Sesi 14 km future

FUTURE CHALLENGES for

KM

CHAPTER 11

Kimiz Dalkir

2005

Partono Arif 2014

Describe five major types of information politics model

Define the paradox of value and its impacts towards the design of KM solutions

Compare the different ways for incentives for knowledge sharing

List the key challenges for recent and future KM and how to address them

09 Desember 2014 KM Teaching Group - Universitas TELKOM 2

Partono Arif 2014

Several challenges in KM ;

Not focusing on people

Overemphasize on technology

Cultural issues

Conducting KM not according to business goals

Ignoring the dynamic aspect of content

Opting quantity from quality


Partono Arif 2014

KM concept should consider the employee as the owner of the knowledge & experiences

Company should reward the employee who willing to share quality knowledge

KM is not technology based.

There is no all inclusive KM solutions

KM should based on (before choosing the technology)

Who (people)

What (knowledge)

Why (business)


Partono Arif 2014

Succesfull KM begin with sound strategy combined with organization culture that enable and reward the sharing

KM program had no end point, and should identify the gems from the rocks

Critical issues discussed

Access issues. The politic and regulations regarding access to information

Organizational issues. Fostering the culture of sharing

Valuing issues. The impact of shifting from resource-based asset to knowledge-based


Partono Arif 2014

Organizations tends to keep everything, believing that someday someone will need it

But, how easy that someone retrieve it is the question


Partono Arif 2014

5 model of information politic to characterize the politic of organization & context ;

Technocratic utopianism (data)

Anarchy (information - individual)

Feudalism (information – group)

Monarchy (top down)

Federalism (interactive - selfmanage)


Partono Arif 2014

Technocratic utopianism

Heavily technical approach is taken to information and knowledge management stressing categorization and the modeling of an organization’s full information assets

Often in the form of an exhaustive inventory.

There is heavy reliance on emerging technologies, and content tends to be driven by the information system.

The focus is on detailed corporate data rather than knowledge.

Using assumption that technology will resolve all problems, with the consequence that little attention is paid to content and its use.

Data is perceived as a corporate asset.


Partono Arif 2014

Anarchy

Absence of overall information management policy.

Individuals are left to their own devices to obtain and manage their own information, which is made possible by the introduction of the personal computer.

Anarchy models are often seen in early stages of start-ups.

They stand at the opposite end of the spectrum from the technocratic model with little if any classification of corporate information possible (e.g., of revenues, costs, and customer order levels).

Rarely represents a conscious choice but tends to evolve into some sort of order.


Partono Arif 2014

Feudalism

Based on the management of information by individual business units or functions

They define their own information needs and report only limited information to the overall corporation.

This is the most commonly encountered model, with its emphasis on “the control of information” and “knowledge is power.”

The “king” decides on content, language, format, distribution list, and the analysis.

Key organizational and environmental information is often ignored, and it is quite difficult to make informed decisions


Partono Arif 2014

Monarchy

The firm’s leaders define information categories & reporting structures and may or may not share the information willingly after having collected it.

The CEO, dictates the rules for how information will be managed.

This model represents an extreme top-down model that is commonly found in entrepreneurial profiles and among small business owners and micromanagers.

This model is appropriate when consensus cannot be reached.


Partono Arif 2014

Monarchy

A constitutional monarchy can evolve directly from feudalism or monarchies.

There is a document (a “Magna Carta”)—an information management charter—that states the monarch’s limitations.

This document identifies what information will be collected, rules, processes, platforms, common vocabulary, and so on.


Partono Arif 2014

Federalism

Emphasizes an approach to information management based on consensus and negotiation on the organization’s key information elements and reporting structures.

The preferred model for most intellectual capital management applications

It makes extensive use of negotiation to bring potentially competing and noncompeting parties together.

People with different interests work out among themselves a collective purpose and a means of achieving it.


Partono Arif 2014

Federalism

Requires strong (but not too strong) central leadership and a culture of trust, cooperation, and learning.

Understanding the value of information and the technology that stores, manipulates, and distributes it.

Federalism encourages the use of cooperative information resources to create a shared information vision for genuine leveraging of a firm’s knowledge assets in the form of data marts, not exhaustive data warehouses.

This model is also a very good fit with communities of practice.


Partono Arif 2014

Organizational diagnostics

• Assessment of the prevailing culture, attitudes toward knowledge (sharing vs. hoarding), & the reward systems that can help understand the level of KM readiness that exists within a given organization

Key of the KM-enabled culture lies with incentives to promote knowledge sharing.

Culture remains one of the critical KM issues to be addressed, and change management increasingly goes hand in hand with any KM objective.


Partono Arif 2014

Knowledge workers need to have a climate in which knowledge sharing is encouraged

Incentives remain one of the more important challenges facing KM today.

Human are purposeful creatures (tend to continue to exhibit behaviors associated with positive rewards & avoid those that lead to negative consequences)

It seems reasonable to expect that incentives for knowledge sharing should lead to more sharing of knowledge.


Partono Arif 2014

What is perceived as a reward by some may be seen as an insult by others

The reward should fit the person being rewarded. At a minimum, employees should be allowed to choose their reward from a list of possibilities

Types of incentives (Callahan, 2004) ;

Remunerative incentives

Moral incentives

Coercive incentives


Partono Arif 2014

Remunerative incentives

Exist where an agent can expect some form of material reward—especially money—in exchange for acting in a particular way.

Moral incentives

exist where a particular choice is widely regarded as the right thing to do, or as particularly admirable, or where the failure to act in a certain way is condemned as indecent.

A person acting on a moral incentive can expect a sense of self-esteem and approval or even admiration from her community; a person acting against a moral incentive can expect a sense of guilt and condemnation, or even ostracism, from the community


Partono Arif 2014

Coercive incentives

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


Partono Arif 2014

If there is no economic, social, or personal incentive for any individual - the work usually will not done

Value of knowledge sharing should be reflected in the ongoing personnel evaluation, periodic merit review, or pay bonuses of the organization, so that everyone can see that knowledge sharing is one of the principal behaviors that the organization encourages and rewards

Informal incentives, (recognition by management & visibility within the organization) can be more powerful incentives than the formal incentive system


Partono Arif 2014

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


Partono Arif 2014

The paradox of value

The easier it is to extract the knowledge, the less value it actually embodies.

The greater the tacitness of knowledge, the greater its value

Knowledge assets are a source of competitive advantage

The way to translate the knowledge into a competitive advantage is not well understood.

Obtaining this advantage does not happen automatically—a firm has to know how to extract value from knowledge assets


Partono Arif 2014

Costs of knowledge

Data processing and data transmission costs.

Codification costs due to searching, selections made under uncertainty.

Abstraction costs arising from generalizing knowledge over wider problem spaces.

Diffusion costs when communicating with potentially large audiences in ways that can be understood and can lead to effective responses.

Absorption costs when getting potential recipients of new knowledge to internalize it and familiarize themselves with it.

Costs of applying internalized knowledge in a variety of concrete situations


Partono Arif 2014

Another paradox of KM knowledge transfer does not require physical contiguity. It does require codification and abstraction, however.

One should only select information with potential value and utility that will justify the time and effort required.

The more “transferable” the knowledge, the less scarce it becomes.

3 types of intellectual capital needed

Human capital

Customer capital

Organizational capital09 Desember 2014 KM Teaching Group - Universitas TELKOM 24

Partono Arif 2014

Intellectual capital the relationship between human, customer, and organizational capital that maximizes the organization’s potential to create value

What did Gordon Petras does at Dow Chemical (find it on p.315)


Partono Arif 2014

Knowledge can be divested by ;

Selling, licensing, and donating a patent.

Spinning off or selling a business unit.

Outsourcing a function of the operating process.

Terminating a training program.

Retaining, relocating, or firing individuals with obsolete or ill-fitted skills.

Replacing or upgrading information technology systems.

Terminating partnerships, alliances, and contracts


Partono Arif 2014

The KM “quick fix” needed but often resut in misleading

The return on KM investments should not be perceived exclusively as short-term gains but rather should be seen as long-term process, people, and organizational improvements.

One medicine can’t cure all

Too many requirement (culture, maturity, …..)


Partono Arif 2014

Date post:	15-Jul-2015
Category:	Leadership & Management
Upload:	arif-partono
View:	172 times
Download:	3 times

Sesi 14 km future

Leadership & Management