Organising Knowledge Management and Dissemination in New Product Development: Lessons from 12 Global Corporations
Introduction
With a steady record of more than 500 new products launched per year since the mid 1990s, the successful growth and development of Euro Supplier 1, a European-based global supplier of automotive components, is in a large part due to its systematic focus on managing the product development process as a continuous learning process. Since taking office 5 years ago, Jack D. (the Divisional Head of R&D), has consciously led all activities, processes and players involved in the product development process with three key objectives: activating the knowledge embedded in existing product solutions, extracting as much as possible of the tacit knowledge held by people, and capturing as much as possible of the new knowledge created in each development project. Measured by steadily improving R&D productivity in terms of cost and lead-time reductions for an increasing functional complexity and growing numbers of new products, his mission has been largely successful. Jack D. attributes this success to a mix of clear support structures, effective operating procedures and a climate that favours the sharing of knowledge during operational problem solving as natural, all under the umbrella of a project intelligence unit and his personal supervision as division head.
Few product development managers are as fortunate as Jack D. While product development is widely recognised as one of the most knowledge-intensive processes in business, as a `place' – a ba, - where knowledge resides, expands and continuously changes shape as a result of action and problem-solving practice,1 there have been no in-depth analyses and few recommendations as to how Knowledge Management (KM) should best be organized and formally structured in development-intensive firms engaged in a multiple parallel development projects. This issue becomes even more intriguing when taking into account the complexity of large-scale product development projects, which Clark & Fujomoto's landmark study of New Product Development (NPD) performance has characterized as similar to solving a huge equation system.2 Starting from framing the 'problem' as the product to be developed, the ‘equations’ address a numerous series of detailed and highly volatile technical and organisational questions. These questions take time to answer, and the ‘solution’ will depend on compromises between a large array of requirements represented by different internal and external players, each with different priorities, professional backgrounds and cognitive frameworks.3
The complexity of the NPD process is reflected in the complexity of the related knowledge flows, which are both crucial for advancing the process but at the same time difficult to manage.4 More specifically, part of the knowledge needed for developing a new product already exists within the organisations involved, while fresh knowledge is created as the process unfolds, problems are analysed, and the product is developed, refined and ultimately launched on the market.5 The existing knowledge, stored or embedded in the minds of people, in archives, in existing products and in procedures and equipment, needs to be recognised, retrieved and made available to engineers and other project participants. The newly created knowledge developed by practical problem solving needs to be analysed, shared and integrated with previous knowledge, to ensure a spiral of continuous expansion and development/refinement of knowledge for future use in the NPD process.6 There is a consensus in literature and practice alike that the transfer and sharing of knowledge are critical components for enabling this integration of newly created and previously existing knowledge, and thus for efficient NPD.7
In spite of the apparent importance of how to organize for Knowledge Management in NPD, the literature on the subject is almost nonexistent. Project management research assumes that effective KM will be a positive side-effect of an optimised project structure, while research focusing on NPD practices is mainly preoccupied with description or prescription of what KM should be about, addressing the question of how only superficially. R&D Directors and Project Managers are thus left much to their own judgement and imagination in deciding how to organise KM to facilitate the transfer and sharing of this continuously evolving, and often tacit, body of knowledge among a large number of individuals and groups. Rather than a systematic, strategically aligned and operationally grounded organisation for KM, the result is more often a patchwork of ad-hoc initiatives of limited usefulness and weak sustainability.8 Hence, the broad questions we address in this research are How do large product development-intensive corporations organise their Knowledge Management activities? and How does KM organisation affect knowledge transfer and sharing?
Our aim was to identify the different structural patterns used in practice and to analyse their perceived efficiency, strengths and weaknesses so as to progress the understanding of how KM structure influences knowledge dissemination, behaviour and, ultimately, NPD performance. In particular, we wanted to search for basic types of structures, and analyse whether any particular organisational configuration could be identified as an ‘ideal type’ for Knowledge Management organization in NPD.
The article is organised as follows. We first conduct a focused literature review of organizational aspects of KM in multi-project new product development environments, specifying also the notions of knowledge transfer and sharing. Section three presents the methodology of the study. Our research is based on the study of nine global OEMs and three global systems suppliers in the vehicle, appliances and electronics industries where data was collected on large-scale and internationally conducted product development projects. Section four presents and analyses the study results, focusing on the organisation for Knowledge Management and the impact organization has on the processes of knowledge transfer and sharing. Finally, we summarise and discuss the findings, and present implications for practice and research.
Section snippets
Literature review and research questions
The research focuses on how different Knowledge Management organisational arrangements influence how knowledge is disseminated. Knowledge dissemination comprises both transfer and sharing. By knowledge transfer, we intend the distribution of knowledge of an essentially explicit nature between individuals and groups (through, e.g., formal information channels, IT systems or more spontaneous communication), while (following Argote & Ingram) by knowledge sharing we mean the dynamic processes of
Research context and methodology
The research reported in this article was part of two larger projects, involving three companies from each of North America, Germany, France and Japan, which focused on organizational and information management aspects of NPD, and of which partial results have been previously reported.24 The three French companies were observed in depth, following the templates for case study research outlined by Yin.25 Data was collected by participant observation, multiple-respondent interviews and
Three forms of organisation for knowledge management
Each of the companies studied had adopted a project management approach to organizing their product development process. Within this general framework, the companies also operated some kind of formal structure for analysing, improving and re-engineering product development procedures based on a better use and integration of knowledge. The responsibilities of the individuals in charge of these activities included management of the creation, storage, transfer and use of development-related
Summary of findings and discussion
The purpose of our research was to investigate how knowledge management is formally organised in large product development intensive corporations, and how different organisational structures affect mission clarity, the processes of knowledge transfer and sharing with respect to support provided and the common frictions engendered. In view of the particular importance of job rotation as a means for dissemination of tacit knowledge, we also wanted to investigate what type of job rotation
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank the companies that participated in the studies and the sponsors of parts of the project: The Swedish Office of Science and Technology - STATT (Stockholm, Detroit, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo), and The Research School ENDREA, represented by The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. Special thanks go to Prof. Jean-Jacques Chanaron of the Grenoble Ecole de Management and to Prof. Gregory P. Prastacos, Director of the Management Sciences Laboratory at the Athens University of
Klas Eric Söderquist is an Assistant Professor and head of the Management Science Laboratory's Innovation and Knowledge Management Unit at the Department of Management Science and Technology at Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), Greece. He is also a Senior Teaching Fellow at the Grenoble Ecole de Management, France. He holds a DBA from Brunel University, UK. His research concentrates on R&D and innovation management, knowledge management and change in organizations, and he has
References (30)
- et al.
SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation
Long Range Planning
(2000)Knowledge Creation through Networked Strategic Communities: Case Studies on New Product Development in Japanese Companies
Long Range Planning
(2005) - et al.
Product Development Performance. Strategy, Organisation and Management in the World Auto Industry
(1991) - et al.
The Knowledge Creating Company
(1995) A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation
Organization Science
(1994)Capturing Learning and Applying Knowledge: An Investigation of the Use of Innovation Teams in Japanese and American Automotive Firms
Journal of Business Research
(2000)et al.Knowledge Management in New Product Teams: Practices and Outcomes
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
(2000)- et al.
Information Systems in Fast Cycle Development: Identifying User Needs in Integrated Automotive Component Development
R&D Management
(2000)et al.Global Study on Product Development
(2000) How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified
(1990)et al.Groupes transversaux et coordination technique dans la conception d'un nouveau véhicule
(1992)- et al.
Enhancing New Product Development Performance: An Organisational Learning Perspective
Journal of Product Innovation Management
(1998) - et al.
Describing the Issues of Knowledge Management in R and D: Towards a Communication an Analysis Tool
R&D Management
(1996) - et al.
Action and Possibility: Reconciling Dual Perspectives of Knowledge in Organizations
Organization Science
(2002)et al.Knowledge Management in Product Innovation: An Interpretative Review
International Journal of Management Reviews
(2001)
Why Don't We Know More About Knowledge?
MIT Sloan Management Review
Knowledge Transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms
Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes
Shared Knowledge' ‘Glitches’, and Product Development performance
Strategic Management Journal
Managing Codified Knowledge
Sloan Management Review
The Perpetual Enterprise Machine
Cited by (0)
Klas Eric Söderquist is an Assistant Professor and head of the Management Science Laboratory's Innovation and Knowledge Management Unit at the Department of Management Science and Technology at Athens University of Economics and Business (AUEB), Greece. He is also a Senior Teaching Fellow at the Grenoble Ecole de Management, France. He holds a DBA from Brunel University, UK. His research concentrates on R&D and innovation management, knowledge management and change in organizations, and he has published in the Journal of Product Innovation Management, Long Range Planning, R&D Management and Omega, among others. Athens University of Economics and Business, Dept. of Management Science and Technology, Management Science Laboratory, Evelpidon 47A & Lefkados 33, Gr-113 62 Athens, Greece. www.msl.aueb.gr, e-mail: [email protected]