Reference no: EM133600439

The CEO of Innkeepers Group (IG), Jane Spencer, felt very exposed as she examined the Request for Proposal document relating to a new knowledge management system. This would be the third attempt in eight years to establish a knowledge management process, and it really was getting much harder to gain employee trust and commitment to the schemes each time around. Despite a feeling of impending doom, Jane was keen to build an effective system. The organization, comprising 1200 staff and ten regional offices, relied on sound customer relations that required sharing knowledge about new products and services in the hospitality sector. As a leading firm in the provision of hospitality, there was a definite need to manage contracts, customers, and maintenance support for the hotel sector. Jane had identified several vital issues, including the failure to share files and other materials, which were affecting the firm's capacity to build better capabilities. Despite the value of knowledge management, there had been some significant problems with Versions 1 and 2 of the firm's knowledge management attempts.

The first knowledge management attempt was probably doomed to fail from the beginning. The vendor was passionate about his system's potential, and Innkeepers had volunteered to act as a test site, so that continual testing on location could be done. Unfortunately, the system did not work well, as the provider was high on potential and rhetoric and very low on real capability. The introduction of the first system throughout the whole organization had also proved to be foolish. Staff had shown enormous enthusiasm initially but became increasingly frustrated as they attempted to use the clunky systems that operated. After a year it was apparent that the knowledge system was failing. Staff had reverted to their old practices, and simply laughed when asked how the system was working. Jane had reluctantly ordered that the firm withdraw from the implementation process and closed down the IT unit which was managing the process.

After three years to allow the memories to die down, Version 2 looked much better. The high-flying Chief Information Office (CIO) who was appointed had some brilliant ideas. The package developed by the in-house technicians was state-of-the-art and worked most of the time. But many users found it difficult to find what they needed. They also noted that it was hard to justify the time needed to learn the new system, as they could not see it bearing fruit in terms of their work roles and responsibilities. Numerous leaders refused to promote the full system to their staff, saying it wasn't needed. Three years later, the system was phased out as a lost cause - along with the CIO who had been on a 3-year contract.

Version 3 was now on the horizon. Jane felt the process needed a whole new approach. She really wanted some major progress within six months, so that stakeholders could see that things were happening. Despite a strong reliance on teams and collaborative strategies, there was little sense of connection or sharing among those groups. This was affecting customer support and encouraging many different pockets of knowledge about customers throughout the community. Only the other day, Jane had come across an instance where a large corporate customer had been required to fill out five different information forms for five different sections. Jane was also seeing lost opportunities because of the lack of shared information. There was strong reliance on small local groups, and little consideration of others who might be able to contribute insights or benefit from ongoing knowledge development. It was evident that the organization needed better knowledge management.

The new Chief Knowledge Officer (CKO) was full of ideas and strategies. Mention had been made of the potential to purchase a knowledge management system which offered huge savings and advantages to the core business. However, it appeared that some of the features would be of marginal use initially. Jane felt that a more modest approach might be sensible, and that the users should play a large role in determining whether that system was the best approach. She was less concerned about the system than about the overall antagonism which was becoming evident as plans progressed. The international division was particularly negative about the potential new system. They had already offered some rather dire threats about ignoring the system if it was implemented. The director of that section, Jill Callum, was especially adversarial. Jane suspected it might be partly because Jill was well known to be computer illiterate. She often claimed she was capable only of 'pointing and clicking' to check whether her pay had arrived and to delete corporate bulletins because they were irrelevant. Regardless of her much-vaunted technological ineptitude and some recent slip-ups in client relationship management, she had a large following across the organisation. Jane felt that Jill might be a key player in determining whether the new system was accepted or not. However, that was only one of many challenges. She reviewed the draft request again. She had some major concerns about the way this request had been developed. Jane decided to request another meeting with the CKO. There were several issues that needed to be resolved before this proposal would be approved.

Question 1:

a. Use the key ideas in the "Knowledge-creating company" framework by Nonaka (that includes the interaction of tacit and explicit knowledge) to identify and briefly discuss both what Innkeepers Group is doing well (reasons for the success) and what it needs to improve so it becomes more effective at knowledge creation (reasons for the challenges).

b. Use ideas on the extension of this framework by Nonaka (concept of Ba) to outline how Innkeepers Group can set up and facilitate interaction/strengthen its knowledge-sharing culture in shared spaces that enable effective knowledge creation.

Question 2:

a. An information system needs to be balanced with practical people-oriented considerations to generate an effective Knowledge Management system. Introduce two criteria (from the two-hand approach) that are relevant for the effective use of the technology that does not include knowledge sharing and social interaction. Briefly discuss how these criteria would enable Innkeeper Groups to make effective use of its systems.

b. Innkeeper Group is considering a more modest approach, where users should play a large role in determining whether that system was the best approach. How would this improve knowledge management at Innkeeper Group? Discuss three basic team processes that are supported by a Group Support System (GSS) that do not include knowledge sharing and social interaction. Briefly discuss why each of these three team processes matters to the company and propose a system that can be used to support it effectively.

Question 3:

a. The success of knowledge management initiatives relies on the effective participation of organization members. Identify two key criteria for gaining employee commitment to knowledge management initiatives. Use these criteria to briefly discuss how the Innkeeper Group can successfully gain acceptance for the project proposal.

b. Leadership plays an important role in Knowledge management. Introduce two themes that play an important role in leading knowledge work and briefly discuss their relevance for the Innkeeper Group.