Practice what you learn : a case study on how client projects can be evaluated for reuse within a consulting firm’s internal environment

(1)

Practice What You Learn:

A case study on how client projects can be evaluated for reuse

within a consulting firm’s internal environment

Master thesis

Student: Sarah Anina Bleiker Student number: 11084596

Institution: University of Amsterdam - Faculty of Economics and Business Program: MSc. in Business Administration - Entrepreneurship and Innovation Supervisor: Prof. dr. P.J. van Baalen

Version: Final version

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Sarah Anina Bleiker who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

Purpose – This study investigates how knowledge management related client projects can be evaluated for reuse within a consulting firm’s internal environment and what factors hinder the evaluation and sharing of insights from client projects for a consulting firm’s internal purpose. Design/ methodology/ approach – This research presents a qualitative case study based on ten in-depth interviews with representatives from different client projects of a global consulting company.

Findings – By building on a well-established framework that focuses on motivation, opportunity and ability, the findings indicate that reusable insights from client projects can be identified, yet further investigation is needed to profoundly understand these project learnings. Additionally, the findings reveal several barriers to the establishment of an environment for appropriate project evaluation and sharing opportunities for such insights.

Research limitations/ implications – The findings of this research cannot be generalized or systematically transferred to another context, since the case study is specific to one consultancy. Practical implications – The proposed framework of this study can support project managers to evaluate insights from knowledge management projects for internal reuse. Furthermore, this process can be enhanced by overcoming the major factors that hinder the evaluation and the sharing of these learnings.

Originality/ value – This research presents an approach to learning from client projects and develops a framework that could support evaluation for reuse within a consultancy. Furthermore, it sheds light on challenges that can come along with such an evaluation.

(4)

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Accenture for the collaboration, and especially Christoph Zrubek as well as Roberto Colacino for their commitment and effort to support me during the research process. In this regard, I would also like to thank all the participants who made time for the interviews and provided stimulating input. Furthermore, I would like to thank Prof. dr. Peter J. van Baalen for his supervision and his valuable guidance at every stage of the research and writing process of my master thesis. Last but not least, I am very thankful for my friends and reviewers Annelouc Best and Jan Pieter Snoeij who provided feedback on revisions to my writing.

(5)

List of tables and figures

Table 1. Overview conceptual framework ... 22

Table 2. Overview projects ... 28

Table 3. Attributes categorized in motivation, opportunity and ability ... 35

Table 4. Overview project evaluation ... 43

Table 5. Major challenges for evaluating and sharing project learnings ... 47

Figure 1. Illustration of the evaluation framework ... 22

(7)

1. Introduction

This research study focuses on the reuse of organizational knowledge in the consulting industry. In particular, the evaluation of the potential for the internal reuse of projects in the field of knowledge management is examined. This chapter therefore first provides background information about the emergence of organizational knowledge and its significance in the consulting industry. The problem statement as well as the relevance of this study are presented subsequently. Finally, the structure of this thesis is outlined.

1.1 Context description

Organizational knowledge is a well-established theme in the business world. While knowledge has traditionally been one of the major success factors that needed to be transferred from one generation to the next in order to keep the family business running, it has remained a crucial competitive advantage for today’s organizations (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999).

Additionally, the emphasis of economic organization has shifted extensively over past decades, from assets consisting of natural goods to intellectual capital. Simultaneously, the evolution of information technology simplified complex knowledge management practices in various industries (Hansen et al., 1999). The importance of effective knowledge management is especially applicable to the project-based consulting industry, since knowledge is seen as the predominant output and major value that consulting firms deliver (Sarvary, 1999). One of the major challenges in project-based environments is to integrate knowledge created during the implementation phase in an appropriate way in order to make it reusable (Kasvi, Vartiainen & Hailikari, 2003; Williams, 2007). In fact, this process requires a consistent project evaluation as well as distribution of relevant knowledge so that the organization is able to acquire information and determine its potential for reuse - to become a learning organization (Kasvi et al., 2003).

(8)

1.2 Problem statement

Based on the context described above it becomes apparent that effective knowledge management is perceived as crucial for consulting firms. Even though they aim to not reinvent the wheel by creating something that already exists, research on the internal reuse for consulting firms themselves is sparse. Clearly, not every project learning is reusable to the same extent for other projects with a similar purpose or for internal purposes within a consultancy (Kasvi et al., 2003). Nevertheless, as knowledge management is at the core of every consulting firm (Sarvary, 1999), especially insights from projects that focused on knowledge management and were implemented at a client could provide significant learnings. This could be valuable for internal knowledge management practices of a consultancy. Therefore, the purpose of this study is: (i.) to develop a framework supporting a consulting firm to evaluate the reusability of

knowledge management related client projects for internal purposes, and;

(ii.) to explore what factors might hinder the evaluation and sharing of insights from such projects learnings for a consulting firm’s internal purpose.

1.3 Relevance of this study

By conducting a case study analysis with the global consulting company Accenture, this study is relevant for two primary reasons. On one hand, the objective is to provide theoretical implications on the established evaluation framework. On the other hand, the study aims to specify practical recommendations on the internal reuse potential of evaluated projects as well as to gain deeper insights on possible challenges when considering evaluation and sharing of project learnings for internal reuse.

Another goal of this study is motivated by the fact that prior literature and research was so far not sufficiently focusing on this specific matter,which could be particularly relevant for the practice. Moreover, there is little evidence stemming from previous research on the internal

(9)

reuse of client projects in the consulting context. This study hence contributes to research in the field of project knowledge management in the consulting industry.

1.4 Outline

The remainder of the study proceeds as follows: the next section reviews relevant academic literature about organizational knowledge and the management thereof, especially in the consulting industry. Subsequently, current research on project learning and evaluation, knowledge management enablers and knowledge management strategies are presented. This review provides the foundation for the conceptual framework and the research questions that are derived in chapter three. Following this, the method section provides an overview of the chosen sample as well as the research procedure. The research findings are presented subsequently in the next chapter. Chapter six provides a discussion about the results where theoretical as well as practical implications and research limitations are presented. The final chapter summarizes the major findings, outlines the contribution and concludes.

(10)

2. A review of relevant literature

This chapter first critically analyses an extract on available academic literature about organizational knowledge. The management of organizational knowledge, particularly in a project-based consulting context, is discussed subsequently. Further in this context, literature on evaluation and likewise on learnings from projects is examined. Beyond this, current research on knowledge management enablers that could support an evaluation of such projects is reviewed. Lastly, two different knowledge management strategies are introduced.

2.1 Organizational knowledge

Organizational knowledge is an exceptional asset that is unique for each firm, as it is built upon aggregation of learnings and experiences throughout all units and individuals (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Sarvary, 1999). Alavi and Leidner (2001, p.109) define individual knowledge as “information possessed in the mind of individuals: it is personalized information related to facts, procedures, concepts, interpretations, ideas, observations and judgments.” Organizational knowledge, however, comes from different sources such as work documentation, databases, projects and individual experiences of employees (Kim, Suh & Hwang, 2003). Such knowledge is partly intangible and therefore difficult to imitate by others, which makes it an important competitive advantage (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Faniel & Majchrzak, 2007; Kim et al., 2003; Mas Machuca & Martínez Costa, 2012; Szulanski, 1996). Any firm that derives its competitive advantage from said sources should therefore leverage knowledge internally as greatly as possible (Mas Machuca & Martínez Costa, 2012). Similarly, Williams (2007) emphasizes the importance of practicing knowledge that a company possesses, since such knowledge otherwise becomes negligible. Thus, it is critical for organizations to be able to not only absorb, but likewise reuse relevant knowledge.

The aim of knowledge reuse is to leverage knowledge that is already existing within an organization. Reusable knowledge can include tacit as wells as explicit elements (Siemsen,

(11)

Roth & Balasubramanian, 2008). However, as the major components of organizational knowledge seem to have a more tacit character, it is important to observe, question and interact with the knowledge source, the relevant employee or team respectively, in order to reuse tacit knowledge elements more effectively (Williams, 2007). Given this perspective, research by

Majchrzak, Cooper and Neece (2004) similarly suggests to pay more attention to opportunity recognizers that encourage reuse of available knowledge within an organization. The findings of Williams (2007), together with the suggestion of Majchrzak et al. (2004), provide an important implication that knowledge sources could further be seen as opportunity recognizers, whenever knowledge sources use their insights as an initiative for reuse.

According to Szulanski and Winter (2002), there is hardly a large company that does not need to make use of their existing best practices. However, although some research showed that knowledge can be reused as a source for exact replication of a previous solution (Szulanski 1996; Szulanski & Winter, 2002), other research demonstrated that new combinations and adaptation of existing knowledge could facilitate problem solving in similar situations and even promote a firm’s innovativeness (Faniel & Majchrzak, 2007; Hislop, 2003; Majchrzak et al., 2004). Hence, the integration of knowledge plays an important role for the innovativeness of an organization (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Hislop, 2003). While some literature mainly focused on product innovations (Kasvi et al., 2003; Szulanski & Winter, 2002), Bresnen, Edelman, Newell, Scarbrough and Swan (2003) investigated the innovation of processes and further pointed out that knowledge in this context is more of a tacit nature. This indicates an increased complexity when evaluating processes and services for reuse, since the end solution is often not a simple tangible product, and as tacit knowledge is difficult to communicate (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002).

On a related note, Williams (2007) argues that knowledge is more likely to be replicated or copied precisely when it is ambiguous and discrete, and more likely to be adapted when knowledge is context dependent. For effective knowledge transfer and reuse eventually, firms

(12)

need to understand interdependencies between information and the context it was created in, to be able to adapt relevant knowledge that is valuable to a new situation (Williams, 2007). Furthermore, when it is not clear what knowledge components caused a specific outcome, then this knowledge requires effort to be replicated precisely so that none of the knowledge elements that might be fundamental for a specific practice will be lost (Williams, 2007). As these knowledge characteristics vary, firms therefore need to understand how to manage it accurately.

2.2 Knowledge management

The way knowledge is managed within an organization is essential for the occurrence of reuse (Hislop, 2003; Sarvary, 1999). In this context, Sarvary (1999) views management of knowledge as a process where an organization learns by gathering new information, then integrates and modifies it into business relevant knowledge and eventually makes it available throughout the organization. However, there are often distinct knowledge bases distributed across an organization, depending on the units’ specialization and practices (Hislop, 2003). For example, complications regarding the integration of knowledge across an organization such as distinct characteristics of knowledge, different knowledge sources as well as diverse knowledge sharing mechanisms have been found (Hislop, 2003). Hence, integration of various knowledge bases is needed whenever cross functional interaction within the organization is desired (Hislop, 2003). Additionally, because knowledge mainly originates from individuals’ skills and experiences, organizations need to find a way to make such information visible to others and support the utilization of existing knowledge in an efficient manner (Yeh, Lai, & Ho, 2006).

2.2.1 Knowledge management in the consulting industry

Knowledge, or the intellectual capital of an organization, is a crucial factor for success (Sarvary, 1999). This is in particular accurate for project-based environments such as in the consulting industry, which is the focus of this research. Consultancies were early to recognize knowledge as their core strength and therefore have invested heavily in the management of

(13)

knowledge along with evolving technologies (Hansen et al., 1999). The consulting industry is highly knowledge dependent as employees not only create new knowledge, but even aim to apply gained experience in a new context (Mas Machuca & Martínez Costa, 2012). Indeed, knowledge is asserted to be the main output consulting companies are generating and is thus playing a vital part of every new business solution or service developed (Sarvary, 1999). Sarvary (1999) furthermore states that knowledge in consulting firms is often managed differently than in other companies, as a significant part of knowledge is acquired through client projects. Comparable to the fact that clients expect a broad knowledge base from consulting companies, consultancies acquire relevant knowledge by recognizing client projects that could be also valuable for internal purposes. A better understanding of the assembled knowledge, however, can be gained through comprehensive evaluation and synthesis of it, as in that way the often perceived complexity of such knowledge emerging from projects can be reduced (Sarvary, 1999).

An example that reveals complexity to knowledge management in project environments is the research of Kasvi et al. (2003). According to their research, knowledge is highly dispersed, as project teams are composed differently for each project and will often be interchanged into a new constellation after the completion of a project (Kasvi et al., 2003). Kasvi et al. (2003) additionally utter the fact that team members could even change during the project and the project manager thus appears as the most reliable knowledge source of a project. The emerging knowledge, also seen as the memory of a project, is therefore difficult to retain. They further found that, when it comes to project evaluation and reporting, besides the missing resources, there happen to be a general inefficiency in performing this task which often leads to a disorderly and incomplete knowledge accumulation (Kasvi et al., 2003). Again, knowledge has to be managed properly in order to continuously learn from project experiences and apply it to new context. However, Kasvi et al. (2003) state that there is no single solution on how to best manage knowledge, as it may differ from organization to organization, or even from

(14)

business unit to business unit. Nevertheless, research found that learning from a project demands suitable work practices, such as evaluation of projects and capture of project learnings, that are embedded in an organization and encourage employees to share their knowledge with others (Kasvi et al., 2003; Williams, 2003).

2.2.2 Project learnings and evaluation

Most organizations are not sufficiently leveraging the insights and learnings from projects they implemented, particularly also insights related to explanations for success or failure (Williams, 2003). Given this fact, causes of specific outcomes in a project are not always apparent and could thus impede recognition of key lessons learned (Cooper, Lyneis, & Bryant,

2002; Szulanski 1996; Williams, 2003; 2007). In this context, Cooper et al. (2002) revealed in their research the difficulty of knowing what factors influence a performance of a project. As they focused on lessons learned, they particularly looked at what can be learned from good projects. Contradictory to other research (e.g. Bresnen et al., 2003), Cooper et al. (2002) concluded that not every project is as distinct as perceived and that most of the time it is attainable to find similarities to previously implemented projects in new situations. In harmony with other research however (Szulanski 1996; Williams, 2003), Cooper et al. (2002) also supported the finding that not knowing or not being able to identify the causes of a project success prevent employees from learning. For that reason, they suggest that organizations should encourage project members to evaluate the true causes of the performance, as well to analyze commonalities for reuse in similar situations. In their research, project managers were even considering several ‘what if’ situations for possible future initiatives in their evaluation process (Cooper et al., 2002). These findings imply that in order to learn from a project, it is crucial to understand what ultimately caused the achieved outcome in a project and to consider situations where the project learnings could be valuable.

(15)

Williams (2003) identified the absence of standardized method for a project review process as an additional complication for knowledge reuse. Also, the complexity and diversity of projects further complicate a consistent post-evaluation. According to Williams (2003), the main goal of a review is to get better insights about what factors lead to a successful implementation, and their cause. Contrasting to Szulanski and Winter (2002), Williams (2003) emphasized that projects should not be exactly replicated, they should rather provide insights about certain aspects of the project and the effects they may have during a reuse process. This shows the importance of getting an in-depth understanding about the initial knowledge when considering these learnings for another, however similar, purpose.

2.3 Knowledge management strategies

There are two main strategies for managing knowledge within an organization defined in this literature review. One strategy is focusing on extensive databases where employees can store their knowledge and make it accessible to everyone within the organization, the so called codification strategy (Hansen et al., 1999). The other strategy is focusing on extensive interactions and communications between employees with the result that knowledge can be directly exchanged from one employee to another, the so called personalization strategy (Hansen et al., 1999). Which knowledge management strategy an organization is choosing depends on several factors, such as for example how a company works with their clients and what product or service they are offering. Although Hansen et al. (1999) focused on consulting companies in their research, they state that these knowledge management strategies can also be found in other large organizations from various industries. They additionally argue that every firm that is relying strongly upon knowledge should employ such a strategy (Hansen et al., 1999). Also, most firms are not using one strategy exclusively, they rather use aspects of both strategies while one strategy is being pursued extensively and while the other strategy is mainly seen as a supportive function (Hansen et al., 1999). According to Hansen et al. (1999),

(16)

companies that try achieve a balance between both strategies risk losing productivity and could therefore weaken their business. Furthermore, these knowledge management strategies involve distinct incentive approaches on how to motivate employees to actively participate in the provided knowledge environment. While with the codification strategy the goal would be to motivate people to contribute their knowledge to the database as precise as possible, with the personalization strategy, organizations need to encourage people to share knowledge directly and collaborate with the original knowledge source (Hansen et al., 1999). In line with research of Cabrera and Cabrera (2002), this implies that not only the availability of technological knowledge capturing or collaboration tools are precondition for successful knowledge sharing and reuse, social aspects are playing a critical role as well. The two strategies are presented in the following subchapters.

2.3.1 Codification strategy

Codified knowledge means the source of the knowledge extracts information and stores it in a database where employees of a firm can access and reuse it for other purposes (Hansen et al., 1999). With this more technology based approach, knowledge is not restricted anymore to a specific person, instead it is stored centrally in order to provide information to anyone that is looking for it. According to Hansen et al. (1999), this strategy thus puts the focus away from the original knowledge source and provides the stored information in a straightforward way, so that anyone can use it independently and multiple times to generate economies of scale for reuse. In this way, information can for example be reused as building blocks in order to apply existing knowledge as a foundation and eventually speed up the process of similar projects with using new knowledge to build upon this basis (Hansen et al., 1999). In this context, time and thus costs for communication between employees in order to obtain relevant knowledge can be reduced, but the information provided and knowledge shared is less customized. According to

(17)

Argote, McEvily and Reagans (2003), codified knowledge that comes along with common rules and routines on how to embed knowledge in a repository system can foster knowledge reuse.

2.3.2 Personalization strategy

In some organizations it is of high importance that a person looking for specific knowledge can easily be connected with the person who developed it and hence holds this specific knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999). Here, the communication plays a vital role as this is the way knowledge will be exchanged - directly from one person to another. Hansen et al. (1999) hereby urge the importance of providing employees with relevant contact details so that knowledge can be shared and reused, through a direct dialogue and not via documents. A substantial task of an organization following a personalization strategy is thus to establish extensive people networks that allows employees to connect with each other. Even in firms that are pursuing a personalization strategy, some knowledge might be stored in documents. However, the reason for knowledge documentation is mainly that employees are able to quickly verify if this person owning the document is the right person to contact in order to receive more information about a certain topic (Hansen et al., 1999). With this rather people focused approach, knowledge that has a more tacit character can be also be shared although it is likely to be time consuming (Hansen et al., 1999).

2.4 Knowledge management enablers

There has been extensive research across various disciplines on how to manage knowledge, and learn within an organization respectively (Argote et al., 2003; Hansen et al., 1999; Yeh et al., 2006). Argote et al. (2003) found that the strength of knowledge management in an organization is dependent on certain knowledge characteristics and on the individual or group it is originating. These factors are influencing the intensity of knowledge flow, meaning the extent to which knowledge is assembled, shared and eventually reused (Argote et al., 2003). Similarly, Szulanski (1996) remarked on the difficulty of transferring knowledge if its cause is

(18)

not apparent. Argote et al. (2003) however claimed that there are numerous components that help to clarify the causes of successful, or indeed also ineffective, knowledge management and learning within an organization.

For knowledge sharing to occur, individuals not only need to have the opportunity to do so within the organization (Majchrzak et al., 2004), moreover they need to be able to absorb significant knowledge in the first place (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Szulanski, 1996) as well as have some incentives to share this knowledge with others (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Siemsen et al., 2008). Siemsen et al. (2008) explored in this context the link between the eminent motivation–opportunity–ability framework, or in short the MOA framework, and the knowledge sharing behavior of employees in an organization. In particular, motivational aspects hereby included individual incentives to participate in the knowledge sharing process, opportunity embodied the organizational circumstantial aspects such as time that empower sharing activities, and ability represented the competence of an individual to absorb, evaluate and share knowledge that is relevant (Siemsen et al., 2008).

On a similar note, Argote et al. (2003) also highlighted the three components motivation, opportunity and ability in the knowledge management context. This framework has formerly helped to explain causes of individual work performance (Blumberg & Pringle, 1982), and was further applied for many other research purposes. Argote et al. (2003) argued that the way knowledge is managed influences not only the ability and motivation of the employees at a firm, it also provides them with the opportunity to share knowledge and learn. Furthermore, and besides the knowledge management service or tool a company is providing to its employees, there are also social aspects that affect organizational learning. For example, social relationships between employees can support individuals’ incentives for contributing their knowledge or a supportive organizational culture can provide the opportunity to share their knowledge, collaborate and learn from others (Argote et al., 2003). In the following, the three elements motivation, opportunity and ability are discussed in more detail.

(19)

2.4.1 Motivation

According to previous research, knowledge sharing incentives are based on various motivational aspects (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). For example, Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) found that individuals mainly share their knowledge and give advice to others because they want to add value to the community they are working in. In their paper, they discussed the common dilemma that appears when sharing individual knowledge with others in an organization, as it is always associated with costs, most notably time (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). In addition, they highlighted three organizational activities that could foster knowledge sharing processes with the first one being increased acknowledgment for individuals that share, the second one showing proof to employees of an increased efficiency through sharing and that shared knowledge is valuable to others, and the last one being the social aspect of belonging to a group and thus feeling responsible for them. Possible explanations for the lack of knowledge sharing such as the unawareness of its advantages or the extra effort required in order to share have further been found (Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002).

Other research found that employees are contributing when it will strengthen their reputation within an organization, but even so when they realize they can really help others or are experienced in sharing knowledge (Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Unlike Wasko and Faraj (2005) who discovered that employees have also individual incentives to contribute their knowledge, and even though when employees are conscious about the reality that reciprocity is generally

absent, Cabrera and Cabrera (2002) detected reciprocal aspects such as individuals that share because they gathered relevant knowledge from others before. Yet, other research mentioned the missing incentives to contribute knowledge when it is not clear if, who and how this shared knowledge will be reused (Sarvary, 1999).

Clearly, individual incentives influence the degree to which employees are motivated to share knowledge (Siemsen et al., 2008). Whereas Siemsen et al. (2008) considered

(20)

of motivational aspects regarding knowledge sharing. Nevertheless, Siemsen et al. (2008) argued that the absence of motivation could hinder individuals to initially share their knowledge, which is the outset of a successful knowledge reuse. Hence, in order to have motivated employees that are actively participating in the knowledge management process, organizations need to establish appropriate incentives and rewards, may they be monetary or social (Argote et al., 2003). Again, social aspects can be of great importance for individual’s motivation as for instance cooperative norms (Argote et al., 2003). This shows that some employees are willing to show extra effort and share their expertise with others in order to be recognized within the organization or their personal network. Motivation consequently consists of distinct attributes, ranging from individual incentives to incentives schemes provided by an organization.

2.4.2 Opportunity

In order to have knowledge management working properly, organizations need to support their employees in absorbing, sharing and reusing knowledge. Hence, they need to establish an appropriate organizational culture to do so (Alavi & Leidner, 2001; Sarvary, 1999; Yeh et al., 2006). Increasingly, literature discussed social aspects regarding incentives for knowledge sharing along with the dispersion among specific project teams and individuals (Bresnen et al., 2003; Cabrera & Cabrera, 2002). Bresnen et al. (2003) looked at knowledge related social as well as behavioral practices in project environments and found that a shared knowledge management system within an organization is not sufficient for transfer and reuse to be successful. Indeed, they argued that social aspects like a shared understanding of knowledge sharing practices as well as a similar mindset are of great importance for knowledge exploitation (Bresnen et al., 2003). This implies that individual motivation to share with others is one aspect of knowledge sharing behavior, however, the organization needs to support this

(21)

behavior by establishing an appropriate environment with sharing opportunities (Siemsen et al., 2008).

Another factor that provides opportunities to learn is observation, which happens mainly informal through individual’s own network and allows them to apply it to another task (Argote et al., 2003). From this view, it has been identified by Manz and Sims (1981) that learning processes take place every day in organizations and impact people’s work behavior, although often unconsciously. More specific, modeling or the notion of vicarious learning refers to gaining knowledge through observation of someone else’s behavior without any direct interaction (Manz & Sims, 1981). Behavior that led to success gives incentives to not only the employees that directly experiences this success, but also other employees that observe this favorable outcome (Manz & Sims, 1981).

On a similar note, Argote et al. (2003) see opportunity as most valuable when individual ability and motivation are existent. Strong relationships within the organization additionally help to reduce distance between employees, this can be through physical means such as reducing geographical distance or building extensive communication possibilities across the firm as well as through psychological means such as establishing common understandings about specific topics (Argote et al., 2003). In general, less distance hence implies better opportunities to learn from one another

2.4.3 Ability

Ability is another component that is important for successful knowledge management. Ability is related to individual’s experience as through experience employees learn how to benefit from knowledge in a certain field of expertise, when knowledge has previously been absorbed in this field (Argote et al., 2003). Individuals hereby combine new information with information they knew before (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Ability can further be supported by the actual knowledge management solution, for example by providing simple rules on how to

(22)

store knowledge in a database or by using similar jargon for communication (Argote et al., 2003). Ability therefore represents the competence to absorb, evaluate and share relevant knowledge with others (Siemsen et al., 2008). Cohen and Levinthal (1990, p.128) define absorptive capacity as “the ability of a firm to recognize the value of new, external information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends”. Absorptive capability enables individuals to see relations between new and existing information and thus build up new connections (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

For project-based organizations, Bresnen et al. (2003) claimed that it is notably difficult to capture valuable knowledge in an adequate way as each project is distinct and related to a concrete situation with specific tasks and objectives. Moreover, they mentioned that knowledge about a particular project is deeply embedded in individuals that implemented it and therefore acquired that expertise, making it challenging to capture knowledge appropriately (Bresnen et al., 2003). The research of Bresnen et al. (2003) proposed to aim attention at the social, tacit and context dependent elements, and at the solution with its explicit and tangible elements when absorbing knowledge from projects. Further in this context, Daghfous (2004) mentioned acquisition, assimilation, transformation, and exploitation as the four essential steps for effective absorptive capacity which eventually allow firms to gain relevant knowledge and develop enhanced competences. Daghfous (2004) pointed out that organizational responsiveness, meaning the ability of reacting to newly associated information, is a crucial factor that affects the absorptive capacity of a firm. Furthermore, Cohen and Levinthal (1990) found that organizations need to be able to not only accelerate, but also make use of these novel knowledge linkages by optimizing current practices, and eventually foster firm’s innovativeness. This implies that for effective knowledge reuse to happen, employees within an organization need to be aware of the benefits of absorbing and using information gathered through projects, which could eventually facilitate innovation processes. Accordingly, Cohen

(23)

and Levinthal (1990) revealed that absorption should become part of routine activities to continuously learn and thus broaden the knowledge base with related information.

In addition to incentivizing employees to become knowledge management influencer, they also need to get sufficient training and tools for collaborating as well as sharing knowledge amongst each other (Siemsen et al., 2008; Yeh et al., 2006). Yeh et al. (2006) further found that besides establishing a supportive culture within an organization, IT plays an important complementary role in enabling knowledge management, as it simplifies the flow of knowledge and information. Training can thus help employees to learn how to make use of knowledge the organization acquired as well as help them to increase the ability to share the knowledge they gathered (Siemsen et al., 2008). As Siemsen et al. (2008) mentioned, this can be IT related or more behavior related, meaning that training can also be about the way how people collaborate and share knowledge with each other, which eventually improves their ability to share.

On an aggregated level, motivation, opportunity and ability represent crucial components “that help explain how and why certain contextual properties affect knowledge management outcomes” (Argote et al., 2003, p.580). A theme that emerged from their research is the similarities, and differences respectively, between the context in which knowledge originates and the context in which knowledge could be reused (Argote et al., 2003). Argote et al. (2003) found that it is also important to embed knowledge within the organization in an appropriate way that it will not get lost and that it can easily be reused, may this be a repository for documents or relevant contact details of knowledge sources. Hereby, the strong connection between information technology and the right knowledge management strategy should be highlighted as a more structured knowledge diffusion within a company can be obtained, if applied together (Yeh et al., 2006).

(24)

3. Conceptual framework and research questions

The extensive literature discussed in chapter two suggests various components that influence the outcome of a knowledge management project as well as factors that determine the reuse potential of such a project in a similar context. Yet, examinations on how learnings of such projects can be evaluated for internal knowledge management purposes in the consulting environment are scarce. This chapter thereby provides a conceptual framework based on the emergent themes from the literature review that could support the evaluation of knowledge management projects for internal reuse in consulting firms. Accordingly, the questions this research addresses are stated.

3.1 Conceptual framework

As can be derived from literature, organizational knowledge is only valuable if it can be reused (Williams, 2007). Therefore, and in project-based environments especially, knowledge has to be managed properly in order to reduce complexity and simplify reuse (Cooper et al., 2002; Kasvi et al., 2003). Furthermore, previous research suggested to view the original knowledge sources as opportunity recognizers that consider new situations in which accumulated learnings and experiences could be valuable (Cooper et al., 2002; Majchrzak et al., 2004). Thus, a framework is created for the knowledge sources to support them in making an initial assessment about the reuse potential of the project learnings within the consulting firm. The knowledge sources are represented by the project leaders in this research, providing the input for the actual evaluation based on the designed framework.

Knowledge emerging from client projects can be highly context dependent and more of a tacit nature, which makes it difficult to understand what eventually caused a specific outcome (Williams, 2003; 2007). Among others, there are three major components that enable knowledge management and help to demonstrate possible reasons behind knowledge management success or failure as well as help to identify contextual attributes: motivation,

(25)

opportunity and ability (Argote et al., 2003). The three components play an important role in this research and build the basis for the framework. Yet, dependent on which knowledge management strategy a company or a project is focusing on, the importance of each of the three components may differ. The two major strategies in the context of knowledge management are on the one hand a codification strategy that is predominantly aiming attention at the retention of valuable organizational knowledge and is thus more technology orientated, and on the other hand a personalization strategy that is more people oriented by focusing on connecting people to collaborate directly with each other in order to commute relevant knowledge (Hansen et al., 1999). Projects evaluated in the framework of this research are therefore additionally categorized into these strategies.

Synthesizing these findings from previous research, a preliminary conceptual framework is designed as a guide through the evaluation of knowledge management related projects for internal reuse in a consultancy. The conceptual framework consists of three elements: motivation, opportunity and ability, and is orientated after previous research of Siemsen et al. (2008) regarding how these elements drive knowledge sharing. Whereas many attributes describe these knowledge management influencers, the present research delimits for each of the three elements on a specific attribute which seems most appropriate, considering the fact that information about the client project and the client’s employees are gathered through a project manager’s perspective from the consulting side. In the subsequent paragraphs, each variable of the motivation, opportunity and ability construct is presented and compared to the variables defined in the research of Siemsen et al. (2008).

While motivation in the research of Siemsen et al. (2008) was reflected through an employee’s inner willingness to share knowledge, this research merely focuses on employee incentives and rewards provided by an organization or a project team (Argote et al., 2003), disregarding other specific intrinsic motivations employees might have. According to Argote et al. (2003, p.575), such “rewards and incentives are important components of the knowledge

(26)

management process.” Rewards can hereby be either social such as acknowledgment for knowledge sharing and collaboration, or economic such as monetary remuneration (Argote et al., 2003). The reason behind this decision is because the knowledge source evaluating the project is sparsely able to judge on individual incentives client employees might had, however an evaluation of what incentives were given and how employees reacted on the project is more conceivable.

By conceiving opportunity as an ambiguous construct, Siemsen et al. (2008) designated time availability as a representative for opportunity among other environmental mechanisms that enable or hinder an individual to share knowledge. Opportunity in this research is primarily reflected through aspects of experienced organizational culture (Argote et al., 2003; Yeh et al., 2006), since again this seems most assessable through a project leader’s cognition. Hereby, organizational culture contains a different view than time availability by including aspects of mutual trust and common understanding among employees as well as environmental circumstances like established work conditions for knowledge sharing and collaboration (Yeh et al., 2006). Additionally, organizational distance, either psychologically or physically, is also important, meaning that the lower the distance the greater the opportunity for employees to share and collaborate with each other (Argote et al., 2003). This implies that if an organization is seen to be more supportive and collaborative, the mentioned circumstantial aspects are existent.

Ability in the study of Siemsen et al. (2008) was characterized by the individual’s skill to share knowledge. This individual ability to share can be improved by providing certain training procedures (Argote et al., 2003; Siemsen et al., 2008; Yeh et al., 2006). Hence, the third main component in the evaluation framework mainly contains aspects of training. Training reflects the way employees have to learn how to collaborate with each other in order to exchange knowledge or how to use a new solution that simplifies collaboration, knowledge sharing and retention. On a further note, the way and intensity of training needed can also give

(27)

insights about the initial ability of the employees, hereby more training would imply less experience and thus lower individual ability to share and collaborate (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Other factors that increase ability can also be independent form people’s individual skills, as for example technology or clear guidelines on how to share knowledge can simplify such knowledge exchange processes (Argote et al., 2003).

In the framework of Siemsen et al. (2008), the factor of the three variables motivation, opportunity and ability that has the lowest performance is the one that determines the intensity of knowledge sharing activities. By this means, if managers want to improve knowledge sharing, they should try to advance the weakest variable among the three, the so called ‘bottleneck’ (Siemsen et al., 2008). Referring to that, in the framework of this research the aspects of the motivation, opportunity and ability variables where the client, based on the project insights, seems more advanced than the consultancy, or in other words where the consultancy appears to have a lower performance, are the ones that could provide valuable learnings for the consultancy and therefore have a certain reuse potential. As Williams (2003) stated, such projects are rarely suitable for exact replication in another context. Rather, specific aspects from the project may provide insightful learnings for internal reuse (Williams, 2003). Eventually, the three components motivation, opportunity and ability, should enable project managers to perform an adequate evaluation of what aspects from a project could be valuable for internal reuse within the consultancy - by comparing these contextual attributes between the client and the consultancy. While the project manager provides input for these similarities and differences, the actual evaluation about the reuse potential and the conceivably reusable insights is based on the framework. Table 1 displays the developed framework for this research as well as the framework of Siemsen et al. (2008) after which it is formed, followed by an illustration of the evaluation framework, the comparison between the client and the consultancy respectively, in figure 1.

(28)

Table 1. Overview conceptual framework

Framework MOA* from Siemsen et al. (2008) MOA for this research study

Description The constraining factor, or the so called ‘bottleneck’, among the MOA variables determines the degree of knowledge sharing that occurs and focuses on how knowledge sharing among employees can be improved.

The factors among the MOA variables where the client based on the project insights is more advanced, in direct comparison with the consultancy, identify valuable learnings and help to determine the internal reusability.

Motivation Motivation to share Incentives and rewards Opportunity Time availability Organizational culture Ability Ability to share Training

*MOA= motivation, opportunity, ability

Figure 1. Illustration of the evaluation framework

Consequently, this research focuses predominantly on project evaluation for reuse within a consultancy, meaning that the knowledge contribution is not just an accumulation of relevant project insights. Moreover, it will be an initial assessment of the internal reusability. Similar to research of Siemsen et al. (2008), this study will primarily consider the view of the knowledge source, while elements from a potential knowledge recipient’s angle will not specifically be addressed.

(29)

3.2 Research questions

Making use of the of the created conceptual framework that is based on the literature discussed in the second chapter, this model will assist in answering the first research question:

Q1. How can knowledge management related client projects be evaluated for reuse within a consulting firm’s internal environment?

The second research question is linked to the first one by going one step further in order to explore on the possible challenges such a project evaluation and consequently the sharing of these specific learnings might have. The question is as follows:

Q2. What factors hinder the evaluation and sharing of insights from client projects for a consulting firm’s internal purpose?

In the following chapter, the research methodology, the chosen sample as well as an overview of the data collection and the analysis process are presented.

(30)

4. Methodology

A qualitative embedded single case study approach is used to gain a profound understanding of how insights of knowledge management projects can be evaluated for internal purposes in a consulting firm, as well as what factors hinder such an evaluation and the sharing of these insights. Such a study consists of a single case such as one chosen organization, and several subunits such as selected projects within an organization (Yin, 2009). Embedded case study design therefore allows for an analysis beyond one unit (Yin, 2009). Similar to the research of Majchrzak et al. (2004), the subcases are selected from the same organization despite including a variety of different projects. This method was further chosen for its ability to identify the how and reason why behind a “contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context” (Yin, 2009, p.2). The conceptual framework developed in chapter three hereby helped to build a research scheme and structure the data accordingly (Yin, 2009). This chapter provides first an overview of the chosen sample. The data collection process as well as the analysis methods used are demonstrated subsequently.

4.1 Sample

In this subchapter, the chosen consultancy as well as the selected projects are introduced to provide an overview of the single case along with the embedded subcases.

4.1.1 The company

As for this study the focus was on knowledge management in the consulting industry, and in particular on insights of knowledge sharing and collaboration projects, the consulting firm Accenture served well as a representative case. A representative or typical case captures circumstances that are common in the investigated context (Yin, 2009). Accenture is a global professional services company that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. This specific consultancy was chosen based on

(31)

previous personal work experience at this firm. In order to conduct the case study research with Accenture, collaboration with a company internal gatekeeper as well as the provision of an employee account, for research purposes only, guaranteed access to internal databases with project credentials and contact details of potential interviewees. Having an internal account was hereby critical for the trust of the research participants. A nondisclosure agreement was signed as this research involved confidential information from Accenture’s clients. Accordingly, client data were anonymized and the client projects were merely categorized into their related industry.

4.1.2 The projects

A total of ten recent projects were selected within Accenture. All projects focused on social collaboration and knowledge sharing solutions or, in short, knowledge management topics. The selection of these projects was initiated through a snowball sampling principle, starting with one relevant project identified via the company’s internal gatekeeper. Snowball sampling is applicable when it is challenging to identify relevant elements of a defined scope (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Accordingly, further projects were identified through the gatekeeper’s network. Added to this, the internal database was used to identify other relevant projects that were implemented by people beyond the gatekeeper’s personal network. This purposive sampling method allowed to find additional projects for this research (Saunders & Lewis, 2012), after suitable projects of the gatekeeper’s network were exhausted. Because the focus on knowledge management practices required very specific projects, snowball and purposive sampling together therefore granted sufficient representative samples (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). After the potential projects were found, a preliminary call with the responsible manager of the project helped to determine if the project was suitable for the in-depth analysis. Additionally, more general information about the project was gathered through an internal

(32)

database, which was then corroborated by the project lead. The actual selection was based on the following criteria;

the project needed to focus on knowledge sharing or social collaboration practices, the manager needed to have a leading role in the project, and the project was initiated out of Europe as well as that the client company’s headquarter needed to be based in Europe. The reasoning behind the first criteria is apparent, however, the second criteria was chosen for the fact that team members such as such as for example consultants or IT implementers often change during a project, depending on the project stage, and members with an overall leading role within a project therefore seemed to be the most reliable source. This preference is in line with previous research (e.g. Kasvi et al., 2003). Finally, even though the projects could have had a global reach, as the projects were based in Europe it narrowed down the focus of the project selection, and thus aided to control for regional differences in organizational culture within Accenture.

The resulting sample consisted of ten projects, representing a wide variety of industries such as Banking, Telecommunications, Industrial, Natural Resources, Consumer Goods and Energy1. This variety reveals that many firms across industries have recognized the importance of having a good knowledge sharing or collaboration practice in place. This has also been found in earlier research (Hansen et al., 1999; Yeh et al., 2006). Half of the projects had an enterprise-wide reach, while three out of the ten projects were pilots, meaning a project carried out as a trial, of which two had a unit-wide reach and one a country-wide reach. One project reached the three main countries the client company was operating in and one other project focused on a global initiative, however within a specific unit. The sizes of the client companies differ, however all of the organizations are operating in multiple countries and can consequently be seen as multinational corporations.

1

(33)

As mentioned in chapter three, these projects were not only categorized in their relevant industry, the intent was also to classify them into the corresponding knowledge management strategy based on the initial situation, project goals and end-solutions. However, a clear distinction between the two previously explained knowledge management strategies, codification and personalization, was hard to derive. The underlying reason for this complexity was that in most of the cases aspects of both strategies were found. This is nonetheless in line with the view of Hansen et al. (1990) who stated that although most organizations apply one strategy dominantly, there are often elements of both strategies visible. Some projects were certainly more focused on connecting people with each other so that they can collaborate and directly exchange their knowledge from one person to another, while other projects targeted more on aspects that enhance a firm’s knowledge repository. Therefore, an assessment whether a project relied more on technology or more on people was made. Half of the projects contained both aspects of technology and people, while only one project did not have any technology involved. The subsequent table 2 provides an overview of the selected projects.

(34)

Table 2. Overview projects

Project Client Company

Industry Client Company Size*

Reach and Target

Audience Initial Situation (IS) and Solution (S) Technology focus vs. People focus

Project A Banking 60’000 Enterprise-wide for everybody

IS: Outdated existing technology, decreasing quality of search results S: Replace with new search application, improve relevant search results and make it easier to find and share their search results between each other

Technology

Project B Banking 150’000 Countries-wide for line managers

IS: Company fragmented into many small regions

S: Find a unified strategy between the main countries, increase collaboration and connect people with their knowledge across these countries

People

Project C Banking 90’000 Enterprise-wide, first for technology services and then for the other units as well

IS: Outdated tools, collaboration not possible

S: Connect people with new collaboration tools to make knowledge sharing more social

Technology & People

Project D Consumer Goods 85’000 Unit-wide for the

marketing department IS: Knowhow not shared, limited collaboration across global markets S: Connect people and increase collaboration through a unified share point accessible across markets

Technology

Project E Energy 60’000 Unit-wide pilot for the department that was introducing social collaboration

IS: Outdated internal communication and tools

S: Connect people with new social collaboration tool to aggregate the social component, and to make it part of the organizational culture culture

Technology & People

(35)

Table 2 continued. Overview projects

Project Client Company

Industry Client Company Size*

Reach and Target

Audience Initial Situation (IS) and Solution (S) Technology focus vs. People focus

Project F Energy 60’000 Country-wide pilot for the customers service

IS: Slow and old knowledge management system, tools not used or accepted S: Better support and increased performance with a new knowledge management system, make tool more user friendly

Technology

Project G Industrial 375’000 Unit-wide pilot for the customer service

IS: Separated systems, difficult to find information and work efficiently S: Integrate existing knowledge into one new integrated search application to speed up the process and facilitate the search of relevant documents

Technology

Project H Natural Resources 25’000 Enterprise-wide for everybody

IS: Outdated technological environment

S: Take advantage of the new technology by understanding the tools but also new ways of working to improve collaboration and knowledge sharing

Technology & People

Project I Telecommunications 100’000 Enterprise-wide for everybody

IS: Collaboration only locally, several collaboration tools already in place S: Get employees to use these existing tools, help them to understand the tools as well the notion of collaboration

Technology & People

Project J Telecommunications 60’000 Enterprise-wide for everybody

IS: Separated and outdated collaboration systems in place

S: Connect people with a new integrated collaboration tool for more efficient collaboration and simplify the way employees share information

Technology & People

(36)

4.2 Data collection and analysis

To gather cross-sectional data, a total of ten semi structured in-depth interviews have been conducted with the managers that had a leading role in the selected projects. A semi structured interview type allows to vary the order of the questions and hence allows to better react upon responses of the interviewees, as long as relevant topics are covered (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The interviews were conducted in English, since this is the main language Accenture employees use to communicate with each other, and via Skype which was mainly due to geographical constraints. The interviews lasted between thirty to forty-five minutes and an estimate of the duration was communicated upfront. The data from the interviews have been enriched with additional background information such as for example relevant project documentation that was accessed through a company internal database or directly provided by the interviewees.

4.2.1 Interview: an explanation of the content

The semi structured in-depth interviews consisted of three parts with a total of thirteen open-end questions and was sent upfront to the interviewees. In this way, they knew what to expect during the actual interview. Where necessary, more questions were asked mainly for probing, specifying, structuring or interpreting (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). This was based upon interviewees’ responses.

In the first part, project managers were asked general questions about the client and the implemented project as well as about the success factors. This allowed for a better understanding about the project as a whole and further to corroborate project information that was collected upfront via an internal database of Accenture. Success cannot be defined on a general level, moreover it is based on an individual’s cognition and is thus highly distinct (Cooke-Davies, 2002). Being aware of that debate, this question about the success factors was

(37)

seen as a truly open question to lead over to a more structured analysis of causal key components that could help define certain project outcomes in more detail.

In analogy with the established framework, the second part investigated on the three knowledge management enabler components: motivation, opportunity and ability. For the motivation component, the focus was on incentives and rewards that were either initiated through the project, or through the client company in general. The opportunity aspect mainly targeted the organizational culture of the client company that was experienced during this project. The ability component especially focused on how to use the new project solution, if training was needed respectively. Further in this part, a comparison was made with the consultancy Accenture along the three knowledge management enabler components to gain insights about the similarities and differences between those two contexts. This part hence provided input for the evaluation of the projects for internal reuse.

In the third part of the questions, the focus shifted from the project implemented at client side to Accenture, as the interviewees were asked about what insights from the discussed project could be valuable for internal use. This question emerged out of the discussion about the three components: motivation, opportunity, ability. However, the interviewees were not limited to respond within that framework, it was again a more open framed question to consider a ‘what if’-situation for internal use, similar to the research of Cooper et al. (2002). The project leaders were further asked about if and why or why not these insights have been used internally already, as well as about the challenges they see when they consider evaluating and sharing project insights for internal use. Consequently, while the second part of the interview focused on the first research question regarding the evaluation framework, the third part provided more insights for the second research question regarding the factors that might hinder employees to evaluate and share their insights. An overview of the specific questions can be found in appendix I.

(38)

4.2.2 Data analysis

To achieve the subsequently presented results, and oriented after Miles and Huberman (1984), series of actions were applied in parallel during the analysis such as data reduction, data display as well as conclusion drawing and verification to assess the patterns that emerge from the data.

The conducted interviews were recorded with permission and subsequently transcribed in order to be used for the actual data analysis. The gathered data were methodically analyzed and coded to classify emerging themes and patterns. For this part of the research the qualitative data analysis computer software NVivo 10 from QSR International was used to obtain a coherent overview of the data. An overview of the initial categorization in NVivo can be found in appendix II. However, this software was merely used as an assistance for a more structured data analysis. Data from the second part of the interview were coded into the predefined categories based on the conceptual framework such as motivation, opportunity and ability. Other categories were created based on other parts of the interview. Coding was then carried out incrementally and in a repetitive way to comprehend the different levels of abstraction (Yin, 2009). For example, analytical coding was used at a later stage which allowed to compose more abstract categories that went beyond exact word bits from the interviews (Yin, 2009).

To answer the first research question, and after initial coding in NVivo, a world table was created to display the data from the individual projects based on the framework consisting of the three knowledge management enabler components motivation, opportunity and ability. This word table helped to organize the data in an appropriate way to establish a storyline, as it is suggested by literature on qualitative research (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Yin, 2009). For this analysis, each project was treated as a separate embedded case. Hence, this part was structured based on the three components to make an evaluation for each project for internal reuse by directly comparing these characteristics from the client project to the internal ones from Accenture. While the interviewees provided information about the similarities and

(39)

differences of the motivation, opportunity and ability components, the actual evaluation about the reuse possibility and the conceivably reusable insights were based on the framework. In a further step, it allowed to assess the overall patterns that emerge from the individual comparisons and evaluations by drawing cross-case conclusions (Yin, 2009), which provided implications for the evaluation framework.

For the analysis of the second research question, both first-order and second-order data were included (Pratt, 2009). While, first-order data included mainly codes and interview extracts such as text passages, second-order data consisted of more abstract themes developed from linkages of the first-order data. These themes were then compared and discussed with existing literature to make implications for the theory as well as the practice. The findings and analyses regarding the two proposed research questions are presented in the next chapter, followed by a thorough discussion of these findings in chapter six.

Practice what you learn : a case study on how client projects can be evaluated for reuse within a consulting firm’s internal environment