Kristo Lehtonen 7.12.2005 Enhancing information-sharing culture in New Product Development...

Kristo Lehtonen 7.12.2005Enhancing 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?DefinitionsInterviews

What is target state?KM visionMeasurement scheme proposal

How to reach the target state?Organizational culture surveyConcrete 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

ActionDatabase

LotusNotes

Requirements

ManagementRM-RIM

Work input

Internet

Looks at relevant standards using

www-links (e.g. from ITU-T)

DocumentManagement

Code specifications

Actual coding using e.g. Emacs

EM system

PCPErrors

Reports detected

errors

Other programs

Flexelint

Prolint

McCabe

Memory leak detection

Code parsing

Code testing

SCM system

Synergy

Actual SW files

Three knowledge scenarios

Knowledge access scenario

Reluctant expert scenario

Experience transfer scenario

Functional sub-optimization.

Implicit beliefs hindering effective use of IT.

Stakeholders as competitors.

Re-inventing the wheel.

Only resorting to explicit knowledge.

Codifying problems.

“Where do I find the knowledge?”

Ineffective IT solutions.

Dependence on individuals.

Von Krogh’s concept of « care »

• Five dimensions:• Mutual trust, Active empathy,

Access to help, Lenience in judgment, Courage

High level of care

Low level of care

•Supportive and active environment.

•Honest feedback.

•Individuals form “real” teams.

•“Knowledge is power”.

•Sharing based on calculated benefits only.

•Limited feedback.

•Knowledge creation in isolation.

Nonaka’s knowledge-spiral

Socialization

Internalization Combination

Externalization

Tacit Explicit

Explicit

Explicit

Tacit

Tac

it

Explicit

Tac

it

Sveiby’s Intangible Assets framework

Company

Internal structure

Employee competence

External structure

Intangible assets Tangible assets

Organizational micro-level model of knowledge-sharing

Company system

Internal structure

Employee competence

External structure


Socialization

Expert Apprentice

Externalization


Recommendations for 1. scenario

Company system

Internal structure

Employee competence

External structure


Socialization

Expert Apprentice

Internalization

Meta-data & structure process,

Nokia’s Connecting People

portal

Combination

Externalization Mentoring &

couching process

Job rotation

Networking skills

Ineffective IT solutions.

“Where do I find the

knowledge?”

“Where do I find the

knowledge?”



Three-layers of portal features

End-User

Layer

Search Personalization Collaboration

Functional Layer

Single Sign-on Indexing / Taxonomy Syndication Workflow

Platform Layer

Security & Authentication Programming Components / Portlets Application Server Web Servers Database (DB) Operating System & Hardware

Corporate Yellow Pages Business Information Business Transactions


Socialization

Groupware Communities of practice

Company system

Internal structure

Employee competence

External structure


Expert Apprentice



Workflow BPM


Knowledge library

Groupware, Communities of

practice

Externalization

Only resorting to explicit

knowledge.

Codification problems.

Codification problems.


Create trust though teaming and education

Active empathy and trust as a part of rewarding and hiring

Build trust through face-to-face meetings

Process thinking

Nokia

Internal structure

Employee competence

External structure

Intangible assets

Externalization & Codification

Concept of care:

Trust & active empathy

Product Program

Expert Expert

TP

Product creation process

Expert

Functional sub-optimization.

Stakeholder

Implicit beliefs hindering effective

use of IT.

Redundancy,

job rotation

Stakeholders as competitors.

A Measurement Proposal

Internal Structure

Patents, processes, computer and administrative systems, mission, vision,

and strategy, etc.

Employee Competence

External Structure

Relationships with customers and suppliers, brand names, trademarks,

reputation, image, etc.

1) Growth in revenue from existing customers

2) Percentage of Repeat Orders

3) Win/Loss Index

4) Trans-functional experience (%)

5) Trans-BU experience (%)

1) Customers that Contribute to Internal Structure (%)

2) R&D Effectiveness Index

3) New Processes Implemented

4) Proportion of Engineers vs. Support Staff.

5) Meta-data process index (%)

1) Relative Pay Position

2) Customers that Contribute to Employee Competence (%)

3) Competence Turnover

4) Employee Diversity (%)

5) Amount of Coaching (hours)

6) Lessons Learned Usage

Nokia’s Intangible Assets Monitor

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?


• 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

knowledge-sharing 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?


• 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?


• 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.


• 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?

Culturalists

Degree to which culture-change can be planned

Intermediates Cultural Engineers

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.

KM Spetrum

Technology oriented KMHuman oriented KM

E.g. portals, artificial intelligence, groupware.

E.g. organizational knowledge, the learning organization,

• Knowledge as an object that is transferred

• Focus on the agent of knowledge, i.e. the person who possesses it.

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

Channel

Data

System A

Sensors

Directs the attention

Knowledge base

Restructuring

context

System B

Activity system

Knowledge base

context

Classify and organize

Data, information, and knowledge

Data

Raw facts or observations.

Information

Processed data in context.

Knowledge

Actionable information in context.

Definition example

• Information and knowledge are context dependent and everyone provides his or her own context: my information can be your knowledge and vice versa.

)( ACPASPQ Business Profit =

DRC

dACPASPQ

&

)( R&D Effectiveness Index =

Quantity = Q

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

Mobile Phones Multimedia

Enterprise Solutions

Networks

Organizational complexity

Organizational complexity

Information technology

Leveraging both explicit and tacit

knowledge

Knowledge-sharing culture

Knowledge access scenario

Reluctant expert scenario

Experience transfer scenario

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

Network Traffic Help

F ile E d it L o c a te V ie w H e lp

1 2 3 4 5 6 70

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0EDCBA

Web serve

r

Application Server

RM CMEM Other data

SOA + BPM + portal

RM CMEM Other data

SOA

Requirementsand Release Engineering

Requirementsand Release Engineering

ArchitectureManagement

ArchitectureManagement

PortfolioManagement

PortfolioManagement

Engineering and Testing

Engineering and Testing

Resource Management

Resource Management

Project Management

Project Management

NeedNeed

ArchitectureChange NeedArchitectureChange Need

ReleaseContentReleaseContent

ReleaseContentReleaseContent

ProjectStatus ProjectStatus Resource

CapacityResourceCapacity

RoadmapRoadmap

ResourceAllocationResourceAllocation

Resource Change RequestResource Change Request

ProjectPlanProjectPlan

RoadmapRoadmap

ReleaseRelease

ReleaseStrategyReleaseStrategy

ArchitectureArchitectureArchitecture

Error and ChangeManagement

Error and ChangeManagement

RoadmapRoadmap

BPM

End-user

Portal

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

• McCabe in testing the code.

Process Capabilities and roles

Requirements and Release Engineering

• Requirements Manager

• Information: Roadmapper and Chief Architect

• Collaborators: Systems Engineer and Engineer

• Authority: R&D Manager

Portfolio Management• Portfolio Manager• Information: R&D Personnel• Collaborators:

Roadmapper, Line Managers, Project Manager, F&C Controller and Management team

• Authority: Business Manager

Resource Management• Line Manager• Information: F&C

Controller• Collaborators: Resource

Manager and Project Manager

• Authority: Business Manager

Project Management• Project Manager• Information:

Stakeholders• Collaborators: Project

team members• Authority: Steering

Group

Engineering • Engineer• Information:

Requirements Manager, Chief Architect and Error Manager

• Collaborators: Other Engineers

• Authority: Project Manager

Error and Change Management

• Error Manager• Information: Release

Manager• Collaborators: Engineer

and Test Engineer• Authority: Project

Manager

Architecture Management• Chief Architect• Information: System

Engineer and Engineer• Authority: R&D Manager

Testing• Test Engineer• Information: Project

Manager• Collaborators:

Requirements Manager, System Engineer and Error Manager

• Authority: Test 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”


• 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 code-module… the amount of tacit knowledge that the person possesses is such that it is impossible to write it down all at once…”


• 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

Web browser

Mobile device

Network Traf fic Help

F ile E d it L o ca te Vie w H e lp

1 2 3 4 5 6 70

100

200

300

400

500EDCBA

Web server Application Server

RM

Other data

CM

Database servers

Kristo Lehtonen 7.12.2005 Enhancing information-sharing culture in New Product Development...

Documents

Transcript of Kristo Lehtonen 7.12.2005 Enhancing information-sharing culture in New Product Development...