Tracy Reeder's Radio Weblog

Tracy Reeder's Radio Weblog

Home

Tuesday, June 11, 2002

While we talked about KM being lambasted for not producing results in class, CRM, a component of KM, is also being derailed for producing less than stellar results. Garner Research shows that 85% of companies that buy CRM software, buy the wrong software because they have not clearly defined their business objectives. Sound familiar? An interesting paper by Mercer Management Consulting entitled "Making CRM make money: Technology alone won't create value" addresses concerns surrounding CRM. Link is: http://www.mercermc.com/Perspectives/WhitePapers/Commentaries/Comm01CRM.pdf
The following paragraph from the report mirrors what we've discussed in class in terms of KM not being a technology solution:
"Viewing CRM as a technological "silver bullet" causes companies to ignore or rush past critical business issues that must be addressed first. They fail to develop a comprehensive strategy. They cut corners on the cross-functional planning needed to prepare organizations to deploy new CRM capabilities and underestimate the organization change required to leverage technology. Finally they neglect to build a business case for CRM, embarking on major investments without knowing how the technology supports their business design or estimating the magnitude of expected benefits."
This reminds me of Michael Porter's March 2001 Strategy and the Internet article in Harvard Business Review; in that article he admonishes managers to "distinguish themselves through strategy" and urges a "return to fundamentals". While I don't agree with everything in the article, this point is well received.
10:24:52 AM

Sunday, June 09, 2002

Just came across an article in Chief Executive Magazine (http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ceoguides/july2001/p6.html) that addresses the levels of knowledge within a company from explicit to implicit, adapting the information provided, I defined them out as follows:
1st level is existing explicit knowledge: patents, trademarks, copyrights, processes, manuals, drawings, reports, research, technical data, etc.
2nd level is dynamic explicit knowledge: CRM data, ERP data, best practices, competitive intelligence
3rd level is tacit knowledge: learned skills, intuition, experience and insights, etc.
It's interesting to note that there is a dynamic element to both the explicit and tacit knowledge. While it is apparent that accruing tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge may require different KM systems, it was less obvious that existing and dynamic explicit knowledge need to be distinguished and likely treated differently as well.
4:59:11 PM

Saturday, June 08, 2002

I agree that each individual needs to become a knowledge worker. One thing that I have subscribed to is HBS Working Knowledge -- the articles are relatively brief, but will serve as a reminder...
Examples of recent articles include:
Benchmarking Against Your Peers http://hbswk.hbs.edu/pubitem.jhtml?id=2928&sid=0&pid=null&t=notebook

10:03:13 AM

Tuesday, June 04, 2002

Here is a potentially naive description of KM that we are considering using in the context of information supply chain:
Knowledge Management (KM) is an elusive term that can be broadly defined as the process of capturing explicit and/or tacit knowledge through software or other means and leveraging its use to improve the processes of and/or between individual employees, technology, and an enterprise.
2:38:11 PM

Long absence, but I have been collecting vinettes to add to my weblog...such as the following:
One of the topics that we have been researching for our final project is the information supply chain. Past documentation lists the stages as follows: create, manage, and deliver. However, given the vast amount of information that already exists and the fact that most people research either internal or external documents prior to creation, I believe a better ordering of stages is as follows: Deliver - the delivery of information useful to the creation of new documentation; Create - the creation of new unstructured documentation; and Manage - the subsequent management of new documentation.
2:35:22 PM

Sunday, May 19, 2002

The following are classifications of knowledge searches that KM software is targeted at improving. I find it interesting that each of these searches needs to be addressed by KM software differently, yet most times people are conducting several of these searches simulataneously. It will be interesting to see how software melds the needs together.
Taken directly from Susan Feldman's January 1, 2000, article in The Answer Machine:
1. Broad subject searches -- fishing expeditions about a topic unfamiliar to the searcher. Appropriate terminology is hard to determine at first.
2. Narrow, well-defined subject searches on a familiar topic with known terms.
3. Comparative, information-seeking -- which company is the biggest, has revenues of more than $X, or more than 100 employees?
4. Known-item searching for a specific title, author, or publication.
5. Continuous monitoring of a subject.
6. Pattern matching for emerging trends: foraging for matches to a description of an event or a profile of a competitor or other entity.
7. Fact or statistic location -- who, what, where, when, how?
8. Chronological reconstruction of events or actions
1:59:56 PM

For our final project, our group is looking at KM software. The following information was culled from Martin White's March 1, 2001 article for Information World Review entitled "The ins and outs of portals". It describes a KM tool -- the corporate portal, aka enterprise information portal. White's basic definition of a portal is "a software platform that enables a user to create a customised view of information and applications". A portal generally allows a user to: 1) customise information received and how its displayed on the screen 2) categorize information received 3) integrate information from multiple databases and file formats 4) work collaboratively. Portals can also provide a range of content creation and publishing options.
Technology providers? There are a considerable number of start-ups, but Microsoft and IBM will also deliver products.
I view my weblog as a personal portal/journal: 1) I can customize the information that I receive and how it is displayed 2) I can work collabroatively through a multi-user weblog... though my attempts at this have crashed my system :-) 3) Multiple file formats can be integrated.
For my ideal personal portal, I would like to be able to categorize incoming information. I would also like it to integrate across multiple databases (my work files, school files, online WSJ subscription) in order to keep a full recording of my thoughts and ideas. Obviously, that brings up issues of privacy, but this is an "ideal".

1:21:18 PM

After several searches of Radioland via google, I still haven't been able to discover how to attach documents. Has anyone figured out how to attach?
12:34:57 PM

Tuesday, May 14, 2002

The Journal of Business Strategy's May issue contains a commentary by Mark Horwitch and Robert Armacoston of Bain on KM. Once I figure out how to post a word document (I am just about there), I will do so. The article responds to the negative press of KM such as:
"In Bain & Company's 2001 Management Tools survey, KM ranked nineteenth among all 25 tools evaluated for effectiveness, and 14% of the 451 senior executives polled said they had abandoned it altogether."
Bain provided some good definitions that corresponded with what I've learned:
Data - "sets of discrete, objective facts about events, or structured records of transactions"
Examples of KM ROIs from the article: -"In situations where success hinges on increasing customer satisfaction, KM can help protect revenue streams by getting the right information to the right people at the right time. For example, KM may help increase the response rates and effectiveness of call centers. " -"And where it's a challenge to leverage firm-wide resources across global and industry boundaries, well-built knowledge systems can help break open new markets."
And lastly, some good news quotes from the article:
"Senior executives are the most open of all, according to a survey by KPMG. When asked, "What level in the organization is pushing hardest to have a KM program?" about 40% of management respondents said "senior management," and more than 15% indicated "board level." Overall, 80% of companies are developing such KM systems right now, and actual spending on KM projects is forecast to grow to $12 billion by 2003."

4:46:24 PM

Tuesday, May 07, 2002

One of the most effective and easily implementable knowledge management "tools" or maybe "methods" for project managers is the Army's After Action Review (AAR). And it doesn't come with a price tag! In my previous company we employed AARs in order to establish how we had deviated from a set of procedures after a campaign was completed. However, similar to the Challenger example discussed in class last week, we only focused on what went wrong and in doing so lost valuable information on what went right or better than expected. While beneficial, the AARs turned into a forum for finger-pointing.
The Army's AAR guide link is: http://call.army.mil/products/spc_prod/tc25-20/table.htm
The preface indicates that "After-action reviews identify how to correct deficiencies, sustain strengths, and focus on performance of specific mission essential tasks list (METL) training objectives".
My previous company definitely missed an opportunity to "sustain strengths".
In my research of AARs, I also found the following "oldie, but goodie" article on AARs and there military history: http://www.cio.com/archive/080197/learn.html Armed with Intelligence: Shared knowledge is the Department of Defense's not-so-secret weapon
The article cites three elements of an "aggressively collaborative environment", similar to those discussed in the article for today's class: 1. Users are encouraged to add to and take from the database 2. The quality of knowledge within the database is subject to ongoing review 3. The organization addresses individual compensation for participation in the database
6:08:50 PM

Is it possible to include a Word or PowerPoint document in a weblog? I looked through tools and preferences without finding anything relevant.
7:57:43 AM

Jeb and Bill,
The following is a suggested outline for our project with IdeaLab (I also sent the word document to your inboxes) -- it is an amalgamation of several outlines from Mgmt of Tech, Marketing Channels, and Internet Marketing. Not all of the subbullets will apply, but I kept them in to at least ask the question. Let me know what you think -- as you can see, the bulk of the outline deals with how IdeaLab should organize itself in terms of partnerships, etc. in order to capture value from its technology:
Outline based on answering three basic questions: (?s adapted from Mgmt. of Tech) 1. How does Watson decisively affect overall customer value? 2. Can IdeaLab capture this value in the face of competition? 3. Does IdeaLab have the organizational capabilities necessary to deliver the product? If not, how should they organize their channel structure?
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1) Introduction a) IdeaLab Background i) Watson Technology (1) Knowledge Management Applications b) Overview of AI Software Industry (not exactly sure how to define industry) i) History ii) Market Potential/Growth Projections c) Competitive Landscape i) Direct competitors ii) Indirect competitors 2) Assessing Technology Drivers a) Benchmarking i) The Technology S-Curve; What is the current stage of the industry and the technology? ii) Customer value proposition iii) The Market S-Curve (i.e., cumulative adoption versus time; s-shaped pattern of diffusion) Why is it potentially disruptive? (1) Watson has reached Early Adopters (a) Motorola pilot (2) Crossing the Chasm; evaluating state of diffusion of technology to customers: (a) Watson versus competitor strategies (b) Reference points (c) Assess Diffusion Challenges going forward (i) Changing customer requirements (ii) Changing technological possibilities (iii) Competition (d) Recommendations on target segments 3) Capturing Value in Face of Competition a) Drivers i) The Nature of the Appropriability Regime (1) Intellectual property protection (a) Licenses? (b) IP? (2) Speed? ii) Control over "specialized" Complementary Assets (can only be source of strength if tightly held) (1) Things IdeaLab owns/controls (a) Capital - No (b) Brand name - No (c) Distribution - No (d) OEM relationships - No (e) Customer relationships - Yes, at this point (f) Supplier relationships - n/a (g) Complementary technology - Yes? (2) Things IdeaLab could do: (a) Sales and service expertise (b) Capture customer knowledge iii) Industry Dynamics and Maturity (1) Licenses expire? b) Tactics for IdeaLab to speed diffusion of technology: i) 1st mover? ii) Partnering - recommendations? iii) Aggressive pricing iv) Lowering switching costs for early users v) Developing or encouraging development of complementary products and services vi) Standard-setting (1) Proprietary ownership closes the "loop" (2) Guides internal and external development c) Recommendations for Channel Structure i) Current segments served/targeted ii) Current channel structure iii) Recommended channel structure
Potential Exhibits: -5 Forces -NPV on pricing -Market projections -Competitor comparisons

7:51:14 AM