The Benefit and Failure Factors in Implementing Knowledge Management System in Organization

Four categories of failure factors are technology, culture, content and project management according to Chua and Lam’s model of unsuccessful KM implementation [Chua Lam 2005].

The first and most pronounced factor is blind faith in technical solutions such as the KM infrastructure, technology and tools within the KM implementation group. Failures in this category can occur when those KM tools developed have poor usability and users find the tools complicated to use. Connectivity problems arise when the technical infrastructure has limitations, such as insufficient bandwidth or problems with network connectivity. Over-reliance on KM tools can contribute to human issues and tacit knowledge being ignored.

The second category is culture, including human and organizational behaviour. The failure factors in this category include for example politics, when KM is used to gain control and authority within the organization. Lack of management commitment and withdrawal of commitments during the KM process are other examples of failure factors. Perceived image refers to accessing others’ knowledge, which is perceived as a sign of inadequacy or insufficiency, by the users.

The content category includes characteristics of the knowledge itself. Failure factors can be lack of knowledge structure, which makes the content meaningless and difficult to understand for the users. Relevance and currency, the content does not meet the user’s needs. Difficulties in distilling valuable knowledge from organizational processes are addressed as knowledge distillation.

The fourth and last category, project management, includes the following failure factors: Lack of user involvement in the KM project can result in a misunderstanding of the user’s actual knowledge requirements. During KM implementation, individuals may move in the organization, relocate, or resign. Reorganizations can result in a shortage of technical and business expertise for the maintenance and use of KM tools. There is no ready-made plan for project evaluation, to track and measure achievement in the project.

KM approaches may fail when they do not integrate humans, processes, and technology (Abecker, Decker and Maurer, 2000). This is justified by the limitations and importance of each of these components. Humans alone are slow and have limited capacities. Processes are the main component in delivering organizational goals; therefore, any approach that is not associated with processes will tend to fail or to be perceived as failures. Technology alone is limited to support humans because of variable accuracy levels when performing simple mundane human tasks.

KM approaches may fail when they target a monolithic organizational memory. The goal of developing a monolithic organizational memory for an entire organization has failed (Ackerman and Halverson, 2000). Among other reasons, they are distributed and may have conflicting goals.

Conclusion

The importance of management of knowledge in organizations has been discussed. The effective management of knowledge has been described as a critical ingredient for organizations seeking to ensure sustainable strategic competitive advantage. It has been brought out that processes and technology alone are not enough to drive an organization, but its people (staff) and the knowledge that reside in the people are a very integral pivot in organization’s success. Therefore, in order for an organization to be successful, attention must be paid, not only on the processes and technology, but on knowledge and its workforce (which are people who are the sources of knowledge). KM has also been demonstrated to be tightly related to objectives and business strategies of the organization and thus a very useful tool in management. If KM fails to add value to the organization, it is only cost intensive, useless, or counterproductive. A pertinent question that is being asked is whether knowledge is always something good? Knowledge is always assumed to be generally positive.

However, it is difficult to assume that knowledge is always positive and good. It has been discussed in this paper that knowledge is one of the resources that provides organizations with sustainable competitive advantages. However, knowledge as such will not have much value for the organization in building its competitive advantages, but having the relevant knowledge and the ability to leverage and manage knowledge is a strategic management tool. It is therefore essential for management in organizations to look for means to gain, maintain, and leverage knowledge to achieve a lead to higher levels of success for organizations. As Mayo (1998) note, many organizations have been managing knowledge for decades but few of them use KM on a regular basis. In summary, to implement a KM strategy successfully, the creation, organization, leveraging (sharing) and application of knowledge must be taken into account.

The globalization brought the enormous changes in business thinking and technologies that had impact on many worldwide organizations. The organizations who want to survive in unpredictable and complex competitive markets should quickly adapt to the new dynamics of business.

According the fact that "intangible" resources are the decisive factors of business success, modern companies should recognize all business processes as processes of knowledge. The knowledge is considered as strategic company’s resource, the source of competitive advantage and business success in the 21st century. The imperative for achieving efficiency is in transfer of relevant information for decision-making across all levels of company structure. It can be done with well-disposed knowledge management system, which is responsible for implementing and evaluating strategies of knowledge, aimed at improving of internal and external knowledge in the organization, and overall corporate performances.