Despite their differences, this raises several issues for discussion...
Issue #1: Knowledge sharing
Some questions for you to consider:
- Is the concept of knowledge management inherently flawed? Is it a noble effort that rests upon flawed assumptions?
- How do firms encourage knowledge sharing? We know that knowledge is the chief asset for firms today, so how do we encourage employees to share it?
- Are there models of knowledge management and knowledge sharing that might work?
We also raised the issue of the knowledge of the group versus than the knowledge of the individual. As part of this discussion, we talked about about crowdsourcing - what are your thoughts on this approach? Just six hours after our class, a column came out discussing crowdsourcing and the use of twitter to discover truthiness (thanks Stephen Colbert!).
Issue #3: The future of knowledge management
I also presented an argument that the future of knowledge management rests in social networking. Do you agree/disagree and, to return to a topic presented earlier in class, how should firms approach social networking for internal purposes? JetBlue is currently using Facebook to go downstream and create a better relationship with their customers, but in light of our discussions on ShareNet and CareGroup, are there similarities and approaches that we can glean for internal firm communications?
Issue #4: Knowledge sharing and innovation
Last, as I was reflecting upon what you were sharing in class, I started to wonder about the relationship between the reliance of knowledge gathered from knowledge management systems and innovation. Does knowledge sharing stifle innovation - if you rely upon the knowledge of others, does it make you less likely to innovatively approach the problem? Does it create constraints upon you and not allow you to "think outside the box"?
I look forward to your thoughts!
About knowledge sharing I believe firms can follow what the researchers are doing in sharing their work experience. They are sharing their knowledge because they know nobody can use their work without referring to them.
ReplyDeleteThis can be implemented in a knowledge network as an incentives for experts to share their experiences. If the source of knowledge is referred whenever that piece of knowledge is being used employees do not hesitate to share their experiences. Then any knowledge worker ensures that not only his position does not weaken by sharing his experience, but also he would be recognized in other firms as a expert. Company can put financial awards for most cited works.
I believe knowledge workers would be more motivated to share their experience when they feel safe about their position in the company.
I think that the idea behind knowledge sharing is inherently flawed. You really have to find the right incentives to get workers to contribute. The immediate problem is that their is no direct return from knowledge sharing. Workers have to buy into the fact that a return may not be tangible and may not come for years. I think the best way to encourage people into knowledge sharing is through employee driven incentives. While the rewards may not immediately help the core competencies of the company a happy employee will generate better work and will be more helpful to the company.
ReplyDeleteA model that may work is a network similar to Facebook. The layout of a KMS is very important, if its easy to use that will encourage people to use it. More social interaction and a more personal interaction will enable some workers to share, but at the end of the day workers will always be reluctant to share without immediate returns.
I mainly want to comment on your fourth issue. "Does knowledge sharing stifle innovation?" While I'd like to say it didn't and that people are not lazy, I'd be lying. Knowledge sharing can absolutely stifle creativity and I believe that it does in this Information Age. I especially notice it in college students. We rely (and I include myself in this category) on the information Google can return to us in a search. And Google frequently gives a Wikipedia article as a top result. Google and Wikipedia are even on my toolbar for easy access. Along with my colleagues, I rely on Google to give me what I ask for. And I get aggravated when it doesn't! This has created an unusual but common paradox between availability of information and lack of creativity. Shouldn't more information make us as a society more innovative?? Shouldn't it just be a way to channel our creativity? Nope. As a society we are just happy to have such quick and easy results. As depressing as that is, it is the sad and undeniable truth.
ReplyDeleteSo now what? Do we keep spiraling downwards into informational bliss? Or do we somehow interrupt the chain of events and wipe the cobwebs off of the creative parts of our brain? I'll challenge the MBA's to help stop this trend that is only visible in the deep recesses of our minds...
With reference to Issue #2, I am a regular user of crowd-sourcing. I work in the marketing industry and although I offer a diversification of services, I am not a graphic designer. When I have a client in need of rebranding I will tackle the brochures, website, social media strategy, and advertising campaign but I crowd-source my logo designing to www.99Designs.com. The website enables graphic designers to bid for jobs based on a 10 day "try out" period. The client posts their project goals and the designers compete with their interpretations. The process is short but encourages a dialogue between the designer and client to finalize details. Once a design is selected, the client pays the designer the designated price. This website is ideal for those who do not know graphic designers personally, are looking for a great deal, and need a fast turn around. I highly encourage the use of crowd sourcing!
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be a line drawn between fact based knowledge and opinion based knowledge. If I want to predict what the most popular color car will be in 2 years, I'm going to go to the masses and take full advantage of crowd-sourcing. What better way that to literally go to the source. If, however, I want to know at what temperature moving jet fuel freezes, of course I'm going to avoid the general opinion and only rely on an expert. Understanding the question that is being asked is important in where you look for the answer. At a company like Siemens back when Sharenet was in place, I think sharenet could have been successful if used properly by the employees, and it could be used in a way that wouldn't hurt the individual's reputation. For instance, if I work in finance and have an idea, I wouldn't use sharenet to ask other financial minds about it because then it becomes our idea instead of only mine, but I may look to marketing or other departments to make sure what I'm trying to accomplish is plausible with the other departments in the company. This way when I present my idea, not only is it only mine, but I've also done my homework and strengthened it via knowledge from people with different expertise from my own.
ReplyDeleteI'm also not sure I agree with the idea that knowledge in itself stifles creativity. To me more knowledge should always be better than less knowledge, and it should spark more questions, driving us to discover even more. If it drives someone to be uncreative then that's just that person choosing to be lazy; it's his or her choice, not the fault of knowing more.
I love how we talk about knowledge as if it is a physical thing. We talk about it as if we can put it a box and hid it under the Christmas tree and not have to worry about poking holes in the box. In my mind, knowledge can be no more stored then feelings. Maybe when we can download our minds onto a floppy disk and install it onto a computer, we will then be able to store and share knowledge (which I have to admit sounds really cool.) That is not to say that experience can’t be shared, but knowledge is a tricky think. Knowledge come from time and can’t really be recorded in any meaningful way, and trying to do so would be a waste of time. It would be great to think that we could keep the people that are really good at their jobs in employment forever, but the fact of the matter is that we are mortal, and the new guys got to learn. Trial by fire.
ReplyDeleteWhen we look at the type of system that Siemens put in place in terms of knowledge management, I would have to dispute the fact that the knowledge of the group is the best way to go. Group discussions are good because it allows us to get different perspectives we may not otherwise get if we held impromptu discussions. Its great when a good discussion process is held but when decisions have to be made, individuals do not always have the interest of the group at heart and this can lead to selfish tendencies. Group discussions are good, but when decisions need to be made, the group does not always know best and provide the best info.
ReplyDeleteHere, I really want to response the issue#3”the future of knowledge management”. I strongly support that the future knowledge management depends the social network. Although making a little bit of confusion for the acronym the AYCJtm , JetBlue really did a good job. It reinforced its clients’ satisfaction and loyalty by facebook that provides a platform to communicate and maybe find a fun. Before using the facebook, everyone is a solo and individual without cross connections. According the case we did in the class, I think some approaches we may suggest JetBlue to improve its social network.
ReplyDelete1. Incentive to share. More experience clients share, more frequent they will sign-in and blog. I suggest that JetBlue will organize the offline activities to let everyone know each other. When they feel the people they told will no longer a virtual person, they will be more willing to expose on the facebook.
2. Centralization. A branding is vital for the company. It needs a team to guard and manage the website. The team also can penetrate the company culture by Facebook.
3. Attracting new customer. JetBlue should pay attention on the potential person, like David Berlind, if it wants to keep the revenue rise in the long term. It needs restructure the layout the front-page and provide more useful information and links such as what is AYCJtm and how to become a membership of Jetblue. Maybe promote others attractive events.
I would like to comment on issue number one of, "Is the concept of knowledge management inherently flawed? Is it a noble effort that rests upon flawed assumptions?" .
ReplyDeleteI feel that the idea behind knowledge sharing can be logical or flawed dependant upon the situation. Certain knowledge when you come in to a specific job is common knowledge. How to perform the operational task appointed you will be layed out in front of you. This is the type of knowledge which will be passed from person to person without a thought. The hints, tips, and innovations side to knowledge will be withheld dependant on the competative culture with in the firm. If employee A is in direct competition with employee B then it is more likely for that employee to withhold a trade secret that increases efficiency. My entire belief on knowledge sharing is that the decision to share knowledge or not is entirely dependant on two factors: the company culture and the personality of the individual. Whether or not the individual is extrememly cutthroat and how he feels about helping others at the cost to himself.
Maybe it's just that we've been talking about it in class, but I have noticed an increased use in crowd-sourcing lately. One specific example is threadless.com, where you can "participate" by adding your own t-shirt designs or through rating others'. Is there really any better way to include your customer in your business processes than through this type of democratic system? And what better ways are there to encourage creativity?
ReplyDeleteRegarding truthiness, I think it's a very dangerous concept. Previous to the twitter revolution, published information was much more formal, and they could be held much more accountable. Now, I think companies need to be more responsible when publishing "truthy" statements through twiiter and facebook. If a company is tweeting 10-20 times a day or more, some things may not be so well thought out or researched. Published information can be erased from a twitter account much more easily than you could a newspaper or magazine. We, as consumers, need to be more responsible and learn how to employ a healthy skepticism to published information.
I think Politifact.com does a great job with this, especially during election time. Anything questionable statement made by a politician is researched thoroughly, taken into context, and then rated on a scale from "Pants on Fire" to "True." Maybe it would be a great idea to see this type of rating system for corporations or other areas.
Moreover, I also think knowledge-sharing is a tricky concept, as John noted. It's hard to put your knowledge is a packageable form. It's just as if you have a secret recipe that brings everyone to your tailgate for Saturday football games. Do you risk sharing that knowledge with others, and take a chance that people will stop coming to your tailgate? On the other hand, I think you have to consider your style and technique. Knowing the formula is one thing, but being able to use it successfully is the key.
The concept of Knowledge sharing heavily depends on the incentive plans put in place for the contributors to the system and the user interface of the system. A reasonable consumer picked incentive plan would definitely help motivate people to share their wealth of knowledge over the system. In the case of Siemens, the existing incentive plan was not rewarding enough and ended up being a major reason for the failure of Sharenet . If companies can figure out a way to appease the contributors of the Knowledge Management System (KMS), it would definitely help grow the use and popularity of the KMS.
ReplyDeleteUser interface is also a major player when it comes to KMS. The reason social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter grew exponentially in the past couple of years was down to the ease of use and the capability of keeping users engaged. If KMS can be made anywhere close to one of these social networking sites in terms of ease of use, it would go a long way in contributing to the growth of KMS.
We had a great case discussion in the class with presentations on two case studies - it was great to come across concepts like crowd-sourcing and individual-sourcing.
ReplyDeleteTalking about issue#4 - knowledge sharing and innovation - well, I think if people keep referring back to the database of knowledge to perform tasks and solve problems, then there might not be good probability for innovation of new ways to do the same task. But if people use it just as a reference and still use their own discretion to perform, then we can still have some chances for innovation. Additionally, I believe that if we continue to look back, then definitely, there will not be any moving forward.
Hence, we should take Knowledge Sharing only as a tool of reference and not really rely on them completely. Also because, the solution to some problem that might have worked well in the past does not guarantee that that solution will work for now as well.
Perhaps a way to make a knowledge sharing system work is to treat it like an academic forum. People could share knowledge in the form of articles or advice that was clearly traceable to them. Then if that information is ever used for something, they have to cite the author of the information that was used. There would not have to be any kind of complex citation system developed, but you would have to say you got something from a certain article written by a specific person. Then bonuses could be calculated at the end of the year based upon the number of citations a person was given. Incorrect information could be challenged in the same way that it is in an academic journal. That way, the people from who such ideas originate are able to maintain a certain amount of ownership over it (they would be cited), and they would have an incentive to share informative and important information because their end of the year bonus would depend on being cited.
ReplyDeleteI think that in order for any knowledge management system to work, the incentives have to be significant enough to convince people to share the information they have that makes them marketable. Making that incentive an aleatory portion of their income that they don't receive unless they share may do the trick.
I am tackling just one question: Is the concept of knowledge management inherently flawed? I believe that knowledge management is in use every day in every company. The whole point of hiring someone to a company is to bring in their experiences and knowledge to create value for the company. The act of hiring someone is a simple form of knowledge management. However to get someone to divulge all of their information would make them relatively useless though, and no one in their right mind would undercut themselves in such a way to put their job position at stake. So I would agree that complete knowledge sharing is a flawed system that will not ever work, however if you learn on a case by case basis such as an apprenticeship it can be an effective tool to train employees.
ReplyDelete