Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Kenneth Grant
number <strong>of</strong> specific strategic recommendations across all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firms. All have appointed chief
knowledge <strong>of</strong>ficers (Earl and Scott, 1999); all include KM in <strong>the</strong>ir strategic planning (Grant, 1996). Earl
(2001) proposed seven Schools <strong>of</strong> Knowledge Management in three categories –Technocratic,
Economic and Behavioural. The KM strategies adopted by <strong>the</strong> five firms studied seem to draw from all
three categories (specifically from: <strong>the</strong> Systems School, <strong>the</strong> Commercial School and <strong>the</strong>
Organizational school).
These findings do, to some degree, refute <strong>the</strong> work <strong>of</strong> Hansen et al (1999), who argued for consulting
firms to choose ei<strong>the</strong>r a personalization or codification strategy. In <strong>the</strong>ir work, <strong>the</strong>y closely associated
<strong>the</strong> codification strategy with <strong>the</strong> extensive use <strong>of</strong> IT systems for KM, suggesting that firms who follow
a “strategy <strong>of</strong> reuse” should adopt <strong>the</strong> codification model with extensive and formal IT systems, while
those who are expected to “create a highly customized solution to a unique product,” should follow a
personalization strategy with a lesser focus on IT. In examining <strong>the</strong> KM strategies <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> five firms,
while more elements <strong>of</strong> a personalization strategy are visible within STRATFIRM and ITFIRM exhibits
many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> elements <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> codification strategy cast this is clearly not an ei<strong>the</strong>r/or situation. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
firms are highly dependent on effective use <strong>of</strong> IT systems for effective knowledge sharing. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
firms, to some degree, recognize <strong>the</strong> need for culture and tools to share knowledge and access <strong>the</strong>
personal knowledge needed to serve <strong>the</strong> client. Hansen et al suggest <strong>the</strong> need for an 80-20 split
ei<strong>the</strong>r way, suggesting “Executives who try to excel at both strategies risk failing at both.” and
“Management consulting firms have run into serious trouble when <strong>the</strong>y failed to stick with one
approach.” In hindsight, <strong>the</strong>ir paper seems to be an attempt to correlate two concepts that may be
more dissimilar and less connected than <strong>the</strong>y believed. By combining <strong>the</strong> different nature <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
services <strong>of</strong>fered by different types <strong>of</strong> consulting firm with poor experiences in implementing KMrelated
IT systems, <strong>the</strong>ir arguments may be more reflective <strong>of</strong> that time (<strong>the</strong> late 1990s) than <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
fundamental strategic issue.
Examination <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Intellectual Property Theme produced some quite mixed results. Declarations <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> IP were widespread, both within <strong>the</strong> firms’ <strong>of</strong>ficial documents and in <strong>the</strong> interview
discussions. Terminology varied, with intellectual property (IP), intellectual capital (IC) and intellectual
assets being mentioned frequently, as well as firm-specific terms. None <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firms appear to
measure <strong>the</strong>ir intellectual property, whe<strong>the</strong>r in terms <strong>of</strong> knowledge inventories, knowledge creation or
knowledge use. In most cases, while <strong>the</strong>y may have had employee agreements that addressed <strong>the</strong>
topic <strong>of</strong> confidentiality, this did not seem to be a concern in practice, with <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> ITFIRM.
Typically participants were more concerned about client confidentiality than about misuse <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own
intellectual assets. Nor did <strong>the</strong>y consider areas such as methodology development and staff training
as knowledge management activities. This largely contradicts <strong>the</strong> views <strong>of</strong> proponents <strong>of</strong> an
intellectual capital perspective on KM, such as that presented by Stewart (1997) and Edvinsson &
Malone (1997).
The two Themes that might be considered to be <strong>the</strong> most <strong>the</strong>oretical -- Better Use <strong>of</strong> KM models and
<strong>the</strong> Complexity <strong>of</strong> Knowledge – proved to be <strong>of</strong> very limited interest to <strong>the</strong> participants, with most
related comments being made by <strong>the</strong> KM-expert pr<strong>of</strong>essionals. In general, pr<strong>of</strong>essionals were familiar
with <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> tacit explicit knowledge and <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> need to access knowledge at various levels <strong>of</strong>
abstraction, as well as <strong>the</strong> usefulness <strong>of</strong> metadata to help set <strong>the</strong> context for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> retrieved
knowledge objects.
Underlying much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> discussion on <strong>the</strong> Themes was a somewhat paradoxical refrain that, while
participants were unanimous in recognizing <strong>the</strong> importance and practice <strong>of</strong> knowledge management
within <strong>the</strong>ir firms, <strong>the</strong>re was a significant degree <strong>of</strong> reluctance to treat much <strong>of</strong> what <strong>the</strong>y were doing
as “knowledge management”. Despite <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>se are knowledge dependent, businesses,
while <strong>the</strong>y expressed interest in <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> knowledge in <strong>the</strong>ir work, <strong>the</strong> pr<strong>of</strong>essionals did not
demonstrate a great deal <strong>of</strong> knowledge regarding <strong>the</strong> discipline <strong>of</strong> KM. It was notable that <strong>the</strong> KM
pr<strong>of</strong>essionals interviewed frequently described attempts to downplay <strong>the</strong> concept <strong>of</strong> formal KM.
In summary, <strong>the</strong> fieldwork indicates that KM is a widely recognised practice and that specific elements
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> KM discipline are broadly diffused within all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firms studied. KM was seen as a subject <strong>of</strong>
strategic importance in all <strong>the</strong> firms and extensive investments had been made, with reasonable
success, in KM activities. The study identified some significant differences in levels <strong>of</strong> interest and
practice within <strong>the</strong> various Themes identified within <strong>the</strong> KM literature. While several <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firms
studied had, in <strong>the</strong> past, provided pr<strong>of</strong>essional services in KM, none <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m currently do so. Clients
196