As a result of this, it is plain to see that the human resources department must be involved in the management of every step of the development of a knowledge-based organization. Perhaps the best way to examine the human resource management implications of developing a knowledge based organisation is to examine each of the steps, as detailed by Soliman and Spooner (2000), and to assess how this affects, and the role played by, the human resources department in their implementation strategy. The first step is to decide what type of knowledge is to be harnessed in an effort to benefit the organization. The human resource department here must attempt to ascertain whereabouts in the organization the knowledge is to be found, and how the knowledge can be utilised to best ensure the success of the implementation strategy. As creating a knowledge based organization “is getting the right information to the right people at the right time to provide a competitive edge” (Roberts 2000, p. 116), the human resource department must know exactly where within the organisation both tacit and explicit knowledge can be found. To this end, the human resource department must make this knowledge available the members of the organization. One effective means of doing this is through the establishment of a type of “knowledge map or corporate yellow pages” (Schutze 2001, p. 9) which will demonstrate not only where the explicit knowledge garnered can be located, but how “resident experts” (Schutze 2000, p. 9) who possess the even greater amounts of tacit knowledge can be contacted, and the benefits of their experience and learning exploited for the benefit of the organization.
The second step of successful strategy implementation is to determine the benefits of developing a knowledge basis. The human resource department here must conduct a full-scale analysis of the operations, to determine if the sum and type of knowledge contained within the organization make it beneficial to implement an exhaustive and, significantly, expensive knowledge management program. The responsibility falls on human resources to determine whether the type of organization, and the human capital contained within, make the development of a new way of approaching business feasible. The next step is to select the knowledge management program to implement. The human resource department plays a crucial role in this step, as selection and implementation of an appropriate program involves negotiation with employees to determine an acceptable strategy that will be utilised by the members of the organisation. The most significant element of this negotiation, and in getting employees to embrace the selected knowledge management program is to conduct a review of their renumeration and performance (Soliman & Spooner 2000, p. 3). Employees may still feel that knowledge is power, and that to make this knowledge available to others is, in a sense, surrendering this power (Roberts 2000, p. 117). Clearly, this type of outlook provides little motivation for employees to share their ideas and make their work available to others. The management of human resources must ensure that they have implemented knowledge management programs that provide sufficient compensation and incentive to share knowledge. Further, they must “make knowledge-sharing profit employees by making it part of performance measures” (Roberts 2000, p. 118) and performance requirements. American Knowledge Management Systems Inc. (AMS) is one such company that recognises the need for this (Roberts 2000, p. 118-119). Incentives for knowledge sharing are provided, including having it built into employees’ pay structure, and making it a key consideration for matters of promotion within the organisation. Indeed, so successful has been the program of AMS that “contributor status has become a prize to which many staffers aspire” (Roberts 2000, p. 119). Context Integration also found success with this approach, publicly recognizing contributors, and linking quantity and quality of contributions to an employee’s quarterly bonus (Koudsi 2000, p. 235).
Perhaps one of the most difficult roles of the human resources department is in “creating supportive environments for knowledge management programs” (Soliman & Spooner 2000, p. 339). The essence of this concept is that there must be a change to the culture of the organisation to facilitate “the flow of ideas through the organisation” (Garavan et al. 2001, p. 66). Soliman and Spooner identify a number of key areas which human resources must attend to, to promote a culture change. The human resource department must ensure that staff meetings take place, for it is at this basic, non-technological level that sharing will begin. To further this, they must ensure that there is an adequate area within the office for staff to meet, both formally and informally, “to encourage exchange of ideas and share knowledge” (Soliman & Spooner 2000, p. 340). Human resource must work to build trust between employees, as employees will only share knowledge with those that they feel they can trust. An important part of changing the culture is to create an environment of learning. Employees must not feel that they will be punished for mistakes or “reasonable failure” (Garavan et al. 2001, p. 66), and that they are able to seek help or advice when they need it without feeling any sense of inadequacy or embarrassment. Essentially, human resources must ensure that they combine the organizations knowledge management program with the existing to culture to create a new culture of openness, seeking help and sharing. The new culture will be characterised by such developments as new roles and constructs and changes in “communication patterns between individuals and teams [and altering] the design of the organization by fostering new processes and structures” (Pan & Scarborough 1999, p. 371), as seen at Buckman. The implications here are that all new staff must be made aware of the conditions of employment and the expectations within the strategy. Here human resources must ensure that their recruitment and selection process are adequate, that training of both new and existing staff is properly in place, and that all staff are familiar with the knowledge management program of the organisation. Buckman Laboratories has promoted in its employees “a willingness to exchange knowledge simply to solve company problems, without the usual political baggage and ulterior motives” (Pan & Scarbrough 1999, p. 365). The culture change at Buckman was instituted through “a process of re-learning” (Pan & Scarborough 1999, p. 367), from knowledge-hoarding to an organisation where the most valued employee is one who is able to share knowledge, “take risks, innovate and get out of the habit of asking for instructions” (Pan & Scarborough 1999, p. 368), a truly knowledge-based organization.
Another important role is the creation of the knowledge management team, or “communities of practise” (Pan & Scarborough 1999, p. 369) as they are referred to at Buckman. Human resources needs to form these teams, and then monitor them to ensure that they effective. Within these teams, they must also nominate or appoint a leader, who possesses the necessary management, collaborative and communication skills to help implement the strategy and encourage an environment of sharing. Human resources management must carefully select this person, and see that the role is monitored for effectiveness. . Like at Buckman, these leaders should be “role models for learning and knowledge sharing” (Pan & Scarborough 1999, p. 368). Buckman is a prime example of how the input and participation of management in all areas is instrumental in developing a knowledge based organization, as it is these levels of the organization that can have the most significant impact on employee attitudes and perceptions. Finally, Davenport (1999) believes that the human resources department must become adept at categorising and organising knowledge. They should decide what knowledge is relevant and important for use, develop a knowledge vocabulary, create search tools and constantly refine knowledge categories.
The development of a knowledge-based organisation should be of enormous benefit to its productivity, profitability, innovation and operational environment. As demonstrated, it takes a tremendous commitment from all levels of the organization to achieve this goal. In no department is this truer than the human resources, which must attempt to implement a dramatic change in organizational culture, along with introducing an appropriate knowledge management program if the organization is to achieve its goal of development a mutually beneficial sharing organization. The role of the human resource department becomes central to the program, as they must create trust, faith in the program, implementing and the continued monitoring of the strategy.
References
Garavan, T., Morley, M., Gunnigle, P. & Collins, E. 2001, “Human capital accumulation: the role of human resource development”, Journal of European Industrial Training, vol. 25, no. 2/3/4, p. 48-74.
Hunter, L., Beaumont, P. & Lee, M. 2002, “Knowledge management practice in Scottish law firms”, Human Resource Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 2, p. 4-21.
Koudsi, S. 2000, “Actually, it is like brain surgery”, Fortune, vol. 141, no. 6, p. 233-234.
Pan, S. & Scarbrough, H. 1999, “Knowledge management in practice: An exploratory case study”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 359-374.
Roberts, B. 2000, “Pick Employees’ Brains”, HR Magazine, vol. 45, no. 2, p. 115-120.
Schutze, J. 2001, “Managing knowledge in the comptroller community”, The Armed Forces Comptroller, vol. 46, no. 1, p. 9-11.
Sveiby, K. 1997, The New Organisational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge-based Assets, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco.
Soliman, F. & Spooner, K. 2000, “Strategies for implementing knowledge management: role of human resources management”, Journal of Knowledge Management, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 337-345.
