The Fraunhofer Berlin study identified success factors for knowledge management (Heisig/Vorbeck 1998, 9). Single most important factor was a corporate culture supportive of KM (44% of the respondents), followed by structural factors, exter- nal requirements (24%), information technology (23%), employees’ motivation and qualification (18%) and senior management support (18%). Interestingly, 11%
mentioned to be under pressure to be successful as a success factor. Thus, it seems that although organizations experienced difficulties in assessing success of KM ini- tiatives, many felt that (financial) reasoning and legitimation of the expenses were important drivers for success.
Several empirical studies also analyzed barriers to knowledge management which might hinder organizations from implementing a systematic KM approach143. More than two thirds of the respondents in the Fraunhofer Stuttgart study thought that scarcity of time (70.1%) or a lack of awareness about KM
141. See section 13.2.2 - “Turnover in employees” on page 520.
142. See section 12.2.2 - “Achieved goals” on page 475.
143. Bullinger et al. 1997, 31, Delphi 1997, 20, KPMG 1998, 16, Jọger/Straub 1999, 23, Dửring-Katerkamp/Trojan 2000, 8, KPMG 2001, 17.
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
(67.7%) were the most important barriers to KM (Bullinger et al. 1997). In the 1998 KPMG study respondents also felt that lack of time (49% strongly or some- what agreeing), lack of understanding of KM and benefits (40%), lack of funding (24%) and lack of senior management support (24%) were important barriers to effective KM (KPMG 1998, 16). In the Jọger/Straub (1999) study, scarcity of time (47.6% thought this barrier was highly important), lack of awareness (45.8%) and lack of management support (44.0%) were the most important barriers to KM whereas employees consciously holding back knowledge (20.0%) and too highly specialized employees (4.8%) were the least important barriers.
The Delphi study showed that immature technology (20%), cost (9%) or lack of need (3%) were only minor obstacles to KM when compared to culture which was named by more than half of the organizations (53%) as the most important barrier (Delphi 1997, 20). This is a similar finding than in the FH Cologne study which found that more than half of the responding organizations (50.4%) had problems with employees accepting KM (Dửring-Katerkamp/Trojan 2000, 8). 25.1% encoun- tered problems with selecting the “right” (software) components to support KM, however, only 11.2% experienced problems with implementing or installing these components in their organization. In the 2001 KPMG study lack of time (65%), the sharing of one’s “own” knowledge (62%), an unclear strategy (47%), weaknesses of the ICT support (44%) and unclear information demand (38%) were cited as the most important barriers to effective KM (KPMG 2001, 17).
Thus, it seems that from a technological perspective KM can be well supported by sophisticated KMS if organizations succeed in convincing participants of the advantages of knowledge sharing and organizing knowledge in a way that improves usability of the systems. In a substantial part of the organizations, the existing ICT infrastructure seems to be not well prepared to handle the increased requirements of a KM initiative, though.
There are substantial differences between the studies concerning two common prejudices about reasons hampering KM: Only 16% of the respondents surveyed by KPMG UK (1998) and only 20% of the HR managers in the Jọger/Straub (1999) study felt that employees were unwilling to share knowledge whereas in the 2001 KPMG study it was the second most frequently cited barrier. 62% said that the willingness to share knowledge created a barrier to KM (KPMG 2001, 17). In the latter study, only frequencies were investigated, though, and thus no statement can be made concerning the importance of this barrier. Additionally, in the same study only 35% said that employees were unwilling to accept foreign knowledge and only 26% thought that there was a lack of trust in the knowledge presented (KPMG 2001, 17). As for the second commonly held prejudice—information overload—
only 14% of the respondents in the 1998 KPMG study and only 4.8% of the HR managers in the Jọger/Straub study said that there was too much knowledge (KPMG 1998, 17, Jọger/Straub 1999, 23).
Table C-53 summarizes the most important barriers to KM and shows the corre- sponding values found in the various studies. However, the results cannot be com-
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
pared with each other e.g., to reveal trends due to the fact that the samples and questions differed substantially from each other.
Most of the answers seem to suggest the paradox that those organizational vari- ables are unsuited for KM which should be changed or implemented with the help of a KM approach: e.g., lack of visibility of existing knowledge and knowledge needed, lack of skills in KM techniques, lack of reward systems, lack of an infor- mation and communication infrastructure suitable for KM, lack of a supportive corporate culture or unsuited organizational structures.
All in all, it seems that there is a definite need for instruments improving the organizations’ way of handling knowledge. However, many respondents doubt that KM will be successful in this respect. Reasons for these doubts might be that x there is too much emphasis on technical rather than personal issues in KM initi-
atives,
x substantial benefits can only be expected in the long run, TABLE C-53. Summary of empirical results about barriers to KM
barrier Bullinger
et al.
1997
Delphi
1997 KPMG 1998a
a. strongly/somewhat agree
Jọger/
Straub 1999
Dửring/
Trojan 2000
KPMG 2001
scarcity of time 70.1% 49.0% hb: 47.6%
m: 47.6%
b. h means highly important; m refers to medium important
65%
lack of awareness/under- standing of need of KM
67.7% 40.0% h: 45.8%
m: 33.3%
organizational culture/
employees do not accept KM
53.0% 50.4% 31%
lack of (senior) manage- ment support
24.0% h: 44.0%
m: 40.0%
28%
too much effort/lack of funding
9.0% 24.0% h: 29.2%
m: 50.0%
organization’s ICT infra- structure unsuited
h: 26.1%
m: 52.2%
44%
immature ICT/problems in selecting ICT
20.0% 25.1%
employees unable/unwill- ing to share knowledge
16.0% h: 20.0%
m: 56.0%
62%
too much knowledge/too much specialization
14.0% h: 4.8%
m: 62.4%
Stt.010.Mssv.BKD002ac.email.ninhddtt@edu.gmail.com.vn.
x knowledge about KM is not wide-spread and confusing with many uncertainties concerning the “right” approach to implementation and a controversial discus- sion in the practitioners’ literature and
x measurement of success is difficult, thus it is hard to justify KM investments.