Certificate of Authorship

abrupttarragonManagement

Nov 6, 2013 (3 years and 9 months ago)

70 views

Certificate of Authorship

National American University

Graduate Studies Program





Submitted to: _
Dr.
Janet Smith

______



Submitted by:
James L. Emmer



Course:
MT6620



Knowledge Management

SU09

-

Section: G0
1




Date of Submission:


August

10
, 2009




Certificate of Authorship




I hereby certify that I am the author of this document and any assistance I received in preparing
this report is fully acknowledged. All sources that I obtained ideas, data, and works from are
quoted directly, indented, or pa
raphrased and cited according to APA writing guidelines unless
otherwise noted below. I also certify that this document was prepared by me specifically for this
course.

Signed:
James L. Emmer




Faculty Comments:


Change Management Issue as Related to K
nowledge Management


Knowledge management is a cultural shift in the business industry, driving businesses to
enact and enable knowledge management systems with consideration of the business directives
and the
employees’

needs.

A well thought out change management program can make the
difference between the successful implementation of or failure of
the knowledge management
system for the business.
PharmaCorp is an example of a failed implementation of a knowledge
management sys
tem. The mistakes made by the company were costly and time intensive.
PharmaCorp finally removed the knowledge management system feeling stressed in delivering
their products effectively as previously accomplished before attempting to use knowledge
managem
ent.

PharmaCorp did

not

consider the proper manner of capturing knowledge from a
business point
as it relates to their processes
rather than a function
al

point

which is to specific
.
They

did

not

consider the individuals needs for their specific job roles
.
The

knowledge being
captured into an information technology system was non
-
specific
.

Maintenance was not done

by
people in the organization
. F
inally the implementation did not consider
how to manage the
change in the business

(Moll
enkramer, 2002)
.


The
knowledge management system can be most effective with improving the businesses
processes. Review of the processes is crucial for analysis of how the knowledge management
system will effect change to make improvements that are
beneficial to the businesses goals and
objectives as well as how the employees deliver a service or product in more effective means

(Nickols, 2000)
. PharmaCorp took a more tower
-
centric position with capturing processes rather
than that of the business as a whole.


Incorporating information technology into any business environment where one
previously did not exist is paramount as to providing education and training and insuring the
technology is specific to the business itself

(Pollock, 2002)
. PharmaCorp utilized a third party
vendor to drive the information technology that would be implemented but was done from their
perspective of the business rather than that of the employees.


Maintenance of a kn
owledge management system

is a very important function and one
that needs to be accomplished by the employees within the business who utilize the information.
An individual or team of experts can be consolidated to perform this function whose
understanding

of the business end to end and have to technical capability to perform the
maintenance of the data from review and acceptance to purge and archive of the data

(Earl,
2001)
. PharmaCorp also utilized a third party for this
function which proved most ineffective
because of the lack of knowledge of the business processes.


Employees in the business need to understand how the businesses change is going to
affect them and how it will impact their ability to perform their jobs.
W
ith any business change,
the employees must be viewed as the most valuable asset the business holds and obtaining buy
-
in
from them will prove most effective with the implementation of the knowledge management
system

(Thomas Davenpor
t, 2000)
. PharmaCorp took the position of directing the knowledge
management system from the corporate perspective based upon their mission and objectives
without careful consideration of their employees on a corporate level which proved disastrous.

W
ith the implementation of a knowledge management system in any business, change is
at the forefront. Change is difficult for many people to overcome with most viewing it in a
negative manner because of a lack of understanding as to how it pertains to their

function and job
role. It is imperative, that the business considers the users of the system and how effective it can
be accessed and used by those who it is intended. Providing an effective training and education
program with the implementation of the kn
owledge management system can prove most
effective when dealing with the change in the business environment
.
The internal change
management system allows for management to incorporate a strategic move in business direction
in a manner that will benefit the

business itself into a more strategic position in the market while
utilizing the employees to achieve

that change

(Inside Knowledge, 2003)
.

Other businesses can look at
PharmCorp

as it relates to the implementation of a
knowle
dge management system

specifically as it relates to the business directives, insuring
cultural implications from both the business and employee perspectives, types of knowledge
being
associated with the processes of the business rather than to individual g
roups
,

application
of information technology for

users of the knowledge

in a manner that is effective for their use
,
maintenance

of the knowledge being accomplished by the people in the organization rather than
third parties

and change management associate
d with the implementat
ion of the system being
able to educate and train the stake holders effectively to obtain buy
-
in and use of the system
.








References:

Earl, M. (2001). Knowledge Management Strategies: Toward a Taxonomy.
Jou
rnal of Management
Information Systems
, 215
-
233.

Heisig, P. (2002).
European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Management.

Berlin: Fraunhofer IPK.

Inside Knowledge. (2003). Your Say: KM and change management.
Inside Knowledge

.

Mollenkramer, A. B. (2002). Anatomy of a Failed Knowledge Management Initiative: Lessons from
PharmaCorp's Experience.
Knowledge and Process Management

, 22
-
33.

Nickols, F. (2000).
Knowledge Management and Process Performance.

Retrieved August 7, 2009, fro
m
Distance Consulting LLC: http://home.att.net/~nickols/KM_and_Processes.htm

Pennsylvania Office of Administration. (2009).
Knowledge Management
. Retrieved July 10, 2009, from
Human Resources:
http://www.wfpp.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/knowledg
e_management/1082/imp
ortance_of_knowledge_management/233241

Pollock, N. (2002).
Knowledge Management and Information Technology.

Fort Belvoir: Defense
Acquisition University Press.

Thomas Davenport, D. W. (2000). The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999
-
2000

. In J. A. James W.
Cortada,
The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999
-
2000
(pp. 90
-
92). Sloan Management
Review Association.