Let us now examine organizational culture and its relevance to KM. Culture and more specifically organizational culture, is another complex construct like knowl- Figure 5. The seven key factors of change
edge itself (Martin, 1992; Robey & Azevedo, 1994). As we come into contact with organizations, we are subject to formal and informal codes of behaviors, norms, rituals, stories about what happens within the organization, tasks, and jargon (ibid.).
Organizational culture can be defined as the pattern all these attributes make. We can use the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle to illustrate our meaning most effectively.
If we think of the various aspects of an organization that we encounter as the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle, then the picture we get by fitting all these separate pieces together represents the organizational culture. Some essential questions should come to mind regarding organizational culture including: (1) should it be a source of harmony within an organization, (2) is it homogenous or do sub-cultures exist, and (3) can it be changed. It is these three questions that have a significant bear- ing on the successful adoption and embracing of knowledge management within an organization and must be understood in the context of an organization before it launches its KM initiative.
Table 2. Summary of consulting companies respective culture and structure dimen- sions2
Factors Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Environment • 1995 management consulting industry was estimated to be 40 billion dollar industry worldwide and 50% of this was in the
• U.S.Cases 1, 2, & 3 part of Big 6.
• Three industry trends included (i) growth, (ii) integration of services, (iii) globalization.
• Recruitment and retention of people was proving to be challenging.
• Market innovation was becoming essential for consulting companies.
• Clients were expecting value added products and services at competitive prices.
• Mergers and acquisitions that had occurred meant there was a need to consolidated knowledge, techniques, standards, and approaches across the globally dispersed offices of these firms.
Culture • Considered a pioneer in its ability to leverage its own intellectual capital.
• While culture is collegial—
historical performance evaluations had discouraged information sharing.
• Lacks a strong sharing culture to support knowledge management.
• Diverse culture—due to many partnership mergers.
• Of the three cases most individualistic—traditionally performance was based/rewarded on individual performance.
• Minimal sense of a sharing culture.
• Always had a strong sharing culture.
• Had strengths in its design, development, and implementation of computer systems--made adoption of KMS easy.
• Had a history of developing
“methods” and “techniques” hence much support for KM methods and many existing methods and techniques incorporate KM.
perspectives Structure • Has three separate key centers
in the U.S. to support distinct aspects all relating to knowledge including methodologies and technology tools, research and analysis as well as knowledge base administration and finally research initiatives and executive roundtables.
• Emphasis on team based learning.
• Organized around lines of business and geographic areas.
• Re-structured along lines of business a change from a geographic/
functional structure.
• Established knowledge centers and new expanded organizational roles
• Focusing on their human resource asset.
• Fusion between internal processes, systems, and technologies was critical.
• The three dimensional structure of geographic areas, lines of business, and functions enabled the matrix search strategy for their KMS.
• Organized by industries it serves and competencies necessary to provide services.
• Set up role & responsibilities for KM (e.g., 200 people full time KM managers).
• Emphasis on cross functional teams such as comminutes of practice and competency groups.
Organizational culture, by providing a sense of shared meaning and a set of appro- priate norms, practices, and behaviors for the organization, should lead to a certain level of harmony (ibid.). However, an organizational culture can be both stifling and supportive depending on the specific situation. To understand this we need to first understand the major types of organizational cultures. The three generally recognized types of culture in the social sciences literature (ibid.) include
• Integration: Where all manifestations of organizational culture are supportive and thus there is no ambiguity.
• Differentiation: Where there exists divergences in cultural beliefs, norms etc at some level and only within a sub-culture can consensus be evidenced.
• Fragmentation: Where ambiguity is the essence of the organizational cul- ture.
We capture these differences in Table 3, as well as note their impact to a knowl- edge management initiative. From this, we can see that the culture irrespective of whether it is integration, differentiation, or fragmentation can either facilitate or hamper any knowledge management initiative. What is important then is how to foster the appropriate culture. To do this we actually must focus on the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle (i.e., what are the norms, practices, beliefs, behaviors, etc.) that are important for fostering a knowledge management initiative.
In order to understand the requirements of a culture that is supportive of any knowl- edge management initiative, it is useful to examine the key knowledge issues at different goal levels within an organization. The three important goal levels include (Wilcox, 1997)
Table 3. Perspectives of culture
Perspective Integration Differentiation Fragmentation Consensus /
Dissensus Consensus Consensus only in sub-culture
Dissensus
Manifestations Consistent Inconsistent Complex—neither
all consistent nor all inconsistent
Ambiguity None Outside subculture Focus on it
Impact on KM Good if culture supportive of KM
Good if many sub-cultures are supportive of KM
Good if it forms a focus for ambiguity
1. Normative: Knowledge goals pertain to the general vision of the company policy.
2. Strategic: Knowledge goals pertain to long-term projects aimed at realizing the vision and intent of the company.
3. Operational: Knowledge goals pertain to the daily activities within the com- pany.
Table 4 identifies these and their impact to knowledge management.
In order to be flexible and adaptive, businesses in the knowledge economy are particularly stifled by large hierarchical organizational structures. Furthermore, it is often important for businesses to be sharing knowledge throughout the orga- nization; hence, a sharing, collaborative team-based culture is most appropriate.
Changes to culture and structure typically take time but one should not overlook the importance of acquiring or altering these components in order to become a successful organization. One of the best examples of strong commitment to foster a sharing culture and thereby engage in implementing a dramatic cultural change
Table 4. Key knowledge issues and their implications for organizational culture
Goal level Structures Activities Behaviors
Normative Company charter
• How does this impact KM.
Company policy
• Knowledge vision, mission statements, and identification of critical areas for knowledge.
Company culture
• Sharing of knowledge, innovative spirit, and level of communication.
Strategic Organizational structures
• Conferences, reporting, R&D organization, experience groups, and management support systems (i.e., technologies such as Lotus Notes, EIS).
Programs
• Cooperation, building core competencies, information provision.
Approach to problems
• Orientation to knowledge goals, problem-oriented knowledge identification.
Operational Organizational processes
• Control of knowledge flows.
Deployment processes
• Knowledge infrastructure, supply of knowledge.
Tasks- knowledge projects
• Build expert databanks, introduce appropriate knowledge-based systems.
Performance and cooperation
• Knowledge sharing, knowledge in action.
occurred in the consulting companies when they embraced knowledge management (Wickramasinghe, 2003). This was certainly no easy task, but the benefits have been significant, in fact the respective knowledge management implementations would not be successful had it not been for the culture changes that took place. It is particularly important in the current climate, where speed and time are so critical, for organizations to be cognizant of necessary changes to culture and structure, and ensure these take place in order to facilitate key business process and maximize their knowledge management initiatives.
The introduction of technology into an organization or the change to a new tech- nology platform can result in altering the roles of people within the organization and their relative power. Tasks might become richer and more challenging or may require less skill and become more routine. Changes in power structures and roles by the introduction of technology and consequent effects to the organization are best exemplified in the classic case study by Markus (1983), which discusses the introduction of an information system in the Golden Triangle Corporation. The result was that the system impacted the jobs of various accountants in the corporation, making some jobs richer (for the financial accountants) and others more routine (for the divisional accountants). By doing so, the system affected the relative power of two departments within the corporation. The combination of these two impacts led to many resistance issues connected with the system. The key lessons to be learned from this case study include understanding the impact of the technology on all interested parties in the organization and ensuring resistance is minimal if at all by effecting appropriate change management strategies in conjunction with the implementation of the system. Given the significant reliance on technology, in particular knowledge management systems, for most organizations in a knowledge economy, this becomes of even greater importance.