Knowl?dg? Manag?m?nt (KM) can b? d?fin?d as any proc?ss or practic? of cr?ating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowl?dg?, wh?r?v?r it r?sid?s, to ?nhanc? l?arning and p?rformanc? in organisations (Dav?nport & Prusak 1998). Th?r? ar? som? r?asons that app?ar to l?ad to th? ?m?rg?nc? of KM. First, it is in part a r?action to th? massiv? downsizing and BRP (Busin?ss Proc?ss R??ngin??ring) of th? 1990s (Zorn 2001).
On on? hand, downsizing and BPR hav? l?d to a flatt?r and mor? d?c?ntraliz?d organisational structur? favouring knowl?dg? sharing; on th? oth?r hand, as Swan ?t al. (1999) stat?, downsizing and BPR hav? r?sult?d organisations in a loss of important forms of organisational knowl?dg? ?mbodi?d in middl? manag?m?nt groups and ?mb?dd?d within functional or prof?ssional disciplin?s. KM is thus r?gard?d as ?ss?ntially corr?ct in th? att?mpt to r?duc? th? thr?at of th? loss of valuabl? knowl?dg? ass?ts.
S?cond, KM may b? us?fully vi?w?d through th? l?ns of manag?m?nt fashion (Abrahamson 1996). Last 20 y?ars saw wav?s of manag?m?nt id?as, or fashions: cultur?, TQM, BPR, shar?hold?r valu?, ?tc. Th?r? is also a s?ns? that th? conc?pt of KM is app?aling b?caus? it is n?w, hot, “cutting ?dg?,” and symbolic of b?ing at th? for?front of manag?m?nt knowl?dg? (Zorn 2001). How?v?r, th? growing ?mphasis on innovation through l?v?raging knowl?dg? ass?ts and knowl?dg? work and knowl?dg? work?rs as th? primary sourc?s of productivity sugg?sts that th? n??d to manag? knowl?dg? will ?ndur? as a cor? busin?ss conc?rn, ?v?n if th? lab?l may chang? (Druck?r 1993).
Third, IT community provid?s an important prof?ssional sponsor for th? diffusion of KM (Swan ?t al. 1999). As p?opl? incr?asingly hav? acc?ss to almost all th? information th?y might n??d at any tim? and in any plac? and at low or no cost, th? valu? of th? cognitiv? skills still unr?plicabl? by silicon b?com?s gr?at?r. Subs?qu?ntly, knowl?dg? compon?nts b?com? mor? valuabl? than ?v?r b?for? (Dav?nport & Prusak 1998). H?nc?, as Swan ?t al. point out, th? codification of knowl?dg? through IT/IS mak?s thos? IT/IS prof?ssionals coloniz? KM, this may s?rv? to incr?as? th?ir involv?m?nt in cor? strat?gic issu?s within th?ir own organizations and ?nhanc? th? status of this community. For ?xampl?, compani?s including G? Lighting, X?rox PARC, IBM, and McKins?y hav? adopt?d th? position of th? Chi?f Knowl?dg? Offic?r (CKO), which is oft?n fill?d by a p?rson (or group) with an IT background (Swan ?t al. 1999). How?v?r, too much ?mphasis giv?n on IT-bas?d tools may limit KM’s pot?ntial for ?ncouraging th? knowl?dg? sharing b?caus? of th? ignoranc? of p?opl?.
Forth, KM aris?s from th? changing natur? of global ?conomy. As Dav?nport and Prusak (1998) points out, th? globalisation of ?conomy that brings unpr?c?d?nt?d compl?xity and unc?rtainty is putting t?rrific pr?ssur? on firms for incr?as?d adaptability, fl?xibility, innovation, and proc?ss sp??d. Organizations ar? forc?d to ask th?ms?lv?s, “What do w? know, who knows it, what do w? not know that w? should know?” Mor?ov?r, b?hind th? KM discours? th?r? li?s a r?sourc?-bas?d vi?w of th? firm in which int?ll?ctual capital assum?s gr?at?r importanc? than financial capital (Roos & Van Grough 1996).
A surv?y by R?ut?rs found that nin?ty p?rc?nt of compani?s that d?ploy a KM solution b?n?fit from b?tt?r d?cision making. ?ighty p?rc?nt said it incr?as?d productivity (Marwick, 2001). KM is a div?rs? issu? that ?m?rg?d in th? mid-1990s and has b?com? a much-d?bat?d issu?. In r?c?nt y?ars organisations s??m to hav? ?volv?d and d?v?lop?d and ar? now conc?ntrating on d?v?loping th?ir comp?titiv? advantag? by conc?ntrating on KM. Th? r?ason for this as sugg?sts th? articl?: “Th? most important issu?s in KM” is that “W? n??d to conn?ct our p?opl? much b?tt?r so th?y can, mor? ?ff?ctiv?ly, m??t, t?am, and shar? through n?tworks” (King, ?t al. 2002). Sharing l?ads to an incr?as? in company ?ffici?ncy and sav?s tim? b?caus? knowl?dg? is not b? cr?at?d an?w ?v?ry tim? an individual starts a proj?ct as th?y can r?us? knowl?dg? that is alr?ady availabl? to th?m. Th?r?for?, KM s??s th? work forc? as th? most important ass?t th? company owns and r?s?arch has shown that forty two p?rc?nt of corporat? knowl?dg? is lock?d in th? brains of ?mploy??s and n??ds to b? ?xtract?d and mad? acc?ssibl? by impl?m?nting ?ff?ctiv? KM softwar? (Baltazar 2002).
S?v?ral diff?r?nt factors n??d to b? tak?n into consid?ration whil? discussing th? issu? of KM. Som? of th? most important on?s, as sugg?st?d by King (King, ?t al. 2002) is th? fact that KM provid?s a strat?gic advantag?. For organisation’s to hav? a comp?titiv? advantag? th? ?ff?ctiv? manag?m?nt of knowl?dg? is vitally important, b?caus? poss?ssing and ?xploiting th? knowl?dg? that th?ir comp?titors do not hav?, will l?ad th?m to b?com? mor? innovativ? and ?ffici?nt. How?v?r, b?for? knowl?dg? is utilis?d ?ff?ctiv?ly in an organisation th?r? ar? c?rtain fundam?ntal issu?s that n??d to b? tak?n into consid?ration. On? of th? most important points is to g?t th? staff to participat? in th? ?xchang? of knowl?dg?. This can b? probl?matic, sinc? th? id?a of sharing knowl?dg? is for?ign and th?r?for? inc?ntiv?s hav? to b? s?t up for p?opl? to participat? (Hans?n 2002). On? of th? ways to do so is to g?t th? top manag?m?nt involv?d. Psychologically, work?rs on th? floor ar? h?sitant to contribut? th?ir id?as to th?ir sup?riors, ?sp?cially if th?y ar? not in constant contact with th?m. How?v?r, this probl?m can b? solv?d if manag?m?nt ar? mor? acc?ssibl? and mayb? ?v?n ask for h?lp and advis? from th?ir work?rs. If this typ? of syst?m is in ?ff?ct th?n knowl?dg? will fr??ly flow throughout th? organisation and n?w knowl?dg? will b? g?n?rat?d constantly, which in turn will incr?as? th? organisation’s comp?titiv? advantag? (Hans?n 2002).
Anoth?r way of ?ff?ctiv? KM in th? organisation is to s?t up and ?ncourag? communiti?s of int?r?st (Davis, 2002). Th?s? ar? groups of p?opl? who shar? th? sam? typ? of vocation or int?r?st; an ?xampl? would b? a particular d?partm?nt in a organisation. By s?tting up a community of int?r?st this d?partm?nt will b? abl? to shar? and acc?ss knowl?dg? with th? sam? d?partm?nt in oth?r parts of th? world; th?m posting information on th? Int?rn?t that can b? acc?ss?d by oth?r r?l?vant p?opl? can achi?v? this. Th?r?for?, th? knowl?dg? that on? d?partm?nt has acquir?d through th?ir ?xp?ri?nc?s can b? us?d by oth?r d?partm?nts who com? across th? sam? typ?s of probl?ms and th?y will hav? th? advantag? of not going through th? sam? typ? of trial and ?rror (Littl?, ?t al., 2002).
On? of th? major issu?s that n??d to b? consid?r?d in th? manag?m?nt of knowl?dg? is th? id?ntification of organisational knowl?dg?, which can b?, and n??ds to b? captur?d. That is an important issu? in KM: what knowl?dg? can b? captur?d and information that cannot b? captur?d. An ?xampl? of knowl?dg? that cannot b? captur?d is som? parts of a t?l?phon? conv?rsation. A t?l?phon? conv?rsation is full of curr?nt and up to dat? knowl?dg?, and th? conv?rsation can b? r?cord?d to r?us? th? knowl?dg? that has b??n cr?at?d or m?ntion on th? t?l?phon?. How?v?r, if non? of th? conv?rsation is r?cord?d, and th?r?for?, th? knowl?dg? that is cr?at?d can b? quit? ?asily lost and is not captur?d. Th?r? ar? c?rtain ?l?m?nts of a t?l?phon? conv?rsation that cannot b? captur?d, th?s? includ? all th? r?actions of th? p?opl? involv?d in th? conv?rsation, th?s? might rang? from yawns to furrow?d brows, or nodding (Thomas, ?t al. 2001). On th? oth?r hand, an ?xampl? of knowl?dg? that can b? ?asily captur?d is company d?tails, ?.g. nam? and addr?ss and th?ir custom?rs. Th? form?r is also r?lat?d to th? issu? of knowl?dg? curr?ncy (King, ?t al. 2002). Up to dat? knowl?dg? is ?xtr?m?ly important to organisations, sinc? knowl?dg? is constantly b?ing g?n?rat?d and n?w knowl?dg? can b?com? old knowl?dg? r?lativ?ly quickly which m?ans organisations can loos? th?ir comp?titiv? advantag? to th? oth?r play?rs in th? mark?t.
Oth?r issu?s that an organisation has to think about ar? if th?y hav? th? softwar? and th? infrastructur? to actually impl?m?nt KM in th? organisation in a succ?ssful mann?r, for ?xampl? if a organisation do?s not ?v?n hav? n?twork?d PCs th?n th?y will not b? abl? to s?t up ?ff?ctiv? KM syst?ms. Knowl?dg? is on? of th? company’s bigg?st ass?ts and wh?n it is so c?ntralis?d, th? opportunity and t?mptation to us? it inappropriat?ly is gr?at (Hans?n 2002). Th?r?for?, manag?rs hav? to addr?ss this issu? and w?igh up th? costs and b?n?fits of having a s?cur? syst?m in plac? and qu?stion th? advantag? of having a KM syst?m in plac?; is it going to b? worth installing both financially and strat?gically.
For an organization to hav? a knowl?dg? cr?ating cultur?, th? organization its?lf must compris? of individuals that ar? int?r?st?d in knowl?dg? sharing and hav? a willingn?ss to admit th?ir mistak?s and grow. Manag?m?nt can cr?at? a positiv? cultur? that is r?c?ptiv? to l?arning by using r?cruitm?nt to int?llig?ntly s?l?ct int?llig?nt p?opl?. P?opl? who ar? passionat?, highly s?lf-suffici?nt and hav? tr?m?ndous autonomy. N?w hir?s that ar? ignorant of shar?d valu?s, can thr?at?n stability. It is ?asi?r to r?cruit th? right p?opl? than to hir? on?s that must b? r?-?ducat?d. Hiring th? right attitud? is vital. Th?r? is ?xampl? of Microsoft who ask th? low?st p?rforming 5% of th? organization to l?av?. Microsoft is always growing, always l?arning, and continually spr?ading knowl?dg? and information. (N?w?ll 1999) Cr?ating knowl?dg? d?p?nds on tapping th? tacit and oft?n highly subj?ctiv? insights, intuitions and hunch?s of individual ?mploy??s and making thos? insights availabl? for us? by th? organization as a whol?.
Th?r? ar? major obstacl?s to th? manag?m?nt of knowl?dg?. Th? most important on? is th? p?opl? in th? organisation. Knowl?dg? is in p?opl?’s h?ads and th?r?for?, without th?m th?r? would b? no flow of knowl?dg?. P?opl? can b? obstacl?s to KM if th?y do not s??k advic? and l?arn from oth?rs; this could b? b?caus? of psychological r?asons such as prid? or mayb? b?caus? th? ?nvironm?nt is not th? on? that ?ncourag?s a flow of th? knowl?dg? (Baltazar 2002). Th?r? is also an inability to find ?xp?rtis? in th? organisation at th? right tim?. Th?r? is always som?body who knows th? answ?r to a probl?m, but it may b? n?arly impossibl? to conn?ct th? p?rson who has th? ?xp?rtis? with th? on? who n??ds it. How?v?r, th?s? obstacl?s can b? ?asily r?ctifi?d with ?ffici?nt KM syst?ms and also by th? top manag?m?nt taking an activ? int?r?st in th? issu? of KM (Marwick 2001).
It is argu?d that KM may b? anoth?r manag?m?nt fashion, following TQM, Downsizing, and BPR ?tc. (Abrahamson 1996). Swan J. and Scarbrough H. (2002) confirm KM’s rapid and wid?spr?ad diffusion, and sugg?st that th? diffusion of KM app?ars to follow th? classic “b?ll-shap?d” patt?rn typical of oth?r manag?m?nt fashions. How?v?r, th?y also sugg?st that KM has not diffus?d ?v?nly. Th?r? ar? som? oth?r points, which imply that KM may ?ndur?. First, in turbul?nt busin?ss ?nvironm?nt, th? criticaln?ss of a firm’s r?sourc?s and capabiliti?s, ?sp?cially its innovativ? capabiliti?s, to comp?titiv?n?ss, has b??n incr?asingly r?cogniz?d and confirm?d. As McKinlay, A. (2002) stat?s, KM may b? ?ph?m?ral but th? und?rlying obj?ctiv? of harn?ssing ?mploy?? knowl?dg? and cr?ativity will r?main of critical importanc?. S?cond, knowl?dg? production is shifting from a singl? disciplinary mod? to a transdisciplinary mod? (My?rs 1996). Mor?ov?r, th? forms of organisation ar? b?coming mor? fl?xibl? and l?ss bur?aucratis?d, and coordination is incr?asing b?caus? of wid?-us?d IT.
How?v?r, som? probl?ms may impair th? conditions for th? succ?ssful diffusion of KM. First, as Swan and Scarbrough (2002) hav? obs?rv?d, d?spit? KM’s att?mpt to r?m?dy probl?ms associat?d with th? distribution of knowl?dg?, th? subj?ct its?lf b?com?s pron? to th? v?ry sam? probl?ms. As KM diffus?s via diff?r?nt n?tworks, th? id?a its?lf b?com?s transmut?d and fragm?nt?d across prof?ssional boundari?s. For ?xampl?, IT prof?ssionals wish to us? KM to push for th? d?v?lopm?nt and mark?ting of syst?ms whil? p?rsonn?l and HR practition?rs wish to us? KM as an argum?nt for d?v?loping p?opl? manag?m?nt practic?s. Mor? broadly, d?spit? hints that w? ar? shifting toward mor? transdisciplinary mod?s of knowl?dg? production, institutional structur?s and arrang?m?nt continu? to support d?marcation across prof?ssional boundari?s.
S?cond, th? proc?ss of KM is v?ry compl?x. How?v?r, as McKinlay, A. (2002) stat?s, KM has b??n dominat?d by pr?scriptiv? and manag?rialist approach?s that ignor? organisational politics and th? impact of KM on th? labour proc?ss. H? points out that KM rais?s important issu? of gov?rnanc?: how to conv?rt th? tacit or cov?rt knowl?dg? of individuals and workgroups into a manag?rially r?gulat?d “public good’. Also, h? argu?s that two factors s?v?r?ly limit th? d?v?lopm?nt of KM as a durabl? pow?r/knowl?dg? r?gim?. On? is KM’s r?lianc? on th? activ? involv?m?nt of labour. Passiv? r?sistanc? is thus suffici?nt to limit th? impact of KM in practic?. Th? passiv? r?sistanc? r?sults from th? int?rplay of comput?ris?d workflow monitoring, p??r pr?ssur? and corporat? id?ology, which has r?nd?r?d control ?v?r mor? p?rf?ct, ?v?r mor? invisibl? (My?rs 1996). Anoth?r is th? t?chnical d?v?lopm?nt of KM is not match?d by th? formation of consist?nt, c?ntralis?d m?asur?s of social proc?ss?s. Mor?ov?r, Stok?s, J. and Cl?gg, S. (2003) sugg?st that KM n??d to not only audit and syst?matiz? knowl?dg?, but also to acknowl?dg? that proc?ss of doing so is on? that ?ntails managing pow?r/knowl?dg?. How?v?r, in practic?, as knowl?dg? manag?rs, or KM consultants, oft?n ignor? th? small ways of pow?r in organisations, th?y d?sign and impl?m?nt KM proj?cts without und?rstanding what this m?ant for traditional practic?s. (Stok?s and Cl?gg, 2003).
Having ?xamin?d th? conc?pt of KM and som? organizational factors, which may influ?nc? th? proc?ss of its application. It is n?c?ssary to ?xamin? a cas? study to provid? a mor? in-d?pth insight about th? impl?m?ntation of KM. This part ?xamin?s on on? of th? world’s larg?st p?trol?um and oil manufactur?rs, Ch?vron Group PLC. Th? sol? purpos? of this part is to giv? a snapshot and th? d?tail?d und?rstanding of th? KM in l?arning organisation. Th? know-how’s and th? s?cr?t b?hind th? succ?ss of gaining comp?titiv? advantag? is also discuss?d furth?r mor? in this pap?r. Th? cl?ar and concis? und?rstanding of impl?m?ntation, b?st practic?s of KM and d?v?lopm?nt, r?t?ntion and sharing is also structur?d furth?r. Ch?vron has b??n particularly adopt?d in this cas? study for th? purpos? of pr?s?nting how a typical ‘Knowl?dg?-bas?d Organisation,’ carry out th?ir activiti?s.
Ch?vron is th? world’s fourth larg?st publicly-h?ld company in t?rms of oil and gas r?s?rv?s with a n?t incom? of $7.2 billion US dollars with ov?r 50,000 ?mploy??s all ov?r th? world. Th?y ar? an int?rnational l?ad?r in finding, producing, and mark?ting oil and gas, as w?ll as oth?r ?n?rgy products. Activ? in mor? than 180 countri?s, th? company’s Calt?x-, T?xaco- and Ch?vron-brand?d products hold top-ti?r rankings worldwid?. “…organization that l?arns fast?r and b?tt?r than comp?titors through b?nchmarking . . . through sharing and impl?m?nting b?st practic?s . . . by l?arning from ?xp?ri?nc? . . . and through continuous individual l?arning and p?rsonal growth” (K?nn?th D?rr, C?O, Ch?vron Corporation (www.ch?vront?xaco.com)
Strat?gic thinking is a proc?ss wh?r?by th? knowl?dg? of how to mak? a busin?ss vision a r?ality by d?v?loping th? abiliti?s in t?am work, probl?m solving, and critical thinking is don?. Ch?vron’s strat?gic vision can b? broadly divid?d into fiv? diff?r?nt crit?ria. Th?s? crit?ria hav? h?lp?d th?m s?t up and d?v?lop th? st?ps n?c?ssary to mak? th? vision a r?ality.
Ch?vron und?rstands w?ll with th? compl?x of d?c?ntralisation manag?m?nt. Ch?vron approach?d downsiz?d ?nvironm?nt as a positiv? chall?ng? which can giv? th?m opportuniti?s by str?tching high?r and looking hard?r rath?r than p?rc?iv?d as an unduly n?gativ? way. A fr?qu?nt barri?r to b?tt?r knowl?dg? sharing is an inappropriat? r?ward syst?m. ?mploy??s must b? motivat?d to sp?nd tim? in d?v?loping and sharing th?ir knowl?dg?. Th?y hav? also combin?s a group of proc?ss mast?rs call?d th? ‘t?chnology brok?rs,’ who cr?at? n?w programm?s with th? rol? of r?s?arching for b?st practic?s in offshor? oil and gas op?rations. Install?d GIL (Global Information Link) to ?nhanc? th? ?xchang? of know-how b?tw??n th? ?mploy??s. This programm? has r?plac?d ?v?ry comput?r in th? company with a common machin?, softwar? and conn?ctivity, cr?ating a singl? d?sktop and op?rating ?nvironm?nt world-wid?. Ch?vron has a ‘B?st Practic?s Sharing Databas?,’ d?sign?d to promot? th? sharing of practic?s, knowl?dg?, know how and ?xp?ri?nc? throughout Ch?vron Organisations. (www.ch?vront?xaco.com)
Good communications is fundam?ntal to ?ff?ctiv? knowl?dg? sharing. N?twork is th? k?y to l?v?raging knowl?dg?. Poor communications is oft?n cit?d as a primary r?ason for fail?d proj?cts and in?ff?ctiv? t?ams. On? of th? probl?ms facing many knowl?dg? work?rs is that of information ov?rload. Th?r?for?, a good p?rsonal information strat?gy has to b? d?vis?d so that ‘th? right.’ Ch?vron has :
§ GIL (Global Information Link)
§ D?c?ntralis?d B?st Practic?s Sharing Databas?
GIL syst?m has b??n install?d to ?nhanc? ?xchang? of know-how b?tw??n ?mploy??s and lat?r r?plac?d by p?rsonal comput?r with all standardiz?d, compatibl? and conn?ct?d. Th?y mak? th? right p?opl? conn?ct and shar? knowl?dg? across th? g?ographic and organizational boundari?s of th? company by using global information link through intran?t. B?nchmarking study show?d Ch?vron sp?nding mor? than comp?titors on som? proj?cts, a b?st practic?s and int?rnal know-how to b? cr?at?d by th? Ch?vron Proj?ct D?v?lopm?nt and ?x?cution Proc?ss, which is consid?r?d to b? a world class tool now. Th?r? ar? two major r?s?arch groups of r?s?arch and d?v?lopm?nt manag?m?nt, which support?d ?xploration and production, and oil r?fining and products. Th? primary t?chnical ‘knowl?dg? c?ntr?s’ is b?ing s?t up, which r?sult?d of mor? cost-?ff?ctiv? to inv?st l?ss in that approach and inv?st mor? in finding int?grating t?chnology from suppli?rs. Finally, it sav?d mor? than $2 billion p?r y?ar in op?rating cost during th? 1990s. (www.ch?vront?xaco.com)
Ch?vron has shown its acquiring knowl?dg? wh?n K?n D?rr transform?d Ch?vron into l?arning organization and h? had highlight?d ‘managing knowl?dg? is ?ss?ntial to staying comp?titiv?’ in ord?r to comp?t? in this 21st C?ntury global ?conomy. Th? company discov?r?d that it could us? knowl?dg?, particularly ?xt?rnal knowl?dg? about comp?titors, to driv? l?arning and improv?m?nt int?rnally. Th?y hav? chang?d its r?s?arch and d?v?lopm?nt (R&D) by outward-inward looking b?haviour. Ch?vron is strongly convinc?d that p?opl? ar? a k?y sourc? of comp?titiv? advantag?, a cl?ar fram?work was provid?d to guid? ?mploy??s to b? a knowl?dg? work?r. In ord?r to k??p th? mom?ntum of l?arning organisation going, Ch?vron r?cognis?s ?xc?ll?nc? by promoting and r?warding individuals who ?xc?l at l?arning-organisation b?haviours.
TQM was th? initiat?d principl?. It utilis?d a vast array of tools, proc?ss?s and t?chniqu?s, th?s? ar? b?st –practic? sharing, b?nchmarking, n?tworking, n?w planning tools and work-tracking softwar?, which assisting Ch?vron achi?v? som? advantag?s, th?s? ar? r?vamping of corporat?-wid? planning proc?ss, cost r?duction, br?akthrough proc?ss improv?m?nt proj?cts, us? of vision m?trics and 18.9% r?turn on shar?hold?r valu?. ‘B?tt?r than th? B?st,’ Ch?vron Quality Stat?m?nt. (www.ch?vront?xaco.com)Th?r? ar? two major r?s?arch groups of r?s?arch and d?v?lopm?nt manag?m?nt, which support?d ?xploration and production, and oil r?fining and products. Th? primary t?chnical ‘knowl?dg? c?ntr?s’ is b?ing s?t up, which r?sult?d of mor? cost-?ff?ctiv? to inv?st l?ss in that approach and inv?st mor? in finding. Applying Int?ll?ctual Capital, Ch?vron d?sir?d th? ‘knowl?dg?’ ?mploy??s to support th? l?arning organisation, ?xpr?ss?d in t?rms of goals for th? individual, which hav? l?arning as ongoing proc?ss, supports organisational l?arning. Th? structur? is a flat and op?n syst?m, which ?ncourag? to sharing knowl?dg?. So it d?als with th? conflict and contradiction by k??ping its various busin?ss?s tightly conn?ct?d and strat?gically align?d. This is ?ss?ntial to top p?rformanc?, which guilds by th? roast?r docum?nt Th? Ch?vron Way. It us?d ?xt?rnal knowl?dg? about comp?titors, to driv? l?arning and improv?m?nt int?rnally.
“Th? disciplin? of “managing knowl?dg?” onc? an obscur? branch of manag?m?nt th?ory has ?volv?d to d?liv?r ?normous b?n?fits to compani?s that hav? ?mbrac?d it, and it is now ?ss?ntial to staying comp?titiv?,” says Ch?vron’s C?O, K?nn?th D?rr. (www.ch?vront?xaco.com)
With th? disciplin? and th? knowl?dg? of manag?m?nt b?st practic? in plac?, Ch?vron has and still is on? of th? v?ry first profound?rs to th? th?ory of a ‘L?arning Organisation.’ Following all th? t?n charact?ristics ?xplain?d abov?, Ch?vron has ind??d, gain?d a comp?titiv? ?dg?. As an ?ff?ctiv? and ?ffici?nt L?arning Organisation, th?y hav? introduc?d various b?st practic?s, nam?ly:
§ Human R?sourc? B?st Practic?s
§ Community B?st Practic?s
§ ?nvironm?ntal B?st Practic?s
§ Vision Obj?ctiv? T?ams B?st practic?.
§ Databas? B?st Practic?. ?tc.
With th?s? practic?s, th? company has manag?d to minimis? cost by $2 billion p?r annum. Th? motto ‘succ?ss though sharing,’ can b? b?st s??n in th? introduction of GIL syst?ms, which has sav?d th?m up to $40 million a y?ar.
Th? ?vid?nc? of Ch?vron ?volving by day with th? chang? in th? busin?ss can b? sight?d with th? vigilanc? and anticipation th?y put in to th? ?nvironm?nt, th?y op?rat? in. This is s??n by th?ir introduction and on going r?s?arch on th?ir mark?ts and custom?rs through, th? formation of th? cross-functional proj?ct d?v?lopm?nt and ?x?cution t?am, r?sponsibl? for th? R&D for cr?ativity, innovation and d?cision-making. Th?s? t?ams hav? d?vis?d and impl?m?nt?d faciliti?s such as ‘Intran?t,’ ‘cost ?ff?ctiv? knowl?dg? c?ntr?s’ ?tc for cl?ar communication and knowl?dg? sharing b?tw??n all l?v?ls in th? organisation.
Mor?ov?r, th? structur? its?lf can b? is a v?ry d?c?ntralis?d on?, bas?d mor? on t?am and b?st practic?s ?ffort rath?r than individual goals. Th? ?mphasis on t?ams is don? by s?tting out r?wards and r?cognition sch?m?s to motivat? individuals working tog?th?r achi?ving ‘syn?rgy.’ B?nchmarking also ?ncourag?s this motivation. This flat and op?n y?t cl?ar structur? has b??n chang?d with th? chang? in th? outsid? forc?s to gain comp?titiv? advantag? and b? th? first to impl?m?nt. Ch?vron has also cr?at?d a b?st practic? map to h?lp p?opl? id?ntify r?sourc?s within th? company. This again, ?mphasis?s th? n??d for ‘sharing,’ ‘knowl?dg?,’ ‘motivation’ and ‘loyalty’ with in and outsid? th? company in ord?r to gain comp?titiv? advantag?.
Abrahamson, E. (1996) “Management Fashion”. Academy of Management Review
Baltazar, H. (2002) “Overcoming KM’s obstacles.” E Week, 19, 43-45.
Bennett, B. (2001) “Just Who Are The Knowledge Workers?” URL: http://australia.internet.com/r/article/jsp/sid/11300 (18 June, 2003)
Courtney, J. F. (2001) “Decision making and KM in inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS” Decision Support Systems, 31, 17-38.
Davis, A. (2002) “Knowledge management – The four pillars of success Biopharm”. The Applied Technologies of Biopharmaceutical Development, 15, 44-+.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Drucker, P.F. (1993), Post Capitalist Society. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hansen, M. (2002) “Knowledge Management: Turning the lone star into a real team player” The Financial Times, 14.
King, W. R., et al. (2002) “The most important issues in Knowledge Management” Communications of the ACM, 45, 5.
Little, S. E., et al. (2002) Managing Knowledge : An Essential Rreader, London : SAGE.
Marwick, D. (2001) “Knowledge Management Technology.” IBM Systems Journal, 40.
McKinlay, A. (2002) “The Limits of Knowledge Management” New Technology, Work and Employment
Myers, P. S. (1996) Knowledge Management and Organizational Design. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann
Newell, S. et al. (1999) “Intranet and Knowledge Management: Complex Processes and Ironic Outcomes.” Proceeding of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
Stokes, J. and Clegg, S. (2003) “Visions of Power and Knowledge Confronting Bureaucracy”
Swan, J. et al. (1999) “Knowledge Management: When Will People Enter the Debate?” Working Paper
Swan, J. and Scarbrough, H. (2002) “The Paradox of Knowledge”. Management Informatik No.1, 10-13
Thomas, J. C., et al. (2001) “The knowledge management puzzle: Human and social factors in knowledge management.” IBM Systems Journal, 40, 863-884.
Zorn, T. E. (2001) “Knowledge Management, E-Organizing and the ‘Technology’ of Management Fashion”. From http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ict/mgtfashion.pdf
Zack, M. H. (1999) “Developing a Knowledge Strategy”. California Management Review, 41, 125-145.