Why Knowledge Management Fails 285Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without writtenEPILOGUE
To date, KM is considered an integral part of a business agenda. The dynamics of
KM as human-oriented (Brazelton & Gorry, 2003; Hansen, Nohria, & Tierney, 1999) and
socially constructed processes (Brown & Duguid, 2001) requires an appropriate deploy-
ment of people, processes, and organizational infrastructure. This failure case presents
the challenges that could be encountered and coped with in order to accomplish effective
KM implementation. The people factor is recognized as a key to the successful implemen-
tation of KM from initiation, trial, to full implementation. KM is a collective and
cooperative effort that requires most, if not all, employees in the organization to
participate. KM strategy and planning should be organized, relevant, and feasible within
the organizational context. One’s best practices and winning thrusts may not be well
fitted to others without evaluation for fit and relevance. A balanced hybrid of hard (e.g.,
information technology) and soft infrastructure (e.g., team harmony and organizational
culture) is needed for success.
LESSONS LEARNED
Knowledge management is increasingly recognized but its challenges are not well
understood. To institutionalize a KM program, organizations can draw lessons from this
failure case so as to construe what imperatives are needed and what mistakes should be
avoided. Management issues and concerns are highlighted as follows.
Lesson 1: Start with a KM Plan Based on Realistic
Expectations
The mission and behavioral intentions of leaders have a strong impact on employ-
ees and where to aim and how to roll out KM processes (KPMG, 2000). In this case, it is
appreciated that top management recognized its organizational ineffectiveness and
initiated a KM plan as a remedy. We suggest, however, that planning based on unrealistic
expectations undermined its ability to successfully direct future actions. Therefore,
management has to be reasonable in setting KM goals, perceptions, and beliefs. It is
suggested that a feasibility assessment of organizational infrastructures (e.g., financial
resources, technology level) and organizational climate (e.g., employees’ readiness to
KM, resistance to change) be conducted to define the KM principles and goals.
Inspirational aims, which can be reasonably and feasibly accomplished, encourage
employees to assess their personal knowledge and transfer others’ knowledge when it
is shown to enhance existing practices and can help meet new challenges.
Lesson 2: Management Support is a Strong, Consistent,
and more Importantly, Cohesive Power to Promote KM
It is evident that vision without management support is in vain and temporary. As
valued most by the HS employees, continuous corroboration from top management is
indispensable to motivate their commitment toward knowledge-centric behaviors for
long-term competitiveness (Lee & Choi, 2003). Therefore, beyond visionary leadership,
management should be willing to invest time, energy, and resources to promote KM. At