The authors review the literature on KM and NPD, and derive common themes behind these research streams. Based on such themes, they find out that, nowadays, NPD activities pose interesting challenges for KM initiatives into the aerospace and defense value network. A number of dilemma arises from the need for knowledge sharing, enclosing confidentiality and privacy agreements, product conformity, fear of the consequences of a loss of control and competitive advantage issues.
The key question then, is how to enhance NPD performance by integrating effectively KM? In this context, this paper aims is to assess the impact of knowledge management toward successful NPD, using a case analysis of a leading Italian aerospace Industry. In particular the investigation focuses on key drivers, enablers and challenges to NPD process in a networked KM context.
The results approve the findings existing on the literature regarding drivers, enablers and challenges of a collaborative KM implementation and their impacts to ensure its effectiveness. However, this study highlights the necessity of securing KM which has not been given much attention in literature, authors try to discuss issues on integrating security strategy with KM and business strategies of a collaborative environment. Some best practices and guidelines required to well face the intra-organizational KM challenges, are also presented in this article.
Keywords: Aerospace and defense; Knowledge management; New product development; knowledge-intensive organizations; Secure knowledge management
I. Introduction.
II. Literature Review
1. Inter-Organisational knowledge management practices
Two decades ago, Nonaka (1991) highlighted that "in an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge... Successful companies are those that consistently create new knowledge, disseminate it widely throughout the organizations and quickly embody it in new technologies and products". Knowledge management has been considered as a key factor in developing organisational performance in firms across the globe.
Today's economy is dubbed as knowledge based or knowledge economy, where participants sell knowledge, focused on research, innovation and other forms of knowledge creation (Islam, 2006).
The pivotal role of knowledge management is more pronounced in knowledge-intensive organizations such as those having a research and development department, and participating in new product development (NPD) program.
In the present environment of rapid change and technological advancement, knowledge management practices are often explicitly oriented to reach competitive advantage, and commercial effectiveness, to help focus the organization on acquiring, storing and utilising knowledge for effective decision making, to increase organization flexibility, to protect intellectual assets from decay (Singh, A. and Soltani, E. 2010) and getting people to effect new heights of collaboration, to make efficiently good decisions and then to innovate (Havens and Knapp 1999).
However, there is no universal nor unanimous definition of knowledge management, there are several different perspectives, and sometimes quite confusing statements that claim to be a definition of knowledge management.
Crossan et al. (1997) describe knowledge management as "the consciously embedded structures, systems, and interactions designed to permit the management of the firm's pool of knowledge and skills".
Scarborough et. al., (1999) define knowledge management "as any process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and using knowledge … to enhance learning and performance in organizations ."
Knowledge management according to Bounfour (2003) is a set of procedures, infrastructures and technical and managerial tools, designed towards creating, sharing, leveraging information and knowledge within and across organizations.
The main components of knowledge management practices according to Darroch (2003) are knowledge creation and acquisition, knowledge dissemination and responsiveness to knowledge. These practices traditionally performed within companies appear increasingly into organizational networks, with the aim to provide them, knowledge that was previously difficult to acquire (Backlund and Strand 2002).
Therefore, Pawar (et al., 2001) have made a clear split down the middle of KM differentiating the broad field into inter and intra KM. Intra-organisational KM is the management of a company's knowledge within that company and inter-organisational KM is the process of managing knowledge between companies.
In the inter-organisational co-operation context, Wunram et al, (2002) propose the following definition of KM: Knowledge management is the systematic, goal oriented application of measures to steer and control the tangible and intangible knowledge assets of organizations, with the aim of using existing knowledge inside and outside of these organizations to enable the creation of new knowledge, and generate value, innovation and improvement out of it.
2. Drivers of Inter-Organisational Knowledge Management Practices.
To understand what drives knowledge management in today's business environment, literature gives us a number of drivers, leading organizations in a network to undertake and implement a knowledge management program.
Many drivers for knowledge management practices exist. It is critical for organizations operating in different business contexts to understand what these drivers are in their particular environment. For this reason, many classifications of KM drivers are illustrated in the literature.
Havens and Knapp (1999) suggested three drivers for knowledge management practices: (1) getting people to innovate, (2) improve collaboration, and (3) making good decisions efficiently.
For Van der Spek and Kingma (2000) knowledge management implementation is driven by the creation of an environment in which people are invited to apply, develop, share, combine and consolidate knowledge.
Al-Hawamdeh, S. (2002) defined four key drivers of KM: (1). Achieving organizational efficiency; (2). Staying ahead of competition; (3) Maximizing organizational potential; (4). Managing intellectual capital; and (5). Jumping on the bandwagon.
Du Plessis, M., (2005) identified ten KM drivers: (1) Knowledge is a commodity in the new economy; (2) Knowledge attrition; (3) reaching the competitive advantage; (4) an effective decision-making; (5) improved telecommunications and technology; (6) Organisational and geographical distribution; (7) collaboration; (8) Internal inefficiencies; (9) Knowledge hoarding and (10) Increased richness.
Alstete and Halpern (2008) found in their study sixteen KM drivers resumed into five groups: (1) Knowledge-centric drivers; (2) technology drivers; (3) structural drivers; (4) process focused drivers and (5) economic drivers.
As is evident, different sets of drivers have been put forward by different authors. In spite of this, they can possibly be grouped into a number of generic factors. However, we should also consider the needs and situations of organizations working in aerospace industry when studying KM drivers for them. As mentioned earlier (I pretend to talk about the aerospace industry in the introduction), there are some distinctive issues that require considerable attention in this specific sector. In order to address these issues, authors propose a more comprehensive model of 5 drivers that motivate an aerospace organization to adopt an inter-organisational knowledge management practices and systems :
Enhancing the competitive advantage;
Effective collaborative project.
Increasing innovation and NPD flexibility;
Improving employees' skills;
Protecting confidential data.
3. Inter-Organisational Knowledge Management Practices Enablers
As NPD relies heavily on collaboration within cross-functional teams, the question of how such knowledge should best be managed and disseminated is crucial. As enterprises start to manage their organizations' knowledge, they need to be clear of the factors that will influence knowledge management practices within the organization. (Yeh et al, 2006). Those factors are called KM enablers. They refers to the key factors that determine the effectiveness of executing knowledge management practices within the organization, which are the driving force that solidifies knowledge management.
Chong (2006) asserts that if KM is a critical determinant to an organization's success, then it is extremely important that a KM program needs to identify critical performance indicators of success factors to gauge its performance.
Successful knowledge management practices and systems allows the organization to develop its knowledge, to stimulate its creation and sharing and to enhance its protection. (Yeh et al, 2006).
KM enablers could be viewed as those activities and practices that should be addressed in order to ensure successful implementation; these practices would either need to be nurtured if they already existed or be developed if they were still not in place and he stated that they can be viewed as those activities and practices that should be addressed in order to ensure its successful implementation (Wong, 2005).
One of the earliest studies of knowledge management critical factors was presented by (Skyrme and Amidon, 1997). They highlighted seven key success factors, including a (1) strong link to business imperative; (2) a compelling vision and architecture; (3) knowledge leadership; (4) knowledge creating and sharing culture; (5) continuous learning; (6) a well-developed technology infrastructure and (7) systematic organizational knowledge processes.
Civi (2000) lists five steps that are needed to be successful in the knowledge management processes: (1) identify the business problems and develop a clear set of goals and objectives for knowledge activities, (2) create a knowledge crew, (3) adapt all level managers to the process, (4) help the companies to change their organizational culture to implement knowledge activities, and (5) provide access to knowledge using various networks and technologies.
Lai and Chu (2002) identifies eight KM enablers: (1) culture, (2) leadership, (3) measurement, (4) education, (5) reward and incentive systems, (6) organizational adaptability, (7) values and norms, and (8) technology. While, Hasanali in the same year claimed that the success of knowledge management depends on many different factors. His success factors are (1) leadership; (2) culture, (3) structure; (4) roles and responsibilities; (5) IT infrastructure and (6) measurement.
Later on, Yu et al. (2004) found in their study that (1) learning orientation, (2). knowledge sharing intention; (3) knowledge management system quality; (4) reward; and (5) knowledge management team activity were significantly related to the organizational knowledge management performance.
Chong (2006) listed eleven KM critical success factors. They consist of: (1) employee training; (2) employee involvement; (3) team working; (4) employee empowerment; (5) top management leadership and commitment; (6) information systems infrastructure; (7) performance measurement; (8) knowledge-friendly culture; (9) benchmarking; (10) knowledge structure; and (11) elimination of organizational constraints.
Du Plessis (2007) defined seven generic knowledge management critical success factors: (1) Positioning knowledge management as a strategic initiative; (2) Co-creation of the knowledge management strategy; (3) Creating a shared understanding; (4) Impact of communication; (5) Clearly defined knowledge ownership; (6) Alignment between business and technology; (7) Understanding the role of culture in the organization.
Bishop et al (2008) identifies eight critical factors, which need to be considered before, during and after the implementation of a KM initiative, to ensure its effectiveness, as follows: (1) clear definition of KM; (2) business objectives; (3) integration with organisation; (4) champions and a supporting team; (5) top-level support; (6) demonstrate the benefits; (7) financial and non-financial rewards; and (8) balance between people and IT.
Very recent studies (Chong et al, 2009 and Theriou et al, 2010) classify KM enablers in five main categories, leadership, organizational culture, strategy, information technology and people.
A review of the literature reveals that there are many enablers that are known to influence knowledge management practices. These enablers can be broadly classified into either a social (culture, people) or technical perspective, with the latter covering information technology infrastructure.
There is ongoing debate on what is the most important enabler for knowledge management. A number of management analysts contend that technology is the most important. Others consider people to be the most important in knowledge management and argue that knowledge management initiatives that focus mainly on technology can and do often fail.
Both are, of course, important to the success of any knowledge management system. But the success of a knowledge management system depends on many factors, for this reason, our study will look at leadership, corporate culture, people and information technology.
4. Inter-Organisational Knowledge Management Practices Barriers
There are many factors that affect the success of KM practices implementation into the organizations, known as KM barriers.
Wunram (et al. 2000) defined the term "Barrier" as everything related to human, organisational and technological aspects that obstructs the intra- and inter-organisational management of knowledge.
Barriers of knowledge management practices, which hinder organizations to implement KM, have been identified from various authors who have researched and written directly on this issue. Sensky,T., (2002) mentions three main barriers: (1) culture; (2) lack of time; and (3) lack of ownership of problem.
Singh and Kant (2008) have identified nine barriers to KM practices in the organization: (1) Lack of top management commitment (2). Lack of technological infrastructure (3). Lack of methodology; (4). Lack of organizational structure; (5). Lack of organizational culture; (6). Lack of motivation and reward; (7). Staff retirement; (8). Lack of ownership of problem; (9). Staff defection
Many authors (Barson et al. (2000), and Pawar et al, (2001) use classification suggested by Pallot et al. (1998), through which they classified the barriers of knowledge management practices on three categories summarized "TOP" Technology, Organization, and People barriers.
Riege, A., (2005) classifies barriers into these three categories. Organisational ones are represented by the lack of leadership, organizational structure, processes etc. Individual barriers are lack of time to share knowledge, job security, benefit of KM, low awareness and realization of the value etc. While the technological barriers are lack of integration of information technology system, unrealistic expectation of employees, lack of training etc.
Within an inter-organisational co-operation context, Wunram et al. (2000) concluded that the barriers are predominantly to be allocated to the 'People' and 'Organization' category, while "Technological" barriers could be summarized as not being as relevant, since these only addressed issues of usability or interface design. But, this does not mean that the authors consider this as unimportant instead easier to solve.
In the same paradigm, Endres (1996), came to a similar conclusion, thus reinforcing the assumption that human aspects seem to be of central relevance in the management of knowledge in the inter-organisational context. KM takes aim at evolving people's attitudes and work behaviors to effect new heights of collaboration-the international sharing of ideas, information, knowledge, and work itself-in support of a business need. It is about changing people's value paradigm from ''my information is power'' to ''sharing is power''. (Plessis, 2005).
Wunram (et al., 2002) highlights the importance of the conjoint and simultaneous tackling of human, organisational and technological barriers will lead to a successful inter-organisational management of knowledge. And underline the importance to keep in mind that the focus should be on human aspects.
However, the fact that our study is related to the aerospace industry, which operates within an inter-organisational context, pushes authors to adopt barriers following the TOP (Technology, Organization, People) classification in order to have a general insight and avoid a biased study.
Technological barriers are presented by the lack of advanced technological infrastructure, the existence of high confidential data and the lack of security platforms.
Organizational barriers could be summarized in lack of leadership, protection of proprietary knowledge, different cultures, and the adoption of a domineering and controlling attitude.
Individual barriers refer to the fear of international differences, the lack of active participation of top and middle management, lack of trust, fear of losing confidentiality, lack of training and lack of job's security.
III. Research Method.
1. Research Design
With the aim to give answers to our research question "how to enhance NPD performance by integrating effective inter-organizational knowledge management practices?", understanding the real world business is required (Creswell 2003).
Studying the role of knowledge management practices in enhancing the efficiency of NPD and the performance of organization, a case study of a world-wide leader in the aerospace industry was conducted based on the drivers, enablers and barriers of knowledge management practices identified in the literature review.
Defining a case study as a research strategy is argued by the fact that case study is viewed as an inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context and appropriate when the goal of the researcher is to cover contextual issues believed to be pertinent to the phenomenon of study (Yin 2003b).
Data and information have been collected via a self-administered questionnaires mailed or given in person to the respondents. Self administration perceived as more anonymous and may therefore yield more accurate data on sensitive issues, moreover, it avoids interviewer bias and losing time spent on administration.
Our questionnaire is composed by 85% of closed-end questions because are greater precision, uniformity, easier coding and easier analysis than open-ended questions which are used in our case to more explain and complete issues identified as relevant to this investigation.
The studied organization was selected due to its maturity, relative market share, innovativeness and its engagement at international level in the continuous search of excellence of its own services and products.
In addition to that, the authors' close relationship with the studied organization allowed to probe further as and when required in a cordial and welcoming research setting with people inside this organization.
2. About Avio
Avio was founded in 1908, only five years after the first flight of the Wright brothers, which represents the aeronautical debut of objects "heavier-than-air". Avio is a world-wide leader in the aerospace industry, with a history of continuous research, development, and improvement of its own products and services. Avio has developed a role as an important subsystems and component maker, participating in major international aeronautical and space programs with a presence in all phases of product life-cycle.
The daily engagement of Avio is to maintain and improve its leadership through the competence and knowledge of its people and the collaboration with great world-wide partners as General Electric, EADS, Boeing, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce, Safran…
Avio has established an important network with several research centers and national and international universities, -as University of Salento- mainly for the development in research activities, share knowledge and professionalism and build long-term collaboration agreements that will give life to real "Poles of excellence".
3. Data Analysis
3.1. Avio and Inter-organizational Knowledge Management practices
3.2. Inter-organizational Knowledge Management practices Drivers
3.3. Inter-organizational Knowledge Management practices Enablers
3.4. Inter-organizational Knowledge Management practices Barriers
IV. Discussion and Conclusion
