Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Project and Organizational Change Management

In my previous post I discussed the correlation between effective change management practices and project success.  After reading this post again, I think I need to be more clear regarding the concept of change management.  This clarity is especially important in the project environment.

In the project environment, change management typically refers to the process of handling requests for modifications to the original scope.  We develop processes to manage these change requests to ensure the stakeholders agree on the change, are willing to fund the change, and also permit the additional time required to include the change.  This process is referred to as a change management process.  Making this language even more confusing is when working on an software development project where change management also refers to the process of controlling the introduction of changes to a software product.

The diverse meanings for change management is rather unfortunate.  Project teams often focus on the more operations-based view of change management rather than including the more tactical and strategic view of change management.  In addition to governing the process for requesting scope changes and controlling changes to the software environment, project teams must also consider guiding the stakeholder adoption of the project deliverables.  Project teams, particularly software development teams, must address all three forms of change management.

Since project teams must deal with multiple types of change management, perhaps it is best that we are more clear about the form of the change we are managing.  In my courses I often introduce the terms of software change management, project change management, and organizational change management.  By providing the scope of the change in the term, we offer more clarity to the intended form of change management.

By the way, my previous post referred to the organizational form of change management.

Monday, August 19, 2013

The Importance of Change Management

I came across an article from PMI Today associating project success with change management abilities.  According to PMI, organizations with effective change management practices report 117% higher success rates than organizations with less effective change management practices.  This is a very significant difference.

Why are some organizations better at change management than others?  Certainly there can be cultural differences in the organization that affect their ability and willingness to adopt change.  However, the organizational culture of change resistance only considers the recipients of the change.  What about those groups introducing change into the organization?  We need to take a closer look at project management practices.

Keep in mind that projects are synonymous with change.  Almost each project results in some form of change to the organization.  These changes come in the form of a new or modified, products, services, or processes.  Since projects are so closely related to change, why isn't there more thought put into change in our project management practices?  We can see some change management effort sprinkled in our project planning but, in reality, change is often a secondary or tertiary concern.  We tend to focus on our project variables of budget, scope, and schedule.  We need to pay closer attention to change.

Change, and managing change is critical to successful project management.  Rather than having projects focus on the delivery of the change, our projects must also continue on to ensure the change is adopted and enduring change is realized.  This may require further process changes with our project management practices but with a 117% increase in success rates, a new, change-centric, approach to project management should be justified.

Reference:
Project Management Institute (2013, August). Change management is an essential capability for project managers. PMI Today.

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Success Factors for Knowledge Management System Implementations

In my previous posts I outlined the technology, people, and organization challenges facing knowledge management system (KMS) implementations.  With an understanding of the issues affecting our KMS implementations, we need to look at what we can to to address these challenges and increase the success rate for KMS implementations.

First of all, the entire organization must develop a unified definition of knowledge and knowledge management and must also have a common appreciation for the firm's knowledge assets.  This ensures everyone has a consistent view of knowledge and its contributions to the organization.  The tactical and strategic leaders of the organization must also integrate the development and application of the knowledge assets into plans for growth and performance improvement efforts.

In addition to understanding knowledge, organizations must also ensure current workflows are aligned with the development and application of the knowledge assets.  The work processes should be conducive to making contributions to the knowledge repositories as well as learning, building, and applying existing knowledge.

Keeping in mind that much of the knowledge resides within the experiences and expertise of other knowledge workers.  As a result, organizations must identify subject matter experts (SMEs) and find ways to connect these experts to other individuals in need of the knowledge.  These connections can be made through subject-oriented support groups or through technology-driven communities.

The knowledge workforce must be made aware of the individual and organizational value of the knowledge and must be encouraged, and recognized and rewarded (very important), for participation in knowledge sharing and knowledge building activities.  The knowledge value conversation and reward practice will build a culture of knowledge sharing and minimize knowledge hording.

Finally, the KMS implementation project should be carried out in phases to slowly migrate to a complete knowledge management practice.  This will help mitigate the risks of a KMS implementation and will also allow the organization to learn from the previous phases.  In other words, by opting for an iterative implementation path, organizations are able to build and apply knowledge about KMS implementations and improve future KMS implementations (what a good example of practical knowledge management!).

Keep in mind that recent research indicated a 50% success rate for KMS implementations.  We need to consider these factors when implementing a KMS so that we can increase the likelihood that the system will be implemented in a manner that will optimize the intellectual capital of the knowledge workforce.

References
  • Bishop, J., Matsumoto, I., Glass, J., & Bouchlaghem, D. (2008). Ensuring the effectiveness of a knowledge management initiative. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 16.
  • du Plessis, M. (2007). Knowledge management: What makes complex implementations successful? Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2), 91.
  • Rathor, N., Thapliyal, M.P, Gupta, V.K., & Gupta, A. (2011). Knowledge management systems & it's failure factors. VSRD International Journal of Computers Science and Information Technology, 1(5), 321-327.

Monday, August 12, 2013

Organizational Challenges for Knowledge Management System Projects

This post is a continuation of the main challenges with knowledge management system (KMS) implementations.  In my previous postings I discussed the technology and people challenges of KMS implementations.  The final category of challenges, organizational challenges, is the most influential in a KMS project.

As noted in the people challenges posting, a knowledge management effort is hampered when the knowledge workers are not willing to share their knowledge.  This knowledge hoarding is due to their perceived personal value of possessing proprietary knowledge and fear that sharing this knowledge lowers their value in the organization.  The knowledge hoarding issue is at the heart of the organizational issues of KMS implementations.

Organizations that lack a culture of trust between the employees and management will struggle in a KMS implementation.  These implementations require collaboration and sharing of knowledge in order to succeed.  Organizational cultures lacking trust, collaboration, and recognition for individual contributions are less likely to be successful in their KMS efforts.

The culture of the organization plays a significant role in determining the outcome of a KMS implementation.

In my next post I will discuss the factors that lead to successful KMS implementations.

References
  • Edwards, J., Shaw, D., & Collier, P. (2005). Knowledge management systems: Finding a way with technology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 113.
  • Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18.

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

People Challenges for Knowledge Management System Projects

In my previous post I wrote about the technology challenges for knowledge management system (KMS) projects.  These technology challenges are the most visible of the issues facing KMS implementations.  However, they are not necessarily the most important.  The people challenges are the most important of the three categories of KMS implementation projects.

Before going into the details of people challenges we must first acknowledge the role people play in knowledge management.  We must remember that people are essential in creating knowledge.  Creating new knowledge cannot be automated but rather requires individuals to take existing knowledge and information, frame it within their own experiences and values and the environmental context, and conceptualize or codify the new knowledge.  The process of knowledge creation is a people-driven process.  Therefore, individuals should be the primary consideration for any knowledge management system project.

One of the people challenges of KMS implementations is the knowledge workers perceptions of the KMS.  The knowledge workers may not be aware of the value the KMS has to their own work as well as the value the system provides to the organization.  Additionally, the knowledge workers may not have sufficient time in their work processes to identify knowledge needs and interact with others to disseminate knowledge and learn from each other.

The more significant challenge with people in KMS implementations is the willingness of knowledge workers to participate in the knowledge management initiative.  Knowledge workers who see their value to the organization tied to the proprietary knowledge they possess are less likely to share this knowledge.  These employees perceive shared knowledge reduces their value to the organization and makes their employment less certain.  As a result, some knowledge workers will hoard their knowledge in order to stay valued and employed by the organization.

Knowledge hoarding results in KMS implementations lacking contributions to the knowledge repositories.  With this lack of knowledge contributions, the KMS knowledge repositories are less valuable and fewer knowledge workers will use the system to discover and apply existing knowledge.  The KMS will be unable serve its purpose to build and apply new knowledge for the organization.

People are central to the developing the organization's knowledge so the KMS implementation project must carefully consider the knowledge worker when designing and rolling out the KMS.

Next: Organizational Challenges for Knowledge Management System Projects


References
  • Butler, T. (2003). From data to knowledge and back again: Understanding the limitations of KMS. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(3), 144.
  • Gupta, K.S. (2008). A comparative analysis of knowledge sharing climate. Knowledge and Process Management, 15, 186-195.
  • Marks, P., Polak, P., McCoy, S., & Galletta, D. (2008). Sharing knowledge. Communications of the ACM, 51(2), 60-65.
  • Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

Technology Challenges for Knowledge Management System Projects

Yesterday I wrote about the high rate of failure for knowledge management system (KMS) failures and the categorization of these failures into technical, people, and organizational issues.  In today's post I will explain the different technology-related issues affecting KMS projects.

One of the challenges with KMS projects is that these systems are relatively new.  Organizations and the knowledge workers don't have a lot of experience in working with integrated knowledge management systems or even integrating smaller knowledge management systems into their workflow.  As a result of our lack of understanding of these systems and their application to our work, we often have unrealistic expectations of what these systems are capable of doing for us.  As a result, we find the system cannot support all of our needs.

The relative lack of experience with these type of systems also affects the level of acceptance by the knowledge workers.  Due to the higher level of complexity for these systems and inexperience in using these type of systems, knowledge workers are less likely to begin applying these systems to the existing work processes.

In addition to the unfamiliarity of these system, we also struggle with integration challenges.  Application of these systems to the existing individual work processes is also a key challenge with KMS implementations.  Organizations also struggle sharing data between existing systems and the KMS and also integrating the KMS with existing workflows.  With the lack of integration of existing data and workflows, knowledge workers are less likely to use these systems to contribute or discover knowledge in the KMS repositories.

Finally, organizations often fail to plan for the type of knowledge, the quality of knowledge, and the quantity of knowledge managed by the KMS.  The insufficient planning also includes a lack of system architecture (centralized or distributed) and a plan to help knowledge workers interact with others to diffuse knowledge.  Without this planning, the KMS may not contain the type, quality, and volume of knowledge needed by the knowledge workforce and may not provide sufficient access to the knowledge in a manner that is conducive to the work processes.

Next: People Challenges for Knowledge Management System Projects

References
  • Edwards, J., Shaw, D., & Collier, P. (2005). Knowledge management systems: Finding a way with technology. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(1), 113.
  • Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Sources of Knowledge Management Project Failures

Knowledge management system (KMS) projects have historically resulted in high levels of failures. Back in 2003 KMS failure rates were around 80%. Even those that were successful were still limited due to lack of captured knowledge. Over time however, reported KMS project failures have improved to 70% in 2005 and 50% in 2011.  Even with significant improvements to KMS implementations, we are only likely to be successful half of the time.

Given such a poor performance of KMS implementations, it would be wise to determine where we failed in the past to ensure we don't replicate these issues in future implementations.  Fortunately, there has been research done in this area to determine the common sources of KMS implementation failures.  The sources of these failures can be categorized as technology, people, and organization issues.

Over the next few days I will post more details about the issues for each of these three categories of KMS project failures and the steps that can be taken to mitigate these issues.

References
  • Akhavan, P., Jafari, M., & Fathian, M. (2005). Exploring failure factors of implementing knowledge management systems in organization. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 6. Retrieved from http://www.tlainc.com/jkmp.htm.
  • Bishop, J., Matsumoto, I., Glass, J., & Bouchlaghem, D. (2008). Ensuring the effectiveness of a knowledge management initiative. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(4), 16.
  • Butler, T. (2003). From data to knowledge and back again: Understanding the limitations of KMS. Knowledge and Process Management, 10(3), 144.
  • Mason, D., & Pauleen, D. (2003). Perceptions of knowledge management: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4), 38.
  • Rathor, N., Thapliyal, M.P, Gupta, V.K., & Gupta, A. (2011). Knowledge management systems & it's failure factors. VSRD International Journal of Computers Science and Information Technology, 1(5), 321-327.
  • Riege, A. (2005). Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 18.

Skills to Look for in Project Managers

Today I read a brief article describing the eight skills to look for when hiring an IT project manager. The headlines caught my attention...