Challenges of Knowledge and Information Management during New Product Introduction: Experiences from a Finnish Multinational Company

Introduction The ever shortening product lifecycles and rapidly changing customer requirements lead the modern manufacturing companies to practice a concurrent engineering (CE) paradigm. To succeed in CE, efficient communication between individuals from different departments in-house and within the production network is a must. In large production organizations, design and modelling of complex products, their production processes and systems is typically done by multi-disciplinary, often multicultural and geographically distributed design teams. The required cooperation and communication between the teams and each individual member of the team is heterogeneous due to the different IT systems (Information Technology) and platforms, as well as, each member's different specializations, tasks and backgrounds. As stated by Haldin-Herrgard (2000), sharing of all forms of knowledge requires a commonly understood terminology. However, usually each team or individual member of a team is specialized in solving problems related to a given phase of the product's lifecycle, which makes the work content and thus also the used terminology different. Therefore, the communication and sharing of knowledge and information may be challenging. This heterogeneity affects both the communication between the individuals and their interaction with the information systems. Furthermore, the more distance the individuals have from each other's practice, the more difficult it is to communicate the knowledge they use (Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999). Knowledge sharing can be managed by focusing either on the social dynamics between the members in the organization or management interventions (van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). Many formal knowledge sharing practices depend on the information systems offering support on information acquisition, organization, storage, retrieval, search, presentation, distribution, and reproduction. The technology often removes the temporal physical and social distance barriers by improving the knowledge sharing process, and locating knowledge carriers and seekers (Thierauf, 2001). On the other hand, also the IT systems suffer from lack of common vocabulary. For example, in product development, for each product several different product models, related to different phases or aspects of its lifecycle, are created and used. Therefore, vast amount of different types of information and CAx-systems (Computer Aided X) are used throughout the whole product lifecycle. As the different systems usually rely on different data structures, this leads to problems with their interoperability. It affects negatively to the transparency between different design teams and departments within an organization and its network. This article will present a practical case study of the knowledge and information management issues in a large Finnish globally operating company. Knowledge management here refers to the process of creating, sharing, transferring and using of collective knowledge in an organization to help the organization compete (von Krogh 1998). Knowledge always includes the tacit dimension and cannot thus be saved to the IT systems as such (Subashini, 2010; Walsham, 2001). Therefore, the terms information and information management are used when discussing about creating, sharing, transferring, and using content in written documents, emails, information systems, and databases. The study concentrated on New Product Introduction (NPI) process, which consists of the phases from product development and detailed design until production ramp up of the newly designed product. The focus was especially on the interface between product design and production. The focal aim in the practical case study conducted in the company was to recognize the weak points in the current knowledge and information management practices and solutions, in order to be able to improve the organization's knowledge and information management and transparency. …

[1]  Ivona Orzea,et al.  Organizational knowledge creation , 2010 .

[2]  Peter Holdt Christensen,et al.  Knowledge sharing: moving away from the obsession with best practices , 2007, J. Knowl. Manag..

[3]  Alexandre Ardichvili,et al.  Learning and Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities of Practice: Motivators, Barriers, and Enablers , 2008 .

[4]  I. Nonaka A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation , 1994 .

[5]  Hannu Vanharanta,et al.  Tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing in a project work context , 2003 .

[6]  Robert Thierauf,et al.  Effective Business Intelligence Systems , 2001 .

[7]  Bart van den Hooff,et al.  Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering approaches , 2009, Inf. Manag..

[8]  Ilkka Tuomi,et al.  Data is more than knowledge: implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory , 1999, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers.

[9]  Andreas Riege,et al.  Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider , 2005, J. Knowl. Manag..

[10]  Roy Lubit Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Management: The Keys to Sustainable Competitive Advantage , 2001 .

[11]  G. Walsham Knowledge Management:: The Benefits and Limitations of Computer Systems , 2001 .

[12]  G. Krogh Care in Knowledge Creation , 1998 .

[13]  I. Nonaka,et al.  SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation , 2000 .

[14]  Albert A. Cannella,et al.  Knowledge creation and the location of university research scientists’ interpersonal exchange relations: within and beyond the university , 2005 .

[15]  Steven R. Ray,et al.  Manufacturing interoperability , 2003, J. Intell. Manuf..

[16]  Michael K. Mauws,et al.  Learning to Build a Car: An Empirical Investigation of Organizational Learning , 2005 .

[17]  Georg von Krogh,et al.  Perspective - Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[18]  A. Prencipe,et al.  Inter-project learning: processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms , 2001 .

[19]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Concept of “Ba”: Building a Foundation for Knowledge Creation , 1998 .

[20]  Marjorie Grene,et al.  Knowing and being : essays , 1969 .

[21]  Minna Lanz Logical and Semantic Foundations of Knowledge Representation for Assembly and Manufacturing Processes , 2010 .

[22]  Brent B. Allred,et al.  Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation , 2001 .

[23]  Dorothy E. Leidner,et al.  Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues , 2001, MIS Q..

[24]  R Subashini Tacit Knowledge –The Ultimate Essence of an Organization , 2010 .

[25]  Andrea Fried,et al.  Corporate Knowledge. Theory and Practice of Intelligent Organizations , 2004 .

[26]  Martin Hepp,et al.  Ontology Management, Semantic Web, Semantic Web Services, and Business Applications , 2008, Ontology Management.

[27]  Mark E. Nissen,et al.  An Extended Model of Knowledge-Flow Dynamics , 2002, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[28]  Anne P. Massey,et al.  Unraveling the Temporal Fabric of Knowledge Conversion: A Model of Media Selection and Use , 2006, MIS Q..

[29]  Elizabeth A. Smith The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace , 2001, J. Knowl. Manag..

[30]  Ashok Jashapara,et al.  Knowledge Management: An Integrated Approach , 2010 .

[31]  Michael Polanyi On Body and Mind , 1969 .

[32]  野中 郁次郎,et al.  The Knowledge-Creating Company: How , 1995 .

[33]  Paul Hildreth,et al.  The duality of knowledge , 2002, Inf. Res..

[34]  Alice Lam Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework , 2000 .

[35]  M. Polanyi Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[36]  Ingrid M. Nembhard,et al.  Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits* , 2009 .

[37]  Jongwoo Jeon Success Factors for a Lessons-Learned System in a Construction Organization , 2009 .

[38]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[39]  P. Bierly,et al.  Organizational learning, knowledge and wisdom , 2000 .

[40]  Blaine Lilly,et al.  Mechanical Assemblies: their Design, Manufacture, and Role in Product Development , 2013 .

[41]  Sue Newell,et al.  Developing a dynamic project learning and cross‐project learning capability: synthesizing two perspectives , 2008, Inf. Syst. J..

[42]  Nikolay Avgoustinov,et al.  Modelling in Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics: Towards Autonomous Intelligent Software Models , 2007 .

[43]  Thomas H. Davenport,et al.  Book review:Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know. Thomas H. Davenport and Laurence Prusak. Harvard Business School Press, 1998. $29.95US. ISBN 0‐87584‐655‐6 , 1998 .

[44]  Shih-Wei Chou,et al.  Knowledge Management: The Distinctive Roles of Knowledge Assets in Facilitating Knowledge Creation , 2004, J. Inf. Sci..

[45]  Tua Haldin-Herrgård,et al.  Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations , 2000 .

[46]  Roderick E. White,et al.  An Organizational Learning Framework : From Intuition to Institution Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[47]  James D. McKeen,et al.  Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Making it Happen , 2007 .

[48]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems , 2014, Springer London.

[49]  Carla O'Dell,et al.  If Only We Knew What We Know: Identification and Transfer of Internal Best Practices , 1998 .

[50]  J. H. Dyer,et al.  Creating and managing a high‐performance knowledge‐sharing network: the Toyota case , 2000 .

[51]  K. M. Bartol,et al.  Encouraging Knowledge Sharing: The Role of Organizational Reward Systems , 2002 .

[52]  R. Yin,et al.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed. , 2009 .