Kristo Lehtonen 7 12 2005 Enhancing informationsharing culture

Kristo Lehtonen 7. 12. 2005 Enhancing information-sharing culture in New Product Development Supervisor: Raimo Kantola Industrial coordinator: Jorma Hietala

Problem Statement • How to enhance knowledge-sharing culture in New Product Development (NPD) in a way that creates competitive advantage?

Thesis Objectives What is current state? -Definitions -Interviews How to reach the target state? What is target state? -KM vision -Measurement scheme proposal -Organizational culture survey -Concrete recommendations based on own synthesis model

Organizational Culture • Academic review conclusions: • A large-scale intentional culture change is impractical if not completely impossible. • However, culture does change as a consequence of individual behavior, albeit unplanned. • Commercial review conclusions: • Understanding organizational culture is important; not in order to change it but in order to avoid conflicting with it too much. • Any change initiatives should concentrate on practical structural changes, not on the abstract notion of culture. • Change initiatives aligned with existing organizational culture and concentrating on practical structural changes result in culture change, too.

Software developer’s daily work scenario Other programs Internet Flexelint Looks at relevant standards using wwwlinks (e. g. from ITU-T) Actual coding using e. g. Emacs Prolint Mc. Cabe Work input Code specific ations Actual SW files Memory leak detection Code testing Action Database Lotus Notes EM system Requirements Management RM-RIM Reports detected errors Code parsing Document Management SCM system Synergy PCPErrors

Three knowledge scenarios “Where do I find the knowledge? ” Re-inventing the wheel. Ineffective IT solutions. Only resorting to explicit knowledge. Dependence on individuals. Knowledge access scenario Codifying problems. Experience transfer scenario Functional suboptimization. Implicit beliefs hindering effective use of IT. Stakeholders as competitors. Reluctant expert scenario

Von Krogh’s concept of « care » • Five dimensions: • Mutual trust, Active empathy, Access to help, Lenience in judgment, Courage • Supportive and active environment. High level of care • Honest feedback. • Individuals form “real” teams. • “Knowledge is power”. Low level of care • Sharing based on calculated benefits only. • Limited feedback. • Knowledge creation in isolation.

Nonaka’s knowledge-spiral

Sveiby’s Intangible Assets framework Company Intangible assets Employee competence Internal structure Tangible assets External structure

Organizational micro-level model of knowledge-sharing

Recommendations for 1. scenario

Three-layers of portal features

Recommendations for 2. scenario

Recommendations for 3. scenario

A Measurement Proposal Nokia’s Intangible Assets Monitor External Structure 1) Growth in revenue from Relationships with customers and suppliers, brand names, trademarks, existing customers Internal Structure Employee Competence 1) Customers that Contribute Patents, processes, computer to Internal Structure (%) and 1) Relative Pay Position 3) Competence Turnover 3) Win/Loss Index 3) New Processes Implemented 4) Trans-functional experience (%) 4) Proportion of Engineers vs. Support Staff. 5) Amount of Coaching (hours) 5) Trans-BU experience (%) 5) Meta-data process index (%) reputation, image, etc. 2) Percentage of Repeat Orders administrative systems, mission, vision, and strategy, etc. Index 2) R&D Effectiveness 2) Customers that Contribute to Employee Competence (%) 4) Employee Diversity (%) 6) Lessons Learned Usage

KM vision for Nokia • People feel as if they have the necessary information across Nokia at their reach; they know exactly where and how to look for that information. People have passion for sharing knowledge and experiences as well as leveraging other people’s knowledge. At the heart of KM at Nokia is interchanging of tacit knowledge between individuals – in other words, connecting people.

End-user Wow!!! in writing • • • Pekka comes to work at 8 AM and logs on to his Connecting People portal. He is happy knowing that is the only time he has to log-in today. The first thing Pekka sees is a personalized UI with a personalized taxonomy on the left side of the screen. The taxonomy has all the right concept categories based on his work role. All the most widely used programs are readily available. With one click Pekka can see his assignments on the portal UI. Also any action points from are visible. He has personalized his UI to include www-links to his most widely used standard pages, such as ITU-T. With a few clicks Pekka can access both the code specification document and the corresponding software file. If the information is not found in those files he can use the very effective search functionality on his portal. After all, every document he ever produces he adds the meta-data himself. The quality of the meta-data is even double-checked by the “librarian” appointed for this task in his unit. Pekka proceeds to coding. The coding environment is available with one click. So are also the other programs Pekka needs while coding (programs for code parsing, memory leak detection, and testing). Pekka runs into a conflict with an interfacing software module. With one click he gets the specification document for that module and he is directly able to see the name of the person who had been writing that module. By clicking on the name he is directed to the corporate yellow page where he sees directly the person’s contact information, his e-mail address, and the department he’s working in. Pekka sends an electrical invitation to this person suggesting a face-to-face meeting. After a few seconds they are transmitted to a videoconferencing session. The other person proceeds to explaining the difficulties he had in his own work and why he chose some of the solutions for the problems he encountered. From the person’s facial expression Pekka immediately notices that one problem was especially difficult. No he knows to pay special attention to it in his own work, as well. Pekka continues his work. As he encounters an error he can with a few clicks start writing the error report which is already pre-filled. After he has finished the report he can get back to his work knowing that the workflow functionality will transmit the report further to the right person. By using the BPM systems, which is based on the underlying product creation process Pekka’s manager notices that this one software modules has been causing several error reports from more than on business units. Based on this information he knows to appoint more resources to writing this module.

Information-sharing climate survey • Knowledge access scenario related questions: • I get the information I need on time for daily work. • I know where to find information. • It is easy to locate the right people, the experts, who possess the information you need. • How would you evaluate the amount of work in storing data to the systems?

Information-sharing climate survey • Experience transfer scenario related questions: • • • How well are lessons learned and past experiences transferred to others? How well are lessons learned used in your organization? I can usually trust the information coming from other people. The information I pass on can be trusted, as well. What is the level of mutual trust in the organization in terms of knowledgesharing in general? • People are actively seeking to understand other people, their situation, problems, and needs, in terms of sharing knowledge. • Do people I report to keep me informed?

Information-sharing climate survey • Reluctant expert scenario related questions: • Sharing of knowledge is encouraged in my organization both in action and in words. • My peers react well to errors made by me. It doesn’t discourage me from future experimentation. • My managers react well to errors made by me. It doesn’t discourage me from future experimentation. • People are willing to voice their opinions even when they are unpopular. • People are willing to voice their opinions even when they contradict the management. • People are willing to voice their opinions even when they contradict their peers?

Information-sharing climate survey • Reluctant expert scenario related questions: • I feel that knowledge is power. (Here an inverse scale is used: 5 ->1 and 1>5. ) • I feel that knowledge shared is knowledge doubled. • Sharing knowledge even outside your own business unit usually has good results. • Most of my expertise has developed as a consequence of working together with my colleagues and sharing and receiving knowledge with them. • There is much I could learn from my colleagues. • We help each other to learn the skills we need. • We keep all members of our team/organization with current issues.

Information-sharing climate survey • Reluctant expert scenario related questions: • How would you evaluate culture of information-sharing in your organization? • What would you like to change in terms of information-sharing in this organization? (Open question. )

Conclusions • Very wide and challengin topic. • A large scope: organizational sciences, KM, Change Management, performance measurement, information systems, etc. • A great learning experience • Both to the world of Knowledge Management as well as • to the actual situation at Nokia.

Appendix

Thesis Objectives What is current state in information-sharing? -Define the concepts used. -Conduct interviews to detect the current information-sharing culture. What is target state in information-sharing? -Create a KM vision for Nokia. -Create a measurement scheme to track progress towards the vision. How to reach the target state? -Investigate suitable KM methodologies. -Detect the optimal KM tools for Nokia.

Organizational Culture • Academic example definition [Brown 1998]: • “organizational culture refers to the pattern of beliefs, values, and learned ways of coping with experience that have developed during the course of an organization’s history, and which tend to be manifested in its material arrangements and in the behaviors of its members”. • Commercial example definition [Rumizen 2002]: • “the way we do things around here”.

Is culture change feasible? Culture change cannot be planned. Culture change can’t be entirely planned but an open process of change can be initiated. Culture change can be planned. Degree to which culture-change can be planned Culturalists Intermediates Cultural Engineers

KM Spetrum Human oriented KM • Focus on the agent of knowledge, i. e. the person who possesses it. E. g. organizational knowledge, the learning organization, Technology oriented KM • Knowledge as an object that is transferred E. g. portals, artificial intelligence, groupware.

Tacit vs. Explicit • Tacit knowledge: • is highly personal, hard to formalize and, therefore, difficult to communicate to others • Explicit knowledge: • is formal and systematic and can be easily communicated and shared

Sharing of knowledge System A System B Knowledge base context Knowledge base Directs the attention context Restructuring Classify and organize Sensors Activity system Channel Data

Data, information, and knowledge Data Raw facts or observations. Information Processed data in context. Knowledge Actionable information in context.

Definition example Quantity = Q Business Profit = R&D Effectiveness Index = • Information and knowledge are context dependent and everyone provides his or her own context: my information can be your knowledge and vice versa.

KM Definition • KM is activity that concentrates on how organizations create, capture, share, and leverage knowledge in order to attain competitive advantage.

Process Thinking

Process vs. functional approach Functional organization Process organization “Who does what? ” “How is the result created? ” Functional incentives. Monitoring and managing end-to-end processes. “What does my functional boss want? ” “What does the customer want? ” A vertical organization type. A horizontal organization type.

Introduction to Nokia’s R&D Customer and Market Operations Technology Platforms Enterprise Solutions Mobile Phones Multimedia Networks

Organizational complexity Knowledge access scenario Experience transfer scenario Reluctant expert scenario Organizational complexity Information technology Leveraging both explicit and tacit knowledge Knowledgesharing culture

Key roles • Engineer – (Could be further divided to HW Engineer, SW Engineer, etc. ) Works as an engineer in product or technology program. Designs, implements, integrates and tests a products. • Test Engineer – Tests a product release based on requirements. • Project Manager – Plans, controls and coordinates all aspects of a project. • R&D Manager – Allocates resources to projects according to business needs and directs his/her business unit based on the strategy. • Portfolio Manager – Maintains business strategy based product portfolio. • Requirements Manager – Transforms needs into product features and defines release content. • Error Manager – Analyzes errors and change requests, and plans change implementations. • Architect – Creates and maintains architecture structure, interfaces and design rules. • Roadmapper – Maintain and manage product roadmap. • System Engineer – Develops and manages product system concepts. • F&C Controller – Analyzes financial results on a periodic basis.

Definition of portal • A gateway to information employees need in their daily work, • providing a single point of access in a personalized way, independent of the technology used to provide such information.

Three different portals • 1) Public portal (Yahoo, Google, Bitpipe, etc. ) • 2) Corporate portal • Often called enterprise portal or enterprise information portal. • Structured around roles that are found inside the organization (e. g. software developer, test engineer, manager, etc. ) • 3) Extranet portal: • expands the corporate portal to include customers, vendors, and other roles outside the organization. • Other concepts • Role-based portal, collaboration portal, business intelligence portal, horizontal portal, business area portal, enterprise knowledge portal, mega portals, e-commerce portals, etc.

Portal system architecture Web browser Web server Application Server RM EM CM Other data

SOA + BPM + portal End-user Portal BPM SOA RM EM CM Other data Source data layer

Software developer’s current workday • Input to work from RM system (e. g. RM-RIM): “Build a new functionality in to software code module X”. • Looks at standards (e. g. from ITU-T) by using www-links. • Familiarizes himself with code specifications from interfacing code modules (via CM system, e. g. Synergy). • Looks at corresponding software files via different UI. • Then begins actual coding (e. g. using Emacs). • Reports detected errors to EM system (e. g. PCP Errors database). • Additionally, the engineer uses • Flexelint to parse a code • Prolint to detect memory leaks • Mc. Cabe in testing the code.

Process Capabilities and roles Requirements and Release Engineering • • Architecture Management Requirements Manager • Chief Architect Information: Roadmapper and Chief • Information: System Engineer Architect and Engineer Collaborators: Systems Engineer • Authority: R&D Manager and Engineer Authority: R&D Manager Resource Management • Line Manager • Information: F&C Controller • Collaborators: Resource Manager and Project Manager • Authority: Business Manager Engineering • Engineer • Information: Requirements Manager, Chief Architect and Error Manager • Collaborators: Other Engineers • Authority: Project Manager Portfolio Management • Portfolio Manager • Information: R&D Personnel • Collaborators: Roadmapper, Line Managers, Project Manager, F&C Controller and Management team • Authority: Business Manager Testing • Test Engineer • Information: Project Manager • Collaborators: Requirements Manager, System Engineer and Error Manager • Authority: Test Manager Project Management • Project Manager • Information: Stakeholders • Collaborators: Project team members • Authority: Steering Group Error and Change Management • Error Manager • Information: Release Manager • Collaborators: Engineer and Test Engineer • Authority: Project Manager

Interviewee statements • Finding information • “Usually the best way or even the only way to find information you need is to ask someone who knows” • “I usually don’t bother using the intranet to find information since information is best found from other people. ” • “In some cases we are very dependent on certain individuals who have some unique knowledge on a specific code-module”

Interviewee statements • Re-using past experiences • “Lessons learned are laborious to produce and difficult to use. Material does exist but usage is low. ” • “When handling errors reported to the error database, it might take only about half an hour to write the actual code but the rest of the day to write the report and store it in the appropriate systems. That can sometimes be frustrating, since the report writing is away from the real work”. • “If there has been one person responsible for one particular codemodule… the amount of tacit knowledge that the person possesses is such that it is impossible to write it down all at once…”

Interviewee statements • Sharing knowledge with associates • “You just simply react differently to request by people you have met”. • “People in Technology Platforms don’t listen much before we have a written contract with them. Before that they don’t e. g. test their software in our product program specific HW”. • “If I get a good idea for a, say, script, I would send it via e-mail to members of my own team, but not to [other Nokia sites in Finland or abroad]. I mean if I would always distribute the best ideas, I would not advance [get promoted, get bonuses, etc. ]. In that sense information is power. ”

Portal system architecture