How does corporate culture influence the effective transfer of knowledge?
Taking the case of the consulting industry
- Art: Diplomarbeit
- Autor: Philipp Stangohr
- Abgabedatum: April 2000
- Umfang: 201 Seiten
- Dateigröße: 1,0 MB
- Institution / Hochschule: E.A.P. - Europäische Wirtschaftshochschule Deutschland
- ISBN (eBook): 978-3-8324-2357-5
-
ISBN (Paperback) :
978-3-8324-2357-5 P - ISBN (CD) :978-3-8324-2357-5 CD
- Sprache: Englisch
- Prämierung:
- Arbeit zitieren: Stangohr, Philipp April 2000: How does corporate culture influence the effective transfer of knowledge?, Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag
- Schlagworte: Consulting Industry, Knowledge Management, Corporate Culture
In den Warenkorb
48,00 €
Diplomarbeit von Philipp Stangohr
Abstract:
The main question investigated in this European Research Project is whether corporate culture presents the biggest obstacle to knowledge management. To better answer this question two sub-questions are formulated: How does corporate culture influence the transfer of knowledge? and What are the key elements in a corporate culture that facilitate the process of knowledge transfer?
In order to answer these questions this study contains three parts: the literature review, the field research, and analysis and discussion.
The literature review explains the concepts of knowledge management and culture, discussing the relevant theories to each of the two. In the second part the methodology as well as the research site are stated and justified. Subsequently the results of the four case studies conducted are presented. The third part of this study analyses and interprets the findings with reference to the literature in order to answer the research questions. The limitations of the study will be discussed and recommendations for further research are offered. Last but not least, implications for the professional practice are pointed out.
Corporate culture clearly influences the transfer of knowledge. This influence is exerted by some key elements as proposed by T. Davenport and L. Prusak (1998), such as trust between the knowledge provider and the knowledge receiver, shared language, (un)structured time and meeting places, the willingness to share, the willingness to apply 'foreign' knowledge, and the willingness to judge knowledge objectively. This research confirms that these elements are indeed vital and no additional elements could be identified.
However, some components seem to be more influential than others. It is likely that their relative importance varies according to the industry investigated. Elements which do not pose any problems in the consulting industry, such as the willingness to apply 'foreign' knowledge and the objective judgement of knowledge, could probably present significant problems in other industries. It is advisable to look at these elements independently from the research site.
According to these elements, the consulting industry is generally judged to be conducive to the transfer of knowledge, the obstacles faced in this industry appear to be of a more operational nature. This appears to be an evolutionary process. In the beginning corporate culture presents the main obstacle to knowledge management. With time, other challenges emerge which are more and more operational.
Furthermore, corporate culture is not the only component that influences the transfer of knowledge. Instead its influence is shared with other main components. Some that could be identified are strategy, technological infrastructure, and processes. The relationship among these is very strong. All of them must be dealt with, one alone will not be sufficient.
Among these corporate culture is probably the most complex and needs constant attention. However, the conclusions drawn from the field research indicate that corporate culture in the consulting industry is, in principle, very favourable to knowledge management and does not represent the biggest obstacle to knowledge management. The biggest obstacle to knowledge management in the consulting industry is the harmonisation of all the necessary elements (corporate culture, technology, processes, and strategy). The latter is an obstacle which is operational but not fundamentally connected to corporate culture.
Table of Contents:
| Introduction | 1 | |
| 1. | literature review | 6 |
| 1.1 | knowledge management | 6 |
| 1.1.1 | Introduction | 6 |
| 1.1.2 | Data | 7 |
| 1.1.3 | Information | 8 |
| 1.1.4 | Knowledge | 9 |
| 1.1.4.1 | Explicit knowledge | 10 |
| 1.1.4.2 | Tacit knowledge | 11 |
| 1.1.4.3 | Four basic patterns for creating knowledge | 11 |
| 1.1.4.3.1 | From tacit to tacit | 12 |
| 1.1.4.3.2 | From explicit to explicit | 12 |
| 1.1.4.3.3 | From tacit to explicit | 12 |
| 1.1.4.3.4 | From explicit to tacit | 13 |
| 1.1.5 | What is Knowledge Management? | 13 |
| 1.1.6 | Historical Reflection on Knowledge Management | 14 |
| 1.1.7 | Why is Knowledge Management important? | 14 |
| 1.1.8 | Obstacles to Knowledge Management | 17 |
| 1.1.9 | Conclusion | 20 |
| 1.2 | culture | 22 |
| 1.2.1 | Introduction | 22 |
| 1.2.2 | What is Culture? | 23 |
| 1.2.2.1 | Human Nature | 23 |
| 1.2.2.2 | Culture | 24 |
| 1.2.2.3 | Personality | 24 |
| 1.2.3 | Definitions of Culture | 25 |
| 1.2.4 | Manifestations of Culture | 27 |
| 1.2.5 | Different Layeres of Culture | 29 |
| 1.2.5.1 | National Culture | 31 |
| 1.2.5.2 | Professional Culture | 32 |
| 1.2.5.3 | Corporate Culture - Organisational Culture | 33 |
| 1.2.6 | Differences Between Corporate and National Culture | 42 |
| 1.2.7 | Why is Corporate Culture so Important to the Transfer of Knowledge | 43 |
| 1.2.8 | A Pro-sharing Corporate Culture versus an Anti-sharing Corporate Culture | 46 |
| 1.2.9 | Some Key Elements of Corporate Culture | 48 |
| 1.2.9.1 | Trust between knowledge provider and knowledge receiver | 48 |
| 1.2.9.2 | Shared language | 49 |
| 1.2.9.3 | Unstructured time and meeting places | 49 |
| 1.2.9.4 | Structured time and meeting places | 51 |
| 1.2.9.5 | Willingness to share | 51 |
| 1.2.9.6 | Willingness to apply 'foreign' knowledge | 52 |
| 1.2.9.7 | Willingness to judge knowledge objectively | 53 |
| 1.2.10 | Conclusion | 53 |
| 2. | field research | 55 |
| 2.1 | methodology | 55 |
| 2.1.1 | Quantifying Methods | 58 |
| 2.1.2 | Non-Quantifying Methods | 58 |
| 2.1.3 | Chosen Method | 60 |
| 2.2 | research site | 62 |
| 2.2.1 | The Consulting Industry | 62 |
| 2.2.2 | Why the Consulting Industry? | 64 |
| 2.2.3 | Conclusion | 65 |
| 2.3 | results | 66 |
| 2.3.1 | Procedure | 66 |
| 2.3.2 | Synthesis A - Case Studies I to III | 68 |
| 2.3.3 | Synthesesis B - Case Study IV | 78 |
| 2.3.4 | Synthesis C - Synthesis A + Synthesis B | 83 |
| 2.3.5 | Feedback | 95 |
| 3. | analysis and discussion | 97 |
| 3.1 | research questions | 97 |
| 3.1.1 | Sub-Question I | 98 |
| 3.1.2 | Sub-Question II | 100 |
| 3.1.2.1 | Trust between knowledge provider and knowledge receiver | 101 |
| 3.1.2.2 | Shared language | 102 |
| 3.1.2.3 | Unstructured time and meeting places | 103 |
| 3.1.2.4 | Structured time and meeting places | 104 |
| 3.1.2.5 | Willingness to share | 105 |
| 3.1.2.6 | Willingness to apply 'foreign' knowledge | 106 |
| 3.1.2.7 | Willingness to judge knowledge objectively | 107 |
| 3.1.2.8 | Conclusion to sub-questions II | 107 |
| 3.1.3 | Main Research Question | 108 |
| 3.1.4 | Limitations and Recommendations of Further Research | 110 |
| 3.1.5 | Implications of the Study for Professional Practice | 111 |
| conclusion | 113 | |
| 4. | references | 115 |
| 4.1 | books | 115 |
| 4.2 | articles | 118 |
| 4.2.1 | Scientific Articles | 118 |
| 4.2.2 | Non-Scientific Articles | 119 |
| 4.3 | web-sites | 119 |
| 4.4 | cd-roms | 121 |
| 4.5 | Dissertations | 121 |
| 5. | appendices | 122 |
Do you consider the willingness to apply foreign knowledge to ones own work to be important to the effective transfer of knowledge? Why? This was judged as not problematic at all. People are eager to learn from others and are ready to apply their knowledge. There is a very strong awareness not to reinvent the wheel again but to leverage other peoples knowledge and work in order to be able to add more value to the client, delivering the best results in the shortest amount of time possible. "foreign knowledge" is applied very willingly, not presenting a problem at all [...]
Do you consider structured time and meeting places to be important to the effective transfer of knowledge? Why? The bigger an organisation becomes the more important is this aspect. Knowledge must be exchanged on a global basis allowing everyone to have access from anywhere in the world at any time. Technological infrastructure, one of the four pillars mentioned in question three, is truly the backbone of the knowledge management system. There is a knowledge exchange system which has been created in 1992, the extensive use of Lotus Notes, interest groups, etc. to mention just a few of the systems in place. growing importance with the size of a firm [...]
Do you consider the availability of unstructured time and meeting places to be important to the effective transfer of knowledge? Why? It was felt to be an important aspect, being very powerful on a local level, enforcing the awareness of each other in the same office and assuring a good flow of informal information. In a small organisation this could be and has been a vital part of knowledge management, but the mere size of today's firm makes it absolutely necessary to rely on systems that can be used globally and therefore must be of a very structured nature. important on a local level more structured approaches necessary for specific information needs [...]
In den Warenkorb
48,00 €
Link zur Arbeit:
http://www.diplom.de/ean/9783832423575
Arbeit zitieren:
Stangohr, Philipp April 2000: How does corporate culture influence the effective transfer of knowledge?, Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag
Schlagworte:
Consulting Industry, Knowledge Management, Corporate Culture



