. Thus , t he r epeat ed
as s er t i on on t he r equi r ement of a KM Or g. i ns t i t ut ed t o cat er f or t hes e
appar ent l y i ns ur mount abl e chal l enges , af f i r ms t he choi ce of KM Or g.
as t he s econd mos t i mpor t ant f act or , whi ch i s cr i t i cal f or t he s ucces s of
KM as i n t he hypot hes i s .
The KM s ur vey i dent i f i ed a s i gni f i cant degr ee of i mpact on t he
awar enes s of t he aver age empl oyee r egar di ng KM. The need f or
f or mul at i ng an over al l s t r at egy f or knowl edge management comes
f or war d ver y s t r ongl y. The KSFs means cl ear l y conf i r m t he deduct i ons ,
t he bas i c pos t ul at es made f or t he key s ucces s f act or s hypot hes i s and
s uppor t t he s t r ong r ecommendat i ons t her eaf t er f or a dynami c
knowl edge management i ni t i at i ve. The l ack of whi ch was r es pons i bl e
f or t he f ai l ur e of t he pr evi ous KM i ni t i at i ve t he EED pr oj ect . Mos t KM
Conclusive Remarks

62
i ndi cat or s cl ear l y i ndi cat e ei t her s at i s f act or y i n per f or mance or pur el y
f unct i onal i n an exi s t ent i al f or m. The key s ucces s f act or s ( KSF Mean
whi ch i s about 3) need t o be mor e ef f ect i ve and t aken i nt o account t o
i ni t i at e a dat abas e on bes t pr act i ces or r evi ve t he EED pr oj ect t hat
f ai l ed i n t he l as t quar t er of 2003.
Whi l e Met zel er Li ndau i s a r at her cent r al i zed and ol d
or gani zat i on i n Li ndau, t he ot her compani es ar e wel l es t abl i s hed i n
Eur ope wi t h a l ar ger ci t y bas ed or gani zat i on behi nd t hem or cl os e t o
t hem. The i nt egr at i on and t he uni f i ed benef i t s can bes t be di s t i l l ed t o
al l depar t ment s i n al l t he bas es by i ns t i t ut i ng KM dr i ves bot h i n a t op
down and a bot t om up appr oach, as advocat ed i n t he hypot hes i s
f i ndi ngs on KSFs f or KM.
The r es ul t s have s hown t hat t he i ndi vi dual empl oyees ar e s t i l l
l ogged i n wat er t i ght compar t ment s as r egar ds t hei r per cept i on and
i nvol vement i s concer ned. Thi s cons i der at i on coul d be mor e dynami c
and gl obal KM i n nat ur e on appl yi ng t he s ugges t ed out comes f r om t he
s t udy on KSFs , advocat ed by t he hypot hes i s .
Cont i nuous i mpr ovement s have managed t o keep t he empl oyees
updat ed and compet i t i ve; yet , t he KM as pect s ar e mi s s i ng and coul d
become a maj or def i ci t i f not at t ended t o i n t he f ut ur e. Thi s l i kel y
event ual i t y has been f or ecas t ed by t he hypot hes i s on KSFs f or KM, by
bas i ng al l det er mi ni s t i c s t at i s t i cs on t he pr i nci pl e out comes and on i t s
l i kel y cons equences .
The f ol l owi ng f act or s ar e i mpor t ant f or t he f ut ur e r equi r ement s t o
ens ur e KM i ni t i at i ves t o s ucceed.
hi gh pr i or i t y gi ven t o t he i ni t i at i ve at t he ver y t op of t he
hi er ar chy;
wel l devel oped and co- or di nat ed communi cat i ons pl ans f or t he
i ni t i at i ve;
s t r ong i nvol vement of s t af f i n t he r ef or m;

63
es t abl i s hment of i ncent i ves t o s har e knowl edge;
al l ocat i on of s uf f i ci ent f i nanci al r es our ces
Thi s s t udy has pr ovi ded a wi de but f ocus ed i ns i ght i nt o t he t opi c of
KM s ucces s f act or s and on managi ng KM. I t woul d be i nt er es t i ng t o
i nves t i gat e how I CTs l i ke i nt el l i gent agent s coul d af f ect t he i nt er act i on
and l ear ni ng pat t er n i n t he end i n an or gani zat i on. Si nce t he company
i n s t udy had not exact l y t aken i n t he us e of s i gni f i cant number of
i nt el l i gent agent s , t hi s coul d become an i nt er es t i ng t opi c t o
i nves t i gat e. Mor e at t ent i on has t o be gi ven t o t he i nt el l i gent agent s .
A quant i t at i ve s t udy coul d al s o be made t o s ee, when and t o what
ext ent each of t he I CTs and KM t ool s ar e us ed i n di f f er ent s i t uat i ons .
Si nce t hi s s t udy i s at t he l ocal of f i ce of a l ar ge mul t i - i nt er nat i onal
or gani zat i on, t hi s opens up i nt er es t i ng per s pect i ves f or ot her
r es ear cher s . They coul d make mul t i pl e- cas e s t udy anal ys i s i n a s i ngl e
company and deepen t hei r ef f or t on how di f f er ent nodes i n t hei r
i nt er nal net wor k s har e knowl edge wi t h each ot her .
Fur t her mor e, t he s t r at egy t heor i es ar e di s cus s i ng t aci t knowl edge i n
a l i mi t ed way, and not many wr i t er s ar e ment i oni ng i t at al l . Ther ef or e,
i t woul d be ver y i nt er es t i ng t o i nves t i gat e how t aci t knowl edge coul d
be s t r at egi cal l y bl ended i nt o t he r es t of t he KM s t r at egy i n t he
or gani zat i on. I n or der t o f i nd t hi s out , a one- cas e s t udy wi t h deep
i nt er vi ews coul d be i mpl i ed.
Al s o, t he r es ear ch der i ves t he hi gh pr obabi l i t y t hat devel oped
or gani zat i on coul d become s ens i t i ve t o s t r es s . Res ear ch coul d be
i ni t i at ed t o i ncl ude t hi s ar ea. Thi s r es ear ch coul d be done t hr ough a
s ur vey, a cas e s t udy or a combi nat i on of bot h. Thi s i s done i n or der t o
obt ai n accur at e and s uf f i ci ent r es ul t s f r om t he r es ear ched dat a.

Personal Recommendations

64
5. 2 Personal Recommendat i ons
1. Fi ndi ng t i me t o s har e knowl edge i s a known pr obl em es peci al l y i n
pr i vat e ent er pr i s es and i r oni cal l y, mos t cannot make 10 mi nut es t i me t o
l ear n, how t o s ave an hour i n a hi gh- pr es s ur e envi r onment at our wor k
pl aces . I t i s not eas y t o get peopl e out of t hei r wor k ar ea t o al l ow t hem
t o be abl e t o s har e. Execut i ve commi t ment i s r equi r ed t o hol d
dedi cat ed s har i ng s es s i ons wi t h a s peci f i c obj ect i ve/ goal . Al mos t
ever yone s eems t o be baf f l ed by t hi s di s ar mi ngl y s i mpl e i s s ue [ s har i ng
i nf or mat i on] . The pr obl em i s t hat , empl oyees ar e s o bus y t hat i t i s
di f f i cul t t o f i nd t he t i me t o s har e or document knowl edge t o be s har ed.
A s t r at egy f or pr ovi di ng empl oyees wi t h t i me and i ncent i ve t o make i t
happen des pi t e an over wor ked wor kf or ce i s , a knowl edge gat her i ng
t as k f or ce peopl e wi t h as s i gned r ol es and r es pons i bi l i t i es t hat
col l ect / gat her i nf or mat i on. The key i s t o mar ket s ucces s s t or i es t hat i t
i s wor t h f or ever ybody t o t ake t he t i me t o wr i t e down and s har e
i nf or mat i on.
2. A var i et y of s our ces s ugges t s t hat , we ought t o have a l ook at , i s t he
r e- us e of document at i on. Evi dent l y, a l ot of t he i nf or mat i on i n t he
of f i ce i s not r eal l y j us t i n peopl e s heads . I t i s i n emai l s and s hor t
memos , not es on i nvoi ces , al l s or t s of pl aces . Fi ndi ng ways t o compi l e
t hi s i nf or mat i on i s not s o much as cr eat i ng t i me t o document , but
f i gur i ng out how t o us e document at i on i n or der t o s har e.
3. Met zel er i s l os i ng a gr eat deal of i ns t i t ut i onal knowl edge and t he
need t o i nves t mor e t i me and t he neces s i t y t o have a t ar get ed
i mpl ement at i on of Knowl edge Management and achi evi ng i t wi t hi n t he
next t hr ee year s . Mor eover , Knowl edge Management i s not j us t about
s ys t ems , i t i s about peopl e and i ns t i t ut i onal at t i t udes . The s t af f her e
s houl d under go r eor gani zat i on and l ear n t o s har e or par t i ci pat e
cons t r uct i vel y i n Knowl edge t r ans f er bet ween t hos e who wer e gi ven
new t as ks and t hos e who had done t he t as ks bef or e. Ther e ar e, and s t i l l
wi l l be empl oyees who do not have a s ol i d gr as p on t hei r dut i es on
knowl edge t r ans f er s or knowl edge s har i ng. Some Met zel er empl oyees ,

65
appr oach t o dai l y knowl edge t r ans f er s as , her e ar e my f i l es and my
not es , good l uck! As a r es ul t many empl oyees ar e peopl e- who ar e
s l ow t o change, and r es i s t ant t o s har i ng t hei r knowl edge. Many f ear
ot her s t aki ng over t hei r t as k and f ear j ob s ecur i t y. The key i s and wi l l
be t o convi nce t hem t hat t hey ar e mor e neces s ar y t o t he f i r m as a
r egul ar - nor mal empl oyee and as a knowl edge exper t . Some t r ends et t er s
embr ace change and t hus hel p ot her empl oyees i n ut i l i zi ng t hei r
ent hus i as m t o pr opel KM pr oj ect s f or war d.
4. On i ni t i at i ng Knowl edge Management i ni t i at i ves , one can expect an
i ncr eas ed wor kl oad, wi t h a decr eas e i n t he number of s t af f . Cur r ent l y,
t he maj or i t y of t he empl oyees ar e obt ai ni ng out s i de ans wer s f r om a
l ar ge des k bi nder ; f r om updat es f r om s uper vi s or s , who r ecei ve updat es
f r om ot her i nt er nal exper t s , bus i nes s uni t s and f r om ext er nal s our ces
al s o. The KMS wi l l enabl e t he empl oyees t o l ocat e i nf or mat i on mor e
qui ckl y, i nt er nal and ext er nal , as wel l as r ecei vi ng neces s ar y updat es
r egar di ng common mi s under s t andi ngs , backl ogs et c, and pr ocedur al
changes di r ect l y.
5. Many of t he empl oyees ut i l i ze emai l and phone conver s at i ons t o
obt ai n ans wer s , not t o ment i on t he i nt r a or t he i nt er net . The pr obl em
wi t h t hi s i s t hat t he di f f er ent or t he s ame Subj ect Mat t er Exper t ( SME)
of t en ans wer s t he s ame ques t i on i n di f f er ent f or ms and ways , mul t i pl e
t i mes f or mul t i pl e peopl e. Thi s occupi es t i me, bes i des cr eat i ng a l ot of
ambi gui t y and compl exi t y. Thus , a l ot of val uabl e t i me and ener gy ar e
l os t , t hat t he SME and t he empl oyee( s ) need t o devot e t o t hei r t as ks .
The KMS can al l ow empl oyees t o s ear ch pr evi ous ques t i ons / ans wer s ,
document s , pol i ci es and pr ocedur es bef or e cont act i ng t he SMEs . Ther e
ar e onl y a f ew dedi cat ed per s onnel on t he EED t eam, whi ch i s act ual l y
wor ki ng as a KMS t eam. The ot her or t he r es t of t he empl oyees wor k i s
s chedul ed ar ound ot her pr i or i t i es .
The EED por t al s Knowl edge Management Pr i nci pl es wi l l enabl e
f ewer meet i ngs , as t eams can do wor k vi r t ual l y and on t hei r own
s chedul es . Cr os s t eam pr oj ect s , i nf or mat i on meet i ngs wi t h s uper vi s or s ,

66
manager s and execut i ve t eams , exchanges of i nf or mat i on t hen coul d
s i mpl y be pos t ed one t i me f or many. Ther e i s s ome us e of gr oup and
mas s emai l s , however many empl oyees del et e t hem or l os e t hem i n t he
mas s es of emai l s . Rat her t han s ear chi ng Lot us Not es , Knowl edge
Management can pr ovi de t hem wi t h any cont ext t hey des i r e. Thi s
i ncl udes r el at ed l egi s l at ur e, codes , boar d deci s i ons , pol i ci es , pr evi ous
pol i ci es and pr ocedur es t hat have been s uper s eded, and memos &
announcement s deal i ng wi t h except i ons .
Thi s hi ghl y s peci al i zed ver s i ons of dat a t r ans act i ons by EEDs
al l ows mul t i pl e Tas ks / Goal s s i mul t aneous l y i mpl ement ed t o be
s er i al i zed or mul t i pl exed i nt o a s i ngl e EEDS channel , r educi ng
boundar i es , connect i ng ever ybody t o ever yt hi ng, and capabl e t o
achi eve exponent i al r es ul t s . THUS, EEDs KMS t echnol ogy s ol ut i ons
el i mi nat e t he t r ade- of f s i n s peed of t hought , i nf or mat i on power ,
number ed s ear ch r ecor ds , and cos t f or hi gh per f or mance dat a
t r ans act i on and pr oj ect mi s s i on appl i cat i ons . Hence, t he EEDs KMS
t echnol ogy al ong wi t h s ever al ot her per mut at i ons & combi nat i ons or
mul t i pl e KMS Technol ogy model s and met hod i s mos t s ui t abl e. I t hel ps
t o t r ans act i n hi ghl y s peci al i zed dat a r eas onabl y, at a meani ngf ul
Human per cept i on out put pat t er n. Thi s i s done f r om t he i nf or mat i on
s our ce cent r es t o t he i nf or mat i on- pr oces s i ng uni t and t hen t o t he
i ndi vi dual wor ks t at i ons . Ther e ar e many wor ks t at i ons and at a di s t ance
away f r om each ot her i n s pace, t i me and i n human per cept i ons .
Fi nal l y t he EEDs r equi r e a us er manual f or CoPs al ong t he f ol l owi ng
f i ve di mens i ons , woul d hel p Met zel er :
Pur pos e
Pr oces s es and pr act i ces
Peopl e
Sys t ems and Tool s
Document at i on

67
6. Met zel er i nt er nal r egul at i ons ar e i nf l uenced di r ect l y f r om changes i n
l egi s l at i on enact ed by t he di f f er ent nat i ons ar ound t he wor l d, wher ei n
Met zel er i s l ocat ed. The f i r m f aces s t i f f compet i t i on f r om s peci al l ocal
APS i ndus t r y, manuf act ur er s and cus t omer s i nt er es t s at di f f er ent
count r y l ocat i ons . Thi s cl ear l y means wor k s l owl y t r ans cends bor der s
and af f ect s al l peopl e al l t he t i me. Thus , t he bus i nes s f r ont l i ne wor ker s
and t he cont act cent r e agent s need t o be abl e t o acces s al l of t hes e
changes dat i ng back t o r et i r ees who r et i r ed decades ago, i f t hey ar e
s t i l l l i vi ng. Agai n, s ear chi ng t hr ough bi nder s , f i l e dr awer s and l ot us
not es , and t o s eek ans wer s f r om ot her empl oyees i s occupyi ng much
empl oyee t i me.
7. For Met zel er has t o make t he Knowl edge Management i ni t i at i ve
obvi ous and appar ent t o al l . The need t o i ns t i l a knowl edge vi s i on i s
needed t o bui l d a s ol i d f oundat i on f or knowl edge management s er vi ces
t hat i s f l exi bl e and gr ow over t i me. For ot her s , t hey may f i nd t hat a
mor e i nf or mal s t r uct ur e i s pr ef er abl e. However , Met zel er coul d
i ns t i t ut e a bet t er pr act i ces dat abas e i ns t ead of a bes t pr act i ces
dat abas e. That i s , t o i dent i f y and pr omot e Bet t er Pr act i ce , a checkl i s t
has t o be cr eat ed. Thi s woul d enhance t he us e of dat a, i nf or mat i on and
knowl edge t o i mpr ove pr oduct i vi t y and s er vi ce del i ver y. The obj ect i ve
i s t o gui de t he s t af f r es pons i bl e f or managi ng i nf or mat i on and
knowl edge ( wi t h) i n t he f i r m. I T manager s coul d us e t he checkl i s t i n
deal i ng wi t h dai l y oper at i ons or wi t h cont r act or s , or cus t omer s . Thi s
checkl i s t coul d f ocus on non- t echni cal i ss ues . I t s houl d be not ed t hat a
checkl i s t , need not neces s ar i l y t o be compr ehens i ve. Rat her , i t mus t
hi ghl i ght key i s s ues . The checkl i s t i s mos t l y meant t o be i t er at i ve and
dr aw on t he exper t i s e and exper i ence of pr act i t i oner s . The s ubj ect
mat t er and i s s ues coul d be r evi ewed and updat ed t o r ef l ect
devel opment s .

Points to Note

68
5. 3 Poi nt s t o Not e
1. I t s houl d be bor ne i n mi nd t hat mor e t han hal f of t he execut i ves who
par t i ci pat ed i n t he s t udy f el t t hat t he or gani zat i on was not par t i cul ar l y
good at gener at i ng new knowl edge.
2. Thi s t hes i s i s a l i mi t ed s t udy by excl udi ng meas ur ement s of t he
ext ent t o whi ch t he t ool s ar e us ed.
3. Knowi ng- doi ng appl i ed t o knowl edge management i s an excel l ent
appr oach. Es peci al l y, wi t h t he whol e concept t hat , t hos e document i ng
knowl edge of t en do not under s t and t hat , whi ch t hey ar e document i ng.
Hence, t he pr obl em wi t h many s ys t ems .

5. 4 Impl i cat i ons f or Management
The r es ear ch has i nves t i gat ed how a company can us e KM s ucces s f ul l y
and i t s s ucces s f act or s i n KM. The management i mpl i cat i ons ar e made
t o hel p t he i nves t i gat ed company, as wel l as ot her compani es t hat
pr act i ce t he us e of KM.
The s t udy has s hown t hat i t i s neces s ar y t o f aci l i t at e and
encour age bot h ext er nal and i nt er nal i nt er act i on. Ther ef or e, i t i s
r el evant t o cons i der s uch an appr oach t o t he devel opment of knowl edge
and t he knowl edge s har i ng pr oces s . An or gani zat i onal model , wher e t he
company pr omot es f or an open ext er nal s har i ng s hows a hi gher degr ee
of knowl edge f l ow and i nt er act i on. Fur t her mor e, i t i s i mpor t ant t o
r emember t hat t he devel opment t owar ds I CTs and KM t ool s s houl d be
br ought under cont r ol l ed f or ms . As t he s t udy s howed, a company t hat
r eaches a cr i t i cal l evel of i nf or mat i on s t or age can br i ef l y l os e t he
over vi ew on t he s t r uct ur e and cont ent of knowl edge. Thi s s cenar i o
coul d l ead t o a r i s k of abundance of t he t ool s by t he t eam member s .
Fi nal l y, t he or gani zat i on s houl d f ocus on s ol ut i ons t hat of f er
gr eat f l exi bi l i t y i n exer ci s i ng cont r ol over s hi f t i ng i nt er act i ons f r om
Implications for Management

69
" di r ect " t o " I T- enabl ed" . Somet i mes a f as ci nat i on wi t h t echnol ogy may
r es ul t i n t he as s umpt i on t hat empl oyees mus t adj us t t o t he I CTs i ns t ead
of t he ot her way ar ound. Or gani zat i on mus t cr eat e a KM s t r at egy t hat
uni f i es bot h t he i nt el l ect ual as s et s wi t h t he t echnol ogy bei ng us ed.
Vi ewi ng I CTs as an enabl er of l ear ni ng al l ows i nt el l ect ual as s et s t o
make mor e i nf or med deci s i ons about t he appr opr i at e us e f or var i ous
l ear ni ng t as ks .

Sources& References
I
6 Ancillaries

6. 1 Sources& Ref erences

6. 1. 1 Li t erat ure
1. Abel l , A. and Oxbr ow, N. ( 2001) Compet i ng wi t h Knowl edge, t he
i nf or mat i on pr of es s i onal i n t he knowl edge management age. Li br ar y
As s oci at i on Publ i s hi ng, London.
2. Apgar , M. ( 1998) . " The al t er nat i ve wor kpl ace: changi ng wher e and
how peopl e wor k" . Har var d Bus i nes s Revi ew, Vol . 76, No. 3, p. 121-
139.
3. Baumar d, P. ( 1999) . Taci t Knowl edge i n Or gani z at i ons . Thous and
Oaks , CA.
4. Bel bi n, M. ( 1996) . Team r ol es at wor k. Oxf or d: But t er wor t h-
Hei nemann.
5. Bel l , D. ( 1973) . The Comi ng of Pos t - i ndus t r i al Soci et y. Bas i c Books ,
New Yor k, NY.
6. Bhat t , G. ( 2000) . " Or gani zi ng knowl edge i n t he knowl edge
devel opment cycl e" . Jour nal of Knowl edge Management , Vol . 4, No. 1,
15- 26.
7. Bhat t , G. ( 2002) . " Management s t r at egi es f or i ndi vi dual knowl edge
and or gani zat i onal knowl edge" . Jour nal of Knowl edge Management ,
Vol . 6 No. 1 2002 pp. 31- 39
8. Boi s ot ( 1987) I nf or mat i on and Or gani z at i ons : The Manager as
Ant hr opol ogi s t . London: Font ana/ Col l i ns .
9. Boi s ot , M. H. ( 1995) . I nf or mat i on Space: A Fr amewor k f or Lear ni ng
i n Or gani z at i ons , I ns t i t ut i ons and Cul t ur e, Rout l edge, London.
Literature

II
10. Boi s ot , M. H. ( 1998) . Knowl edge As s et s : Secur i ng Compet i t i ve
Advant age i n t he I nf or mat i on Economy. Oxf or d.
11. Boi s ot , M. and Gr i f f i t hs , D. ( 1999) . " Pos s es i on i s Ni ne- Tent h of
t he Law: Managi ng a Fi r m' s Compet ence i n a Regi me of Weak
Appr opr i abi l i t y" . I nt er nat i onal Jour nal of Technol ogy Management ,
Vol . 17, No. 6, p. 662- 676
12. Bont i s , N. ( 2001) . " CKO want ed - evangel i cal s ki l l s neces s ar y: a
r evi ew of t he chi ef knowl edge of f i cer pos i t i on" . Knowl edge and
Pr oces s Management , Vol . 8, No. 1, p. 29- 38.
13. Br adach, J . L. and Eccl es , R. G. ( 1989) . " Rel at i onal devel opment i n
comput er - s uppor t ed gr oups " . MI S Quar t er l y, Vol . 20, No. 2, p. 143-
165.
14. Bur n, J . , Mar s hal l , P. and Bur net t , M. ( 2002) . E- bus i nes s s t r at egi es
f or vi r t ual or gani z at i ons . Oxf or d: But t er wor t h- Hei nemann hoo, C. W. ,
Det l or , B. and Tur nbul l , D. ( 2000) , Web Wor k: I nf or mat i on s eeki ng and
knowl edge wor k on t he Wor l d Wi de Web. Kl uwer Academi c Publ i s her s ,
Dor dr echt .
15. Cr os s , R. and Bai r d, L. ( 2000) . " Technol ogy i s not enough:
i mpr ovi ng per f or mance by bui l di ng or gani s at i onal memor y" , Sl oan
Management Revi ew, Vol . 41, No. 1, p. 69- 78.
16. Cummi ngs , L. L. and Br omi l ey, P. ( 1996) . The Or gani z at i onal Tr us t
I nvent or y: devel opment and Val i dat i on. I n R. M. Kr amer and T. R.
Tyl er , Tr us t i n Or gani s at i ons : Fr ont i er s of t heor y and r es ear ch, p.
302- 330. Thous and Oaks , CA: Sage Publ i cat i ons .
17. Czi nkot a, M. R. and Ronkai nen, I . A. ( 1998) . I nt er nat i onal
Mar ket i ng. For t Wor t h: Dr yden Pr es s .
18. Davenpor t , T. H. , De Long, D. W. And Beer s , M. C. ( 1998) .
" Bui l di ng Succes s f ul Knowl edge Management Pr oj ect s " . Sl oan
Management Revi ew, Vol . 39, No. 2, pp. 43- 57.
Literature

III
19 DeSanct i s , G. and Pool e, M. S. ( 1997) . " Capt ur i ng t he compl exi t y i n
advanced t echnol ogy us e: Adapt i ve s t r uct ur at i on t heor y" . Or gani z at i on
Sci ence. Vol . 5, No. 2, p. 121- 147.
20 Di er i ckx, I . And Cool , K. ( 1989) . " As s et s t ock accumul at i on and
s us t ai nabi l i t y of compet i t i ve advant age" . Management Sci ence. Vol 35,
No. 12, p. 1504- 1514.
21 Dr ucker , P. ( 1993) . Pos t - capi t al i s t Soci et y. But t er wor t h- Hei nemann,
New Yor k, NY.
22 Dr ucker , P. F. ( 2000) . " Management Chal l enges f or t he 21
s t

Cent ur y". I nt er nat i onal Jour nal of Cont empor ar y Hos pi t al i t y
Management . Vol . 12, No. 6, p. 238- 247.
23 Ear l , M. J . , Scot t , I . A. , 1999, " What i s a chi ef knowl edge of f i cer ?" ,
Sl oan Management Revi ew, Vol . 40, No. 2, p. 29- 38.
24. Hamel , G. and Heene, A. ( 1994) . Compet ence- Bas ed Compet i t i on.
New Yor k: J ohn Wi l ey.
25. J ar venpaa, S. L. and Lei dner , D. E. ( 1998) . " Comuni cat i ons and
Tr us t i n Gl obal Vi r t ual Teams " . Jour nal of Comput er - Medi at ed
Communi cat i on. Vol 3, No. 4, p. 15- 53.
26. J unnar kar , B. ( 1997) , Lever agi ng col l ect i ve i nt el l ect by bui l di ng
or gani zat i onal capabi l i t i es , Exper t Sys t ems wi t h Appl i cat i ons , Vol . 13
No. 1, pp. 29- 40.
27. Kol b, D. ( 1976) . The Lear ni ng St yl e I nvent or y: Techni cal Manual .
Bos t on: McBer and Co.
28. Li ebowi t z, J . ( 2000) . Bui l di ng or gani z at i onal i nt el l i gence: a
knowl edge management pr i mer . CRC Pr es s LLC. Boca Rat on, Fl or i da.
29. Mar akas , G. M. ( 1999) . Deci s i on Suppor t Sys t ems i n t he Twent y-
f i r s t Cent ur y, Pr ent i ce- Hal l , Engl ewood Cl i f f s , New J er s ey.
Literature

IV
30. Mar kus , M. L. ( 1994) . " El ect r oni c mai l as t he medi um of
manager i al choi ce" . Or gani z at i on Sci ence, Vol . 5, No. 4, p. 502- 527.
31. Mar s hal l , C. , Pr us ak, L. and Shpi l ber g, D. ( 1996) . " Fi nanci al Ri s k
and t he Need f or Super i or Knowl edge Management " . Cal i f or ni a
Management Revi ew, Vol . 38, No. 3, Spr i ng.
32. McDer mot t , L. , Wai t e, B. and Br awl ey, N. ( 1999) . " Put t i ng
t oget her a wor l d- cl as s t eam" . Tr ai ni ng and Devel opment . Vol . 53, No.
1, p. 46- 51.
33. Mel ymuka, K. ( 1998) . " What you hear d i s not what I s ai d" .
Comput er Wor l d, Vol . 32, No. 28, p. 63.
34. Mer al i , Y. ( 1997) . I nf or mat i on, s ys t ems , and das ei n. I n F. St owel l
( ed. ) . Peopl e, Or gani zat i ons and Envi r onment . New Yor k: Pl enum.
35. Mer al i , Y. and Fr ear s on, N. ( 1995) . I nf or mat i on and r eal i s at i on.
Unpubl i s hed Res ear ch Not e.
36. Mer al i , Y. and McGee, J . ( 1998a) . I nf or mat i on compet ences and
knowl edge cr eat i on at t he cor por at e cent r e. Chi ches t er : J ohn Wi l ey.
37. Meyer , R. C. , Davi s , J . H. and Schoor man, F. D. ( 1995) . " An
i nt egr at i ve model of or gani zat i onal t r us t " . Academy of Management
Revi ew, Vol . 20, No. 3, p. 709- 734.
38. Meyer s on, D. , Wei ck, K. E. , and Kr amer , R. M. ( 1996) . Swi f t t r us t
and t empor ar y gr oups . I n R. M. Kr amer and T. R. Tyl er ( Eds . ) , Tr us t
i n or gani z at i ons : Fr ont i er s of t heor y and r es ear ch. Thous and Oaks :
Sage Publ i cat i ons .
39. Mi l es , M. B. and Huber man, M. A. ( 1994) . Qual i t at i ve Dat a
Anal ys i s . Second Edi t i on. London: Sage publ i cat i ons .
40. Nel s on, R. R. And Wi nt er , S. G. ( 1982) . An Evout i onar y Theor y of
Economi c Change. Cambr i dge, Mas s . : Har var d Uni ver s i t y Pr es s .
Literature

V
41. Ngwenyama, O. K. , and Lee, A. S. ( 1997) . " Communi cat i on
r i chnes s i n el ect r oni c mai l : Cr i t i cal s oci al t heor y and t he cont ext ual i t y
of meani ng" . MI S Quar t er l y, Vol . 21, No. 2, p. 145- 167.
42. Nohr i a, N. and Eccl es , R. G. ( 1992) . " Face- t o- f ace: Maki ng
net wor k or gani zat i ons wor k" . I n N. Nohr i a and R. G. Eccl es ( Eds . ) ,
Net wor ks and or gani z at i ons , p. 288- 308. Har var d Bus i nes s School
Pr es s : Bos t on.
43. Nonaka, I . ( 1994) " A dynami c t heor y of or gani z at i onal knowl edge
cr eat i on" , Or gani zat i on Sci ence, Vol . 5, No 1, p. 14- 37.
44. Nonaka, I . and Takeuchi , H. ( 1995) . The Knowl edge Cr eat i ng
Company. New Yor k: Oxf or d Uni ver s i t y Pr es s .
45. O Dwyer , G. , Gi s er , A. and Lovet t , E. ( 1997) . Gr oupWar e and
r eengi neer i ng: t he human s i de of change. Upper Saddl e Ri ver , New
J er s ey: Pr ent i ce- Hal l .
46. O' Har a- Dever eaux, M. , and J ohans en, R. ( 1994) . Gl obal wor k:
Br i dgi ng di s t ance, cul t ur e, and t i me. San Fr anci s co, CA: J os s ey- Bas s
Publ i s her s .
47. Pol anyi , M. ( 1958) Per s onal knowl edge: t owar d a pos t - cr i t i cal
phi l os ophy. London: Rout l edge.
48. Pol anyi , M. ( 1966) The Taci t Di mens i on. Gl ouces t er : Pet er Smi t h.
49. Popper , K. R. ( 1983) . Real i s m and t he Ai m of Sci ence. London:
Hut chi ns on.
50. Pot t er , E. R. , Bal t hazar d, P. A. and Cooke, R. A. ( 2000) . " Vi r t ual
t eam i nt er act i on: as s es s ment , cons equences , and management " . Team
Per f or mance Management : An I nt er nat i onal Jour nal . Vol . 6, No. 7/ 8,
p. 131- 137.
51. Por t er , M. E. and Mi l l ar , V. E. ( 1985) . " How I nf or mat i on gi ves you
compet i t i ve advant age" . Har var d Bus i nes s Revi ew. J ul - Aug, p. 149-
160.
Literature

VI
52. Powel l , W. W. ( 1990) . " Nei t her mar ket nor hi er ar chy: Net wor k
f or ms of or gani zat i on" . Res ear ch i n Or gani z at i onal Behavi or , Vol . 12,
No. 3, pp. 295- 336.
53. Pr ahal ad, C. K. and Hamel , G. ( 1990) . " The Cor e Compet ence of t he
Cor por at i on" . Har var d Bus i nes s Revi ew. May- J une 1990, p. 79- 91.
54. Raghur am, S. , Gar ud, R. , Wi es enf el d, B. and Gupt a, V. ( 2000) .
" Fact or s cont r i but i ng t o vi r t ual wor k adj us t ment " . Jour nal of
Management . May, Vol . 27, I s s ue 3, pp. 383.
55. Rael i n, J . A. ( 1997) . " A model of wor k- bas ed l ear ni ng" .
Or gani z at i on Sci ence, Vol . 8, No. 6, pp. 563- 78.
56. Rowl ey, J . ( 1999) . " What i s Knowl edge Management ?" . Li br ar y
Management , Vol . 20, No. 8, pp. 416- 420.
57. Sanchez, R. ( 2001) . Knowl edge Management and Or gani z at i onal
Compet ence. New Yor k: Oxf or d Uni ver s i t y Pr es s .
58. Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. ( 1997) . St r at egi c Lear ni ng and
Knowl edge Management . Chi ches t er : J ohn Wi l ey.
59. Scot t - Mor t on, M. S. ( 1991) . The Cor por at i on of t he 1990s . New
Yor k: Oxf or d Uni ver s i t y Pr es s .
60. Senge, P. M. ( 1990) . The Fi f t h Di s ci pl i ne. Doubl eday/ Cent ur y: New
Yor k
61. Shor t , J . , Wi l l i ams , E. , and Chr i s t i e, B. ( 1976) . The s oci al
ps ychol ogy of t el ecommuni cat i ons . New Yor k: J ohn Wi l ey.
62. Si mon, H. ( 1982) . Model s of Bounded Rat i onal i t y. Cambr i dge, MA:
MI T Pr es s .
63. Skyr me, D. J . ( 1997) Knowl edge Management . [ On- l i ne] . Avai l abl e:
ht t p: / / www. s kyr me. com/ i ns i ght s / 22km. ht m [ 2002 Oct ober 28t h] .
64. St enmar k, D. ( 2001) " Lever age Taci t Or gani zat i onal Knowl edge" .
Jour nal of Management I nf or mat i on Sys t ems . Vol . 5, No. 3, p. 9- 24.
Literature

VII
65. Syed, S. R. ( 1998) , An adapt i ve f r amewor k f or knowl edge wor k,
J our nal of Knowl edge Management Vol . 2 No. 2, pp. 59- 69.
66. Syed Z. S. ( 1998) , Sens e maki ng and ar t i f act s : an expl or at i on i nt o
t he r ol e of t ool s i n knowl edge management , J our nal of Knowl edge
Management Vol . 2 No. 2, pp. 10- 19.
67. Syed Z. S. ( 1997) , Knowl edge Management : An Emer gi ng
Di s ci pl i ne, J our nal of Knowl edge Management , Vol . 1 No. 1 pp. 75-
82.
68. Wal ker , J . W. ( 2000) . E- l eader s hi p? Human Res our ce Pl anni ng.
Vol . 23, No. 1, p. 5- 6.
69. Wal t her , J . B. ( 1997) . " Gr oup and i nt er per s onal ef f ect s i n
i nt er nat i onal comput er - medi at ed col l abor at i on" . Human Communi cat i on
Res ear ch, Vol . 23. No. 3, p. 342- 369.
70. Wei ck, K. E. ( 1995) Sens emaki ng i n Or gani s at i ons . Thous ands
Oaks , CA: Sage Publ i cat i ons .
71. Wi s eman, R. L, Hammer , M. R. , and Ni s hi da, H. ( 1989) .
" Pr edi ct or s of i nt er cul t ur al communi cat i on compet ence" . I nt er nat i onal
Jour nal of I nt er cul t ur al Rel at i ons , Vol . 13, No. 2, p. 349- 370.
72. Wi i g, K. ( 1996) . Ens ur i ng That We Capi t al i z e on t he Us e of
Knowl edge. Knowl edge Res ear ch I ns t i t ut e. Ar l i ngt on, Texas .
73. Wunche, A. ( 1999) Movi ng knowl edge management beyond
t echnol ogy.
74. Yi n, R. K. ( 1994) . Cas e s t udy Res ear ch. Des i gn and Met hods .
Second edi t i on. Thous and Oaks : Sage Publ i cat i ons , I nc.
75. Zack, M. H. ( 1999) . " Devel opi ng a knowl edge s t at egy" . Cal i f or ni a
Management Revi ew. Vol 41, No. 3, pp. 125- 146.

Other Sources (Internet)

VIII
6. 1. 2 Ot her Sources ( Int ernet )
1. AGI MO Knowl edge Management , 2004 ( Page 10)
ht t p: / / www. agi mo. gov. au/ pr act i ce/ del i ver y/ checkl i s t s / knowl edge
2. Di gnum, V and Hei manns f el d, K 1999 ( Page 11)
ht t p: / / s er n. ucal gar y. ca/ KSI / KAW/ KAW99/ paper s / Di gnum1/
3. Ser vi ceWar e 2003 ( Page 12)
ht t p: / / au. i t paper s . zdnet . com/ abs t r act . as px?s ci d=87&x=40&doci d=84134
4. Skyr me, DJ and Ami don, DM 1997 ( Page 12)
ht t p: / / www. s kyr me. com/ pubs / knws t r at . ht m
5. Di gnum, V and Hei manns f el d, K 1999 ( Page Di s t r i but ed KMS)
ht t p: / / s er n. ucal gar y. ca/ KSI / KAW/ KAW99/ paper s / Di gnum1/
6. Bi xl er ( 2002) ( Page Key Succes s Fact or s )
ht t p: / / www. kmwor l d. com/ publ i cat i ons / magazi ne/ i ndex. cf m?act i on=r ead
ar t i cl e&Ar t i cl e_I D=1158&Publ i cat i on_I D=61
7. KPMG 2003 ( Page Key Succes s Fact or s )
ht t p: / / www. of f i ce. com. t w/ 2003%20KPMG%20kms ur vey%20r es ul t s %20j
an%202003. pdf

Gener al Onl i ne Readi ng& Br ows i ng

8. Davenpor t , T. H. ( 1997) Secr et s of s ucces s f ul knowl edge
management . Knowl edge I nc. .

9. Gl as s er , P. ( 1999) . " The knowl edge f act or " . CI O Magaz i ne

10. Haut s chi l d, S. , Li cht , T. , St ei n, W. ( 2001) . " Cr eat i ng a Knowl edge
Cul t ur e". The McKi ns ey Quar t er l y.

11. Mal hot r a, Y. ( 1997) . Knowl edge Management f or t he New Wor l d of
Bus i nes s . [ Onl i ne] . Avai l abl e: ht t p: / / www. br i nt . com/ km/ what i s . ht ml

List of Figures

IX
6. 2 Li st of Fi gures
Figure 1: Target Groups ......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 2: Target Groups Data in 2004 ................................................................................... 20
Figure 3: Technologies Contributing to KMS....................................................................... 37
Figure 4: KSF Overview........................................................................................................ 42
Figure 5: Culture .................................................................................................................... 44
Figure 6: KM Organization.................................................................................................... 47
Figure 7: Strategy, Systems and IT Infrastructure ............................................................... 49
Figure 8: Effective& Systematic Processess......................................................................... 50
Figure 9: Measures ................................................................................................................ 52

6. 3 Appendi ces

AA.1 Appendix A Questionnaire, 2004 (German Language Version- Part One
(Quantitative Analysis) & Part Two (Qualitative Analysis)

AA.2 Appendix B Questionnaire, 2004 (English Version Part One (Quantitative
Analysis) & Part Two (Qualitative Analysis)

AA.3 Appendix C Questionnaire, 2003 Interview guide (for EED- Experts and
Virtual Team Members in September 2003)

AA.4 Appendix D Questionnaire, 2003 Questionnaire (Prepared as Feedback
Questionnaire Form on Launching EED in Nov 2003 for Experts and Virtual
Team Members).

AA.5 Appendix E Target Groups Data

Appendices

X
AA.1 Appendix A

Questionnaire (German Version, 2004 with QUESTIONNAIRE - Part One
(Quantitative Analysis)& QUESTIONNAIRE- Part Two (Qualitative Analysis))

Diese Befragung dauert ca. 22 Minuten und sollte ohne Unterbrechung ausgefllt werden.
Fragebogen (Bitte Felder ankreuzen oder ausfllen.)

1. Name (freiwillig):
Abteilung...
Ort, Datum
Wie lang Sind Sie Mit Metzeler ......

2. Ausbildung:
Berufsausbildung Hochschule Aufbaustudiengang
Bitte nur den letzten Abschluss angeben
3. Geschlecht:
mnnlich weiblich
4. Alter
20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 +
5. Wie viele virtuellen Kommunikationsgruppen/-plattformen bauten Sie bereits auf / halfen
Sie aufzubauen? Falls dies nicht zutrifft, geben Sie an, wie vielen kommunikativen Gruppen
Sie angehren?
1-4 5-9 10-19 20 oder mehr
6. Werden Sie regelmig von den zustndigen Experten des Wissensmanagement Teams
ber dessen Inhaltsgenerierung und Nutzung unterrichtet bzw. haben Sie Zugriff auf
diesbezgliche Foren?
Ja Nein
Wie viele Mitarbeiter hat Ihr Unternehmen? (ungefhrer Wert):

8. Werden Sie oder Ihre Projektgruppe von der Geschftsfhrung beim Austausch von Best
Practices (Beste Problemlsungen) untersttzt?
Ja Nein

Skalenbeschreibung
Bewerten Sie folgende Umfrage mit diesen Werten
NA = keine 1 = Nein
2 = Wahrscheinlich in 2 Jahr/ MINIMAL
3 = Prioritt in 2 Jahr/ PARTIELL
4 = Sichtbar/ BETRCHTLICH
5 = Ja, VORHANDEN in Praxis

1. Erhebung Kultur
1. Wir die Erfassung und der Austausch von Wissen in Ihrem Unternehmen routiniert
durchgefhrt?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
Appendices

XI
2. Werden Fehler als Lernquelle gesehen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
3. Wird Vernderung als Teil des Arbeitslebens gesehen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
4. Sind Ihre Mitarbeiter oder Kollegen bei Anfragen bereit Auskunft zu geben?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
5. Wird der Wissensaustausch Strke und der Vorbehalt von Informationen als Schwche
gesehen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
6. Gibt es eine gute interne Kommunikation und regen Informationsaustausch zwischen den
Mitarbeitern?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
7. Wird Wissensmanagement (Austausch, Erfassung, usw.) nahezu tglich gefrdert?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
8. Wird schlechtes Wissensmanagement aktiv bekmpft?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
9. Wird engagiertes Wissensmanagement belohnt?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
10. Wird Wissen in allen Bereichen als Schlssel-Ressource angesehen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
11. Ist allen Bereichen Ihres Unternehmens die Wichtigkeit von proaktivem
Wissensmanagement bewusst?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
12. Nehmen alle Bereiche an Kommunikationsplattformen (Intranet) teil?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:

2. Erhebung KM Organisation
1. Wird Wissensmanagement vom Top Management als wichtiges Element der
Firmenstrategie angesehen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
2. Gibt es im Top Management des Unternehmens einen Verantwortlichen fr
Wissensmanagement?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
3. Gibt es eine eigene Abteilung bzw. einen Verantwortlichen fr Wissensmanagement in
Ihrem Unternehmen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
Appendices

XII
4. Wird Wissensaustausch bzw. die Verteilung gefrdert?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
5. Sind die Arbeitsgruppen Ihres Unternehmens effektiv? Werden Teammitglieder ermutigt
von einander zu lernen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
6. Untersttzt Ihr Unternehmen den Zugriff von externen Mitarbeitern/Niederlassungen auf
Netzwerke und Informationssysteme?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
7. Werden multi-disziplinre Arbeitsgruppen gebildet und betreut?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
8. Gibt es eine Unternehmensvision, wie Wissensmanagement in die Geschftsfelder
integriert werden kann?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
9. Gibt es klare Zustndigkeiten und Budgets fr Wissensmanagement-Aktivitten?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
10. Gibt es klare unternehmens- oder abteilungsbezogene Eigentumsregelungen bei
Wissensmanagement-Initiativen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
11. Gibt es unternehmensweite Bestrebungen, die die Erfassung, Allokation und Anwendung
von Wissen durch den Lerneffekt von anderen zu Lernen frdert?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
12. Schtzt Ihr Unternehmen systematisch die zuknftige Bewertung von Wissen ein bzw.
wird Wert von Wissen planmig bewertet und die Planerfllung zielstrebig verfolgt?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:

3. Erhebung Strategie, Systeme & IT Infrastruktur
1. Werden Technologieanstze zusammen mit Kunden und Zulieferern (wo mglich)
gemeinsam verfolgt bzw. geplant?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
2. Ist Wissensmanagement Teil Ihrer Unternehmensstrategie?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:

4. Erhebung: Effiziente & Systematische Prozesse
1. Werden Vermgenswerte des Schlssel-Wissens (z. B. Kunden Know-How) identifiziert,
aufbewahrt und aufrechterhalten?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
Appendices

XIII
2. Gibt es effektive Archivierungsprozesse fr das Dokumentenmanagement? (nicht
zwingend in elektronischer Form)
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
3. Werden intellektuelle Vermgenswerte des Unternehmens rechtlich gesichert? (sofern
mglich)
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
4. Gibt es kontinuierliche Weiterbildungsmanahmen fr eine erfolgreiche Anwendung von
Wissensmanagement?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
5. Wird die Vervielfltigung von Wissen in Ihrem Unternehmen gefrdert?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
6. Ist es in Ihrem Unternehmen ohne grere Hindernisse mglich, die richtigen
Informationen zu bekommen, die fr das Alltagsgeschft notwendig sind?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
7. Wenn eine Arbeitsgruppe ein Projekt abschliet wird danach der Lerneffekt dokumentiert?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
8. Werden Anstze/Bestrebungen/Nutzen fr Allianzen und Joint Ventures kontinuierlich
berprft oder nur wenn ntig angepasst bzw. in Frage gestellt?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:

5. Erhebung Bewertung
1. Gibt es in Ihrem Unternehmen die Anstze der partizipativen Zielsetzung, Messung und
Rckmeldung?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
2. Werden Ihre Mitarbeiter/Kollegen zur kontinuierlichen Prozessverbesserung angehalten?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
3. Gibt es einen kontinuierlichen Ideenfluss fr die Optimierung des gesamten
Unternehmens?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
4. Gibt es ausreichend Quellen fr eine verbindliche und nachhaltige Weiterbildung in Ihrem
Unternehmen?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:
5. Wird in Ihrem Unternehmen intellektuelles Kapital bewertet?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Bemerkung:

Themen des Fragebogens( Part 2)

Appendices

XIV
Unternehmenskultur
1. Teilen die Mitarbeiter Ihres Unternehmens Ihr Arbeitswissen?
Bemerkung:

Wird das Intranet zur Wissensverteilung informell genutzt (routinefrei, persnlich und
unstrukturiert)?
Bemerkung:

Ermutigen Arbeitsplatzgestaltung und Besprechungen den informellen Wissensaustausch?
Bemerkung:

2. Werden Wissensbeitrge und deren Austausch in Ihrem Unternehmen in irgendeiner Form
zustzlich gefrdert oder vielleicht sogar belohnt (Incentives)?
Bemerkung:

3. Wird Wissensaustausch von den Fhrungskrften Ihres Unternehmens (z. B. GF, IT-
Manager etc.) vorgelebt?
Bemerkung:

Organisation des Wissensmanagements
4. Wurden spezifische Stellen fr das Wissensmanagement definiert und eingerichtet?
Bemerkung:

Sind die Fhrungskrfte und Stabsstellen fr Wissensmanagement-Aufgaben und -Techniken
speziell ausgebildet?
Bemerkung:

5. Wird Wissen durch vordefinierte Stellen bewertet oder gibt es Bibliothekare oder
Informationsmanager, die Ablage von Wissen koordinieren?
Bemerkung:

6. Werden Wissensbeitrge und deren Austausch unternehmensweit untersttzt? (Aus
organisatorischer Sicht)
Bemerkung:

7. Besitzen Sie in Ihrem Unternehmen Kommunikationsinseln (Cafeteria, Sozialrume,
usw.), um Konversation unter den Mitarbeitern zu frdern?
Bemerkung:

Strategie, Systeme & Infrastruktur
8. Kennen Sie die Experten/Schlsselpersonen Ihres Unternehmens fr die unterschiedlichen
Wissensbereiche?
Bemerkung:

9. Hat Ihr Unternehmen einheitliche Prozesse/Mechanismen, um Wissensaustausch unter den
Mitarbeitern zu ermglichen?
Bemerkung:

10. Gibt es bereits integrierte Systeme fr Content und Knowledge Management. Gibt es
Werkzeuge oder Technologien, die folgende Aufgaben bernehmen:
Appendices

XV
Bemerkung:
Archivierung von Inhalten
Referenzierungen
Trendanalysen
Bemerkung:

Effiziente & Systematische Prozesse
10. Gibt es systematische Prozesse fr die Sammlung, Organisation, Verwertung und
Sicherung von intellektuellen Vermgenswerten an Schlsselpositionen?
Bemerkung:

Bewertung
11. Bewertet und verwaltet Ihr Unternehmen das vorhandene intellektuelle Kapital (z. B.
..) systematisch? Werden zu diesem Thema regelmig Berichte zu diesem Thema
verffentlicht?
Bemerkung:

Andere kritische Erfolgsfaktoren
12. Was sind Ihrer Meinung nach weitere kritische Erfolgsfaktoren zum Aufbau und Betrieb
von praktikablen virtuellen Kommunikationsgruppen/-plattformen.
Bemerkung:
Sonstiges
Haben Sie noch Wnsche, Anregungen oder Kommentare zu diesem
Fragebogen oder der Untersuchung?
Bemerkung:

Zusammenfassung:
Freie Kommunikation ist ein wesentlicher Bestandteil fr Vertrauen und Vertrauen ist
notwendig fr die Kapitalisierung von Wissen.
Appendices

XVI
AA.2 Appendix B

Questionnaire (English Version, 2004 with QUESTIONNAIRE - Part One (Quantitative
Analysis)& QUESTIONNAIRE- Part Two (Qualitative Analysis))

This QUESTIONNAIRE exercise will take you about 13 minutes (Please put a tick mark ( )
in the appropriate place.)

1. Name (optional):
Department...
Date& Place
Years of Experience in Metzeler ..
2. Level of education:
Certified\ Certification Bachelors Degree Postgraduate
Please select the nearest category
3. Gender: Male Female
4. How old are you? 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 or above
5. How many virtual communities of practice did you build\ or helped to build\ or
participated? 1-4 5-9 10-19 20 or above
6. Do the expert- employees\ senior& junior colleagues share findings or inform you about
the latest in their knowledge creation\ progression i.e., Groupthink forums on all issues
including tricks of the trade, advances in a\ the field, etceteras? Yes No
7. Currently active number of employees\ colleagues (estimated):
8. Is your team\ group supported by the top management in sharing best practices?
Yes No

Evaluation of the matrix: Assign yourself the following points for each
NA = 0, where 0 is doing nothing at all = NONE and
1 = Dont Know, Not Sure or Cant Say = NO
2 = Not Important or as Not been Addressed = MINIMALLY
3 = Partially Beneficial or somewhat Effective or Less Scope for Overall Improvement =
PARTIALLY
4 = Important or May not be effective but other associated necessary actions being taken =
SUBSTANTIALLY
5 = Critical or already in place and effective = FULLY

Also, the scale can generally be summarized as follows for majority situations

'NA 1 2 3 4 5 is calibrated as in
'5 (Always) 4 (Often) 3 (Sometimes) 2 (Occasionally) 1 (Never)'
NA (Not Applicable), (Note: "NA" and "1" scale values are equivalent.)

Appendices

XVII
QUESTIONNAIRE - Part One (Quantitative Analysis)

1. EVALUTE Culture
1. Is recording and sharing knowledge a routine and like any other daily habits for the
employees?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
2. Is failure seen as an opportunity to learn?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
3. Is change accepted as part of working life?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
4. Are the employees co-operative and helpful when asked for some information or advice?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
5. Is Knowledge sharing seen as strength and knowledge hoarding as a weakness?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
6. Is there good intra-team communication and sharing of knowledge?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
7. Is good knowledge management behaviour like sharing, reusing knowledge actively
promoted on a day-to-day basis?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
8. Is bad knowledge management behaviour actively discouraged?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
9. Are Individuals visibly rewarded for knowledge sharing and reuse?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
Do people at all levels recognise knowledge as a key resource?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
10. Are people in the organisation aware of the need to proactively manage knowledge
assets?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
11. Do people at all levels in the organisation participate in some kind of a community or
communities of practice?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
12. Is the intranet used to share knowledge in an informal manner (non-routine, personal and
unstructured way)?
NA 1 2 3 4 5

2. EVALUATE KM Organization
1. Does the top management recognise KM as an important part of the business strategy?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Appendices

XVIII
Remarks:
2. Is there top management representation for KM?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
3. Is knowledge management a formal function area in the organisation?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
4. Is internal staff rotation actively encouraged to spread best practices and ideas?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
5. Are the teams in the organisation effective? Are self managed teams composed of
individuals capable of learning from each other?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
6. Are virtual or remote teams supported effectively in terms of access to networks or
knowledge?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
7. Are multi-disciplinary teams effectively formed and managed?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
8. Is there a vision for how KM should be integrated into the business?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
9. Are there defined responsibilities and budget for KM initiatives?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
10. Is there a clear ownership of KM initiatives either by business units or by the whole
business?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
11. Does the organisation hone its skills for generating, acquiring and applying knowledge by
learning from other organisation's learning processes?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
12. Does the organisation systematically assesses its future knowledge requirements and
execute plans to meet them?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
13. Is knowledge sharing across departmental boundaries actively encouraged? (Not similar
to incentives)
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:

3. EVALUATE Strategy, Systems& an IT Infrastructure
1. Is Technology shared with clients and suppliers (where appropriate) to enhance
relationships?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
2. Is management of knowledge a part of the business strategy?
Appendices

XIX
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:

4. EVALUATE: Effective& Systematic Processes
1. Are Key knowledge assets such as customer knowledge identified and preserved and
maintained
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
2. Are Effective cataloguing and archiving procedures in place for document management
(not necessarily electronic)
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
3. Are Intellectual assets legally protected?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
4. Are Training and development programs in KM behaviour undertaken from point of
recruitment?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
5. Is there any duplication of effort in the organisation?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
6. In the day-to-day working environment, is it easy to find the right information?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
7. When a team completes a task, does it distil and document what it has learned.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
8. Are ideas for alliances and joint ventures constantly reviewed and acted on when
necessary.
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:

5. EVALUATE Measures
1. Is there a participative goal setting, measurement and feedback?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
2. Are individuals committed to continual improvements?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
Is there a constant flow\ generation of new ideas within the organisational context?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
3. Are resources committed for ongoing training and development of individuals?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:
4. Are Intellectual assets evaluated?
NA 1 2 3 4 5
Remarks:

Appendices

XX
QUESTIONNAIRE- Part Two (Qualitative Analysis)

CULTURE
1. Do the employees share their knowledge?
Remarks:
Is the intranet used to share knowledge in an informal manner (non-routine, personal and
unstructured way)?
Remarks:
Do workplace settings and format of meetings encourage informal knowledge exchange?
Remarks:
2. Are there incentives given for knowledge contribution, exchange or on knowledge sharing
in your firm?
Remarks:
3. Is the support from executive management to KM (Knowledge Management)\ knowledge
sharing VISIBLE?
Remarks:

KM Org.
4. Are there specific knowledge roles identified and assigned?
Remarks:
Are all senior managers and professionals trained in knowledge management techniques?
Remarks:
5. Is knowledge validated through peer or superior review or, are there some kinds of
librarians or information management staff that coordinate knowledge repositories.
Remarks:
6. Is knowledge sharing across departmental boundaries actively encouraged? (Not similar to
incentives)
Remarks:
7. Do you have an active common meeting space to facilitate knowledge exchange (As in
the Canteen\ the Dinning Hall or the water-cooler as meeting place, a knowledge caf or any
open office to promote communication; a sort of HUB) for unanticipated encounters and
marketplace for conversation?
Remarks:

Strategy, Systems& Infrastructure
8. Do you know who your best experts are for different domains of key knowledge?
Remarks:
9. Does your firm have a mechanism in place that allows the sharing of knowledge among the
employees?
Remarks:
10. Does your company have systems in place that allow the content and knowledge
management. Are there are specific techniques or tools you use for the following:
Remarks:
Content archival
Cross-referencing
Trend analysis
Remarks:

Appendices

XXI
Effective& Systematic Processes
11. Is there a systematic process for gathering, organizing, exploiting and protecting key
knowledge assets like ?
Remarks:
Measures
12. Does your organization measure and manage its intellectual capital (Ex. ) in a
systematic way, and publish regular reports of any kind on this subject?
Remarks:

Other critical success factors
13. In your opinion, what other factors do you consider as critical success factors for the
establishment and operation of Groupthink\ virtual communities of practice?
Remarks:
Comments

14. Would you like to make comments or suggestions about the Questionnaire?
Remarks:

Conclusion
Free communication is essential for trust, and trust is essential for selling knowledge
Appendices

XXII
AA.3 Appendix C

Interview guide (for EED- Experts and Virtual Team Members in September 2003)
Respondent: Name, Position in company, Background, Time in company and Time on
current position
Q.1. How do you view the concept of knowledge?
Information processes
How is knowledge best used within the company?
Q.2. How is knowledge best managed within the company?
Any need for a strategy. (If so, what should it include?)
Q.3. Are you familiar with the concept of Knowledge Management?
Q.4. What is the companys objective in its KM strategy?
- Knowledge consolidation
- Standardisation of existing knowledge in the form of procedures/protocols
- Combination of external knowledge and internal ``know-how``
- Acquisition of new knowledge from external sources
- Generation of new knowledge inside the organization
-Transformation individual knowledge into collective knowledge
Q.5. Is KM included in the organizational overall strategic objectives?
- Involved individuals
- Knowledge barriers
- Details/parts that specifically supports the used/planned KM strategy
Q.6. What "norms" and "guidelines" has the company in order to take use of the existing
knowledge?
- Knowledge distributors
- Where can these "norms" be found?
- Considering virtual teams
Q.7. How would you like to describe the knowledge transfer within the company?
- In virtual teams
- Group level versus individual level
- Which aid? (Examples only if the respondents are facing problems)
- How important is it today? And for the future?
Q.8. How much of the company's daily internal work is made through teamwork?
- Development (historical and future perspective)
Q.9. To what extent do you and your co-workers use electronic tools/ devices in your daily
work?
- Creating value (how?)
- Different levels within the company (differences)
- Other effects on the use
- Replacement for face-to-face
Q.10. What is your view towards virtual teams?
- Critical Success Factors
- What is there to win (short term, long term?)
- Lasting coherence (timeframe, pros and cons)
- Failed efforts (reasons)
- Storing methods
- Future expectations on the use (more or less, why?)
Q.11. Do you consider e-mail and Intranet to work as knowledge transfers and storing places
for knowledge? (If yes; use of today, desired use)

Appendices

XXIII
AA.4 Appendix D

Questionnaire (Prepared as Feedback Questionnaire Form on Launching EED in Nov
2003 for Experts and Virtual Team Members).

In the context of this study, consider "Knowledge Management" to include the strategies and
support mechanisms for the creation, identification, collection and sharing of knowledge.
This also includes the practices in how knowledge functions as an appliance within the
organization. The purpose of Knowledge Management (KM) is to improve the organization's
effectiveness by leveraging the knowledge of an individual employee and the need to use to
compete. Depending on the business knowledge strategy, important knowledge is:
- The intellectual assets (employees) that underlie products and services
- Knowledge about customers and markets
- The identification and transfer of "best practices"
- The individual expertise
Knowledge is a fundamental factor in the effectiveness of modern organizations. Therefore,
your understanding and perception of this subject, by participating in this questionnaire
would contribute to making the individual working and the whole organization more
effective.

Position in company: ..
Tenure:

Q.1. Are you familiar with the term Knowledge Management, Or are there any definitions
given to knowledge management initiatives internally? If so, what are they?
Intellectual capital
Intellectual assets
Learning organization
Other............................................
Q.2. Please rate the following KM objectives in the context of the business strategy? (1 as
most important until 6 as the lowest importance)
Facilitation of the re-use and consolidation of knowledge about operations
Standardisation of existing knowledge in the form of procedures/protocols
Combination of external knowledge and internal know-how
Acquisition of new knowledge from external sources
Generation of new knowledge inside the organization
Transformation from individual knowledge into collective knowledge
Other ..
Q.3. Do the organizations overall strategic goals include KM explicitly? If yes, are there
people assigned to KM; please specify the functions and explain?
....................................................................................
Q.4. What "guidelines" does the company have to attain knowledge and manage it?
..............................................................................
Q.5. How is yours or other individuals knowledge shared internally in the company?
Face-to-face
E-mail
Databases
Virtual meetings
Telephone
Reports
Appendices

XXIV
Courses
Group sessions
Videoconferences
Intranet/GroupWare
Courses
Other........................
Q.6. To what extent is knowledge used and shared through the following devices.
E-mail
Intranet/GroupWare
Teleconference
Computerized advisors (Intelligent agents)
Videoconference
Database applications
Other...
Q.6. How much group work do you conduct in your daily work?
5 (Always) 4 (Often) 3 (Sometimes) 2 (Occasionally) 1(Never)
Q.7. What are the most important knowledge-carriers in the organization?
People
Paper
Different Media
Routines
Services
Other...
Q.8. Where in the organization could you find guidelines to remote, manage or participate
in virtual teams or knowledge management teams?
At the regular management
The company culture
Outside consultants
In databases or other written forms
Co-workers experiences
Other....................................................
Q.9. To what extent is electronic tools used in the daily work.
5 (Always) 4 (Often) 3 (Sometimes) 2 (Occasionally) 1(Never)
Q.10. In what way do you think electronic tools are adding value to individual and overall
performance?
Increasing performance
Lowering costs
Better work access
Creating new contacts
New knowledge into the company
Other.................................................
Q.11. How often do you update these tools?
5 (Always) 4 (Often) 3 (Sometimes) 2 (Occasionally) 1 (Never)
Q.12. How is your daily communication divided? (Place a %-part of the overall
communication through that specific channel)
Face-to-face
Telephone
E-mails
Others..............

Appendices

XXV
Q.13. To what extent do you think electronic tools can replace face-to-face communication?
5 (Always) 4 (Often) 3 (Sometimes) 2 (Occasionally) 1 (Never)
Q.14. What are the key factors when interacting with others? Rate the different options below
with number 1 as most important and upwards to number 8 as the least important:
Cultural background (both organizational and geographical)
Communication
Professional skills
Knowledge background
Early experiences from working together
Trust
Social skills
Physical attractiveness
Q.15. Which advantages/disadvantages have you experienced working in virtual relations?
Expectation for the future?
...
Q.16. How do you store knowledge established in virtual teams?
Reports
Meeting Protocols
Databases
Seminars/Courses
Other............................................................
Q.17. How do you expect your work in virtual teams expand for the future (plans)?
More virtual team works
The same as today
Less virtual team work
No more virtual teamwork
Q.18. Which aspects of the organizational culture seem to support effective KM?
...................................................................................................................................
Q.19. What aspects of your culture changed because of the implemented KM process?
............................................................................................
Q.20. Have any of your virtual relations failed. If so, what were the major causes?
Cultural issues
Communication issues
Trust issues
Social issues
Knowledge skill issues
Other.................................................

Appendices

XXVI
AA.5 Appendix E

Target Groups Data
Target Groups, Periods and Numbers

Fig. 1: Target Groups

Target Groups Period
Top/ Senior Management or Experts 2003& 2004
Executives/ Management 2003& 2004
KAM, Euro Team and Project Managers 2003& 2004
General Administration 2004
Technical, IT and ETC Research Personnel 2003& 2004
Interns 2004
Others(Experienced Blue Collar Workers& Semi Skilled
workers)
2004
TOTAL 2004

Fig. 2: Target Groups Data in 2004

Target Groups Requested
Top/ Senior Management or Experts 20
Executives/ Management 70
KAM, Euro Team and Project Managers 10
General Administration 20
Technical, IT and ETC Research Personnel 30
Interns 06
Others(Experienced Blue Collar Workers& Semi Skilled
workers)
30
TOTAL 186

Fig. 3: Interviewees Response: Target Groups Data

Target Groups

Reque
sted
Respo
nses
Qualit
ative
Respo
nse
only
Num
ber
of
resp
onde
nts
Mean
Scale
0 - 5
Percentage
(%)
Appendices

XXVII
acco
unte
d for
Qua
ntiati
ve
anal
ysis
Top/ Senior
Management or
Experts
20 12 8 6 3 31 40%
Executives/
Management
70 32 22 24 4 41 50%
KAM, Euro Team
and Project
Managers

10 6 2 6 5 51 60%
General
administration

20 7 0 2 0 Insignificant
Technical , IT and
ETC Research
Personnel

30 12 7 4 2 21 30%
Interns 6 3 3 1 0 Insignificant
Others (Experienced
Blue Collar
Workers& Semi
Skilled workers)
30 12 4 2 1 11 20%
TOTAL 186 84 46 45

KSF S For Knowledge Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

KSF S For Knowledge Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MASTER THESIS

MBA: International Business Management& Consulting

You might also like