A Holistic Approach to Successful Knowledge Management

Introduction

There has been growing pessimism in recent years regarding the effectiveness of knowledge management in the workplace. Google Trends even suggests that “knowledge management” is a rarely used keyword now, and in Bain’s Management Tools and Trends survey, it fails to list in the Top 25 in the 2015 surveys list as it had in the past (Rob Corrao, 2013). It is hypothesized that one of the main reasons is that many companies have employed a one-size-fits-all approach to a very complex problem that addresses only one or perhaps only an aspect of a particular knowledge learning mechanism. One often cited and employed solution to knowledge management is the creation of a central IT database, which allows employees to readily store and retrieve data, information, and knowledge in explicit, documented form. On the surface, it has indisputable value, however, in reality a centralized IT knowledge database only relates to a single knowledge learning mechanism; the sharing and internalizing of explicit knowledge for the development of new tacit knowledge. This report focuses on identifying a more comprehensive knowledge management solution for businesses to employ by first identifying the different knowledge learning mechanisms through which employees learn, assessing their individual importance and the associated challenges in creating a highly effective sharing and learning environment thru the identification of a key set of workplace activities, seeking out plausible reasons why knowledge management company initiatives often fail in order to uncover the true enablers of success, and finally to provide a set of recommendations that will increase the likelihood of knowledge management success for companies and organizations alike.

Learning Mechanisms

Ikujiro Nonaka is well-known for his theory entitled the “Spiral of Knowledge”, which helps to explain how knowledge and learning progress through four main stages (See Appendix I for more details). These four main stages, which are viewed and will henceforth be referred to as the main knowledge learning mechanisms for employees, are 1) Tacit to Tacit communications in which individual implicit knowledge is transferred to another individual or group of individuals as implicit knowledge, 2) Explicit to Explicit communications in which individuals share explicit information with each other, 3) Tacit to Explicit communications in which individuals transfer tacit knowledge into an explicit form like a report or document, and 4) Explicit to Tacit communications in which individuals internalize explicit knowledge thereby expanding their individual tacit knowledge base. It is posited that these stages can also be viewed as the main knowledge learning mechanisms through which employees are able to share and learn with others and of which, particular mechanisms may be more conducive to learning by certain employee personality types. It is generally known that people learn most effectively in a variety of different ways, and there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to learning. As is the case, different knowledge management tools and solutions should be identified, developed, and made readily accessible to employees in order to maximize the depth of knowledge sharing and learning throughout a business.

Sharing & Learning Activities

Based on my own 15 years of work experience, I have identified eight main sharing and learning activity types, which employ the use of one or more of the aforementioned learning mechanisms.  In 1996, I began work at Ford Motor Company as a fresh college graduate enrolled in its Ford College Graduate program, in which I was rotated every four months to another engineering related job position located within a different business unit. During the first ten months, I worked in three different job positions learning a variety of new skills relating to vehicle component design, structural analysis and computer aided design software, customer preference surveys, competitive benchmarking, and project management.  Most of my learning was gained through (1) Learning by Self-Study, which requires a conversion of explicit to tacit knowledge. I often found myself engaged in long hours studying a variety of engineering software package manuals. Although self-learning is ideally suited to my cognitive learning personality, other employees voiced their preference to having (2) 1-on-1 Mentoring or (3) Formal Class Instruction provided. 1-on-1 Mentoring involves tacit to tacit knowledge transfer, and can also include explicit to explicit transfer such as document sharing as well as subsequent explicit to tacit transfer through teaching. The issue with 1-on-1 mentoring however, is that depending on the subject, there may be a limited number of available mentors to meet demand or have a limited number of suitable mentors within the organization. Furthermore, there may be a lack of interest on the part of others due to such issues as knowledge hoarding and job protection, or even those whose personalities are not ideally suited to teaching. For these cases, one alternative would be to enroll selected employees in formal training. Although the learning mechanisms for formal class instruction are the same as those for 1-on-1 mentoring, it does require an extensive evaluation and decision process for selecting course instructors, planning and gaining approval for an adequate training budget, and dealing with potential backlash regarding how participants and the type of class are selected.  

After 10 months working in the Ford College Graduate (FCG) program, I decided to leave and join Caterpillar, Inc., where I entered as a an entry level component design engineer for Track Type Tractors cabs and controls.  In this job position, I was expected to contribute right away and was given important design responsibilities as part of the World-Wide Track Type Tractor New Product Introduction (NPI) team. In order to meet such high work expectations in a fast-paced and pressure filled environment in which I had no prior experience, I was no longer able to rely solely on self-learning to succeed. I instead actively sought out experienced people in my work section for (2) 1-on-1 Mentoring guidance and advice, and engaged in opportunities to spend time on the shop floor where I was able to (4) Learn by Observing. As I was afforded direct interaction with the cross-functional team via weekly meetings, video conferences, email chains, and phone calls, I was also able to (5) Learn by Teaming.  Furthermore, as is my nature, I often experimented with new design ideas that provided invaluable experience and knowledge via (6) Learning by Doing. 

Learning by Observing involves tacit to tacit knowledge transfer, which requires opportunities to observe more experienced employees engaged in specific work activities. Managers can actively work to create observation type opportunities for their employees by making arrangements with relevant cross-functional teams. More proactive employees may also seek these types of opportunities on their own.   Learning by Teaming can be a very effective way to transfer knowledge from one team member to other(s) via tacit to tacit, explicit to explicit, and explicit to tacit forms. However, this is highly dependent on how well a company’s culture promotes genuine collaboration among its employees.  Learning by Doing is an explicit to tacit transfer of knowledge, which can greatly accelerate the speed at which an employee is able to progress up along the learning curve. Managers however, also play an important role to empower lower level employees to make their own decisions and to tolerate failures from time to time, viewing and acting upon such occurrences as positive employee and organizational learning experiences. 

As I progressed through a variety of positions over the course of the next 8 years, I moved to Qingdao, China to take part in a Joint Venture between Caterpillar and a Chinese Wheel Loader Manufacturer located in Qingzhou. My initial assignment was to lead multiple engineering teams and to mentor a variety of Chinese design engineers on best practices focused on improving product quality and brand image. After nearly a decade of work, the knowledge transfer process had come full circle as I had progressed from the role of knowledge seeker to that of knowledge mentor. My work performance was now being evaluated according to my effectiveness as a leader and teacher, my ability to raise current engineering skill and knowledge levels for JV partner engineers, and my ability to deliver significant benefits in both product cost and quality.  In order to prepare for these new work responsibilities, my first step was to document important engineering design guidelines, basic work processes, best practices, and 6 Sigma methodologies.  Although considerable time and energy were expended in preparing materials, (7) Learning by Documenting, which converts tacit to explicit knowledge, not only helped reinforce my own knowledge but also contributed to an even deeper understanding of the subject matter. Over the course of the next five years, I was able to impart much knowledge to this JV partner, which was acquired by Caterpillar in 2006, in the form of weekly team meetings, periodic best practice seminar presentations, 6 Sigma training classes, hands-on demonstrations, and other informal sharing and learning activities. Curiously, what I discovered was that no matter how well I prepared, I always learned something new via each teaching opportunity, whether it was thru the insightful questions posed by engineers, my own thought induced questions, or the further development of my own teaching skills. I personally view (8) Learning by Teaching as a key learning activity in that it has the unique ability to elevate individual tacit understanding to an even higher level by reinforcing and building upon existing knowledge levels.  It should also be noted that in order to maximize the effectiveness of Learning by Documenting and Learning by Teaching, these mentoring responsibilities need to be clearly specified in employee job descriptions along with the goals and rewards, in order to effectively drive the desired behaviors and motivate employees.

 This section of the report identified eight different sharing and learning activities that each incorporate one or more of the four basic learning mechanisms (see Appendix II for more details). This analysis was based on my own personal work experiences beginning in 1996, when I was a fresh new college graduate, to 2012, the time at which I began full-time studies.

Reasons for KM Failures

The failure rate of Knowledge Management is astonishingly high as estimates put the figure at around 50% with 75% of businesses abandoning new knowledge management systems within just three years (Lori Mankin, 2015). Before seeking out plausible reasons that may help explain this exceptionally high failure rate, it must first be recognized that knowledge management includes a number of distinct components such as knowledge creation, knowledge seeking, knowledge capture, knowledge consolidation, and knowledge re-use. Furthermore, for it to be effective, there must be visible knowledge sharing that enables the end business goals to be attained, that is, continuous performance improvement and the ability to leverage and transfer knowledge to solve a variety of business and operational challenges, as well as prudent decision making, all on an ongoing and sustainable basis (Lee, 2015).

There is a common thread underlying the potential success of knowledge management and this has all to do with people relationships. In typical work environments, co-workers are not known to readily share knowledge with those whom they do not have an existing relationship. Knowledge sharing is a highly social activity that requires genuine cooperation, encouragement, and collaboration for it to be effective. However, as most business people can relate, management practices in general, place much greater emphasis on efficiencies and results. If management is indeed serious about its knowledge management goals, it is then imperative that they work to drive towards a values based culture that is conducive to building close-knit relationships among its employees, ensuring free and open expression of opinions, and bridging the many aspects of life that tend to create distance between people.  When people truly care about and trust each other, they are much more willing to share knowledge. Get relationships ‘right’ and knowledge ‘flows’ (Addleson, 2012). Gilbert Probst, a well-known professor at the University of Geneva, Switzerland had the foresight to recognize back in 1998 that although the “dramatic development of the Internet will revolutionize our use of and access to information… no purely technological approach will solve transparency problems… Knowledge management must integrate human beings, and human beings do not externalize their knowledge in computer systems, but need personal contacts and discussions.” (Gilbert Probst, 1998)

The specific issues that make knowledge sharing such a challenge fall into two basic categories; the first relates to the emotional resistance of employees to share based on real or perceived threats while the second relates to rational resistance based on situations or logic. The emotional resistance of employees to share can be attributed to reasons such as knowledge hoarding to maintain perceived organizational value, culture based communication boundaries across lower or higher levels in the organizational hierarchy, deep-rooted anxiety to ask others for help due to perceived weakness, credibility loss, or even an uncomfortable sense of indebtedness, or a general uneasiness of change due to the uncertainty of how that change may impact one’s work performance level. In addition to those employees who are more emotionally resistant to share knowledge and collaborate, there are also those employees who tend to be more rationally resistant due to what they perceive as limited personal value, i.e. what’s in it for me (WIIFM), reluctance on the part of those mandating or effecting the change to share, micro-managers who stifle employee autonomy thereby impairing cross-boundary communications, large geographical distances and cultural differences to bridge with other regional country office employees, ineffective or insufficient knowledge sharing and collaboration tools at one’s disposal, or insufficient available work time to actively share and collaborate due to the proliferation of meetings and emails.

A values-based company culture fosters the development of genuine people relationships, which serves as the foundation for a true sharing and learning organization.  It wields the power to greatly reduce fear and insecurity levels among its employees leading to more open information sharing and teaming.  Likewise, communication barriers existing inside and among divisions, regional offices, cross-functional groups, and management hierarchies will be reduced, which will encourage and empower employees to seek out innovative, balanced, and comprehensive solutions due to a more accessible and diverse knowledge base. Of course, building such a company culture is contingent on first hiring the right people, whose intrinsic core values are aligned to those of the organization.  Building a values-based company culture and hiring the right people are the key enablers of successful knowledge management for an organization. Simply providing and mandating the use of new IT tools and processes will not by themselves bring about success.

Conclusions

This report was divided into four main sections, the first of which was a discussion on basic learning mechanisms detailing the four main ways that people learn. The next section identified eight types of sharing and learning activities via an analysis of my personal work experience, in which I began as an entry level design engineer in a college graduate rotational program and progressed through a number of positions and several companies over the course of 15 years. These sharing and learning activities were then linked to one or more of the four learning mechanisms, where it was recognized that different people favor different ways of learning and that their preferences may change over time according to the current stage of their own career. The next section sought out reasons to explain the high reported failure rate of company knowledge management initiatives. A list of reasons why people do not readily share knowledge with others were identified and classified as emotional resistance or rational resistance. Through this analysis, it became apparent that company culture and hiring the right people are indeed the key enablers of organizational sharing and learning activities among employees, which of course are the real drivers of business performance. It was also recognized that although knowledge management tools such as IT infrastructure, processes, and software packages can all play an important role, they are merely tools to facilitate sharing and collaboration that, by themselves, do not enable knowledge management success.

Recommendations

As highlighted previously, company culture and people determine the extent to which organizational sharing and learning activities can succeed. Both company culture and people must be aligned to a set of core company values that are not just preached but practiced day in and day out until it becomes the accepted and expected way of work. These values must reflect open information sharing, respect for others and freely voiced opinions, trust, integrity, commitment, and accountability, that all serve as the foundation for a true values based company culture. In addition, management should view and act upon failed projects or initiatives as positive learning experiences to encourage continued innovation, paradigm shifting, and informed risk-taking among its employees. Efforts should also focus on reducing cross-discipline, geographical, cultural, and language barriers by implementing such measures as to flatten organizational structures and create truly global project teams. Holding annual award ceremonies are also important to recognize and reward deserving individuals and teams, as well as to drive desired behaviors and build company morale throughout the company.  

To further facilitate organizational sharing and learning, the company should devise a system to identify experienced employees who are suitable mentor candidates, to provide training, and to then integrate training activities into their formal work responsibilities. It is also essential for companies to tie managerial performance to employees’ learning goals (e.g. informal and formal training, observational learning, and teaching opportunities), in addition to providing a KM system that is easy to use (easy navigation, good search capabilities, effective use of tagging, directory of authors and knowledge experts / mentors, live Q&A forum, standardized report forms to facilitate documentation), and sponsoring periodic company forums that assemble employees from around the world to share and learn.