300 Mehta and Mehta
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
Tacit knowledge sharing was identified as a long-term goal, and efforts for enhanc-
ing explicit knowledge flows were seen as contributing to that goal. Moreover, Infosys
already had a number of tacit knowledge-sharing mechanisms including knowledge
transfer sessions (KT sessions) among the project team members, impromptu project
meetings, formal seminars by experts, and best-practice sessions. Still, it was decided
that the KM infrastructure would not ignore tacit knowledge sharing altogether.
Facilitated-Distributed Architecture
Another important decision at this stage was selecting the appropriate KM archi-
tecture. Architecture was recognized as key to the success of KM initiative as it would
influence issues such as defining the responsibilities of top management and the
employees; creating specific roles to own those responsibilities; deciding the nature of
knowledge sharing, that is, mandatory versus voluntary; choosing appropriate measures
to get people involved; and successfully implementing KM processes.
The committee considered the KM architectures of various pioneers in the field. For
example, it compared Hewlett and Packard’s decentralized bottom-up model to Buckman
Lab’s more centrally driven top-down one, and found them inappropriate for Infosys’s
requirements (Kochikar & Suresh, 2003). Infosys realized that its own values, norms, and
practices should dictate the choice of the architecture. So structured surveys backed by
extensive interviews were conducted across the organization to identify various knowl-
edge-sharing and application issues typical to Infosys.
The results indicated that a top-down KM model will not fit with Infosys’ largely
decentralized culture, while a bottom-up approach may lead to a selective dissemination
and application of knowledge, thus leaving the genuine knowledge needs unmet
(Venugopalan & Suresh, 2003). The KM steering committee and the KM group finally
decided on a facilitated-distributed architecture that was more akin to the middle-up-
down model proposed by Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995).
The architecture was “facilitated” because a centralized KM Group was created to
facilitate the KM program. The Group included (Nanda & DeLong, 2001):
- Behavioral experts to help nurture a knowledge-sharing culture
- A content-management team that would handle content-related issues and also
develop the knowledge taxonomy - A process expert team to identify and initiate core KM processes and to synchro-
nize them with the core business processes - A technology team that would build and maintain the technical infrastructure
In addition to the KM Group, a team of knowledge champions was organized from
various business units and functions to evangelize and promote the KM program.
Foreseeing the immense breadth of organizational knowledge, the architecture was
also kept “decentralized.” Knowledge creation and application was identified as employ-
ees’ responsibility. This decision was key in increasing employee commitment to the
program. It also helped the KM group to garner support from experts spanning different
industry sectors, technologies, and project management areas to build a comprehensive
and scalable knowledge taxonomy.