Posts

Co-Evolution of Organizational Network and Individual Behavior: An Agent-Based Model of Interpersonal Knowledge Transfer – International Conference on Information Systems

Yuan Lin, my doctoral student, and I have a paper accepted at the Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems. The paper describes our ongoing efforts to develop robust models for studying the dynamics of knowledge transfer within organizations.

AbstractThis study focuses on the co-evolution of informal organizational structures and individual knowledge transfer behavior within organizations. Our research methodology distinguishes us from other similar studies. We use agent-based modeling and dynamic social network analysis, which allow for a dynamic perspective and a bottom-up approach. We study the emergent network structures and behavioral patterns, as well as their micro-level foundations. We also examine the exogenous factors influencing the emergent process. We ran simulation experiments on our model and found some interesting findings. For example, it is observed that knowledgeable individuals are not well connected in the network, and our model suggests that being fully involved in knowledge transfer might undermine individuals’ knowledge advantage over time. Another observation is that when there is high knowledge diversity in the system, informal organizational structure tends to form a network of good reachability; that is, any two individuals are connected via a few intermediates.

Lin, Y.A, and Desouza, K.C. “Co-Evolution of Organizational Network and Individual Behavior: An Agent-Based Model of Interpersonal Knowledge Transfer,” In Proceedings of the Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems, St. Louis, Missouri (December 12-15, 2010).

Reversing the Brain Drain: Global Knowledge Flows

Finally, we are beginning to see more widespread acknowledgement of the reverse brain drain! For the last few years, I have counseled my graduate students to seek opportunities outside the US. Employment prospects outside the US continue to be, on average, more interesting, challenging, and attractive. Graduate students who want to succeed globally need to take the time to expand their global horizons, seek out cultural immersion experiences, and learn foreign languages. Having traveled to India twice in the last three years, I continue to be amazed by the rate of economic growth and the development of the entreprenueiral spirit. Innovators are flocking to India for the simple reason that you have a highly-skilled knowlege workforce that can be deployed on a global stage. One must acknowledge that India has challenges, but these challenges, in my opinion, will get addressed in due time.

P.S. A few years back, Roberto Evaristo and I wrote a paper on global knowledge management strategies. The paper documented the three most dominant strategies employed by organizations to foster knowledge flows across their global operations. It may be time to revise the paper!

A Longitudinal Analysis of Stakeholder Sentiments: Business Modernization Project at the IRS

The Internal Revenue Service Business Modernization Project undertaken by the Tax Agency of the US Government has been singled out as an example of a massive failure. As envisioned, the project was intended as an Enterprise-wide intervention that would provide modern services and effective data access to citizenry and several government agencies. After more than a decade and 3 billion dollars later, the results appear to be less than exemplary. Sandeep Purao and I have a paper accepted for presentation at the Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR2010) Workshop that identifies different stakeholders who participated in the project, and analyzes the sentiments and confidence each expressed regarding the fate of the project. We conclude with lessons learned from our investigation including recognizing the importance of multiple stakeholders for Enterprise-wide initiatives.

Purao, S., and Desouza, K.C. “An Enterprise-wide Intervention at IRS: A Longitudinal Analysis of Stakeholder Sentiments,” In Proceedings of the 5th Trends in Enterprise Architecture Research (TEAR2010) Workshop,  Delft, Netherlands (November 12, 2010).

Speaking at Bangkok University on Designing the Innovation Process

I will be giving a talk at Bangkok University (Kluaynamthai Campus) on designing organizational innovation processes. The talk is organized by Institute for Knowledge and Innovation South-East Asia (IKI-SEA) as part of their KM World Seminar Series and will take place on October 28, 2010 from 1.30 PM to 4:00 PM. Please click here to download the flyer.

Interview with KM Leaders: Stan Garfield

I am currently interviewing an eclectic group of knowledge management leaders on their experiences. These interviews will appear in my new book on knowledge management. Here is an excerpt from my interview with Stan Garfield. I first met Stan Garfield at the APQC Conference in St. Louis in 2005. I was immediately impressed with his depth of knowledge and experience. He invited me to give a talk to his knowledge management community of practice soon after. Through the years, I have kept abreast of his work in the knowledge management field. Through this interview, I am hoping that you will gain an appreciation of what it takes to be a KM leader.

Current Title and Organization: Community Evangelist, Global Consulting Knowledge Management, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited

Biography: Mr. Garfield began as a computer programmer, research assistant, and manager at Washington University School of Medicine and St. Louis University from 1975-1983. He then moved to Digital Equipment Corporation (later, Compaq and HP) and held a wide variety of field and headquarters management roles in presales, consulting and system integration. Among his many achievements, he launched DEC’s first knowledge management program in 1996, helped develop the corporate KM strategy for Compaq in 2000, and led the Worldwide Consulting & Integration Knowledge Management Program for Hewlett-Packard, 2004-2008. After leaving HP, he briefly served as Retail & Consumer Knowledge Domain Manager at PricewaterhouseCoopers, before joining Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited as Community Evangelist in Global Consulting Knowledge Management. He lives in Northville, Michigan.

How do you define knowledge management?

Knowledge Management (KM) is the art of transforming information and intellectual assets into enduring value for an organization’s clients and its people.  The purpose of knowledge management is to foster the reuse of intellectual capital, enable better decision making, and create the conditions for innovation. KM provides people, processes, and technology to help knowledge flow to the right people at the right time so they can act more efficiently and effectively.  To practice knowledge management, share what you have learned, created, and proved; innovate to be more creative, inventive, and imaginative; reuse what others have already learned, created, and proved; collaborate with others to take advantage of what they know; and learn by doing, from others, and from existing information.

Can you tell us a bit about your first job as a knowledge manager and how did you get this role (i.e., how did you make the transition to a knowledge manager, if it was not your first job)?

In 1996 I was asked by the senior vice president of systems integration at Digital Equipment Corporation to start a knowledge management program after we visited Ernst & Young's Center for Business Knowledge in Cleveland, Ohio.  When he heard that Ernst & Young had a Chief Knowledge Officer, he turned to me and said, "I want you to be our CKO."  I had been doing knowledge management for many years in addition to my official duties in professional services management, but we didn't call it that.  It has been referred to as something like "resource management" or "capability development" or "information."

My job was to launch the first KM program at DEC.  I had to define the strategy and approach we would use, and start the process of implementing changes incorporating people, process, and technology elements. Along the way, I had to endure many ups and downs, enlist allies in the cause to join my virtual team, get executive sponsorship from a succession of leaders, increase investment and commitment to the program, deal with constant organizational change, adjust to changing technology, migrate from and integrate with legacy software, exercise diplomacy with many other groups, and cope with two large-scale corporate mergers.

Thanks. What did you learn from this experience? What were three of the major challenges you faced? How did you overcome these challenges?

I learned:

  1. Put a strong KM leader in place, and ensure that the KM team has only strong members.
  2. Balance people, process, and technology components, with a project leader for each category.
  3. Establish a governance and collaboration process to engage all groups within the organization (e.g., business units, regions, functions), and to formally manage and communicate on all projects – appoint KM leaders in each major group.
  4. Hold annual worldwide face-to-face meetings to get all KM leaders informed, energized, and collaborating.
  5. Communicate regularly through newsletters, training, web sites, and local events.
  6. Get the senior executive to actively support the program.
  7. Engage with other KM programs, both internal and external, to learn, share ideas, and practice what you preach.
  8. Focus on delivering tangible business benefits that match the overall objectives of the organization.
  9. Deliver regular improvements to make the KM environment effective and easy to use.
  10. Set three basic goals for employees and stick to them for at least a year.

Three keys to the success of a KM program:

  1. Set three simple goals and stick with them for the long term.  Communicate them regularly.  Incorporate the goals and metrics into as many parts of the organization as possible (e.g., employee goals, incentive and rewards programs, and newsletters).
  2. Keep the people, process, and technology components of the KM program in balance.  Don't allow one element (e.g., technology) to dominate the other two.
  3. Lead by example.  Model the collaboration and knowledge sharing behaviors you want the organization to adopt in how you run the KM program.

Five pitfalls to avoid:

  1. Trying to take on too much.
  2. Focusing on technology.
  3. Not engaging the constituents.
  4. Doing too much studying and planning and not enough prototyping and piloting.
  5. Not reusing what others have already learned and implemented.

Can you say a bit more about the pitfalls, especially how did you manage not to take on too much. I have heard from a lot of KM leaders that the number one reason they fail is that they over promise and under deliver. What strategies do you recommend for budding managers?

Pick one focus area which addresses a widely-perceived need, where you can achieve positive results relatively quickly, and which can be implemented without the need for extensive approvals, expenditures, or custom development.  Direct most of your energy and resources behind this effort, and when it succeeds, pick the next focus area using the same criteria.

Find out if the senior executive has a hot button, pet project, or wish list.  Respond to these by implementing something for them, getting their endorsement and participation, and then widely communicating how everyone else in the organization can emulate the leader.

Pick the three goals and repeat them in all communications until everyone knows them.  Relentlessly stick to achieving these goals until you can declare success on one or more of them.  Then pick new ones and repeat the process.

Harness the efforts of others and connect their people, processes, and tools into your program.  For example, if another group has implemented a blog platform that your program can use, embrace that as your blog platform rather than launching your own.  If yet another group has an innovation process, adopt it as yours.  And invite people outside your group to participate in your activities as virtual or extended team members.

Thanks. Can you please also say a bit about the importance of prototyping and piloting approaches and solutions to KM?

Classic software development projects included lengthy time allocations for analysis, design, and development before users ever had a chance to try out the results.  Given that it is difficult to know exactly what features users want and how they should actually work before using a new program, the "finished product" would often be unsatisfactory to the users for which it was developed, despite the fact that it met their specifications.

Knowledge management programs and intranet systems often make the same mistakes as software development projects.  Lengthy designs or redesigns are followed by big launches and then by users disliking or ignoring the touted offerings.  I call this the "big bang" approach, such as when a new or revised web site is unveiled after six months of development, only to miss the mark as judged by its intended audience.  What are the users supposed to do during the time prior to launch?  It's much better to quickly launch a simple site serving up the most important content (as defined by the users) and then continue to improve the site and add more content on an ongoing basis.  This results in a site which is both immediately useful and which is also perceived as being continuously improved.

Whenever you have a potentially good idea for a people, process, or technology innovation, try it out as soon as possible.  Start by discussing it with a group of trusted colleagues, fellow members of a community of practice, or insightful friends and family.  Mock up a simple picture, screen shot, or process flow.  Encourage candid comments and suggestions, and incorporate as much of this feedback as possible in your initial design.

Implement your idea directly, through a colleague, or through a team good at development.  Do this sooner, rather than later.  Publicize your initial implementation through a relevant community of practice, your social network, and your work team.  Solicit feedback for improving functionality, usability, and effectiveness.  Then quickly make improvements and repeat the cycle.  Continue this process indefinitely, with longer cycle times as functionality better aligns with user requirements.

Over the years, can you describe what has changed in your approach to leading knowledge management programs in organizations?

My approach has evolved as opposed to changed.  I emphasize understanding the needs of the organization and responding to those needs, rather than trying to roll out a system and try to get it adopted.

Here are 13 insights I have drawn from my 14 years in KM:

  1. Collect content; connect people
  2. Try things out; improve and iterate
  3. Lead by example; model behaviors
  4. Set goals; recognize and reward
  5. Tell your stories; get others to tell theirs
  6. Use the right tool for the job; build good examples
  7. Enable innovation; support integration
  8. Include openly; span boundaries
  9. Prime the pump; ask and answer questions
  10. Network; pay it forward
  11. Let go of control; encourage and monitor
  12. Just say yes; be responsive
  13. Meet less; deliver more

To read more about the interview, stay tuned for the book…

To be interviewed or recommend renowned KM leaders and managers for interviews, please send me an email.

Peter Baloh wins Doctoral Thesis Award from at the International Trimo Research Awards

It is with great pride that I share this news - Dr. Peter Baloh’s Dissertation, "Towards knowledge needs - technology fit model for knowledge management systems",  wins Doctoral Thesis Award from at the International Trimo Research Awards. His dissertation examined how organizations design knowledge management systems to fit a wide assortment of user needs.  He won the 2009 International Trimo Research Award for Doctoral Dissertation. Peter was my first doctoral student and I wish him continued success.

P.S. I know this is slightly old news…I saved this post as a draft and forgot to publish it a few months back!

Looking for Clues to Failures in Large-Scale Public Sector Projects

Sandeep Purao and I have a paper accepted at the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences in the Electronic Government Track (Development Methods for Electronic Government, Minitrack). The paper analyzes the IRS’s Business Systems Modernization Project using sentiment analysis.

Abstract
We describe results from historical analysis of a large-scale, public sector effort: the IRS Modernization Project that has already spanned a decade and consumed more than 3 billion dollars. The results focus on analysis of Sentiments and Confidence expressed by different stakeholders, as found in various documents. We explore how such analyses may provide a window on project progress and potential early clues that may contribute to preventing undesirable outcomes in the future.

Reference: Purao, S., and Desouza, K.C. “Looking for Clues to Failures in Large-Scale Public Sector Projects: A Case Study,” In Proceedings of the Forty-Forth Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-44), Los Alamos, CA: IEEE Press, Kauai, HI, (January 4-7, 2011).

Role of Internet-based Information Flows and Technologies in Electoral Revolutions

My paper with Volodymyr Lysenko on the role of Internet-based information flows and technologies in electoral revolutions is now available on First Monday.

Internet–based information and communication technologies (ICTs) and the information flows they support have played an important role in the advancement of society. In this paper we investigate the role of Internet–based ICTs in electoral revolutions. Employing a case study approach, we examine the part played by ICTs during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine (2000–2004). Roles and activities of the dissenters, as well as their associates, the incumbent authorities and their allies are analyzed with regard to Internet–based technologies during the electoral revolution in Ukraine. The case of the Orange Revolution is particularly salient, as even though only one to two percent of the Ukrainian population had access to the Internet, this was sufficient to mobilize the citizens towards an eventually successful revolution. This paper lays the groundwork for further investigations into use of ICTs by political dissenters.

Lysenko, V.V. and Desouza, K.C. “Role of Internet-based Information Flows and Technologies in Electoral Revolutions: The Case of Ukraine’s Orange Revolution,” First Monday, 15 (9), 2010, Available Online at: [LINK]

Large IT Projects as Interventions in Digital Ecosystems

Sandeep Purao (IST, Penn State University) and I have a paper accepted for presentation at the International ACM Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES’10) (BangkokThailand).

Abstract: Large IT projects, such as the US Government’s Internal Revenue Service Business Modernization Effort, can take a decade or more and consume billions of dollars. Traditional approaches to the study of such projects emphasize concerns such as requirements monitoring, progress tracking and risk mitigation. We propose an alternative approach guided by a digital ecosystems view instead of a hierarchical, decision-oriented view. We argue that this perspective is more suited to understand how such projects evolve and cause changes in the underlying digital ecosystem characterized by not only the IT infrastructure but also the transactional relationships among stakeholders. We illustrate our arguments by drawing on an archaeological case study of the IRS effort, and discuss implications of the digital ecosystem perspective for the study of large IT projects.

Reference: Purao, S., and Desouza, K.C. “Large IT Projects as Interventions in Digital Ecosystems,” In Proceedings of the International ACM Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES'10), Bangkok, Thailand (October 26-29. 2010).

Speaking at Parsons Brinckerhoff’s Global Knowledge Management Leaders Meeting – September 13-17, 2010

I will be flying to NYC to speak at Parsons Brinckerhoff’s (PB) Global Knowledge Management Leaders Meeting. I have collaborated with PB since 2005. During this time, I have had the pleasure of seeing, influencing, and designing components of their knowledge management strategy. My presentation will focus on strategies for enhancing tacit knowledge transfer within engineering firms. Specifically, how do you design robust mechanisms and incentives to promote exchange of tacit knowledge across global and functional boundaries.