Knowledge management implementation in New Zealand organisations: the effect of prior experience with quality management

Abstract

Since the 1990s there has been an increasing level of academic literature identifying knowledge as a resource of significance to organisational competitive advantage, thus requiring effective management. There has also been an increasing amount of practitioner material outlining frameworks and toolkits for implementation, some of which appear at times generic and assume use in varied contexts and often in spite of the sizeable financial investment by companies. Hansen, Nohria & Tierney (1999) studied the ways in which knowledge was being managed by companies in several industries. They found two very different approaches: one involving codification (where the knowledge was separated from the person developing it, stored in databases and made easily accessible to others in the company). The second approach was that of personalisation (where knowledge remained closely tied to the person who had developed it). Their model suggested that for effective management, organisations consider how they deliver value for their customers and from this develop an approach pursuing either personalisation or codification in an 80-20 split. Implementing a 50-50 approach was felt to be detrimental to the company. The broad objective of this study was to explore how KM initiatives are implemented in New Zealand owned and operated companies, and, more specifically, whether the knowledge management approach in these companies had been influenced by the previous implementation of a quality management approach, which can involve codification. The question was then whether organisations went on to develop a codification approach to knowledge management or considered their knowledge management needs and implemented an approach that matched this. Seven companies participated in this research, including both manufacturing and service-based organisations. Quality management had been implemented in five of these companies, two through an internally developed approach, three through the ISO-accreditation system. Two companies had not implemented a formal quality management approach. In total, 25 interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview schedule. The transcripts were then analysed using N-Vivo qualitative software and a narrative developed for each company. These were analysed to consider cross-company factors involved in the development of the KM approach, the mechanisms implemented contributing to the overall approach, and the KM issues experienced by individuals. The findings from the research indicated that a planned approach to knowledge management appeared in the four larger organisations, with an ad hoc approach being apparent in the three medium-sized organisations. There was a broad range of personalisation and codification mechanisms implemented across the companies, but the overall approach did not tend to follow that recommended by Hansen et al (1999) and Tiwana (2002). Instead, five of the seven companies had implemented an approach involving an almost equal balance of mechanisms with only two companies implementing an approach involving a prevailing approach and a supporting one. Implementing a previous quality management approach may have had an influence on the KM approach adopted. This was based on the assessment that two of the three ISO-accredited organisations then pursued a codification approach to KM. Also the comments from one of these companies indicated that the approach to KM had evolved out of the ISO process when they had recognised the knowledge captured as part of the accreditation process had developed into a knowledge asset for the organisation. Other factors to emerge which may also have had an influence on the KM approach adopted included the role key people played in the development and implementation of particular mechanisms, the perspective on knowledge of the people involved in the development of the initiative(s), the nature of the business activities and the role other initiatives (not just quality management) may have taken. The implication of these findings confirm the complexity of selecting and developing a KM approach as well as addressing the KM needs for operating in a dynamically changing global environment.