Is rewards neccessary for KM sharing?

An integral part of any organization today is it’s rewards and recognition program. Regardless of the frequency, the goal is to ensure that the employee feels appreciated and that his/her work has not gone unnoticed. It also serves as a great way of pushing people to do better.

The bottom line is to figure out ways to motivate your people, and with Knowledge Management it is no different. One of the biggest challenges in Knowledge Management these days is getting people actively involved.

Unlike other initiatives which use a mix of the carrot and stick approach, KM can only be promoted using the carrot, you need to have passionate and motivated people at the helm if you want great results. Getting them on board by any means is what you should be aiming to do.

Now the challenge is, what motivates the average users to contribute towards the system? Is it the rewards or the recognition? While i do believe the latter is more coveted from what I’ve seen its a balance between both.

However, for the long term sustainability of any KM initiative there has to a be focused move from a rewards based system to one of recognition. For one, its cheaper , second and more importantly, studies done in corporates have shown that the single largest motivator amongst employees is recognition by their peers and superiors.

Knowledge Management is that perfect platform that enables even the youngest of employees’ to show case their ideas and talents on a corporate platform. It ensures that if you are good at what you do, your voice isn’t lost in the crowd. This, i feel is the biggest selling point of KM to the average employee. It goes without saying there has to be merit in the KM program itself and the benefits it brings.

Some examples of non-cash rewards systems for sharing knowledge include yahoo answers, wikipedia, open-source mass collabouration projects etc.

Janina Kugel and Cornelia Schostek (2004) found monetary rewards seem to have an immediate effect on motivation to share knowledge. Nevertheless, the quality of the knowledge shared can be inferior, and the attitude that knowledge is a private and non collective good is enforced. Once knowledge is shared only because monetary rewards are obtained, knowledge sharing will decrease when these rewards are withdrawn. Additionally to these consequences, high costs led us to focus on non monetary rewards that may not have an immediate, but a long-term impact on motivation. Therefore the use of monetary incentives should only be used with cautious. We believe that it could be considered a good incentive at the beginning of a knowledge management system to obtain a critical mass for a community, but should not be in place for a long time to avoid the negative effects

References :

Arjun Thomas | January 16, 2009, Rewards and Recognization for KM, http://pmtips.net/rewards-recognition-knowledge-management/

Janina KugelCornelia Schostek (2004), Rewards for knowledge sharing? http://www.gurteen.com/gurteen/gurteen.nsf/id/rewards-k-sharing

Organization Culture and KM

In relation to the organizational culture this is a key barrier to success. Culture is generally defined as the beliefs, values, norms, and behaviours that are unique to an organization. In other words, “the unwritten rules” and “how work gets done around here”.

The development of a knowledge-sharing culture relies on:

- shared vision;

- value-based leadership at all levels;

- open and continuous communication;

- rewards and recognition.

The essential point is that the collective goal is shared by individuals who share the mission of that good and, with freedom and honesty, contribute to a conversation about how to realize that mission.

Values-based leadership has a significant impact on an organization. Each organization needs to decide which leadership values will drive its functioning. Once these values have been established, specific behavioural options present themselves. After options have been taken, the results can be measured to determine whether the organization is headed in the direction it desires.

If people are not confident that they can or should communicate freely, then all the best technology will be unable to pry knowledge out of them, or help them absorb knowledge. Most managers agree that there is a definite requirement for a minimum threshold of trust, collaboration, and collective sense of ownership for knowledge to contribute to the creation of value.

In many cultures, motivation through pay will not work. Rewards, recognitions, and incentives are that people will be able to expand their sphere of communication, their sphere of influence in turn, and potentially their sphere of responsibility through promotion.

In conclusion, a knowledge-sharing culture is based on the beliefs, attitudes and customs that exist within an organization.

References

Gonçalo Jorge Morais da Costa and Nuno Miguel Araújo da Silva,Failure in knowledge management: whose is the ethical responsibility? [Online], [Available]. http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/raec/ethicomp5/docs/htm_papers/46Morais%20da%20Costa,%20Gon%E7alo%20Jorge.htm

Combination in Organization

Combination is a process in Nonoka theory of knowledge creation where explicit knowledge are combined to created new explicit knowledge. However, in most organizations, the explicit knowledge are used by humans as information for learning and evaluation, and seldom as a source of knowledge.

Without human intervention, is it possible for combination to take place? How do AI technologies help to support combinations?

Socialization in Organization Culture

Handzic and Chaimungkalanont (2004) notes that most of the KM initiatives focused on the use of IT to support KM, but little attention is focused on socialization in organization culture. Socialisation forms a vital component of Nonaka’s (1998) knowledge creation model and involves the transfer of knowledge between employees through socializing.

Handzic and Chaimungkalanot (2004) study shown a strong and significant positive relationship between informal as well as organised forms of socialisation and creativity in knowledge creation. The results also indicate that informal socialisation had a stronger positive effect on creativity than organised socialisation. These findings confirm the value of socialisation in innovative organisations, and suggest the need for culture that would provide for its encouragement.

How do you create a workplace culture that provides opportunities for socialization?


References:

Handzic M and Chaimungkalanont M (2004), “Enhancing Organisational Creativity through
Socialisation” The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 2 Issue 1, pp 57-64,
available online at www.ejkm.com

Power and structural influence in organization culture

Cultural issues are known to impact attitudes towards divergent thinking (ATDT), and this increased misunderstading when knowledge is shared. The nature of the explicit knowledge means that it is highly subjected to interpretation, and two individuals reading the same documents may interpret them differently.

ATDT is also likely to be influenced by one’s supervisor’s attitude. The amount of structure that supervisors initiate for their subordinates is likely to have a direct, negative effect on subordinates’ divergent thinking, and may also affect divergent thinking indirectly by influencing subordinates’ ATDT. Results generally support the model. Openness to experience and ATDT are positively associated with employees’ creative performance. In addition, some support is provided for a negative relationship between initiating structure and subordinates’ ATDT.

Does supervisors and structures influence the cultural aspects that may result in failure of knowledge management initiatives?

References:

S.D. Williams, Personality, attitude, and leader influences on divergent thinking and creativity in organizations, European Journal of Innovation Management Volume 7 · Number 3 · 2004 · pp. 187-204

How willing are CEOs willing to change Organization Culture to Support KM?

Storey and Barnett (2000) noted the following:

For example, an Ernst & Young survey of 431 US and European organizations conducted in 1997 found that the biggest reported difficulties were ``changing people's behaviour'', and the existence of an inappropriate ``organizational culture'' (Ruggles, 1998). Likewise, in his classic Fortune magazine article, ``Brainpower'', Thomas Stewart (1991) argued that getting results from investing in knowledge requires ``a corporate culture that allows it to flow freely, which means breaking down hierarchies and getting rid of rules that stifle new ideas''.

Story and Barnett (2000) demonstrated that knowledge management initiatives are prone to fail even when they are reasonably well resourced and there appears to be ample commitment from top management. They found that as long as KM appeared simply to be an add-on to the existing
organization and seemed to promise greater efficiency through the freer flow of information, the support of top management was very evident. However, the commitment did not extend to
a concerted willingness to overturn deeply ingrained cultural practices of the organization.

Does having new knowledge management initiatives require changes in organization culture?

References:

John Storey and Elizabeth Barnett, Knowledge management initiatives: learning from failure, Journal of Knowledge Management Volume 4 . Number 2 . 2000 . pp. 145±156

How do ensure cultural issues are in place to support KM initiatives?

Peyman et al (2005) examined some cause of failure for knowledge management initiative. They found that lack top management support, lack of direction from leaders, trend to influence KM failure. They also stressed the culture played a part in the demise of the KM project in that cultural issues are not in place to support the KM initiative.

How do you ensure that cultural issues are in place to support KM initiatives?


References

Peyman Akhavan , Mostafa Jafari, Mohammad Fathian, Exploring Failure-Factors Of Implementing Knowledge Management Systems In Organizations, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, May 2005

Power of Actors in Culture Environment influence Knowledge Sharing

Hall (2009) examines the impact of power on organization culture that impacts knowledge management initiatives.

As an example, Hall (2009) notes that knowledge management staff could be encouraged to devise means of promoting their work as more than an administrative burden.

However, due to power play and insufficient power by the knowledge management staff, these knowledge management initiatives may be ignored.

For example, in an organisation that trades on the qualifications of a specific set of professional staff, employees with professional qualifications that are not directly related to the revenue-generating activity are unlikely to enjoy a similar level of status. This means that they are not well placed to encourage their colleagues to comply with their wishes, for example, knowledge management staff find it difficult to persuade accountants to adopt corporate-wide tools for knowledge sharing.

Hall (2009) concluded that is therefore important to recognise the degree to which the organisational power of the knowledge management function can be enhanced, and how to devise strategies to compensate for circumstances that are difficult, or impossible, to change.

What do you think? How does power plays up?

Reference

Dr Hazel Hall, KM, culture and compromise: Devising practical interventions to promote knowledge sharing in corporate environments, [Online],[Available], [Accessed on 24 Feb 2009],
http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~hazelh/esis/hall_ebic_05.pdf

Resistance to sharing knowledge

A classmate of mine recently remarked.

"I onced have a new manager, and he insists on my writing all I know to share with my colleagues. I was so sure that I am going to be fired or retrenched after I had shared everything I know."

While tacit knowledge is common in organizations, the difficulty is convincing people to share knowledge. For some reasons, most people resist sharing knowledge. How do you hope to have a culture of sharing?

This prompt a look at the organization culture.

• Is there a culture of sharing in place?
• Is there communication on what the procedures will be used for, and assuring my classmate that he will not be retrenched?
• Is rewards neccessary for encouraging people to share?
• Does hiring the candidate with the right mindset impact the culture of sharing or can a candidate be trained to adopt a culture of sharing?
• How do you make more people share what they know willingly?

A Framework for substaining KM culture

Milton (2007) proposed a set of framework for substaining the KM Culture. In his post, he proposed that a success substaining of KM culture will need the following:

• A set of clear corporate expectations for how knowledge will be managed in the organisation, including accountabilities for the ownership of key knowledge areas, and the definition of corporate standards for KM;
• A knowledge-management system, providing the means by which knowledge can be managed. This is not just an IT system, but a holistic management system, which will include:
  • Roles for knowledge management;
  • Processes for capturing, organising, accessing and communicating knowledge;
  • Technologies for capturing, organising, accessing and communicating knowledge.
• A person or team monitoring and measuring the application of KM to make sure that people are delivering what is expected of them and applying the system in the way that they are expected to; to identify the need for new interventions to improve the KM system; and, to ensure a continuous improvement in the ability of the organisation to manage strategic knowledge.

Is this framework enough to substain the knowledge culture? What happens in the scenerio?

1. Knowledge management is introduced with a fanfare and management support;
   The implementation team is established, with budgets and targets;
2. It delivers some successful, high-profile pilots in particular areas of the business, and introduces some new technologies and processes;
3. The implementation team realises that implementing KM enterprise-wide will be slower and more difficult than anticipated;
4. Management loses patience and declares victory anyway, prematurely closing down the implementation team;
5. KM continues for a while, sustained by enthusiasts and champions, but never becomes an established management discipline and gradually fades away.

What are missing from the framework for KM Culture ?

References

Nick Milton, Substaining the KM Culture Change, Inside Knowledge - 8 Mar 2007 in Volume 10 Issue 6, http://www.ikmagazine.com/xq/asp/txtSearch.CRM/exactphrase.1/sid.0/articleid.07E5C798-7557-4C93-9CE6-107EFD1AFCF1/qx/display.htm

Overcoming resistance to a KM culture

Robinson (2003) identified some means of overcoming resistance to a KM Culture. In her article, she quoted 7 suggestions for overcoming the resistance to KM culture,

1. Vision and Communication - Robinson (2003) believes that having a vision and communicating the vision helps to reduce resistance to KM culture.

2. Developing the Infrastructure - Robinson (2003) believes that having the right infrastructure helps to push KM initiatives.

3. Risk and content management - Robinson (2003) identified risks in content being outdated and obsoleted. Therefore to ensure that knowledge is being shared, the content should be ideally updated .. which bring us to the next point..

4. Roles and Responsibilities - Robinson (2003) believes that having clearly defined roles and responsibilities help to faciliate the knowledge sharing culture by ensuring that who is responsible for updating and informing everyone of changes.

5. Leadership - Robinson (2003) believes that the top management will influence the adoption of the KM. If the leaders does not support the KM initiative, the KM is likely to fail.

6. Networks and Communities - Robinson (2003) noticed that networks and communities trend to influence staff, and by setting up communities of knowledge sharing, there are less resistance to change.

7. Valuing information - Robinson (2003) believes that there should be metrics in place to determine the value of KM.


what do you think? Do you think the above are enough to overcome resistance to KM culture?

References:

Heather Robinson , Overcoming Resistance to a KM culture, Managing Partners, Volume 5 Issue 9, 19 Feb 2003, [Online], [Accessed on 16 Feb 2009], [Available], http://www.mpmagazine.com/xq/asp/sid.0/articleid.407AF6CE-E459-4264-9C76-79DACB721292/eTitle.Overcoming_resistance_to_a_KM_culture/qx/display.htm

Dr. Dan's Daily Dose

In his post on knowledge management manates at , Dr Dan is of the opinon that mandating Knowledge Management implementation will probably produce the same results as with any other organizational mandate. Failure to address the organizational cultural issues will result in being unaware of the many factors that will inhibit (or encourage) successful Knowledge Management implementation. The end result will probably be ineffective KM implementation. He illustrated the failure of mandates in ensuring knowledge management.

Learning Points

1. Compulsory KM is not going to work because when individuals are "forced" to contribute the GIGO effect raises its ugly head.

2. KM has a strong organizational change component but I also belive that the technology has a place. When individuals are required to adopt new and often difficult to use knowledge management systems there is an inherent barier to adoption. It essentially means that when knowledge is more difficult to share electronically than it is through traditional means the technology will be underutilized and KM objectives cannot be met or measured. So no matter how much time and effort is focused on the change piece a cumbersome technical component will kill the deal.

3. Leadership will have a much easier time promoting KM when they can appreciably demonstrate the value to the end users. End users do not necessarily care about the strategic advantage that can be created with KM if it all adds up to "more work". Part technical change, part organizational change is my call. There is always going to be some resistance when "rules" are applied to the knowledge transfer process but putting the ability to share at the fingertips of the user community can help overcome the cultural resistance.

Feel free to discuss.

References:

Dr Dan, Knowledge Management Mandates, 2006, [Online], [Accessed on 14 Feb 2009], [Available]http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/dr-dan/knowledge-management-mandates-12620

My Topic

Hello,

Welcome to my blog on Knowledge Management Concepts. This blog is divided into 2 distinct categories:

1. Knowledge Management and Culture - how to build an organization culture that supports KM initiatives.
2. Application of Knowledge Management in E-commerce - some examples of application of Knowledge Management.


Regards,

Yu-Jin