The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 November 2007 Figure 7 Interplaying Factors in the Model for Risk Assessment 8.2.1.2 Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Willcocks and Margett’s [189] model, with its focus on environment and context, is different to other established risk assessment methods such as Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA). PRA is an integration <strong>of</strong> several techniques that aim to quantify and assess the potential for failure and to help find ways to reduce risk. However, although effective at revealing technologically centred failures, most PRA techniques do not provide any explicit means <strong>of</strong> representing organisational or human factors failures [58]. PRA was designed for use in industrial and engineering environments, and some argue that it is an inappropriate tool for identifying risk in more complex technology programmes. Some authors have argued that established forms <strong>of</strong> risk assessment generally neglect the organisational considerations involved in the implementation and running <strong>of</strong> systems. Leveson [190] reveals that policy and principles <strong>of</strong> management, organisational structure, training factors, and the safety <strong>of</strong> the engineering process employed are just some <strong>of</strong> the organisational factors that PRA neglects. She believes that PRA has ‘an inability to represent these particular (organisational) aspects <strong>of</strong> the system or to evaluate them in the analysis.’ <strong>The</strong>refore, to conclude, PRA techniques are too technologically centred to be <strong>of</strong> use to assess risks in a military technology insertion programme. Willcocks and Margett’s model has been described as being much more suitable for possible use in complex technology insertion projects [58]. 8.2.2 Knowledge Management Knowledge Management (KM) comprises a range <strong>of</strong> practices used by organisations to identify, create, represent, and distribute knowledge for reuse, awareness and learning [201]. People starting a new project for an organisation can access KM resources to learn best practices and lessons learned from previous projects or access relevant information during the project. Managers can use KM resources to look for advice on issues that they come across, or in order to access information after project completion for advice on after-project actions and review activities. Knowledge management practitioners <strong>of</strong>ten provide systems, repositories, and processes to encourage and formalise these knowledge sharing activities. 43
HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 November 2007 <strong>The</strong> claims <strong>of</strong> KM supporters are that it allows organisations to be flexible and respond more quickly to changing market conditions, and that it supports innovative, decision making and productivity [202], [203]. One approach to managing and reducing technology project risks is to use KM techniques to raise awareness <strong>of</strong> risks and problems and to stop people from repeating the mistakes that others have made. 8.2.2.1 Performance, Challenges and Criticisms <strong>of</strong> KM Evidence suggests that Knowledge Management systems rely upon employees’ ability and willingness to transfer knowledge. Indeed, Szulanski [191] found that knowledge transfer within a firm is inhibited by a number <strong>of</strong> factors and that the accessibility <strong>of</strong> knowledge about best practices within a firm ‘depends upon the nature <strong>of</strong> that knowledge, from where (or whom) it comes, who gets it, and the organisational context within which any transfer occurs’ [191]. Knowledge Management has also been criticised by those [192] who believe there are ‘serious issues surrounding employee power, managerial control and the structure <strong>of</strong> knowledge work’. <strong>The</strong> argument goes that with knowledge repositories, management will have more power over employees. <strong>The</strong>se are consolidated into three propositions that the authors suggest need more study: P1. Use <strong>of</strong> knowledge repositories leads to reductions in employee uniqueness, which, in turn, increases their substitutability and reduces their power. P2. Use <strong>of</strong> knowledge repositories leads to reductions in the analytical skill required in a job, which reduces the power position <strong>of</strong> the user. P3. Management choice <strong>of</strong> control method moderates the impact that knowledge repositories have on employee power. Critics, such as Gray [193], argue that ‘the degree to which researchers and managers understand the effects <strong>of</strong> knowledge repositories on the distribution <strong>of</strong> power will most certainly influence the future success <strong>of</strong> such systems’. A second problem for Knowledge Management is that it seeks to manage knowledge, ‘a very slippery concept’ with many different variations and definitions. <strong>The</strong> nature <strong>of</strong> knowledge, and what it means to know something, are epistemological questions that have perplexed philosophers for centuries and according to ‘no resolution looms on the horizon’. In fact, the field <strong>of</strong> knowledge management is itself controversial as there are problems in the distinction between 'knowledge' and 'information'. Wilson [194] argues that ‘Knowledge Management’ is an inappropriate term to describe the field, as knowledge involves comprehension and understanding, something that cannot be easily transferred from one person to another. <strong>The</strong> only way to transfer what we wish to express is through language, communication and information. Wilson states that ‘such messages do not ‘carry’ knowledge, they constitute information’. Hence the term ‘Information Management’ is increasingly being used in preference to ‘Knowledge Management’, although for consistency the latter will continue to be used in this discussion. 44
Page 1 and 2: The Impact
Page 3 and 4: HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 47: HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No
Page 87: HFIDTC/2/12.2.1/1 Version 3 / 21 No

The Impact of Technology Insertion on Organisations

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?