Mechanisms for Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness: An Exploratory Analysis
Knowledge management systems (KMS) have been implemented in many organizations, yet
little research exists to guide their successful development and implementation in practice. In
fact, while some firms achieve successful outcomes with regard to their IT endeavours, others
continue to fall victim to the technology productivity paradox. Further, little is known about
the diversity of both systems and organizations that have successfully implemented them.
This article, through an analysis of successful case studies of knowledge management systems,
explores the underlying mechanisms under which knowledge management systems effectiveness
is most likely to occur. The findings imply that three categories of mechanisms constitute
important preconditions for knowledge management systems effectiveness;......
Knowledge and Process Management Volume 12 Number 3 pp 203–216 (2005)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/kpm.231
& Research Article
Mechanisms for Knowledge
Management Systems Effectiveness:
An Exploratory Analysis
Hind Benbya* and Nassim Aissa Belbaly
e-Business Management School, University of Lecce–ISUFI, Lecce, Italy
Knowledge management systems (KMS) have been implemented in many organizations, yet
little research exists to guide their successful development and implementation in practice. In
fact, while some firms achieve successful outcomes with regard to their IT endeavours, others
continue to fall victim to the technology productivity paradox. Further, little is known about
the diversity of both systems and organizations that have successfully implemented them.
This article, through an analysis of successful case studies of knowledge management systems,
explores the underlying mechanisms under which knowledge management systems effective-
ness is most likely to occur. The findings imply that three categories of mechanisms constitute
important preconditions for knowledge management systems effectiveness; they range from
cultural to structural and managerial mechanisms. Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION manage the knowledge it possesses. This aware-
ness is one of the main reasons for the exponential
It has become largely agreed today that organiza- growth of knowledge management systems (KMS).
tional knowledge such as operational routines, KMS are enabling technologies that support knowl-
skills or know-how are the most valuable organiza- edge management in organizations (Ruggles, 1997).
tional resources of a firm. This perspective builds There are a number of perspectives on KMS,
upon and extends the resource-based view (RBV) and different typologies concerning such systems
of the firm initially promoted by Penrose (1959) have been developed in the literature. In fact, while
and expanded by others (Barney, 1991; Prahalad Hansen et al. (1999) distinguish them under the
and Hamel, 1990; Teece et al., 1997). The premise personalization/codification perspective, Ruggles
of the RBV is that organizations employ a mix of (1997) classifies them according to the knowledge
acquisition and configuration of resources to management process they support. While this
change how their business is accomplished. Knowl- growing literature is a good indication of the
edge is often the basis for the effective utilization of importance of such systems for both theory and
many important resources. In this context, informa- practice, little research exists to guide their success-
tion and communication technologies may play an ful development and implementation in practice
important role in effectuating the knowledge-based (Alavi and Leidner, 1999). In fact, while some firms
view of the firm by enhancing a firm’s capability to achieve successful outcomes with regard to their IT
endeavours, others continue to fall victim to the
technology productivity paradox. Further, little is
*Correspondence to: Hind Benbya, e-Business Management known about the diversity of both systems and
School, University of Lecce–ISUFI, Via per Monteroni sn 73100
Lecce, Italy. organizations that have successfully implemented
E-mail: [email protected] KMS. To address these issues, the current study
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
reports the result from a multiple case study of resources and outputs associated with business
KMS. In particular, this article has two main objec- processes. Taking into account that the goal of pro-
tives. The first is to show through examples the role cess modelling is to reach a common understand-
and practical applications of KMS. The second is to ing about how activities should be carried out
analyse how some companies succeeded in deploy- (e.g. in which order) and what it produces, it has
ing KMS, in particular with regard to the mechan- become largely agreed that knowledge manage-
isms they deployed to achieve success. The paper is ment activities should be integrated within day-
organized as follows. The first section presents a to-day business processes to ensure continual
short overview of previous literature concerning process improvement and facilitate learning and
KMS. In the second section the research methodol- the gradual development of organizational
ogy will be explained, while the third section dis- memory. The main approaches that have tried to
cusses our main findings concerning KMS types develop a systematic method to integrate knowl-
in practice and mechanisms for success. Finally edge management into business processes are the
we present the conclusions and indicate future common KADS methodology (see Schreiber et al.,
research issues. 1999), the knowledge value chain approach
(Weggeman, 1998), model-based knowledge
management (Allweyer and Loos, 1998) and the
model-based design of knowledge-oriented pro-
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
cesses. Furthermore, research indicates that compa-
nies focus on specific business processes to
KMS origins and definitions
implement knowledge management (Mertins et al.,
Traditionally, most research in strategic IT has 2001). In particular, organizations try to sustain
focused on the ability of IT to add economic their core processes which represent the core com-
value to a firm either by reducing a firm’s costs petence and most important capability of the firm
or by differentiating its products and services. A (e.g. aerospace organizations start their initiatives
principal argument in this line of reasoning is focusing on the design and R&D process). Nissen
that the competitive use of IT has the potential to et al. (2000) suggest that the first stage of knowledge
provide sustainability and competitive advantage system design involves process analysis; in fact,
(Kettinger et al., 1994; Clemons, 1991). As knowl- until one understands the process, with its various
edge is often the basis for the effective use of a opportunities and required knowledge, it makes
firm’s resources, a new line of IT-based systems little sense to begin designing systems. Therefore,
to support organizational knowledge management business processes determine the underlying KMS
has emerged called knowledge management sys- because they use all the flows necessary to repro-
tems. KMS have been defined as a line of systems duce the real working of the business processes
which target professional and managerial activities (Figure 1).
by focusing on creating, gathering, organizing and
disseminating an organization’s ‘knowledge’ as
KMS taxonomy
opposed to ‘information’ or ‘data’ (Becerra-
Fernandez, 2000). The development of KMS There are a number of perspectives on KMS, and
demands that knowledge be obtained, produced, different typologies concerning such systems have
shared, regulated and leveraged by a steady con- been developed in the literature. In fact, a first
glomeration of individuals, processes and IT but approach to providing a taxonomy of KMS is to
still to be effective KMS should fit the overall orga- distinguish them by where knowledge resides
nizational culture and structure. The first and early and the extent to which knowledge is structured
adopters of KMS have been large consulting com- (Hahn and Subramani, 2002). Becerra-Fernandez
panies; today, such systems are used in a variety (2000) also provides a classification of KMS in
of areas such as medicine, engineering, product terms of knowledge dimensions (tacit/explicit)
design and construction (Hendriks and Vriens, and the extent of codifiability they require. These
1999; Davenport and Prusak, 2000; Tiwana and two classifications are an extension of the taxon-
Ramesh, 2000). omy proposed by Hansen et al. (1999), which distin-
KMS design finds its origins in knowledge-based guish mainly between two strategies: codification
systems and information systems which are mainly versus personalization strategy. While the codifica-
used in intranet development and business process tion strategy relies extensively on codifying and
re-engineering. These techniques rely heavily on storing knowledge in databases, the personaliza-
business process modelling, which allows the cap- tion strategy focuses on the tacit dimension of
ture of the significant flows, events, inputs, knowledge and invests in networks to facilitate
204 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Information systems Knowledge-based systems
Knowledge management systems
Core processes
Value Creation
Figure 1 Knowledge management systems foundations
knowledge exchange via person-to-person con- the tacit dimension of knowledge. This category
tacts. Another taxonomy of KMS differentiates includes:
them according to the knowledge management
expertise location or what’s called ‘yellow pages’
process they mainly support (creation, storage,
or ‘people finder’ that capture and inventory the
transfer and application) (Alavi and Leidner,
knowledge, experience and backgrounds of the
2001; Ruggles, 1997; Tiwana and Ramesh, 2000.
firm’s experts and act as connectors between
However, the main important distinction between
knowledge and expertise seekers and holders;
the various KMS that exist remains the one that dis-
communities of practice that provide a social for-
tinguishes between the tacit versus explicit dimen-
um to groups of people who share a concern, a
sion of knowledge. Accordingly, following this
set of problems and who deepen their knowl-
articulation of knowledge in tacit versus explicit
edge and expertise in this area by interacting
dimensions, KMS can be classified into three cate-
on an ongoing basis (Wenger et al., 2002).
gories: dynamic systems, process-oriented systems
and integrative systems (Figure 2).
Process-oriented knowledge management systems
Dynamic knowledge management systems Organizations with significant intellectual capital
Dynamic KMS support mainly interactive commu- require eliciting and capturing knowledge for
nications between experts or team-based manage- reuse in new problems as well as recurring old pro-
ment and are consequently more concerned about blems. They focus mainly on the technical side of
Class Objective Example
Locate knowledge
carriers and seekers
- Expert networks
- communities of practice
- Create a social forum
- Access to experts - Yellow pages
Dynamic systems - Support cross functional
teams
- provide cross- skills set
for projects
- Best practices
KMS Process oriented systems - Capture knowledge for reuse
in solving recurring problems - Process descriptions
- Improve processes databases
- Knowledge repositories
- Integrate knowledge - Corporate portal
Source and provide a - Extranet portals
Integrated systems Single point of access
- Intranet portals
Figure 2 Knowledge management systems classification and examples
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 205
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
knowledge and can be an important support for despite tremendous improvements in sophistica-
new product development (e.g. a system to store tion of technologies and major gains in related
marketing-oriented documents or more focused price–performance ratios. These conflicting results
on R&D). These systems include lessons learned may be attributable to: (1) incomplete or inap-
systems, processes description databases, knowl- propriate measures of success; (2) lack of theoreti-
edge repositories and best practices databases. cal grounding of the causal mechanisms of KMS
success; or (3) myopic focus on financial perfor-
mance indicators.
Integrative knowledge management systems
In light of the above motivations, in this section
While the preceding KMS categories focused
we will review the literature related to these issues,
mainly on one dimension of knowledge over the
with a particular focus on the measures used to
other—either tacit knowledge in the case of expert
assess the effectiveness of KMS.
networks and communities of practice or more
Several perspectives deal with the assessment of
explicit knowledge focused in the case of codifica-
KMS (Lindsey, 2002; Jennex and Olfman, 2004).
tion systems in databases—today, most contem-
One approach is whether these systems perform
porary approaches to KMS design rely on an
knowledge management processes effectively,
integrative perspective on managing both explicit
and consequently if each step of the knowledge
and tacit knowledge dimensions because it offers
process is performed well the system reaches its
unrestricted possibilities for uniformly accessing
objectives. Other authors also take into considera-
knowledge across a variety of sources. This is the
tion the organizational context as they recognize
case for the corporate portal which integrates dif-
that knowledge management is an organizational
ferent applications from collaboration tools to a
change process and that its success could not be
database supporting knowledge embedded within
separate from organizational change success.
business processes (Benbya et al., 2004).
This is the case for Lindsey, who defines knowl-
edge management effectiveness/success in terms
of two main constructs: knowledge infrastructure
KMS effectiveness
capability and knowledge process capability.
The benefits of using KMS are high because they Knowledge infrastructure capability represents
include the ability of organizations to be flexible social capital; the relationships between knowledge
and to respond more quickly to changing market sources and users; and is operationalized by tech-
conditions, and the ability to be more innovative nology (the network itself), structure (the relation-
as well as improve decision making and productiv- ship) and culture (the context in which the
ity (Harris, 1996). Some authors provided empirical knowledge is created and used). Knowledge pro-
evidence based on qualitative cases with regard to cess capability represents the integration of KM
the performance implications of KMS (Hansen et al., processes into the organization, and is operationa-
1999; Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000; Szulanski, lized by acquisition (the capturing of knowledge),
2000). In particular, KMS are expected to contribute conversion (making captured knowledge avail-
to the competitive advantage of companies by sup- able), application (degree to which knowledge is
porting and enhancing organizational knowledge. useful) and protection (security of knowledge).
For example, KMS foster the systematic identifica- Jennex and Olfman (2004) propose a model for
tion of central knowledge and expertise, encourage KMS success based on the Delone and Mclean IS
converting knowledge into manifest forms (e.g. success model. The proposed model on KMS suc-
explicit knowledge) and make information accessi- cess evaluates as an improvement in organizational
ble to others in the firm for local use in terms of effectiveness based on the use of and impacts from
knowledge reuse and as input for knowledge the KMS. The model uses the following dimensions
development. Thus, KMS may ease the integration to measure KMS success:
of dispersed knowledge (Grant, 1996), speed up the
replication of best practices across time and place System quality. Defines how well the KMS per-
(Nelson and Winter, 1982), avoid double invention, forms the functions of knowledge management
facilitate leveraging across uses and users (Quinn, (creation, transfer, storage . . . ).
1992; Quinn et al., 1996) and reduce costs of search- Knowledge/information quality. Ensures that the
ing and transforming available knowledge for local right knowledge with sufficient context is cap-
use (Hedlund, 1994). While potential benefits of tured and available for the right use at the right
KMS have been addressed theoretically in the lit- time.
erature, less is known about how these can be rea- Use/user satisfaction. Reflects actual levels of KMS
lized in practice. Significant failure rates persist use as well as the satisfaction of KMS users.
206 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Table 1 Example of mechanisms studied that affect KMS effectiveness
Source Cultural mechanisms Structural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms
studied studied studied
Bartol and Srivastava (2002) — — Reward systems
Janz and Prasarnphanich (2003) Organizational culture — —
Argote et al. (2003) Social relations person– Organizational boundaries Rewards and incentives
organization fit Rules and routines
McEvily et al. (2003) Level of trust — —
Gold et al. (2001) Organizational culture Structure Management support
Mofett et al. (2002) Organizational climate Knowledge roles —
Connelly and Kelloway Social interaction culture — Perception of management’s
(2003) support
Mason (2003) Organizational culture — —
Perceived benefits. Measure perceptions of the ben- standard techniques for conducting qualitative
efits and impacts of the KMS by users and is case study research were followed (Yin, 1994). In
based on the perceived benefit model. the first stage, qualitative research was carried
Net impact. An individual’s use of a KMS will out with the objective of gaining an in-depth
produce an impact on that person’s performance understanding on knowledge management sys-
in the workplace. tems and the mechanisms identified from previous
research. The mechanisms identified from the lit-
KMS and IT in general can only add value to an
erature and classified as structural, cultural or man-
organization when they are used, and that value to
agerial, on the one hand, and the classification of
individuals arises when use of the knowledge in
KMS as dynamic, process-oriented and integrative
the KMS enables them to perform their work in
on the other, were also found significant in the
ways that are more efficient, more effective and/
substantial number of surveys about knowledge
or more satisfying. In this article we define the
management (KM) reported in the literature (e.g.
effectiveness of KMS as a value judgment made
APQC, 1996; KPMG, 1998; Heisig et al., 2002).
by its users and which allows organizations to
These surveys, together with an abundance of
accomplish more efficiently what it could not any
case studies, give an initial overview of the state
other way. We distinguish between the context in
of practice of KM and in particular addresses
which the system is used and its related outcomes.
KMS types adopted by some organizations and
We refer to the factors acting on KMS effectiveness
the conditions that were conducive to success. To
as mechanisms.
further our exploration on KMS types, main bene-
The study of published reports on KMS has iden-
fits and mechanisms, we studied the 20 multina-
tified a number of mechanisms for KMS effective-
tional organizations that were selected for the
ness. The results of the studies summarized in
2003 ‘MAKE’ (Most Admired Knowledge Enter-
Table 1 show that they can be clustered into three
prises) study as best practices.
groups: structural, cultural and managerial. First is
These organizations are, according to MAKE,
the emphasis by so many on the importance of
‘leaders in effectively transforming enterprise
structural mechanisms that incorporate all the
knowledge into wealth creating ideas, products
functional elements of the company that support
and solutions. They are building portfolios of intel-
and facilitate knowledge management, such as a
lectual capital and intangible assets which will
dedicated structure, rules and routines. Second is
enable them to out-perform their competitors in
the frequent mention that an organizational culture
the future.’ The classification of these best practices
of knowledge sharing is a correlate of success.
is based on a Delphi methodology, where a panel
Third is the prevalent, though not universal, use
of experts on KM validated the results.
of incentives to change behaviour and encourage
Table 2 summaries the industry sectors repre-
system usage.
sented and the types of systems that these organi-
zations deployed.
RESEARCH DESIGN Thematic analysis of the research findings of the
first phase, together with the analysis of published
This research was undertaken through a multiple documentation and the information provided by
case study (Yin, 1994). In gathering the data, these companies on their initiatives, served to
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 207
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
Table 2 Knowledge management initiatives deployed by best practices organizations
Organizations Industry KMS type
Accenture Consulting Integrative solution (best practices, experts . . . )
Amazon.com Shopping site Integrative solution ( best books, experts . . . )
BP Oil and gas Knowledge repositories
Buckman Laboratories Chemicals Interactive networks (forums, case history . . . )
Canon Networking and imaging technology Extranet portal ( CRM, SCM system)
Ernest & Young Professional services Integrative solution (best practices, experts . . . )
General Electric Diversified Knowledge repositories
Hewlett Packard High technology Corporate portal
Infosys Technologies Software consulting and IT services Interactive networks
IBM Computers and office equipment Corporate portal
McKinsey & Company Consulting Intranet knowledge portal
Microsoft Computer software Communities of practice
Nokia Mobile communications Knowledge repositories
Price waterhouse Coopers Consulting Integrative solution (best practices, experts . . . )
Royal Dutch/Shell Energy company (oil, gas, solar) Distributed teams and communities
Siemens Diversified Integrated solution (sales documents, forums)
3M Analogue devices Knowledge repositories
Toyota Motor Automobile Best practices database
World Bank Bank Communities of practice
Xerox Computer and office equipment Best practices database (technical tips)
confirm the taxonomy of KMS proposed in the arti- What, according to them, are the main mechan-
cle and to confirm the classification of mechanisms isms (cultural, structural and managerial) that
that these organizations deployed in three groups contributed to achieving the foremost benefits?
(cultural, structural and managerial). What measurement systems are they using to
The second phase consisted of an in-depth analy- assess these benefits?
sis of four organizations from the above for further
The major method of data collection was based
investigation; these were Siemens, Buckman
on semi-structured interviews; in fact, the themes
Laboratories, Xerox and Shell. These organizations
above were explored with a series of key informant
have been selected consecutively by the MAKE
interviews involved in the different initiatives.
study as best practices for 3 years; they belong to
In addition to the interview data, researchers
different industries and have adopted different
have collected and analysed a variety of company
types of KMS. Another selection criterion related
documentation, which included: conference pre-
to the effectiveness of the KMS deployed in these
sentations and papers developed by their own
organizations that are, according to their managers,
employees and with other researchers, and describ-
not only fully used within their organizations but
ing their main KM initiatives; internally circulated
also allow their users to accomplish better what
manuals for KMS users; reports and statistics on
they could not otherwise.
their use and participation levels.
This analysis fulfils a dual function in assessing
From the data collected on KMS under investiga-
the mechanisms that constitute preconditions of
tion in this study, many comparisons and contrasts
KMS effectiveness in organizations, as well as
can be made. They are detailed in terms of KMS
forming the basis for the development of a concep-
types and characteristics (Table 2) and in terms of
tual model of ‘Mechanisms for KMS effectiveness’
mechanisms (cultural, structural and managerial)
to be tested empirically in the third phase of the
used to achieve success and benefits date (Table 3).
project.
Within this context, the qualitative analysis of the
cases is aimed at answering the following research
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
questions:
KMS types
What were the main functionalities of the used
KMS? The majority of the cases studied were concerned
What were the main benefits they achieved from with, bridging the gap between explicit versus tacit
their KMS? knowledge. Personalized knowledge, bound to the
208 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Table 3 Summary results of the best practices analyzed
Siemens case study
ShareNet Description of the system
ShareNet is a global knowledge database that links the salespeople of Siemens Information and Communication
Networks (ICN) worldwide, making each salesperson’s accumulated learning experiences accessible to the entire sales force.
Main functionalities
Customer solutions with their accompanying sales arguments, descriptions of successful projects, presentations, relevant
business plan
Contact persons for technical issues and financial concepts
Chat rooms, community news, discussion groups on special issues and urgent requests
Sections: market knowledge, competitor knowledge, technology knowledge, complementor knowledge,
customer knowledge
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
New organizational positions and Promoters of ShareNet worked Leadership The savings of costs. e.g. by reusing
Knowledge and Process Management
roles were appointed to support hard to spread messages Management support along knowledge on how to simplify
the initiative encouraging knowledge sharing the initiative through signals to processes
ShareNet Committee: highest and reuse and to create a culture channel organizational resources Increased revenues, e.g. by increasing
decision body for the future conductive to knowledge sharing and individual commitment the quality of tenders by reusing
development of ShareNet including Another concern was to develop towards this element was knowledge of the success factors of
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness
the CEO, which act as facilitators empowerment instead of strong important in making global tenders, or by simply being faster than
and trainers ensuring the roll-out hierarchy that naturally directed knowledge sharing happen the competition by reusing documents
Global editors: they act as responsibility towards the top Management helped to The alignment with customer needs, by
mechanisms for making knowledge communicate the idea of ShareNet recognizing important trends and
richer, more general and reusable across organizational levels and developments worldwide
ShareNet managers: support functional departments to ensure
contributors in capturing the its added value was understood and
project experiences and marketing appreciated
know-how; drive the development
of reusable knowledge Reward system
Contributing and reusing knowledge
is rewarded by ShareNet ‘shares’.
Depending on the number of shares
accumulated during a year, employees
are rewarded with several incentives,
such as conference participation or
telecommunications equipment
The number of shares given to the
contributor depends on the reuse
feedback of the taker of knowledge,
thus rewarding the usefulness of the
transferred knowledge
The feedback mechanism is an
important part of the quality
assurance system too
209
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Continues
Table 3 Continued
210
Buckman Laboratories case study
K’Netix Description of the system
K’Netix is the Buckman knowledge network for help answering very specific questions. The heart of the system was its forums.
The majority of them aim at improving customer productivity and are organized by business area
Main functionalities
Customer information centre: Buckman’s customers, internal memos, documents and sales orders
Tech forums, each with its own message board, a conference room to facilitate debate and a library section where the
RESEARCH ARTICLE
communication threads and other pertinent knowledge would be stored
Case history, product data sheet, technical library
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
New organizational positions A code of ethics was created to Leadership Increase of sales from new products
and roles were appointed to act as a glue to hold the company Management support for the Increase the speed of response to
support the initiative together and provide the basis initiative by triggering personnel customers’ needs
Knowledge transfer department for the respect and trust necessary through messages and enticements Increase customer intimacy and meet
which aims at planning, in a knowledge-sharing environment was clear: ‘Those of you who have customer requirements
organizing and managing Another concern was to develop something intelligent to say now Increase customer satisfaction
information system applications empowerment instead of strong have a forum in which to say it.
and associated resources hierarchy that naturally directed Those of you who will not or cannot
to respond to the information responsibility towards the top contribute also become obvious.
and knowledge needs of If you are not willing to contribute or
Buckman Laboratories worldwide participate, you should understand that
Systems operators (Sysops) were the many opportunities offered to you in
appointed to monitor the the past will no longer be available’
discussions in the forums, track
requests and make sure they Motivation and incentives
were answered Employees were encouraged to use the
Sysops would try to get answers system in a relaxed atmosphere, such as
in 24 hours; if not they would from their homes
contact people directly and ask When the marketing department reviewed
them to respond. Additionally and accepted a ‘case history’ submission,
they were to give positive the submitting sales associate received
feedback to those who did respond $100, which was raised later to $200
Content experts, two industry Selection of ‘the 150’ best knowledge
experts or section leaders in each sharers were invited to a fashionable
forum were assigned to provide a resort
measure of quality assurance
regarding the advice given by
others
H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Knowledge and Process Management
Shell case study
Wells global network Description of the system
Wells global network includes technical networks and communities centred around commercial practice, procurement,
benchmarking, competitive intelligence and knowledge sharing
Main functionalities
Expertise directory, global consultants, global networks, centres of excellence
Standards procedures, policies, best practices, discussions with peers and colleagues
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
New organizational positions Promotion of a spirit built on Reward system Facilitates the sharing of lessons learned,
and roles were appointed to friendship and a genuine desire Curiosity and gaining recognition and helps avoid repeating the same
support the initiative to help each other, sharing a from peers are the main motivators mistakes or reinventing the wheel
Global coordinator (community sense of pride in work and for participation Cost savings
builder, energizer, ambassador, having fun ‘Appearing in the Expertise Be able to provide timely cost-effective
Knowledge and Process Management
chaser) Trusted relationships and Directory, is the confirmation of advice which proved to be of particular
Facilitator (experienced in confidence that comes from a an individual’s credentials to benefit during the development of various
kicking off new networks) community with common values perform the service which has been front-end philosophy documents
The organizational performance and a common story about their brokered by a more personal contact’ Allows more optimal allocation of
and learning team helped history, however short Interest in solving specific problems, share resources without physical relocation
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness
restructure, reinvigorate and feedback and experience Provides access to expertise beyond
expand the computer-based current establishment
global networks Gain quick, informative responses and
clear practical advice and experience
Xerox case study
Eureka Description of the system
Eureka is a community-based knowledge-sharing solution for customer service engineers through tips and best practices
contributed by the service technicians themselves and available to customer service technicians worldwide
Main functionalities
Submission of a tip (context of the problem and the solution that was developed)
Evaluation and validation within 14 days
Database maintenance was everyone’s responsibility through votes and feedback
Structural mechanisms Cultural mechanisms Managerial mechanisms Benefits
New organizational positions Sharing is voluntary; however, Leadership Improvement of employees’ satisfaction as
and roles were appointed to the organization focused on the Management support is key for the it made engineers’ job easier and quicker
support the initiative opportunities to create growth success of any a initiative: ‘In some and allowed Xerox to create intellectual
Appointment of someone in and the proactive sharing of best locations the managers took the time to work capital and social capital at the same time
the strategy office to the position practices through empowering with the teams and developed and showed Improving service to customers and
of Director of Corporate strategy people them video testimonials from financial performance of the business
and knowledge Initiatives through:
211
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Continues
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
individual mind, is difficult to articulate and can-
Number of available solutions in the
— reduction in the length of repair time
— savings costs in engineer’s time (5%) not be transferred easily. Knowledge codified in
— increased customer satisfaction and
Number of problems solved via
databases, manuals and project debriefings, how-
Time it takes to validate tips
Number of created field tips
ever, can be transferred with relative ease. Yet
both are needed to make true knowledge sharing
happen. Tacit knowledge is usually transferred by
people exchanging knowledge through social inter-
action, e.g. during meetings, videoconferences or in
discussion groups. Transferring codified knowl-
edge by means of a codification strategy is realized
Measurement
database
by capturing and storing knowledge in documents
Eureka
retention
and transferring it via databases or similar means.
(5%)
Benefits
In fact, in their preliminary stage, organizations
used knowledge repositories where knowledge is
codified without contextual information. Specialists
were assigned to remove the context of the source
expert is what gives participants credit
was good deployment and high usage of
Being recognized as the subject matter
material to make them more generally applicable;
engineers just installed the software on
other individuals. In these teams there
successful because the managers did
in doing this, knowledge loses its meaning.
not make Eureka a priority and the
Eureka. In other places it was less
their laptop but did not use it the
Furthermore, people often did not find answers to
and status in their community’
their questions in these repositories. Therefore, we
believe that contextual information should be
included in a knowledge repository and both types
Managerial mechanisms
Motivation and incentives
of knowledge have to be transferred to make true
knowledge sharing happen. In the case of Siemens
Continued
bridging this gap was even considered as a dilem-
ma since an overemphasis on codified knowledge
same way
can miss out on important tacit elements that con-
stitute an integral component of the added value
that solution selling provides. Consequently, Sie-
Table 3
mens based its approach on an interactive solution
that starts with informal discussions through ques-
of KM initiatives across national
tions and answers that, once mature enough,
Cultural barriers in the transfer
become documented as a ‘case history’; this is the
approach used also by Buckman Laboratories to
update knowledge within the system. Shell, on
boundaries still exist
the other hand started with a codification strategy.
Cultural mechanisms
The organization spent millions building databases
of detailed technical documents; the problem, how-
ever, was that nobody searched them and they
were quickly out of date. Consequently, Shell aban-
doned this approach and now focuses on e-learn-
ing packages that deliver a mix of standards and
a connection to a global network.
checking duplicates and outdated
Validators were responsible for
Involving research laboratories
A community of champions
KMS mechanisms for success
supporting KM initiatives
Cultural mechanisms
Structural mechanisms
Organizational cultures are central to knowledge
creation, sharing and use and they are increasingly
recognized as a major barrier to leveraging intellec-
tual assets (De Long and Fahey, 2000; Gordon and
Di Tomaso, 1992). Several scholars and consultants
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998) have argued that
tips
creating a culture that values creativity, continuous
improvement and the sharing of ideas is necessary
212 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
for knowledge management initiatives to succeed. cases, e.g. Shell, the overall initiative was the
However, despite increased research interest and responsibility of an existing unit, ‘the organiza-
industry discussion on organizational culture and tional performance and learning team’, which
its criticality for knowledge management, there is helped restructure, reinvigorate and expand com-
no consensus about what exactly the term means. puter-based global networks. The steering commit-
Considerable agreement and overlap do exist, how- tee, in some cases supported by the CEO, was
ever, regarding the key elements and dimensions of responsible for:
organizational culture; they include shared mean-
ings, norms, values and beliefs (Denison, 1996). design and implementation of an initiative
Organizations do not possess values apart from aligned with organizational objectives;
the values of their members. Thus, an organiza- management of supported resources and
tional value system (or culture) is said to exist enabling factors such as motivation and enabling
when (1) individuals know that group support for culture.
a given belief exists, (2) a majority of active mem-
bers are in agreement, and (3) the core values of Another structural mechanism which played a
an organization are intensely held throughout the crucial role in the success of the overall initiative
organization (Chatman, 1991). Furthermore, cul- was the establishment of a key position named
ture has turned out to be a subtle and often diffi- ‘Systems operators’ in the case of Siemens and
cult-to-manage phenomenon because of its Buckman, who were responsible for the coordina-
dynamic interaction with basic organizational pro- tion of knowledge sharing and acquisition within
cesses such as communications, decision making, the business units. They act as change agents for
change and power and therefore its potential to the organization as they track requests and make
facilitate and/or inhibit the adoption of new tech- sure that they are answered. If necessary, they con-
nologies (Schein, 1985). In the case of Shell, we tact people directly and ask them to respond. Addi-
have seen how the promotion of a spirit built on tionally, they act as cheerleaders, giving positive
friendship and a genuine desire to help each other feedback to those who do respond. Finally, content
and sharing a sense of pride supported effective experts or editors were responsible for the quality
knowledge sharing in general and communities in and update of knowledge within the systems. In
particular. Trusted relationships and the confi- the case of communities of practice, new roles
dence that comes from a community with common were assigned to support communities, such as
values and a common story was the glue that con- the global coordinator, who is responsible for the
nected teams from dispersed geographical loca- community, provides budgets and support for
tions in solving specific problems, sharing time, travel and technologies, or the community
feedback and experience. Organizational culture facilitator, who encourages and moderates
is hard to change, however, as outlined by discussions.
Davenport and Prusak (1998); a culturally led
change programme must be embraced for KM suc-
cess. In the case of Buckman Laboratories the CEO Managerial mechanisms
embarked on a process to shift the company to a Management support to the overall initiative is
culture of openness and knowledge sharing that critical for its success. If management spends a
focused not on products but on problem solving significant amount of resources on either purchas-
for customers. Although this company continues ing or developing and implementing such techno-
to develop new emphases and projects, establish- logy, employees could interpret this as a signal
ing a knowledge-sharing culture remains both a of management’s support for this ideal and act
lodestone and a challenge. accordingly. However, as Martinsons (1993)
acknowledges, if employees perceive that manage-
ment is not very committed to implementing this
Structural mechanisms new technology, then the initiative to promote a
Despite their structural differences, the cases ana- strong knowledge-sharing culture is not likely to
lysed deployed similar mechanisms to support be successful. This has been clearly seen in Xerox,
the initiative. In fact, new organizational positions where the system has been successful in some loca-
and roles were assigned and ranged from appoint- tions while in others the same technology has not
ing a steering committee to the implementation of a been successful: ‘In some locations the managers
separate organizational unit responsible for knowl- took the time to work with the teams and devel-
edge management, such as the ‘Knowledge transfer oped and showed them video testimonials from
department’ in Buckman Laboratories. In other other individuals. In these teams there was good
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 213
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
deployment and high usage of Eureka. In other cumulative research has been conducted to estab-
places it was less successful because the managers lish the mechanisms under which KMS effective-
did not make Eureka a priority and the engineers ness is most likely to occur. In this research, we
just installed the software on their laptop but did attempt to classify the mechanisms used by some
not use it the same way.’ organizations to reach success through KMS. In
The CEO at Buckman Laboratories champions particular, three categories of mechanisms were
the cause for KM within the organization and per- identified: structural, cultural and managerial. Sev-
sonally reviews submissions to its knowledge eral possibilities for future research emerge from
bank. When he notices that a particular employee the results of the current study. First, the current
has not had been active within the system, he sends study was exploratory in nature and focused on a
a message that reads: ‘Dear associate, you haven’t limited number of cases. We hope in further
been sharing your knowledge. How can I help research to develop an integrative framework of
you? All the best, Bob.’ Rewards varied from one these mechanisms which will allow us to measure
organization to another and depended mainly on their relative influence on firm performance. In fact,
the cultural norms in an organization or group. the implications for value creation through KMS
At Buckman, best knowledge sharers held presen- remains largely claimed rather than empirically
tations at fashionable resorts, with attention and corroborated; future research should therefore con-
recognition from peers offered as inducements for sider this issue.
the winning teams. In the case of Siemens, contri- Future research should also consider motiva-
butors were rewarded by ShareNet ‘shares’. tional factors; professionals and managers are
Depending on the number of shares accumulated increasingly recognizing that motivation is a criti-
during a year, employees were rewarded with cal success factor for the implementation of enter-
several incentives, such as conference partici- prise knowledge management systems. However,
pation or telecommunication equipment. In other managers are still struggling to find the right incen-
cases, the motivation of employees to the knowl- tives or the right mix of incentives to support
edge base was mainly based on gaining recogni- knowledge sharing. Preliminary results suggest,
tion from peers, as in the case of Shell or Xerox. however, that these motivational factors are context
The participation in this case is mainly driven by dependent and, consequently, organizational cli-
their own interest and enjoyment to extend and mate plays a critical role. Therefore, despite exten-
exercise one’s capabilities. In the case of Xerox, sive literature on knowledge management in recent
‘Being recognized as the subject matter expert is what years, there are still critical research gaps that have
gives to the participants credit and status in their significant implications for research and practice in
community.’ knowledge management.
Wenger et al. (2002) observe that rewarding
‘voluntary’ behaviour poses a dilemma: ‘How do
we encourage behaviour through extrinsic means
when the intrinsic motivation for such behaviour REFERENCES
is considered a matter of pride and identity?’ For
Alavi M, Leidner DE. 1999. Knowledge management sys-
similar contexts, they observe that: (1) a recognition tems: Issues, challenges and benefits. C AIS 1(7): 2–36.
by peers, not financial rewards, is the primary Alavi M, Leidner DE. 2001. Knowledge management and
motivator for community participation; and (2) knowledge management systems: conceptual founda-
people who contribute regularly to a community tions and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1): 107–
often want their contributions to be recognized by 136.
Alavi M, Tiwana A. 2002. Knowledge integration in
the organization. virtual teams: the potential role of KMS. Journal of
We believe that finding the right balance the American Society for Information Science and
between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is key in Technology 53(12): 1029–1037.
motivating employees to participate in the knowl- Allweyer T, Loos P. 1998. Process orientation in UML
edge base. through integration of event-driven process chains. In
UML’98: Beyond the Notation—International Workshop
(Preliminary Proceedings).
APQC. 1996. Knowledge Management: A cross industry
benchmarking study. American Productivity and
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH Quality Center, Houston. APQC website: www.apqc.
com
Argote L, McEvily B, Reagans R. 2003. Managing knowl-
Knowledge management systems (KMS) have been edge in organizations: an integrative framework and
the subject of considerable interest by academics review of emerging themes. Management Sciences
and practitioners over the past decade, yet little 49(4): 571–582.
214 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE
Barney J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained compe- Hendriks P, Vriens D. 1999. Knowledge-based systems
titive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99– and knowledge management: friends or foes? Informa-
120. tion and Management 35(2): 113–126.
Bartol KM, Abhishek S. 2002. Encouraging knowledge Janz DB, Prasarnphanich P. 2003. Understanding the
sharing: the role of organizational reward system. antecedents of effective knowledge management: the
Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies 9(1): importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision
64–76. Sciences, Atlanta 34(2): 351.
Bassellier G, Reich B, Benbasat I. 2001. Information tech- Jennex M, Olfman L. 2004. Assessing knowledge man-
nology competence of business managers: a definition agement success/effectiveness models. In Proceedings
and research model. Journal of Management Information of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System
Systems 17(4): 159–182. Sciences.
Becerra-Fernandez I. 2000. Facilitating the online search Kettinger WJ, Grover V, Guha S, Segars AH. 1994.
of experts at NASA using expert seeker people-finder. Strategic information systems revisited. MIS Quarterly
PAKM. 31–55.
Benbya H, Passiante G, Belbaly N. 2004. Corporate por- KPMG. 1998. Knowledge management research report.
tal: a tool for knowledge management synchronization. KPMG website: www.kpmg.com
International Journal of Information Management 24(3): Lindsey K. 2002. Measuring knowledge management
201–220. effectiveness: A task-contingent organizational cap-
Chatman JA. 1991. Matching people and organiza- abilities perspective. Eighth American Conference on
tions: selection and socialization in public accounting Information Systems, pp. 2085–2090.
firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 36(3): 459– Martinsons MG. 1993. Cultivating the champions for
485. strategic information systems. Journal of Systems Man-
Clemons EK. 1991. Evaluation of strategic investments in agement 44(8): 31–34.
information technology. Communications of the ACM Mason D. 2003. Tailoring scenario planning to the
34(1): 22–36. company culture. Strategy and Leadership 31(2):
Connelly C, Kelloway EK. 2003. Predictors of em- 25–28.
ployees’ perceptions of knowledge sharing cultures. McEvily B, Peronne V, Zaheer A. 2003. Trust as
Leadership and Organizational Development Journal 24: an organization principle. Organization Science 14:
294. 91–103.
Davenport T, Prusak L. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Mertins K, Heisig P, Vorbeck J (eds). 2001. Knowl-
Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Busi- edge Management: Best practices in Europe. Springer:
ness School Press: Boston, MA. Berlin.
Davenport T, Prusak L. 2000. Working Knowledge. Har- Moffett S, McAdam R, Parkinson S. 2002. Developing a
vard Business School Press: Boston, MA. model for technology and cultural factors in knowl-
De Long DW, Fahey L. 2000. Diagnosing cultural barriers edge management: a factor analysis. Knowledge and
to knowledge management. Academy of Management Process Management 9(4): 237–255.
Executive 14(4): 113–127. Nelson R, Winter S. 1982. An Evolutionary Theory of Eco-
Denison DR. 1996. What is the difference between nomic Change. Belknap Press: Cambridge, MA.
organizational culture and organizational climate? A Nissen ME, Magdi NK, Sengupta KC. 2000. Toward inte-
native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. grating knowledge management, processes, and sys-
Academy of Management Review 21(3): 619–654. tems: Position Paper, Proceedings of American
Gold AH, Malhotra A, Segars AH. 2001. Knowledge Association for Artificial Intelligence, Spring Symposium,
management: an organizational capabilities perspec- Stanford, CA, Workshop on Bringing Knowledge to
tive. Journal of Management Information Systems 18(1): Business Processes.
185–214. Penrose ET. 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm.
Gordon GG, Di Tomaso N. 1992. Predicting corporate Oxford University Press: Oxford.
performance from organizational culture. Journal of Prahalad CK, Hamel G. 1990. The core competence of
Management Studies 29(6): 783–796. the corporation. Harvard Business Review May–June:
Grant RM. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of 79–91.
the firm. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Quinn JB. 1992. Intelligent Enterprise: A Knowledge and
Issue 17: 109–122. Service Based Paradigm for Industry. Free Press:
Gupta AK, Govindarajan V. 2000. Knowledge manage- New York.
ment’s social dimension: lessons from Nucor Steel. Slo- Quinn JB, Anderson P, Finkelstein S. 1996. Managing
an Management Review Fall: 71–80. professional intellect: making the most of the best.
Hahn J, Subramani MR. 2002. A framework of knowl- Academy of Management Executive 74: 71–80.
edge management systems: issues and challenges for Ruggles R. 1997. Knowledge Management tools. Butter-
theory and practice. In International Conference on Infor- worth-Heinemann: Oxford.
mation Systems Proceedings. Schein EH. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership.
Hansen MT, Nohria N, Tierney T. 1999. What’s your Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Schreiber G, Akkermans H, Anjeiwerden A, Hoog R,
Review March–April: 106–116. Shadbolt N, Van de Velde W, Wielinga B. 1999.
Harris DB. 1996. Creating a knowledge centric informa- Knowledge Engineering and Management: The Com-
tion technology environment. http://www.htcs.com/ monKADS Methodology. MIT Press: Cambridge,
ckc.htm MA.
Hedlund G. 1994. A model of knowledge management Szulanski G. 2000. The process of knowledge transfer: a
and the n-form corporation. Strategic Management Jour- diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organizational Beha-
nal 15: 73–90. viour and Human Decision Processes 82(1): 9–27.
Knowledge Management Systems Effectiveness 215
RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management
Teece D, Pisano G, Shuen A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities Weggeman M. 1999. Wissensmanagement. MITP: Bonn.
and strategic management. Strategic Management Jour- Wenger E, McDermott W, Snyder W. 2002. Cultivating
nal 18(7): 509–533. Communities of Practice. Harvard Business Press:
Tiwana A, Ramesh B. 2000. Integrating knowledge Cambridge, MA.
on the web. IEEE Internet Computing May–June: Yin R. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
32–39. Sage: London.
216 H. Benbya and N. A. Belbaly
