Knowledge Management

But now, an employee ay leave his or her workplace due to much better prospect offered by other companies. With such short scenario that has been Illustrates above, It Justify the emerging concept of knowledge management. There are also other essential factors that made knowledge management at present becomes more and more important to an organization. As described from Shelia Deposit writings: Knowledge is the process of translating information (such as data) and past experience into a meaningful set of relationships which are understood and applied by an individual.

As the values of employees and organizational data have become ore crucial to the organization’s outcomes and competitiveness, the concept of knowledge management has emerged. Knowledge management is the process of identifying, capturing, organizing and disseminating the intellectual assets that are critical to the organization’s long-term performance.  The statement above shows the imperative of knowledge management to an organization with regard to ensuring its survivability.

But then, what is the relation of human resource role in knowledge management? Where actually human resource management and knowledge management Jive together? It Is therefore, the alma of his paper is to provide the impression of the human resource role in knowledge management. This paper is divided to two parts, the first part start with the explanation of knowledge management in general inclusive definitions then followed by the description on the concept of knowledge management, the value chain In knowledge management and it enablers.

The second part of this paper, It will begin with the discussion on the role of human resource management in knowledge management. In this part also it will describe on performance management, human resource management and it support for knowledge management as well Its Implication In the knowledge sharing firm. Lastly, on the second part of this paper, it will discuss knowledge management system with mainly System known as TLD Net as the model.

Knowledge Management

As in general, knowledge management can be describe as sharing knowledge of ways doing things, continuously communicate through various methods or systems created and to ensure the standard of competitiveness of an organization would always at the highest level. There are many definitions and descriptions on giving the idea of what knowledge management all about and this paper deliberately listing own seven of the definitions and descriptions in order to distinguish the importance of knowledge management to an organization.

List of the non-exhaustive definitions and descriptions are as follows: Knowledge management (KM) is an effort to increase useful knowledge within the organization. Ways to do this include encouraging communication, offering opportunities to learn, and promoting the sharing of appropriate knowledge artifacts. Processing data can be performed by machine, but only the human mind can process knowledge or even information. The leveraging of collective wisdom to increase responsiveness and innovation.

Knowledge Management is intended to allow organizations to protect and develop their knowledge resource.  Knowledge Management is a management discipline that focuses on enhancing knowledge production, integration and use in organizations. A cycle of knowledge creation, integration and dissemination. KM [Knowledge Management] involves blending a company’s internal and external information and turning it into actionable knowledge via a technology platform. Base on all of the description above, this paper acknowledge that knowledge ultimately when describing the availability of resources in an organization, it will mint to the human capital as one of the most important resources. In simple language, KM is an effort to capture not only explicit factual information but also the tacit information and knowledge that exists in an organization, usually based on the experience and learning of individual employees, in order to advance the organization’s mission. The eventual goal is to share knowledge among members of the organization.

Knowledge Management Concepts Identify Knowledge. Knowledge-based assets may be explicit (e. G. , patents, trademarks, business plans, marketing research, supply strategy) or tacit (e. G. , now-how in people’s heads). Both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge must be captured and made accessible and useable. This is especially difficult with tacit knowledge. It is important to establish a way to create a culture of knowledge- sharing; to identify tacit knowledge-holders; and to build institutional memory to support future work; to identify, recognize, generate, share, and manage tacit knowledge.

Below is the list distinguishing the tacit and explicit knowledge in the military:

• Tacit Knowledge
• Minute sheets
• Experiences from the course
• Experiences from the activity
• Decisions making ; Explicit Knowledge Military Act, Memos and Procedures
• Book of References, Charge Books (restricted, confidential) reports (restricted, confidential) o Exercise report (restricted, confidential)
• Returns (monthly, quarterly, yearly)
• Courses Develop Communities of Practice.

A community of practice is a group of like-minded people who create, refine, communicate, and use shared knowledge about a shared practice. They engage in ongoing, collaborative learning about this shared practice. Use Technology Appropriately to build a common database only to find that it is grossly neutralized. While technology enables knowledge management; it is not knowledge management. The technology must fit the strategy and culture of the organization, and be widely used by members of communities of practice.

Measure Results and Allocate Rewards must incorporate the organizational commitment to knowledge and its quality, and of linking the activities of communities of practice to organizational goals and objectives. Reassess is important to all business processes, the knowledge management process should be the focus of continuous improvement efforts.

Knowledge Management Value Chain A knowledge value chain is a sequence of intellectual tasks by which knowledge errors build their employer’s unique competitive advantage.  Each stage adds value to raw data and information as they are transformed into usable knowledge. Further understanding on the value chain described by Luau & Maid:

• Knowledge acquisition
• Document tacit and explicit knowledge
• Creating knowledge
• Tracking data from TIPS and external sources ;
• Knowledge storage.

Management must:

• Support development of planned knowledge storage systems
• Encourage development of corporate-wide schemas for indexing documents
• Reward employees for taking time to update and store documents properly ;
• Knowledge dissemination.

Training programs, informal networks, and shared management experience help managers focus attention on important knowledge and information. ; Knowledge application. To provide return on investment, organizational knowledge must become systematic part of management decision making and become situated in decision-support systems. The Navy Plan 2011. Royal Malaysian Navy Strategic Planning known as The Navy Plan is the short and long term planning toward a direction to achieve a planned mission and vision. The Navy Plan is use as a strategic management tool, performance management tools and also as a link to achieve mission and vision.

The Navy Plan is being developed by various tools which included Brainstorming, Benchmarking, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SOOT) analysis, Critical Success Factor (SF), Balanced Scorecard and Key Performance Indicator (KIP). The main elements for The Navy Plan are as follows: [pick] The Navy Plan 2011 ; The navy’s vision ; The navy’s mission statement ; The navy’s main value ; The navy’s perspective ; The navy’s Strategic objectives The Navy Plan is being evaluated from time to times in according to the Ana development.

Further to that, details on the strategic guidance in order to achieve The Navy Plan, the RAN also published its Strategic Plan. The Navy Strategic Plan map is as shown below: knowledge management practice. Knowledge Management Enablers Driven by Senior Management and Pervasive Throughout the Organization. The initiative must be driven by corporate executive officers. There is a need for knowledge management leadership at the senior executive level to drive integration into all business processes. There is also a need for widespread (deep and broad) individual responsibility for sharing and using knowledge.

The core values of the organization must propel the program to get buy-in from users/recipients. The leader or sponsor must show commonalities across dissimilar business units to motivate consistent use of knowledge management processes/systems. Chief Knowledge Officer (COOK). The development of the COOK function suggests a growing recognition that for many an organization, intellectual capital – the knowledge, experience, and ideas of people at every level of the firm – impacts a firm’s products, services, processes, and customers.

Moreover, these positions send an important signal to the organization that knowledge is an asset to be managed and shared.  The need to manage knowledge more effectively is necessitated by changing competitive environment. When functioning in a global economy, companies can no longer expect that the products and services that made them successful in the past will keep them viable in the future. Instead, companies will differentiate themselves on the basis of what they know and their ability to know how to do new things well and quickly.

Hence, the changes and pressures of a rapidly changing global, information-based economy make knowledge vital to organizations.

Organizational Culture Supports Knowledge Management Process/System

An organization culture audit may reveal significant barriers to implementing a knowledge management process and system. The first step for many organizations is to create a knowledge-sharing culture in which employees believe that knowledge sharing is a critical success factor at the individual and group levels. There are a number of organizational culture barriers that, if present, must be addressed.

These include: ; Unwillingness to share knowledge ; Fear of knowledge sharing ebb security) ; Mistakes are not tolerated ; Too little time to share knowledge ; Don’t have or don’t use appropriate technology ; Information overload ; Equate information or data with knowledge Command and control culture pressures reduce time available ; Organizational rigidity restricts flow of knowledge Documented Organizational Knowledge Management Strategy. The knowledge management process/system must be based on a solid business case that demonstrates how to use knowledge to benefit stakeholders/constituencies.

This requires those driving the initiative to link knowledge management to organizational strategy, goals and objectives. Opportunities to improve the organization’s competitive position must be assessed on an ongoing basis. The strategy development steps include addressing three critical components. These are: ; WHO (people) ; WHAT (Knowledge) Information? Knowledge? ; HOW (Tools, Techniques, Technology – in broadest sense of word) Knowledge Management is Integrated into Business Processes. The knowledge management framework integrates human, organization, and information management resources.

The knowledge management process, in turn, must be part of the standard operating procedures and built into other business processes to facilitate both the use of existing knowledge and the creation and capture of new knowledge. Key questions include: ; What knowledge needs to be harnessed? Who should codify/How should it be catalogued? ; How will it be maintained and disseminated? ; Who should receive it? ; How can the process constantly evolve? Adequate Resources Allocated on an Ongoing Basis. Adequate human, financial and technological resources must be made available long-term to support the knowledge management process.

On the human resources side, employees must be encouraged and rewarded for sharing knowledge and making use of the knowledge management system a daily priority. Time must be allocated for knowledge sharing by experts and novices. Adequate funding must be provided via the budgetary recess on an ongoing basis. Appropriate technology must be employed; employees must be trained to use it; and regular, widespread use must be encouraged.

The Role of Harm in Knowledge Management

HER has a pivotal role to play in the KM movement. Key HER processes includes Corporate Education, Performance Management and nurturing (sharing, doing and caring) culture, have a very significant role in the development of the knowledge- based enterprise. Talent management, which is the domain of HER and knowledge management are closely interrelated. While Talent Management focuses at individual f an individual, knowledge management focuses on people at collective level, how to leverage the collective knowledge of the enterprise, through Mentoring and knowledge sharing and collaborative team working. KM should be developed into a key competency of the people.

Human Resource Management

People’s commitment to knowledge management strongly determines whether the process will succeed or fail. Organizations rely on employees to embrace the knowledge philosophy and its underlying values so that knowledge management becomes core behavior. Human Resource Management gained much popularity in the asses. Moreover, the debate surrounding HARM can be characterized by four predominant approaches ; That HARM is no more than a renaming of basic personnel functions, which does little that is different from the traditional practice of personnel management. That HARM represents a fusion of personnel management and industrial relations that is managerially focused and derives from a managerial agenda. ; That HARM represents a resource-based conception of the employment relationship, some elements of which incorporate a developmental role for the individual employee and some elements of cost minimization. That HARM can be viewed as part of the strategic managerial function in the development of business policy, in which it plays both a determining and contributory role.

HARM Support for KM HARM describes the organizational processes and systems that help with staff recruitment, selection and management, and provide guidance on the required work activities, behavior and values. HARM supports both employees and employer from the time people start as employees to the time when they leave the workplace. HARM therefore serves three main purposes: [xvi] ; To staff the organization with people who have appropriate knowledge and expertise for the required roles ; To develop systems and processes that encourages good practice.

Recognition of the strategic value of knowledge enables to gain employee commitment to knowledge sharing or knowledge use. HARM help direct employee attention towards those organizational priorities through its clarification and publicizing of the standards, role expectations and rewards that are applied in the organization. HARM systems which support these processes include the recruitment and selection of new staff, where the value of the position is reviewed. Defining Knowledge competencies will increase focus on clarifying the competencies employees should demonstrate.

Competencies associate with knowledge management settings include expertise relating to collaboration, information skills, management, strategic planning and relationship management. Valuing Knowledge and learning will build respectful cultures which value and exploit the individual knowledge of their members. Workplace learning occurs in many contexts through work activities and experiences, by sharing of expertise, through mentoring by more experienced colleagues, and via formal learning opportunities within the organization.

Integrating Knowledge into HARM Processes seeks to align its strategic oils and priorities with the functional roles and tasks undertaken. HARM can help by linking support for those priorities to rewards, basic systems and processes. An effective knowledge community aims to merge these levels into a whole, so that strategic needs are reflected in HARM practices. Performance management identifies who or what delivers the critical performance with respect to the business strategy and objectives, and ensures that performance is successfully carried out.

Moreover, the recommendation that a balance scorecard approach be adopted if employees are to realize that the firm is taking knowledge management seriously. Performance management needs to consider the different ways in which individuals contribute knowledge. Managers need to consider: Knowledge acquisition – What knowledge has the individual brought into the organization? ; Knowledge sharing – How has the individual applied their knowledge to help others to develop? Knowledge re-use – How frequently has the individual re-used existing knowledge and what has been the outcome? Knowledge and skills? How well has the individual applied his/her learning? HER Processes and Impact To KM HER processes and practices that should be aligned to strengthen knowledge management. In general it includes: Internship not only important during the initial months but also for a long time after that. The role of the mentor in the later period would be to challenge the executive to look beyond the obvious, look for past learning and base decisions on a more informed platform.

Job rotations which is not only for people development, but also provide an important vehicle for transfer of knowledge and best practices, even though an organization cannot obviously depend on this as the main source of knowledge transfer. Networked organization with people playing multiple roles, Ewing part of multiple teams. HER should play a key role in developing such a networked organization, through sponsorship and or facilitation of knowledge communities (teams), cutting across formal organizational silos.

Training related to learning and knowledge are inter-linked. Knowledge strategies should encompass learning initiatives and knowledge initiatives need to converge with training initiatives. A Company’s training program needs to focus on functional and business specific skill development programs as well as competency development focused programs. Knowledge communities (Teams), as the owners and users of the knowledge, should play an active role in developing suitable course material for the functional and business specific courses. E- Learning is online learning. It is made available through company web sites (Intranets), and even through CD-Rooms. It allows the learner to enroll into courses or programs of their choice and acquire knowledge at their own pace at the place of their choice. Corporate online universities, exclusive learning space to induct managers or develop future leaders, on going programs for sales personnel and induction into new products and services are some of the e-learning offerings, some f the companies are making available to their employees to develop themselves.

Wal-Mart is one of the best known companies in the United States. The name of Wal-Mart is being heard even in many corners of the world. Despite the fact that the company doesn’t tend to expand its business abroad, it always considers the importance of knowledge management when developing business strategies. The article “No Stopping Wal-Mart In Its Quest for Uber-Efficiency” by W. P. Carey discusses the reasons of Wal-Mart’s success specifying development of information technologies and importance of innovations. The article is retrieved from online database through table research. The paper is credible as the author offers in-depth analysis of the company and cites analysts and experts to defend his position.

Carey argues that nowadays Wal-Mart can be defined as a juggernaut as its net sales exceed $300 billion. In perspective the company is able to get the profit of about $649 billion. The figures are really impressive. According official statistics, the company generates 2% of country’s gross domestic product. Moreover, the company’s revenues are continuing to rise and compared with 2004 they climbed up to 11.3%. Nevertheless, the company needs innovation to maintain its current positions.

The author recommends expanding overseas and capturing new customers in domestic markets by building new stores. Wal-Mart is legendary for supply-chain genius and, therefore, it has to pay more attention to refining processes. Carey cites Mark Barratt, assistant professor of supply chain management, who argues that “Wal-Mart must gain even greater control over its supply chain; increase visibility of the movement of product through its supply chain and become more effective in terms of product availability and promotional execution”. (Carey 2006)

Wal-Mart relies on knowledge management as it realizes the need to cut costs, to improve purchasing decisions and to increase efficiency. Nowadays the company is successful in negotiating bargain prices from suppliers and n moving products to the right places at the right time. Again, knowledge management is referred to as experts need to have knowledge of markets and products, suppliers and customers, how to sell products and at what prices. Therefore, knowledge is power that drives Wal-Mart to success.

The company incorporates information technologies to improve performance and to increase efficiency. For example, the company has the best information system within the industry – Retail Link – which allows sharing data and information on a nearly real-time basis. In 2005 Wal-Mart’s data warehouse was “larger than all of the fixed pages on the Internet”. (Carey 2006) Data and information are used to analyze supply and demand, as well as to set inventory targets for particular products. The company is argued to correlate purchasing power with “factors that contribute to increasing demand for a particular good”. (Carey 2006)

One more winning supply tactics of the company is customized pallets which are effective in work with vendors as they assist in achieving the right product mix on the pallets. The author cites Rabinovich, assistant professor of supply chain management, who argues that “instead of having Kellogg’s deliver a pallet of cornflakes, they put together different types of cereals, different SKUs, allowing Wal-Mart to move the pallet through the distribution centre directly to a particular store”. (Carey 2006)

Wal-Mart tends to present supply chain as its winning strategy. However, Carey says that food distribution centers are mechanized and they are generally smaller. Wal-Mart’s experts explain that merchandisers don’t need automation as they have simply to perform conveyor-belt actions to move full pallets around. Thus, the company prefers transferring quick-selling merchandise to food DC’s. In such a way, the company will make the high-volume performing more economically. Wal-Mart is, therefore, able to put better use mechanization.

Inventory tracking is also on mechanization and the company is known to test radio frequency identification technology (RFID).  It gives Wal-Mart an excellent opportunity to increase effectiveness and at the same time to cut overstock expense and out-of-stock sales losses. Nevertheless, the primary challenge of the company is that it doesn’t know “whether products sold through the checkouts have come from shelves, end-of-aisle displays or the front of store displays”. (Carey 2006)

Thus, RDI may be effective in providing knowledge where the necessary items come from. Wal-Mart would definitely increase overall effectiveness of in-store promotions as promotional effectiveness plays crucial role for overall performance of every company.  According to study performed by the University of Arkansas researchers, the company’s stores supplied with RFID “show 26 percent fewer stock-outs on the 4,554 RFID-tagged products that were tested”. (Carey 2006)

In conclusion it is necessary to underline that Wal-Mart is nowadays running more than $300 billion per every fiscal year and company’s improvements result in gain’s growth of $3 billion. Such news is definitely a challenge for smaller suppliers as the company expects them to tag products with RFDI. In food industry the products are low-priced and tags may result in significant increase in cost.

Every company depends on knowledge and innovations, and Wal-Mart is no exception. We see that the company considers the importance of innovations and the power of knowledge to remain successful and competitive in tough business environment. Therefore, the article is directly related with knowledge management field as it discusses Wal-Mart’s policies in the contexts of information technology (RFDI) which is known to be practice which affects development of knowledge management and innovation which is known to be the key component of knowledge. No successful company may operate without knowledge management.

The concept of Knowledge Management comes from the very definition to capture information and content for deriving a value out of it after performing some meaningful operations. The life cycle would contemplate the process of knowledge procurement to final derivation of meaningful information for processing and further integration. The identification of several categories which would act as placeholders for the information must be in right hands equipped with right tools so that appropriate function is performed with it.

Knowledge Management Life cycle

The step 1 in this process is the identification of the fact that knowledge is king to any organisation and its evaluation, processing and its implementation must be identified in the proper context so as to capitalize on the resources for its optimum usage.

The first task is the formation of Knowledge Management (KM) teams so that the information falls into the right hands for successful processing. The KM teams are responsible for procurement of the information, after a thorough analysis of the business scenario. It is also decided whether the system is feasible to handle the KM process from its thought generation stage to post evaluation stage. The economic, technical and behavioral feasibility is obtained at the first level. After evaluating costs, schedule the process takes a momentum for further proceeding. The key stakeholders of the system are the crucial components and are the burning fuel for successful proceeding with the project.

The second stage is the ‘What’ and ‘How’ of the system, meaning what needs to be done? And how will one do it? The capture of knowledge must be identified and analyzed thoroughly so that everything works out successfully in the initiation phase. The third phase is the process of development. Unless the process is identified accurately, the motive of the KM system remains quite incomplete in nature. What to be processed and the objective for doing it? – the meaning must be quite clear at this level. The processing logic is devised by the expert or a set of experts. The business objectives behind the KM process must be evaluated quite well.

The fourth phase would mark the designing of the blueprint which would hold information about the scope of the KM system, its interoperability and scalability issues, required system components and the system design and implementation techniques (Awad, 2001). After the roll of the blueprint the system has got a definition of the exact requirements it desires to cater. The system development is started at this level using a RAD model. After the design is complete the system architecture is set up and all the inputs and outputs are well highlighted through the use of user interface, authentication issues, collaborative agents, application layer, internet layer, and the physical layout of the system (Fan, 2003). After the development phase, the KM system is verified and validated for any errors and defects.

After all the stages are over, the final implementation takes the role of implementation where the present legacy system. It requires conversion of the existing system into the new or transferring the essential components into the new KM system. The final stage is user training and feedback mechanism which adds a new dimension to the system and it creates a self learning environment for further incorporating the deficiencies of the dynamic business scenario (McElroy, 1999).

A very challenging environment would be to integrate all the systems in the organizations so that information derived from them can be successfully captured for deriving knowledge which would enter a cycle for further derivation of innovative thoughts for the long term success of the business.

Conclusion

The KM process is quite essential for managing the information in any organization and deriving greater innovative business thoughts from the information flow in the business and its correct representation and identification of resources for growth and prosperity in enveloping challenges.

References/Bibliography

1. Fan Yushan (2003). Knowledge Network and Knowledge Management. See: www.simflow.net/Publications/Papers /Year2003/ljq_ICAM03_0312.pdf

Innovation is something that drives company towards success. The article “Making Innovation Strategy Succeed” by Amy Bernstein provides interview with Barry Jaruzelski – Vice President of Booz Allen Hamilton discussing the process, findings and effectiveness of the annual Global Innovation 100 study. The paper is found in online database through online research. The paper is online source, but the article is very detailed, informative, evidence-based and experience-based.

The author and interviewee are very argumentative illustrating their ideas on example of international companies as, for example, Adidas, Apple, Christian Dior, etc. The paper is directly related with knowledge management as innovation is known to be the key component of knowledge. Every strategy requires knowledge of market, customers and suppliers to become successful and to make company competitive in business world. The article ensures deeper understanding of innovation strategy as essential component of knowledge management. (Bernstein 2008)

Every business is strongly tied with knowledge management as it tends to create new ideas and strategies how to increase effectiveness and productivity. However, not every firm manages to create really successful innovative strategies. Therefore, in the paper Barry Jaruzelski shares his experience of key constituents of innovative strategies. Bernstein, the author of the article, states that innovation is a hot topic in business world and it is considered a key to corporate success. However, the central idea of the article is identify relations between R&D (research and development) and innovative strategies. (Bernstein 2008)

Global Innovation 100 is annual examination of such relations and Jaruzelski takes leading role in it. He provides his own view of the research. Global Innovation 100 has been started in 2005 and it has become an article of faith in innovation sphere. Thus, Jaruzelski recommends spending more on research, differentiation and growth as they give knowledge of things to come.

He says that throwing money at the problem is not the best solution to solve it. Instead, it is necessary to research the causes of the problem and to work out innovative solution. Successful research requires knowledge of decision-making, culture and organization. Jaruzelski argues that “many of the biggest innovation successes of recent years were not produced with the biggest budgets”. (Bernstein 2008) It means that effective innovative efforts may be prevented by excess resources.

More than 90 international companies are listed as innovators. The most famous among them are Christian Dior, Honda Motors, Adidas, Yahoo, Google, Apple, and Hyundai Motors. Jaruzelski argues that these companies had been working the best to implement innovative strategies. They are considered to come up with a model of high-leverage innovation. Further, the role of patents was tested to identify whether they are the indicators of innovation success. Nevertheless, the results showed that the level of patent activities didn’t reflect corporate success in terms of profitability, productivity and growth. (Bernstein 2008)

One more interesting moment is that Jaruzelski says innovation and technologies are different things as new technology is simply a technical advance, whereas innovation aims at driving new revenue streams. New technologies aren’t real business innovations. Recent researches show that innovative strategies are aligned with business, in particular with income growth and shareholders’ returns. The low level of alignment results in low level of return. Depending on the innovation strategy, all industries are divided into Need Seekers, Technology Drivers and Market Readers.  Jaruzelski admits that “many companies depend on directly generated customer insight to design their innovation efforts, the higher the level of financial success”. (Bernstein 2008) The ways of innovation development are important for the health of the global economic development and stability.

As Jaruzelski mentions there are three distinct types of companies. Firstly, Need Seekers are a group which concentrates on understanding customers’ needs and desires. This group is considered the first to market with innovation as they appreciate the role of knowledge as the core of every successful business strategy. Secondly, Market Readers are the group which concentrates also on monitoring customers’ needs and desired, but it focuses also on competitor’s moves.

This group is fast followers as they prefer incremental approach to innovation. However, it doesn’t mean that companies will have better financial return, as they don’t spend more time and money on R&D. finally; Technology Drivers are a group which focuses on advanced technologies, but it doesn’t mean they ignore customer’s needs. Thos group tends to address “unarticulated needs of customers, swinging for the fences more than taking an incremental approach to innovation”. (Bernstein 2008) Wee see that all three models pay attention to customers’ need and it is important for them to produce comfortable financial performance. I think that all models are equal if they are aligned with business objectives.

Summing up, every company needs to concentrate efforts on innovation capabilities and should have robust management process aimed at gathering customer insight. The article shows that every business is related with knowledge management either working with customers or developing innovative strategy as all business activities are based, primarily, on knowledge. It means that knowledge management plays crucial role nowadays in business world as it is one of the most effective ways to foster economic development, financial stability and increased productivity of the company.

Works Cited

1. Bernstein, Amy. 2008. Making Innovation Strategy Succeed. Available at http://www.strategy-business.com/article/li00057?_ref=&pg=1 Accessed March 11, 2008.

Abstract

By evaluating the core policies and strategies of the NHS in the United Kingdom one can evaluate if these are aligned to the knowledge management and customer knowledge management objectives in a learning organization. The discussion will first approach the theoretical bases for these concepts as well as how they relate to one another in such an environment. Thereafter, application of these concepts will be evaluated within the specific strategies and policies of the NHS to determine the extent to which they applicable in this environment. The strengths of the organization will become highly relevant considerations therefore enforcing the view that perhaps the suitability of these models may be dependent on the nature or type of organization and not necessarily the organization itself.

Introduction

The rise of knowledge management and customer knowledge management is an evolution of recent business strategies to the mutual benefit of all involved parties. By examination of the practices of an organization as well as the theoretical expected outcomes for that organization one can see the efficacy of these two strategies. The chosen organization is the National Health Service of the United Kingdom (NHS). It was chosen based on a variety of factors, including the strong interaction that it presents between knowledge management and customer knowledge management, with both being integral parts of the objectives and strategies of the NHS. Furthermore, it is a useful comparator as there are many different facets and strategic initiatives that are constantly being introduced and revised within the organization. There is a tangible vision and a very broad customer base therefore making the explanation of these concepts by way of example relatively straight forward. It will be shown through application of these concepts to the intricacies of the NHS that there exists a strong motivation for the implementation of these strategies as it is mutually beneficial to all involved parties. Through a strong basis in customer knowledge management, one can also see that there is the possibility of a relationship between CKM and KM generally. The relationship between these two concepts can be clearly seen with the NHS and in having such a relationship, fosters an environment of a learning organization. It is clear that the NHS is a learning organization based on its commitment to KM and CKM, which shall be shown through discussion and analysis in due course.

A Knowledge-Based Economy

The birth of knowledge management generally as a dominant organizational construct can be seen as a direct by product of the shift of the developed economies of the world from manufacturing based to knowledge based. The essential difference that this presents is that in a knowledge based economy, knowledge is the tool used to produce economic benefits, as well as job creation. There is also a distinction to be drawn between a knowledge-based economy and a knowledge economy where the latter is based on the idea of knowledge as a product. These concepts are inextricably linked and one cannot understand the important of KM without understanding the aims and intricacies of the knowledge or knowledge-based economy. In the literature on the topic, there is an apparent conflation of knowledge and knowledge-based, however this conflation is not a relevant concern for the purposes of the current discussion, suffice to acknowledge however that there is such a distinction.

A by-product of this shift is the importance of a knowledge-worker – one who works with his head instead of his hands, producing ideas, concepts and knowledge (Drucker, 1966). This represents the formation of the learning organization or organizational innovation, which are undoubtedly related to the concept of KM (Hislop, 2005), although the exact nature of the relationship between learning and KM is not necessarily clear. These concepts represent the emphasis of learning in organizational structure, management and processes (Hislop, 2005). KM may however be distinguished from these concepts on the basis that KM focuses on learning as a strategy for business development and the encouragement of knowledge sharing. Many organizations have chosen to internalize their KM efforts as part of their business strategy or human resource management, therefore enforcing the commitment to KM (Addicott et al, 2006).

Knowledge Management

KM has two distinct objectives: to transform data into knowledge and to transform tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. As the names suggest, tacit knowledge is something which an individual knows, however this is difficult to capture and articulate for the purposes of knowledge sharing, whereas explicit knowledge is easily captured, documented and shared (Hislop, 2005). With these objectives in mind there are two broad approached to KM, namely an objectivist and a subjective concept.

The objectivist point of view advocates that knowledge as a commodity exists independently of individuals and is free of individual objectivity (Hislop, 2005). This approach is codified in the sender/receiver model – which sees the sender codifying explicit knowledge into a textual form that can be easily understood by the reader. It is independent of any socio-cultural factors and there is a strong emphasis on technological knowledge repositories where this information is categorized and stored.

The contrasting approach is the practice-based or subjective approach to KM where there is a strong emphasis on tacit knowledge communication which identifies socio-cultural factors as being highly relevant and that tacit knowledge by nature is difficult to identify, articulate and communicate. It does not emphasize explicit knowledge in the way that the objectivist approach does and uses the relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge as a communication tool. Knowledge Managers therefore encourage the transformation of their employees from egotistical knowledge hoarders to altruistic knowledge sharers (Eisenhardt & Galunic, 2000).

Customer Knowledge Management

Customer Knowledge Management (CKM) is an extension of KM between companies and their customers, creating knowledge sharing platforms between the two. It creates mutual value appreciation and performance, and is considered to be a strong competitive skill making the customer an active receiver of information rather than reliant and passive in communication. CKM is a combination of KM generally and customer relationship management. It involves direct communication with the customers, which is the essential element of CKM.

The resident idea with CKM is that there is a shift from what the company knows about the customer, to what the customer knows. Therefore affording the opportunity to gain knowledge from customers. This is the defining characteristic of CKM distinct from customer relationship management or typical KM. The typical angle that one would view a customer in this way is: If we only knew what the customer knows (Gibbert et al, 2002). This envisages the emancipation of the customer and in doing so creates a joint value system. The NHS is a perfect example of this as there is a new drive towards customer knowledge and involvement. There has been a recent drive towards self-help for pharmacies and the NHS generally, providing a service of a symptom checker. This allows the customer to input their symptoms into a database and in a way self-diagnose. This is a very useful form of customer feedback and by being proactive about health conditions there is a simple goal of education achieved and therefore better efficiency in the organization through customer support.

The Propagandist Perspective of the Learning Organization

The learning organization as explained above has propagandists and skeptics, however the propagandists believe that the achievement of a learning organization is an achievable idea because it presents significant benefits for the employees and the customers. Defined by Pedler et al as “organization which facilitates the learning of all its members and consciously transforms itself and its context,” (1997, 3) a learning organization has the added benefit of being adaptable to the latest trends or demands of the market place. It is in a sense characterized b y having open communication systems and can be described as the anti-thesis of a bureaucratic work environment (Hislop, 2005). One can obviously see the importance of this model to an organization such as the NHS, where there is the threat of very sudden need and demand for change. Therefore to be able to communicate learned knowledge between the various branches of professional involved is a highly beneficial system to have implemented. These benefits of the learning organizations are also challenged on the basis that they assume a certain willingness from the people involved, i.e. the stakeholders (Argyris, 2008) which is in itself problematic as studies have shown that this kind of knowledge sharing can often be perceived as threatening in that it may emphasize criticism rather than learning objectives (Chowdhury, 2006). It is debatable whether this is a relevant consideration in an organization such as the NHS, because of the nature of the environment. With the commitment undertaken by healthcare professional being very serious in nature and the general attitude towards healthcare not being treated flippantly, one could argue that a learning organization structure is intrinsically linked to the nature of the work involved.

Strategy

The first highly relevant consideration in the creation of a learning environment is strategy. With regards to the NHS, this can be seen to be done at both a KM and a CKM level. In development of a relevant strategy, one needs to consider the stakeholders in the organization. For the NHS, the two most important stakeholders are the patients (customer) and the healthcare practitioners (doctors, nurses, paramedics, etc). Importantly however there is a larger public framework which sees various levels of involvement by the government and the public. In developing a strategy for any issue, one must be clear on the value system that one is aiming to represent. The NHS is committed to the long-term goal of providing good healthcare to all persons regardless of wealth (NHS, 2012).

One aspect of the NHS that is particularly admirable is the commitment that they demonstrate to strategic development. One can see that there is a strong commitment to being a learning organization in the flexible approach that they take to strategy. The increasingly demanding challenges of people in general having to make time to visit healthcare professional has been noted by the NHS and therefore they are adapting new strategies on how to provide healthcare to people without having to physically engage with the patient/customer. These can be seen on the strong online presence that NHS has providing symptom checkers, interactive quizzes and health articles. By doing this, the NHS are promoting a kind of public awareness towards health care issues and in doing so, strongly engaging in CKM by creating this shared value system, being one that is committed to good quality healthcare. Furthermore, because the NHS is a kind of public entity there is a large spectrum for public participation.

Looking In

Once a strategy has been realized, one can look to internal methods of promoting these strategic objectives. As noted above, the NHS has a strong online presence involving technological innovation which allows for widespread and effective information dissemination. A very useful byproduct of these strategic initiatives is that it promotes a system of accounting whereby stakeholders are responsible for themselves. In doing so, one promotes the idea that individuals are responsible for their own wellbeing. There is a clear link here between the aims of CKM and those of the NHS. By providing information and self diagnostic criteria, there is an empowerment that is revolving around customer participation. In doing so, the NHS is also receiving critical data which in turn will assist the institutional KM objectives. By assessing the information provided by the symptoms test, crucial information relating to current ‘trends’ in the market can be used to assess things like product demand, service delivery and service demand to ensure that there are the correct available services in relation to those demands.

With this there becomes a need for internal exchange between the partners in the NHS to allow the dissemination of the information gained through CKM, transforming it into KM procedures. Due to the nature of the NHS, one can see that knowledge sharing in this way would be highly beneficial. Due to the nature of medicine, most of what is learnt is based on prior experience of professionals in the industry, therefore it can be called an industry practice and fostering of a learning organization through KM in this way seems like an almost natural byproduct. There is some room for reward in this case as industry professionals may receive much notoriety based on their scientific contributions to the industry, particularly in the avenue of medical breakthrough of treatment courses. There is a potential for relatively serious repercussions in the case of a failed treatment and this in itself often serves as a kind of ‘human incentive’ to facilitate information dissemination.

Structures

One needs to have a functional structure in order to enable the departments and stakeholders to work together and interact within one another. With regards to CKM, it is clear that there is a high level of structural support facilitating working together of the various stakeholders of the organization. The allowance for virtual interaction that exists on the NHS website as well as pharmacy ‘hotlines’ where information can be given or gathered for the benefit of the customer and the business.

This becomes slightly more problematic when moving into the sphere of KM, however due to the public nature of the NHS, the involvement or interference by the various stakeholders with one another is fairly pronounced. There is a customer feedback report that is available to all persons to complain about the individual practices and this therefore ensures a certain quality of service. There are further annual, bi-annual and quarterly conferences held where healthcare professionals are encouraged to share knowledge based on their experiences. In this way, tacit knowledge can be seen to transgress into explicit knowledge through sharing for mutual benefit. This relates back to the idea of incentive as notoriety in this way is often sought after by many professionals. It is arguable that this in itself promotes the product-based structure of knowledge management as it accounts of socio-cultural indicators simply by the nature of the subjects involved. There is however despite this an element of explicit knowledge emphasis as the practice of medicine itself is an objective account of symptoms and applying those universally according to those characteristics.

Looking Out

Obviously it goes without saying that the success of any organization is highly dependant on the input of what Pedler refers to as boundary workers. These are the people on the fringes of the organization that are by and large responsible for the gathering of information from various sources. This has particular relevance to both KM and CKM in that the information gathered has equal importance to both. In the case of the NHS, as with any organization that is service based, there are a large number of these boundary workers to gather this information. This is evident in both patient records and the information gathered through the NHS website and questionnaires that are used. By doing so, this data can be analyzed into knowledge that can be shared through objective output sources. One can go so far as to see how the symptom checker on the NHS website is a culmination of these processes as it is using a database of obtained knowledge to assist and share with the customer.

Through gatherings of industry professionals through conferences and publication of medical journals and articles, it is clear to see that there is a commitment by the NHS to intercompany learning. Sharing of information in the way that the organization does promotes the sharing of knowledge through databases and external communication sources. One must bear in mind that the NHS comprises of the majority of the healthcare sector and therefore communication between professional in the industry has a broad reach and high value.

Learning Climate

The very nature of the healthcare industry promotes it as a learning climate. The consequence of the ever evolving field of human care requires constant evolution and a very flexible attitude towards learning. One can see that this is present in the NHS with the process of continuous evolution of policies and commitments towards various illnesses. The policies are changing and growing constantly in response to relevant societal needs. This can be seen in the emphasis placed on pre-natal healthcare and family planning, as this has become a relevant social issue in the last decade. This can further be seen in the new Cancer Policy of the NHS which is aiming to strategize towards a new and more aggressive approach to cancer research and disease control. The nature of the profession also encourages sharing of information in a network of professionals. Therefore these strategic initiatives are generally a combination of both KM and CKM as the need is coming from both sides, professionally and from the public.

There is a strong commitment by the NHS to career development and betterment of their staff. This can be seen more in the lower academic fields of carers and case workers particularly, where there is large training incentive to learning opportunities. The NHS provides a working and learning scheme whereby an employee’s skills can be enhanced. From the perspective of CKM there is encouraged learning through website publication as well as a vast array of information that is available from healthcare facilities. There is generally a broad commitment to all facets of healthcare, including mental and reproductive health care systems.

Moving Forward

Analysis of the practical and theoretical aspects of the NHS and how it relates of KM and CKM in a learning environment is crucial for any organization to move forward. As a result a number of factors become relevant. It is clear that in the practice of the NHS there is a clear transformation of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. At the level of KM, this takes the form of documentation of subjective considerations. In other words, this will be case studies and patient notes. By examining these, the professionals create explicit knowledge that is objectively transferable to other professionals in the industry. By doing so, one could argue that the practice based approach to KM is being supported, as there are socio-cultural factors at play. Furthermore, by providing information to other stakeholders through articles and training, one is taking account of various education levels for example, carers and case workers. This is done by providing a simpler version of a complex set of facts. In the realm of CKM, there is also transference of knowledge from professionals to the clients using information relayed by the clients themselves. In doing so there is a mutual value creation done by the professionals to the customers taking account of relevant socio-cultural indicators. By creating this database for public assess they are allowing the expropriation of a certain level of customer by allowing them to do it themselves. It is clear that this has great benefit for the professional in the industry as it may relieve resource and staffing constraint.

In doing so, there is a clear creation of a learning environment. Whilst it has been argued that this learning organization is an inherent characteristic of the professional environment of the healthcare industry, it can also be seen in the CKM objectives. It is clear that by empowering the customer with knowledge, there is a certain responsibility that is transferred to the customer. This in turn will have a knock-on effect for those customers as they will be able to self-diagnose in the future and this will pass to their network of people and so on. An example of this can be seen in a simple common cold. Through experience, individuals know the symptoms and treatment plan of the common cold, therefore they do not generally seek out professional assistance as they are able to manage it themselves. If this were the case with other ailments, the best course of action will be decided upon by the customer which has a mutually beneficial effect. Knowledge sharing in this way generally has a similar effect for healthcare professionals as it will also lead to experience based beneficial outcomes. An example would be through cancer treatment, experience has proven that a certain course of action is most beneficial, therefore this is the proven solution that will be used. The publication of this information in journals and circulars helps to manage the knowledge sharing ensuring the maintenance of a learning organization within the NHS.

Conclusion

Through analysis, the NHS clearly presents itself as a learning organization. There is a strong interaction between CKM and KM in the NHS because of the public nature of the organization. It is clear that it is committed to knowledge sharing for mutual benefit and therefore presents a strong case for the e-flow model of the learning company. There is a strong presence of internal and external influence in the learning and knowledge strategies and this is clear through the flexible nature that is shown by the policy initiatives of the NHS. The research initiatives of the NHS demonstrate a clear transference of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge in a way that it is capable of being shared and transferred between the various stakeholders. In doing so, the NHS have in some ways combined KM and CKM aspects and goals of the organization therefore empowering the professional and the customers. The nature of the organization arguably makes this a relatively simple activity as there is an inherent need for reformation and a commitment to learning and sharing knowledge. At the lower levels however this becomes more important, however one could argue that this is mitigated through the strong involvement by the public and accountability methods that the NHS provides for the customer. The NHS is a very good example of effective implementation of KM and CKM concepts in a learning organization. It has been shown that through commitment by the NHS, appropriate levels of customer involvement and empowerment, and the correct approach by the industry professionals, it is possible to have a good relay of knowledge sharing and that there is a possibility of strong interaction between customer knowledge management and knowledge management at a professional or higher level. It seems that it is essential to have accountability methods in order to ensure efficacy, however one could argue that this is simply an essential of the new, modern, learning organization. On the other hand, one could also discuss whether the success of the NHS in implementation of these strategies leading to their existence as a learning organization is highly dependent on the nature of the work involved and the type of professionals, subsequently meaning that perhaps there is an argument to be made which will mean that the success of KM and CKM strategies in a learning organization is more dependent on the type of organization and not necessarily the strategies thereof.

Bibliography:
Addicott, McGivern, Ferlie, 2006. ‘Networks, Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management: NHS Cancer Networks’ Public Money & Management, 26( 2), pp. 87-94
Chris Argyris, 2008. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management
Chowdhury, M., 2006. ‘Human Behavior In The Context of Training: An Overview Of The Role of Learning Theories as Applied to Training and Development’ Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, (7)2
Drucker, P., 1966. The Effective Executive New York: New York
Eisenhardt & Galunic, 2000. ‘Coevolving: at last, a way to make synergies work.’ Harvard Business Review Jan-Feb, 91-101.
Gibbert, Leibold & Probst, 2002. ‘Five styles of Customer Knowledge Management,
And how smart companies put them into action’
Hislop, D., 2005. Knowledge Management in Organisations Oxford: Oxford Universty Press
National Healthcare Service [online] [cited on 19 May 2012)] accessed on nhs.uk
Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T., 1997. The learning company: a strategy for sustainable development, 2nd edition, Maidenhead, Berks: McGraw-Hill

1. INTRODUCTION

Fiol and Lyles (1985) describe organizational learning, as being the process wherein organizations being cognitive enterprises, have the capability to accumulate information regarding their own actions, understand the effects against those of alternatives, then adopt the most relevant action in relation to future decisions. Therefore improvements within organization is based on how well they can understand past actions and external information, disseminate and reflect on them with the aim of making better future decisions (Anand et al, 1998).

Studies on organisational learning are diverse, and a number of theorists have proposed several methods of understanding and applying relevant them within organizations. The most notable of these are the single and double loop learning styles proposed by Argyris and Schon (1978); the five disciplines proposed by Senge (1990); and the four learning constructs of Huber (1991). The aim of this literature critique is to consider each of these theories in line with development of knowledge management systems within organizations. The following chapters describe each theory, critically analyses their viewpoint, and then ascertains their relevance to knowledge management system development.

2. ARGYRIS AND SCHON DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING

Argyris and Schon identify two major forms of learning that occur at the organizational level, described as single and double loop learning. These processes occur at different capacities and usually determine the extent to which innovation and new ideas surface (Sun and Scott, 2003). According to these theories, all individuals, groups or organizations have their preconceived notions about particular processes (Argyris, 1994). These preconceived notions might often contradict with the general process of doing things.

In the single loop learning model, these preconceived notions would be adjusted to fit in with the general process of doing things. The individuals, group or organization would react based on what they believe to be the most convenient method, which is usually to follow suit on the general process of having things done (Sun and Scott, 2003). The deeply held assumptions or beliefs do not resurface and become buried under the auspice of following suit on the general trend. This according to Argyris and Schon is described as single loop learning, wherein one entity influences the other. In the double loop learning method, individual, group or organizational beliefs, begin to surface (Argyris, 1995). They are considered in line with the general belief, and these beliefs are questioned or even modified in the event that they are deemed unsuitable for the organization.

This theory was developed using Action workshops, wherein individuals were requested to write their preconceived notions and their eventual actions in line with new information. If they conducted their actions based on information provided, then single loop learning was recorded, while double loop learning occurred if they adjusted their actions in line with their individual beliefs. This theory has however been criticised broadly. Sun and Scott (2003) argue that organizational policies, processes and routines act as “defense mechanism” against the prevalence of double loop learning. These policies may restrict the ability of individuals or groups to freely challenge generally accepted principles, which could have otherwise led to double loop learning.

The action research method through which this experiment was first conducted has been criticised by Nonaka (1994) who states that asking individuals to outline their preconceived thoughts and subsequent actions on two separate notes do not accurately depict how an organization would react to single and double loop learning situations, except if a probability sample was utilized in the study. Robey et al (2000) also brings up the scenario wherein individuals with different backgrounds are brought in on a project, each with a different preconceived notion about the project. These individuals are usually advised to act in line with generally accepted practices in a bid to deter conflict in the decision making process, thereby alienating double loop learning processes. Schultz (2001) therefore states that the most ideal learning process, being double loop learning, would be most ideal in environments that actively promote creativity and innovation, as they are the backbone through which individuals can actively express their ideas and through that, change generally accepted practices.

3.SENGE’S FIVE DISCIPLINES

Senge (1990) outlines “personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning and systems thinking” as ideal methods for organizations to learn from their previous actions and environmental changes. Senge’s disciplines address the major shortcomings in Argyris and Schon’s model as it identifies effective methods through which organisations can promote double loop learning processes within the company. Mental models and team learning, especially in informal environments, can promote the transition of learning from single to double loop, as it gives individuals and groups the opportunities to share information and ideas across all tiers of the organisation (Robey et al, 2000).

Sun and Scott (2003) note that it is through the creation of social relationships that individuals can engage in dialogues that actively promote reflective conversations and inquiry. However, Wang (1999) criticises this approach as it does not thoroughly promote double loop learning. He states that learning may occur, but it does not lead to change in preconceived notions. The other three disciplines however have a more profound effect on organisational learning. Senge depicts that personal mastery aids individual development; shared vision engages all individuals within the organization towards a common vision and objective, while systems thinking aligns all the different disciplines in a method that promotes active learning.

These fives disciplines have been corroborated by several other theorists as it actively brings in all forms of learning at the individual, group and organizational level (Sun and Scott, 2003). These stages have been viewed as logical and coherent for an organization aiming to transform its learning processes. However, this study fails to account for barriers that may exist between different stages of learning (Robey et al, 2000). The five disciplines highlights how individuals, groups and organizations can learn, but it does not identify how individual learning can be transformed to groups, and groups into organizations. Wang (1999) also states that little information is provided on how these different learning stages apply in the realm of knowledge management systems and how it differs according to different structures within organizations. According to Sun and Scott, these models just like that of Argyris and Schon, fails to account for the main determining factors influencing organizational learning.

4.HUBER’S FOUR CONSTRUCTS

Amongst all the organizational learning theories highlighted in this critique, Huber was the first to highlight the relevant process for organizational learning and also identify how it could be utilized in a knowledge management and sharing environment. Huber (1991) identifies four major constructs that are crucial to organizational learning and these are: Information acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation and organizational memory.

Crossan and Hulland (1996) identify information acquisition as a unique addition to the organizational learning theory, as it is one major facilitator determining how organizations learn in the first place: by first acquiring information. Schultz (2001) also highlights the importance of information acquisition; particularly in terms of the effect external information has on organizational competitiveness. He found a positive correlation between external information acquisition and competitive advantage. Stein and Zwass (1995) also found significant relationship between external information acquisition and organizational performance.

Information distribution highlights methods through which the organization shares information across all departments, while information interpretation depicts the methodology through which individuals and groups interpret information and utilize them in decision making. These constructs highlight important factors that previous theories of Argyris and Schon; and Senge have failed to identify especially in the realm of acquiring information and sharing it. Argyris and Schon only focused on methods through which individuals, groups and organizations accept and interpret data; while Senge focused mostly on the social aspect of organizational learning. Huber in contrast identifies the major logical sequences through which an organization can truly acquire data, share it, store it and learn from it.

However, Garvin (1993) depicts that Huber’s theory fails to account for social factors already identified by Senge. It fails to account for human factors that are actually meant to be the major parties in organizational learning. Nonaka and Tekeuchi (1995) also assert that though Huber accounts for explicit knowledge that are externally available, it fails to account for tacit knowledge that is truly beneficial for competitiveness. Sun and Scott (2001) also identified difficulties inherent in transferring information across all constructs, as learning transfer between entities, just like the other theories criticized, have not been considered.

5.CONCLUSION

In relation to the main critique question, which is on the organizational learning theory that accurately discusses the importance of knowledge management systems in learning organizations, Argyris and Schon (1978) and Senge (1990) failed to account for relevant methods, while Huber (1991) was the only to identify the major sequences through which information could be shared across an organization, and also applied in knowledge management system development. However, further research is required on how to utilize knowledge management systems in engaging individuals to criticise generally accepted principles, and promote sharing through social interaction.

Word Count: 1,508

6.REFERENCES

Anand, V., Manz, C.C., and Glick, W.H. (1998) An organizational memory approach to information management. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 (4), pp. 796–809

Argyris, C. (1994) Unrecognized defenses of scholars: impact on theory and research. Organization Science, Vol. 7 (1), pp 79–87

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1978) Organizational learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Crossan, M., and Hulland, J. (1996) Measuring organizational learning, Paper presented to the Academy of Management..

Fiol, C.M. and Lyles, M.A., 1985. Organizational learning, Academy of Management Review Vol. 10 (4), pp. 803–813

Garvin, D.A. (1993), Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, pp.78-91.

Huber, G.P. (1991) Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, Vol. 2, pp. 88–115

Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization Science, Vol. 5 (1), pp. 14–37

Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press Inc., New York, NY

Robey, D., Boudreau, M., and Rose, G. (2000) Information technology and organisational learning: a review and assessment of research, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, Vol. 10 (2), pp 125 – 155

Schultz, M. (2001), The uncertain relevance of newness: organizational learning and knowledge flows, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 (4), pp. 661-81

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday/Currency, New York, NY

Stein, E.W. and Zwass, V., 1995. Actualizing organizational memory with information systems, Information Systems Research, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 85–117.

Sun, P. and Scott, J. (2003) Exploring the divide – organizational learning and learning organizations, The Learning Organization, Vol. 10 (4), pp 202 – 215

Wang, S., 1999. Organizational memory information systems: a domain analysis in the object-oriented paradigm. Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 12 (2), pp. 26–34.

Knowledge, in the contemporary business world is seen as a key resource, and it is what leads to innovation and growth. Moreover, it can be used as a means to gaining competitive advantage. In simple terms, knowledge management refers to the creating, organizing, storing and sharing of knowledge. (Nonaka, 2005) Nypro’s customer relations were managed by teams, only the manager of which was from a specific industry. The team was headed by a program manager, who was part of the engineering organization.

The rest of them team was from diverse functional areas. In this way, the manager would ensure that the team was headed in one, uniform direction, and the rest of the team members would bring in different expertise and points of opinion along the way, adding to the innovation and diversification of the team. In other words, this was a good system of knowledge management, as knowledge from barious disciplines was flowing through the team, adding to each member’s knowledge base.

Moreover, if any team’s innovation became stagnant, the members would be changed so as to get more diverse views into the groups. Another aspect of knowledge management can be seen when Nypro teamed up with its customer, the Johnson & Johnson Vistakon team, for more transfer of knowledge and information that was required for producing the good that Johnson & Johnson needed. Such cooperation and transfer of information is what guaranteed success for both Nypro and Johnson& Johnson.

Lankton’s NovaPlast Decision I would suggest that Nypro should go with the first option. The new NovaPlast machines should start operating at one dedicated plant, while the other plants should continue with the mainstream business. Then, if the NovaPlast machines lead to more profitable business, they should be incorporated in more and more of their operations. Conclusion We saw, in this paper, how Nypro differentiated itself by using various strategies for growth.

We see that instead of using the de facto strategy, it used the strategic planning process. Also, we see that it used effective manufacturing and sales strategies, which endured long term success for the company.

REFERENCES Goodstein, L. (1993). Applied Strategic Planning: How to Develop a Plan That Really Works. McGraw-Hill Professional Nonaka, I. (2005). Knowledge Management: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management. Taylor & Francis