Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, March 2002

The Evolution Of Knowledge Management Systems Needs To Be Managed

Rikard Lindgren, Christian Hardless, Kalevi Pessi, Urban Nuldén, The Viktoria Institute

ABSTRACT:

Today many organizations are reliant on the knowledge and competence of individual organizational members. Consequently, information systems to support knowledge management (KM) are considered to be vital tools in order to achieve competitive advantage. In this paper, we report the results from a field research study of such systems in a knowledge-intensive, fast-growing, and dynamic organization. The case illustrates that evolution, which refers to the process by which organizations and their information systems change over time, needs to be managed since it can result in KM systems failures. We characterize the mainstream KM research literature in relation to managing the risk of KM systems failures and outline that management of KM systems’ evolution is a dimension that has not been addressed so far. Building on these empirical and theoretical results, we discuss how the evolution of KM systems could be managed and what implications our results have for future KM research.

1.         Introduction

To improve business performance and competitive advantage organizations make large investments in information systems to support KM (see e.g., Wiig et al, 1997; Milton et al., 1999). However, there is a risk that the investments do not lead to the expected benefits. Recent contributions to KM research show that KM systems often fail (Fahey and Prusak, 1998; Newell et al., 1999; Lindgren and Henfridsson, 2002; Storey and Barnett, 2000) and it is apparent that KM systems suffer from development and implementation difficulties that have previously been discussed in the broader literature on information systems failures (e.g., Lyytinen and Hirschheim, 1987; Lyytinen and Robey, 1999). Given the risk that KM systems fail to deliver the expected benefits, an important task for KM research is to contribute knowledge that will support researchers and practioners in their efforts to successfully develop and implement KM systems.

Evolution has been identified as an important dimension that can result in failures (see e.g., Orlikowski, 1992, 1996; Ciborra, 1996, 2000; Henfridsson, 1999) in the broader literature on information systems failures, although often discussed in different terms such as adaptation and drift, In this paper, evolution refers to the process by which organizations and their information systems change over time. Since the world changes, business changes, strategy changes, and context changes, the information systems need to adapt to such changes in order to deliver benefits (Parker, 1996). Further, changes in information systems also affect other systems and the organization. Therefore, changes are often interrelated and affect their surroundings in sometimes unpredictable ways. The change process is continuous, multi-dimensional, and difficult to manage. An implication of this perspective is that information systems cannot be viewed as stand-alone systems but as interrelated systems that need continuous management rather than one-time planning (e.g., Hanseth and Monteiro, 1997; Magoulas and Pessi, 1998).

In this particular study, we are interested in what support KM research has provided so far for the management of KM systems’ evolution and what additional support KM research needs to provide. We first characterize the mainstream KM research literature in relation to managing the risk of KM systems failures and point out that evolution is one dimension that has not been addressed so far. We then illustrate, by presenting findings from a field research study, that evolution is an important dimension that can lead to unnecessary complexity and ultimately KM systems failures. In the final part of the paper, we discuss how the evolution of KM systems could be managed and what implications our results have for future KM research.

2.         KM research

In this section, we characterize the contemporary mainstream KM research literature in relation to managing the risk of KM systems failures and show that evolution is a dimension that has not been addressed so far. The literature that we have studied is found mainly in e three overlapping research areas Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Information Systems (IS), and Organization Theory (OT). Most of the contributions that explicitly focus on KM have been published since 1995. Conferences that we have concentrated on are the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), the European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW), the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), and the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Journals that we have studied are Journal of Knowledge Management, Organization Science, and special issues on KM in Harvard Business Review, Journal of Management Studies, Strategic Management Journal, and Strategic Management Review. Moreover, we have less comprehensively studied and used other conferences and journals. Below, we characterize the mainstream KM research within CSCW, IS, and OT.

Contributions within the research area CSCW inform the design of KM systems. The focus is on computer systems and functions supporting groups and the emphasis is on developing and evaluating new types of functions and uses for KM systems. This is supported by empirical and theoretical studies that inform design of new KM systems. Typical contributions propose a KM system and evaluate it (e.g., Terveen et al., 1993; Ackerman, 1994; Karduck, 1994; Ackerman and McDonald, 1996; Kovalainen et al., 1998), inform design through empirical studies of work-practice (e.g., Ackerman and Halverson, 1998; McDonald and Ackerman, 1998; Fagrell et al., 1999), and inform design through theoretical discussions (e.g., Bannon and Kuutti, 1996; Randall et al., 1996). Overall, in relation to managing the risk of KM systems failures, the KM research within the CSCW area offers researchers and practioners support and guidelines for how to design and implement a KM system to fit work-practice in a specific use context.

Contributions within the research area IS inform the design of organizational KM initiatives and KM systems. Through both empirical and theoretical studies, the emphasis is on finding a match between a certain type of KM system and an organization. Typical contributions propose strategies for organizational use of a KM system (e.g., Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Pan and Scarbrough, 1998; Hansen et al., 1999; Zack, 1999; Swan et al., 2000), improvements of functions for KM systems from an organizational perspective (e.g., Abecker et al., 1999; Hauck and Chen, 1999; Hahn and Subramani, 2000; Lindgren and Henfridsson, 2002), and investigations of the nature of knowledge and KM in order to create an understanding of the phenomena to support (e.g., Schultze, 1999; Tuomi, 1999; Hedesstrom and Whitley, 2000; Alavi and Leidner, 2001). Overall, in relation to managing the risk of KM systems failures, the KM research within the IS area offers researchers and practioners support and guidelines for how to design and implement a KM system to fit organizational characteristics and strategies.

Contributions within the area OT inform the design of organizational KM initiatives. The emphasis is on organizing and IT is treated peripherally. With both empirical and theoretical studies as a basis, typical contributions deal with proposals for organizational designs (e.g., Nonaka, 1994; Brown, 1998; Nonaka and Konno, 1998), discussions about the nature of organizations and work (e.g., Brown and Duguid, 1991; Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996; Tsoukas, 1996; Brown and Duguid, 1998; Scarbrough, 1998), and discussions regarding the nature of knowledge (e.g., Blackler, 1995; Cook and Brown, 1999). Overall, in relation to managing the risk of KM systems failures, the KM research within the OT area offers researchers and practioners support and guidelines for how to design and implement a KM-oriented organization. KM systems are not discussed in detail, but instead seen as unproblematic supportive technology for the organizational designs.

Summing up, the mainstream KM research can be described as having a perspective that focuses on the development and implementation of one KM system in a relatively stable organization during a limited time-period. This perspective does not encompass the evolution of KM systems, i.e., the process by which organizations and their information systems change over time. Knowledge from a perspective of a single systems development project does not offer support and guidelines for managing the evolution of KM systems. In the remainder of this paper, we illustrate, by presenting findings from a field research study, that evolution is an important dimension, which can result in unnecessary complexity and ultimately KM systems failures. With these theoretical and empirical findings as a point of departure, we argue that more KM research focusing on this problematic phenomenon is needed.

3.         The Guide Case: Research Site And Methodology

The research site was the Swedish IT consultant organization Guide, which could be characterized as a knowledge-intensive, fast-growing, and dynamic organization. At the time of this study, Guide had approximately 800 employees at ten offices located in three countries. Since the start in 1988, Guide’s business concept has been to offer top expertise. In order to realize this ambition, Guide annually invested 15 percent of the turnover in competence development and could be described as an ambitious organization with regard to KM.

From a practical standpoint, we had good access to the organization. One of the authors was employed by Guide 1994 to 1999 and during the period 1996 to 1998 he was the chief knowledge officer (CKO). This means that on the one hand he has unique insights and knowledge regarding the case, yet on the other hand he can be considered biased towards the case. The problems with bias are likely to have been counter-balanced by the fact that the fieldwork at Guide has been conducted by the rest of the authors who have not been affiliated with the organization. Moreover, other studies at Guide have contributed to the understanding of the case (see Lindgren and Henfridsson, 2002).

The fieldwork was carried out during March to May 2000 and employed ethnographic techniques (see e.g., Van Maanen, 1988). We have conducted 25 semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately one hour, with sales managers, project managers, system architects, management consultants, personnel managers, competence area managers, and business area managers. 15 of the interviews were with people from Guide’s office in Gothenburg who had knowledge of local issues as well as local development and use of KM systems. Most of these people, however, also had assignments on a top-management level and therefore had knowledge of the organization as a whole. Moreover, we interviewed 5 people from Guide’s office in Stockholm and 5 people from Guide’s office in Oslo (Norway). The reason for this was to gain knowledge regarding the locally developed KM systems at these offices, i.e., the Competence-marketplace and the Developers-guild. The interviews focused on issues regarding what has worked and not with KM systems at Guide during the period 1995 to early 2000. Large parts of the interviews were conversations where the respondents were given freedom to express the issues that were most relevant from their perspective. However, in order to test the stability in these expressions, we tempted the respondent to counter-argue. Furthermore, all the interviews were recorded and later transcribed. Besides the interviews, we collected empirical data through studying documents such as system manuals, strategy plans, competence plans, and annual reports. We have maintained a critical perspective towards the empirical data and iteratively analyzed the case in order to get past first-impressions and surface explanations of the situation. Our analysis can be described as grounded theory-inspired since we have not applied an explicit theoretical framework as a basis. Instead, we have pragmatically constructed a theory based on our interpretation of the empirical data, albeit influenced by our own experiences and implicit theories. Overall, our research approach can be broadly classified as an interpretive case study (Walsham, 1995) and the results presented in this paper is one possible interpretation of the Guide case.

4.         Results

In this section, we present the results from our field research study at Guide. The results are structured using categories generated from the analysis of the empirical data. First, we describe the overall organizational development of Guide during the period 1988 to 2000. Second, we present an overview of the KM systems that are relevant for this study. Third, we describe the complex situation early 2000 at Guide’s office in Gothenburg with regard to the KM systems use. Fourth, we outline ad hoc management of the KM systems’ evolution as a cause to the unnecessarily complex situation. The first and second sections serve as a background to the third and fourth, which are of a more problematizing character.

4.1.      The Organizational Development Of Guide

Guide was founded in 1988 when two IT consultant firms merged and a number of consultants at one of the firms decided to leave the organization and start a new company. The objective was to offer top expertise and therefore developing as well as managing knowledge were recognized as key issues.

In 1989, consultant profiles containing brief descriptions of individuals’ competencies were introduced in order attract customers. Further, consultants with an average experience of 15 years were recruited to offer a mentoring base for less experienced employees. Recruiting experienced consultants from other organizations was, however, relatively easy due to the competence focus that Guide had. Furthermore, the ambition at this time was to have a growth rate equal to the growth of the industry branch, yet not to become too big. The organization was geographically concentrated to Gothenburg and Stockholm where the major customers were located and the business focus was systems development.

In times of recession, in 1993, Guide suffered its worst result ever. This was met by intensified investments in competence development. A test-laboratory was built in order to show their high competence for customers and this laboratory gained much positive attention.

In 1994, Guide implemented routines to enable customers to value specific consultants’ competencies and performance in assignments.

In 1996, competence development ratings were implemented as a measurement of the consultants’ perceived competence development in assignments. This enabled management based on other parameters than traditional economical ratios. The same year the business strategy changed from selling individual consultants to selling teams, concepts, and complete solutions in order to increase profit margins. Further, the organization was ISO-certified and this demanded routines for managing knowledge and competence. A KM strategy was formulated and an IT strategy was developed. Moreover, the two new subsidiaries IT management and Integration were created, which resulted in that the business became diversified. Previously, the offices in Stockholm and Gothenburg were organizationally separated, i.e., they had their own customers, consultants, and assignments. With the two new subsidiaries this was changed since the different offices were part of the same organization. Also in 1996, some smaller corporations were bought and the new employees were integrated into the existing organization.

The year after, in 1997, the extent of corporate takeovers increased. Guide bought the corporation Communicator and established offices in Uppsala, Malmö, and Oslo. In 1999, Guide established an office in Copenhagen (Denmark). In February 2000, the Internet consultant corporation Framfab bought Guide.

 

 

 

Figure 1: The Growth Of Guide During The Period 1994 To 1999.

4.2.      KM Systems At Guide

As part of the ISO-certification process, Competence descriptions were developed and implemented in 1996. The Competence descriptions were word documents containing detailed descriptions of the consultants’ competencies, which were mainly used for manning assignments. However, they were also used to show the customers the competencies that were available for a prospect. The Competence descriptions could be edited and used by everyone, i.e., both management and consultants. Until 1996, the business strategy focused on selling individual consultants and the operational focus within Guide was to find the appropriate consultant for an assignment. Eventually, as the organization grew, keeping track of individuals competencies and matching those with appropriate assignments required more sophisticated system support. As a result, the Available-consultants system was developed and implemented in the beginning of 1996. The system was a spreadsheet document, stored on a server, containing competence profiles, availability status, competence areas, and prospects. Only the management could access this system. The First intranet was launched in 1996. This intranet version contained HTML based competence descriptions, which were automatically generated from the above described word documents, prospects, project information, competence areas, etc.

In 1998, the Second intranet was implemented as a replacement for the First intranet. This version of the intranet contained information regarding consultant profiles, but less attention was given to projects and competence areas. Instead, the focus was on personal information about the consultants. The same year, the Job-assignment system was developed and implemented at Guide’s office in Gothenburg. This system was based on Lotus Notes and partly replaced the Available-consultants system. The Job-assignment system contained competence information and prospects and was used to match incoming prospects with the consultants’ competencies and wishes. Only the management could access the system.

In 1999, the Competence-marketplace system was developed at Guide in Oslo and since August 1999 the system was up and running at Guide’s offices in Gothenburg, Oslo, and Stockholm. The system was a database containing competence areas and competence levels of the consultants’ competencies. Guide’s idea regarding the Competence-marketplace system was to have a KM system for mapping the consultants’ competencies, categorization and visualization of the competencies within the organization, forming teams of consultants, and finding expertise for their projects. Further, the consultants were responsible for the input of their competence data. At the time of the implementation of the Competence-marketplace system, the Developers-guild system was developed at Guide’s office in Stockholm. The system was made available for the whole organization in late 1999. The Developers-guild system was a community website functioning as a meeting space for system developers. The idea was to have an alternative forum for co-operation, knowledge sharing, and information retrieval. The Developers-guild system included online articles, discussion lists, collaborative writing tools, and news.

 

Figure 2: KM Systems At Guide’s Office In Gothenburg.

4.3.      Complexity And The Risk Of KM Systems Failures

With regard to the KM systems use at Guide’s office in Gothenburg, the situation early 2000 was characterized by unnecessary complexity. This means that in addition to the complexity that naturally exists in this type of organization, there were dimensions of complexity that to a large extent could have been avoided. As we show in the following subsections, there were, for example, several systems with conflicting relationships and the data quality in the KM systems was low. Overall, the KM systems were not embraced by the organization and thus not extensively used. The desired effects of the KM systems, such as support for finding expertise, team formation, and competence analyses, were not achieved. The problems and barriers for achieving the desired effects were substantial and commitment for the systems among organizational members was deteriorating. Therefore, the risk of KM systems failures was considerable. Below, technical and organizational dimensions regarding the complex situation are presented. These dimensions are illustrated by quotations from the interviews.

4.3.1.   Competing Systems

Competing systems is about that the KM systems within the organization have an influence on each other. At the time of this study, co-ordination for reducing conflicts between KM systems was missing. The different KM systems had to be updated with similar data and, therefore, the consultants had to update several systems. A sales manager and one of the project managers for the implementation of the Competence-marketplace system in Gothenburg discussed this:

“In 1998, the Job-assignment system was developed in Lotus Notes. The problem with the Competence-marketplace system was that the consultants were compelled to update the Notes system as well. If you had merged these systems, it would have worked better… as it is now, the data is not replicated between the systems.”

“The problem has been that there is no connection between the Competence-marketplace system and the Competence descriptions. There are no defined routines regarding how to… for example update. The original idea was that the Competence-marketplace system would generate competence descriptions… but this is not the case.”

Consequently, at Guide’s office in Gothenburg there were several similar KM systems containing the same type of data. Their reciprocal relationships had neither been elucidated nor defined, which in turn resulted in low compatibility.

4.3.2.   Related Systems

Related systems is about other systems within the organization that have “invisible” relations to the KM systems. At the time of this study, value adding co-ordination was missing and, for instance, compulsory systems such as financial systems had data that was relevant for the KM systems. One management consultant and a competence area manager explained:

“In our more compulsory systems there are time reports… these you have to hand in… otherwise you will not get your salary. The time reports contain information regarding what assignments you have worked in and every assignment has a description concerning what competencies it consists of. It should be quite simple to scan these documents and in this way update systems like the Competence-marketplace.”

“The Competence-marketplace system should contain information about what assignments different consultants have accomplished. Actually, we have invoices and basic data in our operative systems that could be useful to have in the Competence-marketplace system. I do not think that it is integrated with other types of systems within the organization.”

Accordingly, there were other systems within Guide’s activity that to a great extent were related to the KM systems. However, useful data from these more compulsory systems were not utilized. In consequence, the consultants were expected to supply and update data that already existed in other systems within the organization.

4.3.3.   Heterogenous Usegroups

Heterogenous usegroups is about the relations between the KM systems and different usegroups within the organization. At the time of this study, there was uncertainty regarding which groups of users that were served by the KM systems. Furthermore, it was not consolidated who was producer and consumer of the KM systems’ information. Concerning the Competence-marketplace system, a personnel manager and a project manager discussed this:

“The greatest winners concerning this are the personnel managers. Maybe it should be their responsibility to secure that the system is updated. The consultants are interested in having the right assignments and if the Competence-marketplace system was the way for this... then the incentives are in place, but this is really not the situation. I think this is due to misapprehensions regarding what the system is supposed to do.“

“The Competence-marketplace system has a built-in conflict. From my point of view, it is developed with the sales organization’s demands as a starting point... the sellers argue that they need to be able to search for information about competence within the organization. But, you must remember that someone is needed in order to provide that information.“

The Competence-marketplace system primarily served the personnel managers and the sales part of the organization. The consultants that were supposed to supply the information about their competencies did not get much in return. Thus, it seems that an organizational awareness regarding which groups of users that were producers and consumers of the Competence-marketplace system’s information was missing.

4.4.      Ad Hoc Management Of KM Systems’ Evolution

In the previous sub-section, we presented the complex situation at Guide’s office in Gothenburg with regard to the KM systems use. Here follows an analysis of the period 1995 to 1999, which outlines ad hoc management of the KM systems’ evolution as a cause to the unnecessarily complex situation. In order to illustrate the evolution of KM systems, we have chosen to discuss different types of changes. These changes, which we have categorized as functional and organizational changes, have been generated from the analysis of the empirical data. Functional changes deal with new KM systems in the organization, new versions of a KM system, and new features in one KM system. Organizational changes are about new business models in the organization, new subsidiaries in the organization, and new competencies in the organization. To illustrate each type of change, we use quotations from the interviews. The reason for this presentation is to show that evolution of KM systems is an important dimension that needs to be managed.

4.4.1.   Functional Changes

Functional changes deal with new KM systems in the organization, new versions of a KM system, and new features in one KM system. Below, we describe and illustrate each type of change.  

New KM systems in the organization: This change is about that several different KM systems are implemented in the organization over time. This is illustrated by a management consultant at Guide:

“We changed intranet… and then we unfortunately lost speed. At the same time the Competence-marketplace system came in by leaps and bounds, and took over… this regarding the information about individuals’ competencies. The marketing of the Developers-guild system at the time of its introduction was insignificant… so, there are merely a few who take part… some even do not know that it exists. In the midst of it all, the Competence-marketplace system appeared and it can be described more as the essential thing… the core… it is like the heart in our knowledge bank.”

This quotation highlights that the second intranet, the Competence-marketplace system, and the Developers-guild were developed in different quarters within the organization and that there was a lack of co-ordination between the different initiatives. The development and implementation of the KM systems can be characterized as locally driven and their relations were managed in an ad hoc manner.

New versions of a KM system: This change concerns that new versions of existing KM systems are developed and implemented in the organization. A sales manager at Guide in Gothenburg discussed this in relation to the development of the different versions of the intranet:

“Competence descriptions as well as the competence areas were put up as sites on the intranet [version 1]. These sights were supposed to indicate work tasks, what we were actually doing, projects, and anybody was permitted to go there and have a look. This was the first attempt in order to display something for the consultants and it really set off the competence development. Then the intranet [version 2] became more of an information channel consisting of general information. Our ambition was this huge competence mass, but it did not turn out that way. This implementation became more of a news channel, rather than a knowledge system.”

The quotation highlights that the development of the intranet has been problematic. The first version of the intranet was adapted to Guide’s activity and the management of knowledge and competence was supported. When the second version of the intranet was developed, however, the experiences gained from the first intranet version were missed. This resulted in that the new intranet did not have the qualities, which made the former version useful for the organization.

New features in one KM system: This change is about that new features are developed and added to existing KM systems within the organization. Concerning this issue a sales manager at Guide’s office in Gothenburg phrased the following:

“The development of the intranet [version 2] was conducted top-down. Since there was no organization that managed the implementation of the system, sub-intranets emerged. These local initiatives evolved in order to meet needs belonging to particular parts of the organization… driven by personnel, and around these sub-intranets, forums developed. These have, of course, effected the use of other systems within the organization.”

This quotation illustrates that the functions in the second version of the intranet did not satisfy local needs. Therefore, local initiatives were initiated in an ad hoc manner to adapt the system for their respective demands.

4.4.2.   Organizational Changes

Organizational changes concern new business models, new subsidiaries, and new competencies in the organization. Below, we describe and illustrate each type of change.  

New business models in the organization: This change is about that new business models in the organization are developed over time. One business area manager in Gothenburg discussed this in relation to the Competence-marketplace system:

“The business model resulted in certain questions such as, for example, are there any persons who are suitable for this project. This is reflected in the Competence-marketplace system. However, reality as well as business models change, but this is not mirrored in the systems. Our business has changed... from selling individual consultants to selling complete solutions.“

The quotation highlights that Guide developed a new business model (i.e., selling teams and complete solutions instead of individuals and man-hours), which in turn was not implemented in the Competence-marketplace system (e.g., features for team analyses such as aggregation of team members’ competencies). Consequently, the Competence-marketplace system did not support the new way of working within the organization.

New subsidiaries in the organization: This change deals with new subsidiaries in the organization, which adds new business areas as well as perspectives to the existing activity. A sales manager at Guide in Gothenburg discussed this increased heterogeneity:

“At the same time as we acquired companies with new lines of business, we tried to implement the system. Guide had 22 subsidiaries... all of them with their own perspectives. Who has the right to change the Competence-marketplace system’s structure... who owns the information so to speak... from this viewpoint it would have failed irrespective of our efforts.“

The quotation highlights that the implementation of the Competence-marketplace system was difficult since different parts of Guide’s decentralized organization had varying demands. It was unclear who had the responsibility for the information and the authority to change the structure of the system.

New competencies in the organization: This change concerns new employees in the organization, which leads to new competencies and greater diversity within the organization. A management consultant at Guide’s office in Gothenburg articulated this:

“Oslo has contributed with the original competence structure, but... then we have done nothing, and it has been the new consultants’ task to take care of the structure if they are not satisfied. That is the way it has been... it is not properly handled.“

This quotation illustrates that the original competence structure in the Competence-marketplace system was developed at Guide in Oslo and when the system was implemented at Guide’s office in Gothenburg the original competence structure was applied. Moreover, when new consultants with new competencies have been recruited to the activity in Gothenburg, the updating of the competence structure has been managed in an ad hoc manner. Accordingly, there have been competencies within the organization that were not represented in the Competence-marketplace system.

5.         Discussion

This section contains a summary of the Guide case, a discussion about how the evolution of KM systems could be managed, and, finally, what implications our results have for future KM research.

5.1.      Summary Of The Guide Case

In this paper, we have presented empirical findings from a field research study at Guide, which highlight that ad hoc management of the KM system’s evolution has resulted in an unnecessarily complex situation (see Figure 3).


Figure 3: Summary Of The Guide Case

As outlined in this paper, Guide has implemented several KM systems at various points of time. Many of those systems have not realized their potential and can be considered as failures. Other systems, successfully used in the present situation, risk failing in the long run due to continued evolution and increased complexity. We have shown that the main reason for this problematic situation is ad hoc management of the KM systems’ evolution. The various changes within Guide’s activity were managed in an improvised, impromptu, contingent, and undefined manner. Managing the evolution of KM systems was not a clear and recognized area of responsibility. Decisions were made based on a short-term, narrow, and local perspective. Relationships between different systems were not investigated and dealt with, long-term co-ordination of various efforts was missing, and changes in the organization that had consequences for systems design and implementation were not considered. Seemingly, the organization did not learn anything from their negative experiences regarding the development, implementation, and use of KM systems and similar mistakes were repeated over time.

Our interpretation of the Guide case shows that the KM system’s evolution has to be deliberately managed in order to avoid the type of unnecessary complexity described in this paper. Ad hoc management of the evolution of KM systems may work in a short-term perspective, but to avoid unnecessary complexity and failures in the long run the management process must be a dedicated area of responsibility. In the Guide case, we believe that a conscious and holistic management approach would have reduced the unnecessary complexity and improved the conditions for successful implementations of KM systems. In the next subsection (5.2), we discuss the nature of such a perspective on managing the evolution of KM systems.

Although outside the scope of our analysis, an interesting development since we conducted our field research study is that the Internet consultant corporation Framfab has bought Guide. This has resulted in that the number of systems, organizations, competencies, business models, etc., has increased and Guide is now in an even more complex situation than we have reported. The KM systems’ evolution at Guide has thus continued and the need for management is even more apparent in the present situation.

Our experiences from other KM projects, collaborations, and networking events in the Gothenburg vicinity have further convinced us of the validity of our results. This additional evidence, which is of a less systematic and more anecdotal nature, indicates the existence of similar problems, to those presented in this paper, in other organizations. Therefore, there are reasons to believe that the situation at Guide is also common in other knowledge-intensive, fast-growing, and dynamic organizations. It is easy to imagine the turbulence in such organizations and the problems with KM systems that eventually will emerge if evolution is not managed. Moreover, in less dynamic organizations the problems related to the evolution of KM systems are likely to occur, although being less frequent and immediate.

5.2.      Managing The Evolution Of KM Systems

From the Guide case we can see that the evolution of KM systems needs to be managed. In this subsection, we explain our perspective of managing KM systems’ evolution. More specifically, we discuss both what should be managed and how. However, the objective is not to present a tangible solution proposal but rather to develop an understanding of management as a phenomenon. As a basis for our reasoning, we use Magoulas and Pessi’s (1998) study of strategic IT management in dynamic organizations. Magoulas and Pessi present a picture of the meaning of IT management and they discuss how information systems’ evolution can be managed.

While the task for systems development is to develop the best possible systems with regard to allocated resources, IT management is about getting the most out of the whole, i.e., to attain synergy. By elucidating what systems that exist, the relations between these systems, and the degree of co-ordination, conditions for understanding as well as good decisions are created. Consequently, management is about taking a standpoint regarding different strategic questions about systems and activity in order to improve the information system environment. One decision could be, for instance, a decentralized strategy for systems responsibility, while at the same time require co-ordination between different local systems. Management does not necessarily mean a rigid process characterized by strong governing, i.e., a top-down strategy. Equally often, management is about designing a space of possible action in which system developers have the freedom to act. In  such an information system environment, systems come and go and are allowed to drift over time, i.e., a bottom-up strategy. Which strategy to chose depends on the specific situation. While a top-down approach is appropriate in certain cases, a more decentralized, bottom-up strategy is preferable in other situations (for an extensive discussion about these different strategies, see Ciborra, 1996, 1997, 2000; Ciborra and Hanseth, 1998; Orlikowski, 1996).

Below, we will discuss questions that are important in relation to managing the evolution of KM systems. Within Guide, these questions were not asked and thus handled in an ad-hoc manner. More specifically, the systems and their relations were neither elucidated nor defined. Expressed differently, the focus was on the development of specific systems, while the implementation of systems in the organization’s overall system enviroment received little attention. As we have shown in subsection 4.3, Guide’s approach negatively affected the adoption and use of the KM systems within the organization. The questions that we will discuss are categorized as substantial and procedural questions (see Magoulas and Pessi, 1998). The reason why we have chosen these two categories is partly that they cover the functional and organizational changes that we have identified in the Guide case and partly because they contain a considerable part of the questions that IT management within an organization has to deal with.

5.2.1.   Substantial Questions

Substantial questions focus on the actual goal or the result (the reality) one aims to realize or accomplish. This could be designated as a model based IT management, where model describes some kind of ideal situation that represents the final result. Substantial questions are further devided in two subcategories: Systems, relations between systems, and systems co-ordination and overall relationships between business activity and systems.

5.2.2.   Systems; Relations Between Systems; & Systems Co-Ordination

More specifically, these questions deal with: First, a general system view is about getting a comprehensive picture of the existing systems within the organization. With such a view as a basis, it is possible to evaluate a specific system’s relation the whole system enviroment. As our study has indicated, Guide had no overall picture of their systems and how these were interrelated. Second, degree of dependence concerns how dependent the different systems should be on each other. Within Guide’s activity, there were invisible relationships between different systems and since there was no co-ordination some systems became stand-alone. Third, co-ordination quality is a question about how to generate more value from the systems within the organization. Since the consultants within Guide had to enter information into several systems at different places their motivation for using them diminished. Fourth, information quality is about having information that is up to date as well as relevant for the members of the organization. In Guide’s KM systems the information quality was low. One reason for this was that the information was not fetched from other sources already existing within the organization. Thus, the updating of information became a burdensome issue, which negatively affected the KM systems’ content.     

5.2.3.   Overall Relationships Between Business Activity And Systems.

In more detail, these questions are about: First, relationships between individuals’ perceptions of reality and system structures deal with the relation between co-workers’ ability and KM systems’ structure. The Competence-marketplace system’s structure was developed at Guide’s office in Oslo. However, without any further examination regarding its appropriateness, the same structure was implemented at Guide’s office in Gothenburg. As this research has indicated, the consultants in Gothenburg did not adopt the structure properly since they had competencies that could not be found. The lesson learned here is that Guide should have asked themselves whether or not it was possible to implement a general system structure throughout the organization. Second, customization is a question about how the systems can be modified to fit different  parts of the organization. Since the Competence-marketplace system was implemented as a standard system, maybe Guide’s office in Gothenburg should have had the possibility to change the system’s structure. Nevertheless, the important question is if it was reasonable that Guide tried to implement the Competence-marketplace system as a system that was supposed to embrace the whole organization. Third, dependences between the activity’s development and the systems’ structures deal with issues such as flexibility and adaptability. As we have illustrated in this research, Guide bought smaller corporations that were integrated into the existing organization. Guide should have asked themselves whether or not these organizational changes had to be implemented in the systems. If so, it would have required more flexibility in, for instance, the Competence-marketplace system. The key issue here is about making a decision about the dependence between the own activity and the systems and how organizational changes should be handled.

5.2.4.   Procedural Questions

Procedural questions concentrate on the actual change process and deal with questions about how to make decisions and how to find guiding principles for managing this process. This could be designated as a process based IT management. Procedural questions are further divided in three subcategories: The use of IT within the activity, how to make activity development, systems development, and competence development coherent, and the pace of the development with regard to system inheritance, learning, and the evolution of the KM systems.

5.2.5.   The Use Of IT Within The Activity.

More specifically, these questions are about: First, strategic decisions regarding how the systems are supposed to contribute to the activity. Even though there was an overall strategy for the organizational use of the Competence-marketplace system, Guide had no plans for how this particular system would support different usegroups within the organization. Second, fundamental decisions regarding who decides about the change direction, which people should participate, which goups are the targets for this change, which people would benefit from this change initiative, allocation of recourses, rights and obligations, and systems co-ordination. Within Guide the implementation of the Competence-marketplace system was unclear. It was not decided who the system owner was and what responsibilities that were required in order to support the adoption and use of the system. 

5.2.6.   Activity-, Systems-, & Competence-Development: Making Them Coherent.

In more detail, these questions deal with: First, the connections or relations between the activity’s development, systems development, and competence development, is a question about degrees of freedom with regard to design and implementation of local systems within the organization and possibilities to adjust existing systems. When it was identified that the competence structure of the Competence-marketplace system did not match the activity at Guide’s office in Gothenburg, there was no system owner that could decide whether or not it was feasible to conduct system adjustments to local needs. Second, the handling of problems and conflicts that originate from experiences of unsuitable principles, unwanted effects, a constantly growing quantity of systems, unwell suited or non-existent systems relations, rigid connections between systems, or confused systems integration. The unclear relationships between KM systems such as the Competence descriptions, the Available-consultants, and the Competence-marketplace have caused conflicts within Guide. Unfortunately these conflicts have not been handled properly. Within Guide nobody has had the responsibility to evaluate systems quality, define systems responsibilities, examine development questions, and determine systems administration.

5.2.7.   The Pace Of The Development: System Inheritance, Learning, And The Evolution Of The KM Systems

More specifically, these questions concern: First, time required for introducing new system concepts. Second, time needed for phase-outs of old systems. Third, time required for education of employees. Fourth, time needed for changes of the activity. Within Guide, the second version of the intranet was implemented before the first intranet version was phased-out. The overlap with the first intranet version could be seen as  necessary during the transition period, but since this overlap was managed in an ad hoc manner it eventually negatively affected the use of both of these systems. Instead, Guide should have asked themselves what parts of the first intranet version that should be transferred to the second intranet version. Further, Guide’s introduction of the Developers-guild system shows how important it is to have a well thought-out plan for a system’s future use. Since there were local forums related to the intranet that served similar purposes as the Developers-guild system, the latter did not get as much attention as Guide had expected at the time of its implementation. The Developers-guild system’s degree of diffusion was limited and the system has fallen short of Guide’s expectations.      

5.2.8.   Summing Up

We stress that management is a complex and difficult process that lacks easy solutions. Although managing KM systems’ evolution is about taking a standpoint, we are not saying that a top-down approach is the most feasible. For us, management is rather a situated continuous process in which changes in both systems and activity are taken into consideration. Expressed differently, managing KM systems’ evolution is about finding a balance between, what we termed above as, substantial and procedural questions. Instead of managing from a narrow single system perspective, what is needed is a well thought-out management process with the aim of generating more systems value from a comprehensive point of view. 

5.2.9.   Implications For KM Research

The arguments in this paper are strengthened by a few non-mainstream contributions in the KM research literature, which report partially similar observations and arguments as this study (see Wijnhoven, 1999; Hellström et al., 2000). Wijnhoven has drawn on the strategic planning literature and three case studies to discuss the development and implementation of KM systems (he uses the term organizational memories), viewed over several projects and years. He claims that different situations require different strategies for the development and implementation of KM systems. The study acknowledges, to some extent, the existence of several KM systems and relations between them and the organizational dynamics over time. Issues discussed are infrastructure complexity, roles regarding development, implementation, and use of KM systems, existence or absence of plans and policies, linkages between KM systems, business plans, and practices, and long-term objectives and structures. Hellström et al. have conducted a study of KM initiatives at the large Swedish telecom corporation Ericsson. The results show how KM initiatives at Ericsson have been decentralized and local and that Ericsson at the time had several conflicting KM initiatives that had been developed and implemented in parallel. The study highlights the existence of several KM systems and relations between them. Also, to some extent, the organizational dynamics over time are highlighted, but this is less visible in the paper. The need for co-ordinating different KM initiatives without restricting them is briefly discussed.

The main implication of our paper for KM research, is that more studies are needed that focus on the evolution of KM systems. Empirical studies of KM systems, which take into account the organizational dynamics over time and the relations between many systems in the organization, can produce results that help researchers and practitioners understand the evolution of KM systems and improve the associated management. Moreover, KM researchers need to investigate whether knowledge in the broader literature regarding the evolution of organizations and their information systems can be drawn upon for the management of KM systems’ evolution. For example, the following two studies, which are not included within our definition of contemporary KM research, focus on technologies that are often discussed in relation to KM. Damsgaard and Scheepers (1999) highlight the problematic evolution of intranets and propose a stage model for intranet implementation and management. Orlikowski and Hofman (1997) propose an improvisational model for managing technological change and illustrate the model in practice by presenting a case study of groupware technology implementation. A broad research field of particular interest is IT management (see e.g., Magoulas and Pessi, 1998), which has focused on managing the evolution of information systems. Hopefully, KM researchers can draw from knowledge in that field or researchers within that field can address KM systems more explicitly.

6.         Conclusions

·        With our field research study of KM systems and a literature study of KM research as a basis, we draw three main conclusions:

·        Evolution, which refers to the process in which organizations and their information systems change over time, is an important dimension of KM system implementation and use.

·        Managing the evolution of KM systems on an ad hoc basis and treating them as stand-alone systems can lead to unnecessary complexity and KM systems failures. The evolution of KM systems needs to be managed by deliberately managing both the systems within the organization and the organizational change process from a long-term perspective.

·        The KM research has paid little attention to the evolution of KM systems. Limited support and guidelines for managing KM systems’ evolution are available in the mainstream KM research literature. Consequently, this is an important issue to add to the KM research agenda. The predominantly design oriented KM research needs to be extended by more implementation and management oriented studies.

8.         References

Abecker, A., Bernardi, A. and Sintek, M. (1999). Enterprise Information Infrastructures for Active, Context-Sensitive Knowledge Delivery. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Systems – ECIS 1999.

Ackerman, M. S. (1994). Augmenting the Organizational Memory: A Field Study of Answer Garden. In Proceedings of ACM 1994 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 243-252, Chapell Hill, NC: ACM Press.

Ackerman, M. S. and McDonald, D. W. (1996). Answer Garden 2: Merging Organizational Memory with Collaborative Help. In Proceedings of ACM 1996 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 97-105, New York, ACM: Press.

Ackerman, M. S. and Halverson, C. (1998). Considering an Organization´s Memory. In Proceedings of ACM 1998 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 39-48. Seattle, WA: ACM Press.

Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001). Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25, No.1, pp. 107-136/ March.

Bannon, L. J. and Kuutti, K. (1996). Shifting Perspectives on Organizational Memory: From Storage to Active Remembering. In Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-29), Vol. IV, pp. 156-167, IEEE
Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos.

Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations. Organization Studies, 16/6.

Brown, J. S. (1998). Internet Technology in Support of the Concept of "Communities of Practice": the Case of Xerox. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 8, pp. 227-236.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational Learning and Communities-of-practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning and Innovation. Organization Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 40-56.

Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1998). Organizing Knowledge. California Management Review, Vol 40, No. 3, pp. 90-111.

Ciborra, C. (1996). Introduction: What Does Groupware Mean for the Organization Hosting It? In C. Ciborra (Ed.) Groupware and Teamwork, pp. 1-19. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ciborra, C. (1997). Deconstructing Strategic Alignment. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 9, 1, pp. 76-82.

Ciborra, C. (2000). From Control to Drift. Oxford University Press.

Ciborra, C. U. and Hanseth, O. (1998). Toward a Contingency View of Infrastructure and Knowledge: An Exploratory Study. International Conference on Information Systems, pp. 263-272.

Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organization Science, Vol. 10, No. 4, July-August, pp. 381-400. Mimeo, Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Parc.

Damsgaard, J. and Scheepers, R. (1999). A Stage Model of Intranet Technology Implementation and Management. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information Systems - ECIS 1999, pp. 100-116.

Davenport, T. H. and Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Fagrell, H., Ljungberg, F. and Kristoffersen, S. (1999). Exploring Support for Knowledge Management in Mobile Work. In Proceedings of the Sixth European Conference on Computer Cooperative Work, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998). The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. California Management Review. Vol. 40, No. 3, Spring.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 (Winter Special Issue), pp. 109-122.

Hahn, J. and Subramani, M. R. (2000). A Framework of Knowledge Management Systems: Issues and Challenges for Theory and Practice. International Conference on Information Systems 2000, pp. 302-312.

Hansen, M. T., Nohira, N. and Tierney, T. (1999). What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge. Harward Business Review, pp. 106-116.

Hanseth, O. and Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing Behaviour in Information Infrastructure Standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technology, 7(4), pp. 183-211.

Hauck, R. V. and Chen, H. (1999). Coplink: A Case of Intelligent Analysis and Knowledge Management. In Proceedings of International Conference on Information Systems.

Hedesstrom, T. and Whitley, E. A. (2000). What is Meant by Tacit Knowledge? Towards a Better Understanding of the Shape of Actions. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems – ECIS 2000.

Hellström, T., Kemlin, P. and Malmquist, U. (2000). Knowledge and Competence Management at Ericsson: Decentralization and Organizational Fit. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 99-110.

Henfridsson, O. (1999). IT-Adaptation as Sensemaking. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Informatics, Umeå University.

Karduck, A. (1994). TeamBuilder - A CSCW Tool for Augmenting Expertise and Team Formation. In Computer Communications, Butterworth-Heinnemann Publ., 17(11), Nov 1994, pp. 777-787.

Kovalainen, M., Robinson, M. and Auramäki, E. (1998). Diaries at Work. In Proceedings of ACM 1998 Conference on Computer Supportive Cooperative Work, pp. 49-58. Seattle, WA: ACM Press.

Lindgren, R. and Henfridsson, O. (2002). Using Competence Systems: Adoption Barriers and Design Suggestions. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management.

Lyytinen, K. and Hirschheim, R. (1987). Information Systems Failures – A Survey and Classification of the Empirical Litterature. Oxford Surveys in Information Technology, Vol. 4, 257 – 309.

Lyytinen, R. and Robey, D. (1999). Learning Failure in Information Systems Development. Information Systems Journal, 9, 85-101.

Magoulas, T and Pessi, K. (1998). Strategic IT-management. Doctoral Dissertation. Department of Informatics, Gothenburg University.

McDonald, D. W. and Ackerman, M. S. (1998). Just Talk to Me: A Field Study of Expertise Location. In Proceedings of ACM 1998 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. pp. 39-48. Seattle, WA: ACM Press.

Milton, N., Shadbolt, N., Cottam, H. and Hammersley, M. (1999). Towards a Knowledge Technology for Knowledge Management. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 51: 615-641.

Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., Swan, J. and Hislop, D. (1999). Intranets and Knowledge Management: Complex Processes and Ironic Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation.Organizational science, 5, pp. 14-37.

Nonaka, I. and Konno, N. (1998). The Concept of Ba. California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 40-54.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), pp. 398-427.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective. Information Systems Research, 7(1), pp. 63-92.

Orlikowski, W. J. and Hofman, D. J. (1997). An Improvisational Model for Change Management: The Case of Groupware Technologies. Sloan Management Review/ Winter, pp. 11-21.

Pan, S. L. and Scarbrough, H. (1998). A Socio-Technical View of Knowledge-Sharing at Buckman Laboratories. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 55-66.

Parker, M. M. (1996). Strategic Transformation and Information Technology, Paradigms for Performing While Transforming. Prentice-Hall.

Randall, D., O´Brien, J., Rouncefield, M., and Hughes, J. A. (1996). Organizational Memory and CSCW: Supporting the ´Mavis Phenomenon´. In Proceedings of the 6th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction. Hamilton, New Zealand: IEEE Computer Society.

Scarbrough, H. (1998). Path(ological) Dependency? Core Competencies from an Organizational Perspective. British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, pp. 219-232.

Schultze, U. (1999). Investigating the Contradictions in Knowledge Management, Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes, IFIP 8.2, Helsinki, Finland, pp. 155-174.

Spender, J. C. (1996). Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Memory: Three Concepts in Search for Theory. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 9, No.1.

Storey, J. and Barnett, E. (2000). Knowledge Management Initiatives: Learning from Failure. Journal of Knowledge Management. Vol. 4, number 2, pp. 145-156.

Swan, J., Newell, S. and Robertson, M. (2000). Limits of IT-Driven Knowledge Management Initiatives for Interactive Innovation Processes: Towards a Community-Based Approach. In Thirty-Third Hawaii International Conference on
Systems Sciences (HICSS-33). Maui, Hawaii, ed IEEE.

Terveen, L. G., Selfridge, P. G. and Long, M. D. (1993). From Folklore to Living Design Memory. In ACM 1993 Proceedings on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Tuomi, I. (1999). Data is More than Knowledge: Implications of the Reversed Knowledge Hierarchy for Knowledge Management and Organizational Memory. In Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Tsoukas, H. (1996). The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A Constructivist Approach. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17, 11-25.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, pp. 74-81.

Wiig, K. M., De Hoog, R. and Van Der Spek, R. (1997). Supporting Knowledge Management: A Selection of Methods and Techniques. Expert Systems With Applications, 13, pp. 15-27.

Wijnhoven, F. (1999). Development Scenarios for Organizational Memory Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems/ Summer, Vol.16, No.1, pp. 121-146.

Zack, M. H. (1999). Developing a Knowledge Strategy, California Management Review, 41(3), Spring 1999, pp. 125-145.

Contact The Authors:

Rikard Lindgren, Christian Hardless, Kalevi Pessi, Urban Nuldén, The Viktoria Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden
{rikard, hardless, pessi, nulden}@viktoria.se