KNOWLEDGE SHARING AT GASUNIE RESEARCH
“COLLECTION AND CONNECTION”
Master Thesis
Author: J.S. Feenstra Supervisor: dr. G. Gemser Date: 26-10-2004
Institution: RijksuniversiteitGroningen
Executive Summary
Gasunie Research is, as part of Gastransport Services, influenced by the liberalization of the gas-market. The business environment changed from a stable to an unstable one.
Competition is growing and the acquisition of new clients becomes more and more necessary.
The management of Gasunie Research uses a business model with the objective to generate more projects and to create value by innovations, which in the end should contribute to the realization of the mission: “The application of high quality knowledge and expertise in the field of transmission, conversion, and use of energy with the objective to realize measurable added value for the customers.” The management is aware of the fact that the specialized skills and knowledge of the individuals are the primary source that yields performance and are essential in realizing the mission.
After a project is finished, it is the intention that the knowledge and experiences gained out of the projects, the lessons learned, should be included in the research &
development fundament and the basket of high-quality knowledge, the so called spin-off return. To generate the lessons learned out of the executed projects the evaluation step is integrated in the workflow. At the end of a project an evaluation should be performed on the basis of an evaluation form. The problem is that employees of Gasunie Research do not perform these evaluations at the moment.
The main objective of the research is to create understanding on how knowledge sharing can be ‘created’ and subsequently can be integrated in the general workflow at Gasunie Research. Furthermore this study should enhance understanding on how to design the project process and which organizational changes are recommended. It can be stated that lessons learned dissemination is part of knowledge sharing, and in the situation at Gasunie Research it could be the beginning of the establishment of a knowledge sharing culture. This is why the general research question of the research is:
“What factors are positively influencing the sharing of lessons learned at Gasunie Research?”
Out of the literature review the researcher developed three propositions. The qualitative data, collected out of the interviews with the employees of Gasunie Research, is related to the propositions. By linking the results out of the interviews to the propositions and by interpretation of the outcomes, an answer on the research question can be derived.
To be innovative and market oriented Gasunie Research should create complete understanding of the customers and combine this understanding with Gasunie Research’
knowledge. To offer the best possible solution to a customer one should constantly look for improvement. The continuous improvement of the quality and quantity of the basket of high quality knowledge (business model Gasunie Research) forces Gasunie Research to elaborate on the knowledge and experiences of individuals. The individual employees have to recognize that they have much to learn from each other and that drawing on the collective experience of individuals will help fill critical knowledge gaps. In other words, the individual employees of Gasunie Research have to see the benefits of sharing what they know.
First of all a good understanding of what knowledge is and what it means for Gasunie Research is necessary for effective knowledge management activities. Some knowledge should be managed locally in a specific business unit, other knowledge – which sometimes was tacit and/or local before – can be used to yield performance of the whole organization.
Furthermore, the benefits of knowledge sharing and lessons learned dissemination should be clearly communicated to the employees of Gasunie Research (GAO-report, 2002):
Best practice is repeated;
Known mistakes are avoided;
Better understanding of project;
Improved performance (also individually);
Time saved;
Reduced costs;
Better customer satisfaction.
This understanding will make it easier to persuade the employees to start evaluating and sharing lessons learned on a voluntary base.
It is recommended to Gasunie Research to start with the development of a lessons learned database as a tool to stimulate the connection between individuals. The lessons learned database should be the basis of a lessons learned process of collecting, verifying, storing, disseminating, and re-using lessons learned.
In the workflow the evaluation can be a means of lessons learned formulation. A database is a guarantee that the effects of evaluation are visible. In the current situation at Gasunie Research the evaluation is rarely executed. The individuals see it as time- consuming and do not see the benefits. The lessons learned formulation should be straight forward and easy to compare with other lessons learned formulations. There should be stated a general way of formulating the lessons, like a simple T-account – an overview of what went well and what went wrong. The lesson learned database should contain the lessons learned, the author of a specific lesson, the corresponding project, the customer of the project, the size of the project and the results of the project. This will give the employees a clear view on what is expected. To make evaluation really happen, the evaluation should get more attention in the workflow; “a project is finished only when it is evaluated”.
Besides the development of a database, there should also be the personal interaction.
The in-house day each month (the whole day is reserved for project presentations and management announcements; everybody should be there) can be a starting point, but in the end there could be meetings for every fundamental, crucial lesson. In such a session the whole project team (or a representative delegation) is brainstorming concerning the positive aspects of the project and aspects that are subject for improvement. In this evaluation structure project members can also react on each other, from which significant discussions can arise.
The accompanying facilities, like bringing individuals together, may be more important than a database. However, if Gasunie Research wants to start lessons learned dissemination and re-use, then a lessons learned database can be a helpful tool for representation and understanding. In the future it is then important to communicate the results and benefits by evaluating. Then the voluntary trigger will occur automatically.
Furthermore the management support should be extended and a clear knowledge vision should be formulated in relation to the overall strategy and mission. If the knowledge vision is closely related to, or even better interfered within, the strategy of the whole organization, then the employees may feel more confident to share their knowledge because it is in service for the whole organization. This will make the overall objective of the knowledge management activities more visible for the employees of Gasunie Research. The management should communicate why they find it important to perform specific knowledge management activities. Furthermore they should actively participate in the different activities. Top management’s support enhances the value and strategic quality of the knowledge management’s initiative and sent a signal to channel organizational resources and individual commitment towards this element. The management should give the employees the time and opportunity to evaluate. Also it is recommended to state that a project can only be finished if an evaluation is executed.
Without heavy management support and participation, knowledge management activities will never reach its ultimate goal of yielding performance. So, heavy management support is a prerequisite but not enough for effective knowledge management. Hereto
In the end the individuals should see the benefits for themselves by sharing what they know and they should be willing to contribute to the different knowledge management activities by themselves. All the knowledge management initiatives can only motivate individuals to share what they know and to start up the process of knowledge sharing.
The process of motivation can be accelerated by appointing a knowledge officer. The respondents at Gasunie Research think differently about whether it is useful to appoint someone to coordinate the whole process of evaluation and lessons learned dissemination. In the current situation (no evaluation, no (regulated) lessons learned dissemination / knowledge sharing) it is really recommended to appoint a knowledge officer to start up and coordinate the process of knowledge sharing and to keep the lessons learned database up-to-date. The knowledge officer should be responsible for all the knowledge management activities and should be the focal point in the organization for questions of individuals. Otherwise, it can be expected that everybody will be too
‘busy’ again. The knowledge officer should operate independently from management, because this will lower the barrier to employees to contact the knowledge officer. The knowledge officer should ideally be in the same hierarchical position as the ‘other’
employees.
These statements are the recommendations for the construction of a knowledge sharing environment at Gasunie Research and thus are the factors that are positively influencing the sharing of lessons learned at Gasunie Research. To summarize, the positively influencing factors are:
Communication of the benefits of knowledge sharing;
Development of a lessons learned database;
Give the evaluation more attention in the workflow;
Extend the communication of heavy management support;
Creating a clear knowledge vision;
Appointment of a knowledge officer.
The activities build upon these factors should always be a good balance between the three elements of knowledge management mentioned by Collison & Parcell (2001):
A common, reliable technology infrastructure to facilitate sharing;
Connecting the people who know, and the behaviours to ask, listen and share; and
Some processes to simplify sharing, validation, distillation.
So, on the one hand Gasunie Research has to collect and capture the available knowledge and (collection) on the other hand Gasunie Research should connect the individuals with each other to really share the existing knowledge and to elaborate on it (connection). This will make Gasunie Research capable to grow from a problem solver toward a strategic partner, and so Gasunie Research will be able to continuously create added value for the customers.
Content
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Competitive Advantage and Knowledge Management 1
1.2 Gasunie Research and Knowledge Management 1
1.2.1 Research Objective 2
1.2.2 Research Question 2
1.2.3 Definitions 2
1.3 The Research Model 3
1.4 Research Approach and Research Setting 4
2 Theory 5
2.1 Knowledge 5
2.2 Knowledge Management 7
2.3 Knowledge Sharing 10
2.4 Lessons Learned Systems 13
2.5 Propositions 15
3 Gasunie Research – Case Study 16
3.1 Research Strategy 16
3.1.1 Case Study Methodology 16
3.1.2 Data Collection Methods 16
3.1.3 Interview Guide 17
3.1.4 Data Analysis 18
4 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations 19
Bibliography 22
Appendix 1 Introduction into N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie and Gasunie Research 25
Appendix 2 Organizational Charts 26
Appendix 3 Interview Guide 27
1 Introduction
In this chapter an introduction and overview of the research will be given. Paragraph 1.1 starts with a first look on the relationship between competitive advantage and knowledge management. Then, the motivation of Gasunie Research to actively work on the distribution of lessons learned will be discussed, which leads to the research question (§
1.2). Next the research model will be described (§ 1.3), followed by an introduction into the research approach and the research setting (§ 1.4).
1.1 Competitive Advantage and Knowledge Management
All organizations, whether private or public, profit or not for profit, are in a competitive position in relation to each other in so far as they are competing for either customers or resources. For the purpose of this research, competitive advantage is perceived as a strength that provides a market advantage relative to a competitor (Furlong, 2003).
Often competitive advantage is related to the core competencies of the organization, which are frequently based on implicit know-how or tacit knowledge. This intangible, unstructured knowledge is difficult to manage; knowledge is a complex, dynamic, human phenomenon (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The increased competitive pressures of the post-industrial global economy and the exponential advances in computing power have increased management’s interest in knowledge as a sustainable source of competitive advantage (Furlong, 2003).
From an organizational perspective, knowledge sharing, creation of new knowledge and collective knowledge growth, resulting in competitive advantage and increased shareholder value, are the reasons for knowledge management. According to Davenport and Prusak (2000) the knowledge based activities of a firm, such as developing products and processes, are becoming the primary internal functions and the ones with the greatest potential for providing competitive advantage. Stewart (1999) agrees, stating that increasingly companies will differentiate themselves on the basis of what they know.
1.2 Gasunie Research and Knowledge Management
Gasunie Research is part of N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie. Gasunie Research is a testing, research and development institute for the transport, trade and use of natural gas.
Innovation forms the basis for the consultancy practice of this company by offering integrated solutions to complex problems related to energy processes, gas quality and diversity, combustion and flow phenomena (http://www.gasunieresearch.nl). A complete description of N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie and Gasunie Research is given in Appendix 1.
In orientating discussions with the management of Gasunie Research it became clear that success in the gas market depends on two important factors: knowledge of the developments in the market and the ability to respond fast and effective to the market - the use of knowledge. The objective of knowledge management at Gasunie Research is the achievement of competitive advantage on the gas market by optimal use of the available knowledge capital and by preventing loss of crucial knowledge. The management of tacit knowledge (further explained in Chapter 2) is of main importance, because the value of the available knowledge as well as the value of the whole organization is almost fully determined by personal knowledge and thus the tacit knowledge of the organization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
1.2.1 Research Objective
Gasunie Research is working on the development of a knowledge management system as an integrated part of the workflow of the whole project treatment. The knowledge management infrastructure is sufficient, but the process of knowledge sharing on the other hand is not (Aat van Steenderen, senior management consultant of Gasunie Research). The management of Gasunie Research believe project evaluation is an instrument to capture lessons learned and facilitate knowledge sharing. Last year (2003), however, only 1 project was evaluated. At the moment it is the question what has to be done to make the sharing of knowledge between the individuals really happen at Gasunie Research.
The main objective of the research is to create understanding on how knowledge sharing can be ‘created’ and subsequently can be integrated in the general workflow at Gasunie Research. Furthermore this study should enhance understanding on how to design the project process and which organizational changes are recommended to obtain knowledge sharing.
1.2.2 Research Question
Lessons learned dissemination should lead to a spin-off return which should make Gasunie Research grow from a problem solver toward a strategic partner in relation to the customers (further explained in Paragraph 3.2). In the end, this should generate competitive advantage. The extent to which it indeed leads to competitive advantage is, however, not further investigated in this research. Instead, the focus is on how to create lessons learned dissemination in the first place.
It can be stated that lessons learned dissemination is part of knowledge sharing, and in the situation at Gasunie Research it could be the beginning of the establishment of a knowledge sharing culture. This is why the general research question of the research is:
“What factors are positively influencing the sharing of lessons learned at Gasunie Research?”
To answer this research question first the relevant literature is studied and next a case study is performed at Gasunie Research.
1.2.3 Definitions
The definitions given in this sub-paragraph directly relate to the research question. They are generated out of a comparison of different theoretical views, discussed in Chapter 2.
Knowledge
“Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms” (Davenport & Prusak, 2000, p5).
Knowledge management
“Knowledge management is about capturing, creating, distilling, sharing and using know- how. That know-how includes explicit and tacit knowledge. Know-how is used as shorthand for know-how, know-what, know-who, know-why and know-when. It’s not about books of wisdom and best practices, its more about the communities that keep know-how of a topic alive by sharing what they know, building on it and adapting it to their own use. It is not a snapshot of what is known at a single point in time, but an evolving set of know-how kept current by people who regularly use it” (Collison & Parcell,
Knowledge sharing
“Knowledge sharing is the voluntary act of making knowledge available to others”
(Davenport & Prusak, 1997, p87).
Lessons Learned
“A lesson learned is a knowledge or understanding gained by experience. The experience may be a “good work practice” or innovative approach that is captured to promote repeat replication. A lesson learned may also be an adverse work practice or experience that is captured and shared to avoid recurrence. A lesson must be significant in that it has a real or assumed impact on operations; valid in that it is factually correct; and applicable in that it identifies a specific design, process, or decision that reduces or eliminates the potential for failures and mishaps, or reinforces a positive result” (Secchi, Ciaschi &
Spence, 1999, p58).
1.3 The Research Model
The research is based on knowledge management literature and a case study performed at Gasunie Research. The research model shows the different stages of the research.
Figure 1.3.1 Research Model
Figure 1.3.1 shows the two parts of this research which should lead to recommendations on how to establish a project process in which lessons learned are disseminated and re- used. First, the concepts of knowledge, knowledge management, knowledge sharing and lessons learned will be introduced in a theoretical discussion (Chapter 2). This theoretical building block results in the development and formulation of propositions. The empirical building block starts with a description and justification of the research approach and the methods of gathering and analyzing empirical data (Paragraph 3.1). After a short view on the strategic profile (Paragraph 3.2), the results out of the interviews are discussed in relation to the propositions (Paragraph 3.3). The theoretical building block and the empirical building block together lead to the main conclusions and recommendations (Chapter 4). In this final part the interpretations of the researcher are given and also a suggestion for future research is offered.
Research method
and research setting Strategic profile
Gasunie Research Results out of the interviews
Empirical Building Block What is knowledge? What is knowledge
management? What is knowledge
sharing? What are lessons learned (systems)?
Theoretical Building Block
Conclusions and recommendations
1.4 Research Approach and Research Setting
There are two approaches related to the extent to which one is clear about the theory at the beginning of the research. One can use the deductive approach, in which one develops a theory and hypothesis (or hypotheses) and design a research strategy to test the hypothesis, or the inductive approach, in which one collects data and develops theory as a result of the data analysis (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). The purpose of this research is to understand the concept of knowledge sharing and to examine the factors positively influencing the sharing of lessons learned at Gasunie Research.
Literature on this topic will be studied, some propositions will be formulated and after that the propositions will be related to the specific environment of Gasunie Research. So, a deductive approach is chosen.
The research strategy is a general plan of how one will go about answering the research question. It specifies the sources from which one intends to collect data and considers the constraints (Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003). The primary data are collected by performing a single case study at Gasunie Research. According to Cooper and Schindler (2001) case studies place more emphasis on a full contextual analysis of fewer events or conditions and their interrelations. The factors positively influencing the sharing of lessons learned are very context specific and this is why the primary data are based on a single case study at Gasunie Research.
The primary data source of the case study are semi structured interviews with individual respondents. The different explanatory factors for the emergence of knowledge sharing at Gasunie Research are examined. The employees of Gasunie Research may place many different interpretations on the business situations in which they operate. This research seeks to understand the subjective reality of the employees in order to make sense of and understand their motives, actions and intentions in relation to knowledge sharing and project evaluation. This reality will be integrated in the final conclusions and recommendations.
The research strategy, case study methodology and the data collection methods will be further discussed in Paragraph 3.1.
2 Theory
2.1 Knowledge
Knowledge is interpreted from very different perspectives inside organizations. The meaning, interpretation, forms and types of knowledge are much more complex than at first look. The changes in knowledge, innovation, learning and creativity gives further implications to this interpretation. Knowledge is more and more thought of as unified with individuals (Jorna, 1999). In this paragraph the different meanings, forms and types of knowledge will be discussed and this will result in a delimitation of the meaning of knowledge, used in this research.
Knowledge, information and data are closely connected in the current debate on information systems and decision making systems inside organizations. The relation to one another can be explained as knowledge is interpreted information, while information is interpreted data. Knowledge is always related to an internal, in general not visible, mental process, while information, on the other hand, is externally verifiable. Information can lead to different knowledge, which depends on the knowledge already present within an individual. So, the crucial aspect is interpretation (Jorna, 1999).
Figure 2.1.1 Differentiating data, information, and knowledge (Source: McQueen, 2003)
In line with this diversification most people believe that knowledge is broader than data or information. There are many definitions of knowledge presented in the literature. In Table 2.1.1 an overview is given of some frequently used definitions.
Author Definition Nonaka &
Takeuchi (1995) “Knowledge (different from information) has to do with belief (knowledge is based on a specific view, attitude, intention), action (knowledge serves some purpose) and meaning (knowledge is context specific). Knowledge is a dynamic human process in which personal belief by justification becomes ‘true’.” (p13)
Davenport &
Prusak (2000) “Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms.” (p5) Davenport &
Voelpel (2001) “Knowledge is codified information with a high proportion of human value-added, including insight, interpretation, context, experience, wisdom, and so forth.” (p212)
Collison &
Parcell (2001) “Knowledge is more than know-how – it is know-why, know-what, know-who, know-where and know-when. Know-how is the processes, procedures, techniques and tools one uses to get something done.
Know-why relates to strategic insight – understanding the context of your role and the value of your actions. Know-what are the activities required to complete a task, it is the information needed in order to take a decision and it is the things you need to collect together before making something. Know-who includes knowledge about relationships, contacts, networks, who to call for help. Know-where is that uncanny ability that some people have to navigating through and finding the right information. Know-when is the sense of timing – to know the best time to do something, to make a decision, or to stop something.” (p21)
Tsoukas &
Vladimirou (2001)
“Knowledge is the individual’s ability to draw distinctions within a collective domain of action, based on an appreciation of context or theory, or both.” (p3)
Nooteboom (1996)
“Knowledge is understanding plus the ability to transform it into actions (skills), which yields performance”. (p8)
Table 2.1.1 Definitions of Knowledge
In relation to these definitions it can be stated that knowledge is some form of gained experience that should be used to yield performance. When we look to the definition of Davenport & Prusak (2000) and the desired process of lessons learned dissemination at Gasunie Research, it is the part of embedding knowledge in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms that is important for this research. That is why in this research when the term “knowledge” is used it refers to the definition of Davenport &
Prusak (2000). In the remaining of this paragraph the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge will be discussed.
The prerequisite for a firm to make use of its knowledge in order to achieve a competitive advantage is to locate, share and disseminate the knowledge within the organization (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). The distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge can be traced back to the philosopher Polanyi (1967), but has been applied to business and knowledge management by the Japanese management scholar Nonaka (Davenport &
Voelpel, 2001).
Tacit knowledge is usually hidden knowledge, which is sometimes not even recognized by the owner. It is embedded in the minds of individuals and is by definition difficult to write down or communicate. Tacit knowledge exists in individuals and groups, and is created through repeated experiences (or routines) and experiments (content and context). Tacit knowledge, as internalized by a user, is impossible to put into a document or a database - there is missing the person’s context, which incorporates accrued, embedded learning and confidence, provides a basis for action and which may not be separable from individual’s actions (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is expressed somehow, by some form of external representation. It can be, or has been written down or captured on some persistent media. It is formal codified and systematic knowledge that is easily communicated and shared (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Figure 2.1.2 Characteristics of tacit and explicit knowledge (based on Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995)
Language, printing, and collective understanding may attempt to transform tacit knowledge into explicit forms; these are forms of codification by which un-codified, tacit knowledge becomes codified, explicit knowledge (McQueen, 2003). The difference between local and diffused knowledge indicates whether the knowledge can be shared
Tacit Knowledge Explicit Knowledge
- Personal - Public
- Developed, resides in brain - Able to be expressed
- Cannot be easily articulated - Recorded, resides in documents - Processes, scripts, lists - Processes, recipes, stories - Confidence for action - Can be stored in databases - Updated with experience
and used by different individuals or not. Diffusion means that other individuals inside an organization are able to understand what was tacit before (Jorna, 1999).
At Gasunie Research it is the question how the lessons learned (gained experiences) can be diffused and disseminated in the organization. The understanding of tacit and explicit knowledge shows that there should be a facilitating process to really embed knowledge not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, processes, practices and norms. In the next paragraph the management of knowledge will be discussed.
2.2 Knowledge Management
Knowledge management has for nearly a decade been widely accepted as a key success factor with which companies can create value (Voelpel & Han, 2005, forthcoming). There is no generally accepted definition of knowledge management (Hansen, Nohria, Tierney, 1999). Most attempts at defining knowledge management call it a process, which is aided by technology. This process has to do with transforming information and intellectual assets into an enduring value for an organization’s customers and people. In Table 2.2.1 an overview of different definitions of knowledge management is given.
Author Definition Alison & Spink
(2000) “Knowledge management is not just about information technology but is about finding and using the tacit and explicit knowledge that resides in people for the purpose of improving organizational effectiveness. Knowledge management, then, refers to a systemic and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing and communicating both tacit and explicit knowledge of employees so that other employees may make use of it to be more effective and productive in their work” (p5)
Collison &
Parcell (2001)
“Knowledge management is about capturing, creating, distilling, sharing and using know-how. That know-how includes explicit and tacit knowledge. Know-how is used as shorthand for know-how, know-what, know-who, know-why and know-when. It’s not about books of wisdom and best practices, its more about the communities that keep know-how of a topic alive by sharing what they know, building on it and adapting it to their own use. It is not a snapshot of what is known at a single point in time, but an evolving set of know- how kept current by people who regularly use it.” (p8)
Anderson Consulting in Bonner (2000)
“Knowledge management is the systematic process of acquiring, creating, capturing, synthesizing, learning, and using information, insights, and experiences to enable performance. In this way, knowledge management is the engine that transforms ideas into business value.” (p6)
Davenport &
Probst (2000) “Knowledge management in itself does not necessarily produce superior value. But when knowledge is applied to marketable products and services, the true added value of knowledge management emerges.” (p23)
Barclay &
Murray (2000) “Knowledge management in practice often encompasses identifying and mapping intellectual assets within the organization, generating new knowledge for competitive advantage within the organization, making vast amounts of corporate information accessible, sharing of best practices, and technology that enables all of the above — including groupware and intranets.” (p2)
Table 2.2.1 Definitions of Knowledge Management
Knowledge management activities can be seen along a continuum of knowledge ranging from ‘capture’ at one end to ‘connectivity’ at the other. A focus on capture drives a set of activities relating to codification of knowledge; investing large efforts in creating and
distributing explicit knowledge – for example information packs, briefing notes and knowledge bases, websites. An alternative approach is to invest time and energy in the processes and technologies which stimulate connections between people. These connections and conversations in turn address the transfer of tacit knowledge – for example the creation of communities and networks, peer interactions, workshops, collaboration tools, knowledge directories (Hansen, Nohria, Tierney, 1999).
Collison & Parcell (2001) share their experiences from BP, one of the world’s leading knowledge organizations, and describe how they have applied a number of tools and techniques to help them manage knowledge. Their approaches are used as a guide by the management of Gasunie Research in the process of knowledge management implementation. This is why this research uses the definition of knowledge management by Collison & Parcell.
In the definition of knowledge management Collison & Parcell (2001) focus on the activities of capturing, creating, distilling, sharing and using know-how. In this research the ways in which lessons learned can be effectively disseminated within Gasunie Research are of main interest. This directly links to the perception of Collison and Parcell on knowledge management. In Figure 2.2.1 the above mentioned activities are shown in a continuously repeating circle. Starting with a business activity, the first step is to use a learning process to reflect on what happened, and draw out the lessons learned. The concept of lessons learned will be further discussed in Paragraph 2.4. However, a huge database of captured lessons can become impossible to use. So, a second step should focus on distilling the key points from the lessons and capturing those as a more concentrated ‘knowledge asset’. Then a way of transferring and embedding these key learning points into the training materials and business processes should be established to really apply the knowledge (Collison & Parcell, 2001).
Figure 2.2.1 Activities of managing knowledge (Source: Collison & Parcell, 2001)
In the rest of this paragraph the characteristics of the type of organizations most likely to support knowledge management are discussed, based on Bonner (2000). In the book
‘Leading Knowledge Management and Learning’, Bonner presents the key elements of effective knowledge management and organizational learning as part of the organizational context by showing up seventeen selected cases in a wide range of industries and organizational settings. The seventeen cases present the real-life lessons learned from pioneer organizations and individuals who have already put knowledge management into practice to stay competitive.
The characteristics can be divided into two categories:
Organizational values
Organizational systems and structure.
Figure 2.2.2 illustrates the key elements of effective knowledge management and organizational learning in practice.
Figure 2.2.2 Characteristics of supportive organizations (Source: Bonner, 2000)
The most frequently mentioned organizational value is the need for strong, visionary, and supportive senior leadership that truly values learning and knowledge. Having direct access to the executive boardroom is seen as a critical success factor to the alignment of knowledge management and organizational learning initiatives with the organization’s overall business goals. A second common organizational value is that most companies have aggressive growth plans and are strategically using knowledge and learning to leverage this expansion. Third, a high-trust climate is seen as a pre-condition to encourage knowledge flow, the intellectual curiosity leading to higher rates of individual learning, and innovation. A fourth value is the belief that learning and knowledge really matter to the company’s bottom line. This fundamental value sets the stage for including knowledge and learning initiatives in strategic planning at the highest levels. A fifth organizational value is the importance of running a customer-centred business, including customers as knowledge partners.
The first structural element is information technology (IT). It can be viewed either as the key driver for knowledge management or merely as an enabler to maximize human interactions, knowledge sharing, and learning. Organizations should choose their own balance of the technology-and-people mix on the basis of their needs and culture. The second structural element is the integration of IT, HR, and business units to support and maximize knowledge management and organizational learning. A third structural element is the emphasis on high-level strategic systems, planning, and thinking. A company’s strategy for knowledge management should reflect its competitive strategy. Fourth, the existence of formalized positions, such as a Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO), is seen as a precondition to ensure that all these activities are systematically occurring throughout the company. The fifth structural element is one of measurement and standards to ensure compliance, to support the continuous quantifiable productivity of knowledge and learning efforts, and to determine the strategic outcomes that the initiatives would be judged by (Bonner, 2000).
All these characteristics can be more or less reduced into three elements for successful knowledge management:
A common, reliable technology infrastructure to facilitate sharing;
Connecting the people who know, and the behaviours to ask, listen and share; and
Some processes to simplify sharing, validation, distillation.
In Figure 2.2.3 knowledge management is the area where the three circles overlap and it is the goal to get balance between these elements (Collison & Parcell, 2001).
Figure 2.2.3 Elements for successful knowledge management (Source: Collison & Parcell, 2001)
Some potential knowledge management actions and activities are formulated in Figure 2.2.4.
Figure 2.2.4 Example framework for knowledge management (Source: McQueen, 2003)
In the end, the ultimate goal of knowledge management is to share knowledge and to generate competitive advantage by effectively using what you know. Effective knowledge management relies on solid information systems to facilitate the access, retrieval, and sharing of knowledge and it requires an organizational culture (values, norms, and behaviours) that support and reward collaboration and sharing of expertise. The ways in which organizational culture influences the behaviours central to knowledge sharing and knowledge use are further discussed in Paragraph 2.3. The next paragraph puts a closer look on knowledge sharing.
2.3 Knowledge Sharing
Many R&D-companies are nowadays challenged to complete projects faster, better, and cheaper. The intent is to reduce costs, become more efficient, and increase results (Furlong, 2003).
In Figure 2.2.1 one can see that after a lesson is formulated in a knowledge asset it should be transferred into the whole organization to really use the gained knowledge.
This is often the most difficult step to establish. NASA, for example, found out that lessons from past experiences are not being applied to current programs and projects.
NASA recognizes the importance of learning from the past to ensure future mission success and uses several mechanisms to capture and disseminate lessons learned. NASA defines a lessons learned as knowledge or understanding gained by experience (GAO- report, 2002). In this paragraph the concepts of knowledge sharing and the
(environmental) factors influencing knowledge sharing will be considered. The supporting systems for lessons learned will be further discussed in Paragraph 2.4.
The definitions of knowledge given in Paragraph 2.1 state that knowledge originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. It can be stated that all knowledge is personal and is used to make judgements and distinctions in placing meanings on, and interpreting, information. In relation to the competitive advantage as mentioned in the introduction, the company’s overall performance depends on the extent to which managers can mobilize all of the knowledge resources held by individuals and teams and turn these resources into value-creating activities (Von Krogh, Ichijo, Nonaka, 2000). “Innovations come about when organizational members: share tacit knowledge; convert this into explicit knowledge in the form of a concept for a product or service; use company visions, strategies, market studies, or social opinions to justify this concept; and finally build a new prototype product” (Von Krogh, 1998, p135). “Tacit knowledge cannot be passed onto other individuals easily, since it is mainly acquired through experience and is not easily articulated in words” (Voelpel, 2003, p62). In this sense, when one talks about knowledge sharing in general and about lessons learned dissemination in specific, the notion of the interaction of individuals is important. Individuals should be able and willing to share their personal true beliefs about a situation with other team members (Von Krogh, 1998). In this context, Davenport & Prusak (1997, p87) define knowledge sharing as: “Knowledge sharing is the voluntary act of making knowledge available to others.”
This should be distinguished from reporting, which is the involuntary exchange of information / knowledge on a routine structured basis (Davenport & Prusak, 1997). In the beginning a clear understanding of the benefits of knowledge sharing is necessary. In a report of the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) the fundamentals for creating a knowledge sharing culture at NASA are investigated. GAO identified the policies, procedures, and systems NASA has in place for lessons learning (1), assessed how effectively these policies, procedures, and systems facilitate lessons learning (2), and determined whether further efforts are needed to improve lessons learning (3). They summarized the benefits of knowledge sharing as follow (GAO-report, 2002):
Best practice is repeated;
Known mistakes are avoided;
Better understanding of project;
Improved performance (also individually);
Time saved;
Reduced costs;
Better customer satisfaction.
Effective knowledge sharing puts particular demands on the way people relate to each other in an organization. According to Von Krogh, Ichijo and Nonaka (2000), five dimensions of behaviour in relationships are most important: mutual trust, active empathy, access to help, lenience in judgement, and courage. Care gives rise to these forms and to their interplay and is defined as serious attention, a feeling of concern and interest. When care is low among organizational members, the individual will try to capture his knowledge rather than share it voluntary because he is scared of losing his acquired skills and knowledge and so to lose power and influence. Furthermore, sharing tacit knowledge normally requires the use of unconventional language, analogies, or metaphors. When care runs low, applying such means proves difficult since there is little trust and lenience, as well as inadequate courage for experimentation. When there is care in organizational relationships, there will be mutual trust, active empathy, access to help among team members, lenient judgement towards participants in the team, and courage. In such a situation the individual organizational member will transfer knowledge to others as well as receive active help form others. There will be a mutual intent to help others to optimize their task performance, and therefore, to share knowledge. Also, other PROPOSITION 1: If there is a clear understanding by employees of what knowledge means for an organization and how it can generate competitive advantage, then knowledge sharing will succeed.
organizational members will take an active interest in the learning process, and the individual will be encouraged to make knowledge explicit while learning (Von Krogh, Ichijo, Nonaka, 2000).
There are many ways to destroy care, and thus knowledge sharing, in any organization.
Establishing bureaucracy with clear job descriptions – and reinforcing it with strong control mechanisms and clearly articulated sanctions to be expected when high performance targets not met – could lead to avoid the extra effort of caring (Von Krogh, 1998). Because a social environment characterized by high care result in new shared tacit knowledge that can form the basis for creating a new service or product concept, the challenge for management is to make care in organizational relationships widespread and sustainable (Von Krogh, 1998). In the rest of this paragraph a few factors are mentioned which have to be considered in order to make knowledge sharing truly happen. It is based on the ShareNet-case (Gibbert, Jonczyk & Voelpel, 2000; Voelpel, Dous & Davenport, 2005, forthcoming) and work of Von Krogh (1998), unless otherwise indicated. The ShareNet case describes how Siemens ICN succeeded in its transformation from mainly a product seller to that of a global solution provider. It outlines the role ShareNet, a global knowledge management network, played within this transformation and discusses the critical success factors.
Top management’s support
Perhaps the most important critical success factor to making knowledge sharing happen is the unconditional support of top management. Top management’s support enhances the value and strategic quality of the knowledge management’s initiative and sents a signal to channel organizational resources and individual commitment towards this element. Furthermore, they should continuously communicate the benefits and business results of knowledge sharing. The management should communicate a clear and consistent message about the corporate vision, strategy, goals and objectives in relation to the knowledge management activities.
Organizational structure
While technology can certainly act as a facilitator for knowledge sharing, especially in the case of explicit knowledge, it is erroneous to believe that high volume, quantitative data repositories can significantly improve organizational knowledge assets. Since knowledge is not static, but subject to continuous modification, it cannot be frozen into depositories.
The people-to-people connection should be facilitated by means of project debriefings and other forms of learning-oriented conversations. Good project debriefings / project evaluations cover a review of the project goals and whether they were met, the individuals’ experiences with working relationships, the key lessons learned by the individuals and by the team as a whole, the new methods and tools resulting from the project, the quality of the leadership exercised, as well as the knowledge and best practice(s) to be transferred to other teams.
Motivation and reward system
It is necessary to systematically identify and eliminate any organizational structures that could prevent knowledge from being shared, leveraged, and enriched by different
PROPOSITION 3: If there is heavy management support for lessons learned dissemination and knowledge sharing, then it is more likely that effective knowledge sharing will occur.
PROPOSITION 2: If there is a clear understanding by employees of the benefits of explicit lessons learned formulation and of sharing what they know, then there will be more employees willing to start performing project evaluations and to contribute to a lessons learned system.
Some potential ‘knowledge sellers’ keep themselves out of the market because they believe they benefit more from hoarding their knowledge than they would from sharing it. If knowledge is power, then the owners of knowledge have power that may disappear if other people come to know what they know. This is a reality of knowledge politics that managers need to deal with in designing knowledge initiatives. One of the challenges of knowledge management is to ensure that knowledge sharing is rewarded more than knowledge hoarding (Davenport & Prusak, 2000).
A critical success factor, therefore, is firstly the establishment of a motivation and reward system to remove the fears and anxieties that could prevent the exchange of knowledge.
Getting a person to enhance other people’s knowledge by voluntarily contributing his or her own does not easily happen. An incentive system with particular focus on access to help and other behaviour that builds up care in organizational relationships motivate the individuals to share what they know.
Organizational culture
Organizational culture as a set of beliefs, attitudes, and assumptions is mainly concerned with the unwritten, less visible part of the organization. To a large extent, knowledge sharing depends on the quality of the relationship between employees, as well as their relationship with management. A culture of openness, mutual respect and the absence of ambiguity is fundamental for fostering knowledge sharing.
A strong hierarchy often counteracts such an atmosphere since it promotes individual performance at the expense of team performance. Another barrier is that a strong hierarchy naturally directs responsibility towards the top, whereas a culture conducive to knowledge sharing is built on empowerment.
Four ways can be identified in which culture influences the behaviours central to knowledge creation, sharing, and use. First, culture – and particularly subcultures – shapes assumptions about what knowledge is and which knowledge is worth managing.
Second, culture defines the relationship between individual and organizational knowledge, determining who is expected to control specific knowledge, as well as who must share it and who can hoard it. Third, culture creates the context for social interaction that determines how knowledge will be used in particular situations. Fourth, culture shapes the processes by which new knowledge – with its accompanying uncertainties – is created, legitimated, and distributed in organizations (De Long &
Fahey, 2000).
So, culture determines the environment within which individuals communicate. Culture shapes vertical interactions in many ways, but two particularly relevant to knowledge creation and sharing are norms determining the acceptability of discussing sensitive topics, and perceived approachability of senior management. Culture also shapes patterns and qualities of interactions needed to leverage knowledge among individuals at the same level in the organization. Three characteristics differentiate organizations in this area: the volume of interactions, level of collaboration and collective responsibility, and an orientation to seek out existing expertise or knowledge. Finally, some special behaviours can be formulated which promote knowledge sharing. Cultures that explicitly favour knowledge sharing over knowledge acquisition will create a context for interaction that is more favourable to leveraging knowledge. Teaching is another behaviour that influences the social context. How an organization reacts to mistakes is another norm that shapes the context for social interaction (De Long & Fahey, 2000).
2.4 Lessons Learned Systems
In this paragraph a possible way of designing a lessons learned system is mentioned, based on Weber & Aha (2002), Weber, Aha & Becerra-Fernandez (2000; 2001), and Weber, Aha, Munoz-Ávila & Breslow (2000). A lessons learned system is an instance of a knowledge process for lessons learned repositories that support their leveraging and sharing (Weber & Aha, 2002).
A learned lesson, in the context of a pre-defined organizational process, summarizes an experience that should be used to modify that process, under the conditions for which
that lesson applies. To promote lesson reuse, many organizations employ lessons learned processes, which is a knowledge management approach for collecting, storing, disseminating, and reusing experiential working knowledge that, when applied, can significantly benefit targeted organizational processes (Davenport & Prusak, 2000).
A more detailed definition commonly used is the following: “A lesson learned is a knowledge or understanding gained by experience. The experience may be a “good work practice” or innovative approach that is captured to promote repeat replication. A lesson learned may also be an adverse work practice or experience that is captured and shared to avoid recurrence. A lesson must be significant in that it has a real or assumed impact on operations; valid in that it is factually correct; and applicable in that it identifies a specific design, process, or decision that reduces or eliminates the potential for failures and mishaps, or reinforces a positive result” (Secchi, Ciaschi & Spence, 1999, p58).
This definition clarifies the guiding criteria needed for reusing lessons, and how reuse should focus on processes that a lesson can impact (Weber, Aha & Becerra-Fernandez, 2001).
Lessons learned systems are motivated by the need to preserve an organization’s knowledge and convert individual knowledge into organizational knowledge so that, when experts become unavailable; other employees who encounter conditions that closely match some lesson’s context may benefit from applying it. Therefore, a lesson learned is a validated working experience that, when applied, can positively impact an organization’s processes (Weber, Aha, Muñoz-Ávila & Breslow, 2000).
Lessons learned systems succeed in promoting knowledge reuse / sharing if the selected representations of lessons are typically designed to facilitate reuse and if these systems are integrated into an organization’s decision-making process, which is the primary requirement for any solution to successfully contribute to knowledge management activities. A Lessons learned system should include lesson representations chosen to potentiate knowledge sharing in an embedded system in which lessons are proactively brought to the attention of users (Weber, Aha, Muñoz-Ávila & Breslow, 2000).
The essential components of a generic lessons learned process are shown in figure 2.4.1;
the components are based on a survey by Weber, Aha & Becerra-Fernandez (2001) of thirty-five organizations that deploy and utilize lessons learned systems and such flowcharts are produced to communicate how lessons are to be acquired, validated, and disseminated. The primary lessons learned sub-processes, according to the above mentioned definition, are collect, verify, store, disseminate, and reuse (Weber, Aha &
Becerra-Fernandez, 2001).
Figure 2.4.1 A generic lessons learned system (Source: Weber, Aha & Becerra-Fernandez, 2001)
The lessons learned should be collected by the organizational members; a lesson is derived from an experience in which the result derived from applying an originating action yields significant new knowledge (i.e., a contribution), due to a success or failure that can, and should, be taught to others. A possible instrument that helps the collection of lessons learned is a project debriefing / project evaluation. After collection in a so called lessons learned center, the lessons are verified for their newness and significance by domain experts. A lesson’s conditions for reuse are the relevant state variables that existed when the originating action occurred. An ideal, validated lesson facilitates its dissemination by clearly stating its contribution and the decision, task, or process for
