Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Tiit Elenurm
Table 1: Ranking <strong>of</strong> knowledge management prerequisites 2001-2004 and 2006-2010
Prerequisites <strong>of</strong> efficient
knowledge management
Free circulation <strong>of</strong> information
Employees are able to combine
different sources <strong>of</strong> information
(2001-2003 – integration
between databases <strong>of</strong>
headquarters and partners)
Virtual databases/knowledge
bases, Intranet and colleagues
are more valuable sources <strong>of</strong>
information than paper
documents
The information search and
retrieval system is used
efficiently
Information about <strong>the</strong>
competencies <strong>of</strong> all members <strong>of</strong>
<strong>the</strong> organisation is accessible
on electronic yellow pages (staff
accounting cards)
Employees have recognised
fields where <strong>the</strong>ir expert
knowledge can support o<strong>the</strong>rs
Special virtual project
workrooms have been created
for project teams
Virtual information processing
and knowledge sharing tools are
used actively
Promoting information sharing
between colleagues is linked to
bonus schemes
Trust between employees as a
basis for knowledge sharing
2001
(31)
2002
(529
Year
(number <strong>of</strong> organizations)
2003 2004 2006 2007 2008
(12) (20) (37) (43) (14)
2009
(22)
2010
(22)
II II VI X III III IV II
IV V IV IX VII -
VIII
III IV VII V III
VII-VIII VI V X V
X IX X VIII VII -
VIII
VIII VIII VIII IV
II X X
IV V -
VI
IX
VI VIII
X IX VII X
VII-VIII VII VIII IV I I I III III
VII-VIII
VIII IX VII VI VI -
VII
IX X VI II IV
II III III I IX
V I I III II
Remark: priority rankings from highest (I) to lowest (X)
IX V -
VI
VII IX VII
I VI
V IV II V
VI -
VII
II V I
5. A framework for creating knowledge management development vision
After giving individual ratings to knowledge management prerequisites <strong>the</strong> typology <strong>of</strong> organisations
by Nurmi (1999) was presented to participants, and <strong>the</strong>y had to select from <strong>the</strong> four quadrants <strong>of</strong>
Table 2 <strong>the</strong> one that best characterizes <strong>the</strong> present strategic position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir organisation.
Borderlines between <strong>the</strong>se four spaces <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> matrix are indeed conditional. Some organisations are
engaged in producing know-how through new product development, but <strong>the</strong>y also anticipate or even
try to create new client needs or re-define client segments. Group discussions were conducted to
clarify features <strong>of</strong> organic versus mechanistic organisations, <strong>the</strong> four value creation paths in Table 2
and <strong>the</strong>ir possible links with strategic priorities and challenges <strong>of</strong> knowledge management
development. Each participant had to specify <strong>the</strong> present and future position <strong>of</strong> his/her organisation in
one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> four quadrants or to explain why <strong>the</strong> organisation had features <strong>of</strong> more than one quadrant.
The next step was forming teams <strong>of</strong> master’s students who had positioned <strong>the</strong>ir organisation in <strong>the</strong>
same way in table 2 or had, for o<strong>the</strong>r reasons, a similar knowledge management development
agenda. Each team was asked to choose one team member in order to create a knowledge
management development vision for his/her organisation. In this process team members had to align
279