28.11.2012 Views

Analisi - knowledge management case studies - Aetnanet

Analisi - knowledge management case studies - Aetnanet

Analisi - knowledge management case studies - Aetnanet

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Progetto :<br />

Edizione finale:<br />

4 - La Piazza di Ninive<br />

del 22-5-99<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> <strong>case</strong><br />

<strong>studies</strong><br />

Erik Huisman<br />

Timo Kouwenhoven<br />

Eelco Kruizinga<br />

Kenniscentrum CIBIT<br />

Utrecht, the Netherlands<br />

INFORMAZIONI SULLA DIFFUSIONE DEL DOCUMENTO<br />

Le informazioni contenute nel presente documento sono strettamente confidenziali; le organizzazioni<br />

citate hanno fornito le informazioni solo agli scopi del Progetto Picto; nessuna informazione contenuta<br />

in questo documento può essere pertanto utilizzata o diffusa al di fuori del progetto PICTO.<br />

CLEARANCE INFORMATION<br />

Information contained in this document is strictly confidential; information provided by the<br />

organizations to which the <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> refer have provided information only for PICTO project<br />

purposes; no information contained in this document can be used or diffused out of the PICTO project.<br />

Le informazioni contenute in questo documento sono di esclusiva proprietà del Ministero della<br />

Pubblica Istruzione. L’uso personale è consentito a condizione che non danneggi l’autore. Se ne vieta<br />

altresì l’utilizzo commerciale in ogni sua forma per la pubblicazione a mezzo stampa.


Management summary<br />

This report describes 10 <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>, 4 in the private sector<br />

domain (British Telecom, Shell, Volkswagen and Microsoft) and 6 in the public sector domain<br />

(Educational systems of Sweden, Holland, UK and Canada, the US Army and the American<br />

Memory).<br />

The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> were examined to act as inspiration material for the development of the<br />

Piazza di Ninive and on the same hand serve as content for the best practice library on<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> within the Piazza di Ninive itself.<br />

The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> are described in a uniform format and are summarised in a <strong>case</strong> study grid.<br />

The key learnings for developing the Piazza di Ninive that can be taken from the <strong>case</strong><br />

<strong>studies</strong> are:<br />

1. Consider connecting the Piazza di Ninive with economy and employment:<br />

1.1. View education as an industry<br />

1.2. Attract and involve business<br />

1.3. Consider starting the initiative in economically weak regions<br />

2. Consider using an economical model for teachers as well: facilitate a growth model from<br />

teacher to enterpreneurial teacher, be a chamber of ‘commerce’ and service provider<br />

through the Piazza di Ninive.<br />

3. It is important to identify driving forces in community by imagine a person in your<br />

audience that gives you the benefit of the doubt. What triggers this person to go along?<br />

The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> show that understanding the needs and the mental models of the target<br />

user groups are of paramount importance.<br />

4. Adopt a programme of change that mingles:<br />

4.1. Preaching (to those that favour your initiative and will act as disciples and<br />

evangelists or local champions)<br />

4.2. Teaching, let people discover the benefits and the techniques (to those that give the<br />

benefit of the doubt)<br />

4.3. Reward (to those that have been taught and need to internalise the new behaviours)<br />

4.4. Warn (to those that are negative to your initiative, despite teaching)<br />

5. Start bottom up, create movement, then steer<br />

6. Work with local champions that do content <strong>management</strong> for you<br />

7. Start small in many places, but don’t start empty<br />

8. Create a core team to initiate and facilitate<br />

9. Listen to your audiences, provide tools and techniques<br />

10. Create a good infrastructure that can be used by a workforce that is computer literate<br />

11. In terms of web functionality:<br />

11.1. Elicit mental models of audience and use these as input for your information<br />

design and metadata<br />

11.2. Consider augmenting reality with collaborative spaces that map onto mental<br />

models<br />

11.3. Create a repository that meets the triggers of your audience<br />

11.4. Create community ware around repository<br />

11.5. Consider positioning the Piazza di Ninive as a service provider to<br />

communities to build their own collaborative spaces, give subcommunities<br />

their own identity<br />

12. And, if you want to create a large repository, tap into the experiences of the digital library<br />

community. And, look for ways to outsource content <strong>management</strong> to your users, but start<br />

with content <strong>management</strong> by your own (see 7).<br />

CIBIT 2<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Introduction<br />

This report covers the execution of work for the PICTO project. The PICTO project aims to<br />

advise the Italian ministry of education on (a.o.t.) how to create more autonomy for schools<br />

throughout Italy, to advise on professional development of school staff and to advise on<br />

reorganisation of the ministry itself.<br />

To create external focus in this advisory process, a task has been identified within the PICTO<br />

project to develop a <strong>case</strong> study grid with <strong>case</strong>s relevant to the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

processes in large governmental bodies. Through this external focus, the PICTO project can<br />

learn from successes and failures elsewhere and can be helped in designing <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> solutions for the Italian situation.<br />

This report presents the results of selecting and analysing 10 <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> on <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong>.<br />

CIBIT 3<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Case <strong>studies</strong> collection approach<br />

Case study requirements<br />

The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> described in this report were selected on the basis of the following<br />

requirements:<br />

1. The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> described should be relevant for large organisations. As the Italian<br />

education system is large body (with hundreds of thousands of employees), the <strong>case</strong><br />

<strong>studies</strong> should be comparable to the Italian ministry of education in terms of problems and<br />

opportunities.<br />

2. The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> described include both governmental agencies as well as multinationals.<br />

Within the PICTO project, there is an interest to learn from the good practices in<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> of large organisations in both the profit and non-profit sector.<br />

3. The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> should reflect the fact that within the PICTO project, there is a particular<br />

interest in the UK situation. The <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> sought for in this work should cover <strong>case</strong>s<br />

that have been developed in the UK.<br />

Long list<br />

Kenniscentrum CIBIT produced a long list of <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> that was used as a starting point<br />

for selecting the <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> that are presented in this report. The long list can be found in<br />

the annex of this report.<br />

Short list<br />

The short list eventually consisted of the following <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>:<br />

Private sector <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>:<br />

1. British Telecom<br />

2. Shell<br />

3. Volkswagen<br />

4. Nokia<br />

5. Microsoft<br />

Public sector <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>:<br />

1. Swedish Ministry of Education<br />

2. Canadian Ministry of Education<br />

3. UK Ministry of Education<br />

4. Dutch Ministry of Education<br />

5. US Army<br />

6. American Memory<br />

Because Nokia was not able to convey any information on their <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

efforts, it was decided to drop this <strong>case</strong> study from the short list.<br />

CIBIT 4<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Case study structure<br />

Introduction<br />

In order to organise the <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> and to enable the user of the <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> to navigate<br />

through them without going into detail first, a <strong>case</strong> study grid will be used. This grid should<br />

function as a guide for the <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> themselves.<br />

Case study grid<br />

The following set-up of the grid was chosen for this report:<br />

1. Organisational goals that were sought for in the <strong>case</strong> study.<br />

2. Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals that were seen as instrumental for reaching those<br />

organisational goals (e.g. <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing or <strong>knowledge</strong> development in a particular<br />

domain).<br />

3. Instrumentation of the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) that<br />

was put in place for reaching the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> goals. The following instrument<br />

categories will be discerned: leadership & <strong>management</strong> (including e.g <strong>management</strong> style,<br />

reward schemes, etc), organisational structure (including e.g. teams and roles), processes<br />

(including e.g. lessons learned sharing processes, professional development processes,<br />

etc) and ICT (including e.g. corporate memories, distance learning, etc).<br />

4. Support structure for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure (e.g. <strong>knowledge</strong> managers, moderators,<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> stewards, facilitators, etc).<br />

Structure of each <strong>case</strong> study in the grid<br />

The following structure was adopted to present the <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>:<br />

1. Abstract gives a short description of the main aspects of the <strong>case</strong> study.<br />

2. Situation scanning for the description of the general background of the <strong>case</strong>, like the<br />

competitive situation, the products involved, the history of the organisation, the cultural<br />

settings, in short: all relevant information to understand the subsequent <strong>case</strong> study. All<br />

country specific aspects should be described and made clear in this block.<br />

3. Needs for change (goal and problem setting) for the presentation of the motivation for<br />

change, concrete problem setting and diagnosis of causes, the goals of stakeholders and<br />

the agreed project goals by the organisation (business, organisational, technology, social<br />

aspects) and the constraints for the organisation.<br />

4. Design and implementation describes solution alternatives investigated by the<br />

organisation, the concrete solution design and implementation, including activities of<br />

training and diffusion of the solution in the organisation.<br />

5. Change <strong>management</strong> describes aspects of the change trajectory, such as the involvement<br />

of different stakeholders and external experts, the training activities carried out for the<br />

involved personnel, the industrial relations and the implementation strategy.<br />

6. Applied methods presents the methods and tools which were applied during the process of<br />

building a <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> system and the evaluation of the advantages and<br />

disadvantages of these tools.<br />

7. Evaluation documents the implemented solution with the variation introduced during the<br />

implementation phases, the achieved results in economic and social terms as well as a<br />

final evaluation and discussion of the <strong>case</strong> study.<br />

8. References describe links to persons and information sources (e.g., literature, weblinks,<br />

etc.).<br />

CIBIT 5<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Case study grid<br />

The <strong>case</strong> study grid, compliant with the description in the previous chapter, is presented below:<br />

Private Sector<br />

Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

British Telecom British Telecom’s goals for its<br />

organisational learning activities are:<br />

• To enhance BT’s Intellectual<br />

Capital<br />

• To facilitate BT’s strategy to<br />

become a global player;<br />

• To strengthen relations with<br />

customers and alliance<br />

partners;<br />

• To improve the quality of work<br />

and satisfaction of BT<br />

employees.<br />

Instrumental in reaching those organisational<br />

goals are that BT is capable of:<br />

• Making its existing <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

work harder,<br />

• Generating and quickly recycling<br />

learning across the business, and<br />

• (Re)connecting people.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

Work within existing strategy (no mandate<br />

from the top for separate KM strategy)<br />

Drive cultural change: create a <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

market within BT<br />

Facilitate cross-company activities through<br />

a small central team<br />

Use Learning Histories to recycle<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong><br />

Organisational structure<br />

Processes<br />

Coaching networks<br />

Communities of Interest<br />

Smart work planning<br />

Appraisal for collaboration across<br />

organisational boundaries<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> processes<br />

Evaluation<br />

Knowledge sharing by connecting or<br />

codifying<br />

CIBIT 6<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99<br />

ICT<br />

Standardised platform for IT<br />

Intranet Survey<br />

The support structure put in place for the<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

Organisational learning<br />

campaign team (4 people)<br />

Business Unit Knowledge<br />

Managers (~12 people)<br />

Knowledge Activists (~100 )<br />

Intranet Development /<br />

Collaborative Working<br />

Technologies Team (~6 people)<br />

Knowledge Management<br />

Research Team (~6 people)


Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

The BT Intranet and <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong><br />

Workstyle 2000<br />

Work planning<br />

Development and training courses on-line<br />

Shell The goals of Shell 1 that were sought<br />

for with the organisational learning<br />

project are:<br />

I. Find solutions faster<br />

II. Find better solutions<br />

III. Innovate faster<br />

IV. Disseminate innovations<br />

faster<br />

V. Make more profits<br />

Volkswagen The goals of Volkswagen Group that<br />

were sought for with the<br />

organisational learning project are:<br />

• Flexible production – ‘any<br />

product in any factory’<br />

• Develop cars based on<br />

the same platform for<br />

different brands – Audi<br />

A3, Volkswagen Beetle<br />

and Skoda Octavia<br />

• Recreate brands e.g.<br />

Bugatti<br />

• Ensure high quality for<br />

e.g. Skoda and Seat –<br />

teach their engineers<br />

Goals that where seen by Shell as<br />

instrumental for reaching those<br />

organisational goals:<br />

VI. Improve <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

VII. Increase <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

Goals that where seen by Volkswagen Group<br />

as instrumental for reaching those<br />

organisational goals:<br />

• Disseminate local innovative<br />

solutions world-wide<br />

• Make <strong>knowledge</strong> accessible when<br />

it is needed<br />

• Share <strong>knowledge</strong> systematically<br />

• Share failures systematically<br />

• Prevent reinvention of <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

• Prevent erosion of <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

when people leave<br />

1 With Shell is meant Shell International Exploration and Production (SIEP), the upstream part of Shell.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

VIII. No mandate from the top<br />

IX. Bottom-up<br />

X. Cultural Change<br />

XI. Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Organisational structure<br />

XII. Common Interest Networks (60 worldwide)<br />

A. Moderator<br />

B. Global Coordinator<br />

C. Subject Focal Point<br />

D. Local Coordinator<br />

XIII. Appraisal system<br />

Processes<br />

XIV. Best Practice Transfer<br />

XV. Moderation<br />

ICT<br />

XVI. Knowledge bases<br />

XVII. Alta Vista Forum<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• Support from top<br />

o At the moment WW.DECK is<br />

financially supported by the top<br />

o They can get any tool they like<br />

from their IT-department<br />

o In the future they must become<br />

self-supportive<br />

• Working bottom-up – generating critical<br />

mass, behavioral change of people must be<br />

intrinsic<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• LINE project (lernen in netzen) – education<br />

via intranet for the whole Volkswagen<br />

Group<br />

The supportive structure put in place for<br />

the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

XVIII. Technology consultants<br />

XIX. New Ways of Working<br />

consultants<br />

The supportive structure put in place for<br />

the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Central WW.DECK team of 9<br />

consultants (and still growing)<br />

o Give advise to<br />

Volkswagen Group<br />

members<br />

o Help local project<br />

teams with <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong><br />

initiatives<br />

o Do the project<br />

<strong>management</strong><br />

(coordination) of the<br />

WW.DECK projects<br />

CIBIT 7<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

• Offer a range of cars from<br />

low budget economy-class<br />

to very exclusive<br />

• Get component quality of<br />

all group members at the<br />

same level (as Germany)<br />

• Use customer information<br />

(complaints) more<br />

systematically – send it to<br />

the right experts<br />

• Local WW.DECK Coordinators – to<br />

•<br />

overcome cultural problems<br />

Events for top managers about <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

sharing<br />

Processes<br />

• Making cooperation within informal expert<br />

networks systematic and if possible<br />

improve it– give corrosion (part of<br />

•<br />

Laboratory Network) experts whatever they<br />

need to improve their <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

Finally results in a Corrossion Knowledge<br />

Market of 200 corrossion experts<br />

(European expert learns from Brazilian<br />

expert)<br />

ICT<br />

• Yellow-pages for Laboratory Network (600<br />

employees)<br />

• Documentum (document <strong>management</strong><br />

system) – to let the Laboratory Network<br />

build their <strong>knowledge</strong> warehouse<br />

Microsoft To be completed To be completed To be completed To be completed<br />

o Their customers are<br />

Volkswagen Group<br />

factories and experts<br />

o The customers give<br />

their requirements to<br />

WW.DECK<br />

o WW.DECK learns<br />

from its customers<br />

too!<br />

• Decentral WW.DECK teams at<br />

Audi, Seat, Skoda, et cetera<br />

CIBIT 8<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Public Sector<br />

Swedish Ministry<br />

of Education<br />

Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

• To create a more<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>able workforce (a<br />

national objective)<br />

• Subgoal: Give scope to schools<br />

to develop<br />

• Give scope to schools to develop by<br />

using ICT as a new set of tools.<br />

(objective of the project ITIS : ‘National<br />

Programme for ICT in Schools’).<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

Regularly<br />

• Schools are financed through the municipalities<br />

• Ministry manages by setting the learning<br />

objectives only (not the learning methods)<br />

• The National Agency for Education manages all<br />

operational responsibilities for the Ministry<br />

for ITIS<br />

• An especially assigned delegation for ITIS<br />

including representation from the Ministry of<br />

Education, The National Agency for Education,<br />

the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and<br />

the Foundation for Knowledge and Competence.<br />

The delegation is chaired by the Ministry. This<br />

delegation is supported by a special secretariat.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• Small Ministry of Education (100 estimate)<br />

• Larger National Agency for Education (~2000<br />

estimate)<br />

• Regular Educational budgets are established<br />

and distributed by Municipalities<br />

• Extra subsidies by a specially assigned<br />

delegation for ITIS.<br />

Processes<br />

• Jury grant applications<br />

ICT<br />

• Website ‘Schoolnet’ serves as a portal to other<br />

websites.<br />

• a part of Schoolnet is ‘The Multimedia Bureau’ it<br />

comprises:<br />

• The Café, a meeting place and presentation area<br />

for various projects<br />

• The Archive, contains images and sounds for<br />

Schoolnet and The Multimedia Bureau are<br />

run by the National Agency for Education.<br />

The ‘Foundation for Knowledge and<br />

Competence Development’ (Ministry in the<br />

Board) promotes the production of ICT<br />

based teaching aids through approving<br />

grants to about 70 projects, investing<br />

120m SEK (~150.000 Euro)<br />

There are not many formal top down<br />

initiatives to support the ongoing sharing<br />

of <strong>knowledge</strong> by the teaching community.<br />

Of course teachers can meet on<br />

seminars. There are several associations<br />

for teachers mostly defined through the<br />

subject matters, for instance an<br />

association for history teachers.<br />

A successful bottom up initiatives is<br />

Music Net, an innovative project with many<br />

useful services for teachers and pupils in<br />

the sphere of music. There are some<br />

other examples of successful bottom up<br />

initiatives such as Sputnik (journalistic<br />

writing) and Planet (for younger pupils).<br />

These good examples of ‘living websites’<br />

are linked to Schoolnet that serves as a<br />

portal.<br />

CIBIT 9<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Canadian<br />

Ministry of<br />

Education<br />

Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure<br />

use in school work<br />

Support structure<br />

• The Idea Bank, where pupils and teachers give<br />

courses and compare notes on educational<br />

methods and software<br />

• To create an industry for Teleeducation<br />

in the province.<br />

• To provide for many new jobs in<br />

the province.<br />

• To create an infrastructure that<br />

appeals to the industry of IT<br />

and Tele-education.<br />

• To stimulate economic<br />

development bottom up in this<br />

area.<br />

• To revise the educational<br />

system from <strong>knowledge</strong> about<br />

new possibilities for supply as<br />

well as from <strong>knowledge</strong> about<br />

new demands.<br />

• Create ICT awareness for the<br />

population of the province.<br />

• Learning from each other within the<br />

industry.<br />

• To be a model for the rest of Canada,<br />

serve as a best practice in several<br />

areas.<br />

• To create a <strong>knowledge</strong>able workforce<br />

from the population of the province.<br />

• To attract a <strong>knowledge</strong>able workforce<br />

by attracting existing businesses from<br />

elsewhere.<br />

• To retrain teachers given the new<br />

possibilities for education.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• Small central team of strategic thinkers,<br />

stimulating initiatives, guiding towards the goal.<br />

• Money injections by the Ministry of economic<br />

development from the province.<br />

• Management by facilitating and guiding change<br />

bottom up in the province.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• Small central team assembled from the<br />

government of New Brunswick.<br />

• Many liaisons within the business/industry worldwide.<br />

• Many liaisons within the government of New<br />

Brunswick<br />

• Much like a business structure including PR,<br />

Marketing, Finance, etc.<br />

Processes<br />

• Subsidising the development of community<br />

access centres in municipalities.<br />

• Subsidising or financing new business<br />

development.<br />

• Subsidising <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing by teachers.<br />

• Retraining the teachers in the province .<br />

• Using subsidised projects to develop a balanced<br />

infrastructure.<br />

• Retraining the workforce of the province for a job<br />

in the rising industry.<br />

ICT<br />

• Many initiatives to share <strong>knowledge</strong> through the<br />

use of ICT<br />

• World Wide Web : “schoolnet”, “tele-education”,<br />

“community access centres”, etc.<br />

• Development of Computer Based Training<br />

(developed as commercial products for the<br />

industry, also suitable for <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

within the province)<br />

The core of the structure for support is<br />

really in the individual civilians of the<br />

Province of New Brunswick. It lies in their<br />

desire to regain their status as one of the<br />

richest provinces of Canada. The people<br />

of New Brunswick take great pride in the<br />

rise of this new industry.<br />

At the beginning of the idea formation is a<br />

group of six original strategic thinkers.<br />

These six people are still very active to<br />

create the industry, and hence provide for<br />

new jobs in the province. The industry is<br />

now third and on the edge of outgrowing<br />

the second biggest industry of Tourism in<br />

the province.<br />

CIBIT 10<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


UK Ministry of<br />

Education<br />

Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

• because ICT is also the subject of the industry it<br />

is sometimes not clear what was meant as a<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiative and what just<br />

accidentally turned out to be one.<br />

• Fibre optic network. The entire province, all of<br />

the small municipalities are connected with<br />

bandwidth using 2Mbit fibre connections.<br />

DfEE has revised its Departmental<br />

aim as follows: “to give everyone the<br />

chance through education, training<br />

and work, to realise their full<br />

potential, and thus build an inclusive<br />

and fair society and a competitive<br />

economy”<br />

To support this general aim the<br />

DfEE has set three specific<br />

objectives for the upcoming three<br />

years (1999-2002):<br />

1. To ensure all young people<br />

reach 16 with the skills,<br />

attitudes, and personal qualities<br />

that will give them a secure<br />

foundation for lifelong learning,<br />

work and citizenship in a rapidly<br />

changing world;<br />

2. To develop in everyone a<br />

commitment to lifelong learning,<br />

so as to enchance their lives,<br />

improve their employability in a<br />

changing labour market and<br />

create the skills that our<br />

economy and employers need;<br />

3. To help people without a job<br />

into work.<br />

In the end the National Grid for Learning<br />

should be available for all learners at all ages.<br />

The initial focus for the upcoming three years<br />

(1999-2002) is focussed on schools in<br />

England. By doing so the NGfL serves as a<br />

means to reach the following <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> goals:<br />

• Providing an infrastructure for people to<br />

exchange <strong>knowledge</strong> by communicating<br />

and collaborating with one another;<br />

• A programme for developing the means<br />

to access valuable content in schools,<br />

libraries, colleges, universities,<br />

workplaces, homes and elsewhere<br />

• A way of finding and (re-)using online<br />

learning, and teaching materials;<br />

• Schools, colleges, libraries and others<br />

build and re-use from existing good<br />

content and practice;<br />

• Identifying and building on best practice<br />

(education, libraries and museums,<br />

broadcasting);<br />

• Development of teachers' and librarians'<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> skills and confidence with<br />

ICT;<br />

• Enabling school leavers to have a good<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• DfEE is being internally reorganised to cope with<br />

the new way of government;<br />

• The nation-wide change in education is seen as<br />

a bottom-up process whereby the public is<br />

continuously involved in the policy-making,<br />

design and implementation process of the NGfL<br />

initiative;<br />

• Until 2002 the British Government is actively<br />

funding (over £1bn/1.5bn Euro) the National Grid<br />

for Learning initiative;<br />

• The Government's NGfL fundings are only<br />

available for local educational authorities and<br />

schools in the UK when they develop a thorough<br />

plan of approval of the use of these fundings,<br />

e.g. buying or using ICT. During the upcoming<br />

years they are obliged to evaluate how these<br />

fundings have been used. Funding and<br />

judgement is done by DfEE.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

CIBIT 11<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99<br />

DfEE<br />

DfEE is primarily responsible for the level of education<br />

in the UK by policy-making, setting the proper<br />

educational strategy, forming the goals and objectives.<br />

Becta<br />

• DfEE and Becta are developing<br />

ground rules and a code of conduct<br />

for content providers who want to<br />

become part of the National Grid for<br />

Learning.<br />

• The underlying sites from the<br />

National Grid for Learning are being<br />

supported by the responsible<br />

educational organisations<br />

themselves.<br />

• All sites within the NGfL have<br />

Webkeepers who are responsible for<br />

the quality and currency of material<br />

and resources available on their<br />

sites. Sites must have a designated<br />

Webkeeper who is contactable via email<br />

in order to be included on the<br />

Grid;<br />

• Becta regulates the overall content<br />

<strong>management</strong> of the National Grid for<br />

Learning. Becta regulates the entry<br />

of content to the NGfL by accrediting<br />

the sites who want to be connected<br />

to the NGfL.<br />

• The quality of Grid content is also<br />

maintained through GridWatch, a<br />

facility set up by Becta which allows<br />

users to report inaccurate or<br />

inappropriate material and which


Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

understanding of ICT with measures in<br />

place for assessing their competence in<br />

it.<br />

• Making Britain a centre of excellence in<br />

the development of networked software<br />

content, and a world leader in the export<br />

of learning services.<br />

The NGfL is a National Government initiative<br />

launched by the Prime Minister. Becta's is the lead<br />

agency for the Grid and responsible to ensure that<br />

technology supports the DfEE's drive to raise<br />

educational standards, and in particular to provide the<br />

professional expertise the DfEE requires to support<br />

the future development of the National Grid for<br />

Learning. Becta and has particular responsibilities for:<br />

• the administration and policing of the ground<br />

rules for content registration for the Grid;<br />

• the establishment and operation of the technical<br />

system architecture for the Grid, including the<br />

running of those sites (such as the VTC) which<br />

are hosted by Becta;<br />

• technical evaluation and certification of managed<br />

services offered to schools and institutions to<br />

enable them to access the Grid;<br />

• In addition, Becta has a role in the further<br />

education sector's developing use of ICT and in<br />

the evaluation of new technologies as they come<br />

on stream.<br />

Processes<br />

• Not every process has been specified within the<br />

NGfL project. General outlines, concrete<br />

objectives are more important and give schools<br />

and other institutions the freedom to develop<br />

their own plans, based on their own specific<br />

situation.Sharing best practises in ICT planning,<br />

purchasing and guidance among schools in the<br />

UK (see report Connecting Schools, Networking<br />

People);<br />

• Collect and share best practises in classroom<br />

activities by electronic communication,<br />

includes both provisions for<br />

excluding content where necessary<br />

and safeguards against copyright<br />

infringements.<br />

• Specifically for the Virtual Teacher<br />

Centre Becta builds, maintains and<br />

provides the content for this Internet<br />

site.<br />

• Becta is developing the managed<br />

services for the National Grid for<br />

Learning. These competing managed<br />

ICT services are aimed at schools,<br />

and offering curricular, training, and<br />

administrative facilities and by doing<br />

so freeing schools so they can<br />

concentrate on their 'core business'<br />

of teaching and learning.<br />

CIBIT 12<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Dutch Ministry of<br />

Education<br />

Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

discussion forums with teachers, and best<br />

practise databases (currently in development)<br />

which are all accessible by everyone interested<br />

via the Internet (Virtual Teacher Centre);<br />

• To create ICT awareness in the<br />

sector of vocational training and<br />

adult education.<br />

• To stimulate action bottom up<br />

in this area.<br />

• Developing, storing and transferring<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> about best practices on<br />

uses of ICT in education.<br />

• Learning from each other within the<br />

sector.<br />

• Within the DfEE the Standards and<br />

Effectiveness Unit is responsible for identifying<br />

well-accepted best practices and embedding<br />

them into (new) pedagogical approaches and<br />

distribute them to interested people.<br />

CIBIT 13<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99<br />

ICT<br />

• The British Government is modernising itself to<br />

ensure the Government uses new technology to<br />

deliver better, more convenient, services.<br />

• DfEE uses their public Internet site to<br />

communicate with interested people and other<br />

bodies. Consultation papers, public responses,<br />

project plans, circulars, press releases can be<br />

found on this site.<br />

• Since November 1998 NGfL has a website<br />

available which acts as a starting portal for all<br />

educational initiatives in the UK. This site also<br />

connects to the various involved organisations,<br />

e.g. DfEE, Becta.<br />

• Both Becta and DfEE have their own Intranet<br />

which they use to store and retrieve projectbased<br />

documentation, which cannot be<br />

published to the general public.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• Small central team<br />

• No interference from Ministry<br />

• Management by delegation of client-system<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• Small central team of one managing director,<br />

consultants and editorial staff<br />

• Work is centred around projects<br />

At this moment the foundation BVE net<br />

has one directing executive (1 FTE),<br />

educational consultants (3.6 FTE), editors<br />

(3.6 FTE) including PR, information,<br />

newsletters en newspaper, one secretary<br />

(1FTE) and a <strong>management</strong>-assistant (0.5<br />

FTE).


Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

• External foundation to jury subsidy applications The consultants from BVEnet are situated<br />

Processes<br />

• Simple procedures for small subsidies.<br />

• Visits to institutional client sites twice a year<br />

• Knowledge distribution using website, electronic<br />

newsletters and printed newspapers.<br />

mostly at an office in Nijmegen, the<br />

Netherlands. Their tasks are stimulating,<br />

monitoring and providing. The 60 clientinstitutions<br />

are divided among the<br />

consultants. The consultant will visit their<br />

institutions at least twice a year.<br />

US Army The goals of the United States Army 2<br />

that are sought for with the<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> project are:<br />

• Digitizing the institutional<br />

army i.e. transforming the<br />

institutional army into an<br />

information-age,<br />

networked organisation<br />

that leverages its<br />

intellectual capital to better<br />

organise, train, equip and<br />

maintain a strategic land<br />

combat army force;<br />

• Modernise the army and<br />

reduce costs;<br />

• Connect active and<br />

reserve army components<br />

and institutional army<br />

through one environment;<br />

• Provide actice, reserve<br />

and institutional army and<br />

civilians with the tools<br />

required to:<br />

o increase<br />

information<br />

access;<br />

o focus<br />

collaboration;<br />

o improve and<br />

The goal that was seen by the United States<br />

Army as instrumental for reaching those<br />

organisational goals is:<br />

leveraging the army’s intellectual capital<br />

to better organise, train, equip and<br />

sustain the force.<br />

ICT<br />

• Central website with many facilities for<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> distribution<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• Relatively small central team<br />

• Mandate from the very top<br />

• Top down approach<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• Executive Steering Committee (ESC)<br />

• Paperless Career Field Designation process<br />

(CFD)<br />

Processes<br />

• After Action Reviews (AAR)<br />

• Lesson Learned Collection (CALL)<br />

• Early Bird – News Service<br />

ICT<br />

• HDQA Data Sharing Initiative<br />

• One Web Portal<br />

• Army Websites<br />

• Integration of the baseline infrastructure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for<br />

the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Business Development Group for<br />

Army Knowledge Office – part of the<br />

Strategic Army Computing Center<br />

(SACC) (12 people)<br />

• Executive Steering Committee<br />

• Daily Working Committee<br />

2 When refered to United States Army in this <strong>case</strong> study the instituational part of the united states army is meant. These people are not reservists nor people who engage in combat (tactical army), but are<br />

the ones who take care of all the supportive processes (e.g. logistics, HRM, administration, et cetera) necessary to be able to have an actice army.<br />

CIBIT 14<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


American<br />

Memory<br />

Organisational goals Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals Knowledge infrastructure Support structure<br />

streamline<br />

programmes;<br />

o overcome<br />

geographic,<br />

time and<br />

organisational<br />

boundaries;<br />

o spend more<br />

time on<br />

analysing<br />

information,<br />

instead of<br />

collecting<br />

information.<br />

the Library of Congress's mission is<br />

to make its resources available and<br />

useful to the Congress and the<br />

American people and to sustain and<br />

preserve a universal collection of<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> and creativity for future<br />

generations<br />

to provide an electronic repository for<br />

providing access to the american memory as<br />

contained by the Library of Congress<br />

an internet-accessible electronic repository and a well<br />

described set of procedures for creating content for<br />

the electronic repository<br />

four groups of staff responsible for<br />

collection handling, supervision,<br />

infrastructure and communication with the<br />

educational community<br />

CIBIT 15<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Part I: private sector <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong><br />

British Telecom<br />

Organisational goals<br />

Based on an interview with Steve Lakin (Organisational Development - Learning) during site<br />

visit on April 12, 1999, London, United Kingdom.<br />

British Telecom’s goals for its organisational learning activities are:<br />

• To enhance BT’s Intellectual Capital<br />

• To facilitate BT’s strategy to become a global player;<br />

• To strengthen relations with customers and alliance partners;<br />

• To improve the quality of work and satisfaction of BT employees.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals<br />

Instrumental in reaching those organisational goals are that BT is capable of:<br />

• Making its existing <strong>knowledge</strong> work harder,<br />

• Generating and quickly recycling learning across the business, and<br />

• (Re)connecting people.<br />

CIBIT 16<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Knowledge infrastructure<br />

The <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) that BT’s has put in place<br />

for reaching the organisational goals addresses leadership & <strong>management</strong>, organisational<br />

structure & HRM, processes and Information & communication technology.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• Work within existing strategy (no mandate from the top for separate KM strategy)<br />

• Drive cultural change: create a <strong>knowledge</strong> market within BT<br />

• Facilitate cross-company activities through a small central team<br />

• Use Learning Histories to recycle <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

Organisational structure and human resource <strong>management</strong><br />

• Coaching networks<br />

• Communities of Interest<br />

• Smart work planning<br />

• Appraisal for collaboration across organisational boundaries<br />

Processes<br />

ICT<br />

• Knowledge <strong>management</strong> processes<br />

• Evaluation<br />

• Knowledge sharing by connecting or codifying<br />

• Standardised platform for IT<br />

• Intranet Survey<br />

• The BT Intranet and <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

• Workstyle 2000<br />

• Work planning<br />

• Development and training courses on-line<br />

Support structure<br />

The support structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Organisational learning campaign team (4 people)<br />

• Business Unit Knowledge Managers (~12 people)<br />

• Knowledge Activists (~100 )<br />

• Intranet Development / Collaborative Working Technologies Team (~6 people)<br />

• Knowledge Management Research Team (~6 people)<br />

CIBIT 17<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Abstract<br />

Multinational British Telecom plc is one of the world's leading suppliers of fixed and mobile<br />

communications services. Currently British Telecom has three target geographies - North<br />

America, Europe and Asia-Pacific - and their strategy is to work with local partners. They<br />

already have a number of key partnerships around the world and significant investment in<br />

international services. To be able to grow as a global player, they constantly need to improve<br />

their relations with customers and alliances and to improve the quality of work for its<br />

employees. To do so requires connecting people and implementing effective structures for<br />

the consolidation and distribution of <strong>knowledge</strong>. The latter are the anchors of their <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> programme, in which BT favours establishing effective connections between<br />

people above trying to codify <strong>knowledge</strong> into systems. Their corporate intranet has proven<br />

itself and has become the backbone of new collaborative way of working. A lot of <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> initiatives are based on the exploitation of the capability this intranet provides.<br />

For example, their corporate intranet-based directory is one of the most important parts of<br />

the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> programme and BT is gradually increasing its functionality,<br />

staying closely in touch with the wishes of its users. At the moment British Telecom is<br />

evaluating its <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> activities, having been active in this area since 1996.<br />

Situation scanning<br />

History of BT<br />

BT was a government-owned company until its privatisation in1984. At its peak, the company<br />

employed more than 245,000 employees focused mainly on the provision of fixed telephony<br />

services in the UK market. Over 10 years ago BT implemented a major transformation<br />

programme, focusing on TQM (total quality <strong>management</strong>). Since this time, the company was<br />

seen successive waves of change, and which have become more frequent over the years.<br />

Currently it employs 125,000 people, of which 20,000 are service engineers, and has<br />

expanded its operations into mobile telephony, consultancy and outsourcing. BT offers more<br />

than 3000 separate products and services for single customers to multi-nationals. Turnover<br />

in 1998 was £15.64 billion and a total of £3.657 billion in profits. BT has been actively<br />

pursuing Knowledge Management since 1996 – 1997, with a significant focus organisational<br />

learning. BT currently operates a functional organisation structure with 40 interdependent<br />

business units.<br />

About British Telecom 3<br />

British Telecom is one of the world's leading suppliers of fixed and mobile communications<br />

services. In the UK, they support around 27 million fixed customer lines and three million<br />

mobile connections, through a 60 per cent stake in Cellnet. Their main services are local,<br />

national and international calls (with direct dialling to over 230 countries worldwide); and<br />

supplying telephone lines, equipment and private circuits for homes and businesses.<br />

3 Data of 1998 (Steve Lakin, BT)<br />

CIBIT 18<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Outside the UK, BT’s strategy is to expand in chosen markets by developing a series of<br />

alliances and joint venture partnerships. They have put in place one of the most<br />

comprehensive global networks of any operator. In Concert Communications Services, they<br />

have the world's leading supplier of global network solutions to multinational customers.<br />

BT's major European alliances<br />

France Cegetel<br />

Germany Viag Interkom<br />

Italy Albacom<br />

Netherlands Telfort<br />

Spain Airtel<br />

Sweden Telenordia<br />

Switzerland Sunrise<br />

British Telecom is also at the forefront of the development and marketing of a<br />

comprehensive range of advanced data and interactive multimedia solutions and<br />

technologies of the future. As businesses increasingly operate internationally, and as more<br />

and more people are travelling and working abroad, so the demand for international<br />

communications grows. In the past ten years, international communications - phone, fax,<br />

video, data - have more than doubled from 33 billion minutes a year to 68 billion minutes.<br />

This growth in demand has been complemented by the liberalisation of telecommunications<br />

markets around the world. At the beginning of the 1990s, only about 20 per cent of the<br />

world's total telecommunications market was open to competition; by the end of the decade,<br />

only about ten per cent will not be.<br />

British Telecom currently has three target geographies - North America, Europe and Asia-<br />

Pacific - where their strategy is to work with local partners. They now have a number of key<br />

partnerships around the world and significant investment in international services.<br />

Needs for change<br />

British Telecom’s need for change was stated in the following organisational goals:<br />

• Expanding into newly liberalising world wide markets, breaking the dependent on the<br />

U.K;<br />

• BT strategy is to defend it position against new entrants to the U.K. market,<br />

which is larger and growing but<br />

• also to enter the huge world-wide market of mobile communication, datacommunication<br />

(voice also as data, i.e. fully digital) and internet, since<br />

• with liberalisation, now is the once in a lifetime opportunity to become an<br />

established global player in voice telephony, Internet and mobile telephony.<br />

• Being able to understand what <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> is all about to be able to<br />

guide and offer solutions to customers, since:<br />

• BT products fit within the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> programmes of their<br />

customers,<br />

• BT is increasingly selling <strong>knowledge</strong> as a product (wrap around a solution e.g.<br />

consultancy, along with a tangible product) and,<br />

• BT is seen to use what it sells and practices what it preaches.<br />

• Building, creating, increasing capabilities, responsiveness and flexibility in order to<br />

deliver…(wider strategic goals) e.g.:<br />

• Becoming a more credible supplier of communication tools, by<br />

o Improving customer relations;<br />

• Being able to start and maintain overseas alliances;<br />

CIBIT 19<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Enhance the value proposition 4 of BT products and services by:<br />

o Reducing time to market and<br />

o Increasing innovation;<br />

• Improving the quality of work for BT employees by:<br />

• Avoiding mistakes being repeated;<br />

• Avoiding work being duplicated;<br />

• Share good ideas and<br />

• Eliminating the dependence on a few key individuals.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals<br />

• Making existing <strong>knowledge</strong> work harder,<br />

• Generating and quickly recycling learning across the business, and<br />

• (Re)connecting people.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

The <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) that BT’s has put in place<br />

for reaching the organisational goals addresses leadership & <strong>management</strong>, organisational<br />

structure & HRM, processes and Information & communication technology.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

Small central team<br />

BT’s <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> activities are facilitated by a small central team. This is<br />

different to the old way of doing projects, which typically have involved large, centrally<br />

controlled project embracing lots of people in the project group. The new approach reflects<br />

the culture BT is trying to promote, with small, fast and flexible teams working collaboratively<br />

across the business to achieve goals. Therefore, very few people at the centre are employed<br />

on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> (4), working primarily as catalysts to encourage local initiatives<br />

and accelerate cross-functional learning. Most of BT’s business units have people working on<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong>, through only a few (~12 people) have this as their specialist role.<br />

BT also maintains a <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> research group, looking at future tools and<br />

technologies.<br />

No separate mandate for <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

BT sees <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> as central, and not separate to its business strategy.<br />

There’s no mandate from the top of BT for a separate, company-wide <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> programme. Therefore, part of the work of the central team is to sell the<br />

benefits of <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> into the business units. Also to provide some internal<br />

consulting to help get initiatives going. No separate mandate means that its harder to<br />

implement standard company-wide approaches e.g. if a business unit decides to develop a<br />

lessons learned repository and publish the lessons on their web site they are free to do so.<br />

4 Added <strong>knowledge</strong> equals added value, so there is an alternative for competing on price.<br />

CIBIT 20<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


This doesn’t mean that other units will do the same. The challenge is to establish and sell the<br />

benefits.<br />

Cultural change<br />

One of the most important aspects of the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> programme is creating an<br />

internal market: where <strong>knowledge</strong> is freely exchanged and people help each other to know<br />

things. The intranet provides people with a place of exchange and increasingly, the<br />

opportunity to meet and discuss daily work. In such a virtual environment, people probably<br />

didn’t even know each other before.<br />

Learning Histories<br />

Currently Steve’s team is working on an approach to reduce the start-up time a novice team<br />

member needs when joining a team. The idea is to let the teams keep log books i.e. learning<br />

histories 5 (see below: Processes - Evaluation), of their activities. Doing so, a new team<br />

member can go through the history of the project to the point of it’s current state, get in<br />

contact with key members and thereby accelerate their learning curve.<br />

Organisational structure and human resource <strong>management</strong><br />

Coaching networks<br />

Coaching is an increasingly integral part of current practice within BT. A number of coaching<br />

networks exist within the organisation.<br />

Communities of Interest<br />

There are various communities within BT who have common interests and who meet virtually<br />

using community web sites. The themes of such communities include <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong>, business excellence and benchmarking (see below: Processes - Evaluation).<br />

Work planning<br />

Interest profile based work allocation (see below: ICT – Work planning).<br />

Appraisal for collaboration across organisational boundaries<br />

British Telecom has an appraisal system in place, but it’s not specifically <strong>knowledge</strong> friendly,<br />

meaning it’s not aimed at rewarding <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. The rewards are on a higher level<br />

namely collaboration across organisational boundaries. They run a company-wide scheme<br />

which allows people to recognise colleagues for their working collaboratively across<br />

organisational boundaries.<br />

Processes<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> processes<br />

The <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> processes identified by BT include:<br />

• creating <strong>knowledge</strong>: pool data from internal sources and acquire it from external<br />

sources;<br />

• enhancing <strong>knowledge</strong>: turn data into information, filter and sort it;<br />

• disseminating <strong>knowledge</strong>: collaboration is key, shared learning is valuable;<br />

• applying <strong>knowledge</strong>: lock <strong>knowledge</strong> into daily decision making processes and<br />

enable people to do their jobs quicker and easier.<br />

5 According to Steve Lakin of BT, they’ll not use learning histories as elaborately as described by Art Kleiner (Kleiner,<br />

1996)<br />

CIBIT 21<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Evaluation<br />

Evaluation is part of the BT way of working (imperative since TQM project and attaining at<br />

ISO 9001 standard) post project and after action reviews are part of the normal way of<br />

working. Results are typically published on the intranet.<br />

BT have no structured method in place for the identification and sharing of lessons learned /<br />

best practices, such as a central best practice repository. Though they have Business<br />

Excellence Interest Communities and Benchmarking Interest Communities who publish their<br />

findings on the benchmarking web site part of the BT intranet. A ny employee who’s<br />

interested in this information can browse to this web site, they’re not notified as part of a<br />

formal procedure.<br />

Currently, Steve’s team is working on the enhancement of post project reviews, by the usage<br />

of learning history techniques they try to enrich the review data.<br />

Knowledge sharing by connecting or codifying<br />

Connecting people 6 is regarded more efficient than codifying <strong>knowledge</strong> as a means to<br />

control <strong>knowledge</strong> erosion and to enable <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. The overall strategy<br />

emphasises making connections between <strong>knowledge</strong>able people above attempts to codify<br />

their <strong>knowledge</strong>. The BT connection-making machine is their intranet, which enables people<br />

to find each other through tools such as search engines and directory facilities. These<br />

connections grow organically, people aren’t pushed to become a member of a certain<br />

community, though the are offered the facilities and the benefits of the communities are clear<br />

within BT. This doesn’t imply that BT doesn’t codify any <strong>knowledge</strong>, they are experimenting<br />

with templates for <strong>knowledge</strong> transfer and thereby analysing how much has to be written<br />

down (literally) to enable transfer.<br />

ICT<br />

Standardised platform for IT<br />

BT started the standardising process of it’s desktops in 1993, the main reason was that<br />

they’ve been hampered to share information due to the multiplicity of e.g. word processors,<br />

spread sheets and presentation graphics. At the same time BT made significant investments<br />

in e-mail.<br />

After a while it seemed that e-mail solved part of the information <strong>management</strong> problem,<br />

people could easily get in touch with each other. But simply pushing information out to<br />

people did not work. The ability to find information was still dependant on individuals<br />

managing the information.<br />

In 1994, believing that technology could serve many other purposes, such as directory<br />

services as well as facilitating group working, BT began experimenting its own intranet. It was<br />

based on core information that was needed, rather than the mass of information in general<br />

circulation.<br />

The intranet 7 was extended across the whole of BT in early 1995 and now has over 80,000<br />

dedicated users, with other employees enjoying access via shared terminals and multi media<br />

kiosks.<br />

BT also has set up a number of extranets to provide major customers, suppliers and partners<br />

with access to specific areas within BT’s intranet in order to improve communications and<br />

joint working practices. Extranets are, in fact, an increasingly important element of BT’s<br />

overall strategic use of Internet technologies and provide substantial business benefits,<br />

particularly in the ever-expanding field of e-commerce.<br />

6 Among these people are not the service engineers (20,000 people). BT has connected 80,000 employees by its intranet,<br />

but didn’t connect their service workforce yet, since they haven’t got devices equipped with browser facilities. These<br />

people get in touch by mobile telephony.<br />

7 Its main news page server receives more than 2 million hits each month, making it one of the largest servers in Europe.<br />

CIBIT 22<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Future<br />

Now considered by many to be the organisation’s central nervous system, BT’s intranet is core to its<br />

operations and has yielded phenomenal business benefits both in terms of cost savings and cultural<br />

change. This is forecast to continue with extra value likely to come from three main areas:<br />

• Fast, comprehensive corporate and operational communications;<br />

• The provision of a single interface to major applications;<br />

• The growth in use of extended intranets and/or extranets.<br />

Collaborative Working Survey<br />

At the start of its <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> activities, BT used a questionnaire 8 to investigate<br />

how ready individual business units were for effective collaborative working. The<br />

questionnaire reviewed four dimensions:<br />

• Economics: is there a clear defined business <strong>case</strong> for collaborative working;<br />

• Technology: are there enough technological enablers in place? Are people<br />

comfortable with the technology ? (critical mass is necessary to build a<br />

standardised IT platform)<br />

• Culture: attitude surveys, are people alien or familiar with <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong>?<br />

• Politics: who’s threatened, what are the existing power bases, how are decisions<br />

made at the moment.<br />

The end goal of the questionnaire was to test the state of readiness of BT for effective<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. The questionnaire approach has been used with 25% of BT’s UK<br />

Business Units.<br />

The BT Intranet and <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

The BT Intranet has significantly improved the workforce’s ability to share information across<br />

the company. Apart from e-mail 9 functionality and discussion facilities it incorporates:<br />

• an introduction (and web site dedicated) to <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong>;<br />

• information about <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiatives of other large and well<br />

known companies;<br />

• dates of <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> conferences coming up and<br />

• a network (Yellow Pages) of people interested in, or working on <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

mangement.<br />

In developing this network, the following strategy was followed:<br />

• Identify the community of people interested in the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> theme:<br />

this was done by means of a ‘come in and drop your business card’-facility on the<br />

intranet;<br />

• Let people who drop their card fill-out a simple and short list of data (not much<br />

more than a phone directory): name, coordinates 10 , e-mail address, current project;<br />

• Let the members of the community discuss freely, no moderation 11 ;<br />

This simple strategy has proven to be successful. Steve states that you should not start<br />

providing all kinds of fancy technology to a community that is not really active. They start<br />

providing more elaborate facilities after the community becomes active. First it was like a<br />

telephony directory with a few lines of free text for some personal notes. The free text section<br />

is starting to become a more structurally designed interest profile. At this moment BT is<br />

enhancing the facilities available to such communities by using a.o. agent technology (see<br />

8<br />

David Coleman a groupware consultant was hired to develop this questionnaire.<br />

9<br />

There were 9.2 million messages sent within BT in January 1998. 60% of the benefits of the BT intranet applications can<br />

directly be related to e-mail. E-mail saves between £470,000 and £530,000 each year.<br />

10<br />

Based on the coordinates of an employee you can browse to higher and lower levels in the organization chart, this in<br />

order to determine the place of the employee in BT.<br />

11<br />

BT discussion forums aren’t moderated, moderation hasn’t proven its value yet, is currently experimented with.<br />

CIBIT 23<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


also below: ICT – Work planning). With these technologies it’s possible so automatically<br />

connect people and target useful information to an employee based on his interest profile.<br />

Workstyle 2000<br />

BT is experimenting collaborative team rooms and advanced intranet tools for <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> through a number of pilot projects – which are not available company-wide.<br />

They also have a virtual team-working programme, under the banner of Workstyle 2000.<br />

This initiative has enabled thousands of employees to work from home and use ‘hot desks’<br />

available at offices throughout the country. An interactive web site support communications<br />

of acquired <strong>knowledge</strong> between remote workers and offers a forum for teleworkers to share<br />

their experiences.<br />

Work planning<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> within BT does not solely rely on the intranet as a technology. As a<br />

provider of communication services, BT’s reputation is inextricably linked to the availability<br />

and reliability of its network, which covers 28 million customer connections distributed<br />

geographically throughout the U.K. BT manages a field workforce of more than 20,000 multiskilled<br />

technicians who complete 150,000 tasks every day. BT’s Work Manager, a worldclass<br />

task <strong>management</strong> system, seeks to minimise customer delays and the number of<br />

wasted journeys made daily by service engineers. Managing the work schedules of such a<br />

large field force is an unglamorous but vitally important aspect of BT’s business.<br />

Sophisticated work allocation algorithms were developed to match work arising with the<br />

available resources – taking account of the location of each job, estimated travel time and<br />

job duration, skill requirement and priority.<br />

Each service engineer is provided with a hand-held field terminal capable of accessing a<br />

central computer using BT’s telephony network. This allows access to details about the next<br />

job, as well as the facility to send back job closure details. By automating the work allocation<br />

and the dispatch systems, BT was able to offer customers a better service.<br />

Through shared learning, BT’s <strong>knowledge</strong> and expertise has developed significantly since<br />

Work Manager was launched and the system is now capable of serving a field workforce of<br />

40,000 engineers. In its latest guise, the system incorporates a dynamic scheduler, which<br />

uses artificial intelligence techniques to make the software even a more effective tool. It<br />

saves £70 million each year.<br />

The latest development will couple an individual’s interest profile (part of the intranet yellow<br />

pages to the Work Manager system. This will allow jobs to be allocated in alignment with an<br />

employee’s interest and learning ambitions. Furthermore the field engineers will be provided<br />

with more facilities on their device, as soon as mobile web browsing is stable, they’ll be able<br />

to send information to other field engineers and retrieve solutions to problems from a<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> base.<br />

Development and training courses on-line<br />

Within BT, people can choose their training courses on-line. The Development Options<br />

database was issued annually on floppy disk before it was put on-line. Amendments are now<br />

done on-line at negligible cost and with minimal delay.<br />

The focus of current <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> activities at BT can be descibed as:<br />

• Identify: finding and connecting community by the intranet in ways that encourage<br />

learning, <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing and collaborative working;<br />

• Analyse: diagnosing <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> needs and priorities of individual<br />

business units (see above: ICT – Intranet survey);<br />

• Shift from thinking about it, to doing it: kicking-off <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

initiatives around the whole organisation and raise awareness of <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong>;<br />

• Consolidate, making better <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> a part of the normal way of<br />

working<br />

CIBIT 24<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Evaluate <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong>: learning from the initiatives conducted;<br />

At the moment BT is doing the first large evaluation stage of its <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

activities. The outcome will lead to small or larger changes in both new ways of working and<br />

the use of technology.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• A central organisational learning team (4 people)<br />

• Initiate and facilitate <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> projects, such as <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

reengineering of processes<br />

• Coordinate communities and activities<br />

• Catalyst for company-wide infrastructure developments<br />

• Developing cultural awareness campaigns<br />

• KM Research & Development team (~6 people)<br />

• Working on cutting edge web technologies to develop and test new <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> tools and technologies, e.g. agents for information publishing<br />

• Conducting technology scans (Do people like the tools?)<br />

• Researches questions such as:<br />

o How to encourage people to use new technology?<br />

• Knowledge Managers (within Business Units)<br />

• Initiate and manage <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> projects, such as <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

reengineering of processes<br />

• Provide information (new research data and other content)<br />

• Facilitate information exchange<br />

• Organise and run events<br />

Change <strong>management</strong><br />

Bottom-up approach and alignment with accepted methods<br />

Working from the grass roots on (i.e. bottom up approach). Aligning with presently active<br />

projects, like the BT TQM projects. Key to success is to align <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

initiatives with projects that are already running.<br />

Positioning Knowledge Management: TQM as an anchor<br />

Bt has positioned <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> as complimentary to its extensive TQM activity.<br />

TQM was already accepted and embedded across the BT business. It has a clear value<br />

proposition (better quality for a lower price). Knowledge <strong>management</strong> is more complex and<br />

less easy to communicate. Also, everyone is doing <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> already – the<br />

benefits come from doing it more systematically. Therefore you do not need permission to<br />

start <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong>.<br />

CIBIT 25<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Catalytic effects<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> initiatives have started in many places throughout the organisation.<br />

After being accepted, critical mass starts to grow and works as a catalyst for others around<br />

them. Doing so, <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> grows and grows.<br />

Integration<br />

The key is to ensure Knowledge <strong>management</strong> does not become a goal in itself, nor is it a<br />

project on its own. Knowledge <strong>management</strong> has to become an integral part of the BT way of<br />

working. The message is that everybody does <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> as a part of his or her<br />

daily activities; no specific <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> roles were defined (except for a<br />

negligibly small group of 12 – 15 people (see above: support structure)).<br />

Evaluation of <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> approach<br />

BT are now coming to the point of evaluating the interventions made during the last period.<br />

One of the activities of the organisational learning group of Steve Lakin is evaluating the way<br />

of <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> in the light of the strategic goals of BT. One approach used is to<br />

establish the extent of any gap between what current tools and approaches are delivering<br />

and the Business Unit’s needs.<br />

This raises the question do they understand the gap and can they fill it by enhancing the<br />

deployment of new and better <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> tools and approaches.<br />

Applied methods<br />

• Balanced Score Card as a framework for <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

• EFQM Business Excellence Model<br />

Balanced Scorecard as a framework<br />

The balanced score card provides an effective framework for examining the crucial role <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> can play.<br />

Process perspective: the learning organisation. Learning best practice from one another and from<br />

external resources is the central idea behind benchmarking. After a business has caught up with the<br />

best it must innovate and improve further. A key enabler in the innovation process is the ability for<br />

people to connect with one another and with information to stimulate their creativity.<br />

Customer perspective: the <strong>knowledge</strong> intensive business. Businesses are becoming intensive users of<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> and their products contain an increasing amount of intellectual or <strong>knowledge</strong> component.<br />

Knowledge is vital for innovation and for organizations to win their particular races to develop new<br />

products and get them to the market first. Equally important is the ability to be very responsive to<br />

trends in the marketplace and to do that best organizations need their people to be very knowledgable<br />

about their markets, customers and competitors.<br />

Shareholder perspective: intellectual capital. The <strong>management</strong> of intangible assets has received very<br />

little attention in the traditional business world but as the value of <strong>knowledge</strong> becomes more widely<br />

accepted organizations start to benchmark themselves against companies such as software and music<br />

publishers which excel at managing their intangible assets.<br />

People perspective: <strong>knowledge</strong> culture. In the vast majority of organizations current incentive and<br />

reward systems tend to stress personal objectives and accountability and can lead to a mentality in<br />

which people see themselves competing with others in the same organizations for recognition and<br />

reward (<strong>knowledge</strong> is power/win-lose is good mentality). Businesses need to refocus the competitive<br />

instincts of their staff on winning for the team or company (<strong>knowledge</strong> sharing is power/win-win<br />

mentality).<br />

CIBIT 26<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Evaluation<br />

Results<br />

At the moment British Telecom is conducting a survey to be better able to evaluate the<br />

impact of <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiatives described in this <strong>case</strong> study, therefore no<br />

results can be given at this point in time.<br />

However, they do have results from the impact of their intranet. In 1996 it saved £305<br />

million. In 1997. £747 million. The results for 1998 showed a similar further increase 12 .<br />

Surveys showed that its introduction across the business had led to a maximum<br />

improvement in productivity in one area of 48% with an average of 35%.<br />

Key learnings<br />

• Knowledge <strong>management</strong> should be integrated in normal ways of working, not developed<br />

as add-ons.<br />

• You have to sell the benefits of <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and therefore you need to be<br />

able to state a clear value proposition<br />

• Build Yellow pages organically, don’t expect people to fill-out large templates at once,<br />

start small.<br />

• People use Yellow pages the same as a telephone directory to look for contacts. Don’t be<br />

surprised when the discussion facility that goes along with the Yellow pages isn’t used.<br />

People rather use e-mail instead of discussion forums.<br />

• Most of BT’s published <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> successes relate to its intranet, looking at<br />

this <strong>case</strong> study one can easily notice this looking at the amount of information at the ICT<br />

part. This shows that it is easier to measure the impact of technology projects.<br />

References<br />

• Media briefing pack, BT and Knowledge Management<br />

• Copeland, Mick, (BT - Organisational Development), Using the intranet to develop a<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> sharing culture, presentation slides of: Intranets as a <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

tool conference, 27 th and 28 th October 1998, London, U.K.<br />

• McGregor, Seona, (BTNet) Live demonstration: The BT Intranet, presentation slides of:<br />

Intranets as a <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> tool conference, 27 th and 28 th October 1998,<br />

London, U.K.<br />

• McGrath, Andrew, (BTLabs), The Forum, in: SIGGROUP Bulletin, volume 19, No 3,<br />

December 1998.<br />

• Kleiner, Art, Roth, George, Field Manual for a Learning Historian (version 4.0), MIT-COL<br />

(Center for Organisational Learning), October 28, 1996.<br />

• www.bt.com<br />

• www.btwide.com<br />

• www.oftel.gov.uk<br />

Contact information<br />

British Telecom<br />

12 exact figures not available<br />

CIBIT 27<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Steve Lakin<br />

Manager Organisational Learning<br />

tel: +44 14 42 29 68 49<br />

cell: +44 410 187 948<br />

Email: steve.lakin@bt.com<br />

CIBIT 28<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Shell<br />

Organisational goals<br />

Based on an interview with Arjan van Unnik (Senior consultant New Ways of Working, Shell<br />

International, Exploration and Production) during site visit on April 20, 1999, Rijswijk, the<br />

Netherlands.<br />

The goals of Shell 13 that were sought for with the organisational learning project are:<br />

• Find solutions faster<br />

• Find better solutions<br />

• Innovate faster<br />

• Disseminate innovations faster<br />

• Make more profits<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals<br />

Goals that where seen by Shell as instrumental for reaching those organisational goals:<br />

• Improve <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

• Increase <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

Knowledge infrastructure<br />

Instrumentation of the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) that<br />

was put in place for reaching the organisational goals. The following categories will be<br />

discerned: leadership & <strong>management</strong>, organisational structure & HRM, processes and<br />

Information & communication technology.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• No mandate from the top<br />

• Bottom-up<br />

• Cultural Change<br />

• Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Organisational structure and human resource <strong>management</strong><br />

• Common Interest Networks (60 worldwide)<br />

13 With Shell is meant Shell International Exploration and Production (SIEP), the upstream part of Shell.<br />

CIBIT 29<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Moderator<br />

• Global Coordinator<br />

• Subject Focal Point<br />

• Local Coordinator<br />

• Appraisal system<br />

Processes<br />

• Best Practice Transfer<br />

• Moderation<br />

ICT<br />

• Knowledge bases<br />

• Alta Vista Forum<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants<br />

CIBIT 30<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Abstract<br />

The multinational Royal Dutch/Shell group of Companies operates in 130 places around the<br />

world.<br />

Larger oil companies, like Shell, can be sub-divided into upstream and downstream parts.<br />

This <strong>case</strong> study is about the upstream part, the operating companies that explore oilfields<br />

and produce crude oil for the market. The world of upstream operating companies is a world<br />

of taking high risks and gaining high rewards, they work opportunity driven. Shell Exploration<br />

& Production saw <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiatives generate successes in enterprises<br />

around them and started piloting with <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> themselves. A group of<br />

consultants, of the Exploration & Production service company, called New Ways of Working<br />

took the initiative for starting common interest networks within individual exploration and<br />

production disciplines like engineering, corrosion and petrophysics across the globe. This<br />

lead to 60 common interest networks within Shell worldwide. The members of a community<br />

help eachother by sharing insights and experiences. Shell has indications that for every<br />

dollar it invests in a community, it gains 10 dollars and for every hour invested it gains 7<br />

hours in return.<br />

Situation scanning<br />

History of Shell<br />

The Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies has grown out of an alliance made in 1907<br />

between Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and the ‘Shell’ Transport and Trading Company<br />

p.l.c., by which the two companies agreed to merge their interests on a 60:40<br />

(Netherlands:United Kingdom) basis while keeping their separate identities.<br />

About Shell<br />

Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies operates in more than 130 countries around the<br />

world, the companies of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group are engaged in the core businesses of<br />

Exploration & Production, Oil Products, Chemicals, Downstream gas and power generation<br />

and Renewables.<br />

This <strong>case</strong> study is situated at Shell International Exploration and Production. The<br />

organisational chart depicted below shows its two major departments: Research and<br />

Technical Services (a service company) and Operating Units (an operating company).<br />

CIBIT 31<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Exploration and Production<br />

Research and Technical<br />

Services<br />

+/- 1,000 employees<br />

Royal Dutch/Shell<br />

Group of<br />

Companies<br />

Shell International<br />

Exploration and Production<br />

Exploration and Production<br />

Operating Units<br />

+/- 30,000 employees<br />

Figure 1 Relation of Shell International Exploration and Production to Royal Dutch/Shell Group of<br />

Companies<br />

Research and Technical Services<br />

Research and Technical Services is a service company which provides advice and services<br />

to the operating companies. It’s sub-divided into two parts: Research & Development and<br />

Consultancy. One of these consultancy groups is New Ways of Working (NWW), which<br />

consists of +/- 10-14 people including 5 Information Technology consultants.<br />

Operating Units<br />

These units search for oil and gas fields by means of seismic surveys and exploration wells;<br />

develop economically viable fields by drilling additional wells and build the infrastructure of<br />

pipelines and treatment facilities necessary for delivering the hydrocarbons to the market.<br />

Shell is either shareholder or shareholder and operator of these units, in the last <strong>case</strong> all staff<br />

is Shell staff.<br />

Shells operating units are (from large to small) 14 :<br />

• NAM (The Netherlands, 50% Shell:50% Exxon)<br />

• Shell Expro (United Kingdom, 50% Shell:50% Exxon)<br />

• SPDC (Nigeria, 30% Shell:70% Local Government)<br />

• PDO (Oman, 30% Shell:70% Local Government)<br />

• BSP (Brunei)<br />

• Shell Petroleum Inc. (United States)<br />

• Norske Shell<br />

• SSB (Sarawak)<br />

• Venezuela<br />

• SPEX (Philipines)<br />

• Syria<br />

• New ventures<br />

• Angola<br />

• Kazachstan<br />

Exploration and Production and the market<br />

Crude oil prices are volatile. In December the crude oil price sank below $10 a barrel for the<br />

first time since 1986. Currently the prices are in the range of $15 a barrel. Over the next five<br />

years, oil production and gas sales are planned to grow – at an average annual rate of 4% for<br />

oil and 6% for gas. The strategy is maximising long-term value with increased emphasis on<br />

short-term profitability, cost leadership and production growth. Implement strategy through<br />

selective investments and active portfolio <strong>management</strong>. Take advantage of the global<br />

14 List might be incomplete, but gives a good enough overview (Arjan van Unnik).<br />

CIBIT 32<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


leverage of technology, research, skills and practices to support group companies, thus<br />

becoming the preferred partner of both resource holders and other companies in the industry.<br />

About Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies’ upstream and downstream<br />

departments<br />

It’s important to know that the larger oil companies are sub-divided into (at least) an<br />

upstream and a downstream sector; frequently complemented by a chemicals sector. The<br />

upstream sector (Exploration and Production) searches for oil and gas fields by means of<br />

seismic surveys and exploration wells; developing economically viable fields by drilling<br />

additional wells and building the infrastructure of pipelines and treatment facilities necessary<br />

for delivering the hydrocarbons to the market. The downstream sector (at Shell called: Oil<br />

Products) refines and processes crude oil and feedstocks into transportation fuels, lubricants,<br />

heating and fuel oils, liquefied petroleum gas and bitumen; distributing and marketing them –<br />

together with complementary services – to meet customer needs.<br />

At Shell the upstream department’s R&D is always trying to find new opportunities to e.g.<br />

explore oil faster by drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes. They are fully customer (Operating Units)<br />

driven, while searching for ways to innovate processes, taking risks and gaining high<br />

rewards. The downstream R&D has relatively a higher emphasis on improving processes to<br />

be more cost-effective and extremely efficient in e.g. refining crude oil.<br />

To give an idea about Shell production figures: 2,354,000 barrels 15 (1% higher than 1997) of<br />

crude oil are produced each day worldwide (in Europe alone: 590,000 barrels each day). In<br />

1998 refinery processing intake was 3,371,000 barrels daily and a total of 8,964,000 barrels<br />

of refined and crude oil products were sold daily (3% more than 1997).<br />

Needs for change<br />

At Shell International Exploration and Production they didn’t speak of a need for change, they<br />

found the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> success stories in the world intrigueing and therfore<br />

wanted to explore this opportunity for themselves. Knowledge <strong>management</strong> was seen as an<br />

opportunity to improve their exploration and production process. For instance, one day offshore<br />

drilling costs about $100,000, if one day can be saved based on shared <strong>knowledge</strong>, the<br />

revenues are large.<br />

Shell’s opportunities can be stated in the following organisational goals:<br />

• Find solutions faster<br />

• Find better solutions<br />

• Innovate faster<br />

• Disseminate innovations faster<br />

• Make more profits<br />

From these organisational goals the following <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> are applicable:<br />

• Improve <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

• Increase <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

15 A barrel contains 159 liters and is priced between $10 - $18 on the market. Average price in 1998 was $12.75 (in 1997<br />

it was $19.10).<br />

CIBIT 33<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Design and implementation<br />

In order to reach the organisational goals the following instrumentation of the <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) was designed and implemented. The<br />

following categories will be discerned: leadership & <strong>management</strong>, organisational structure &<br />

HRM, processes and Information & communication technology.<br />

Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

• the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

• the community builder;<br />

• responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

• managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

• ensures questions get answered;<br />

• and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

CIBIT 34<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

CIBIT 35<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best<br />

Practice Transfer and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

• the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

• the community builder;<br />

• responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

• managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

• ensures questions get answered;<br />

• and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

CIBIT 36<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best<br />

Practice Transfer and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

CIBIT 37<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

• the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

• the community builder;<br />

• responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

• managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

• ensures questions get answered;<br />

• and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

CIBIT 38<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

CIBIT 39<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


elated set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

• By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where<br />

people are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from<br />

others starts being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within<br />

individual operating companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an<br />

individual to search for solutions already available, solicit suggestions and to admit<br />

that you have used someone else’s idea instead of developing your own solution. In<br />

some parts of the company the appraisal systems contain elements related to<br />

publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

•<br />

• Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom<br />

line performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing<br />

information reduces the competive advantage of an individual company in<br />

comparison to their peers within the Shell Group. This is to be compensated by<br />

including elements in the comparison as “total contribution to the Shell Group”,<br />

“implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

CIBIT 40<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer and the section<br />

called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they have to market their<br />

services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New<br />

Ways of Working received a limited amount of seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds,<br />

coming from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to enable more<br />

and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways of Working get paid their hourly<br />

rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the<br />

Exploration and Production Operating Units who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common<br />

interest network on Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

CIBIT 41<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their <strong>knowledge</strong>. This can<br />

occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be triggered by the reputation contributors have built<br />

up in their community. It is obvious that if people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

CIBIT 42<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

CIBIT 43<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

CIBIT 44<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

CIBIT 45<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

CIBIT 46<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

CIBIT 47<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

CIBIT 48<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Organisational structure and HRM - Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

CIBIT 49<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

CIBIT 50<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

CIBIT 51<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

CIBIT 52<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

CIBIT 53<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

CIBIT 54<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

CIBIT 55<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

CIBIT 56<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

CIBIT 57<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

CIBIT 58<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

• the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

• the community builder;<br />

• responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

• managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

• ensures questions get answered;<br />

• and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach 16 (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

16 For example described by Robert Camp [Camp, 1995]<br />

CIBIT 59<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best<br />

Practice Transfer and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

CIBIT 60<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

• the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

• the community builder;<br />

• responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

• managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

• ensures questions get answered;<br />

• and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

CIBIT 61<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best<br />

Practice Transfer and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

• the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

• the community builder;<br />

• responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

• managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

• ensures questions get answered;<br />

• and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

CIBIT 62<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

CIBIT 63<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best<br />

Practice Transfer and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

• the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

• the community builder;<br />

• responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

• managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

• ensures questions get answered;<br />

• and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

CIBIT 64<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

CIBIT 65<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

• By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where<br />

people are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from<br />

others starts being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within<br />

individual operating companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an<br />

individual to search for solutions already available, solicit suggestions and to admit<br />

that you have used someone else’s idea instead of developing your own solution. In<br />

some parts of the company the appraisal systems contain elements related to<br />

publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

•<br />

CIBIT 66<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom<br />

line performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing<br />

information reduces the competive advantage of an individual company in<br />

comparison to their peers within the Shell Group. This is to be compensated by<br />

including elements in the comparison as “total contribution to the Shell Group”,<br />

“implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer and the section<br />

called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they have to market their<br />

services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New<br />

Ways of Working received a limited amount of seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds,<br />

coming from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to enable more<br />

and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways of Working get paid their hourly<br />

rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the<br />

Exploration and Production Operating Units who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common<br />

interest network on Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

CIBIT 67<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their <strong>knowledge</strong>. This can<br />

occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be triggered by the reputation contributors have built<br />

up in their community. It is obvious that if people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

CIBIT 68<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


eorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

CIBIT 69<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

CIBIT 70<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

CIBIT 71<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


eing encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

CIBIT 72<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

CIBIT 73<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Leadership and Management<br />

No mandate from the top<br />

At the moment the New Ways of Working group doesn’t get any funding from the top, they<br />

have to market their services like any other consultant and find sponsoring Operating Units<br />

for their R&D efforts. In the beginning New Ways of Working received a limited amount of<br />

seed money from the top to develop and present their ideas on <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> and<br />

the potential it might have for Shell. Following this initial stage they got R&D funds, coming<br />

from a variety of Operating Units who were willing to invest in this new initiative in order to<br />

enable more and better <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing. With respect to consultancy activities, New Ways<br />

of Working get paid their hourly rates by customers in Operating Units asking services from<br />

this team, e.g. all the Production Chemists in the Exploration and Production Operating Units<br />

who want New Ways of Working to help them build a common interest network on<br />

Production Chemistry for them.<br />

Bottom-up<br />

New Ways of Working started (see also: Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Common Interest Networks<br />

Shell has around 60 common interest networks worldwide and is in the process of combining<br />

them into less, but larger communities with a broader scope. Each network covers a certain<br />

related set of topics, part of their discipline. For example, the drilling engineers part of the<br />

wells network are discussing about drilling ‘ultra slim’ holes and the people who purchase<br />

drilling related equipment discuss their topics in their part within the same network. The<br />

people joining a network are sometimes part of the core network and sometimes in the<br />

periphery of the network and jump in whenever something that draws their attention comes<br />

by. In order to ensure that the community remains active a moderator provides support. In<br />

many <strong>case</strong>s a moderator moderates between 1 – 3 days each week. The most successful<br />

larger networks have a fulltime moderator, funded by the Operating Units with a major<br />

interest in the business processes discussed in the network. The moderator is:<br />

CIBIT 74<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


the ambassador and marketeer of the community;<br />

the community builder;<br />

responsible for creating and maintaining momentum in the community;<br />

managing, sometimes even editing the content;<br />

ensures questions get answered;<br />

and requests (and chases) for contributions.<br />

The best expert is usually not the best moderator: other people may stop contributing if a<br />

moderator keeps adding comments to contributions from others.<br />

In larger, globally operating, networks three other roles are identified to support the<br />

community: a Subject Focal Point, moderating a part of the network, Local Coordinator<br />

energising all the members in his/her Operating Unit and a Global Coordinator acting as<br />

chairman and energiser for the total community. For an explanation of their necessity and<br />

their tasks is refered to the section called: Errore. L'autoriferimento non è valido per un<br />

segnalibro. - Implementing new organisational structure slowly.<br />

Appraisal system<br />

People do get recognised in a community by their contributions and by exposing their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. This can occasionally contribute to financial rewards: a promotion can be<br />

triggered by the reputation contributors have built up in their community. It is obvious that if<br />

people are able to see these tangible benefits of sharing their <strong>knowledge</strong>, they will become<br />

more inclined to change their behaviour accordingly.<br />

By observations it was discovered that there is a culture arising within Shell, where people<br />

are saying ‘I didn’t invent this myself, I took ideas from him.’ Using ideas from others starts<br />

being encouraged and is popping up in some appraisal systems within individual operating<br />

companies. In these companies it is more beneficial for an individual to search for solutions<br />

already available, solicit suggestions and to admit that you have used someone else’s idea<br />

instead of developing your own solution. In some parts of the company the appraisal systems<br />

contain elements related to publishing information and to assisting others.<br />

Comparing individual Shell companies or business units merely on their own bottom line<br />

performance can be a hindering factor in <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing – sharing information reduces<br />

the competive advantage of an individual company in comparison to their peers within the<br />

Shell Group. This is to be compensated by including elements in the comparison as “total<br />

contribution to the Shell Group”, “implemented innovations by and from other companies”.<br />

Processes<br />

Best Practice Transfer<br />

In 1997 they tried a classical Business Process Benchmarking approach (some other oil<br />

companies work this way). Which means taking business processes of exploration and<br />

production, then step by step defining performance indicators for the various process parts,<br />

analysing the process parts of the various Shell operating companies and comparing them.<br />

Trying to explain the differences between good and bad performing operating companies,<br />

then describing the ways of work of the best performing operating companies and transfer<br />

this information to mediocre performing operating companies. This didn’t work at a global<br />

scale for several reasons; the formal taste of it all was not accepted by the operating<br />

companies.<br />

Later, in January 1998, they tried to follow a very simple approach to best practice transfer,<br />

learned from a network in the downstream sector of Shell. This network originated from the<br />

reorganisation of an Amsterdam based central office group of 10 people (engineers, former<br />

experts in the field themselves) which gave advise to colleagues working at Shell’s refineries<br />

around the world. The main reason for the need of such an office is that many colleagues in<br />

the Operating Units work remotely and may be one of the few skilled persons in the discipline<br />

on that place. In some <strong>case</strong>s there is no other colleague present in the vicinity of hundreds of<br />

kilometers. Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies decided to downsize its central offices<br />

and due to this decision the Amsterdam based group of experts had to do the same work with<br />

4 employees (40%) less. Therfor they came up with the idea to let the total community of<br />

engineers in the field help themselves. This was enabled by letting them send a question to<br />

the central office by E-mail or sometimes by a fax. The former expert at the central office<br />

became the moderator who ensured that the question was formulated in such a way that the<br />

CIBIT 75<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


engineers who were expected to answer it would interpret it correctly. The rephrased<br />

questions were sent by E-mail to all engineers in the field. If it took the engineers to long to<br />

answer the question, the moderator would start chasing for an answer, by calling people they<br />

expected to be knowledgable to answer it. Doing so, the problem-owner got his problem<br />

solved by his peers. Since all the questions and answers are collected in a worldwide<br />

accessible database, the next time the same problem occurs an engineer first looks for a<br />

solution in the database and therfor only needs to contact his peers via the moderator when<br />

the solution is not available yet. The achievement of this network is $5+ Million benefits<br />

/annum at $300k costs/annum. Based on the succes of such a simple concept New Ways of<br />

Working decided to copy this concept and implement it into Exploration and Production<br />

operating units. At the moment there are 60 communities.<br />

Moderation<br />

For the task of the moderator is refered to the previous section called: Best Practice Transfer<br />

and the section called: Organisational structure and HRM - Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

CIBIT 76<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

CIBIT 77<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

CIBIT 78<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

CIBIT 79<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

CIBIT 80<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

CIBIT 81<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

CIBIT 82<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

CIBIT 83<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


usiness groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

- Generating critical mass) with building small networks in order to let them get used to the<br />

way of working. After some time there was a growing number of small networks working well.<br />

They started with already existing informal communities to build momentum. They<br />

introduced the new way of working to these existing informal communities because within<br />

existing groups the risk of failure was lower. When it seemed to work it was used as an<br />

CIBIT 84<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


example for a more risky groups, and so step by step New Ways of Working got to core<br />

business groups. When a number of related parts of the exploration and production business<br />

process have their formal networks in place, New Ways of Working merge them into larger<br />

communities, for instance “Wells”, which relates to anything on well delivery around the<br />

globe and as such combines a number of smaller communities that were initiated in earlier<br />

stages.<br />

Cultural change<br />

During each common interest network kick-off session people appear who seem to be<br />

potential blockers (“Why should I help somebody else, I already have enough work on my<br />

plate!”). The way to overcome these barriers is convincing a reasonable amount of people<br />

within the community of the (personal) benefits that can be gained (getting work done faster<br />

and better by cooperating within the community on a give and take basis). Experience has<br />

indicated that during a kick-off workshop the vast majority of the attendees (80-100%) buy in<br />

to the concept. This core group can subsequently deliver sufficiently convincing results to<br />

bring the others on board, including those who used to be blockers.<br />

Avoiding local sub-networks<br />

Sometimes local sub-networks arise, focussing on specific local problems. Such groups are<br />

bound to loose connection with the global network. To them it seems that their <strong>case</strong> is not<br />

interesting to the global network, this could be the <strong>case</strong>, but doesn’t have to be true,<br />

therefore the New Ways of Working team is looking for solutions to prevent these kind of<br />

sub-optimal group formations.<br />

- Common Interest Networks.<br />

ICT<br />

Different technologies are used in the Shell Upstream and Downstream sectors. Within the<br />

Upstream sector both questions and answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects are stored in a simple<br />

Web based tool, called AltaVista Forum. This tool provides a threaded discussion area for<br />

the questions and answer component, and something like "shared folders on the Intranet",<br />

which is used as a simple <strong>knowledge</strong> base. This tool also provides a full text search engine<br />

on the total content. The tool is relatively simple to use, but has limited functionality. The<br />

ease of use enables all participants in the network to add information, which is regarded to be<br />

very important at the early stages of a new community. In the Downstream sector a more<br />

advanced Electronic Document Management (EDM) system is used. This system is less<br />

easy to use, therefore the central organisation populates the tool with the questions and<br />

answers and <strong>knowledge</strong> objects, while the participants are using the tool in read-only mode.<br />

Questions are sent out by E-mail (and stored in the EDM system), participants reply by Email<br />

to the central coordinator (who than also stores the replies in the EDM system).<br />

It should be remarked, that when networks grow and mature the need for more advanced<br />

technologies also increases. Shell expects that at later stages community members will also<br />

accept technologies that are less easy to use, provided these do offer the functionality<br />

required at these later stages. In that respect: mature networks in the Upstream sector are<br />

increasingly looking for Electronic Document Management functionality on top of their easyto-use<br />

AltaVista Forum tool.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Technology consultants (5+ part of NWW consultants)<br />

• New Ways of Working consultants (10+)<br />

The word ‘support’ could be a bit misleading in the <strong>case</strong> of Shell. Since the New Ways of<br />

Working-consultantcy services are not mandatory, this consultancy can only be of support for<br />

operating units if the units explicitly hire them. The New Ways of Working-consultants have<br />

to market their own products, otherwise they will be out of work.<br />

CIBIT 85<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Change <strong>management</strong><br />

Generating critical mass<br />

At the outset of implementing a succesful initiative within Shell, New Ways of Working<br />

initially focussed on building and developing existing informal networks which they then tried<br />

to formalise at a global scale. These networks were regarded ‘low hanging fruits’, indicating<br />

their lower risk. If these networks would lead to a success, then they could be used as<br />

examples for convincing other networks to do the same. These examples gave New Ways of<br />

Working a value proposition which was useful to market their service.<br />

Implementing new organisational structure slowly<br />

When New Ways of Working began with building communities the only organisational<br />

structure they gave to a community was the addition of a moderator as a different role than<br />

the community member role itself. After some time when the amount of community members<br />

grew and along with that the amount of topics subject area focal points were necessary, for<br />

the community wasn’t managable anymore. A focal point is someone who is responsible for<br />

solving problems around one specific topic. When necessary a focal point chases for<br />

answers and structures the answers in the <strong>knowledge</strong> base. Along with the focal point<br />

another role became necessary because of the global dispersion of the Shell communities:<br />

the local coordinator. A local coordinator takes care of the local community, helps them to<br />

get and to stay connected to the network and is a local helping hand for the global<br />

coordinator of the network. Specifically when cultural differences are a topic a local<br />

coordinator bridges between the global network and the local community.<br />

Convince a network that it needs a moderator<br />

Although the history of common interest networks at Shell teached the New Ways of Working<br />

consultants that the best communities had a moderator working for them full-time, they still<br />

have a hard time convincing new communities of the importance of the moderator. The main<br />

reason for this is that a moderator has to be funded by the community. Due to the fact that<br />

people strongly believe that the web technology will build the community for them, they want<br />

to invest in technology and preferably not in a moderator. Usually these communities start<br />

asking for a moderator at a later stage, after they experienced that the network doesn’t<br />

generate the benefits they expected from it.<br />

Applied methods<br />

Several consultancy companies have assisted Shell in the early stages. Methods and<br />

consultancy advice have been useful in early stages, but in order to come to a roll-out Shell<br />

had to build upon practical experiences gained, instead of external advice or described<br />

methodologies.<br />

CIBIT 86<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Evaluation<br />

Shell did not attach a certain value to the <strong>knowledge</strong> that resides with its exploration and<br />

production networks. However from research in areas of communities of practice some<br />

quantifiable benefits were identified, although still rough figures it shows the order of<br />

magnitude.<br />

Company benefits<br />

• 1 hour spent = 7 hours saved<br />

• $1 spent = $10 saved<br />

Individual benefits<br />

• spend minutes instead of hours on searching information<br />

• spend minutes instead of hours on providing information<br />

• save weeks to months by having information<br />

Benefits have actually been measured in 2 existing networks:.An existing informal network was measured to<br />

generate $5 - $15 Million benefits per annum at a cost of $300,000 per annum. Another existing network, which<br />

is more focussed and target-driven, generates $8 Million benefits per annum at $200,000 costs per annum plus<br />

$1,2 Million initiation costs.<br />

Key learnings<br />

• Local communities aren’t usefull e.g. it’s no use to give people who work in the same<br />

office or who see eachother very often an intranet discussion facility.<br />

• Technology is an important enabler, but be sure to prevent common interest<br />

networks from thinking that technology is the most important enabler. Common<br />

interest networks who fully and only rely on technology are ‘doomed to die’, the<br />

experience of the New Ways of Working team tells that the importance of the<br />

moderator is highly underestimated. Do not believe in DIY (Do it yourself – just give<br />

me the technology approaches).<br />

• At the moment the structure of a global common interest network is based on 2<br />

orthogonal variables: subject and location. Each subject has a focal point, this role is<br />

responsible for the development of solutions, innovations regarding this subject<br />

(actively chasing, providing content et cetera.). Each location has a local coordinator,<br />

this role actively promotes the work of the common interest network locally i.e. at the<br />

operating company’s location. Finally there’s a global coordinator of the network.<br />

This structure was not communicated at the very start of the common interest<br />

network kick-offs, since more roles seem to lead to more complexity, higher barriers,<br />

and these are blocking acceptance.<br />

• Keeping technology simple is taken very literally at Shell. The technology used in the<br />

first network in the downstream sector was extremely basic: E-mail communication,<br />

complemented by a Web based Electronic Document System, populated centrally<br />

and world-wide accessible in read-only mode. The Upstraem sector gave preference<br />

to Intranet based technology that was very easy to use for the end-user, over and<br />

above technology that could provide more of the required functionality at the costs of<br />

reduced user friendliness.<br />

• Avoid complicated things and academic or formal approaches, don’t talk about<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> theories, keep concepts simple.<br />

CIBIT 87<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Don’t use force to push people into new ways of working, if they refuse they refuse,<br />

maybe they will be convinced by the results of colleagues, which is probably the best<br />

way to get them with the programme. Give them the time to recognise there is<br />

something in it for them, don’t forget you’re expecting a behavioral change! Let them<br />

identify personal and business benefits themselves.<br />

References<br />

• Summary Annual Report 1998, Royal Dutch Petroleum Company / N.V. Koninklijke<br />

Nederlandsche Petroleum Maatschappij, 1998.<br />

• Van Unnik, Arjan, (EPT - NWW), CoPs in Shell – New Ways of Working, presentation<br />

slides of: CoP Workshop 30 November 1998, San Ramon CA.<br />

• Camp, Robert C., Business process benchmarking: finding and implemeting best<br />

practices, ASQC Quality Press, 1995.<br />

• www.shell.com<br />

Contact information<br />

Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.<br />

Research and Technical Services<br />

Ir. Arjan A. van Unnik<br />

New Ways of Working<br />

EPT-NWW<br />

Volmerlaan 8<br />

PO Box 60<br />

2280 AB Rijswijk<br />

The Netherlands<br />

tel: +31 70 311 2206<br />

fax: +31 70 311 2001<br />

Email: a.vanunnik@siep.shell.com<br />

CIBIT 88<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Volkswagen AG<br />

Based on interview with Dr. Ferdinand Schultz and Dr. Marcus Schutz (respectively Project<br />

manager and project member of WW.DECK) during site visit on April 15, 1999, Wolfsburg,<br />

Germany.<br />

Organisational goals<br />

The goals of Volkswagen Group that were sought for with the organisational learning project<br />

are:<br />

• Enable flexible production;<br />

• Enhance the development of cars based on the same platform for different brands<br />

– Golf A 4, Audi A3, Volkswagen Beetle and Skoda Octavia;<br />

• Ensure high quality for each brand and factory;<br />

• Offer a range of cars from low budget economy class to very exclusive;<br />

• Get component quality of all group members at the same level;<br />

• Use customer information systematically.<br />

Knowledge Management Goals<br />

Goals that where seen by Volkswagen Group as instrumental for reaching those<br />

organisational goals:<br />

• Disseminate local innovative solutions world-wide;<br />

• Make <strong>knowledge</strong> accessible when it is needed;<br />

• Share <strong>knowledge</strong> systematically;<br />

• Share failures systematically;<br />

• Prevent reinvention of <strong>knowledge</strong>;<br />

• Prevent erosion of <strong>knowledge</strong> when people leave the company.<br />

Knowledge infrastructure<br />

Instrumentation of the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) that<br />

was put in place for reaching the organisational goals. The following categories will be<br />

discerned: leadership & <strong>management</strong>, organisational structure & HRM, processes and<br />

Information & communication technology.<br />

CIBIT 89<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• Support from top:<br />

o At the moment WW.DECK is financially supported by the top;<br />

o There is a strong cooperation with the IT-department;<br />

o In the future they must become self-supportive;<br />

• Working bottom-up – generating critical mass, behavioral change of people must be<br />

intrinsic.<br />

Organisational structure and HRM<br />

• LINE project (Learning in Networks): education via intranet for Volkswagen;<br />

• Local WW.DECK coordinators to overcome cultural problems;<br />

• Events for top managers about <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing.<br />

Processes<br />

ICT<br />

• Making cooperation within informal and formal expert networks systematic and if<br />

possible improve it– give the network experts support to improve their <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

sharing.<br />

• Yellow-pages for expert network (job family orientatet);<br />

• Documentum (document <strong>management</strong> system) – to let the network build its<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> warehouse.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Central WW.DECK team of 9 consultants (and still growing), its role:<br />

o Giving advise to Volkswagen Group members,<br />

o Helping local project teams with <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiatives,<br />

o Doing the project <strong>management</strong> (coordination) of the WW.DECK projects,<br />

� Their customers are Volkswagen Group departments, factories and experts<br />

networks,<br />

o The customers give their requirements to WW.DECK,<br />

o WW.DECK learns from its customers too!<br />

• Decentral WW.DECK coordinator at Volkwagen truck division, Audi, Seat, Skoda,<br />

and the other regional Volkswagen Group sites world wide.<br />

CIBIT 90<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Abstract<br />

Volkswagen Group is a worldwide operating company headquartered in Wolsburg, Germany<br />

with factories in e.g. Germany, USA, South-Africa, South-America, China, Australia. They<br />

own a large range of brands i.e. Volkswagen, Volkswagen truck division, Audi, Skoda, Seat,<br />

Lamborghini, Benteley, Rolls-Royce and Bugatti. In 1997 they produced 1.5 Million<br />

Volkswagens, 0.5 Million Audi’s, 0.5 Million Seats and 0.4 Million Skoda’s with a workforce of<br />

279,872 people and a generated sales amount of DM Million 113,245.<br />

In October 1998, on the initiative of board member Dr. Hartz, Volkswagen started with its<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> programme called WW.DECK (World Wide Development and<br />

Exchange of Corporate Knowledge). Since Spring 1997 the programm was prepared in a<br />

crossfuntional team of differnet departments of Volkswagen. In the beginning there were just<br />

two fulltime consultants part of WW.DECK, today they are already with 9 people piloting<br />

various <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> projects in Volkswagen Group. WW.DECK has a very clear,<br />

almost blueprint, of their <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> programme and are working on a large<br />

range of possible places across Volkswagen Group and on various levels, e.g. HRM, ICT and<br />

change <strong>management</strong>. They continuously keep listening to their customers, the Volkswagen<br />

Group employees, to get new requirements for the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> methods, tools<br />

and techniques. Although they are backed and fully sponsored by the board of Volkswagen<br />

Group, they still have to convice the Volkswagen Group factories of the benefits of<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong>, so the implementation is done in a bottom-up way. At the moment<br />

WW.DECK is evaluating their first <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> projects.<br />

Situation scanning<br />

History of Volkswagen<br />

Most people are aware of the genesis of the Volkswagen Beetle as "The People's Car" prior<br />

to the Second World War, designed by Dr. Ferdinand Porsche to put the German people<br />

behind the wheel of an affordable car. What most people do not realise is that production did<br />

not start until after the Second World War and that it was the British Army that started what is<br />

the modern day Volkswagen Group!<br />

After the war, the British Army found itself as the manager of what was left of the<br />

Volkswagen factory. More than 60 percent of it had been destroyed during the war. All the<br />

prototype cars had also been destroyed. They offered the company first to the Rootes Group<br />

in the UK and then to Ford. Both companies turned down the car and company saying that<br />

the Volkswagen had no future.<br />

So the British Army appointed Major Ivan Hirst, a bank manager from Yorkshire, to run the<br />

plant. Remarkably he lead the Volkswagen workers to produce 1785 Beetles by the end of<br />

1945. The following year the figure was up to 10,020. The Beetle was well and truly on its<br />

way. Exports began, to the Netherlands, in 1947 and to the USA in 1949 and in the same<br />

year the British Army relinquished control of the plant and Volkswagenwerk GmbH was<br />

formed, under the control of the German Government.<br />

CIBIT 91<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


From then on, the history is one of Production milestones and new importers opening their<br />

doors.<br />

The million mark is passed in 1955; production in Australia starts in 1957; the five million<br />

mark is passed in 1961; ten million in 1965 and 20 million in 1971.<br />

The 1970s saw the birth of a new Volkswagen and whole new range of successful cars. The<br />

first of the new generation was the Passat, like all that were to follow it, front wheel drive and<br />

watercooled, arrived in 1973. The Scirocco, a stylish Coupe debuted in 1974.<br />

The Passat also saw the launch of what is arguably the most successful family of engines of<br />

all time, the EA827 family.<br />

This unit has been the basis of four, five, straight six and V6 and V8 engines, running on<br />

petrol, diesel and ethanol, with two, four and five valves per cylinder, normally aspirated,<br />

turbo and supercharged.<br />

They have sold in millions, won world championships and set records for speed, endurance<br />

and economy.<br />

But it was the Golf, launched in the same year, that lead the company to new levels of<br />

success. Sales were outstanding, a million in just 31 months, and the Golf opened up whole<br />

new sectors of the market.<br />

The Golf GTi invented the 'hot hatchback'; the Golf Diesel refined diesel cars; the Golf<br />

Convertible brought open top motoring back to the forefront of production and the Golf<br />

Syncro brought four wheel drive to small cars.<br />

Volkswagen brought the Detroit Motor Show to a standstill in January 1994 with the unveiling<br />

of Concept One, a modern interpretation of the most famous Volkswagen of all, the Beetle.<br />

Three months later Concept One appeared again at the Geneva Motor Show, but this time<br />

with a new partner, a convertible. The welcome for the car was amazing with crowds 50 deep<br />

around the display. So great was the welcome that the decision was made to put Concept<br />

One into production.<br />

By the middle of 1995, Volkswagen has produced 66 million cars, including 21 million<br />

Beetles, 16 million Golfs, six million Passats and more than seven million Transporters. 1995<br />

saw the European launch of the Volkswagen Polo and its instant acclaim as the new<br />

benchmark for the supermini class. It has been applauded for its class leading refinement,<br />

safety, styling and 'big-car' in a small package.<br />

Initially available as a four and three door hatch, it has been joined by a sedan version and a<br />

'bubble back' commercial model called the Caddy. Power comes from a range of petrol and<br />

diesel engines with the option of manual or automatic gearboxes.<br />

The major launch in 1995 was that of the Sharan, the fruit of a joint venture between Ford<br />

and Volkswagen, with the German company providing the vehicle and Ford setting up the<br />

factory in Portugal under the AutoEuropa banner.<br />

Like Polo, Sharan has been lauded as a new benchmark, offering new standards in the<br />

people mover class. It is not been described as car-like on the road: It is better than most<br />

normal cars! Yet it has room for seven people in a compact outside package. It is available<br />

with a choice of two petrol - 2.0 and 2.8 litre - and a 1.9 direct injection diesel engine,<br />

matched to manual and automatic gearboxes with a four wheel drive Syncro option to come.<br />

The arrival of the Sharan means that Volkswagen has set the benchmark in both the large<br />

people mover and medium people mover classes with the Caravelle and Sharan,<br />

respectively.<br />

Volkswagen's scene stealer at the Frankfurt Motor Show was Noah. Although another people<br />

mover, this vehicle showed Volkswagen's advanced thinking with its aluminium frame,<br />

wooden floor and styling than can only be described as aggressive!<br />

Volkswagen, once again, stole the limelight at the 1996 Tokyo Motor Show, with the<br />

revelation that Concept One will go into production in Mexico and on display was the<br />

productionised car. Still with the Beetle character, the new car now sported all the legal and<br />

safety requirements of a new car and it was made on the platform of a production car, the<br />

CIBIT 92<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Group's new A-class platform. With the announcement that right hand drive will be available,<br />

the car is set for launch in Australia before then end of the decade.<br />

1996's star launch was the all-new Volkswagen Passat, with a range of technology that has<br />

sent it straight to the top of the class, while revisions to the Transporter and Caravelle have<br />

helped them extend their class leads.<br />

About Volkswagen<br />

Volkswagen Group is a worldwide operating company headquartered in Germany with<br />

factories in e.g. Germany, USA, South-Africa, South-America, China. They own a large<br />

range of brands i.e. Volkswagen, Volkswagen truck division, Audi, Skoda, Seat Lamborghini,<br />

Benteley, Rolls-Royce, and Bugatti. In 1997 they produced 1.5 Million Volkswagens, 0.5<br />

Million Audi’s, 0.5 Million Seats and 0.4 Million Skoda’s with a workforce of 279,872 people<br />

and a generated sales amount of Million DM 113,245.<br />

In October 1998, on the initiative of board member Dr. Hartz, Volkswagen started with its<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> programme called WW.DECK (World Wide Development and<br />

Exchange of Corporate Knowledge). Since Spring 1997 the programm was prepared in a<br />

crossfuntional team of differnet departments of Volkswagen. In the beginning there were just<br />

two fulltime consultants part of WW.DECK, today they are already with 9 people piloting<br />

various <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> projects in Volkswagen Group.<br />

Needs for change<br />

The main <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> problem of Volkswagen is the multicultural and global<br />

working organisation. Since they are operating world wide, their company is multicultural and<br />

since they own various brands, from economy class to exclusive sportscars, they are a multi<br />

brand company too. This of course is a enourmous advantage regarding financial advantage,<br />

but on the other hand it’s a huge barrier to <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing too.<br />

The main reason for the existence of barriers for sharing <strong>knowledge</strong> are the differences<br />

between the brands, to be more specific: someone who builds Volkswagens is Volkswagen<br />

and is different from someone who builds Audi’s who is Audi.<br />

This difference is good on the level of design and marketing, the various brands of the<br />

Volkswagen Group should be competing on these levels. On the level of manufacturing and<br />

engineering, the competition is not always useful and therfore not always wanted. Due to the<br />

fact that the automobiles of Volkswagen Group are build platform-based (Golf A4, Audi A3,<br />

Volkswagen Beetle and Skoda Octavia have the same platform), a large collection of parts in<br />

these cars is the same.<br />

This means that if an engineer of Volkswagen finds an improvement to a certain part, he<br />

should communicate this to the other brands’ engineers so they can benefit from this<br />

improvement. Most of the engineers know that this is the best way to work and therefore<br />

various networks between these engineers already started to exist in an informal way.<br />

The WW.DECK team is focussing projects in different parts of the company. One good<br />

example is the laboratory network (counting 600 spezialist) with around 600 members<br />

worldwide. Since this is the place to start formalising, systematising and if possible improving<br />

these networks and making them a <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> example for other Volkswagen<br />

Group.<br />

Volkswagen Group’s need for change was stated in the following organisational goals:<br />

• Enable flexible production;<br />

CIBIT 93<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Enhance the development of cars based on the same platform for different brands<br />

– Golf A 4, Audi A3, Volkswagen Beetle and Skoda Octavia;<br />

• Ensure high quality for each brand and factory;<br />

• Offer a range of cars from low budget economy class to very exclusive;<br />

• Get component quality of all group members at the same level;<br />

• Use customer information systematically .<br />

From these organisational goals the following <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> goals were derived:<br />

• Disseminate local innovative solutions world-wide;<br />

• Make <strong>knowledge</strong> accessible when it is needed;<br />

• Share <strong>knowledge</strong> systematically;<br />

• Share failures systematically;<br />

• Prevent reinvention of <strong>knowledge</strong>;<br />

• Prevent erosion of <strong>knowledge</strong> when people leave the company.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

In order to reach the organisational goals the following instrumentation of the <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) was designed and is now improved and<br />

in parts implemented. The following categories will be discerned: leadership & <strong>management</strong>,<br />

organisational structure & HRM, processes and Information & communication technology.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

Support from top<br />

At the moment WW.DECK is still financially supported by the top of Volkswagen Group. The<br />

initiator Dr. Hartz and two other boardmembers fully support the initiative. This means that<br />

for the WW.DECK team the focus can be totally on the problems itself. They can for instance<br />

get strong support from their IT-department. The objective for the future is that they must<br />

become self-supportive.<br />

Working bottom-up<br />

Although the board of Volkswagen is backing the WW.DECK <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

programme, this doesn’t mean that everybody in the enterprise immediately starts doing it.<br />

People have to see the real advantages of the programme, otherwise they won’t put the<br />

effort needed into it. Knowledge <strong>management</strong> is a behavioral change and the motivation for<br />

such a change must be intrinsic.<br />

Organisational structure and HRM<br />

Education via intranet<br />

WW.DECK cooparates with a project called LINE (Learning in Networks). The aim of the<br />

project is to provide education via intranet for Volkswagen.<br />

Local Coordinators<br />

To overcome cultural problems WW.DECK has deployed local coordinators in the various<br />

Volkswagen Group sites.<br />

CIBIT 94<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Events for top managers<br />

In the first phase of WW.DECK they had Theseus Institute (Sofia Antipolis, France) organise<br />

an event about the importance of <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing for Volkswagen’s top managers. This<br />

was a vehicle to energise and motivate the managers of the Volkswagen plants to start<br />

shifting their employee’s minds to sharing <strong>knowledge</strong> and moreover facilitating their<br />

employees with the mainly time and other means to be able to share. It seemed that e.g.<br />

engineers were already sharing, but weren’t supported by their local <strong>management</strong> to do so,<br />

so they did it without support.<br />

Processes<br />

Systematizing laboratory networks<br />

As mentioned before, in the section called<br />

Needs for change, the WW.DECK team in one project is focussing on the Laboratory<br />

Network of the Volkswagen Group. These network consist specialist which in example<br />

controll quality of parts of Volkswagen Group’s automobiles for instance they work on the<br />

durability aspects of cars and its components. These experts who are working on durability<br />

were already collaborating on a world-wide scale, since they knew they could learn from<br />

each other. Given this fact, WW.DECK took this network as a point to start from<br />

(the mood of these people was already good). WW.DECK asks the network what would<br />

make their <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing tasks easier and based on these requirements they provide<br />

the network with the means to improve, systematise and formalise their <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing.<br />

The end goals for corrosion is to become a world-wide Corrossion Knowledge Market of 200<br />

corrossion experts (expert learn from each other).<br />

Finally the objective of WW.DECK is to use this Corrosion laboratory network project as an<br />

example for other networks, to demonstrate the benefits of <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing, trying to<br />

‘seduce’ them do adopt the same methods and in the end have a <strong>knowledge</strong> market of<br />

experts.<br />

ICT<br />

Network Directory<br />

One of the tools provided to networks is the so-called Yellow-pages. For example the 600<br />

specialists of the network can use this web-enabled directory to publish themselves including<br />

their competencies. Doing so they can find knowledgable experts for problems at hand.<br />

Knowledge warehouse for example Documentum (document <strong>management</strong> system) is used to<br />

let the networks build its <strong>knowledge</strong> warehouse.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Central WW.DECK team of 9 consultants (and still growing), its role:<br />

o Give advise to Volkswagen Group members,<br />

o Help local project teams with <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiatives,<br />

o Do the project <strong>management</strong> (coordination) of the WW.DECK projects,<br />

o Their customers are Volkswagen Group factories and experts,<br />

o The customers give their requirements to WW.DECK,<br />

o WW.DECK learns from its customers too!<br />

CIBIT 95<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Decentral WW.DECK teams at Audi, Seat, Skoda, and the other Volkswagen Group<br />

sites.<br />

Change <strong>management</strong><br />

At the moment WW.DECK is still financially supported by the top of Volkswagen Group. The<br />

initiator Dr. Hartz and the other board members fully support the initiative. This means that<br />

for the WW.DECK team the focus can be totally on the problems itself. The objective for the<br />

future is that they must become self-supportive.<br />

Although the board of Volkswagen is backing the WW.DECK <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

programme, this doesn’t mean that everybody in the enterprise immediately starts doing it.<br />

People have to see the real advantages of the programme, otherwise they won’t put the<br />

effort needed into it. Knowledge <strong>management</strong> is a behavioral change and the motivation for<br />

such a change must be intrinsic.<br />

Some key points<br />

• Reason for change must be intrinsic – WW.DECK works on IT, HRM, Change<br />

Management, et cetera;<br />

• Evaluate <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiatives continuously– outcome is analysed by<br />

WW.DECK and leads to new implementations, slowly leading to a standard solution;<br />

• Bottom-up - <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> is not mandatory, WW.DECK has to convince<br />

local managers by demonstrated competence.<br />

Evaluation<br />

No results available yet, at the moment WW.DECK is conducting its first evaluation<br />

interviews throughout Volkswagen Group.<br />

Higher level results aimed for<br />

• Recrute junior engineers more easy – the good <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure should<br />

make Volkswagen a nice place to,<br />

• WW.DECK becomes VW.DECK;<br />

• In the future <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing between brands and factories is strongly focussed on<br />

bussiness processes and it should become a push and pull function in the<br />

organisation.<br />

Key learnings<br />

• Identify existing informal networks and build upon them;<br />

• Middle <strong>management</strong> can block <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing, even if experts are willing to -<br />

competition on branding (design and marketing) is good, not on level of experts;<br />

• A very structured and comprehensive approach.<br />

CIBIT 96<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


References<br />

• Presentation material WW.DECK<br />

• Annual report of Volkswagen Group<br />

• www.volkswagen.com.au/briefhis.htm<br />

Contact Information<br />

Volkswagen Coaching Gesellschaft mbH<br />

Dr. Ferdinand Schultz<br />

Project manager “World Wide Development and Exchange of Corporate Knowledge”<br />

WW.DECK<br />

PO Box 1057/9<br />

D-38436 Wolfsburg<br />

Germany<br />

tel: +49 5361 97 1358<br />

fax: +49 5361 97 1563<br />

Email: ww.deck@volkswagen.de<br />

CIBIT 97<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Microsoft<br />

Based on interviews with Allan Dornan and Nigel Richards of Microsoft UK and Elisabeth<br />

Boonin of Microsoft USA.<br />

Contact information<br />

Microsoft UK<br />

Allan Dornan<br />

tel: +44 870 60 10 100<br />

AllanD@Microsoft.com<br />

Nigel Richards<br />

NigelR@Microsoft.com<br />

Microsoft USA<br />

Elisabeth Boonin<br />

Redmond, Washington<br />

tel: +1 425 703 6397<br />

ElisabethB@Microsoft.com<br />

CIBIT 98<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Part II: public sector <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong><br />

CIBIT 99<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Swedish Ministery of Education<br />

Organisational goals<br />

• To create a more <strong>knowledge</strong>able workforce (a national objective)<br />

• Subgoal: Give scope to schools to develop.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals<br />

• Give scope to schools to develop by using ICT as a new set of tools. (objective of the<br />

project ITIS : ‘National Programme for ICT in Schools’).<br />

Knowledge infrastructure<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

regularly<br />

• Schools are financed through the municipalities<br />

• Ministry manages by setting the learning objectives only (not the learning methods)<br />

• The National Agency for Education manages all operational responsibilities for the<br />

Ministry<br />

for ITIS<br />

• An especially assigned delegation for ITIS including representation from the Ministry of<br />

Education, The National Agency for Education, the Swedish Association of Local<br />

Authorities and the Foundation for Knowledge and Competence. The delegation is<br />

chaired by the Ministry. This delegation is supported by a special secretariat.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• Small Ministry of Education (100 estimate)<br />

• Larger National Agency for Education (~2000 estimate)<br />

• Regular Educational budgets are established and distributed by Municipalities<br />

• Extra subsidies by a specially assigned delegation for ITIS.<br />

Processes<br />

• jury grant applications<br />

CIBIT 100<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT<br />

• Website ‘Schoolnet’ serves as a portal to other websites.<br />

• a part of Schoolnet is ‘The Multimedia Bureau’ it comprises:<br />

• The Café, a meeting place and presentation area for various projects<br />

• The Archive, contains images and sounds for use in school work<br />

• The Idea Bank, where pupils and teachers give courses and compare notes on<br />

educational methods and software<br />

Support structure<br />

Schoolnet and The Multimedia Bureau are run by the National Agency for Education. The<br />

‘Foundation for Knowledge and Competence Development’ (Ministry in the Board) promotes<br />

the production of ICT based teaching aids through approving grants to about 70 projects,<br />

investing 120m SEK (~150.000 Euro)<br />

There are not many formal top down initiatives to support the ongoing sharing of <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

by the teaching community. Of course teachers can meet on seminars. There are several<br />

associations for teachers mostly defined through the subject matters, for instance an<br />

association for history teachers.<br />

A successful bottom up initiatives is Music Net, an innovative project with many useful<br />

services for teachers and pupils in the sphere of music. There are some other examples of<br />

successful bottom up initiatives such as Sputnik (journalistic writing) and Planet (for younger<br />

pupils). These good examples of ‘living websites’ are linked to Schoolnet that serves as a<br />

portal.<br />

CIBIT 101<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Situation scanning<br />

The Swedish Governmental system has undergone a serious reorganisation. It went form<br />

being quite centrally organised to a situation where now there are small Ministries that are<br />

politically responsible and National Agencies that are operationally responsible. The heart of<br />

the operational power is now at the level of the municipalities. Financial responsibilities to<br />

establish and distribute budgets are in the hands of the municipalities. This also means that<br />

there is no budget size set beforehand for schools in the municipalities. A municipality<br />

establishes the size of budget for the schools out of one general budget for all needs, also<br />

the non-educational, within the municipality.<br />

Though through some European surveys (e.g. ILSS, International Life Skills Survey) it has<br />

been shown that Sweden has the best <strong>knowledge</strong>able workforce in Europe. Yet much is done<br />

to improve the situation even further.<br />

One of the sub goals for this improvement is ‘Give scope to schools to develop by using ICT<br />

as a new set of tools. These are now the objectives of the project ITIS : ‘National Programme<br />

for ICT in Schools’<br />

Needs for change<br />

The Swedish government wishes not to stand still but to keep improving the level of<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> in the Swedish workforce. The specific needs for change is that it has been<br />

recognised that much can be gained by giving schools the scope to develop by using ICT as<br />

a new set of tools.<br />

Another need for change is that the structural delayering and autonomisation within the<br />

governmental system has lead to a situation where there is too little dialogue between the<br />

Ministry, the National Agencies and the Municipalities about the education system. Just<br />

recently it has been decided that an outside inspection committee will be brought to life as a<br />

committee that is independent from the National Agency and the Ministry, and thus ‘relayer’<br />

for the necessary dialogue within the system a bit. This also explains why the initiative ITIS is<br />

being managed by a special delegation from all parties already involved, but as a more<br />

centrally lead programme.<br />

Yet another need for change is that the change of governmental system has put more<br />

responsibilities on the school level where not everybody involved in managing the school can<br />

cope with these responsibilities. Especially the Schools’ principles who used to be much<br />

more of a pedagogical manager now also has the responsibility to run the school as a<br />

business.<br />

The teachers seem to undergo some difficulty to adjust to the new situation as well. In the<br />

former system, teachers had a teaching duty of 20 hours a week. The practical consequence<br />

of which was that teachers were used to prepare their lectures at home.<br />

Now that the Ministry only prescribes the learning objectives and not any longer prescribes<br />

any learning methods, schools gained the freedom to organise their teaching process.<br />

CIBIT 102<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Eventually this lead to the situation that teachers no longer have a teaching duty for lecturing<br />

but are supposed to be ‘<strong>knowledge</strong> workers’ that are up to date on the subject and more a<br />

facilitator of learning than a lecturer. This had practical consequences for the housing of<br />

teachers. In the former situation there was no need for offices for teachers, now there is. This<br />

change is being felt as getting extra responsibilities while there was no raise in salary.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

Introduction<br />

The whole reorganisation of the educational system was designed by government. Now the<br />

responsibilities lay mostly in the hands of the municipalities. The recognition of a lack of<br />

dialogue between the Ministry of education, the National Agency for Education and the<br />

Municipalities has recently (May, 1999) lead to the conclusion that new elements should be<br />

implemented in the system. One example of this is an inspection committee assembled as<br />

an independent element.<br />

The National Programme for ICT in schools is of limited duration but has a long term purpose<br />

to support self-sustaining development.<br />

The schools are being seen as future (and current) community centres. As many people lack<br />

access to computers and the Internet grows in importance as a communication medium, the<br />

schools can serve as a means to create equal access for all Swedish citizens. When schools<br />

have the facilities it would be desirable to utilise the schools for longer hours than the actual<br />

school day.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

A special Delegation is running the project ITIS. The members of this committee are<br />

representatives of the Ministry, the National Agency, the foundation for Knowledge and<br />

Competence Development and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities. The committee<br />

is chaired by the under secretary from the Ministry. The ITIS project is now being run by the<br />

newly introduced committee. The Ministry has financed the project with 1.5b SEK (~190.000<br />

Euro) until 2002. An estimate of the contribution by the municipalities is 30b SEK (~3.75b<br />

Euro) through entire Sweden spent in various ways with various purposes.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

For ITIS the operational responsibility lies with a special secretariat. In this secretariat 9<br />

persons are working with the following roles :<br />

1 information secretary<br />

2 responsible for the curriculum for teachers and school leaders<br />

2 editorials writing content for this curriculum<br />

1 responsible for a pilot test of the curriculum<br />

1 responsible for matters concerning infrastructure<br />

1 assistant secretary dealing with formalities and the related documents (contracts etc.)<br />

1 responsible for the arrangements to provide 60.000 computers to the schools<br />

For various research assignment consultancy services are being bought.<br />

CIBIT 103<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Also, there are many liaisons within the municipalities are involved. Their services are<br />

bought through municipal officials.<br />

1 or 2 extra would have been nice according to the chair of this secretariat:<br />

1 for pedagogical matters.<br />

1 for various administrative matters<br />

Processes<br />

Most of the processes are project based.<br />

ICT<br />

Schoolnet serves as a portal to connect good practices and good content from elsewhere.<br />

For instance Music Net. Here the community of teachers and pupils in the sphere of music<br />

have succeeded in finding a way to share <strong>knowledge</strong> through the use of Internet.<br />

(attempts to contact this project have failed so far).<br />

Applied methods<br />

No specific existing methods were applied.<br />

Evaluation<br />

According to all involved all is going as planned with the ITIS project. This is only possible by<br />

organising it through delegations supported by secretariats.<br />

The lack of dialogue within the power system : Ministry, National Agencies and Municipalities<br />

has now lead to the introduction of these delegations. The recently introduced school<br />

inspection team on a national level also shows the limited return of national control into the<br />

political and power system.<br />

References<br />

Interviewees<br />

Ulla Carlsson,<br />

Ministry of Education , Sweden. (Also former principal)<br />

Johan Groth,<br />

CIBIT 104<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


National Agency for Education, Involved in many ICT projects<br />

Sven Salin,<br />

National Union of Teachers,<br />

before that :<br />

National Board for Education,<br />

Ministry of Education,<br />

(now retired citizen)<br />

Anders Franzén<br />

ITIS project manager<br />

Information sources<br />

Tools for Learning, A National Programme for ICT in Schools. Brochure published by the<br />

Ministry of Education and Science in Sweden. 1997<br />

ILSS, International Life skills survey. Prospectus by ILSS, april 1999.<br />

See also http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/ILSS.html<br />

1994 curriculum for the non-compulsory school system (Lpf 94), published by the Swedish<br />

Ministry of Education and Science, 1994<br />

1994 curriculum for the compulsory schools (Lpo 94), published by the Swedish Ministry of<br />

Education and Science, 1994<br />

Syllabi for the compulsory school (Lpo 94), published by the Swedish Ministry of Education<br />

and Science, 1994<br />

The Swedish school system, (Skolan I Sverige), published by the National Agency for<br />

Education, Skolverket, see also : http://www.skolverket.se<br />

The national curriculum for high school www.skolverket.se/pdf/lpfe.pdf<br />

An agency report about the use of IT in school<br />

www.skolverket.se/c/it/cbcb1.html<br />

A quantitative report from the agency on IT in school<br />

www.skolverket.se/c/it/skol_dator97/cbcc1.html<br />

General information about the Swedish schoolsystem from the agency<br />

www.skolverket.se/b/faktablad/english/bbc1_b.html<br />

Information about the Foundation for Knowledge and Competence Development<br />

www.kks.se/english/<br />

Information about the Foundations work within IT and education<br />

www.kks.se/english/itutbildning/ (not very recently updated)<br />

CIBIT 105<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Canadian Ministery of Education (Province of New<br />

Brunswick)<br />

Organisational goals<br />

• To create an industry for Tele-education in the province.<br />

• To provide for many new jobs in the province.<br />

• To create an infrastructure that appeals to the industry of IT and Tele-education.<br />

• To stimulate economic development bottom up in this area.<br />

• To revise the educational system from <strong>knowledge</strong> about new possibilities for supply as<br />

well as from <strong>knowledge</strong> about new demands.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals<br />

• Create ICT awareness for the population of the province.<br />

• Learning from each other within the industry.<br />

• To be a model for the rest of Canada, serve as a best practice in several areas.<br />

• To create a <strong>knowledge</strong>able workforce from the population of the province.<br />

• To attract a <strong>knowledge</strong>able workforce by attracting existing businesses from elsewhere.<br />

• To retrain teachers given the new possibilities for education.<br />

Knowledge infrastructure<br />

Leadership & <strong>management</strong><br />

• Small central team of strategic thinkers, stimulating initiatives, guiding towards the goal.<br />

• Money injections by the Ministry of economic development from the province.<br />

• Management by facilitating and guiding change bottom up in the province.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• Small central team assembled from the government of New Brunswick.<br />

• Many liaisons within the business/industry world-wide.<br />

• Many liaisons within the government of New Brunswick<br />

• Much like a business structure including PR, Marketing, Finance, etc.<br />

Processes<br />

• Subsidising the development of community access centres in municipalities.<br />

• Subsidising or financing new business development.<br />

CIBIT 106<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Subsidising <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing by teachers.<br />

• Retraining the teachers in the province .<br />

• Using subsidised projects to develop a balanced infrastructure.<br />

• Retraining the workforce of the province for a job in the rising industry.<br />

ICT<br />

• Many initiatives to share <strong>knowledge</strong> through the use of ICT<br />

• World Wide Web : “schoolnet”, “tele-education”, “community access centres”, etc.<br />

• Development of Computer Based Training (developed as commercial products for the<br />

industry, also suitable for <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing within the province)<br />

• because ICT is also the subject of the industry it is sometimes not clear what was meant<br />

as a <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiative and what just accidentally turned out to be one.<br />

• Fibre optic network. The entire province, all of the small municipalities are connected<br />

with bandwidth using 2Mbit fibre connections.<br />

Support structure<br />

Introduction<br />

The whole of the development should be seen change <strong>management</strong> to create a new industry<br />

and hence new jobs in the province. When in the early ’90s it became clear that the province<br />

was heading for bankruptcy, the initiatives for creating the new industry were placed under<br />

the governmental department of economic development. Ever since about 60 Million<br />

Canadian dollars were spent as an injection to create this industry. As a consequence the<br />

educational practice in the province underwent dramatic changes not guided by the Ministry<br />

of education. The provincial government as a whole guided the changes a an economic<br />

development. The support structure is somewhat freeform but well arranged for the creation<br />

of this industry.<br />

The reform of the educational situation came about as a bottom up process with involvement<br />

of the municipalities (especially the local champions) to create community access centres.<br />

Many networks are in place right now to support the creation, distribution, and combination of<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>. Also new schools are in place to teach for jobs in the industry.<br />

The educational system itself is undergoing dramatic changes as a consequence of all new<br />

pedagogical possibilities. Teachers exchange <strong>knowledge</strong> to help each other to adjust to the<br />

rapid change.<br />

There was no real guidance by the federal government of Canada. Now that the industry is<br />

almost in place and the social impact of all the changes seem to crystallise, the federation<br />

sees the Province of New Brunswick as a model province. This model can be expected to be<br />

rolled out for entire Canada.<br />

Support structure<br />

CIBIT 107<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


The core of the structure for support is really in the individual civilians of the Province of New<br />

Brunswick. It lies in their desire to regain their status as one of the richest provinces of<br />

Canada. The people of New Brunswick take great pride in the rise of this new industry.<br />

At the beginning of the idea formation is a group of six original strategic thinkers. These six<br />

people are still very active to create the industry, and hence provide for new jobs in the<br />

province. The industry is now third and on the edge of outgrowing the second biggest<br />

industry of Tourism in the province.<br />

CIBIT 108<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Abstract<br />

Situation scanning<br />

The Province of New Brunswick used to be the richest in the federation of Canada. The main<br />

economic industries were lumber and fish. In the late ‘80s both of the industries faced serious<br />

competition from abroad and the province headed for bankruptcy.<br />

New Brunswick also houses the first University of Canada still doing well as a <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

producer and a <strong>knowledge</strong> distributor in Canada and the world.<br />

Seeking a way out of the disaster a group of six original thinkers created a vision of a new<br />

industry that could save the province from going further downhill. They came up with the idea<br />

that a world wide <strong>knowledge</strong> economy would rise and that education should be seen as an<br />

industry. Especially for the English speaking audience the market for educational products<br />

making use of ICT would be a serious marketplace.<br />

It then was decided that plans would be presented to the government of New Brunswick to<br />

start developing this industry. The program resulting was placed under budgets for<br />

developing the “information highway” and thus placed under economical programs, not under<br />

educational programs.<br />

Structure of the Canadian Education System<br />

The Canadian education system is governed by the provinces. There is no federal<br />

department to govern education for entire Canada. The structure of the curriculum is Anglo-<br />

Saxon and looks like the curriculum of the UK countries and of the USA.<br />

Needs for change<br />

The needs for change are obviously based on the economic situation in New Brunswick. The<br />

needs for change in the educational system are strongly interconnected with the endeavour<br />

at hand. The possibilities for the use of ICT for education were researched for purposes of<br />

development of the industry itself. The connection with the needs for changing the<br />

educational system of New Brunswick is described below.<br />

New topics, new skills<br />

The workforce of New Brunswick should be trained for jobs in the industry. The must become<br />

skilled at producing educational products using ICT.<br />

Practice what you preach<br />

The use of ICT in education must be practised in New Brunswick on a state of the art level.<br />

This establishes the necessary credibility of the industry to be created.<br />

CIBIT 109<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ICT awareness for a widely spread population<br />

To have a large enough potential to participate in the workforce of the industry a broad base<br />

must be established in the entire population. The province has a widely spread population<br />

with few cities and many small communities. Distance learning facilities must be used to<br />

reach the entire audience.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

The design is rather an ongoing process than a top down strategy. The goal of change is<br />

carefully set. Stimulating the population and guiding the development towards the goal takes<br />

the form of a core of focused people closely working together from the government of New<br />

Brunswick. Management is done by closely working together, high frequency communication,<br />

collaboration as much as possible, brokering opportunities and facilitating development of<br />

sound initiatives. Back up from the federal government striving for the position of world wide<br />

leadership concerning the information highway.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

Many liaisons within the business/industry world-wide.<br />

There is a strong belief that only through partnerships in the industry or with related industries<br />

the goal can be reached.<br />

Many liaisons within the government of New Brunswick<br />

Now that the endeavour seems to be fruitful a widely spread support also from within the<br />

entire government of New Brunswick as well as from federal government is being<br />

established.<br />

Much like a business structure including PR, Marketing, Finance, etc.<br />

The organisation behind this operates like a business would. Be it somewhat freeform there<br />

is much attention for PR, Marketing, Finance, etc.<br />

Processes<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> processes<br />

To reach the goal much <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> is going on even though it is not seen that<br />

way explicitly.<br />

(1)Acquiring <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

By stimulating new corporation to get into the business, much new <strong>knowledge</strong> is created.<br />

Some of it is done through product development, some of it is done at the University of New<br />

Brunswick.<br />

(2)Storing <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

Through development of Educational products much <strong>knowledge</strong> is stored in a highly<br />

transferable way. Be it mostly done for the clients and customers the internal use of the<br />

products must not be underestimated. For instance there are CD-ROMs providing teachers<br />

with training on how to use ICT within the educational context.<br />

CIBIT 110<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


(3)Transferring <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

Many initiatives are being realised to transfer <strong>knowledge</strong>. It is of course the core business of<br />

the industry.<br />

Apart from that the entire population (780.000) of the province is being made ICT aware.<br />

This is done through many channels. Among which are the so called “community access<br />

centres”. These are physical buildings in all of the small communities, mostly situated in the<br />

schools (!). These access centres are becoming more and more a social function. They are<br />

all equipped with computers connected to the Internet. Every citizen of New Brunswick thus<br />

has access to the information highway form less than 15 minutes driving form their homes.<br />

Another channel for <strong>knowledge</strong> transfer is through teacher visiting programmes. Many<br />

schools are now equipped with computers connected to the Internet. The teachers with<br />

experience using ICT in new pedagogy are bought free with province money to go visit other<br />

schools and teachers that are less experienced.<br />

Through training programmes and <strong>knowledge</strong> exchange programmes it is now the <strong>case</strong> that<br />

100% of the schools are connected to the Internet and 80% of the teachers are computer<br />

literate. In the next years the training of teachers should result in 100% awareness and skill<br />

to integrate ICT as a useful tool into their curriculum.<br />

Because the core business of the industry has to do with <strong>knowledge</strong> transfer much is known<br />

about educational strategies to do so. By keeping involved in the industry this will<br />

continuously and increasingly be the <strong>case</strong>.<br />

ICT<br />

To keep from being to confusing this paragraph only focuses on the use of ICT as a means<br />

for <strong>knowledge</strong> exchange to support the educational system.<br />

CBT<br />

Computer based training applications are used to train:<br />

• professionals in the educational field.<br />

• teachers<br />

• system developers<br />

• students and pupils at universities and schools<br />

Websites<br />

There are several websites designed for <strong>knowledge</strong> exchange. Below are the ones connected<br />

to specific initiatives:<br />

schoolnet : www.schoolnet.ca<br />

Federal website to facilitate <strong>knowledge</strong> exchange for k-12 education. Many subsites available<br />

for specific needs<br />

tele-education NB: http://teleeducation.nb.ca<br />

New Brunswick website containing many electronic courses. This website is connected to the<br />

community access centres initiative.<br />

Tele-campus : http://telecampus.com<br />

The first world wide education portal for online courses. Only completely finishable online<br />

courses are registered. Any course that needs the learner to go to a physical site is excluded.<br />

CIBIT 111<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Change <strong>management</strong><br />

This <strong>case</strong> description is in fact entirely dedicated to the way the change is being brought<br />

about.<br />

Applied methods<br />

No specific existing methods were applied.<br />

Evaluation<br />

Success<br />

The bottom up strategy involving all of the 780.000 citizens has been well worked out,<br />

especially the community access centres look like an important initiative. The strategy used<br />

to get these inside the schools is quite successful: All of the communities can get subsidy to<br />

create a community access centre. The first layer of 10.000 can$ (6000 Euro) is for every<br />

instance provided by the industry, through a fund. The second 6000 Euro is available from<br />

subsidies by the province of New Brunswick. The third 6000 Euro will be issued by the<br />

province only if the centre will be established inside an existing school.<br />

To get more computers inside the schools, donation programmes have been started to get<br />

used computers from business and government. For government donations the law had to be<br />

changed because used computers by government are supposed to be destroyed.<br />

The placement of the endeavour under the flag of the economic department in stead of the<br />

educational department is said to have been crucial in New Brunswick.<br />

The best way to explain the success is the drive by the citizens of New Brunswick to regain<br />

their former pride as one of the richest provinces of the federation of Canada.<br />

Perspective on the future<br />

The province has now established the desired economic situation that all that is necessary<br />

for the development of the industry is now in place. In the next few years they will start world<br />

wide marketing of the province to grow even further into the leading industry of New<br />

Brunswick. Harvesting time is yet to come.<br />

CIBIT 112<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


References<br />

Interviewees<br />

government<br />

Leonard G. Weeks, M.C., Inst.M.<br />

Department of Economic Development, Province of New Brunswick<br />

Project Executive Advanced Training Technology<br />

Rory McGreal, Ph.D.<br />

Department of Advanced Education and Labour, Province of New Brunswick<br />

TeleEducation NB, Executive Director<br />

Gary Wood<br />

ConnectNB, Community Access Centers<br />

Paul Patterson<br />

Federal department of Industry,<br />

Coordination officer<br />

Kevin McClusky<br />

Department of Education, province of New Brunswick,<br />

Technology in the schools, assistant Director<br />

education<br />

Alan Edwards<br />

Digital Communications Instructor<br />

business<br />

Ken Reimer<br />

Learnstream, custom courseware designers<br />

President<br />

Patricia M. Sullivan<br />

Learnstream, custom courseware designers,<br />

Director Strategic Business Development<br />

Thomas Mitchell<br />

Learnstream, custom courseware designers,<br />

Industry Specialist<br />

Beth Webster Bsc, MBA<br />

Performex inc., Vice President & General Manager<br />

Alan B. MacAulay, M.Eng, P.Eng<br />

Performex inc., Director of Marketing<br />

Trevor Sawler<br />

Crescent studios,<br />

President<br />

CIBIT 113<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Information sources<br />

Books:<br />

McGreal, Rory, Ph.D. A Systems Analysis of TeleEduccation NB- A province wide Distributed<br />

Distance learning Network. Dissertation, school of Computer and information Sciences, Nova<br />

Southeastern University, 1999<br />

Websites:<br />

Schoolnet : www.schoolnet.ca<br />

Federal website to facilitate <strong>knowledge</strong> exchange for k-12 education. Many subsites available<br />

for specific needs<br />

Tele-education NB: http://teleeducation.nb.ca<br />

New Brunswick website containing many electronic courses. This website is connected to the<br />

community access centres initiative.<br />

Tele-campus : http://telecampus.com<br />

The first world wide education portal for online courses. Only completely finishable online<br />

courses are registered. Any course that needs the learner to go to a physical site is excluded.<br />

Vital Knowledge Software : www.vital<strong>knowledge</strong>.com<br />

The company that sells a CDROM for teachers to learn how to use ICT for their educational<br />

purposes.<br />

CIBIT 114<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


UK Ministery of Education<br />

Organisational goals DfEE<br />

DfEE has revised its Departmental aim as follows: “to give everyone the chance through<br />

education, training and work, to realise their full potential, and thus build an inclusive and fair<br />

society and a competitive economy”<br />

To support this general aim the DfEE has set three specific objectives for the upcoming three<br />

years (1999-2002):<br />

4. To ensure all young people reach 16 with the skills, attitudes, and personal qualities that<br />

will give them a secure foundation for lifelong learning, work and citizenship in a rapidly<br />

changing world;<br />

5. To develop in everyone a commitment to lifelong learning, so as to enchance their lives,<br />

improve their employability in a changing labour market and create the skills that our<br />

economy and employers need;<br />

6. To help people without a job into work.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals NGfL<br />

In the end the National Grid for Learning should be available for all learners at all ages. The<br />

initial focus for the upcoming three years (1999-2002) is focussed on schools in England. By<br />

doing so the NGfL serves as a means to reach the following <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> goals:<br />

• Providing an infrastructure for people to exchange <strong>knowledge</strong> by communicating and<br />

collaborating with one another;<br />

• A programme for developing the means to access valuable content in schools, libraries,<br />

colleges, universities, workplaces, homes and elsewhere<br />

• A way of finding and (re-)using online learning, and teaching materials;<br />

• Schools, colleges, libraries and others build and re-use from existing good content and<br />

practice;<br />

• Identifying and building on best practice (education, libraries and museums,<br />

broadcasting);<br />

• Development of teachers' and librarians' <strong>knowledge</strong> skills and confidence with ICT;<br />

• Enabling school leavers to have a good understanding of ICT with measures in place for<br />

assessing their competence in it.<br />

CIBIT 115<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Making Britain a centre of excellence in the development of networked software content,<br />

and a world leader in the export of learning services.<br />

Knowledge infrastructure<br />

Leadership & <strong>management</strong><br />

• DfEE is being internally reorganised to cope with the new way of government;<br />

• The nation-wide change in education is seen as a bottom-up process whereby the public<br />

is continuously involved in the policy-making, design and implementation process of the<br />

NGfL initiative;<br />

• Until 2002 the British Government is actively funding (over £1bn/1.5bn Euro) the<br />

National Grid for Learning initiative;<br />

• The Government's NGfL fundings are only available for local educational authorities and<br />

schools in the UK when they develop a thorough plan of approval of the use of these<br />

fundings, e.g. buying or using ICT. During the upcoming years they are obliged to<br />

evaluate how these fundings have been used. Funding and judgement is done by DfEE.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

DfEE<br />

DfEE is primarily responsible for the level of education in the UK by policy-making, setting<br />

the proper educational strategy, forming the goals and objectives.<br />

Becta<br />

The NGfL is a National Government initiative launched by the Prime Minister. Becta's is the<br />

lead agency for the Grid and responsible to ensure that technology supports the DfEE's drive<br />

to raise educational standards, and in particular to provide the professional expertise the<br />

DfEE requires to support the future development of the National Grid for Learning. Becta and<br />

has particular responsibilities for:<br />

• the administration and policing of the ground rules for content registration for the Grid;<br />

• the establishment and operation of the technical system architecture for the Grid,<br />

including the running of those sites (such as the VTC) which are hosted by Becta;<br />

• technical evaluation and certification of managed services offered to schools and<br />

institutions to enable them to access the Grid;<br />

• In addition, Becta has a role in the further education sector's developing use of ICT and<br />

in the evaluation of new technologies as they come on stream.<br />

CIBIT 116<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Processes<br />

• Not every process has been specified within the NGfL project. General outlines, concrete<br />

objectives are more important and give schools and other institutions the freedom to<br />

develop their own plans, based on their own specific situation.Sharing best practises in<br />

ICT planning, purchasing and guidance among schools in the UK (see report Connecting<br />

Schools, Networking People);<br />

• Collect and share best practises in classroom activities by electronic communication,<br />

discussion forums with teachers, and best practise databases (currently in development)<br />

which are all accessible by everyone interested via the Internet (Virtual Teacher Centre);<br />

• Within the DfEE the Standards and Effectiveness Unit is responsible for identifying wellaccepted<br />

best practices and embedding them into (new) pedagogical approaches and<br />

distribute them to interested people.<br />

ICT<br />

• The British Government is modernising itself to ensure the Government uses new<br />

technology to deliver better, more convenient, services.<br />

• DfEE uses their public Internet site to communicate with interested people and other<br />

bodies. Consultation papers, public responses, project plans, circulars, press releases<br />

can be found on this site.<br />

• Since November 1998 NGfL has a website available which acts as a starting portal for all<br />

educational initiatives in the UK. This site also connects to the various involved<br />

organisations, e.g. DfEE, Becta.<br />

• Both Becta and DfEE have their own Intranet which they use to store and retrieve<br />

project-based documentation, which cannot be published to the general public.<br />

Support structure<br />

• DfEE and Becta are developing ground rules and a code of conduct for content providers<br />

who want to become part of the National Grid for Learning.<br />

• The underlying sites from the National Grid for Learning are being supported by the<br />

responsible educational organisations themselves.<br />

• All sites within the NGfL have Webkeepers who are responsible for the quality and<br />

currency of material and resources available on their sites. Sites must have a designated<br />

Webkeeper who is contactable via e-mail in order to be included on the Grid;<br />

• Becta regulates the overall content <strong>management</strong> of the National Grid for Learning. Becta<br />

regulates the entry of content to the NGfL by accrediting the sites who want to be<br />

connected to the NGfL.<br />

• The quality of Grid content is also maintained through GridWatch, a facility set up by<br />

Becta which allows users to report inaccurate or inappropriate material and which<br />

includes both provisions for excluding content where necessary and safeguards against<br />

copyright infringements.<br />

CIBIT 117<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Specifically for the Virtual Teacher Centre Becta builds, maintains and provides the<br />

content for this Internet site.<br />

• Becta is developing the managed services for the National Grid for Learning. These<br />

competing managed ICT services are aimed at schools, and offering curricular, training,<br />

and administrative facilities and by doing so freeing schools so they can concentrate on<br />

their 'core business' of teaching and learning.<br />

CIBIT 118<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Abstract<br />

On 6 November 1998 the UK Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) and the<br />

British Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a national programme, called the National Grid for<br />

Learning. This <strong>case</strong> study describes the National Grid for Learning (NGfL) project.<br />

The NGfL is a fundamental part of the Government's commitment to lifelong learning and the<br />

creation of a learning society. It will help to create the 'connected society', improving the<br />

quality and availability of educational materials, and increasing and widening access to<br />

learning for everyone.<br />

NGfL will support teaching, learning, training, and administration in schools, colleges,<br />

universities, libraries, the workplace and homes by providing a mosaic of inter-connecting<br />

networks and education services based on the Internet.<br />

Situation scanning<br />

The world in which people learn and work is changing rapidly. The DfEE’s policies and<br />

priorities must take that into account. Key forces at work are:<br />

• Globalising and interconnected economies<br />

• Information revolution<br />

• Continuing rapid change in economy, technology, and nature of work<br />

• Major social and cultural changes<br />

• Threat of growing inequality<br />

• Increasing concern with values<br />

• Enduring limits on public expenditure<br />

Together these trends pose two major challenges and that is to transform Britain into a<br />

society which is:<br />

• Inclusive (giving everyone the chance to fulfil their potential and in particular offering a<br />

future to those who have suffered disadvantage)<br />

• Prosperous (where individuals continuously develop skills they need to remain<br />

employable and help businesses to be internationally competitive)<br />

In the light of these two challenges, DfEE has revised its Departmental aim as follows:<br />

CIBIT 119<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


“To give everyone the chance through education, training and work, to realise their full<br />

potential, and thus build an inclusive and fair society and a competitive economy”<br />

To support this aim the DfEE has also set three specific objectives for the upcoming<br />

three years (1999-2002):<br />

1. To ensure all young people reach 16 with the skills, attitudes, and personal qualities that<br />

will give them a secure foundation for lifelong learning, work and citizenship in a rapidly<br />

changing world;<br />

2. To develop in everyone a commitment to lifelong learning, so as to enhance their lives,<br />

improve their employability in a changing labour market and create the skills that our<br />

economy and employers need;<br />

3. To help people without a job into work.<br />

Needs for change<br />

The learning society in the information age<br />

As technology advances, links are becoming faster. This offers enormous potential for<br />

education, just as it does for business and other sectors of society. These links must also<br />

extend in an effective way to homes, the workplace, hospitals, the high street, and the street<br />

in the same way that public utilities like the telephone are now universally available. For the<br />

first time people have the opportunity to link all learning institutions and training providers<br />

purposefully to an agenda for developing the learning society.<br />

Connecting the learning society<br />

In order to ensure that all young people have the skills, attitude, and personal qualities that<br />

will give them a secure foundation for lifelong learning, work and citizenship in a rapidly<br />

changing world DfEE is developing a mosaic of inter-connecting networks and education<br />

services based on the Internet which will support teaching, learning, training, and<br />

administration in schools, colleges, universities, libraries, the workplace, homes and<br />

elsewhere.<br />

This mosaic is also called the 'National Grid for Learning'. The Grid is a way of finding,<br />

developing and using online learning and teaching materials and will become the national<br />

focal point for learning on the Internet 2002.<br />

There are three elements to the NGfL:<br />

• An architecture (or structure) of educationally valuable content on the Internet;<br />

• A programme for developing the means to access that content in schools, libraries,<br />

colleges, universities, workplaces, homes and elsewhere;<br />

• A programme of ICT training for teachers and librarians.<br />

The NGfL is a fundamental part of the Government's commitment to lifelong learning and the<br />

creation of a learning society. It will help to create the 'connected society', improving the<br />

quality and availability of educational materials, and increasing and widening access to<br />

learning for everyone.<br />

CIBIT 120<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


National Grid for Learning challenges<br />

With commerce and industry seizing the advantages which ICT has to offer, it is vital to<br />

ensure that the education sector is not left behind. In its consultation paper, Connecting the<br />

Learning Society, the British Government stresses the urgent need to accelerate schools' use<br />

of ICT as a national priority, and sets out targets for the educational service to attain.<br />

The National Grid for Learning challenge is underpinned by a programme of over £1bn<br />

(1.5bn Euro) to support the delivery of the Government's targets for ICT in education and<br />

lifelong learning for 2002, including:<br />

1. Connecting all schools, colleges, universities, public libraries and as many community<br />

centres as possible to the grid, enabling perhaps 75 percent of teachers and 50 percent<br />

of pupils and students to use their own e-mail address by then;<br />

2. By 1999 all Newly Qualified Teachers would need to become ICT literate to mandatory<br />

standards to receive the award of Qualified Teacher Status.<br />

3. By 2002 serving teachers should generally feel confident and be competent to teach<br />

using ICT within the curriculum; and that librarians are similarly trained;<br />

4. By 2002 most school leavers should have a good understanding of ICT with measures in<br />

place for assessing their competence in it;<br />

5. From 2002 general administrative communications between education bodies and the<br />

Government and its agencies cease to be largely paper-based;<br />

6. By 2002 Britain should be a centre of Excellence in the development of networked<br />

software content for education and lifelong learning, and a world leader in the export of<br />

learning services.<br />

Attainment of these targets is a staged process which requires the participation not only of<br />

schools but also education authorities, the Departments of Education, examining bodies, and<br />

many others. As a result, we can expect to see:<br />

• Schools formulating plans for their use of ICT across the curriculum, for staff<br />

development and administration;<br />

• These plans being made available for school inspections, along with an audit of levels of<br />

resources, computer network use and teacher training undertaken;<br />

• The collection of statistics by the UK Education Departments focused on assessing<br />

progress towards achieving the new targets for ICT and the implementation of the Grid;<br />

• The relevant national bodies reassessing the place of ICT within the curricula in various<br />

parts of the UK and in the assessment and examination system; and developing new<br />

arrangements for the use of ICT in assessment and examinations -particularly those<br />

leading to vocational qualifications.<br />

• All public funded bodies including museums, galleries, libraries, universities, research<br />

institutions and public service broadcasters, reporting progress in making available<br />

information and content for the Grid.<br />

As an architecture of content the NGfL provides links to information, advice and learning<br />

resources. NGfL will support teaching, learning, training, and administration in schools,<br />

colleges, universities, libraries, the workplace and homes by providing a mosaic of interconnecting<br />

networks and education services based on the Internet. An early version of the<br />

National Grid for Learning is available now for everyone through the Internet.<br />

CIBIT 121<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


In developing the Grid, it will be essential for schools, colleges, libraries and others to build<br />

from existing good content and practice. Developing a nucleus of good quality content will be<br />

DfEE's prime concern. In particular the Grid offers the potential to create specialist resources<br />

for professionals involved in education and lifelong learning, as well as for learners<br />

themselves.<br />

When examining the organisational goals the following instrumental <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

goals can be derived:<br />

• The Grid will become a way of finding and (re-)using online learning, and teaching<br />

materials;<br />

• Schools, colleges, libraries and others build and re-use from existing good content and<br />

practice;<br />

• Development of teachers' and librarians' <strong>knowledge</strong> skills and confidence with ICT;<br />

• Identifying and building on best practice (education, libraries and museums,<br />

broadcasting);<br />

• Enabling school leavers to have a good understanding of ICT with measures in place for<br />

assessing their competence in it;<br />

• Providing an infrastructure for people to exchange <strong>knowledge</strong> by communicating and<br />

collaborate with one another.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

Design and implementation describes solution alternatives investigated by DfEE and Becta,<br />

the concrete solution design and implementation of the NGfL.<br />

Solution alternatives<br />

Before designing and implementing the National Grid for Learning environment, Becta and<br />

DfEE took into consideration the following important remarks.<br />

Public involvement<br />

In October 1997 the Government's consultation paper Connecting the Learning Society: the<br />

National Grid for Learning was published which set out the targets for information and<br />

communication technology in education and lifelong learning. This paper outlined the<br />

proposals for developing the Grid. Over 900 organisations welcomed the proposed measures<br />

and gave valuable remarks on the paper (also see the Grid - your views: consultation<br />

response). By doing so involved organisations and individuals could respond to the general<br />

vision, approach and objectives of NGfL.<br />

Responsibility for the content<br />

The Internet can be seen as a jungle where information is not organised, potentially<br />

'dangerous' data, and where the location of content changes with the minute. This can be<br />

exciting, but not for educational institutions. They are seeking for a 'supermarket' where high<br />

quality <strong>knowledge</strong> is always available at one's fingertips.<br />

Having a one-stop buyer for learners in this so-called super market could also be interesting.<br />

As stated in DfEE's goals learners need to learn to learn an become conciousness for their<br />

CIBIT 122<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


own employability this is not wanted. Learners need to make their own judgements and<br />

decisions and need to explore themselves.<br />

Infrastructural standards<br />

If the NGfL is intended for all learners from all ages, does the DfEE want to use Intranet or<br />

Internet-based technology to deliver valuable content and collaboration support?<br />

Internet will become the primary information medium within the upcoming years. Together<br />

with Becta DfEE decided to actively use the Internet as the primary medium for information<br />

exchange and collaboration support.<br />

Overall functional architecture<br />

Does DfEE want to start with a complete, fully articulated functional and technology<br />

architecture so when can easily slot things into place? This presupposes that DfEE knows<br />

what the NGfL (infrastructure and content) will look like in the upcoming ten years. When<br />

exploring the fast developments in ICT this is not an option.<br />

The NGfL should be a dynamic architecture that will equipped to change by the demands of<br />

both information and infrastructural suppliers, and the users (learners).<br />

Concrete solution design<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• The underlying sites from the National Grid for Learning are being supported by the<br />

responsible educational organisations themselves.<br />

• Becta regulates the overall content <strong>management</strong> of the National Grid for Learning. Becta<br />

regulates the entry of content to the NGfL by accrediting the sites who want to be<br />

connected to the NGfL.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

Different parties are active in the NGfL project:<br />

• Department of Education and Employment (DfEE)<br />

• Britisch Education and Communications Technology Agency (Becta)<br />

• Teacher Training Agency (TTA)<br />

• Local educational authorities<br />

• Universities, colleges, and schools<br />

• Professional bodies<br />

• Several trade associations<br />

• Various suppliers of content and infrastructure<br />

Processes<br />

• In order to collect and share best practises within educational institutions, four levels of<br />

communication can be discerned:<br />

1. Teachers informally communicate with each other by using e-mail;<br />

CIBIT 123<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


2. Possible valuable lessons-learned are discussed with other teachers in the various<br />

NGfL discussion forums, e.g. the Virtual Teacher Centre (VTC);<br />

3. Valuable lessons-learned will eventually be placed in the contributary database,<br />

which contains all identified best practises (this database is still in development).<br />

This database will be accessed via the Internet by everyone interested;<br />

4. Within the DfEE the Standards and Effectiveness Unit is responsible for identifying<br />

well-accepted best practices and embedding them into (new) pedagogical<br />

approaches and distribute them to interested people.<br />

• At the request of the DfEE BECTA prepared a publication which offers practical,<br />

objective advice on planning, purchasing and good practice in using ICT, drawn from the<br />

experience of over 2,000 teachers, lecturers and administrators from the UK. It provides<br />

guidance and support for educational institutions as they prepare for the National Grid for<br />

Learning (see report Connecting Schools, Networking People).<br />

ICT<br />

ICT offers a means of carrying out tasks to a higher standard, more easily and more<br />

efficiently. This is why some £40b (60b Euro) was spent of ICT equipment in 1996 in the UK.<br />

Governments and industry are providing schools with opportunities to make the most of ICT<br />

benefits, on a substantial scale. Examples for concrete initiatives are:<br />

• The national Grid for Learning (NGfL) - a framework for a learning community designed<br />

to raise standards and improve Britain's competitiveness, and which embraces schools,<br />

colleges, universities, libraries, the home and the workplace;<br />

• An additional £100m (~150m Euro) for schools to spend on ICT in 1998/99;<br />

• National Lottery funding for the training of all teachers and librarians;<br />

• Lower telecommunication costs through liberalisation of the market and agreement<br />

between OFTEL, BT, and the cable companies on special pricing for schools' access to<br />

networked services.<br />

Requirements for the NGfL<br />

The Grid must lead to the improvement of the skills and confidence of teachers, librarians<br />

and other key intermediaries; and to the motivation of pupils and other learners. It must<br />

produce learning gains. The Grid must provide:<br />

• A valuable resource for teachers, librarians, and trainers in their daily work, and for their<br />

own continuing professional development in ICT (e.g. remote tutorials, helpline facilities)<br />

• A resource to help deliver improved performance by pupils and other learners,<br />

particularly in literacy and numeracy;<br />

• A facility which offers timely access to expertise and resources;<br />

• A structure which stimulates the development and dissemination and use of high-quality<br />

educational content, including software, online services, and subsequently perhaps,<br />

interactive digital TV-based programming;<br />

• Equality of access for learners, whether at school, at home or in libraries; those in rural<br />

and urban areas; the employed and those seeking work; those for whom English is not<br />

the first language; and those with special needs;<br />

CIBIT 124<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• A means of supporting and streamlining the administration and <strong>management</strong> of schools,<br />

colleges, libraries, and other institutions, in conjunction with developments in local and<br />

national government;<br />

• A framework for equipping local networking and external connection of schools, colleges<br />

and other points of lifelong learning provision, including the involvement of off-site<br />

education centres and youth organisations and agencies;<br />

• Interconnectivity between networks and a means of ensuring that existing equipment and<br />

networks are put to as effective use as is possible;<br />

• A stimulus to a wide range of industries to participate and invest;<br />

• A link between many diverse spheres of life including commerce, culture, and sport,<br />

education and lifelong learning, health, charitable endeavour and politics;<br />

• Affordable access through lowering the cost of connection, equipping and use<br />

• A mechanism for the renewal of its services, equipment and systems as technology<br />

develops<br />

Elements of NGfL<br />

The elements of the NGfL portal consist of Internet references to schools, Further Education,<br />

Higher Education, Lifelong Learning and the University for Industry (UfI), Career<br />

Development, Libraries, Museums and Galleries, Community Grids for Learning,<br />

International Learning Networks, Government Departments and Agencies, The Learning<br />

Resource Index (LRI).<br />

These elements provides a structured way of navigating through the content. When more<br />

content is added to the NGfL navigation through the content will become a serious problem.<br />

Becta is thinking of using search engines which can handle meta-tagging so documents can<br />

easily and consistently be tagged. Problem with this solution is that all organisations<br />

connected through the NGfL need to follow these strict rules to make it a success. Currently<br />

this is not wanted. Another solution is to provida a content-related index, such as Yahoo.<br />

Problems which arise here are the amount of people who continuously need to manage the<br />

content of the Grid index. Because of the early stage of NGfL they are currently using freetext<br />

search facilities which are satisfying and good-enough.<br />

Tailored facilities<br />

Tailored facilities exist for schools in each of the home countries. For schools in England, the<br />

Grid contains the Standards Site, the Virtual Teacher Centre, Governor Centre, and Parent<br />

Centre. It will also link to the University of Industry, the Learning Direct Helpline, Public<br />

Library Network and to a growing number of Community Grids for learning with information<br />

about services in specific areas in Britain.<br />

GridClub<br />

Over the next year the Government will be encouraging the development of further exciting,<br />

dynamic facilities including the GridClub, an interactive facility for young learners combining<br />

broadcasting, the Internet and other powerful learning resources which will be fun to use and<br />

help young people to succeed in homework, examinations or simply discovering more about<br />

the world. The target group for the GridClub is focussed on children not in the context of the<br />

classroom and teachers.<br />

Managed Services<br />

In industry and commerce, ICT services are often contracted out to a company specialising<br />

in ICT. Each company gains by being able to develop its core business and keep costs down.<br />

CIBIT 125<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


The worry of ICT procurement, software <strong>management</strong>, ICT training, and support are taken off<br />

schools, freeing them to concentrate on their 'core business' of teaching and learning.<br />

The National Grid for Learning project is currently developing a range of competing managed<br />

ICT services aimed initially at schools, and offering curricular, training, and administrative<br />

facilities. These services will be kite-marked or franchised by Government to<br />

industry/education consortia in order to ensure quality of service.<br />

Critical success factors NGfL<br />

In order to make the NGfL project a succes the following critical succes factors can be<br />

chronologically identified:<br />

• One of the key issues the interviewees mentioned when preparing a similar project as<br />

the NGfL is that you need to properly state and communicate a very strong and clear<br />

vision of what you want as educational institution and make sure that this vision is<br />

flexible so you can easily adapt to changing situations.<br />

• Teachers and pupils need to have the necessary ICT equipment in place;<br />

• Teachers and pupils need to have operational ICT skills to use available information and<br />

communication technology;<br />

• Teachers need to further develop their pedagogical skills in relation to the<br />

(im)possibilities of modern ICT;<br />

• The National Grid for Learning should have sufficient and above all high-quality content<br />

available for teachers and pupils;<br />

• Because of technological innovations and teachers' growing awareness of what is<br />

possible the National Grid for Learning should be an ongoing development.<br />

Change <strong>management</strong><br />

Involved parties<br />

The <strong>management</strong> of change involves the follow parties and initiatives:<br />

• UK Government (initiative an<br />

• DfEE (responsible for education and employment)<br />

• NGfL team (infrastructure, content -> strategy and policy-making)<br />

• BECTA (consultancy and technical implementation)<br />

• Teacher Training Agency (TTA)<br />

• Project-based subgroups (FE, HE, Teachers, see homepage)<br />

• Various providers of content and infrastructure<br />

• Community-based initiatives<br />

CIBIT 126<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• School, college-based projects<br />

Policy Programme DfEE<br />

To achieve DfEE's objectives, the Government has put in place a wide-ranging policy<br />

programme for the remainder of this Parliament, and set a number of specific targets for<br />

2002. Underpinning the programme are six cross-cutting themes:<br />

• Raising standards and attainment<br />

• Encouraging innovation, diversity, and new ways of working<br />

• Promoting inclusion, and equality of opportunity<br />

• Increasing access and participation;<br />

• Enhancing employability and skills;<br />

• Developing a community focus<br />

Since the election, the Department (DfEE) has received substantial additional resources to<br />

deliver this programme:<br />

• £ 16 billion (24bn Euro) extra for education in England from the Comprehensive<br />

Spending Review, which will increase the share of national income spent on education to<br />

5% in 2001-02;<br />

• £ 3.9 billion (~6bn Euro) over the Parliament to support the Welfare to Work programme;<br />

• £ 2 billion (3bn Euro) extra for schools announced in July 1997;<br />

• By 2001-02 an additional £ 600 million (900bn Euro) a year will be available for young<br />

children and their families, primarily through cross-Departmental Sure Start programme.<br />

In return for these additional resources the Department (DfEE) has signed a Public Service<br />

Agreement which commits them to deliver a set of specific output and outcome based<br />

targets.<br />

Modernising DfEE<br />

Success does not simply depend on well-designed policies. DfEE needs to modernise the<br />

ways it works if they want to deliver the above mentioned Government's new policies<br />

successfully. In particular DfEE wants to focus on the outcomes and not just on the<br />

programmes they put in place. They want to be prepared to adapt their approach if it is not<br />

producing results.<br />

The main ways in which DfEE is trying to modernise their approach are set out in the above<br />

mentioned statement of aim and objectives. Examples for what DfEE is doing to achieve<br />

these goals are:<br />

• Work in partnership across Government, with organisations outside Government and with<br />

the public, to design and implement effective policies<br />

• Learn from and work with other countries, particular DfEE's partners in Europe (e.g.<br />

together with Sweden and Italy DfEE is developing new ways of tackling unemployment)<br />

CIBIT 127<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• DfEE is using ministerial meetings and supporting conferences to exchange<br />

experience and good practice;<br />

• DfEE has worked with Italy and Sweden to develop demonstration projects of new<br />

ways to tackling unemployment;<br />

• DfEE is playing a major role in two OECD initiatives 'School to Working Life' (tracking<br />

study), and in the 'Learning Cities' global project<br />

• Modernising DfEE policy making by exploiting the potential of technology, such as:<br />

• Virtual Teacher Centre which becomes a key place for teachers to go to for<br />

inspirations and help in raising standards;<br />

• setting up Standards and Effectiveness Databases, to help disseminate good practice<br />

and provide information on target-setting, literacy, numeracy, and bench marking;<br />

• increasingly use Internet for consultation and to gather information for policy making,<br />

making sure that the DfEE and Employment Service Internet sites provide up to date<br />

information on their work;<br />

• piloting large screen terminals in job centres to enable unemployed people to conduct<br />

their own search for available jobs;<br />

• developing the DfEE Intranet as one of the key ways of helping DfEE to produce<br />

joined-up policies;<br />

• provide a mosaic of interconnecting networks and education services based on the<br />

Internet which support teaching, learning, training and administration in schools,<br />

colleges, universities, libraries, the workplace and homes (National Grid for Learning,<br />

NGfL)<br />

• Be outward looking, innovative and willing to learn, enabling all DfEE staff to develop<br />

their full potential, working efficiently and getting the most from our resources<br />

• development of human resource strategy which sets out the skills and approach DfEE<br />

staff will need if they are to deliver the Department's policies effectively;<br />

• DfEE is implementing their Equal Opportunities strategy, which includes commitments<br />

to mainstream equal opportunities in the design and delivery of all our policies and to<br />

ensure that all our staff are enabled to give of their best;<br />

• DfEE is working to remove structural and behavioural barriers to effective team<br />

working;<br />

• DfEE is working towards the Department being an Investor in People thus joining the<br />

Employment Service;<br />

Teacher resistance<br />

As the NGfL goals mention everybody should become ICT literate and apply ICT in their own<br />

educational situation. The government intends to raise the educational standards and<br />

requires that teachers become ICT literate by funding £218m (340m Euro) for professional<br />

development of existing teachers. In September 1999 teachers in the UK will start with their<br />

first training sessions.<br />

CIBIT 128<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Not everybody is satisfied with this Departmental objective. Until now the use of ICT has<br />

been on a voluntary basis where appropriate within the UK. Between and within schools there<br />

are big differences in applying ICT in education.<br />

Applied methods<br />

In the spirit of the NGfL initiative where no complete architecture has been defined, and<br />

where no long-term decisions have been made regarding objectives, architecture, methods<br />

and tools no specific prescribed methods are used within the National Grid for Learning<br />

project.<br />

Evaluation<br />

General<br />

The NGfL just started in November 1998. According to DfEE's stated objectives currently<br />

schools in the UK are being provided with ICT in order to be connected to the NGfL. In<br />

september 1999 all teachers will start with their ICT training. Because of this it is too early to<br />

come up with a thorough evaluation of success and failure factors. However, when properly<br />

set up and used the NGfL will be thorougly evaluated on the added value for its learners. The<br />

methods used for evaluating the NGfL project are :<br />

• Setting in hand arrangements for the independent evaluation of the development of the<br />

Grid in schools through a programme of school inspections and annual statistical surveys<br />

by which schools, and other users will be assessed in relationship with the national<br />

targets for ICT and the NGfL project goals.<br />

• The real test will be whether users find the Grid valuable. DfEE intends to monitor and<br />

record on the Grid itself the number of registered and the extent of its use. The Grid will<br />

also provide arrangements for feedback.<br />

Coupled with a programme of public/private partnership projects piloting emerging<br />

technologies, this will help to ensure that the Grid provides online-facilities for learners as<br />

good as those anywhere in the world.<br />

The evaluation presented below has a focus on the lessons learned from former initiatives in<br />

the UK. The information has been derived from an extensive report on best practises in<br />

education, called Connecting schools, networking people.<br />

Former lessons learned<br />

Research into the benefits to education of communications technology has been carried out<br />

for some time within the UK. In January 1995 the then Secretary of State for Education<br />

invited the telecommunications, cable, broadcasting, information technology and multimedia<br />

CIBIT 129<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


industries to work with the education community to develop a commonly accessible national -<br />

and ultimately international- education superhighway. This marked the beginning of the<br />

Education Departments' Superhighways Initiative (EDSI), in which the Government funded<br />

an independent evaluation of 25 pilots and related initiatives involving more than 1000<br />

schools, of all types, phases and representing the full range of attitudes towards ICT. The<br />

schools involved were using ICT for the following purposes:<br />

• To communicate electronically with other people (by fax, e-mail, text-based<br />

conferencing, video conferencing) to enable contact with a range of individuals, their<br />

skills, resources and opinions;<br />

• To access resources on the Internet, remote CD-ROMs, video conferencing or<br />

interactive TV to enhance the curriculum and human resources available to schools;<br />

• To create resources for access by others on the Internet, CD-ROM or interactive TV, to<br />

encourage students and teachers to develop a range of ICT and publishing skills.<br />

Benefits to teaching and learning<br />

These findings show that ICT brings about considerable benefits to teaching and learning:<br />

• Improved subject learning and vocational training across a broad range of subjects and<br />

the full age range from infants to adults;<br />

• Increased differentiation and a shift towards project work and a more integrated<br />

curriculum;<br />

• The development of network literacy -the capacity to use electronic networks to access<br />

resources, to create resources, and to communicate with others, complex extensions of<br />

the traditional skills of reading, writing, speaking and listening;<br />

• Improved motivation and attitudes to learning, particularly for pupils with special<br />

educational needs, who gained proportionately more than others from increased<br />

opportunities for social interaction -whether by e-mail, fax or video conferencing- and<br />

improved their self-esteem;<br />

• The development of independent learning and research skills, creative thinking, and<br />

problem solving.<br />

• Social development, including peer tutoring.<br />

Benefits to <strong>management</strong> and administration<br />

Benefits are not restricted to teaching and learning alone. The EDSI projects also found four<br />

key benefits of using ICT in <strong>management</strong> and administration:<br />

• Teachers are able to access the school electronically from home for record keeping,<br />

school reports, and exam administration (especially if they are using portable<br />

computers);<br />

• Schools are able to reduce the cost of administrative communications with each other,<br />

examination boards and local and central Government departments, sending, for<br />

example, statistical and financial data, examination entries via electronic data<br />

interchange;<br />

• Communications are easier in such matters as pupil transfer and liaison on pupils with<br />

special needs, and in supporting curriculum continuity within transfer between phases;<br />

CIBIT 130<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Training in education <strong>management</strong> and administration is enhanced and made more cost<br />

effective by saving on travel and supply cover costs and by linking governors<br />

electronically.<br />

The culture of success<br />

Common factors in the schools which make effective use of ICT include the following:<br />

• There is an extensive delegation of responsibility;<br />

• Wide participation is evident in decision-making<br />

• A shared understanding of aims exists;<br />

• A culture of information exchange exists in which a readiness to share professional and<br />

organisational <strong>knowledge</strong> is both expressed and routinely practised;<br />

• School decision-making processes are pupil-oriented;<br />

• The school is outward looking with an ethos focused on future achievement and to the<br />

exigencies of external demands as they are likely to bear on the individual learners'<br />

needs;<br />

• Staff development is seen as a priority;<br />

Success measures<br />

There should be three indicators of success, which should be defined at the outset:<br />

1. performance (defined by educational outcomes)<br />

2. deadline (defined by a schedule)<br />

3. cost limits (defined by a budget)<br />

Factors for successful implementation<br />

ICT is most effectively implemented in institutions where:<br />

• ICT in general has been integrated with schemes of work<br />

• Teachers show a clear understanding of the potential of the technology<br />

• Teachers are confident in assessing progress<br />

• Teachers have worked actively to structure the use of ICT in the classroom and<br />

curriculum<br />

• Time has been taking to consult, staff, pupils, parents and governors to ensure that the<br />

aims match the needs and priorities<br />

There is a realistic plan for upgrading and replacing equipment<br />

When developing an environment such as the NGfL please take into consideration the<br />

following aspects:<br />

• Don't go for perfection (100%), go for good-enough (80%) when developing applications<br />

such as the NGfL;<br />

CIBIT 131<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Continuously demonstrate and visualise what you are doing so people know what the<br />

applications will look like in an early stadium and feel the momentum;<br />

• Be cautious with new leading-edge technologies, only use proven standard technology;<br />

• Wait for people to ask for functionality and content when the applications are launched<br />

so you know what the needs of the target group are;<br />

• Always focus on the needs of the target group instead of technological possibilities;<br />

• Continuously assure the quality and availability of content;<br />

References<br />

Interviewees<br />

Department of Education and Employment (DfEE)<br />

• National Grid for Learning project<br />

• Keith Holder (head of content NGfL)<br />

• Telephone: +44 171 273 4988<br />

• E-mail: Keith.Holder@dfee.gov.uk<br />

• Andrew Partridge (head of infrastructure NGfL)<br />

• Telephone: +44 171 273 4979<br />

• E-mail: Andrew.Partridge@dfee.gov.uk<br />

British Educational Communications Technology Agency (BECTA)<br />

• National Grid for Learning Directorate<br />

• André Wagstaff (head of NGfL Liaison)<br />

• Telephone: +44 1203 416994<br />

• E-mail: andrew_wagstaff@becta.org.uk<br />

Information sources<br />

Involved organisations<br />

• British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, http://www.becta.org.uk/<br />

CIBIT 132<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Department of Education and Employment, http://www.dfee.gov.uk<br />

• National Grid for Learning, http://www.ngfl.gov.uk<br />

• Virtual Teacher Centre, http://www.vtc.ngfl.gov.uk/<br />

Information references<br />

• Connecting the learning society: National Grid for Learning - the Government's<br />

consultation paper, DfEE, 1997. ISBN: 0855226455,<br />

http://www.open.gov.uk/dfee/grid/index.htm<br />

• The Grid - your views: consultation response, http://vtc.ngfl.gov.uk/vtc/library/pub.html<br />

• Connecting schools, networking people: ICT planning, purchasing and good practice<br />

guidance for the National Grid for Learning, Becta, 1998. ISBN: 1853794120,<br />

http://vtc.ngfl.gov.uk/reference/publications/connecting/<br />

• Open for learning, open for business: the Government's NGfL challenge, DfEE,<br />

November 1998, http://www.dfee.gov.uk/grid/challenge/ngflchal.htm<br />

• Open for learning, open for business: summary of the Government's NGfL challenge,<br />

DfEE, November 1998, http://www.dfee.gov.uk/grid/challenge/summary.htm<br />

• Our Information Age: the Government's vision, Central Office of Information (COI), April<br />

1998, http://www.number-10.gov.uk/public/info/releases/publications/infoagefeat.html<br />

• Teachers, meeting the challenge of change, http://www.dfee.gov.uk/teachers/index.htm<br />

• University for Industry: engaging people in learning for life: pathfinder prospectus DfEE,<br />

1998. ISBN: 0855227478, http://www.open.gov.uk/dfee/ufi/index.htm<br />

• Lifelong Learning Green paper - (Cm3790),<br />

http://www.lifelonglearning.co.uk/greenpaper/index.htm<br />

• Stevenson report on Information and communications technology in UK schools: an<br />

independent inquiry Independent ICT Commission, 1997, http://rubbleultralab.anglia.ac.uk/stevenson/<br />

• The Standards and Effectiveness Unit, the Standards Site.<br />

http://www.standards.dfee.gov.uk/<br />

• Teacher Training Agency (TTA), http://www.teach-tta.gov.uk/<br />

CIBIT 133<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Dutch Ministery of Education (bve net)<br />

Organisational goals<br />

• To create ICT awareness in the sector of vocational training and adult education.<br />

• To stimulate action bottom up in this area.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals<br />

• Developing, storing and transferring <strong>knowledge</strong> about best practices on uses of ICT in<br />

education.<br />

• Learning from each other within the sector.<br />

Knowledge infrastructure<br />

Leadership & <strong>management</strong><br />

• Small central team<br />

• No interference from Ministry<br />

• Management by delegation of client-system<br />

Organisational structure<br />

• Small central team of one managing director, consultants and editorial staff<br />

• Work is centred around projects<br />

• External foundation to jury subsidy applications<br />

Processes<br />

• Simple procedures for small subsidies.<br />

• Visits to institutional client sites twice a year<br />

• Knowledge distribution using website, electronic newsletters and printed newspapers.<br />

ICT<br />

• Central website with many facilities for <strong>knowledge</strong> distribution<br />

CIBIT 134<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Support structure<br />

At this moment the foundation BVE net has one directing executive (1 FTE), educational<br />

consultants (3.6 FTE), editors (3.6 FTE) including PR, information, newsletters en<br />

newspaper, one secretary (1FTE) and a <strong>management</strong>-assistant (0.5 FTE).<br />

The consultants from BVEnet are situated mostly at an office in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.<br />

Their tasks are stimulating, monitoring and providing. The 60 client-institutions are divided<br />

among the consultants. The consultant will visit their institutions at least twice a year.<br />

CIBIT 135<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Abstract<br />

To create awareness of the potential added value of ICT in education the Dutch Ministry of<br />

education initiated BVEnet.<br />

Since 1995 BVE-net is an excellent example of how Internet can effectively be used as a<br />

means for information sharing and communication. It did so by stimulating development of<br />

(best) practices and providing <strong>knowledge</strong> distribution channels for distribution of <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

about these best practices. Among these channels there is a website.<br />

The strategy of BVEnet is best described as a practical development strategy. By limited<br />

subsidising of demonstration projects, the BVE-field is encouraged to experiment with<br />

Internet. Besides financial support, BVEnet also delivers technical support and server space<br />

on the BVEnet website server.<br />

Governmental interference is minimal to none. Government only provides financial support<br />

of 5 million DFL each year, but has no direct control on how the money is spent.<br />

Management is done by a small central team that is a delegation from the institutions<br />

BVEnet works for. Any work that can be outsourced will be. Core business is done by<br />

consultants and editorial staff.<br />

By visiting project sites and publishing results from the projects the desired awareness is<br />

indeed created. Due to lack of real <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing among the users no profound<br />

understanding of what is the added value of ICT in the BVE field has been established. To<br />

create this more profound understanding BVEnet will continue to exist in the future, be it in a<br />

different form and with new goals. After 2003 BVEnet is supposed to have become self<br />

supporting.<br />

Situation scanning<br />

Structure of the Dutch Education System<br />

In the Netherlands, as in most other countries, the education system is divided into three<br />

levels: primary (4-12 years), secondary and tertiary (higher professional education (HBO)<br />

and university education (WO). Secondary education includes:<br />

1. pre-vocational education (VBO) and individualised pre-vocational education (IVBO), 12 -<br />

16 years<br />

2. secondary vocational education (previously divided into senior secondary vocational<br />

education (MBO) and apprenticeship training), 16 to 20 years,<br />

3. adult education for the over-18s. The purpose of adult education, unlike vocational<br />

education, is not to train students for a particular occupation but to provide a solid<br />

foundation for vocational and secondary education courses and to enable adults to<br />

participate in society (social and life skills).<br />

CIBIT 136<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Together, the secondary vocational education and the adult education are called: Vocational<br />

and Adult Education (BVE 17), the educational sector in which hundreds of thousands of young<br />

people and adults receive training. The sector offers hundreds of instances of vocational<br />

training, and also training and courses which are not directly vocation-oriented, such as<br />

Dutch as a second language.<br />

Vocational and Adult Education (BVE) in the Netherlands<br />

More than a third of the working population of the Netherlands hold senior secondary<br />

vocational (MBO) qualifications or have completed an apprenticeship. Entry to these types of<br />

education or training is possible with VBO or MAVO certificate. In 1997, some 267,000<br />

students were engaged on MBO courses and there were around 127,000 apprentices. There<br />

are fiscal incentives to encourage employers to provide apprenticeships. In addition to this,<br />

many people attend adult education classes, ranging from lessons in Dutch for non-native<br />

speakers through to complete courses leading to the acquisition of MAVO, HAVO or VWO<br />

qualifications.<br />

Recent developments in the BVE sector<br />

On 1 January 1996, a new Adult and Vocational Education Act (WEB) was introduced to<br />

impose a single coherent structure on these disparate forms of vocational and adult<br />

education. Such courses are now to be provided mainly by 46 Regional Training Centres<br />

(ROCs). These all provide a very wide range of education and training and have been<br />

created by amalgamating several hundred previously separate vocational and adult<br />

education institutions. In addition to the 46 ROCs, there are also 13 specialised vocational<br />

training institutions (LOBs). In this document we will refer to ROCs and LOBs as: BVEinstitutions.<br />

Bringing the various types of education and training together under one roof will make it<br />

easier to offer students training tailored to their particular needs. The new Act is the last in a<br />

series of developments which was triggered some time ago and includes a shift towards<br />

greater emphasis on the requirements of the labour market, increasing liaison between<br />

educational institutions and local trade and industry, the co-ordination of learning pathways,<br />

and the growing autonomy of institutions in terms of organising their own programmes. A<br />

better alignment of training and the world of work is being achieved in part by giving<br />

employers and trade unions a major say in deciding the exit qualifications for courses.<br />

The government has (a.o.t.) recognised the following developments in the BVE sector:<br />

1. a shift from ‘teaching’ to ‘learning’: from instructive towards constructive learning.<br />

2. Changing role of teacher: more and more he is the facilitator of the learning process: the<br />

pupils must learn how to learn while studying a concrete subject.<br />

3. The new possibilities of ICT. ICT touches every aspect of education spanning from the<br />

secondary to the sheer primary process of teaching itself. This has consequences to the<br />

pedagogy of teaching and learning.<br />

4. The learning materials will undergo a change of form. Electronic learning materials will<br />

have an impact on cost-structures and logistics.<br />

When in 1995 the BVEnet project started, the BVE-institutions were willing to change. This<br />

created a vision of synergy : New ways of learning with new tools.<br />

17 BVE = Beroepsonderwijs en Volwassenen Educatie (dutch)<br />

CIBIT 137<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Needs for change<br />

Developments like the changing role and increasing importance of <strong>knowledge</strong> in society are<br />

important for the BVE-sector. The need for educational reform is therefore very high.<br />

The Dutch government sees information and communication technology (ICT) as important<br />

aids for the renewal of the educational system. If ICT is integrated broadly in the educational<br />

process, it could be possible to let students learn in their own pace. Furthermore ICT raises<br />

possibilities for concepts as Life Long Learning.<br />

In 1995 hardly any ICT was used in the BVE-sector. BVE-institutions did not have access to<br />

e-mail for everyone, there was limited access to the Internet (let alone intranet), no<br />

webmasters, expertise of HTML etc. The idea existed that teachers could do all of there work<br />

with a blackboard. Especially in the BVE-sector it became necessary to develop ICTapplications<br />

for education. The commercial sector gave a great impulse to the initiatives for<br />

developing ICT, because there is great influence from this sector on the BVE-institutions.<br />

The fact that the BVE had already been changing for a number of years, due to new<br />

legislation, mergers and new ways of financing, was not problematic. It actually served as an<br />

extra motivation, because the parties involved were used to changing.<br />

In 1995 there was some co-operation between different BVE-institutions, named innovationconsortia.<br />

However, these had already many problems with coping and maintaining the<br />

current ICT infrastructure, if there was any. There was hardly time or other resources for<br />

more innovative initiatives, like Internet applications for educational purposes. It became<br />

clear that successful exploration of the question: ‘How can ICT aid in innovating and<br />

professionalising the BVE-sector?’, should be initiated and guided centrally. The innovationconsortia<br />

had proven that initiatives started from within the sector were not likely to succeed.<br />

Because of the considerations mentioned above, the government decided to take several<br />

initiatives to renew the BVE with the aid of ICT. The goal is to initiate an emerging process<br />

within all BVE-institutions that uses the possibilities of ICT in order to keep the BVE sector<br />

up-to-date; prepare it for the <strong>knowledge</strong> society.<br />

Moreover, it is also important that the different institutions learn from each other. An<br />

interactive style of learning where the forerunners are given space to experiment with new<br />

developments and the rest have the possibility to learn from these experiences.<br />

Some of the taken measures are:<br />

• BVE2000 is an arrangement for stimulation and support of innovative projects in the field<br />

of educational tools and teaching methods by means of ICT.<br />

• MM NT2. Multi-media applications for Dutch as a second language.<br />

• Transito Cognito, a trial program to stimulate the exchange of <strong>knowledge</strong> and experience<br />

between the BVE-institutions and the (regional) private sector.<br />

• Mbo/hbo-twinprojects, a trial program aimed at the increasing the co-operation between<br />

MBO and HBO and to involve the public sector as well.<br />

• ATB is meant to increase the fit between the technical education and the mindset and<br />

experiences of the youth.<br />

• BVEnet, aims at making the BVE-sector familiar with the Internet and stimulate the use<br />

of this medium.<br />

To create a vision on the future regarding ‘ICT and education’ the BVE-institutions also has<br />

to understand the technical and practical possibilities of ICT. In other words: it is important<br />

CIBIT 138<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


that they experiment with ICT. Only when the managers and teachers can experience the<br />

possibilities of ICT will they be able to think about education of the future.<br />

Of course, an important activity of BVEnet is facilitating experiments with ICT for and by the<br />

BVEnet itself.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

Introduction<br />

BVEnet is an Internet project which aims at stimulating and implementing Internet technology<br />

in the BVE sector. BVEnet is an initiative by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and<br />

Science together with the BVE-sector, aimed at experimenting with ICT and education. It<br />

started in 1995. The goal is to stimulate the use of ICT in the whole BVE-sector, with a focus<br />

on educational reform. The educational reform is especially aimed at independent learning<br />

by the student. Programmes provided should be tailor made for content and learning style of<br />

individuals.<br />

BVEnet exists since 1995 and was a project based organisation until 1999. It had a yearly<br />

budget and every year it was decided whether or not the project should continue. Because<br />

BVEnet proved itself over the years, it changed into an independent foundation, with a fixed<br />

budget (DFL 5 million, = 2 million Euro) every year. The goal is to make BVEnet costeffective<br />

as of 2003. The foundation has a <strong>management</strong> that is formed by representatives of<br />

the Interest Association for Secondary Vocational and Adult Education (BVE-council) and the<br />

Association of the National Bodies for Vocational Training (COLO). BVE-council and COLO<br />

represent the clients of BVEnet: around 60 BVE institutions. The Ministry of Education,<br />

Culture and Science finances BVEnet until 2003.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

Small central team<br />

The organisation of BVEnet has been kept small on purpose. This means that it is necessary<br />

to hire external parties for certain activities, which in turn leads to a less bureaucratic and<br />

lighter organisation. It also makes BVEnet vulnerable: the activities must be limited to<br />

evaluation and ‘networking’. If for example a report has to be made, BVEnet has to hire<br />

someone to perform this work and have interviews with the people working at BVEnet itself!<br />

No interference of Ministry<br />

Although the BVEnet is an initiative of the Ministry of OCW, there is no direct interference of<br />

the Ministry in the operations of BVEnet. This is to ensure that the organisation does not<br />

become too bureaucratic, but instead a small, flexible and client centred foundation.<br />

Management by delegation of client system<br />

Therefore the <strong>management</strong> of BVEnet is formed by clients: COLO and the BVE-counsel. In<br />

that way the client focus is safeguarded.<br />

Organisational structure<br />

Small central team<br />

CIBIT 139<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


At this moment the foundation BVEnet has one directing executive (1FTE), educational<br />

consultants (3.6 FTE), editors (3.6 FTE) including PR, information, electronic newsletters and<br />

a newspaper in print, one secretary (1FTE) and a <strong>management</strong>-assistant (0.5 FTE)<br />

The advisors from BVEnet are situated mostly at an office in Nijmegen. Their tasks are<br />

stimulating initiatives, monitoring projects and providing. The goal is to divide the 60<br />

institutions over the advisors, and every advisor should visit his clients at least twice a year.<br />

External foundation to jury subsidy applications<br />

A jury (of three independent people) judge the proposals with explicitly formulated selection<br />

criteria. In the first six rounds, 326 proposals were submitted, of which 180 were granted.<br />

Every time there is around DFL 1 million available for projects.<br />

Processes<br />

Work is centred around projects<br />

There are two kinds of projects:<br />

• Demonstration projects are relatively small projects (maximum DFL 50.000, = 20.000<br />

Euro) whereby existing applications and services are altered for electronic use. Initially<br />

demonstration projects were limited to a 4 month period, but due to increased<br />

understanding, this limit was extended to 6 months. The goal of these projects was not<br />

just to let the parties involved get hands-on experience with Ict, but also to get other<br />

parties inspired.<br />

• Other projects were aimed at deepening the understanding of the results of the<br />

demonstration projects as well as researching fundamental issues. These are larger<br />

projects in which new services and applications are developed. In other words: current<br />

themes that might benefit the whole BVE-sector with implementing ICT in the<br />

educational system. In these projects there are more resources (time and money)<br />

available for experiments with totally new applications. Most of the time these projects<br />

are supported by external parties. In many <strong>case</strong>s these kinds of projects are a collection<br />

of demonstration projects, that are given the form of a centre of expertise where several<br />

practical projects are executed. Some examples of centres of expertise include: Intranet,<br />

Digital Drivers License, Emancipation net, and New Pedagogical Forms,<br />

Editorial tasks<br />

gather information, acquire, store and transfer <strong>knowledge</strong> for the BVE-site. All non-editorial<br />

tasks, like technical <strong>management</strong>, internet provider, account <strong>management</strong>, etc., are<br />

outsourced.<br />

Initiate projects<br />

Yearly DFL 2.5 million (1.3 million Euro) is spent on projects: DFL 1.5 million (0.7 million<br />

Euro) for small demonstration projects and furthermore some more difficult thematic<br />

projects.<br />

Simple procedures for small subsidies<br />

For the projects within the scope of BVEnet it is possible to submit project proposals twice a<br />

year, by sending them electronically to the virtual BVE-square. Institutions are asked for<br />

proposals through the website of BVEnet, the electronical newsletter, and ‘BVEnet inDRUK’.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> processes<br />

BVEnet carries out activities for the implementation of Internet in the BVE sector, activities<br />

which can be classified under the heading of acquiring, storing and transferring new<br />

technological <strong>knowledge</strong>:<br />

(1)Acquiring <strong>knowledge</strong>: Laboratory function<br />

CIBIT 140<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


A large number of demonstration and depth projects are experimenting with useful Internet<br />

applications for the BVE sector. In order to gain this new <strong>knowledge</strong> BVEnet acquires and<br />

supervises these projects and they are carried out by BVE-institutions. The whole can be<br />

seen as a growing R & D laboratory for the BVE sector.<br />

(2)Storing <strong>knowledge</strong>: Library function<br />

The editors of BVEnet organize, store and make products and information services available<br />

on the BVEnet site (http://www.bvenet.nl). The editors themselves also search for information<br />

which is relevant to the BVE sector (national and international). In fact, the BVEnet site is the<br />

portal site and a virtual library of Internet applications for the BVE sector.<br />

(3)Transfering <strong>knowledge</strong>: Transfer function<br />

The third important activity of BVEnet is the transfer of acquired <strong>knowledge</strong> in the laboratory<br />

and stored in the library. The advisory and communication activities of BVEnet are carried<br />

out by means of the electronic BVEnet newsletter and the newspaper 'BVEnet inDRUK'<br />

(BVEnet in PRINT) and, most importantly, the BVEnet site. The BVEnet site is a source of<br />

information and a meeting place for teachers and managers of Secondary Vocational and<br />

Adult Education. The Internet applications, which have been developed within the context of<br />

BVEnet, are freely available to everyone. The intention is that these act as a stimulus to<br />

others to start developing new applications on the basis of <strong>knowledge</strong> that has already been<br />

accumulated.<br />

BVEnet advises on the use of Internet in education and also organises BVEnet<br />

implementation days together with BVE-institutions. On these days applications are<br />

presented which have been developed in demonstration projects. A number of CD-ROMS<br />

have been developed for teachers who do not have access to Internet yet. BVEnet is present<br />

at important IT conferences and educational fairs.<br />

ICT<br />

Website<br />

The website of BVEnet is greatly improved since May 1997 and consists of:<br />

• A personal profile that makes it possible to present information especially aimed at each<br />

individual (since may 1997)<br />

• Project database, containing all projects<br />

• Links with descriptions of educational developments<br />

• Recent news for the BVE-sector<br />

• Sources with governmental information (OCenW, BVE-counsel, COLO)<br />

• Database with all addresses of BVE-institutions<br />

• Technology lab: database with easy descriptions / manuals of all kinds of Internet tools<br />

that could be used in education.<br />

The website of BVEnet has turned into a standard. A number of the more than 100 granted<br />

BVE2000 projects have there own page, or a demo on the BVEnet. The network proves to<br />

increase the learning ability of the BVE-sector. It is a low level program with relatively simple<br />

projects ‘close at home’. An extra effect of using the Internet is that the infrastructure of the<br />

people who access BVEnet has to be functional as well. The more networks are used, the<br />

more it is necessary to create a good functioning network of your own (an intranet for<br />

example). BVEnet stimulates the development of intranets explicitly.<br />

Some examples of practical applications are: databanks of teaching material, multimedia<br />

centres, digital teacher workshops, <strong>case</strong>s for problem-driven learning via Internet, subject<br />

nets, examples of distance learning, description of Internet tools, list of addresses and<br />

thousands of relevant links and short descriptions of sites which are interesting for education.<br />

Other communication-media used<br />

• Implementation afternoons: A series of countrywide meetings centred around certain<br />

topics that are highlighted with success and failure factors.<br />

• CD-roms for teachers<br />

CIBIT 141<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Phase of Pioneers explained (part 1 & 2): catalogue of demonstration projects.<br />

• Invitations on paper<br />

• Electronically distributed newsletter<br />

• Quarterly published newspaper in print ‘BVEnet inDRUK’ (BVEnet inPRESS)<br />

Change <strong>management</strong><br />

The development strategy: BVEnet as ‘booster’<br />

Experiences from the past have shown that large-scale innovation projects often are too slow<br />

and lack success because of little support from within the BVE-institutes themselves.<br />

Therefore the BVEnet foundation pursues a development strategy. BVE institutions, being<br />

the institutions in which educational improvement and innovations are developed and<br />

implemented, are being stimulated to start experimenting themselves with electronic<br />

information and communication. Projects have to demonstrate the practical value of the new<br />

technology for BVE.<br />

The BVEnet foundation has chosen as core activity the development of all kinds of<br />

demonstration projects by the BVE institutions themselves. Because it is there that the<br />

people can be found who will have to master the new technology. The projects have to<br />

stimulate the learning processes about the use of Internet technology and also ensure a<br />

proper adjustment between the demand for and the supply of electronic information services.<br />

In this way the current BVEnet site enables everybody to profit from the Internet <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

which has been acquired. Therefore the site is the face or profile of BVEnet.<br />

Starting up<br />

In the beginning, briefings were organised for all contact persons of the BVE-institutions.<br />

After that the first demonstration projects were explained. Reasons for the BVE-institutions to<br />

go to the briefings:<br />

• People are curious about forerunners.<br />

• It might just be possible to save some costs (for example by distance learning). These<br />

cost-savings however never came true.<br />

• The BVE-sector was already used to and willing to change. Legislation, mergers and<br />

other changes were already taking place, so the willingness to change was already there.<br />

• New educational concepts were coming up and BVEnet just seemed to fit in this.<br />

As little control as possible<br />

Government had no direct control over how money was spent. Also the organisation of<br />

BVEnet was deliberately kept small. The BVEnet is not a controlling but a stimulating<br />

organisation. They can be seen as the ‘<strong>knowledge</strong> stewards’ for the projects.<br />

The role of subsidies<br />

Subsidies were never exceeding DFL 50.000 (20.000 Euro) Most projects involved at least a<br />

million DFL. The money was never the issue.<br />

CIBIT 142<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Applied methods<br />

No specific existing methods were applied.<br />

Evaluation<br />

Results of the projects: especially ‘booster function’<br />

Within the BVE-institutions there is mostly just a limited group of people who are forerunners<br />

or very enthusiastic, that conduct the experiments. This group consists of teachers,<br />

developers, system maintenance staff, and technical people. The subjects are rather broad:<br />

new target groups, teaching methods and curricula. The main subject is the development of<br />

new digital teaching materials.<br />

BVE-institutions use the BVEnet projects happily to start working on their own plans of using<br />

Internet technology. In many institutions the projects lead to a decrease in the barriers that<br />

are experienced by other people than those directly involved in the projects. Another<br />

consequence of the projects is that the public support for modern techniques is increased.<br />

Moreover it often happens that the BVE-institutions involved in a project start to increase<br />

their own internal budget for the use of Internet technologies. Despite the high costs<br />

involved, the projects clearly serve as the extra stimulus that is necessary to begin.<br />

Regarding the use of the website of BVEnet, it is a very successful project. Each week<br />

around 6000 to 7000 users log into the system and use it. Every week there are around<br />

200.00 hits. Another impressive number is the number of projects in he database, which<br />

exceeds 200 projects at the moment.<br />

In January 1998 the projects of BVEnet can be divided as follows:<br />

• Maintenance and <strong>management</strong> (15%): This section contains applications aimed at the<br />

support of policy processes and projects aimed at the internal and external<br />

communication and information provision.<br />

• Professionalism (15%): This section is about the professionalism of teachers and<br />

managers.<br />

• Multimedia centre (40%): All projects that cover the development of digital teaching<br />

materials, or that open up teaching materials in online databases, catalogues or lists of<br />

bookmarks can be found here.<br />

• Distance support (20%): These projects are aimed at the development of distance<br />

support. Experiments with tele-education, but also supervision of practical training on a<br />

distance and supporting through the Internet the choices for secondary education and a<br />

career / profession.<br />

• Certifications and testing (10%): All projects aimed at the online dissemination, building<br />

and communicating about the qualifying structure. Furthermore all projects that<br />

concentrate on applications for online testing and computer based testing.<br />

CIBIT 143<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Results with respect to content are small<br />

The main hurdle that has to be taken now is the realisation of a good technical infrastructure<br />

and the introduction of organisational change that is necessary to use the new techniques to<br />

its potential. An example could be the introduction of a centre of expertise on HTML-coding.<br />

The provision of a base of best practices has still only the level of how to start successfully.<br />

The deepening and gain of a more profound understanding will happen now that most of the<br />

simple but important hurdles have been taken.<br />

Success<br />

Overall the BVEnet is currently successful. In 1995 the BVE-institutions were not familiar with<br />

Internet or intranet technologies. Even in 1997 many institutions thought that the Internet was<br />

no important factor and claimed that teachers could do their work just as easy with a<br />

blackboard in front of a classroom. Since around 1997 these thoughts are no longer present<br />

in the BVE-institutions.<br />

The main goals, <strong>knowledge</strong> of and familiarity with ICT within the BVE-sector, are absolutely<br />

reached. Moreover, over 200 small projects have been started. Also the ‘booster’ function<br />

has been successful so far. Within the BVE-institutions people started to think about new<br />

possibilities.<br />

Another success is that the Ministry tried and succeeded in keeping distance from the whole<br />

BVEnet project.<br />

The changing role of BVEnet: from booster to lubricant<br />

Phase 1: BVEnet as booster<br />

In fact the first phase extended from 1995 (start-up) until now. Especially the tasks of making<br />

aware, boosting, providing a basic infrastructure and make agreements about webmaster,<br />

html, e-mail for everyone etc.<br />

In this first phase the demonstration projects were clearly aimed at exploration of<br />

possibilities. Until the end of 1997 almost 170 projects were started of which most are<br />

successfully finished. The goal of these projects was to see if the BVE-institutions got used to<br />

the internet and started to look for possibilities of using it in the primary process.<br />

At the moment the big threat is that the projects will all be the same: many small projects that<br />

are aimed at the same explorations. That’s why the goal has shifted to bundling several<br />

demo-projects into deeper areas of research. BVEnet now helps in formulating the plans and<br />

implementing them. In the future they will bundle learning experiences and thematically<br />

overlapping projects, for example learning environments or problem driven education.<br />

Phase 2: BVEnet as lubricant<br />

In the second phase that will extend until 2003, the idea is that more BVE-institutions will<br />

start working together and doing bigger projects composed of several small ones.<br />

It is important that not just one group develops and invests everything and other groups only<br />

take the benefits of that. In other words: money does matter and it is expected that there will<br />

be money available for the results of the projects for deepening into more profound<br />

understanding.<br />

The risk exists that the second phase will be less successful. There is less urgency in the<br />

projects. Thereby, plans are already made for the near future, so there is maybe not enough<br />

impulse to also start working in projects under the BVEnet umbrella. This means that until<br />

2003 BVEnet will function as lubricant.<br />

One of the most important tasks of BVEnet in the future will be the translation of<br />

developments in education and working in the outside world (private sector) to the<br />

educational environment. At the moment only BVE-institutions are the focus group of<br />

CIBIT 144<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


BVEnet, but this has to be broadened in the future. The biggest changes are taking place in<br />

the outside world, so a more externally focused point of view will be necessary in the next<br />

phase. The most important topic from the outside world will be the implementation of lifelong<br />

learning concept<br />

Perspective on the future<br />

Until 2003 BVEnet will still be subsidised by the Ministry of OCW. After that it is supposed to<br />

become self supporting. With that in mind the BVEnet is already working on a commercial<br />

centre of expertise. That will be a major change for the current employees of BVEnet: from<br />

now on they will have to sell their <strong>knowledge</strong>.<br />

Success factors<br />

• Passion in the organisation and enthusiasm of the forerunners within the institutions<br />

• Grants, because the BVEnet could give away money. For the institutions with budgets of<br />

DFL 100 - 200 million (50-100 million Euro), the DFL 50k (20.000 euro) was never the<br />

most important stimulation effect of BVEnet. However, for the individual teachers who<br />

actually asked for the grants, DFL 50k was very stimulating. This has increased the<br />

entrepreneurship of the teachers enormously.<br />

• The situation has changed from –what does ICT do with education?– to –what does<br />

education do with ICT?–. In the beginning the technology was leading in the projects, that<br />

has changed to a leading role for educational topics.<br />

• The development strategy has always been bottom-up. In this way the execution of<br />

projects might take longer, but the acceptance of the results is also much better.<br />

• The image of the BVE-counsel was, and still is, very good. The procedures are tight and<br />

forces are bundled.<br />

• The sharing of best practices has been an inspiration and created enthusiasm<br />

• The whole BVE-sector was ready for changes and there was a clear need for that. In<br />

other words, the timing of BVEnet was perfect, regarding the sentiments in the sector.<br />

Lessons learned<br />

• Some projects fail, you have to accept that.<br />

• All projects are forced/stimulated to present the results and to also explain what the<br />

hurdles and failures were.<br />

• Because time is not yet a very important issue within the regular educational branches,<br />

the professionals working within the field are not very good at planning projects.<br />

Expiration of deadlines is quite frequent. Do not make the rules stricter. Provide<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> for planning projects.<br />

• “When people leave, the agreements leave”. Contacts between BVEnet and the BVEinstitutions<br />

are often dependent on one enthusiastic key-figure. That is an undesirable<br />

situation, because if the key figure leaves, the whole project might collapse. It is<br />

important to deal with this cautiously. One of the measures is the stricter contract. The<br />

proposals are now also checked against the whole ICT policy of the institution.<br />

• Another important factor in this respect is that there has to be <strong>management</strong> commitment<br />

within the project context, otherwise it will never work.<br />

• BVEnet is very attentive on people who are not really coming to do a project, but only to<br />

get a grant of DFL 50k or more. These are the so called: grant-eaters. Most of the time<br />

these can be detected by looking at the project proposal and concluding that that kind of<br />

project has already been done four times before. Such proposals are rejected on the<br />

ground that they are not innovative enough.<br />

• BVEnet was a initiative that was extended every year after a discussion whether or not<br />

that should be the <strong>case</strong>. This has brought a lot of uncertainty until 1999. This uncertainty<br />

has scared some people away, because there was no idea if it would be possible to work<br />

on things for a longer period of time.<br />

CIBIT 145<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


References<br />

Interviewees<br />

Interview Ed Feller, TRE-groep, 6 mei 1999<br />

TRE-groep, Regionaal Opleidings Centrum<br />

Ed Feller<br />

Hoogeveenlaan 20<br />

2545 TP Den Haag<br />

Tel: 070 - 3084242. Fax: 070 - 3084200<br />

Interview Aad van der Niet, directeur BVE-net (sinds 1 maart 1999), 11 mei 1999<br />

BVE-net<br />

Orangesingel 38, 6511 NW Nijmegen<br />

Postbus 1565, 6501 BN Nijmegen<br />

Tel 024 - 3823233. Fax: 024 - 3602958<br />

Email: vanderniet@BVEnet.nl<br />

URL: http://www.bvenet.nl<br />

Information sources<br />

• BVEnet als Internet-expertisecentrum van ROC’s en LOB’s: Planvorming voor 1999 tot<br />

2000, BVEnet, Nijmegen, maart 1999.<br />

• Leren met BVEnet: ervaringen met Internettoepassingen in het BVE-onderwijs, Cees<br />

Doets (eindredacteur), CINOP, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, december 1998.<br />

• ICT-impulsen voor de BVE-sector, Senter, Den Haag, juni 1997.<br />

• De elektronische leeromgeving in de BVE-sector, Jeroen Onstank en Joost Meijer,<br />

CINOP, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, september 1998.<br />

• Pioniersfase in beeld, BVE net, februari 1997.<br />

• Pioniersfase in beeld 2.0, BVE net, januari 1998.<br />

• The website of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science:<br />

http://www.minocw.nl/<br />

CIBIT 146<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


US Army<br />

Organisational goals<br />

Based on interview with Lieutenant Colonel Nick Justice (US Army Knowledge Office) during<br />

site visit on May 5, 1999, Washington, DC, United States.<br />

The goals of the United States Army 18 that are sought for with the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

project are:<br />

• Digitizing the institutional army i.e. transforming the institutional army into an<br />

information-age, networked organisation that leverages its intellectual capital to<br />

better organise, train, equip and maintain a strategic land combat army force;<br />

• Modernise the army and reduce costs;<br />

• Connect active and reserve army components and institutional army through one<br />

environment;<br />

• Provide actice, reserve and institutional army and civilians with the tools required to:<br />

o increase information access;<br />

o focus collaboration;<br />

o improve and streamline programmes;<br />

o overcome geographic, time and organisational boundaries;<br />

o spend more time on analysing information, instead of collecting information.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> goals<br />

The goal that was seen by the United States Army as instrumental for reaching those<br />

organisational goals is:<br />

leveraging the army’s intellectual capital to better organise, train, equip and sustain the<br />

force.<br />

Knowledge infrastructure<br />

Instrumentation of the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) that<br />

was put in place for reaching the organisational goals. The following categories will be<br />

discerned: leadership & <strong>management</strong>, organisational structure & HRM, processes and<br />

Information & communication technology.<br />

18 When refered to United States Army in this <strong>case</strong> study the instituational part of the united states army is meant. These<br />

people are not reservists nor people who engage in combat (tactical army), but are the ones who take care of all the<br />

supportive processes (e.g. logistics, HRM, administration, et cetera) necessary to be able to have an actice army.<br />

CIBIT 147<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

• Relatively small central team<br />

• Mandate from the very top<br />

• Top down approach<br />

Organisational structure and human resource <strong>management</strong><br />

• Executive Steering Committee (ESC)<br />

• Paperless Career Field Designation process (CFD)<br />

Processes<br />

• After Action Reviews (AAR)<br />

• Lesson Learned Collection (CALL)<br />

• Early Bird – News Service<br />

ICT<br />

• HDQA Data Sharing Initiative<br />

• One Web Portal<br />

• Army Websites<br />

• Integration of the baseline infrastructure<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Business Development Group for Army Knowledge Office – part of the Strategic Army<br />

Computing Center (SACC) (12 people)<br />

• Executive Steering Committee<br />

• Daily Working Committee<br />

CIBIT 148<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Detailed description<br />

Abstract<br />

The United States Army is a well known institution, its involvement in various missions<br />

around the world can be followed via CNN on a daily basis.<br />

During the last 10 years the US Army downsized its various components and component<br />

divisions:<br />

• reduced active component with 36% (770k – 495k people);<br />

• reduced reserve component with 26% (776k – 575k people);<br />

• reduced active component divisions from 18 to 10;<br />

• reduced reserve component divisions from 10 to 8;<br />

• closed 89 US bases;<br />

• realigned 69 US bases;<br />

• realigned labs; and<br />

• returned 653 overseas bases to local governments.<br />

The US Army bases its organisational structure on scenarios. Every scenario is 25 years<br />

ahead and a multi million dollar operation. All versions are tested fully. Their current army<br />

organisation is called ‘the army of excellence’, their future (locked) scenario is called Force<br />

21 and their 2025 future scenario is called ‘the army after next’ (unlocked). To be able to<br />

have implemented their locked scenario Force 21 into a real operable army (Army XXI) in<br />

around 2010 they started various projects among which the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> project.<br />

Army XXI lead to the founding of the Army Knowledge Office and the Army Knowledge<br />

Online initiatives in late 1997.<br />

Currently the Army Knowledge Office (AKO) counts 25 people, serving 25,000 people. In<br />

June 1999 they should be at 49 people serving an increasing amount of people – finally 1.5<br />

Million people. Most of the AKO initiatives are either HRM or ICT (Web) based and are fully<br />

supported and implemented top-down.<br />

Situation scanning<br />

History of the army<br />

To learn about the history of the United States Army the website of the Center of Military<br />

History (CMH), it can be found on www.army.mil. It gives information starting at the very<br />

beginning in 1775 – Valley Forge…to the DMZ…To Bosnia and beyond.<br />

About the United States Army – Army Knowledge Office<br />

The mission of the United States Army is: to protect and defend the Constitution by deterring<br />

war and, when deterrence fails, by achieving quick decisive victory as part of a joint team<br />

(Title 10 USC (Law): organise, train, equip and sustain the force). Which can is translated<br />

into the the following responsibility: the army is responsible for providing combat ready land<br />

forces to the combattant commander in chiefs for ‘prompt and sustained combat incident to<br />

operations on land.’<br />

CIBIT 149<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


In order to maintain this responsibility in the next version of the army, called Army XXI the<br />

chief of staff of the army, General Dennis J. Reimer stated the following vision: Transform<br />

the institutional army into an information-age, networked organisation that leverages its<br />

intellectual capital to better organise, train and equip, and maintain a strategic land combat<br />

army force.<br />

As a result of this vision various projects were started and so in late 1997 the Army<br />

Knowledge Office was founded and counted 3 employees serving 350 senior executive<br />

people i.e. the generals of the army. The background of the first 3 employees was either<br />

technical or organisational. The Army Knowledge Office (AKO) is part of the responsibility of<br />

DISC 4 SACC (director of information systems for command, control, communications and<br />

computers – strategic army computing center).<br />

At the moment the Army Knowledge Office counts 25 people and serves 25,000 people. In<br />

June 1999 they should be at 49 people serving an increasing amount of people – finally 1.5<br />

Million people.<br />

The objectives of the Army Knowledge Office are:<br />

• Unimpeded access to <strong>knowledge</strong>;<br />

• Increased connectivity and situational/institutional awareness;<br />

• Cross-functional integration and collaboration;<br />

• Reduction in time required for cross-functional analysis;<br />

• Increased army productivity;<br />

• Leveraged IT infrastructure; and<br />

• Imbedded in army processes.<br />

Needs for change<br />

The United States’ Army need for change was stated in the following organisational goals:<br />

• Digitizing the institutional army i.e. transforming the institutional army into an<br />

information-age, networked organisation that leverages its intellectual capital to<br />

better organise, train, equip and maintain a strategic land combat army force;<br />

• Modernise the army and reduce costs;<br />

• Connect active and reserve army components and institutional army through one<br />

environment;<br />

• Provide actice, reserve and institutional army and civilians with the tools required to:<br />

o increase information access;<br />

o focus collaboration;<br />

o improve and streamline programmes;<br />

o overcome geographic, time and organisational boundaries;<br />

o spend more time on analysing information, instead of collecting information.<br />

From these organisational goals the following <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> goals were derived:<br />

• Honor the past:<br />

o Leverage historical actions and lessons learned;<br />

• Master the present:<br />

o Create force multiplier to deal with downsizing. Dicipline and improve army<br />

systems and processes;<br />

o Enable teamwork and collaboration. Increase productivity by provinding<br />

army-wide electronic access to corporate <strong>knowledge</strong>;<br />

o Facilitate communication and decision making among army leaders. Provide<br />

an electronic repository for army communities, reduce costs for data access<br />

and analysis.<br />

CIBIT 150<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


o Foster bottom-up innovation and speed up validation of re-engineered<br />

processes.<br />

o Improve cross-functional integration;<br />

• Shape the future:<br />

o Transform the army into a streamlined information age, <strong>knowledge</strong>-centric<br />

organisation;<br />

o Comply with defence reform initiative (DRI) and the Clinger-Cohen Act (i.e.<br />

money spent is connected to results);<br />

o Serve as a cultural catalyst for the Army XXI and the Army After Next.<br />

In short: <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> must leverage the army’s intellectual capital to better<br />

organise, train, equip and sustain the force.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

In order to reach the organisational goals the following instrumentation of the <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> system (i.e. <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure) was designed and implemented. The<br />

following categories will be discerned: leadership & <strong>management</strong>, organisational structure &<br />

HRM, processes and Information & communication technology.<br />

Leadership and <strong>management</strong><br />

Relatively small central team<br />

Late 1997 the Army Knowledge Office was founded and counted three founding members.<br />

The AKO has been growing steadily since then. At the moment they count 25 people serving<br />

25,000 people. The end goal is to be serving 1.5 million people.<br />

Mandate from the very top<br />

The <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> project is part of the vision of the Chief of Staff of the Army<br />

(the person in command of the army, General Dennis J. Reimer). His vision statement is:<br />

“Transform the institutional army into an information-age, networked organisation that<br />

leverages its intellectual capital to better organise, train and equip, and maintain a strategic<br />

land combat army force.”<br />

Top down approach<br />

Using the very senior Executive Steering Committee and starting with the 350 generals of<br />

the US Army, the AKO is generating a critical mass at the very top of the army. These 350<br />

senior people will ‘talk it down’ to the troups below, an so on. Finally <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

will become part of the norms and values of every member of the army. These are the rock<br />

solid anchors of the army – this that never change, whatever the structure of the army.<br />

Organisational structure and human resource <strong>management</strong><br />

Executive Steering Committee (ESC)<br />

One of the objectives of the Army Knowledge Office was founding a Executive Steering<br />

Committee in order to help implement <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> into the institutional army.<br />

The charter for the ESC was approved and cosigned by DAS 19 and DISC4 20 . The mission of<br />

this committee is:<br />

19 DAS: Director of Army Staff.<br />

CIBIT 151<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


• Serve as a catalyst for institutionalising <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> in the army;<br />

• Prioritize requirements and recommend funding strategies for AKO development and<br />

implementation;<br />

• Identify and resolve AKO issues;<br />

• Ensure that goals and objectives for the AKO, the Army Flow Model (AFM), and the<br />

Organisational Command Training Programme (OCTP) are coordinated and<br />

integrated 21 .<br />

The ESC is chaired by the DAS (organisational stakeholder) and by DISC4 (technical<br />

stakeholder). Momentarily the AKO is considering if a third chairman is necessary, since the<br />

stakes of the army’s employees are not fully covered, possibly the director of Human<br />

Resources is asked to be the third chair (people stakeholder).<br />

The 22 parties who are members of the ECS are, like the chairs all very senior army people<br />

(generals), representatives for the following five major groups:<br />

1. Staff of the minister of the army (secretarial);<br />

2. Shared staff (by 1 and 2): e.g. Chief of public affairs, Military Juridical Department<br />

(JAG), DISC4, et cetera;<br />

3. Army General Staff<br />

4. MACOMS Major Commands: chiefs of staff of FORSCOM (Combat), TRADOC<br />

(Training), AMC (Material) and MEDCOM (Medical);<br />

5. Reserve: Deputy director - Army National Guard and Deputy Chief – Army Reserve.<br />

Their first ESC meeting took place on January 14 th 1999 and for the moment AKO plans to<br />

have a meeting every month. The frequency of meetings will decrease over time, since<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> will gradualy become institutionalised in the army.<br />

Paperless Career Field Designation Process<br />

The problem of the Army Personnel Command (HR department of the army) was: How to<br />

support authorizations and assign officers during the OPMS XII 22 transition years (financial<br />

year 2000 - 2001). Due to the transition of the current ‘Army of Excellence’ to the ‘Army XXI’<br />

new functional areas (roles) for officers are necessary. In addition to existing functional areas<br />

for officers (branches) like:<br />

• Infantry,<br />

• Armor,<br />

• Field artillery,<br />

• Signal (radiomen),<br />

• Transportation,<br />

• Military police,<br />

• Chemicals, et cetera<br />

new officer functional areas ar necessary:<br />

• Information Systems Engineers,<br />

• Information Operations,<br />

• Strategic Intelligence,<br />

• Space Operations,<br />

• Human Resource Management,<br />

• Force Management,<br />

• Simulation Operations, and<br />

• Strategic Plans and Policy.<br />

The solution found is: Use substitution rules to match officers from the current inventory to<br />

requirements of new authorisations during transition years.<br />

20 DISC4: Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications and Computers.<br />

21 No information was supplied to be able to sufficiently describe the AFM (an set of executive level planning models for<br />

people, infrastructure and equipment that provide an integrated analysis across major functional areas: force structure,<br />

personnel, logistics, infrastructure and resources) and OCTP.<br />

22 OPMS XXI: Officer Personnel Management System for the Army XXI.<br />

CIBIT 152<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


The process called Career Field Designation is conducted by the PERSCOM (personnel<br />

command; HR department of the army) using a lot of paperwork. The input of the process is<br />

the promotion list of a major, the preference of an officer, input from the commander and the<br />

abilities of the officers in <strong>case</strong>. This input is matched with the requirements of the army and<br />

approved by the CFD Board and leads to the output of a designated career field for the<br />

officer. This process was extremly slow and anything but transparent to the officer, the<br />

PERSCOM itself and to the current branch of the officer.<br />

Therefor the PERSCOM developed a blueprint of the CFD process, which was approved by<br />

Chief of Staff of the Army (=CSA: General Reimer) on Januari 1998. In June 1998 CSA<br />

directed a paperless process.<br />

The Army Knowledge Office developed a web enabled online process by which officers can<br />

directly communicate with PERSCOM and both have insight in the possibilities for a new<br />

career field designation. It took the AKO 2 months to develop the system (extremly fast!).<br />

The officer year groups of 1980 (1010 officers) and 1986 (1364) were processed by the<br />

system. With an incredible response:<br />

• of YG 80, 90.59 % responded, respectively 82.95% by website and the rest by mail;<br />

• of YG 86, 96.70 % responded, respectively 87.64% by website and the rest by mail.<br />

All officers who asked received their first branch preference and the CFD Board met all<br />

branch requirements and all functional area requirements.<br />

The system provides an almost real-time insight for everyone involved, for the PERSCOM it<br />

was a true innovation. And most important of all, it gave insight in the match between officer<br />

preferences and army requirements for the Army XXI.<br />

Currently the year groups of 81, 87 and 90 are submitted for CFD. Furthermore the success<br />

of this online system lead to the decision to develop more web enabled tools for PERSCOM.<br />

Processes<br />

After Action Review (AAR)<br />

An AAR is an analysis of performance; it provides soldiers and units feedback on mission<br />

and task accomplishment. After-action reviews identify how to correct shortcomings and<br />

sustain strengths; they serve as a leadership development tool. The art of conducting the<br />

AAR is mastered only through years of experience and training. Practice and critique are<br />

vital in providing good results. The AAR is conducted at the conclusion of a pure lane or at<br />

appropriate points during integrated lanes.<br />

Lesson Learned Collection: Center of Army Lessons Learned (CALL)<br />

The Center of Army Lessons Learned 23 , which was founded in 1985 at Fort Leavenworth,<br />

Kansas, collects and distributes lessons learned in combat missions of the US army. CALL<br />

consists of 40 people, most of them work on a part-time basis. One way in which CALL<br />

collects lessons learned is by electronic observation forms 24 , which are then evaluated,<br />

analyzed and organized.<br />

collecting the <strong>knowledge</strong> The starting point for the lessons learned architecture of CALL is<br />

that all CALL products originate with input in the form of an observation by an individual.<br />

Therefore it stimulates army members, and in particular soldiers, to report observation<br />

regarding tactics, techniques, or procedures that their unit used to work around unfavorable<br />

situations or circumstances. To facilitate rapporting, CALL maintains a WWW site that<br />

includes an electronic observation form.<br />

However, besides this passive form of collection, CALL also has a collection division which<br />

performs missions to collect lessons learned with respect to particular subjects. The<br />

personnel of this division are trained collectors of information and observations. The<br />

collection operations are derived from a Contingency Collection Plan, which is maintained by<br />

23 for detailed information is refered to http://www.army.mil or http://call.army.mil<br />

24 an example of these forms can be found at http://call.army.mil/CALL Observation Form.htm<br />

CIBIT 153<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


CALL. Collection operations are guided by a collection plan which states which kinds of<br />

observation should be made. The procedures for collection missions are described in a<br />

handbook which is also published on the WWW.<br />

storing the <strong>knowledge</strong> Storage in CALL involves both editing and indexing. Editing is<br />

performed by CALL's analysis division. In the <strong>case</strong> of a collection mission as described<br />

above, the analysis team is in continuous interaction with the collection teams. A well defined<br />

procedure exists for analyzing incoming lessons learned. The collected and edited lessons<br />

learned are organized and published in a number of products: newsletters, bulletins and<br />

handbooks. To some extent, these products are also published on the WWW.<br />

retrieving and distributing the <strong>knowledge</strong> The corporate memory consists of a number of<br />

publications which are distributed to the soldiers. It is not clear in which ways the soldiers are<br />

stimulated to actually read the CALL products. In the <strong>case</strong> of retrieval, the soldier looking for<br />

information can make use of an electronic search form on the WWW.<br />

Early Bird – News Service<br />

At 1:00 AM every night a group of news analysts starts to make clippings of the 20 most<br />

important news papers (both national and international). These clippings are collected and<br />

disseminated via one of the most well read news services called: the Early Bird. It’s accessed<br />

by people starting from President Clinton down to a soldier in the field. It can be found on the<br />

army website (www.army.mil).<br />

ICT 25<br />

HQDA Data Sharing Initiative (HDSI)<br />

37 army databases were consolidated by DISC4 into a data warehouse. This initiative lead<br />

to:<br />

• Ground truth: one version for all analysis;<br />

• Single effort for data collection;<br />

• Data time synchronised;<br />

• Data descriptions stored in warehouse;<br />

• Frees analysts to analyse (NOT to collect data).<br />

One Web portal<br />

The current architecture is being changed rigorously due to the following problems:<br />

• Information is not easy to locate;<br />

• Multiple user IDs and passwords are required (due to stove-piped architecture);<br />

• Low information assurance;<br />

• Email addresses are location specific.<br />

The architecture being build is a personalised army portal, this portal ensures access to<br />

information from any place in the world. Army personnel can connect to the portal and use:<br />

enterprise mail, digital certificates, enterprise directory 26 , search mechanisms, E-forms,<br />

collaborative tools and a smart office (file cabinets, fax, newsgroups, army mail, calendar,<br />

help/FAQ, library access, live stream video, netmeeting and chatrooms). The benefits of this<br />

portal are huge:<br />

• Indexed and categorised information;<br />

• Single sign-on;<br />

• Secure access to web pages 27 ;<br />

• Email address does not change.<br />

25<br />

The Army Knowledge Office works together with EDS regarding the ICT parts of the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> project.<br />

EDS awarded the project in Marchy 1998.<br />

26<br />

Army personnel will be provided with life-time Email addresses, which are searchable by means of an army wide<br />

directory.<br />

27<br />

A Smart Card system will be used to secure the access to the portal by a strong user authentication.<br />

CIBIT 154<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


This architecture provides the army with the enabling infrastructure for <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> for now and in the future. It provides secure enterprise wide access and<br />

organisation to the army’s corporate body of <strong>knowledge</strong>.<br />

Army Websites 28<br />

The AKO developed and coordinates two major websites:<br />

• AO: Army Online: This is the army’s intranet, it has more than 13,000 users.<br />

http://www.us.army.mil<br />

• AHP: Army Home Page: This is the army’s public website, it has an average of<br />

65,000 visits a day. http://www.army.mil<br />

The army’s intranet is a portal to more than 1,200 army websites. The army’s public<br />

homepage contains a selection of content from the army’s intranet, it’s a means to keep<br />

civilians informed about the army’s operations.<br />

Integration of the baseline infrastructure<br />

One of the objectives of the AKO is to integrate the Army Home Page (AHP), Army Online<br />

(AO), the Army Flow Model (AFM) and the HQDA Data Sharing Initiative HDSI. Doing so the<br />

following product will be delivered:<br />

• an Army intranet (AO) with community chat rooms and discussion groups;<br />

• integrated models (AFM) for what-if decision making that allow cross-functional<br />

analysis of force-structure, budget, personnel, equipment and infrastructure;<br />

• a single source for reliable synchronised data (HDSI); and<br />

• internally and externally oriented web pages for information access.<br />

Support structure<br />

The supportive structure put in place for the <strong>knowledge</strong> infrastructure includes:<br />

• Business Development Group for Army Knowledge Office – part of the Strategic Army<br />

Computing Center (SACC) (12 people)<br />

• Executive Steering Committee<br />

• Daily Working Committee<br />

Change <strong>management</strong><br />

Relatively small central team<br />

Late 1997 the Army Knowledge Office was founded and counted three founding members.<br />

The AKO has been growing steadily since then. At the moment they count 25 people serving<br />

25,000 people. The end goal is to be serving 1.5 million people.<br />

28 It’s hard to describe these websites, the best way to get an idea of them is to visit them.<br />

CIBIT 155<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Mandate from the very top<br />

The <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> project is part of the vision of the Chief of Staff of the Army<br />

(the person in command of the army, General Dennis J. Reimer). His vision statement is:<br />

“Transform the institutional army into an information-age, networked organisation that<br />

leverages its intellectual capital to better organise, train and equip, and maintain a strategic<br />

land combat army force.”<br />

Top down approach<br />

Using the very senior Executive Steering Committee and starting with the 350 generals of<br />

the US Army, the AKO is generating a critical mass at the very top of the army. These 350<br />

senior people will ‘talk it down’ to the troups below, an so on. Finally <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong><br />

will become part of the norms and values of every member of the army. These are the rock<br />

solid anchors of the army – this that never change, whatever the structure of the army.<br />

Knowledge <strong>management</strong> is a cultural catalyst for Army XXI and AAN<br />

By means of the <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> initiatives of the AKO, the army will become more<br />

flexible with regard to the changes needed for the Army XXI and for future versions like the<br />

Army After Next. The projects of the AKO are the pilots of the future army structures and<br />

therefore serve as a catalyst.<br />

Applied methods<br />

No specific methods were used.<br />

Evaluation<br />

• After 2 years of Army Knowledge Online the US Department of the Army is the<br />

national leader in IT innovation (actually it’s number three on the list, but since<br />

number one and two are so much smaller state agencies (environmental protection<br />

agency and US Government printing office), the US Army can be called number one<br />

of the large state agencies).<br />

• The paperless web enabled Career Field Designation process is a true innovation – it<br />

gave insights that weren’t possible without intranet technology and it only took two<br />

months to implement.<br />

Key learnings<br />

• Top down approach - start with the generals<br />

• Institutionalise <strong>knowledge</strong> <strong>management</strong> by integration with norms and values<br />

• Use simple web based tools, not LAN based (to reduce local authorisations)<br />

CIBIT 156<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


References<br />

• www.army.mil<br />

• www.army.mil/ako/<br />

• www.us.army.mil<br />

• Briefing pack (selection of various internal presentations)<br />

Contact information<br />

United States Army<br />

Department of the Army<br />

Office of the Chief of Staff<br />

Lieutenant Colonel Nick Justice<br />

attn: DACS-GOM Rm 2E749<br />

200 Army Pentagon<br />

Washington, DC 20050-0200<br />

tel: +1 703 697 7994<br />

fax: +1 703 614 4256<br />

Email: Justice@us.army.mil<br />

CIBIT 157<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


The American Memory<br />

Abstract<br />

This <strong>case</strong> study describes what is called the American Memory,<br />

(memory.loc.gov/ammem/amhome.html) a public digital library containing collections on<br />

American History.<br />

The American Memory is an initiative of the Library of Congress, Washington D.C., USA<br />

(www.loc.gov) and is a major component of the Library's National Digital Library Program,<br />

are multimedia collections of digitized documents, photographs, recorded sound, moving<br />

pictures, and text from the Library's Americana collections.<br />

The American memory resulted from a pilot that ran from 1990 until 1995, in which the<br />

primary goal was to provide access to the american history collections of the Library of<br />

Congress to local libraries throughout the US, even in remote places. As an important effect<br />

of this pilot, it appeared that American Memory was used by the K-12 school community to<br />

build lessons on american history.<br />

Today, the American Memory has grown into a web-based digital library in which currently<br />

over 50 collections are available. The digital library is basically organised according to those<br />

collections, but through the search facilities, the collection compound forms no impediment.<br />

To respond to the need of both students and teachers, the American Memory provides what<br />

is called ‘The Learning Page’. The Learning Page is designed for teachers, school librarians,<br />

students, and life-long learners. It has tools to help users navigate the American Memory<br />

Historical Collections, activities, lesson ideas, teacher-created lesson plans, and other<br />

information to help guide educators and their students in using the American Memory<br />

Historical Collections' primary sources in classrooms<br />

Contact information:<br />

Carl Fleischhauer<br />

Coordinator American Memory Project<br />

National Digital Library<br />

Washington D.C, USA<br />

+1-202-707-6233<br />

cfle@loc.gov<br />

Situation scanning<br />

The American Memory is an initiative of the Library of Congress, Washington D.C., USA<br />

(www.loc.gov). It is a major component of the Library of Congress National Digital Library<br />

Program (NDL), and consists of multimedia collections of digitized documents, photographs,<br />

recorded sound, moving pictures, and text from the Library's Americana collections.<br />

There are currently over 50 collections in the American Memory Historical Collections. The<br />

American Memory in its current form grew out of a pilot that ran from 1990 until 1995. So the<br />

CIBIT 158<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


NDL is the larger whole in which the American Memory fits.<br />

On May 1, 1995, Librarian of Congress James H. Billington, the Commission on Preservation<br />

and Access and officials from 14 other research libraries and archives signed the National<br />

Digital Library Federation Agreement. Members hoping to digitize materials for students,<br />

scholars and citizens everywhere. 29<br />

With funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the NDL Program has been working with<br />

end users and conferring with teachers and students to determine the materials they would<br />

find most useful in electronic format.<br />

The Library is working with National Science Foundation recipient institutions as they conduct<br />

research on digital libraries. Collaborations with the University of Michigan for user interface<br />

and the University of California at Santa Barbara for Geographic Information Systems are<br />

two examples of such efforts.<br />

That the American Memory focuses on the digitization of American national history sources<br />

is not surprising in a sense. Of course, the first reason is the availability of the sources to the<br />

Library of Congress (this is a push component), second, the interest of the american<br />

audience in national history, already instigated in primary education adds to the success of<br />

the initiative (this is the pull component). From the early use <strong>studies</strong> it indeed appeared that<br />

K-12 schools are the prime audience of the system, because in this school system quite<br />

some attention to paid to american history teachings.<br />

Needs for change<br />

From the source material, it appears that the American Memory originally was intended for<br />

providing electronic versions of selected Library of Congress archival collections to US<br />

libraries. American Memory's primary audience is the broad educational community,<br />

encompassing K-12 schools, colleges, universities, and public libraries.<br />

American Memory focusses on bridging the gap between formal and informal learning<br />

through providing access to american history collections of the Library of Congress in public<br />

libraries, situated on the periphery of the educational community, that serve as vital links<br />

between formal and informal learning - especially in rural locations.<br />

It is worth noting that the audience definition broadens the outreach of the Library of<br />

Congress in two ways. First, it extends access to the content of the Library's collections to<br />

individuals throughout the nation. Second, it offers access to students who are presently<br />

denied access to the Library's physical reading rooms. It should also be noted that American<br />

Memory was not viewed as an "educational" product from the outset of the project. However,<br />

it was noted that American Memory electronic collections -- like physical libraries -- can<br />

provide library service to the educational community from which potentially broad<br />

educational benefits will follow.<br />

Design and implementation<br />

During the pilot that ran from 1990 until 1995, various technologies to diffuse the content of<br />

the library to the points of contact have been used, varying from videodisks, CD-ROM to on-<br />

29<br />

It appears that the Library of Congress, in cooperation with the Association of American Publishers, has been<br />

negotiating to select and make available electronically copyrighted multimedia American history materials<br />

under collective licensing agreements to schools and libraries. The results of these negotiations are not<br />

known to the compilers of this <strong>case</strong> study.<br />

CIBIT 159<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


line connections.<br />

American Memory's choices of technology during the pilot reflected the central feature of the<br />

on-line environment: digital diversity. In order to reproduce collections of books, pamphlets,<br />

motion pictures, manuscripts and sound recordings, the project created a wide array of digital<br />

entities: bi-tonal document images, grayscale and color pictorial images, digital video and<br />

audio, and searchable texts. To provide access to the reproductions, the project developed a<br />

range of descriptive elements: bibliographic records, finding aids, introductory texts and<br />

programs and searchable full texts.<br />

Reproductions were produced with a variety of tools: scanners, digital cameras, audio and<br />

video digitizers and human labor for rekeying and encoding texts. American Memory<br />

employed national-standard and industry-standard formats for many digital reproductions, for<br />

example, texts encoded with Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) and images<br />

stored in Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) files or compressed with the Joint Photographic<br />

Experts Group (JPEG) algorithm. In other <strong>case</strong>s-notably for moving images and recorded<br />

sound-the lack of widespread formats forced the pilot program to use ad hoc solutions.<br />

Of particular note is the Library's development of an SGML markup scheme for historical<br />

texts and documents. The scheme conforms to the guidelines of the Text Encoding Initiative,<br />

an international-standards effort promulgated by humanities scholars in a number of<br />

universities and other institutions.<br />

The greatest challenge in the digitization of historical collections is finding appropriate ways<br />

to handle rare manuscripts, glass plate negatives, bound books and other fragile originals.<br />

During the pilot, specialist contractors brought their equipment to the Library and digitized the<br />

physical artifacts under the watchful eyes of Library staff members.<br />

The cataloging and other descriptive data for access were created by Library staff. The<br />

participating divisions made a special effort to find efficient means to produce these data,<br />

often using a new PC-based cataloging software introduced to the Library by American<br />

Memory with the cooperation of the Library's Automation Planning and Liaison Office<br />

(APLO). For two collections, access to the items was furnished by a set of hierarchical<br />

menus, a rough-and-ready precursor to the on-line finding aids now being developed by the<br />

NDLP.<br />

The collections that were digitized during the American Memory pilot provided an interesting<br />

mix of rights issues, including what most people perceive as the "copyright archetype," an<br />

item for which the identity of the copyright owner is known. In one instance, the American<br />

Memory team sought and received permission from a dozen publishers and artists to<br />

reproduce 200 political cartoons on an evaluation CD-ROM. In another <strong>case</strong>, the team<br />

searched about 500 copyright records for a group of photographs and determined that none<br />

of the original copyright registrations had been renewed, thus permitting the Library to<br />

provide electronic access to the collection.<br />

To date, the American Memory is a web-based system that uses, apart from standard webtools,<br />

various home-developed tools. For an overview of current technological issues, visit<br />

memory.loc.gov/ammem/amhome.html.<br />

In terms of staffing, the National Digital Library, of which the American Memory is part of,<br />

basically consists of four groups:<br />

Curatorial Staff. Staff assigned to the curatorial divisions prepare and process materials to be<br />

digitized. Curatorial staff also perform on-site digitization-materials that include rare and<br />

fragile items such as early drafts of the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg<br />

Address.<br />

Core Staff. NDL Program core staff work with the Library's divisions to prepare and describe<br />

the collections, verify the status of copyright and seek permission for use of the materials<br />

when appropriate, digitize the materials and verify that they adhere to the Library of<br />

CIBIT 160<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Congress's standards of quality. Digital conversion specialists in the central office provide<br />

project coordination and technical oversight. The more experienced specialists oversee<br />

collection development and production, serving as team leaders and as brokers among the<br />

division and automation staff and contractors.<br />

Infrastructure Staff. Infrastructure staff are primarily information systems experts who build<br />

and maintain the automated systems that store and provide access to the digital collections.<br />

These are the staff who must unscramble and make useful the world of the Internet.<br />

Educational Services Staff. The educational services staff focus on educational outreach for<br />

the use of the historical collections by the K-12 community. They research user needs, talk to<br />

the education communities, evaluate technologies for delivery of digitized materials,<br />

coordinate collection selection and develop and supervise contracts.<br />

Change <strong>management</strong><br />

A good summary of the formation and the approach to the design of the American Memory is<br />

given in a periodic report from The National Digital Library Program, The Library of<br />

Congress, November/December 1995 (No. 4) ISSN 1083-3978:<br />

• “The American Memory pilot was the seed that eventually grew into the National Digital<br />

Library Program, with its emphasis on digitizing the Library of Congress's historical<br />

collections-the "nation's memory."<br />

• The pilot, which ran from 1990 to 1995, identified the audiences for digital collections,<br />

established technical procedures, wrestled with intellectual property issues, demonstrated<br />

options for distribution and began institutionalizing a digital effort at the Library of<br />

Congress.<br />

• The American Memory pilot identified multiple audiences for digital collections in a special<br />

survey, an end-user evaluation and in thousands of conversations, letters and encounters<br />

with visitors. In 1989, to help launch the project, a consultant surveyed 101 members of<br />

the Association of Research Libraries and the 51 State Library agencies. The survey<br />

disclosed a genuine appetite for on-line collections, especially in research libraries<br />

serving higher education.<br />

• The most thorough audience appraisal resulted from an end-user evaluation conducted in<br />

1992-1993. Forty-four school, college and university, and state and public libraries were<br />

provided with a dozen American Memory collections on CD-ROMs and videodisks.<br />

Participating library staff, teachers, students and the public were polled about which<br />

digitized materials they had used and how well the delivery systems worked.<br />

• The evaluation indicated continued interest by institutions of higher education as well as<br />

public libraries. The surprising finding, however, was the strong showing of enthusiasm in<br />

schools, especially at the secondary level.<br />

• The evaluation team learned that recent reforms in education had created a need for<br />

primary-source historical materials, such as those in the Library's incomparable<br />

collections. Teachers welcomed digitized collections to aid in the development of critical<br />

thinking skills; school librarians used the electronic resource to inculcate research skills.<br />

• The corollary to audience, of course, is distribution. The American Memory pilot explored<br />

this topic through CD-ROM production for the end-user evaluation, public-private<br />

demonstration projects and in the placement of selected collections on the Internet's<br />

World Wide Web.<br />

• Electronic collections were provided to the 44 end-user evaluation sites from 1991 to<br />

1994 on a set of CD-ROM disks, some of which were supplemented by videodisks that<br />

contained still- and moving-image materials. Disks were produced for IBM-compatible<br />

CIBIT 161<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


(DOS and Windows) and Apple Macintosh computers. One CD-ROM employed the<br />

experimental "XA" format as a means to present sound recordings.<br />

• The production of CD-ROMs was more challenging than expected. For example, diskproduction<br />

contractors had difficulty identifying software that could search texts or<br />

bibliographic records and also display document facsimiles. The CD-ROMs produced in<br />

1992 had to be re-engineered in 1993 or 1994 when newer versions of the underlying<br />

operating-system software were introduced.<br />

• Meanwhile, two private-sector CD-ROMs resulted from American Memory's distribution<br />

demonstration projects. Stokes Imaging of Austin, Texas, has published a Civil War<br />

photographs CD-ROM and World Library Inc. will publish a CD-ROM with the full texts<br />

and illustrations of 192 books about California history.<br />

• Two other public-private demonstration projects involve companies that are<br />

experimenting with on-line delivery: Bell Atlantic, a regional telephone company, and<br />

Jones Intercable, a television cable company. In both <strong>case</strong>s, the companies have a<br />

special interest in providing access to school communities and are using American<br />

Memory collections in test sites: Bell Atlantic in Union City, N.J., and Jones Intercable in<br />

Alexandria, Va.; Littleton, Colo.; and Palmdale, Calif. The technologies for these two online<br />

demonstrations are still evolving.<br />

• Issues other than known-owner copyright, however, are more frequent and challenging in<br />

archival collections. In the <strong>case</strong> of a group of folk music recordings, for example, the<br />

team faced not only the question of identifying composers, but also accommodating the<br />

rights of the song collector and the folk performers. (This complex investigation is still<br />

under way.) Meanwhile, privacy and publicity rights emerged in the <strong>case</strong> of photographs.<br />

One collection, for example, included portraits of celebrities. The pilot team began to<br />

establish procedures for <strong>case</strong>s such as these, but many details remain unresolved.<br />

• The selection of collections to digitize was strongly influenced by the elements described<br />

above. Considerations of audience, including a desire to serve the nation's schools, for<br />

example, guided the Library to collections that illuminate American culture and history.<br />

The evaluation indicated that content that relates to school curricula has high value. In<br />

addition, emphasis was given to the Library's unique special-collections holdings.<br />

• Another important consideration in selection is the "fit" of certain formats to technology,<br />

meaning both the technology to digitize and the technology for distribution. Photographs<br />

and other pictorial materials, manuscripts and printed matter were favored, because their<br />

methods for capture and digital formats are well established. In contrast, the sheer size of<br />

the digital file required to contain a legible image weighed against the selection of maps<br />

for the pilot.<br />

• Selection was also influenced by a collection's copyright status, readiness of cataloging<br />

and the degree to which selection will support other Library of Congress activities,<br />

ranging from arrearage (backlog) reduction to exhibitions and publications.<br />

• The American Memory pilot provided a model for digital access to historical collections as<br />

well as a method for institutionalizing the effort at the Library. It demonstrated that<br />

achieving this goal required the contribution of many Library units or-put another way-that<br />

the work of digitization must be dispersed broadly within the institution. In this, the<br />

American Memory pilot followed the path charted by the Library's Optical Disk Pilot<br />

Project (1982-1987); in fact, several members of the American Memory team were<br />

veterans of that earlier effort.<br />

• During the American Memory pilot, interoffice cooperation was manifest in a number of<br />

ways. For example, the project received regular and helpful guidance in matters of<br />

intellectual property from the Copyright Office. In 1991-1992, American Memory and<br />

Information Technology Services (ITS), the Library's computer center, demonstrated an<br />

early model for on-line access with assistance from IBM. In 1994, ITS and the American<br />

Memory team began preparing collections for the World Wide Web.<br />

• The Preservation Office provided conservation treatment for a number of American<br />

Memory collections. In a special experiment, American Memory staff and Preservation<br />

Office conservators digitized four Walt Whitman notebooks and placed the resulting<br />

images on the Internet. The experiment also produced a preservation microfilm.<br />

• The American Memory pilot offered a microcosm of the digitization of historical collections<br />

and helped blaze the trail for the National Digital Library Program's historical collections<br />

CIBIT 162<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


activity. The success of the pilot has helped the Library raise private funds and win<br />

congressional support to continue and expand the effort.”<br />

Applied methods<br />

To understand the applied methods in the American Memory, one should have a look at the<br />

checklist that is used to upload content to the website of the American Memory. This<br />

checklist can be found at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amhome.html.<br />

Evaluation<br />

The American Memory <strong>case</strong> study shows one example of many digital library initiatives, in<br />

this <strong>case</strong> with a particular success in the educational community. The American Memory is<br />

basically a digitized version of existing history collections (and is organized that way),<br />

bringing american history closer to the (american) citizen. If we look with a broader<br />

perspective at the concept of digital libraries, the vision that is presented by Dan Atkins (in:<br />

An International Research Agenda for Digital Libraries, Summary Report of the Series of Joint NSF-EU Working Groups<br />

on Future Directions for Digital Libraries Research, October 12, 1998, Editors: Peter Schäuble and Alan F. Smeaton)<br />

helps us to evaluate what the differences between traditional and digital libraries are, and<br />

what current issues are:<br />

“The integration and use of computing, communications, and digital content on a global scale,<br />

combined with the increasing possibility of cost effective digitization and convergence of<br />

formerly separate media types has created the conditions for new infrastructure/environments<br />

to support humans (as individuals and organizations) in distributed <strong>knowledge</strong>-based<br />

activities. We are in fact in the early stages of understanding the implications of these<br />

technologies and even what to call the environments they will enable us to create. (We are at<br />

the "horse-less carriage" stage of understanding of form and function.) Terms such as<br />

"<strong>knowledge</strong> networks," "collaboratories," and digital libraries are being used with overlapping<br />

meaning. There is also a strong overlap between R&D on architecture for federating a<br />

distributed, autonomous set of digital collections and services, and the architectural<br />

requirements for large-scale electronic commerce. Some argue that digital libraries are in fact<br />

a specific <strong>case</strong> of an information economy (brokering environment.)<br />

The concept of a digital library arose from the analogy with a place-based repository library<br />

containing an organized collection of print-on-paper and other physical artifacts combined<br />

with systems and services to facilitate physical, intellectual, and long-term access. The initial<br />

emphasis was on the retrospective conversion of print-on-paper objects into digital objects,<br />

usually page images, flat-text, compound documents of text and image, and/or structured<br />

documents. These digital versions of traditional library holdings offer distance-independent<br />

access, full-text searching, and potentially more powerful ways of finding timely and relevant<br />

information. Investment in retrospective conversion of physical objects to digital form, albeit<br />

not well coordinated, is continuing to increase.<br />

Beyond retrospective conversion, the emergence of the world wide web has accelerated<br />

broad appreciation that we are now inventing new genres - new broadly understood<br />

document types - that have no print-on-paper equivalent but exist only in a digital<br />

CIBIT 163<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


computer/communication world. Furthermore wider audiences are now understanding that<br />

the underlying technology of digital libraries is so vastly different from the underlying<br />

technology of paper and ink. Digital information can be moved near the speed of light, stored<br />

at atomic scales of density, and converged into new document types combining, text, image,<br />

graphics, video, audio, hyperlinks, computational applets, and more. Digital libraries include<br />

the capabilities of physical libraries but potentially go well beyond them in scope and<br />

meaning. (What we are definitely not addressing well enough are questions of how we will<br />

preserve very long-term access to digital collections and continue to preserve our heritage<br />

with digital-only objects.)<br />

One of the most obvious differences is the potential for a world wide digital library - not a<br />

centralized repository - but rather an enormous distributed but interoperable system or market<br />

of organizationally autonomous collections and services. Furthermore the line between the<br />

digital library as a system for access of information and the digital library as the environment<br />

for creating and sharing information, particularly as part of a group activity will become<br />

increasingly blurred. The WWW is a crude, early form.<br />

Most traditional libraries have already moved into the hybrid age of print-on-paper and digital<br />

resources but much more transformation is in the offing. One prominent researcher has<br />

proposed the following dimensions for exploring the potential differences between traditional<br />

and digital libraries:<br />

Traditional libraries are stable and slowly evolving; digital libraries are highly dynamic, ephemeral and versioned.<br />

Traditional libraries hold atomic objects of mostly print in big crisp chunks; digital libraries hold inter-linked, multi-media<br />

objects which are multi-size, fractal, and ill-defined.<br />

Traditional libraries hold objects with largely flat structure and minimal context and meta information; digital libraries<br />

support documents with significant internal scaffold structure and significant context/meta information which might be<br />

automatically extracted.<br />

Traditional (academic) libraries hold objects which are scholar-authored and pre-credentialled through a ponderous<br />

publishing stream; digital libraries allow anyone to publish in a lightweight way, and can support pre-credentialling or<br />

credentially through use.<br />

Traditional libraries are based upon centralized control and relatively few access locations; digital libraries can be<br />

distributed and ubiquitous.<br />

In traditional libraries the objects are physically and logically co-controlled; in digital libraries the physical and logical<br />

organizations can be separated (allows virtual collections).<br />

The tradition of public libraries is universal access and free; digital libraries could be similar in this regard, or digital<br />

libraries could support rich layers of access control and <strong>management</strong> of terms and conditions.<br />

Traditional libraries support one-way, loosely coupled (slow) interaction; digital libraries support two-way communication<br />

with tight, fast interaction.<br />

Traditional libraries are based upon a model of one-way search (a consumer looking for an object); digital libraries<br />

support symmetric search (consumer looking for an object an producer of the object looking for a consumer).<br />

In traditional libraries structured text queries (and some browsing) are used to aid intellectual access; in digital libraries<br />

complex interactions of query, navigation/browsing, and social filtering can be used.<br />

This list is not necessarily good versus bad. It is rather an attempt to stretch the vision of<br />

differences between the digital library as a simulation of a traditional library and entirely new<br />

modes of support the life cycle of information creation, distribution, use, and preservation.<br />

The realization of these potentials, particular in ways that are human-centered and serve all<br />

of society, is a major challenge requiring a complex interaction between social and technical<br />

disciplines, informed by theory, but grounded and informed by carefully selected pilot<br />

(testbed) projects. The NSF DLI 1 projects have stressed not only the need for relevant basic<br />

research in supporting technologies, but also for validating this research in the construction<br />

and field testing of real digital libraries with useful collections.<br />

Our taxonomy for exploring a joint EU-US research agenda has been based upon five topical<br />

CIBIT 164<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


groups: interoperability, metadata, intellectual property rights and economic issues, resource<br />

indexing and discovery in a globally distributed digital library, and multilingual information<br />

retrieval. These 5 areas are an attempt to cover the key research areas relevant to the<br />

realization of a global digital library supporting access to millions of geographically and<br />

organizationally distributed collections and services. There will not be a central <strong>management</strong><br />

authority, but rather an architecture which enables and provides incentive for producers and<br />

consumers of collections and services to find and transact with each other in mutually<br />

agreeable ways.<br />

Interoperability, particularly in evolutionary ways, at many levels of abstraction, is a necessity<br />

and still poorly understood in a general way. Because of the scale of such an endeavor,<br />

metadata as surrogates and finding aids to target objects will continue to be of primary<br />

importance even as more structured, self-describing documents come into use. The issues of<br />

metadata standards, accommodation of heterogeneity in metadata, and automatic generation<br />

of metadata require additional work.<br />

The greatest barrier to broader deployment of digital libraries with high quality, highly<br />

credentialled context are economic and intellectual property issues, appropriated reinterpreted<br />

and implemented in the digital world. Furthermore, economic models provide the<br />

basis for scarce resource allocation and creation of incentives for participation in the type of<br />

distributed, autonomous digital library mentioned earlier. The same technology that offers the<br />

potential to help people find information they need and want, is also, at least know, fueling<br />

information overload. This together with the dynamic, ephemeral nature of WWW-enabled<br />

digital libraries, places great demand on middleware to support intelligent resource<br />

discovered and characterization (e.g. indexing). And finally , multilingual issues, mostly<br />

ignored in the (US) NSF funded DLI, is of critical importance in the EU and becoming more so<br />

in the USA. It is clearly critical to interoperability and the semantic level.<br />

Learnings from the American Memory for the Piazza<br />

di Ninive<br />

This latter expose on issues and the future of digital libraries is useful in itself for the<br />

development of the Piazza di Ninive. However, the compilers of this <strong>case</strong> study feel that a<br />

few elements are missing in the <strong>case</strong> study at hand that are most relevant for the Piazza<br />

itself:<br />

A community support infrastructure: Most digital libraries are mainly repositories of digitized<br />

content (sometimes active through notification mechanisms that alert users to particular new<br />

content that fits their interest profile) and not so much vehicles for exchange and<br />

development in a particular community. It is strongly felt that although the provision of an<br />

electronic collection of documents is an important functionality of the Piazza di Ninive, the<br />

real important part is the functionality for exchange and mutual development of the<br />

profession of teaching in Italy.<br />

An easy to use content uploading mechanism: Furthermore, it is observed that content<br />

uploading in the digital library described in this <strong>case</strong> study cannot be done by members of the<br />

user community. For <strong>knowledge</strong> sharing and development, easy-to-use content uploading<br />

mechanisms are a sine-qua-non for a support environment like the Piazza di Ninive.<br />

Content focussed on lessons learned. The content in the American Memory stems from<br />

existing collections and was not authored intentionally to convey lessons learned on<br />

american history to the users of the American Memory. In the Piazza di Ninive <strong>case</strong><br />

CIBIT 165<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


however, the content of the website should very much be focussed on experience sharing in<br />

the Italian educational community. Ways of working for lessons learned authoring, sharing<br />

and use are missing from the American Memory <strong>case</strong> study.<br />

Content categorisation. The American Memory uses a content categorisation system that is<br />

inherited from the librarian tradition. In the Piazza di Ninive <strong>case</strong>, content categorisation<br />

should follow the mental models of the users in the educational community. The elicitation of<br />

these mental models in an important task necessary to feed the information design of the<br />

Piazza di Ninive website.<br />

Mingling content with lessons. The American Memory provides a good example on how to<br />

mingle existing content with the possibility to create and follow lessons. In this respect, the<br />

Learning Page functionality of the American Memory can inspire the developers of the<br />

Piazza di Ninive.<br />

Digitizing content seems time-consuming. Although it is not clear to the compilers of this <strong>case</strong><br />

study how much effort was put in the development of the American Memory, the time frame<br />

of development and the importance with which the initiative was endorsed suggests that the<br />

development of a digital library is a time consuming activity, that stretches years rather than<br />

months. It should be noted that the compilers of this <strong>case</strong> study have not investigated timeto-market<br />

parameters of this and other digital libraries.<br />

References<br />

The following references are relevant for this <strong>case</strong> study:<br />

Web references:<br />

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amhome.html (the American Memory website). This website<br />

provides much of the material that is presented in this <strong>case</strong> study.<br />

http://www.acm.org/dl (the digital library of the ACM). This digital library uses an e-commerce<br />

facility to charge users for obtaining copies of the documents in the library.<br />

http://computer.org/epub (the digital library of the IEEE computing society)<br />

http://www.jstor.org (the online scholarly journal archive)<br />

http://www.informedia.cs.cmu.edu (the terabyte digital video library project). This digital<br />

library is a show<strong>case</strong> for the integration of video processing, speech processing, information<br />

retrieval and image processing, containing e.g. video news of CNN, documentary video from<br />

the British Open University, as well as material from several US government agencies. As of<br />

May 1998, the library contained more than 1000 hours of news and 400 hours of<br />

documentary video.<br />

http://www.nzdl.org (the New Zealand digital library). This digital library offers multi-lingual<br />

interfaces to its collections, as well as special retrieval engines for nontextual information.<br />

http://www-diglib.stanford.edu (the Stanford digital library). Within the Stanford digital library<br />

initiative, the Stanford Digital Library Infobus has been developed, to be able to broker digital<br />

library services such as document summarization, on-line payment, rights <strong>management</strong>,<br />

query translation and metadata <strong>management</strong> for distributed collections that are using<br />

different standards. Through the infobus, implemented as a distributed CORBA-based object<br />

CIBIT 166<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


system, users can access digital library services without being aware of the standards that<br />

are used by the resources providing the service: the infobus operates as a broker between<br />

the user and the service providers. This is particularly important, because the Infobus<br />

provides a mechanism to overcome interoperability issues.<br />

http://www.cimic.rutgers.edu/~adl (the Advanced in Digital Libraries conference website).<br />

This conference is a platform for exchange in the digital library research and practitioners<br />

community. For others, see below.<br />

http://www.area.pi.cnr.it/ErcimDL/ (The ERCIM Digital Library Initiative website).<br />

Journal Special Issues on Digital Libraries:<br />

Communications of the ACM. Special Issue on Digital Libraries. April 1995, 38(4).<br />

ERCIM (European Research Council for Informatics and Mathematics) News. A Special<br />

Issue on Digital Libraries. October 1996, Vol. 27.<br />

IEEE Computer. Special Issue on the U.S. Digital Library Initiative. May 1996.<br />

IEEE Computer. Special Issue on Digital Libraries Challenges. February 1999.<br />

SIGLINK Newsletter. Special Issue on Digital Libraries. September 1995, 4(2).<br />

Digital Library Journals:<br />

D-Lib Magazine. "The Magazine of Digital Library Research." July 1995 - Present.<br />

International Journal on Digital Libraries. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany. 1996-present.<br />

Conferences/Proceedings:<br />

Organizing the Global Digital Library (OGDL): Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries.<br />

The International Symposium on Research, Development, & Practice in Digital Libraries<br />

(ISDL).<br />

ACM International Conference on Digital Libraries.<br />

International Conference on Conceptions of Library and Information Science (CoLIS).<br />

IEEE Advances in Digital Libraries (ADL) Conference.<br />

European Conference on Research and Advanced Technology for Digital Libraries (ECDL).<br />

DELOS Series of Workshop Proceedings.<br />

Reports:<br />

An International Research Agenda for Digital Libraries, Summary Report of the Series of<br />

Joint NSF-EU Working Groups on Future Directions for Digital Libraries Research, October<br />

12, 1998, Editors: Peter Schäuble and Alan F. Smeaton.<br />

This report gives an excellent overview of current issues in digital libraries research as well<br />

as visions on how digital libraries will evolve in the future.<br />

People:<br />

Digital libraries experts contacted for this <strong>case</strong> study:<br />

Costantino Thanos - IEI-CNR<br />

ERCIM DLI Coordinator<br />

Tel: +39 50 593429<br />

E-mail: thanos@iei.pi.cnr.it<br />

Alan Smeaton<br />

Dublin City University<br />

asmeaton@compapp.dcu.ie<br />

Contact information American Memory:<br />

Carl Fleischhauer<br />

CIBIT 167<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Coordinator American Memory Project<br />

National Digital Library<br />

Washington D.C, USA<br />

+1-202-707-6233<br />

cfle@loc.gov<br />

CIBIT 168<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


NDL Statement<br />

An NDL statement is added to the <strong>case</strong> study to better understand the backgrounds. It is the<br />

result of an interview that was held with the Operations Manager of the National Digital<br />

Library Programme. The protocol was provided by Bob Zich to Kenniscentrum CIBIT.<br />

Agency:<br />

Library of Congress (LOC), National Digital Library Program (NDLP)<br />

URL:<br />

http://www.loc.gov/, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/dli2/html/lcndlp.html<br />

Contacts:<br />

Bob Zich, Director of Electronic Programs, NDLP, 202-707-8330,<br />

rzic@loc.gov;<br />

Nancy Eichacker, Operations Manager, NDLP, 202-707-1335, neic@loc.gov<br />

Interview: conducted on the phone 04 May 1999 by Kristina Pleiss<br />

Note: Except where noted, the following information applies to the NDLP<br />

within the LOC, which accounts for about 90% of the total LOC Web site<br />

content.<br />

Background:<br />

The LOC has a total of about 4500 employees. The Web site was initiated in<br />

July 1994, and currently consists of a significant, although undetermined,<br />

number of documents.<br />

[E.g. The National Digital Library alone is projected to consist of 6.85<br />

million digital files by the end of 2000.] It receives over 90 million hits<br />

per month (including the library catalog).<br />

1. How are you organized to provide Internet Services? What are the full<br />

time equivalents (FTEs) for the following roles and where are they<br />

assigned? (IS department, business unit, Public Relations department, etc):<br />

Developer/Programmer (HTML, Scripting, Java, etc.):<br />

Content Development (editors, writers and other administrative roles<br />

dedicated specifically to content)<br />

Graphics Designers<br />

System Administrators (Web Server, File Wall, other infrastructure)<br />

Other: (Network and Server Engineering, Management, etc.):<br />

The NDLP has a total of 95 full-time employees, out of which 65 are<br />

involved in Web production. Although it is difficult to quantify since<br />

multiple roles are performed<br />

(see #2), the following FTEs apply: 3 developer/programmers, 7 graphic<br />

designers, and 6 system administrators.<br />

2. Do Web workers perform multiple roles? (for example, develop content, do<br />

graphic design and program HTML)<br />

Most Web developers perform multiple roles such as programming HTML and<br />

graphic design.<br />

Content development, however, is a distinct, full-time activity.<br />

3. What roles do your various Business Units play in developing and<br />

managing the site?<br />

Most of the sections within the LOC Web site operate relatively<br />

autonomously in regard to both Web production and policy. Approval of Web<br />

CIBIT 169<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


pages is the responsibility of each business unit, although all documents<br />

must comply with the LOC Internet<br />

guidelines (see #8).<br />

The Publishing Board, composed of <strong>management</strong> with few Web-related<br />

responsibilities, determines high-level policy.<br />

4. What roles does your Information Services department play?<br />

The Information Technical Services unit has leased 6 system administrators<br />

to the NDLP.<br />

In addition, it performs system administration, network engineering, and<br />

related tasks on an organization-wide basis.<br />

5. Do you have a Marketing, Communications or Public Relations department?<br />

If so what roles do they play?<br />

The Public Relations Officer plays a major role in establishing both the<br />

design and the purpose of the main LOC Web site. Each section (e.g. the<br />

NDLP), however, operates relatively autonomously in regard to both Web<br />

production and policy.<br />

6. Do you contract out any portions of your Web development?<br />

Document conversion services (i.e. large-scale scanning) are contracted out<br />

on a multi-year basis. Only limited scanning for online exhibits and rush<br />

projects is performed in-house. All other Web production is performed by<br />

NDLP staff.<br />

7. How often do you change or update your design?<br />

The NDLP Web site is redesigned approximately every two years. Typically,<br />

major updates are due to the Web developers' collective desire to modernize<br />

or simply change the design. The main LOC site was recently redesigned in<br />

order to highlight the agency's upcoming bicentennial.<br />

8. How did you develop your design standards? What resources did you use to<br />

determine "best practice"?<br />

No formal process exists for developing design standards at the NDLP,<br />

although the Web<br />

Style Guide (http://lcweb.loc.gov/loc/webstyle/) has existed since late<br />

1997. Design ideas are gleaned from a general familiarity with Internet<br />

trends as well as actively looking at Web sites from other cultural<br />

institutions and government<br />

agencies. In order to offer the broadest site accessibility, especially for<br />

schools, a minimalist<br />

approach is followed and certain limits are placed on what technologies or<br />

features can be included (e.g. Java, frames). A different set of design<br />

standards are enforced among university grantees to ensure both<br />

interoperability and a common interface.<br />

9. Could you describe your site content <strong>management</strong> processes and/or<br />

tools/software/DBMS you use?<br />

Site content <strong>management</strong> processes vary depending on the collection. There<br />

is no standard "toolkit" for Web production, with each individual developer<br />

utilizing a number of common software packages (e.g. PhotoShop, HTML<br />

editors). Because development of the<br />

CIBIT 170<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


LOC Web site is decentralized, no site <strong>management</strong> software is utilized.<br />

Note that due to the LOC's emphasis on information retrieval, techniques<br />

for capturing and storing metadata are employed.<br />

10. If you provide news stories, how long are these archived? Are there<br />

plans to archive them in some other way when the number of articles becomes<br />

great?<br />

In accordance with the LOC's strong support for digital preservation<br />

efforts, all NDLP Web documents - with the exception of daily announcements<br />

- are archived indefinitely.<br />

11. What is your annual budget for Web development and <strong>management</strong>?<br />

The annual NDLP budget is $12 million, about half of which is allotted to<br />

salaries.<br />

12. What is your strategy for the next two-to-five years?<br />

The long-term strategy for the NDLP Web site is determined by the Digital<br />

Futures Group.<br />

It is anticipated to be at least a continuation, and possibly an increase,<br />

of the current efforts. Specific tentative plans include hiring an external<br />

consultant to perform a Web site usability study.<br />

13. Do you measure return on investment, If so how?<br />

No formal mechanisms exist for measuring ROI at the NDLP. Due to the<br />

combination of government ($20 million) and private ($45 million) monies,<br />

there is no lack of funding.<br />

In addition, since the program is viewed as a proof-of-concept effort, the<br />

extreme start-up costs are not unexpected. Two types of existing ROI-like<br />

measures are user surveys and individual reporting requirements for each<br />

corporate sponsor. Note that there is a strong organizational mandate to<br />

continue providing NLDP documents on the Web at no charge to the public.<br />

ADDENDUM<br />

My interpretation of content developer is that<br />

> it is the staff that is involved with collection selection,<br />

> processing, organization (finding aid and database work, image<br />

> linking, file naming), and packaging for web publication. That<br />

> packaging step is what we refer to as the development of framing<br />

> materials, or the collection framework. In the NDLP production<br />

> operation we have teams of these content staff who are organized<br />

> roughly by organizational affiliation--by the LC division with which<br />

> they work. We have a number of production teams (one that works with<br />

> the Rare Book Division, one for Prints and Photographs, one for<br />

> Geography and Maps, Manuscripts, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and<br />

> Recorded Sound, Music, American Folklife Center, the Law Library, and<br />

> General Collections). We also have a project team for African<br />

> American Collections and two other special project teams. Finally, we<br />

> have what we call a production team and editorial team, which provide<br />

> technical production support and editing services to the other<br />

> production teams. There are 52 staff who work on this array of<br />

> teams. Although we tap into the staff of the divisions themselves<br />

> (curatorial and processing staff) for their collections <strong>knowledge</strong>, I<br />

CIBIT 171<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


� do not think of them as direct project support and have not counted<br />

� > them in my total of 52.<br />

CIBIT 172<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Annex: <strong>case</strong> study long lists<br />

Private sector <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> long list<br />

N°<br />

Organisation Size Project<br />

name/Specification<br />

Name /URL Further Research Case / Design<br />

1. 3COM ?EK N (long shot) ?<br />

2. 3M Exploitation of <strong>knowledge</strong>, John Howells N (long shot) C<br />

learning and sharing<br />

culture,<br />

interface<br />

customer<br />

3. American memory and<br />

Whole host of heavy duty systems for Y, if interested in D<br />

other digital library systems<br />

retrieving rich information, interesting from a technology foundations for<br />

(technical) design point of view for Piazza di heavy duty community<br />

Ninive.<br />

systems<br />

http://memory.loc.gov/<br />

4. Amoco Corporation Dave Ledet, Wanda Jones Known <strong>case</strong>, no description<br />

found<br />

C<br />

5. AMS (American 8000 Knowledge based<br />

N C<br />

Management Systems)<br />

Communities of Practice<br />

6. Anglian Water Encyclopaedia on ?Eelco contact<br />

Y (from perspective of C / D<br />

water/system to enable<br />

creation, collection and<br />

http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/ design)<br />

dissemination<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> of water<br />

of<br />

7. Arthur Andersen Knowledge Repository Terry Finerty, Wendi Buckowitz, William Ives Y C /D<br />

8. Bass Brewers Intranet with various Mike Maryon N C<br />

publishing services<br />

9. Bekaert Group Jan Sijnave Known <strong>case</strong>, no description<br />

found<br />

?<br />

10. Boeing Steven Poltrock, Lisa Pratt N (long shot) C<br />

11. BRINT WWW<br />

Yoghesh Malhotra Y (from perspective of C / D<br />

users<br />

design)<br />

12. British American Tobacco Intranet Brian O’Connell C<br />

13. British Petroleum Virtual Teamwork, already<br />

working on the 2 nd Kent Greenes Y (Rated as one of the most C<br />

level of<br />

elaborate KM projects)<br />

CIBIT 173<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


the KM project,<br />

connecting <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

and strategic focus<br />

14. British Telecom Their intranet is<br />

amazingly good,<br />

according to various<br />

media and experts. The<br />

intranet supports their<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

culture of communities of<br />

interest and it includes<br />

agent technology with<br />

various functions,<br />

Grapevine, search<br />

engines, et cetera.<br />

15. Buckman Labs 1300 K’Netix (Knowledge<br />

Infrastructure for sharing<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong>) / Multi-lingual<br />

learning<br />

center/Communities of<br />

practice,<br />

learning)<br />

interest and<br />

16. Caltex Intranet to support<br />

17. Chevron<br />

network of professionals<br />

Best Practice Transfer,<br />

learning organisation,<br />

18. Contact Consortium<br />

Communities<br />

Hub for experiences for<br />

design of virtual<br />

19. Department of Defense<br />

environments<br />

Center for Army Lessons<br />

Learned (CALL)/ Lessons<br />

Learned sharing system<br />

20. Department of Energy The Department of<br />

Energy Lessons Learned<br />

Programme/Lessons<br />

Learned sharing system<br />

(DOELLIS)<br />

Mick Cope, Seona McGregor, Scott Stewart Y C / D<br />

Melissie Rumizen, Sheldon Ellis Y (Rated as one of the most<br />

elaborate KM projects)<br />

Barry Hobson N C<br />

Jim Tighe, Patti Wagner, Jeffrey Stemke Y (Frequently remarked as<br />

the <strong>case</strong> study for<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> transfer)<br />

Bruce Damer<br />

www.ccon.org<br />

Y (if interested in virtual<br />

environments)<br />

? Y (Known as one of the<br />

most elaborate Lessons<br />

?<br />

Learned systems)<br />

Y (government <strong>case</strong> study<br />

for KM)<br />

21. DOW Corning ? ?<br />

22. EDS Intranets for enterprise Julian Morgan-Jones, Donna Stemmer<br />

wide<br />

<strong>management</strong><br />

<strong>knowledge</strong><br />

23. Eli Lily ?EK ? ?<br />

CIBIT 174<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99<br />

C<br />

D<br />

C<br />

C


24. Ford Motor Corporation ?EK ? ?<br />

25. Glaxo Wellcome Helen Chapman N C<br />

26. HEFCE John Rushforth Y (educational body <strong>case</strong><br />

study)<br />

?<br />

27. Hewlett-Packard Move from individual Judy Lewis, David Akers, Chuck Sieloff, Y C<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> to Marilyn Martiny<br />

organisational <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

28. Hofmann-LaRoche Much faster business Patricia Seemann N C<br />

process due to<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> explicitation<br />

and database for sharing<br />

29. HSL (Dutch High Speed<br />

Railway)<br />

http://www.hslzuid.nl<br />

Y (micro <strong>case</strong> study, but<br />

interesting in terms of<br />

design)<br />

D<br />

30. Hughes Space<br />

Communication<br />

and<br />

http://www.hughespace.com/<br />

N (no info available)<br />

31. Human Genome www.ornl.gov/hgmis<br />

US Department of Energy,<br />

Oakridge National Laboratory<br />

Y (interesting, big<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> sharing project)<br />

D<br />

32. IBM Knowledge ecologies, Dave Snowden Y C<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>knowledge</strong><br />

markets,<br />

mapping,recreation of<br />

medieval craft halls within<br />

organisations for tacit<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> exchange<br />

33. ICL 19.000 VIK (Valuing ICL Elizabeth Lank Y C<br />

Knowledge)<br />

34. Intel N.S. Sridharan Y C<br />

35. International Benchmarking<br />

Clearinghouse<br />

http://www.ibc.apqc.org/<br />

C / D<br />

36. Linux Community building their<br />

own operating system<br />

http://www.linux.org Y C<br />

37. Lucent Technologies Viesturs Vucins N (no info available, though C<br />

EK has contacts, long<br />

38. Manpower Knowledge-base, Global Marc Bunke<br />

shot))<br />

Y C<br />

learning center, Virtual<br />

39. Microsoft<br />

account <strong>management</strong>.<br />

Interesting in terms of<br />

delivery systems for MS<br />

Allan Dornan Y (but long shot) C<br />

training and best<br />

CIBIT 175<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


practices<br />

internal KM<br />

as well as<br />

40. Monsanto 30000 Tools and techniques to<br />

help create a learning and<br />

sharing organisation<br />

41. NASA The NASA Space<br />

Engineering Lessons<br />

Learned Programme/<br />

Lessons Learned sharing<br />

system (SELL)<br />

42. Nationaal kennisdebat<br />

(National Knowledge<br />

Debate, organised by Dutch<br />

Ministry of Education)<br />

Jane Rady, John Garret Y C<br />

Maarten Sierhuis, Bill Clancey<br />

http://www.nasa.gov/<br />

http://wwwdarwin.arc.nasa.gov/DARWINweb/<br />

papers/ISCATA98Paper0198.html<br />

http://wwwdarwin.arc.nasa.gov/DARWINweb/<br />

papers/ICIS98Paper043098.html<br />

"NASA is deeply committed to spreading the<br />

unique <strong>knowledge</strong> that flows from its<br />

aeronautics and space research...."<br />

Y C<br />

15 M Interesting <strong>case</strong> study, because it partly failed Y (if interested in failures as<br />

well)<br />

43. National Semiconductor Emphasize culture and<br />

technology, deploys Lotus<br />

Notes and Web-based<br />

technology, faculty clubs,<br />

interest profiles and<br />

44. NatWEST<br />

sharing rallies<br />

Tools that allow people<br />

to instruct software<br />

agents so they perform<br />

better as the people who<br />

are using them learn.<br />

Tools are developed by<br />

group with carte blanche.<br />

45. Nokia Lotus Notes based<br />

infrastructure,<br />

Competence center, webbased<br />

applications using<br />

Domino, content<br />

<strong>management</strong> processes,<br />

team-work,<br />

systems.<br />

reward<br />

? N (contacts via Etienne<br />

Wenger, but long shot))<br />

Bruce Greenhalgh, Sherman Woo N (faintly interesting from<br />

change mgt perspective)<br />

Ilkka Tuomi Y C<br />

CIBIT 176<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99<br />

C<br />

C<br />

C


46. Nortel Networks Web-based <strong>knowledge</strong> Tony Roberts N C<br />

<strong>management</strong> projects<br />

throughout Europe<br />

47. Novartis AG 86000 Web-based technology Joerg Staeheli Y C<br />

for collaboration (yellowpages,<br />

blue pages,<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> market place),<br />

grants to allow different<br />

business units work<br />

together, hosting periodic<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> fairs to spark<br />

ideas<br />

48. Pfizer Inc ? N (hard to get info, though<br />

EK has contacts))<br />

C<br />

49. Phillips<br />

Company<br />

Petroleum<br />

Per Steinar Johansen N (long shot) ?<br />

50. Pink Elephant Education and training,<br />

job rotation to let people<br />

Theo Locher Y C<br />

learn, coaching,<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> transfer via a<br />

transfer center.<br />

51. Royal Mail Integration of people, Marc Baker N C<br />

process and technology<br />

to support the<br />

development of a<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong><br />

culture<br />

sharing<br />

52. Sears Sears success sharing<br />

N C<br />

intranet/best<br />

transfer system<br />

practice<br />

53. Shell New Ways of Arjan van Unnik Y (for their simple design) C/D<br />

Working/Communities of<br />

Practice<br />

54. Siemens KEC Networking/ Josef Hofer-Alfeis, Stefan Schoen Y C<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> sharing<br />

project, process oriented,<br />

CoPs<br />

55. Singapore ONE ?EK Y (mega infrastructure for<br />

all kinds of public services)<br />

C/D<br />

56. Sollac Best practice and lessons<br />

learned database, intranet<br />

with video conferencing,<br />

Daniel Atlan N C<br />

Email, shared<br />

CIBIT 177<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


documents, various<br />

databases, technology<br />

watch, reward systems.<br />

57. Sprint Developed <strong>knowledge</strong> - N (not much info available) C<br />

base and web site,<br />

publishing guidelines,<br />

defined processes for<br />

reviewing, updating and<br />

retiring content and<br />

developed an extensive<br />

communication plan<br />

58. Sun Microsystems ?EK N ?<br />

59. Swiss Life ?EK N ?<br />

60. Texaco Communities of Practice Betty Zimmerman N C<br />

61. Texas Instruments Best Practice Transfer Carla O’Dell Y (Frequently remarked as C<br />

the <strong>case</strong> study for<br />

62. The WELL, UCLA Tool for Communities Marc A. Smith<br />

<strong>knowledge</strong> transfer)<br />

Y D<br />

63. Unilever Knowledge Mapping Manfred Aben N (not much public C<br />

information:<br />

is an issue)<br />

confidentiality<br />

64. US West ? C<br />

65. Volkswagen WWDECK (World Wide Ferdinand Schultz, Christof Senghaas Y C<br />

Development and<br />

Exchange of Corporate<br />

Knowledge) very<br />

elaborate <strong>knowledge</strong><br />

<strong>management</strong> project, with<br />

various organisational<br />

and technological<br />

components<br />

66. World Wildlife Fund Jan van den Bremer Y C<br />

67. Worldbank Stephen Denning Y C<br />

68. XEROX Eureka (<strong>knowledge</strong> Danny Bobrow, Marilyn Whalen Y C<br />

sharing that works since<br />

the last couple of years)<br />

CIBIT 178<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


Remarks:<br />

1. The required column ‘size’ can’t be filled out for almost all of the <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>, the only number most <strong>studies</strong> give is the amount of employees the company has, they don’t give a number of users of the<br />

specific <strong>case</strong>. Therefore the column is mostly empty.<br />

2. Many <strong>case</strong>s included in the long-list are known to Eelco and myself, but due to the limited amount of time we couldn’t describe each <strong>case</strong> study.<br />

3. Further Research indicates if we find it valuable to further investigate the stated <strong>case</strong> or company.<br />

4. Case or Design indicates if the <strong>case</strong> is useful as content for Piazza di Ninive or relevant as a design example for the Piazza.<br />

5. We have a host of examples that can help designing (in terms of functionality and technical design) the Piazza environment. We have not (yet) focussed on that element of the work. Some of them are<br />

included in the list, but we need some time to sort them all out. For example, we have not (yet) looked into big community environments (aol, community intelligence labs, Excite The Campus, etc.), but<br />

we can if you wish to (can be inspiring in terms of setting up the Piazza).<br />

Public sector <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong> long list<br />

N°<br />

Organisation Size Project name/Specification Name /URL Further Research Case / Design<br />

69. KALIF, European Union<br />

base : Netherlands<br />

area : Europe<br />

70. BVENET<br />

base Netherlands<br />

area Netherlands<br />

71. MASIE-CENTER<br />

base : USA<br />

area : worldwide<br />

72. Technical University of Twente, faculty of<br />

applied educational sciences<br />

base : Netherlands<br />

area : Europe<br />

73. askeric<br />

base : USA<br />

area : Worldwide<br />

74. scholars.com<br />

base : Canada<br />

area : worldwide<br />

75. Province of New Brunswick, Canada<br />

base Canada,<br />

area : Province of New Brunswick<br />

~300 Knowledge and Learning infrastructure for the Learning<br />

and Training Industry<br />

Electronic information services for professionals in the<br />

business of adult learning for business<br />

Dutch website<br />

All kinds of electronic and regular information services<br />

and professionalisation events for professionals in the<br />

online learning business<br />

features GURU Elliot Masie. (english<br />

State of the art research center in the field of online<br />

learning and online professionalisation<br />

Electronic information services for professionals in the<br />

business of adult learning for business<br />

In the business of online delivery of real quality<br />

education including coaching services for students and<br />

coaches<br />

Excellent performance in the telecommunications<br />

hardware infrastructure<br />

Eelco Kruizinga<br />

www.kalif.org<br />

we can tell you all you want C/D<br />

www.bvenet.nl Y D<br />

Elliot Masie<br />

Www.masie.com<br />

Y C/D<br />

Betty Collis, known contact ? C/D<br />

www.askeric.com ? C/D<br />

www.scholars.com Y ? C / D<br />

Leonard Weeks Managing Director<br />

no URL yet<br />

Y? D<br />

76. IQPORT Learning infrastructure for life long learning services. www.iqport.com Y D<br />

CIBIT 179<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99


ase : UK<br />

area : worldwide<br />

77. Middlesex University<br />

School for Life long Learning<br />

base : UK<br />

area : worldwide<br />

78. GEM<br />

base : Italy<br />

area : worldwide<br />

79. website on doctoral research on<br />

educational technology<br />

80. University of Helsinki Excellent research and practice on life long learning<br />

initiatives<br />

Information and <strong>knowledge</strong> exchange with a currency<br />

based value and reward system<br />

Excellent Work Based Learning programmes<br />

the Dean of this school is known Y C<br />

including accreditation of work based learning with<br />

academic titles<br />

contact<br />

very experienced with academic level<br />

professionalisation<br />

teachers<br />

programme for trainers and<br />

Italian based organisation http://qem.jrc.it/english Y C/D<br />

http://www.edtech.unco.<br />

edu/disswww/dissdir.ht<br />

m<br />

Jussi Koski, known contact, also<br />

closely related to Nonaka<br />

CIBIT 180<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99<br />

Y !


81. UCLA<br />

base : USA<br />

area : worldwide<br />

82. GKN (Global Knowledge Network)<br />

base : worldwide<br />

area : worldwide<br />

83. Microsoft University<br />

base : USA<br />

area : worldwide<br />

84. University of Colorado<br />

Base :State of Colorado, USA<br />

area : USA<br />

online learning site including a professionalisation area<br />

for online trainers<br />

business good practice of worldwide organisation of<br />

learning services in hybrid format, online combined<br />

with in class learning<br />

http://www.OnlineLearni<br />

ng.net<br />

www.global<strong>knowledge</strong>.n<br />

et<br />

prof. Ghosh, Germany through<br />

Amalia di Stefano (CLEPA, Austria)<br />

state of the art, because they have to be www.microsoft.com<br />

section Education<br />

CU-Online, just one example of virtual universities as a<br />

part of the content<br />

85. Circle of Fire 3D VR worlds technical infra, nice to look at from a<br />

design point of view<br />

86. Digischool, a private initiative, great on<br />

Excellent private initiative by primary school teachers<br />

autonomy<br />

with large audience in the Netherlands.<br />

87. CIBIT<br />

1000 Good practice on communities of study, hybrid<br />

base : the Netherlands<br />

area : Europe<br />

learning.<br />

88. Dutch Government<br />

base : the Netherlands<br />

area : Netherlands<br />

(English translation available)<br />

Life long learning nation wide discussion, national<br />

debate<br />

http://www.cuonline.edu<br />

.<br />

www.activeworlds.com<br />

Www.cibit.nl<br />

www.virtual.cibit.nl<br />

CIBIT 181<br />

analisi-KM <strong>case</strong> <strong>studies</strong>.doc - 25/5/99<br />

?<br />

Y? D<br />

Y? D<br />

www.digischool.nl Y C<br />

D ?<br />

we can tell you all you want to<br />

know<br />

D<br />

www.lll.nl Y C/D<br />

C<br />

D

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!