Journal of Business Strategy

CREATING A SUCCESSFUL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Laurence P. Chait
Article information:
To cite this document:
Laurence P. Chait, (1999),"CREATING A SUCCESSFUL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM", Journal of Business
Strategy, Vol. 20 Iss 2 pp. 23 - 26
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb039991
Downloaded on: 27 March 2016, At: 05:49 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 310 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2002),"An enterprise-wide knowledge management system infrastructure", Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol.
102 Iss 1 pp. 17-25 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570210414622
(2005),"Critical factors in adopting a knowledge management system for the pharmaceutical industry", Industrial Management
Downloaded by RMIT University At 05:49 27 March 2016 (PT)

& Data Systems, Vol. 105 Iss 2 pp. 164-183 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570510583307

(1997),"Knowledge Management: An Introduction and Perspective", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 Iss 1 pp. 6-14
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673279710800682

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:393177 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 ■ COVER STORY

CREATING A SUCCESSFUL
KNOWLEDGE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
When knowledge is your EFFECTIVE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IS AN AREA
that we at Arthur D. Little see as critical to the ongoing success of
product, you'd best be our firm. After all, our knowledge and experience is our "product."
Downloaded by RMIT University At 05:49 27 March 2016 (PT)

able to manage it. Here's Today, our more than 3,000 staff members are spread across
offices and laboratories in more than 50 cities around the globe.
what one consulting firm We want every one of those staff members, wherever he or she
has done. may be in the world, to have instant access to the knowledge,
skills, and experience of 2,999 others. Such access means that the
best of our corporate knowledge must be available and applied to
Laurence P. Chait the needs of our clients and our company. It ensures that the right
information is available to the right people, in the right places, at
the right times, and that our individual knowledge elements—
which are some of our most important assets—are being leveraged
and multiplied in value.
Since we cannot physically link 3,000 staff members, we have
built virtual links using a state-of-the-art, Web-enabled system. Our
information system environment, known as the "ADL Link," is
designed to connect people worldwide for learning, information, and
knowledge sharing. (For the technically inclined, the ADL Link is a
Lotus Notes application hosted on a series of Domino servers and
available to staff members via Netscape browsers through our glob­
al wide-area network.)
The content of our knowledge management system includes the
key elements of our knowledge capital. We have information about
our staff, which improves our ability to identify people with needed
skills and knowledge. We have information about our clients, which
helps us to support and serve them. We have information about our
methodologies and tools, which allows us to deliver consistent ser­
vice in an efficient and effective manner. And we have information
about our practices and groups, which keeps everyone up-to-date,
even when they get to see one another only infrequently.
Illustration by John Pack

Journal of Business Strategy|23

 COVER STORY

We learned sev­ of knowledge four domains: content, culture,

eral years ago, how­ management process, and infrastructure.
ever, that the com­ and determine Content. At the outset, the task
puter system was the appropriate forces had to identify all our knowl­
just one element in direction for the edge elements and understand the
a broad initiative to firm. The task relative importance of each element
maximize the poten­ forces worked to to individuals, groups, and our corpo­
tial of our knowl­ understand what rate objectives. This understanding
edge resources. In knowledge man­ was critical if we were to plan and set
addition to the agement was priorities effectively. We also needed
hardware and soft­ and how it was to understand the context for the dif­
ware, we had to evolving. During ferent knowledge elements; that is,
concern ourselves this process, where and how they were used or
with issues of con­ they derived a could be used.
tent, culture, and vision for knowl­ Finally, once the system was up
process. In fact, edge manage­ and running, it became critical to
technology provided ment that is still monitor content—to know what
only about 20% of in place across content is used, by whom, how, and
our overall solution. the firm. to what advantage. To leverage
From our experi­ The next knowledge to the fullest, we obvi­
ence assessing, critical step ously must refresh old content and
Downloaded by RMIT University At 05:49 27 March 2016 (PT)

planning, pilot test­
ing, and implementing our knowledge
management system, we have identi­
fied three factors that have con­
tributed most to our achievements in
knowledge management: ensuring
vision and alignment, managing four
domains, and creating an effective
plan. While every organization must
find the keys to its own success, these
three factors will be present in virtu­
ally every list.
Ensuring Vision and
Alignment
In many ways, managing knowledge
is no different from managing other
aspects of an organization. First,
there must be a vision that links
with the organization's objectives
and strategies. Second, people
must be aligned with that vision.
And, third, the alignment must be
from the top down and all across
the organization.
At ADL, two cross-organizational
task forces were responsible for creat­
ing a vision and ensuring strategic link­
age. These teams were composed of
senior leaders in our practices and our
information services areas—people
who understood our culture and cor­
porate direction—to consider the issue
was to ensure
that the firm's senior leaders
actively shared that vision and
would provide ongoing support for
the knowledge management pro-
We are able to see patterns of usage and analyze them in
light of the characteristics of the people using the system.
gram. The task force accomplished
this by holding individual and
group meetings with the senior
leaders to communicate the vision
and ensured that they were aligned
with it. Furthermore, we continual­
ly make sure that the leaders
remain truly on board.
Aligning staff with the vision was
relatively simple. The vision and
messages around it are simple, clear,
and obvious to our staff members. A
communication program that includ­
ed oral presentations and articles in
our corporate newsletter served this
purpose well.
Managing Four Domains
Managing knowledge is a multidi­
mensional process. It requires the
effective concurrent management of
add new content over time. In this
area, we decided to treat our knowl­
edge management system as if it
were a public Web site, like ama-
zon.com or llbean.com. We estab-
lished a system to track individuals'
use and experience with the ADL
Link at a very detailed level and
then to marry those data with the
demographic information we have
on each user.
As a result, we are able to see pat­
terns of usage and analyze them in
light of the characteristics of the peo­
ple using the system. The combined
Laurence P. Chait is vice president
and corporate director of knowledge
management for Arthur D. Little,
Inc., a global strategic consulting
firm with headquarters in Cambridge,
Mass. litis story was adapted from
an article that orginally appeared in
Prism, 2nd quarter 1998, published
by Arthur W. Little.

24 | March/April 1999
 data helps us answer several key
questions:
■ What content is being used and
by whom?
■ Would it be valuable to provide
additional, similar content to these
people?
■ Are there other people who
should be using such content but are
not?
■How can we "advertise" and lever­
age this content to those additional
potential users?
■ Is there content that we believe to
be valuable that is not being used at
all?
■ Can we determine why and cor­
rect the problem?
■ What content, after all attempts
to leverage it, remains unused and
hence is subject to deletion?
Downloaded by RMIT University At 05:49 27 March 2016 (PT)
edge—how we capture, evaluate, edge management process. Since
cleanse, store, provide, and use it. We they cannot do all of the work them­
assessed and diagrammed this process selves, they involve other people in
to ensure that we understood how it their practices, as well. Finally,
functioned, and then we worked to these individuals work to establish
modify and enhance it to bring it into a community of interest among
alignment with our future vision. their peers to advance the cause of
Process also includes roles. In our knowledge management across
In a chaotic environment, short time cycles and frequent
replanning are critical elements of success.
case, we designed new roles that we ADL. These roles have formal
believe focus people's attention on expectations associated with them
performing the processes of knowl­ that have become a standard part of
edge management. Note that these the evaluation process for the people
are roles, not jobs; some staff who who perform them.
perform client-facing roles were Third, there are the processes by

Culture. Because cultural realities expected to restructure their work­ which we govern our knowledge
can act as barriers or enablers for loads and perform the new knowledge management effort itself. We
knowledge management, we had to management roles, as well. These established guiding principles that
understand our own cultural realities roles were housed in our practices, cover both implementation and
and to take them into account. For the client-facing groups, within our ongoing operation. These principles
example, we are driven by what we call organization. allow geographically dispersed
"business impact" toward selling our The two primary roles within the groups to function pseudo-indepen-
services and keeping our people bill­ practices are those of Knowledge dently, yet ensure that their actions
able—a focus that might not leave a lot Advocate and Knowledge Steward. are aligned with our vision and
of time for knowl­ The Knowledge objectives for knowledge manage­
edge management. Advocate is the ment. We also put into place a set
Once we had champion for of corporate roles:
identified our cul­ knowledge man­ ■ A Global Director of Knowledge
tural realities, we set agement within a Management, who is responsible for
forth a compelling practice, becom­ the design, implementation, and over­
vision of our need to ing involved at all operation of our knowledge man­
succeed despite key times to help agement efforts.
those realities, and ensure success. ■ Knowledge Coordinators, who
of our certainty that, The Knowledge coach, coax, cajole, and coerce
by managing knowl­ Steward (there Knowledge Stewards and practice
edge well, we will can be more than leadership groups to make continued
actively support one) has opera­ progress toward our objectives.
them. This linkage tional responsi­ ■ A Link Master and a Web
of knowledge man­ bility for knowl­ Publishing Specialist, who man­
agement directly to edge manage­ age our Domino/Web publishing
our culture and val­ ment within a activities.
ues is critical. practice. Infrastructure. The fourth
Process. The These indi­ domain we had to manage is the
process domain viduals execute infrastructure. This included not
exists at several lev­ knowledge man­ only computer systems, but also ele­
els. First is the agement tasks ments such as teaching, training,
process by which we and oversee the and coaching—and support in gen­
manage knowl­ virtual knowl- eral—that ensure that our computer

Journal of Business Strategy | 25

 COVER STORY
applications and digital repository
are used effectively. The bottom
line here is that while technology is
critical for effective knowledge
management, it is only about 20% of
the challenge.
As for the systems themselves,
we adopted a somewhat radical
approach to their development.
Over the past decade, with the
introduction of techniques such as
"rapid application development,"
system development cycles have
Perhaps the most important challenge in knowledge
management is to manage and maintain a
multidimensional perspective.
Downloaded by RMIT University At 05:49 27 March 2016 (PT)
gone from years down to months.
In the case of the ADL Link, we
pushed these techniques to the
extreme: We add new functionality
to our infrastructure monthly.
Perhaps the most important chal­
lenge in knowledge management is
to manage and maintain a multidi­
mensional perspective, focusing on
all four domains—content, culture,
process, and infrastructure—at the
same time.
Think about it: If an organization
does an exemplary job in managing
any three of these domains, yet fails
in the fourth, its entire program will
fail. We have not been "exemplary"
in each of these four domains, but
maintaining a persistent and
unshakable focus on all four
domains has ensured our success.
You might even say that doing all
four reasonably well is far more
important and beneficial than trying
to do each perfectly and coming up
short on one or two.
Creating an Effective Plan
While understanding and focusing on
the four domains (content, culture,
process, and infrastructure) was
important, it was not sufficient. We
26 | March/April 1999
found that we needed a really good
plan of attack. We had to make many
decisions, including:
■ Which knowledge elements to
start with
■ What to automate first
■ What platforms to use
■ What roles and governance
process to establish
Here too we have taken a nonstan­
dard approach. We did not try to
develop a top-down, three- to five-
year implementation plan. With the
pace of technology change and the
rapid and ongoing change in our
users' understanding of their needs
and of the potential of knowledge
management, a standard planning
approach would not work.
Instead, we outlined a long list of
significant initiatives (more than
could be completed in a year), set pri­
orities, and took to working on the
highest priorities first.
At the top of the list was the
need for an extendible architecture
for our systems, one that would
provide an underlying framework
that would accommodate the rapid
changes occurring around us. After
that, we embarked on the applica­
tions and process changes, with
the highest-priority initiatives
coming first.
Each month, we plan our activi­
ties for the next two months into
the future. Twice a year we revisit
the initiatives, recasting, reshap­
ing, and setting new priorities in
light of the current reality. In a
chaotic environment, short time
cycles and frequent replanning are
critical elements of success.
Setting priorities for knowledge
management follows the pattern of
priority setting for most manage­
ment initiatives. The answers to
several, basic questions provide the
needed input:
■ What is the need?
■ Where is the benefit?
■ What can be leveraged?
■ What resources are available?
We applied these questions and
answers across three dimensions:
■ Breadth vs. depth—should a prac­
tice address all knowledge elements
at a high level, or capture one or two
in depth?
■ Looking back versus going
forward—should a practice capture its
historical knowledge or start now and
capture going forward?
■ Incremental vs. big hang—should
a practice plan to address its knowl­
edge needs in stages over time, or
should it make a major, concerted
effort to put a repository into place in
a short time?
Practices placed themselves at dif­
ferent points along these dimensions,
determining what they would do, how
they would do it, and when.
A Never-Ending Effort
The ADL Link is not finished—nor
will it ever be. We have a facility in
place for capturing, storing, and
accessing knowledge of various types.
Our plan is to continually make that
facility easier to use. Also, new tools
and new Internet developments
(such as active support of collabora­
tive, team-based work) and new con­
tent types (such as sophisticated
benchmark databases) will push the
ADL Link to evolve for the foresee­
able future.
So, what are we doing now? We
are working to build an infrastruc­
ture to support today—and, more
important, to be ready for tomor­
row. We are actively researching
tools that we think we will need in
the next year or so. And, one last
time, in everything we do, we are
trying to maintain a focus on our
four critical domains—all four, all
the time. ♦
 This article has been cited by:

1. Jacobus Philippus van Deventer Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Cornelius Johannes
Kruger Department of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Roy Donald Johnson Department of
Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa . 2015. Delineating knowledge management through lexical analysis
– a retrospective. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67:2, 203-229. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Fu Jing, Nopasit Chakpitak, Paul Goldsmith, Pradorn Sureephong, Taksina Kunarucks. 2014. Creating a Knowledge Supply
Chain for e-Tourism Curriculum Design. International Journal of Knowledge Management 8:10.4018/IJKM.20121001, 71-94.
[CrossRef]
3. Shiuann-Shuoh Chen, Yu-Wei Chuang, Pei-Yi Chen. 2012. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining
the roles of KMS quality, KMS self-efficacy, and organizational climate. Knowledge-Based Systems 31, 106-118. [CrossRef]
4. Kwang-Oh Park. 2012. Empirical Research on Performance of SCM Adoption - Structural Equation Modeling Approach -.
The Journal of the Korea Contents Association 12, 295-310. [CrossRef]
5. Changiz Valmohamma. 2010. Investigation and Assessment of Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management
Implementation in Iranian Small-to-Medium Sized Enterprises. Journal of Applied Sciences 10, 2290-2296. [CrossRef]
6. Yen-Ching OuYang, Jen-Yin Yeh, Te-Chun LeeThe critical success factors for knowledge management adoption - a review
study 445-448. [CrossRef]
7. Fahmi Ibrahim, David Edgar, Vivien Reid. 2009. Assessing the Role of Knowledge Management in Adding Value: Moving
Towards a Comprehensive Framework. Journal of Information & Knowledge Management 08, 275-286. [CrossRef]
8. C.J. (Neels) KrugerDepartment of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa Roy D. JohnsonDepartment
of Informatics, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 2009. Assessment of knowledge management growth: a South
Downloaded by RMIT University At 05:49 27 March 2016 (PT)

Africa perspective. Aslib Proceedings 61:6, 542-564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Ren‐Zong KuoDepartment of Information Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei,
Taiwan Gwo‐Guang LeeDepartment of Information Management, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology,
Taipei, Taiwan. 2009. KMS adoption: the effects of information quality. Management Decision 47:10, 1633-1651. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
10. Tung-Ching Lin, Chien-Chih Huang. 2008. Understanding knowledge management system usage antecedents: An integration
of social cognitive theory and task technology fit. Information & Management 45, 410-417. [CrossRef]
11. Brent M. HanMITRE Corporation, Fairfax, Virginia, USA Vittal S. AnantatmulaCollege of Business, Western Carolina
University, Cullowhee, North Carolina, USA. 2007. Knowledge sharing in large IT organizations: a case study. VINE 37:4,
421-439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
12. Dorit Nevo, Yolande E. Chan. 2007. A Delphi study of knowledge management systems: Scope and requirements. Information
& Management 44, 583-597. [CrossRef]
13. Tibor KremicNASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Oya Icmeli TukelOperations Management Department,
College of Business Administration, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA Walter O. RomOperations Management
Department, College of Business Administration, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2006. Outsourcing
decision support: a survey of benefits, risks, and decision factors. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 11:6,
467-482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. W. Venters. 2006. The Use of Technology within Knowledge Management: A Review. Journal of Intelligent Systems 15. .
[CrossRef]
15. References 165-168. [CrossRef]
16. B.M. Han, V.S. AnantatmulaKnowledge Management in IT Organizations from Employee’s Perspective
146c-146c. [CrossRef]
17. Jun XuGraduate College of Management, Southern Cross University, Tweed Gold Coast Campus, Tweed Heads, Australia
Mohammed QuaddusGraduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. 2005. From rhetoric
towards a model of practical knowledge management systems. Journal of Management Development 24:4, 291-319. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
18. Mohammed Quaddus, Jun Xu. 2005. Adoption and diffusion of knowledge management systems: field studies of factors and
variables. Knowledge-Based Systems 18, 107-115. [CrossRef]
19. William W. AgrestiKnowledge management 171-283. [CrossRef]
20. Hak Seng Ang, Pak Tee NgKnowledge Management in the Public Service 41-54. [CrossRef]
21. A. Dwivedi, R.K. Bali, A.E. James, R.N.G. NaguibTelehealth systems: considering knowledge management and ICT issues
3614-3617. [CrossRef]
22. Nelson K. Y. LeungA Re-Distributed Knowledge Management Framework in Help Desk 1374-1381. [CrossRef]
23. Nelson LeungA Re-Distributed Knowledge Management Framework in Help Desk 771-778. [CrossRef]