SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere Nutzervereinbarung und die Datenschutzrichtlinie.
SlideShare verwendet Cookies, um die Funktionalität und Leistungsfähigkeit der Webseite zu verbessern und Ihnen relevante Werbung bereitzustellen. Wenn Sie diese Webseite weiter besuchen, erklären Sie sich mit der Verwendung von Cookies auf dieser Seite einverstanden. Lesen Sie bitte unsere unsere Datenschutzrichtlinie und die Nutzervereinbarung.
IntroductionKnowledge Management: Case Study on Ernst & Young (E&Y) and Cap Gemini (CG).
Group B members Pelumi Alli Oluwafemi Akinwande Basudev Wagle
Knowledge Management Systematic approaches to help information and knowledge emerge and flow to the right people at the right time to create value. Source: American Productivity & Quality Center (2002)
1. What cultural problems do you identify in relation to the implementation of KM strategy in the two companies?
Elements of Organisational Culture Artifacts Stories/legends Rituals/ceremonies Visible Organisational language Physical structure/decor Shared Values Conscious (e.g. teamwork, innovation) Evaluate what is good or bad, right or wrong Invisible Shared Assumptions Unconscious, taken-for-granted perceptions or beliefs Mental models of idealsSource: Based on Information in E.H. Schein, Organisational Culture and leadership: A Dynamic View (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985)
Organisational language Communication, how employees address themselves, describe various terms, choice of words, expressions (McShane et al, 2008). CG has a technological background, while E&Y has an accounting background. Example: “customers” and “clients” “KWeb” and “Galaxy/ Planets”
Organisation Structure E&Y divided the organisation into four centres (i.e. CBI, CBT, CBK ,CTE.), while CG had a linear structure. Separation of duty. Use of Internal & External Knowledge. E&Y focuses its KM on the individuals (teamwork), while CG looked majorly at the technological platform.
Easier to document and Explicit share Contributes to Easier to efficiency replicate 20% Leads to competency 80% TacitHarder to articulate Harder to steal Higher competitive Harder to transfer advantage 8 Source: American Productivity & Quality Center (2002)
Knowledge Management Structure Mechanistic vs. Organic Structure (Burns et al, 1961) E&Y – mechanistic, whereby the KM was centralised and highly structured. Central decision making & authority (leadership) Filtering and disseminating CG- organic, whereby the KM was decentralised and less rigid structure Dispersed power & authority around the organisation KM was uploaded at each planet Empowerment
2. What are the key success factors in Ernst & Young’s knowledge management strategy? How would you ‘export’ them to Cap Gemini?
Knowledge Management Strategy Knowledge management strategy can be defined as a decision / action applied in implementing knowledge management frameworks. The frameworks include:- Technological platform of the KWeb;- CoP: Employees of same expertise and location share information and exchange knowledge;- Teamwork.
Key Success Factors in Ernst & Young Separation of the consultancy arm from the knowledge management arm of the organisation; CBK the bedrock of Creation of various CBK recognised the knowledge centres (with separate need for exchange of management of the duties and knowledge internally organisation (filter the responsibilities). and externally. knowledge gotten)
Key Success Factors in Ernst & Young Teamwork:• The use of forums;• Other social / technology platforms.
Exporting KM Key Success factors to Cap GeminiUnfreezing: The first part ofthe change process, where bythe change process produces adisequilibrium between thedriving and restraining forces.Refreezing: The latter part ofthe change process in whichsystems and conditions areintroduced that reinforce andmaintain the desiredbehaviors. Source: Based on Information in Ashok Jashapara, Knowledge Management an Integrated Approach (2011).
Lewin’s Force Field Analysis Model Refreezing RestrainingDesired forcesConditions Driving Restraining forces forces Driving Restraining forces Unfreezing forcesCurrentConditions Driving Freezed forces Before change After Change Source: Based on Information in Mcshane & Glinow, Organizational Behavior .
Exporting KM Key Success factors to Cap Gemini• According to Lewin’s force field analysis model, effective change occurs by unfreezing the current situation, moving to a desired condition, and then refreezing the system so it remains in the desired state.• Unfreezing occurs when the driving forces are stronger than restraining forces.• Driving forces must increase enough to motivate change.
3. What advise would you give Alberto Almansaregarding Centre for Business Knowledge (CBK)? Would you renew the contract or would you go without?
Merger StrategyMerger Strategy Description Works best whenAssimilation Acquired company embraces Acquired firm has a weak acquiring firm’s practice. practice or platform Acquired firm impose their Rarely works-may beDe-strategise practice and strategy on necessary only when acquired unwilling acquires firm firm does not work but employees don’t realise it Combining the two or more Existing practice or strategyIntegration practice or strategy into a new are strong and can be composite one improved Merging companies remain Firms operate successfully Separation distinct entities with minimal in different ways, requiring exchange of practice and different practice and strategy strategy Source: Based on ideas in McShane and Von Glinow. 2008 “Organisational Behavior”. 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill Irwin