1heim.ifi.uio.no/~petterog/Kurs/INF5190/INF5190_NTAX_v0.4.doc · Web view7 Conclusion 26. 8...

INF5190 Concepts and Principles in Knowledge Management

Spring 2006 Page 1 of 31

UNIVERSITY OF OSLOFaculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences

INF5190 – Concepts and Principles in Knowledge Management

Spring 2006Applying Knowledge Management for improving software lifecycle processes in the Norwegian Tax Administration

Written by: Petter ØglandHani MuradSturla BakkeAnne Anne Berge Bjørnseth

Delivered: 12.05.06


Table of Contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................42 Theory..........................................................................................................................5

2.1 Two types of knowledge?....................................................................................52.2 Value configurations and Opera..........................................................................6

2.2.1 Value chain..................................................................................................72.2.2 Value shop...................................................................................................72.2.3 Value network..............................................................................................8

2.3 The configurations and Mintzberg.......................................................................82.4 KM processes.......................................................................................................9

2.4.1 Knowledge worker.......................................................................................92.4.2 Knowledge generation.................................................................................92.4.3 Knowledge codification.............................................................................102.4.4 Knowledge transfer....................................................................................112.4.5 Organizational culture...............................................................................11

3 Method.......................................................................................................................133.1 Interview............................................................................................................133.2 Text analysis......................................................................................................13

4 Case............................................................................................................................144.1 Opera’s history...................................................................................................144.2 Opera’s product lines.........................................................................................144.3 W3C standards...................................................................................................15

5 Analysis.....................................................................................................................165.1 Opera and the three value configurations..........................................................165.2 KM processes in Opera......................................................................................17

5.2.1 Knowledge generation...............................................................................175.2.2 Knowledge codification.............................................................................185.2.3 Mechanisms of knowledge transfer...........................................................18

6 Discussion..................................................................................................................206.1 Knowledge generation.......................................................................................20

6.1.1 Basic factors for acquisition......................................................................206.1.2 Dedicated resources...................................................................................216.1.3 Fusion........................................................................................................226.1.4 Adaptation..................................................................................................226.1.5 Knowledge networking..............................................................................22

6.2 Knowledge codification.....................................................................................236.2.1 The preservation-level of Opera’s knowledge sources..............................236.2.2 Knowledge map.........................................................................................23

6.3 Knowledge transfer............................................................................................246.3.1 Socialization..............................................................................................246.3.2 Internalization............................................................................................246.3.3 Externalization...........................................................................................256.3.4 Combination..............................................................................................25

7 Conclusion.................................................................................................................268 References..................................................................................................................27



List of FiguresFigure 1 – Illustration of Value chain..................................................................................5Figure 2 - Illustration of value shop....................................................................................6Figure 3 – Illustration of value network..............................................................................7Figure 4 - Organization chart of Opera..............................................................................12

List of TablesTable 1 – Nonaka’s model of knowledge conversion.......................................................10Table 2 - Product lines of Opera........................................................................................13



1 IntroductionThe report is written as part of the assessment in INF5190 – “Concepts and Principles in Knowledge Management”. The project group has chosen to look at the software lifecycle for one of the major processes at the Norwegian Tax Adminisration, namely the self-declaration process for private citizents. The report’s primary focus is to investigate to which extent the concepts of Knowledge Management (KM) can give insights on the software lifecycle model, and how such insights may be used for process improvement.

Firstly, all theoretical topics of KM are summarized within the context of process improvement to make sure the reader gets an understanding of central keywords used throughout the report. It also covers a short introduction to different value configurations that may exist within a company in addition to give account for important knowledge management areas. The third chapter describes the method that has been used in order to gain necessary information; interviews and textual analysis. Further, the case is presented in order to introduce Opera’s history, product lines and work philosophy.

The analysis is to be found in chapter five. Firstly, Opera is situated among different value configurations. The rest of the chapter is summarizing the key findings and actual situation from the interview executed by the project group related to the fundamental topics generation, codification and transfer. The sixth chapter is discussing the findings from the analysis, and the project group evaluates existing practices and suggests potential improvements. Important factors like organizational culture, motivation, and knowledge workers play a significant part in the discussion.

At the end, the project group concludes with Opera’s current situation and summarizes the main suggestions related to technological changes, an expanding organization, and strategy. The references used throughout the report are listed in chapter seven.



2 TheoryIn this section we will describe the different frameworks with which we have chosen to analyze Opera. First we will describe a framework for deciding on what type of strategic intent Opera has. This will be valuable when localizing the value creation in the selected company. Then we will move into the more concrete knowledge focus and describe some frameworks we will use for this.

2.1 Two types of knowledgeKuhn (1962) argues that scientific knowledge evolves in two directions. The normal way of accumulating knowledge is by solving puzzles according to rules defined by the current paradigm of doing science within a given discipline. Every now and then, however, this paradigm may be challenged, and new ways of understanding the world may evolve.

The way Kuhn describes the process of doing scientific research is strikingly similar to how Argyris and Schön (1978) suggests how to create organizational learning through what they call the model of “double loop learning”.

Figure 1 – Double loop learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978)

An organization may learn through the methods of quality management, i.e. identifying errors and opportunities for improvement, and work of ways to improve the system based on such insights, as would correspond to “single loop learning”. However, from time to time it may strike the organization that the whole system should have been designed in a completely different manner, so by challenging the current assumptions and beliefs, the variables governing the single loop learning may be adjusted. This external perspective on the system is referred to as “double loop learning”.



Jashapara (2004: 135) suggests total quality management (TQM) and business process engineering (BPR) as a possible way for understanding or implementing double loop learning. In the appendix B of ISO 9004:2000, it is suggested that double loop learning should be a natural way of operating any ISO 9001:2000 certifiable quality management system, where the inner loop learning is handled by methods for creating continuous improvements (“kaizen”; Imai, 1983) while the outer loop is handled by “breakthrough management” (Juran, 1964).

What seems to us to be not all that clearly stated in the quality management literature, and knowledge management literature, is the way the inner loop and outer loop of double loop learning seem to correspond to two different ways of understanding the world. In our understanding, the difference corresponds to the “two cultures” of natural science and social science (Snow, 1964), meaning that the two cultures deal with two different concepts of knowledge, corresponding to whether the purpose of the research is to predict and control nature or whether it is to “understand” a culture from an anthropological point of view, i.e. to understand the language of the tribe in terms of observing what they tend to do.

As Kuhn explains his gradual understanding of the process of scientific discovery to start with the understanding of hermeneutics (Lee, 1991), a similar approach may be used for explaining Deming’s image of the organization as a learning system. In fact, Sherkenbach (1986: 35) uses a model similar to figure 1 to illustrate the Deming philosophy of organizational learning by illustrating process improvement within the current system as the inner loop feedback mechanism between supplier and producer, following the usual methods of statistical process control, while the outer loop feedback mechanism corresponds to consumer research.

In this presentation we consequently try to distinguish between knowledge processes related to the social science of the outer loop, using Actor-Network Theory (Latour, 1987) as a possible framework, while applying the traditional methods of statistical quality control (Deming, 1992) for analyzing the knowledge processes within the inner loop.

2.2 Knowledge Management in a Actor-Network Theory perspective

Rather than looking at knowledge as something that is contained by someone or something, it is possible or even feasible to recognize knowledge as a network, or network of contextualized data and information, and that this network may consist of knowledgeable and may be not so knowledgeable humans, a web of experience, an urge to tell and a yearning to know. In all a suitable network for the creation and transformation of knowledge from tacit to explicit and back, in addition to tacit to tacit and explicit to explicit. In an environment of learning in several directions and contexts, we form networks of knowledge, where we teach and learn, show and tell, exchanging a mix of tacit and explicit knowledge in a both structured and unstructured manner, with all the influencing factors that are comprised of earlier experience, education, familiarity



with the tools needed to understand and manage a task, relations to others and so on.

Within the science and technology field it is of huge importance to be able to formulate and understand information, innovation and knowledge management processes, and hence ANT was created; in order to better understand not only what kind of knowledge that exists and gets distributed in an organization, but also how, and by that exploring how a knowledge network is created (Monteiro, 2000:72). ANT is, allthough it is called a theory, more of a material/knowledge-semiotic method that gives us a powerful linguistical tool to describe KM processes and relations.

Inn med avsnitt hentet fra John Law, Notes on ANT inn her.

Networking - flow of knowledge – avsnitt inn her.

Kanskje et teoriavsnitt om globaliseringsperspektiv inn her?

NTAX-specific

2.2.1 Main ANT-concepts in a KM perspective applied within the organization

InscriptionsResults might be regarded as a sort reciprocal inscription, in that members of the organisation make efforts to accomplish certain goals. In that sense, a potential achievement will have an impact on how they perform their work. In order to be able to measure their efforts during the work process, standards, metrics and routines have to be established. Another inscription is that knowledge itself is built into these metrics, standards and routines

TranslationIn a process of going from tacit to explicit knowledge, unstructured explicit knowledge, or from coincidental to scientific thinking, the members of the organization will have to re-interpret distributed knowledge in alignment with one's needs, which in turn translates into a more general need eventually leading to a unified solution (Hanseth & Monteiro, 1998). The process of translation is based on a medium or standard into which it is inscribed (Callon, 1991), and at NTAX this could typically be the language of statistics.

EnrollmentKommer

AlignmentKommer

HeterogeneityKommer



2.3 Knowledge Management in a Total Quality Management perspective

Although the best definition of Total Quality Management (TQM), in a European context, may be the evaluation critera for the annual quality awards (EFQM, 2006), when discussion the knowledge management principles underlying the ideas of quality management, we chose to focus on the ideas put forward by Shewhart and Deming.

Figure 2 – The ISO 9000:2000 quality management framework

<Petters fordrag om SPC>

2.4 Organizational theoryMintzberg (1979, 1983) defines five structures; the professional bureaucracy, the simple structure, the machine bureaucracy, the divisional structure and the adhocracy. These are structures that describe general configurations of organizations. For example, what is the diverse part of the organization (Strategic apex, technostructure, middle line, operating core and support staff), and what are the diverse coordination mechanisms inside the diverse structures? Stabell and Fjeldstad (1998) suggest that the value chain is tightly connected with the machine bureaucracy, the value shop with the professional bureaucracy or the operational adhocracy, and that the value network fits the administrative adhocracy.

We will add some comments to this in section 5.1.



<This will be updated through the ideas presented by Anne>

2.5 Cultural theoryHani comments on culture within the organization, and issues related to globalization and hetrogenity among “customers” (tax payers).

2.6 Value configurations and OperaUnderstanding how firms differ is a central challenge for both the theory and practice of strategic management (Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998:413). Knowledge Management can be seen as a part of the strategic management (for example Hariharan 2002). The way a firm create value, and how they support this value creation knowledge is hence important for the firm’s existence.

Porter’s value chain is seen as a generic framework to analyze the activities in an industry. In their work Stabell and Fjeldstad (1998:414) encounter problems using the value chain in some particular examples (service industry for example), ”because the resulting chain often obscures rather than illuminate the essence of value creations” (ibid:414) as it ”directs too much attention to unit costs, i.e. finding costs, development costs, and production costs” (ibid:414). Stabell and Fjeldstad suggest three generic value configurations, the value chain ”completed” with value shop and value network.

All the three configurations suggested by Stabell and Fjeldstad has two main parts; Primary activities, which focuses on the value creation, the product, and the support activities, which is the support to value creation.

Figure 1 – Illustration of Value chain

2.6.1 Value chainIn the traditional value chain, value is created by transforming inputs into products, by transporting raw material to a production facility, finish the products there, and ship them to customers (Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998:416). Technology development is performed to either reduce the cost of a product, through process improvement, or to raise the commendable prices by improving the adaptation of the product to Buyer purchasing



criteria 1(ibid:416). The value chain has a fixed set of activities that enables it to produce a standard product in large numbers.

Primary activitiesThe value chain has 5 primary activities;

Inbound logistics, receiving and storing raw material. Then we have operations which transforms inputs to outputs, and the outbound logistics where we distribute product to buyers. Then there is marketing and sales, and service.

2.6.2 Value shopThe value shop has the following main factors:

Focused on solving a customer or a clients particular problem, hence ”configured to deal with unique cases” (Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998:421)

”The shop metaphor signals that assembly and matching of both problems and problem solving resources are important for the organization and management of the value shop”(ibid:421)

Figure 2 - Illustration of value shop

It is a cyclic and iterative process. The product is improved several times during the process

Examples : Hospitals, consultancy business

The value shop has also 5 primary activities; the Problem-finding and acquisition, which includes finding and formulates a problem, problem-solving where we evaluate alternative solutions, and then the choice where we choose one of the alternatives. The last two activities are execution associated with implementation of the choice, and control and evaluation.

2.6.3 Value networkIn the global economy there are sometimes organizations that cooperate even though they are competitors. Examples of this are telephone companies, in Norway Telenor leases the telephone lines to their rivals (Netcom). In the value network the network is critical for the customer and the organization, hence for the value creation. Some other particularities with the value network are:

1 The things that the customers emphasize when buying a product or a service (price, gain, availability, quality etc)



It relies on a mediating technology to link client or customers who wish to be interdependent: “Value creation in the value networks is the organization and facilitation of exchange between customers” (Stabell and Fjeldstad 1998: 427). Network externalities affect the value for the customer (ibid: 428)

The value network has three primary activities:

Network promotion and contract management, where the customers are first invited to join the network, before they get selected.

Service provisioning which consists of activities associated with establishing, maintaining and terminating links between customers

Network infrastructure where the infrastructure maintenance activities is done

Figure 3 – Illustration of value network

2.7 KM processesAn important part of this assignment is to identify the KM processes that can be related to knowledge generation, knowledge codification and knowledge transfer. This chapter gives a theoretical presentation of these three processes. Firstly, we find it necessary to provide an understanding of the term knowledge worker used throughout the report.

2.7.1 Knowledge workerTurban, McLean and Wetherbe (2002) define knowledge workers as:

“People who create information and knowledge as part of their work and integrate it into the business and are responsible for finding and developing new knowledge for the organization and integrating it with existing knowledge.”

According to Drucker (1999) six major factors exist to determine if a person is a knowledge-worker:

Asks the question “What is the task?” Has the autonomy (which means that the person have to manage her/himself) Shows a continuing innovation Requires continuous learning but equally provides continuous teaching. Regards quality of the output at least as important as quantity Must be seen and treated as an asset rather than a cost



The management in Opera describes the employees as knowledge workers as discussed in chapter 6.1.1.

2.7.2 Knowledge generationAccording to Davenport and Prusak (1998: 52), knowledge generation refers to: “…, the specific activities and initiatives firms undertake to increase their stock of corporate knowledge”. They characterize the importance of knowledge generation in this way: “…since it is axiomatic that a firm’s greatest asset is its knowledge, then the firm that fails to generate new knowledge will probably cease to exist.”(ibid.: 67). Davenport and Prusak (ibid.) divide knowledge generation into five modes; acquisition, dedicated resources, fusion, adaptation, and knowledge networking. Here we will explain the five modes and in chapter 5.2.1 we will try to analyze Opera in relation to these modes.

AcquisitionAcquisition refers to the dimension of knowledge generation where the knowledge is acquired by the organizations as well as that developed within it. Hiring knowledgeable individuals is one of the most effective and direct ways to acquire knowledge. (Davenport and Prusak 1998)

Dedicated resourcesDedicated resources is the traditional approach in which an organization generates knowledge through establishing specific units or groups for that purpose. An obvious example is a R&D department. (Davenport and Prusak 1998)

FusionKnowledge generation through fusion means bringing people with different knowledge and experience together to work on a problem or a project. This method enforces people to collaborate in order to produce a joint result, and the chances for achieving a more creative solution may increase. (Davenport and Prusak 1998)

AdaptationAdaptation related to knowledge generation refers to changes in an organization, which are responses to new products from competitors, new technologies, and social and economic changes. Davenport and Prusak (1998), state that organizations that do not respond to new conditions will fail.

Knowledge networkingKnowledge networking refers to the context where knowledge is generated through “informal, self-organizing networks that may over time become more formalized” (Davenport and Prusak 1998: 65).



2.7.3 Knowledge codificationKnowledge codification involves codified material such as texts and computer systems that organize and contain knowledge of an organization. The purpose of knowledge codification is: “…to put organizational knowledge into a form that makes it accessible to those who need it” (Davenport and Prusak 1998: 68).

The main challenge concerning knowledge codification is to make the knowledge accessible without loosing its distinctive attributes. In other words, the challenge is to preserve it as knowledge and not as information or data. (ibid.)

Mapping knowledge sources in the organization in the form of a knowledge map is also important in connection with identifying tacit knowledge. A knowledge map points to knowledge but does not contain it. Typically, it points to people as well as to documents and databases that hold knowledge. (ibid.)

In the analysis in chapter 5.2.2, we will highlight Opera’s knowledge codification sources and find out if they have some kind of knowledge map.

2.7.4 Knowledge transferDavenport and Prusak (1998:101) state that knowledge transfer involves two actions; transmission and absorption. The goal of knowledge transfer is to improve an organization’s ability to work, so these two actions only provide value if they lead to change in behavior. Even though a person is able to absorb knowledge, there are several factors that must be put in place in order to make use of it. These factors are mentioned in the next chapter (2.3.5) about the organizational culture.

Nonaka (1995:19) provides a model with four different modes of knowledge conversion with the basis in the terms tacit and explicit knowledge as the two main types of human knowledge. The model (with examples) is shown below, and the different variants; socialization, externalization, internalization and combination are discussed according to Opera’s situation in chapter 5.2.3.

(IBM Research, 2001)Table 1 – Nonaka’s model of knowledge conversion



2.7.5 Organizational cultureBy creating and nurturing a knowledge-sharing culture, a company will construct a working environment where individuals are motivated to share their knowledge so that the company, as a whole, can obtain an appropriate breadth of skills and expertise.

According to Rumizen et al. (2003), must the following factors be in place to establish such a culture:

The individuals must be able to trust each other in terms of dividing tasks, admitting shortcomings and not having personal motives behind actions.

Motivation is the management’s as well as the individual’s responsibility. Have a reasonable level of acceptance of failure. Failure must be regarded as a possibility to learn, not to blame others. Low status-barriers between functions and departments within the organization.

Within a company, co-workers often form groups which Davenport and Prusak (1998: 38) call Communities of Practice (CoP). A CoP might be self-organized or sponsored, but all members communicate common work practices, interests and solutions.

A self-organized CoP arises naturally as the members, in example, use discussion forums to exchange “lessons learned” and new ideas. If the management tries to control this sort of CoP, it might fail because the knowledge-sharing process is not fostered by any kind of external motivation factors like money or position. Sponsored CoP is supported by the management as it is provided with different kind of resources like tools, humans or money. A sponsored CoP might give a measurable result to the organization by measuring the number of contributions, downloads, documents and meetings.



3 MethodIn this task about Opera we have basically used two types of methods; interviews and textual analysis.

3.1 InterviewThere are many forms of interviews, the most common may be face-to-face verbal interchange, but may also include the face-to-face group interviewing, mail questioning and telephone surveys (Fontana and Frey 1994). In our task we used face-to-face group interviewing, where the questions were separated into three main focus areas, and we interviewed Opera officials one at the time. We had the opportunity to interview three employees, each with knowledge in different areas of Opera. Our questions were inspired by the course (INF5190) resources “Guidelines for KM interviews of companies” and “The Knowledge Management Toolkit”. We had prepared the questions in a way which Patton (1987) calls”the interview guide” combined with ”standardized open ended interview”. This method included setting up a list of questions or issues before the interview. It is also suggested that the prepared questions or issues are changeable during the session. The standardized open-ended questions imply ”a set of questions carefully worded and arranged” (ibid: 112). The combination style is a combination, where ”a number of basic questions may be worded quite precisely” while others are ”permitting the interviewer more flexibility in probing and considerable freedom in determine when it’s appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth” (ibid: 114)

3.2 Text analysisIn our treatment of text and documents we have used a qualitative approach. By this we mean that we focused on the documents as”artifacts produced under certain material conditions”, where the authors are one, or several persons, that has access to materials not everyone has access to. One can say that”text is an artifact capable of transmission, manipulation and alternation” (Hodder 1994:394) hence”products of a system within which they are defined and made meaningful” (Manning and Cullum-Swan 1994:464). The main sources for our textual analysis are Opera’s different web sites (Opera URL1), and the Opera brochure (2005) received from the PR executive.



4 Case

4.1 Opera’s historyOpera was founded in 1995 by Jon von Tetzchner and Geir Ivarsøy. The Opera browser product was first available on the Internet in 1996, as shareware, which means that users could download it for free for a certain period, after which they could buy it. After a relatively successful period, they started to grow substantially in the end of 1999, and increased from 25 to 100 people in the staff in one year. They signed strategic agreements with Ericsson, and later with IBM, Nokia, Motorola, Macromedia, Adobe, Symbian, Canal+ technologies, Sony Ericsson, Kyocera, Sharp, Metroworks, MontaVista Software, BenQ and Sendo. Opera has in their version 8 made it possible to work with mobile operators, offering them concept, “the Opera platform” which is a solution directed towards mobile operators. (After Book et al side 5, Opera 2005).

Opera has their head office in Oslo, and sales offices in Tokyo, Beijing, San Diego and Austin, and a development office in Linkøping, Sweden. They currently have 205 employees, and 48% of the employees are from other countries than Norway.

Opera Software ASA

Jon S. von TetzchnerCEO

Sales & Distribution

Lars BoilesenExecutive VP Sales &

Distribution

Marketing & Strategic AlliancesRolf Assev

Executive VP

Research

Håkon Wium LieCTO

Engineering

Christian KroghVP Engineering

Operations

Christian JebsenCFO/COO

Figure 4 - Organization chart of Opera

Even though Opera has a hierarchical structure, the communication and cooperation among the units signify a flat structure, in the sense that the barriers between them are low. The persons we interviewed belonged to the Engineering department (two persons) and the Marketing and strategic alliances.

4.2 Opera’s product linesOpera has four main product lines. These are the browser for the desktop market (PC), for mobile devices, for home media and for verticals.

Product lines Competitors Role/potentialDesktop market (PC)

- Microsoft’s Internet Explorer- Mozilla Firefox which is built up by an Open Source community

Fundamental technology for the entire company

Mobile - Access (Japanese) Largest growth



devicesHome media No concrete, but they experience high barriers of

entry because operators execute large purchasing.For example UPC ‘boxes’.

Slow market, but large potential in 1 or 2 years from now.

Verticals No concreteTable 2 - Product lines of Opera

4.3 W3C standardsOpera’s main knowledge area is their great competence and knowledge on web standards. The Opera standards follow the w3.org standards. It is important for Opera to maintain the knowledge on these standards, as they are the fundament for their main value creation; the making of the browser. Opera must have good programmers that can program smart, swift and effective algorithms. This is because their browser shall be used on different sorts of devices, and for example be compatible with Internet Explorer (which is not based on w3 standard)

4.4 How to understand the “customer”In public organizations, such as the Norwegian tax administration, the word “customer” may perhaps not be the most natural way of describing the tax payer, but in the terminology of ISO 9000:2000, the receiver of products (or services) from any process is named the “customer of the process”.

One important aspect of designing quality management systems according to the ISO 9000 standards, is to have systematic ways for working towards the goal of satisfying the customers. We will now describe some of the elements of Actor-Network Theory as a framework for understanding customers from an anthropological point of view.



5 Analysis

5.1 Opera and the three value configurationsTable 2 describes the four product lines at Opera. Out of these four, Opera’s major efforts are the first two; the browser for desktops and the browser for mobile devices. The PC desktop has the biggest income, while mobile browser has the biggest growth.

The value chain can thereby be used to describe how Opera creates value, as they produce a product, a browser, for a relatively high number of customers, it is standardized too a large extent, and it gives value to the end user. They are however purchasing the customers through creating networks between them and the customers, where you can for example buy and download the browser. Opera is an open source product and attracts several ideological IT users. Therefore, a special Opera community exists (My Opera Community URL), which can be regarded as an ideological”fan-club”. This community, consisting of 140 000 active members, is relatively actively engaged in the production and spreading of the product, in that they give suggestions for development, testing and evaluation. This means that they give valuable input to the Opera Corporation, hence the network is important for them; it is valuable for both user and Opera. In the development process, when developing the software, Opera works in a way closely related to the way one works in the value shop; cyclic, iterative where ideas are tried out, products are created, reflected upon and improved.

Opera has then elements from all the three configurations outlined by Stabell and Fjeldstad. First of all they have to create a product (browsers) for a commercial market, produce it in an iterative and cyclic way (improve the product all the time in new versions) as they meet new challenges from the customers and clients (can be people or mobile operators), and they have to be quick to communicate these changes to the network they belong. In addition, the Opera community is a valuable network where knowledge about programming, the product and techniques for development are discussed. Hence, Opera’s knowledge has to be related to the product (chain and shop), but also to how it can be transferred and how discussion in the forum develops newknowledge (network).

Opera Software, an AdhocracyIn section 2.2 we described the configurations outlined by Henry Mintzberg. In an INF5250-assignment written by Vincent, Rivierre and Cook in 2004, Opera is characterized as an adhocracy because”their key coordinating mechanism is amongst the workers”, the work they perform are highly specialized and the workers are very skilled, ”there is a very well defined ”corporate culture” that fosters a pleasant and productive environment and a high level of ”esprit de corps””. Opera has also an organic structure, young age and relatively small size, and they have a very sophisticated system. (Vincent, Rivierre and Cook 2004:11).

If Opera is an Adhocracy, it then belongs to the value shop, or the value network strategy configuration.



5.2 KM processes in Opera

5.2.1 Knowledge generationAcquisitionIn Opera’s case acquisition is the main approach to get hold of knowledge. Every day Opera receives a large number of open job applications and CVs. They have well-established procedures to assess these CVs and to select good candidates from them. The chosen candidates are tested for six hours, before they are eventually hired. This process indicates that Opera have specific demands concerning knowledge and that knowledge is of great value for them.

Another way for an organization to acquire knowledge is to rent it. This means renting a knowledge source, as for example a consultant. (Davenport and Prusak 1998) Some years ago, during “peak” times, it occurred that Opera rented consultants. They were rented for short periods to solve specific problems. Opera experienced however that the consultants gave wrong or inadequate solutions. Furthermore, the management in Opera realized that using external consultants could be a risk in the sense that they were sharing business-specific information. The management also saw that bringing in experts did not necessarily add new knowledge to the organization. Therefore, Opera decided to appoint people rather than renting human resources in order to acquire knowledge.

Dedicated resourcesOpera has no dedicated R&D department. On the other hand, they encourage their employees to do continuous training and education. It is scheduled that any employee can spend a certain number of hours (during working hours) to get to know new technologies or solutions. In addition, employees can attend optional lectures and workshops in order to maintain and update their competency. Moreover, they have some collaboration with the Research Council of Norway.

FusionMost of the work in Opera is performed in teams. Each team is composed of employees, often from different departments, with various skills and interests. According to Opera, the process of forming a team is an informal process. It is the employees themselves that request who they want to work with. Nevertheless, we would expect that the management has some kind of a final word in the composition of the teams. AdaptationOne of the biggest success factors for Opera is the adaptation to the W3C web standards. The knowledge they have obtained regarding these standards, create a very valuable platform for expansion for Opera as there an increasing number of employees who are familiar with it.

Knowledge networkingAs we have mentioned earlier, Opera offers a web-based community, the My Opera Community, for their users, where the users can contribute with opinions and knowledge



and interact with each other and with Opera’s employees. In this case, Opera has created a community of knowers.

In addition, Opera participates on international IT-conferences. Here they can interact with and learn from other participants in the IT-business, and in that way they can generate new knowledge.

Partnership is third example of knowledge networking in Opera’s case. Opera has formed several partnerships with technology providers such as Adobe, IBM, Google and Nokia. Opera believe in working together with other providers, so that they can overcome obstacles and reach new levels of user benefits. (Opera URL2)

5.2.2 Knowledge codificationIn Opera, the employees have a lot of knowledge concerning all phases of software development. As far as we have identified in Opera, the following infrastructures, tools and documents can more or less be regarded as knowledge codification sources:

Working routines: documents that describe what the employees shall do. E-mailing and e-mail lists: are regarded as the most efficient and most used tools

for exchanging knowledge within Opera. Intranet: is used for resources like calendars, news within the organization, and

vacations. Different Wikis: where people exchange informal messages in any topic. The Bug Tracking System (BTS) (Opera URL3): enables the QA-department, as

well as the users, to register bugs and add comments to what they find in Opera’s browser. 15 000 bugs are reported and stored in this system every year.

Project Management System (PMS): is a tool used to store all information related to a project.

my.opera.com (My Opera Community URL): Community for users of the Opera-browser.

WAR room: is established when launching a new project. Portals: in some situations, a project group establishes their own portal, in order

to easily display updated information related to the project only. For example, the mobile product line utilizes this with the so-called “mobile portal”.

Opera does not have any knowledge map in their organization. They regard themselves as a relatively small organization where everybody knows everybody. That means that every employee knows where he/she can find knowledge.

5.2.3 Mechanisms of knowledge transferThe management in Opera is fully aware of the importance of maintaining knowledge within the organization. Work groups are often composed of people with the same competency in order to make sure that the knowledge remains in Opera in case people are leaving. Cross-co-operations between departments and functions are regarded as a good way to provide a variety of tasks and to exchange knowledge.



Nonaka’s model for knowledge conversion section 2.3.4 is the basis for the following analysis.

SocializationIn Opera, socialization is the most used method for transferring tacit to tacit knowledge. As mentioned earlier, Opera’s working environment can be characterized as very social with young people from different cultural backgrounds. So far, the management is relying on social interaction among employees as the easiest and most efficient way of exchanging knowledge. Opera arranges “A night at the Opera” every Friday afternoon where the employees meet up and get to know each other in a different setting than in the daily office or workspace. In addition, they have tried to establish a light and open place of work with some comfortable lounge suites in the corridors. The management emphasizes that all employees have a friendly and open attitude, and they refer to each other with first names.

Externalization Externalization is the type of knowledge transfer that involves transferring explicit to tacit knowledge. Opera arranges workshops where employees get “hands-on-practice” by solving tasks in teams. They have also tried to run some video conferences with co-workers staying in other geographical location (like countries in Asia and the USA), but the method was not regarded as efficient nor convenient.

InternalizationWhen it comes to internalization, which comprises how to transfer explicit to tacit knowledge, project evaluations are important. Opera admits they do not have any formal standards or routines for running evaluations.

CombinationThe combination mode is how to transfer explicit to explicit knowledge. In Opera’s situation, this is a process that must be supported by a technical infrastructure. Existing technical tools are listed and described in the previous section “Knowledge codification”.



6 Discussion

6.1 Knowledge generation

6.1.1 Basic factors for acquisition According to the “Top ten reason to work at Opera” at Opera’s official homepage (URL1), one of the main points is; We know that responsibility fosters dedication, and don’t believe in micromanagement. As the organization is practicing a more flat structure compared to the traditional hierarchical structure, each employee experiences a higher level of responsibility to assigned tasks, and they are showing a greater commitment to the project and the company.

Since Opera keeps distance from micromanagement as a leader style and are regarding their employees as knowledge workers, the staff are typically told what to do, but not how to do the task. The project group considers this statement as an important basis for successfully creating a knowledge-sharing working culture. The organizational focus is to make employees share and create new knowledge, but one must keep in mind that the individuals must have the opportunity to preserve their ability to obtain and demonstrate specialization within different areas (Grant, 1997).

For example, the key product tester in the Quality Assurance department demonstrates such specialization. This person is regarded as an expert in one area, which provides increased job satisfaction for the employee. Having a good working environment in place, will make this key person willing to do an effort in sharing knowledge in terms of training of new employees and keep all relevant information fully available for the rest of the organization.

A traditional problem is the fact that people are not willing to share valuable knowledge without getting any kind of reward. The fear of loosing a position where one always has been regarded as the expert and suddenly become “needless” is a natural way of thinking. The management in Opera is not regarding this phenomenon as a problem because they mean that every employee has a unique competency and are confident with their relations to a working environment characterized by high sociability.

The project group would like to emphasize that it is the management’s responsibility to encourage and motivate people to take part in the knowledge management activities in Opera. Opera is regarding themselves as a growing company, and they might be facing challenges in sustaining such a freely and open organizational culture. The project group suggests the following activities to be followed in order to sustain the motivation among their employees:

Keep up social events like the popular “A night at the Opera” every Friday afternoon. Humoristic use of informal titles like “best seller of the week” can be a small but great motivator in cases where the employee’s task can be characterized as tedious.



Encourage people to meet each other and exchange informal information by placing coffee machines or comfortable lounge suites where people have small breaks from their tasks.

Highlight persons that have demonstrated significant effort in knowledge management activities such as training a new employee or found the solution to a known problem. Even if the solution-finder has already gained “honor and glory” among close colleagues, he or she will stand out as a good example for other departments in the organization.

Opera is not running any financially based bonus programs, and the project group is supporting this decision. The reason is that a bonus program might become unfavorable for employees in departments where achievement is not that measurable, for example the sales department versus production department.

6.1.2 Dedicated resourcesIn our opinion, there are both pros and cons to whether Opera should establish a dedicated resource like a R&D department or not. One pro can be that Opera is in the very front of their core business area, and to stay in this position they need indefinitely to focus on innovations. As stated earlier, Microsoft with their Internet Explorer is their main competitor, and Microsoft certainly dedicates a lot of resources on producing new features and improvements to their browser-technology.

On the other hand, if we regard the current corporate size of Opera, it does not necessarily support an establishment of a R&D department. In our view, a small organization like Opera, could just as well manage without a R&D department.

Furthermore, with the practice Opera has, we expect that they probably do not face extensive problems concerning transfer of knowledge from the knowledge creators to the knowledge users. Davenport & Prusak (1998: 59) state that: “Knowledge creators and users may not even speak the same language.” In Opera’s case, we can claim that the knowledge creators in most cases also are the knowledge users, since the employees do research in fields that they themselves work with.

However, a lack of separation between R&D and other parts of the business may create problems. As Davenport and Prusak (ibid.: 58) say:

“The premise behind separating R&D from other parts of the firm is to give researchers the freedom to explore ideas without the constraints imposed by a preoccupation with profits and deadlines.”

This implies that the research efforts of the individuals in Opera, to a certain extent may be bounded by the individual’s actual occupation. To avoid this, it is important that the managers make sure that the employees are given time to update their competency.



6.1.3 FusionOne problem with fusion is that the group members do not have the same common ground, and that this can result in chaos (Davenport and Prusak 1998). The type of fusion Opera practices, does, in our opinion, to a certain extent prevent this from happening. Since the employees themselves can have a say in who they want to work with, it is more likely that there is a common ground amongst the individuals in the team.

However, the freedom of the employees to choose team members, can weaken the creative potential of the fusion. That is because the fusion has to have some degree of complexity and even conflict to create creative solutions (ibid.). In Opera’s case, there is a risk that the teams are more homogeneous than what is desirable.

6.1.4 AdaptationIn our opinion, it is difficult to determine Opera’s ability to adapt to changing conditions in their business field, partly because it is a young organization. Still, they must have done something right, since they have had quite a lot of success during their lifetime. And, despite their success, which according to Davenport & Prusak (1998: 63) often is “the enemy of innovation”, one must say that they have managed to be innovative in their business too. Recently, however, figures indicate that Opera is not doing as well as earlier (Hegnar Online URL). Maybe success can be the enemy of innovation in Opera’s case after all?

In the analysis we mentioned the strength of Opera, regarding the knowledge on the web standards (W3C). There can however be certain problems related to such standards, if they are not flexible enough. Opera have a cyclic iterative way to produce their products, and if a standard hampers the innovation perspective, by being to tight, this can create a problem. We didn’t uncover any such problems in our work, but our task included a general and not very profound analysis

Nevertheless, there are some things Opera can do to support their adaptive ability. Davenport and Prusak (1998) underline the importance of hiring people who have proven experience in taking on new tasks. In that way, they get employees who are prepared and capable to learn new things. Moreover, the employees should also be encouraged to switch jobs frequently inside the organization.

6.1.5 Knowledge networkingAs we mentioned in section 5.2.1, Opera has several types of networking practices. The Opera community has participants who profoundly discuss every aspect of the browser, hence the standards it is built on. This intensive and knowledge-full community of practice hence tests several ‘best practices’ (for example compatibility and scalability) in a way that increases the robustness of the product. Elements (solutions, algorithms or compatibility choices) inside the browser will be discussed thoroughly, and this is a valuable source of knowledge for Opera. We mentioned two other types of networks in section 5.2.1



6.2 Knowledge codification

6.2.1 The preservation-level of Opera’s knowledge sourcesAs we mentioned in chapter 2.3.3, it is vital in the knowledge codification process to ensure the knowledge’s distinctive attributes. In Opera’s case, there are several different codification sources that support different areas. An important question in regard to this is therefore: to what extent do Opera’s knowledge codification sources preserve the knowledge’s integrity?

In general, a rule of thumb is: “…, some structure for knowledge is necessary, but too much kills it” (Davenport and Prusak 1998:68). Since we have not studied the knowledge codification sources in Opera, we can not discuss the sources’ level of knowledge-preservation in detail. Still, we may assume that some of the more business-oriented sources like the BTS (Bug Tracking System) and the PMS (Project Management System) have some degree of structure in the knowledge they hold. That is because these systems are of great value to Opera’s debugging activities and project activities respectively.

6.2.2 Knowledge mapThe problem with electronically based knowledge codification sources, which Opera’s sources can be considered as, is that they in most cases only embed explicit knowledge. This can be supported by Davenport & Prusak’s (1998:70) following statement about tacit knowledge: “Tacit, complex knowledge, developed and internalized by the knower over a long period of time, is almost impossible to reproduce in a document or database”. In our opinion, tacit knowledge is extremely important in software development, and thus also in Opera’s case. For example in programming you are dependent on tacit knowledge in order to attack complex problems. An important question concerning this is therefore: If the knowledge codification sources of Opera only contain explicit knowledge, how can the employees in Opera find tacit knowledge in the organization?

As we have mentioned earlier, Opera’s main focus when they appoint people is that they have knowledge. We suppose that Opera also emphasize skills in practicing the knowledge. Evidently, this should indicate that most of the employees have both explicit and tacit knowledge in their working fields. Nevertheless, it is obvious that one can not know everything, and now and then needs to seek knowledge elsewhere in the organization. A knowledge map is helpful in this situation. As we stated in chapter 5.2.2 (analysis), Opera does not have any kind of knowledge map that tells the employees who knows what. The management in Opera thinks that the organization is quite transparent and thus easy to find knowledge across departments. In our view, it might be that the size of Opera not inevitably necessitates a knowledge map. However, we would recommend that they make one as they are characterizing themselves as a “growing company”. They should at least make one for the most critical departments in the company, like the Engineering and QA. Besides being beneficial for the knowledge-seekers, it would also be useful for the management when they consider the composition of project-teams.



On the other hand, it is not obvious how Opera should assemble a knowledge map. Davenport and Prusak (ibid: 73) suggest two methods. Either “…use surveys that ask employees what knowledge they have and where they get the knowledge they need to do their jobs”, or “…follow a trail of recommendations,…” where they talk to a knowledge source in the organization that another person in the organization has recommended and so on. Which of the two methods Opera should choose, is not easy to conclude. There are both pros and cons to the two methods. However, we think that the first method probably is the least time-consuming, and hence maybe the most suitable alternative for Opera.

Two other factors to consider in connection with knowledge maps are what form they should have and where to put them. Davenport and Prusak (ibid.) advocate for electronically based knowledge maps. They argue that an electronic map can be revised and distributed more easily than a knowledge map in a paper document. Furthermore, Davenport and Prusak mention Lotus Notes and Web browser/intranet systems as widespread tools for making knowledge maps accessible. In our opinion, making an electronically based knowledge map accessible from Opera’s Intranet sounds like a sensible solution in Opera’s case. That is because most of the employees in Opera evidently are used to work with computers, and Opera also has an existing Intranet.

6.3 Knowledge transferThe methods for transferring knowledge is following Nonaka’s model introduced in section 2.3.4.

6.3.1 SocializationOpera has established good conditions for the process of transferring tacit to tacit knowledge, referred to as socialization. Arranging social events and creating a workspace where it is possible have informal talks are major factors in this process. However, it is still important for the management to be aware of the motivation factors and activities that must be in place in order to maintain and improve the existing organizational culture. The company will probably expand during the next few months and years, and it is critical to rely on this way of transferring knowledge. The project group recommends the management to look at the other modes of transferring knowledge (other than socialization) suggested in this chapter.

6.3.2 InternalizationAs identified in the analysis, Opera lacked some activities related to the process of transferring explicit to tacit knowledge, named internalization. When it comes to project evaluations, it is suggested that the management prepare routines for evaluating tools, techniques, competency, main problems and its solutions, shortcomings and economy for every project. Opera has already got PMS (Project Management System) to track information related to projects. It is suggested to continue exploiting this tool in order to evaluate the quality of work performed in the company as a whole. This will make the



organization able to “learn from failure” which is an important principle within knowledge management. Not having this principle in place might lead to different groups doing the exactly same mistakes over again. This is wasted resources and it can easily lead to dispersing blames and a destructive attitude instead of looking at it as a way to learn.

6.3.3 ExternalizationExternalization is a very important mode of knowledge conversion, and should be highly emphasized in Opera. For example, how can a programmer in the production department be able to teach other colleagues how to write code efficiently? It seems like Opera’s attempt to arrange workshops is the best way to facilitate this kind of knowledge transfer at the moment. However, it can also be valuable to establish some kind of training programs tailored newly appointed employees. If it is possible, the project group suggests having a contact person (with competency in the selected area) to guide the new co-workers through formal routines, programming methods, demonstrate successful projects, and make sure they get to know the right people across the departments. This activity can be more efficiently carried though by appointing a group of people at the same time, not scattered throughout the quarter.

6.3.4 CombinationWhen it comes to transferring explicit to explicit knowledge, Opera is facilitating a number of tools. The management states that e-mails are the most efficient and most frequently used way of exchanging messages and ideas. Encouraging people to use discussion forums instead, can be good way to make sure that the information is getting retrievable from a repository later.



7 ConclusionAs a result of the project group’s investigations in the software cycles at the Norwegian Directorate of Taxes, it has been detected a few areas of potential improvements. Today, the tax administration makes limited use of internal metrics for process monitoring, internal benchmarking and process improvement, although they have formal routines that makes it possible to compensate for loss of tacit knowledge due to turnover.

In order to support the knowledge generation in the software lifecycle, we believe the cultivation and nurturing a knowledge-sharing culture and motivation of employees may be more efficiently achieved by applying internal metrics and deriving knowledge from these metrics through the use of methods of statistical quality control. Aligning the knowledge management strategy with the quality management strategy should form the the foundation for establishing and maintaining knowledge generation.

When looking at the existing working environment related to the software lifecycles in the tax administration, it is obvious that socialization is the most used method for transferring knowledge within the organization, although most aspects of the methods are made explicit through documents in one way or another. The need for making everything explicit is consistent with the traditional needs of the bureacracy, while the fact that most of the important knowledge is kept inside the heads of a few IT experts seems to be consistent with the psychology and sociology of information technology intensive environments. Because of this, the project group concludes that it is important to focus on integrating the current software lifecycle quality management system with the technical infrastructure, and thus making the knowledge processes more fully integrated into the logic of the bureacracy.

The technical infrastructure forms basis for the codification of knowledge in the tax administration, which is a central topic in the report. The project group discusses implementation and use of knowledge maps, in the style of Ishikawa fishbone diagrams and Pareto charts, for understanding how problems relate to eachother and how to address the problems in a more systematic manner. The charts and diagrams should be available to all parts of the organization by making better use of the Intranet.



ReferencesCallon, M. (1991): “Techno-economic networks and irreversibility”. In Law J. (Ed.) A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination. Routledge: London.

Davenport, Thomas H. & Laurence Prusak (1998): “Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know”. Harvard Business School Press.

Deming; W. E. (1992): “The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education”, 2nd edition, The MIT Press: Cambridge; Massachusettes.

Drucker, P. (1999): “Knowledge-Worker Productivity: The Biggest Challenge.” California Management Review, 41 (2), 79-94.

Fontana, Andrea and Frey, James H., (1994): ”Interviewing: The Art of Science”. In: N. K. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 361-376.

Grant, R. (1997): “The Knowledge-based View of the Firm: Implications for Management Practice”, Long Range Planning, vol.30. no.3, pp450-454

Hanseth, O. & Monteiro, E. (1998): “Understanding Information Infrastructure”, Oslo.

Hariharan Arun (2002): “Knowledge Management: A Strategic Tool”. In Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, December 2002.Available: http://www.tlainc.com/articl46.html, [Accessed 11th of April 2005]

Hodder Ian (1994): “The interpretation of documents and material culture”. In Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Newbury Park. Pp.393-403.

IBM Research. (2001): “Knowledge management technology“. Available: http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/marwick.html [Accessed 10th of April 2005].

Latour, B. (1987): “Science in Action”, Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusettes.

Lee, A. (1991). “A Guide to Selected References on Hermeneutics”. Available: http://www.people.vcu.edu/~aslee/herm.htm [Accessed 11th of May 2006].

Manning P.,K., Cullum-Swan B.,(1994): “Narrative, Content and semiotic analysis” In Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Sage, Newbury Park. Pp.393-403.


http://www.people.vcu.edu/~aslee/herm.htm

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/marwick.html

http://www.tlainc.com/articl46.html


Mintzberg, Henry (1979): “The Structuring of Organizations” New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs. Prentice-Hall.

Mintzberg, Henry (1983): “Structures in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations” Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Monteiro, E. (2000): “Actor-Network Theory and Information Infrastructure” in Ciborra, C. U. & Hanseth, O. (Eds.) From Control to Drift, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Nonaka, Ikujiro (1995): “Dynamic theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation” Organization Science , Vol.5, No. 1, pp 14-37

Patton, Michael Quinn(1987): “How to use qualitative methods in evaluation: Chapter 5 Depth interviewing” Sage Publications (USA)

Rumizen, M.C, Sandvik, E., Rafn, C.H., Berg, T.A. (2003): “Praktisk veiledning i Knowledge Management.” Mindstep, Oslo.

Sherkenbach, W. W. (1986): “The Deming Route to Quality and Productivity: Road maps and roadblocks”, Quality Management Press: New York.

Skattedirektoratet (1998): “Strategisk plan for bruk av IT i skatteetaten”, SKD nr 62/96, Oslo.

Skattedirektoratet (2001): ”Strategi, politikk og standarder for informasjonssikkerhet i skatteetaten”, SKD nr 30/00, Oslo.

Skattedirektoratet (2005): ”Stokastisk modell for forvaltningsløp PSA-2004 til støtte for håndtering av klarsignal”, SKD 2005-012, Oslo.

Skatteetaten (2006) online at http://www.skatteetaten.no, download 09052006

Snow, C. P. (1964): ”The Two Cultures: A Second Look”, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Stabell C .,B., Fjeldstad Ø. (1998) ”Configuring value for competitive advantage: On chains, shops and networks.” In: Strategic Management Journal. Vol. 19, (1998) No. 5. pp. 413-437. ISSN 0143-2095

Statskonsult (2002): “Organisering av IT-funksjonen i Skatteetaten”, 2002:13, Oslo.

Turban, E., McLean, E. & Wetherbe, J. (2002): “Information Technology for Management 3rd edition.” USA: John Wiley.

Vincent C., Rivierre M., Cook M. (2005): “Group Task INF5250: Describing an organization Opera.”


http://www.skatteetaten.no/


Wikipedia (2005) online at http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatteetaten Downloaded 09052006


http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatteetaten

Date post:	24-Mar-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

1heim.ifi.uio.no/~petterog/Kurs/INF5190/INF5190_NTAX_v0.4.doc · Web view7 Conclusion 26. 8...

Documents