|
|
Knowledge Management Implementation Impediments: Strategic Alignment and Expensive Learning Curves
Edgardo
Donovan
ITM 503
Dr. Tom
Swanson
Module 1 –
Case Analysis
Monday, April 24, 2006
Knowledge Management Implementation Impediments: Strategic Alignment
and Expensive Learning Curves
“Investment in intellectual
capital almost invariably provokes further complementary investments, producing
a self-feeding circle of investment and value creation.” (Stewart)
“Interestingly, some technology
experts and academic scholars have observed that there is no direct correlation
between IT investments and business performance or knowledge management. For
instance, Erik Brynjolfsson, a professor at
Despite the
recent advancements in computing technology that have increased corporate
productivity and enabled automated knowledge-based logistical coordination at
unprecedented levels, willingness to invest towards improving knowledge
management systems is met by fierce resistance. Investing toward improving the
sophistication and scope of existing corporate knowledge management systems is
expensive and at times the enhanced productivity a company wishes to gain by
such an investment will not cover the associated costs. It is not easy for a
company to ensure that knowledge management investment plans are properly
aligned with the long-term operational strategy of the company in order to
avoid the latter scenario. Furthermore, the ability of a company to leverage a
return on investment from its knowledge management systems is further eroded by
the questionable ability of its work force to quickly master new systems before
they are rendered obsolete by new technologies
“In practice, knowledge
management often encompasses identifying and mapping intellectual assets within
the organization, generating new knowledge for competitive advantage within the
organization, making vast amounts of corporate information accessible, sharing
of best practices, and technology that enables all of the above — including
groupware and intranets.” (Barclay)
The
effective use of knowledge management systems to automate interactive business
processes while providing operational and strategic information to interested
users has made companies more productive and ultimately more competitive. Investing
in information technology, business intelligence, customer relationship
management, or knowledge management infrastructure provides added value to a
company through a ubiquitous networked medium that can access key corporate
operational and strategic information. Through the development of computer
applications managers can automate a variety of knowledge based business
processes within a company that years prior may have been performed by humans
at a higher cost. There is an endless array of automation in today’s companies
ranging from order processing, customer service, account management, customized
product deliveries, supply chain management, etc. Furthermore, CEOs and other
high level managers through knowledge management systems have access to instant
real-time information regarding operations at all levels in their organization
whereas years prior the same information may have not been available let alone
accessible forcing them to rely on lengthy audits sometimes spanning several
weeks or months.
“In the final analysis, managers
need to develop a greater appreciation for their intangible human assets
captive in the minds and experiences of their knowledge workers, because
without these assets, the companies are simply not equipped with a vision to
foresee or to imagine the future while being faced with a fog of unknowingness .”
(Malhotra)
The
organizational drive to invest in the implementation of technology driven
solutions has always been and will always be constrained by the high production
costs, maintenance costs, and training costs, and the difficulty of adding new capabilities
to systems as technology progress. In today’s ever quickening global
competitive business cycles companies run the risk of having little to show for
their knowledge management investments given it is not uncommon for large
systems to take years and millions of dollars to implement and be scrapped as
they quickly become obsolete as technology changes.
Ideally, similarly
to city planners, business and information technology managers should use the
same degree of long-term thinking, attention to detail, and consideration for
architectures that allow the maximum amount of flexibility for future upgrades.
Throughout the life-cycle process business and information technology managers should
be evaluating the operational value of all their information technology assets
as they build and upgrade their existing infrastructure through an open-ended
framework aligned with the best possible short and long-term operational and
strategic needs estimates.
Regardless
of how skilled an organization is at creating a cost and operationally
effective knowledge management infrastructure, it is always better for a
company to prioritize creating a series of products and services to fulfill
market demand over building the right type of knowledge management
infrastructure. If a company achieves the first objective and fails in the
latter they can always quickly remedy the situation by reinvesting its profits
towards the latter. However, if the reverse is true the company will have lost
money and done a disservice to its owners, employees, and stockholders.
“Applying technology blindly to
knowledge-related business problems is a mistake, too, but the computerized
business environment provides opportunities and new methods for representing
"knowledge" and leveraging its value. It’s not an issue of finding
the right computer interface — although that would help, too. We simply have
not defined in a rigorous, clear, widely accepted way the fundamental
characteristics of "knowledge" in the computing environment.” (Barclay)
Between
1994 and 2001 during the booming dotcom years the world financial community
ascribed much importance to a company’s ability to leverage knowledge
management to the point that many people believed that the traditional revenue
and operationally profitability goals did not matter as much as technological
innovation which in their eyes had become the new standard of success within
the global capitalistic system. In hindsight these notions seem ridiculous but
were true to an extent then when many investors chose to invest in companies
with poor operational track records but strong technological expertise over
traditional companies. This raised the
stock prices of technology companies above those of established blue chips firms.
These investors believed, similarly to the 1970s where small technologically
innovative companies like Apple Computer, Oracle, and Microsoft bested the
corporate behemoths of their day such as Xerox and IBM to gain prominence in
the computing industry, that the race towards technological innovation would
have created similar industry-wide inflection points in the 1990s and 2000s.
Although
the feverish speculative excitement that accompanied the dotcom years has
subsided there are still many business leaders who fail to recognize that
knowledge management infrastructure development spending is a means to an end
towards supporting the profitable marketing of a product or service and not
vice-versa.
Despite the
recent advancements in computing technology that have increased corporate
productivity and enabled automated knowledge-based logistical coordination at
unprecedented levels, willingness to invest towards improving knowledge
management systems is met by fierce resistance. Investing toward improving the
sophistication and scope of existing corporate knowledge management systems is
expensive and at times the enhanced productivity a company wishes to gain by
such an investment will not cover the associated costs. It is not easy for a
company to ensure that knowledge management investment plans are properly
aligned with the long-term operational strategy of the company in order to
avoid the latter scenario. Furthermore, the ability of a company to leverage a
return on investment from its knowledge management systems is further eroded by
the questionable ability of its work force to quickly master new systems before
they are rendered obsolete by new technologies
I. Works Cited
Stewart,
Thomas. Knowledge is today's capital: Strategy &
Leadership., 2003.
Malhotra,
Yogesh. Knowledge Management for the
Barclay,
Rebecca. What is Knowledge Management. MediaAccess.com.1997.
II. Works Consulted
Stewart,
Thomas. Knowledge is today's capital: Strategy &
Leadership., 2003.
Malhotra,
Yogesh. Knowledge Management for the
Barclay,
Rebecca. What is Knowledge Management. MediaAccess.com.1997.
KM-Forum.org.
What is Knowledge Management. 2002.
Santusos,
Megan, Srmacz, Jon. The ABCs of Knowledge Management. CIO Magazine
2001.
Wilson,
T.D. The Nonsense of Knowledge Management. Information
Research, 8(1), paper no. 144, 2002.
Choo,
Chen Wei. The Knowing Organization. 1999.
Shein,
Esther The Knowledge Crunch. CIO Magazine,
2001.