View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
CHAPTER 4
IMPERATIVES AND TRENDS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT
In recent years the concept of knowledge management has
undoubtedly become a major force in business thinking. Many large
organizations are embracing knowledge management and claiming
significant benefits by its use. Davenport and Prusak, (1998) and
Nonaka and Takeuchi, (1995) demonstrate with multiple examples
that many of the world's most successful organizations are those that
are best at managing their knowledge. Textile industry in India too
has seen major changes in the last decade.
From 1974 until the end of Uruguay Round, the textile trade was
governed by the Multifibre Arrangement (Choksey, 2005). This was a
framework for bilateral agreements or unilateral actions that established
quotas limiting imports into countries whose domestic industries were facing
serious damage from rapidly increasing imports.
Quotas were exceptions to the WTO principle of treating all trading
partners equally because these specified how much the importing country
was going to accept from individual exporting countries.
To remove these limitations the WTO’s Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing (ATC) took over MFA in 1995 under which it was decided to return
all the textile and clothing products to WTO rules over the next 10 years. By
1 January 2005, the textile sector was fully integrated into normal WTO
rules leading to the termination of ATC. This opened doors for Indian textile
industry for trade into international markets without any quota limitations.
The industry thus faces the challenge of competing with various Asian
countries especially China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Vietnam (IMaCS,
June 2009) in the international market.
This chapter presents a broader understanding of major trends
and imperatives in textile industry of Punjab and various factors
responsible for these. The items 1,2,3,4 and 7 in the questionnaire
(annexure) are concerned with first objective of the study. Each item
has further sub headings which in total make 20 statements. These
have been measured on five point scale ranging from (5) ‘strongly
agree’, (4) ‘agree’, (3) ‘neither agree nor disagree’, (2) ‘disagree’ and (1)
‘strongly disagree’. All comparisons have been made with one way
ANOVA.
In the end the mean extent of agreement of different statements
in each category is tabulated category wise as well as industry wise.
The statements showing high level of agreement are taken to be the
trends of knowledge management in textile industry of Punjab.
4.1 CHANGES IN TEXTILE INDUSTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR
KNOWLEDGE ORIENTATION:
Table 4.1 presents one way ANOVA calculations of scores of changes
responsible for knowledge orientation recorded by three groups i.e. G1, G2
and G3.
Table 4.1
Changes responsible for knowledge orientation in different sized categories of
textile industry
Changes responsible for
knowledge orientation
G1 G2 G3 Overall
F-ratioMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Globalization 4.38 0.63 4.29 0.46 4.50 0.51 4.38 0.56 1.16
ICT 4.12 0.80 3.99 0.65 3.68 1.14 4.00 0.84 3.14**
Competition 4.56 0.56 4.37 0.49 5.00 0.00 4.58 0.53 3.29**
Changing needs of customers 4.38 0.63 4.43 0.50 4.75 0.44 4.46 0.58 1.34
Total 20.18 1.59 19.79 1.53 20.68 1.25 20.15 1.54 1.67
** Significant at 5%
As seen in table 4.1 increased competition seems to be the most
important change that has taken place in the textile industry as overall
mean value for this is highest (4.58). F value indicates that for competition
means are significantly different for G1, G2 and G3. Maximum mean score
for this variable is 5 in G3 category followed by G1 and G2 (mean scores are
4.56 and 4.37 respectively). Various units in G3 like JCT, Vardhman
Textiles, Oswal Group, Jindal Cotex, Nahar and Trident operate in domestic
as well as international markets. Therefore their brands face competition not
only from local garment manufacturers but also international brands
abroad. Focus on handling the competition has therefore become important
area of concern for these units.
As found during the study the major factor that has led to increase in
competition is termination of ATC. Units in textile manufacturing sector
have been facing tough competition in export market and for retailers it is
high domestic demand. With more and more international brands and
retailers looking at India as their next destination, the competition in the
domestic market has shot up significantly (Technopak Analysis, 2008). The
brands / retailers like Zara, Wal-mart, Tesco etc. have brought with them
superior technology and economies of scale across the supply chain, making
it imperative for the domestic players to tighten up their operations. For the
manufacturers it offers enormous market potential since the international
players look at sourcing from local players. In this context manufacturers’
need to align themselves as per the international players sourcing
requirements has become very important.
Apart from inter firm competition, a common threat that all
companies are facing is ever changing needs and preferences of customers.
It seems to be the second most important change in industry. As seen in
table 4.2, its mean score is only next to competition (overall mean score
4.46). F value indicates that there is no significant difference in the mean
score of G1, G2 and G3.
Unlike in 1991, when consumption was more on broader basic
requirements, it is now focused on lifestyle products (Technopak
Analysis, 2008). More importantly, there are shifts occurring in the
consumption patterns in our country. Demographic profile of Indians
shows the following (Source: India Consumer Trends Technopak
Analysis, 2008):
• India has predominantly young consumers: 72 percent of Indian
population constitutes of people below 39 years, with 32 percent
between 20-39 years having high consumption potential.
• With literacy rate to touch almost 90 percent by 2013 as compared to
the present 70 percent; with female literacy touching 83 percent from
present 69 percent, there is a huge market waiting.
• Dependency ratio is reducing with 13 million new people joining
the workforce every year.
It is therefore evident that the Indian consumer is ready for change,
demanding options and looking out for product that suits and matches their
needs and aspirations. As a result, Indian apparel market is moving towards
much deeper and wider segmentation based on consumer needs. Indian
apparel market can be broken up into men, women and kids, and within
each segment there are a number of sub segments including women’s wear,
casual wear, kids wear, school uniforms, inner wear, plus size clothing,
active wear / exercise wear / swimwear, youth fashion / college fashion etc.
The demand in each of these segments offers potential opportunities to grow
by satisfying consumer needs. This has been clearly reflected in respondents’
opinions during the study.
People at Cheema Spintex acknowledge candidly that trends of
customers define the direction of business. In Sheetal Group the carpets that
are exported are different in designs, colours and texture as compared to
those sold in Indian market due to different consumer preferences and taste.
So is the case with shawls at ESSMA, designs and patterns of brands like
Monte Carlo at Oswal, readymade garments and thermal wear at Neva and
Duke. At Malwa group (famous for brand Casa Blanca) various consultants
and agents are deputed overseas to look after the function of gathering
information regarding changing needs of customers. This information is
sorted out, relevant is stored and used further for business decision making.
In companies dealing in apparels and readymade garments (Sportking,
Bhandari Hosiery, Duke, and JCT etc), the questionnaires which are filled by
the customers on insistence from front line employees become the major
source of knowledge. All knowledge gathered through these questionnaires
proves very useful during decision making into various areas including
garment designing, new product development and improvements in existing
products
It is clear from table that globalization is rated as the third most
important change undergone by textile industry (overall mean score is
4.38). F value indicates that there is no significant difference in the
mean scores of three groups.
Globalization of business is now a reality so are global business
organizations (Hammer, 1997; Porter, 1997; Ries, 1997; Thurow, 1997
and Toffler, 1997). Growth and globalization have created both the
need and the opportunity to formally harness the vast and dispersed
experience of the firms (Ofek and Sarvary, 2001). Unlike Indian
economy, Indian textile sector experienced the globalization in the
year 2005 after the termination of agreement on textiles and clothing.
Globalization has facilitated the introduction of modern and efficient
manufacturing machineries and techniques in the Indian textile
sector. It has been observed that it is most important for the
companies which are either export oriented or deal with both domestic
as well as international markets. This includes Rana Polycot,
Bhandari Hosiery, JCT, Vardhman Textiles, Cheema Spintex, Trident,
OCM, Malwa Cotton, Chinnar Forgings(Sheetal Group) , Essma and
Jindal Cottex etc. These firms have to maintain knowledge not only at
local level but at the global levels without which survival becomes
difficult.
Advent of information and communication technology has been the
fourth most important drift. It has scored overall mean score of 4. F ratio in
table 4.1 indicates that means are significantly different for information and
communication technology. ICT is has been considered important factor by
G1 while other two groups do not give much significance to this variable.
This shows that most of the textile units are not techno savvy and use of IT
is limited. The studies indicate otherwise.
The use of information systems (IS) and technology to support
effective KM is widely accepted (Krogh, 1998; Newell et al., 2000; Alavi and
Leidner, 2001; Ibrahim and Nissen, 2005). Braganza, Hackney and
Tanudjojo (2007) reported an analysis of the theoretical foundations for the
creation, mobilization and diffusion of knowledge. This was augmented
through an in-depth case study conducted within Schlumberger which
explored the adoption of an intranet-based ICT Knowledge Management
system to support, strategically align and transfer these knowledge
resources – called InTouch. The findings identified 30 generic attributes that
are essential to the creation, mobilization and diffusion of organizational
knowledge. The formulation of a set of theoretical propositions is seen as key
to the development of an effective ICT knowledge-based management
infrastructure. The process of managing these systems was operationalized
through the adoption of a unique methodological approach incorporating the
role of technology as an enabler of KM practice. The case analysis provided
evidence that such systems can deliver significant benefits to the
organization.
4.2 STIMULANTS FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT in
ORGANIZATIONS:
Unlike changes in the industry which pertain to the external
environment turbulence, stimulants are the compelling factors within
a firm which drive it towards knowledge management.
Table 4.2 shows that overall mean value is same (4.42) for cost
reduction and new product development making these two equally
important stimulants. F ratio indicates that means are significantly
different for cost reduction in three groups. Like competition, G3 has
given much emphasis to this variable (with maximum mean score 5)
unlike G2 and G1 (mean scores are 4.38 and 4.14 respectively).This
trend was obvious in major companies like Malwa Cotton, OWM, JCT,
Vardhman, Trident, OCM, Essma, Bhandari Hosiery and Shital
Group.
Cost cutting measures are relatively easier within the company
where internal environmental conditions are more under control as
compared to external measures. For example prices of cotton are
determined either globally or by cotton associations and can not be
challenged by the company. Cost-cutting avenues have been identified
in areas like reducing overhead expenses, labour, transportation, and
inventory, improving capacity utilization, to create economies of scale
and improve operating efficiency to increase margins.
With exports accounting for 35 percent (by value) of the total
market size, the Indian Textile and Clothing (T&C) industry has
significant dependence on export market (IMaCS analysis 2009). EU27
is the largest export market for Indian T&C products, with a share of
33 percent ( by value of the total T&C exports in 2007-08 ); UK alone
accounts for 7.5 percent of India’ s total T&C export value. US is the
second largest export market with a share of 21 percent by value of
total T&C exports in 2007-08. EU27, US and Japan are the major
import markets for T&C products in the world accounting for 46
percent of the world textile imports and 76 percent of world clothing
imports (in 2007). Recent economic slow down has left a significant
impact on the T&C market of these three large importers. India being
one of the major exporters of textile and clothing products to these
markets, the Indian T&C industry has also witnessed a down ward
impact.
Operating profit margin of the most of the spinning and garment
companies have dropped significantly from Q3FY08 to Q3FY09 (IMaCS
analysis, 2009).Net profit margin for the most of the companies of all
sectors declined significantly in Q3FY09 with made-ups and spinning
companies registering a loss. D/E ratio of most of the Spinning,
Weaving and Made-ups companies has increased significantly from
FY04 to FY08, indicating leveraged capacity expansion. Recent drop in
production has resulted in under utilization of capacities, inadequate
absorption of fixed costs and weak debt coverage indicators; the
interest coverage ratio for most of the companies of all sectors has
declined significantly in Q3FY09. Decline in production in the T&C
industry is estimated to have resulted in a job loss of 5 –6 lakh. These
are the major changes in environment leading to incorporation of
innovative measures for cost cutting textile industry.
Table 4.2
Stimulants for knowledge management in different sized categories of textile
industry
Stimulants for knowledge
management
G1 G2 G3 Overall
F-ratioMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Reduce Cost 4.38 0.63 4.14 0.35 5.00 0.00 4.42 0.57 4.73***
New product development 4.54 0.50 4.14 1.37 4.50 0.51 4.42 0.86 1.92
Business transformation 2.87 0.81 2.49 0.68 3.25 0.90 2.82 0.83 4.11**
Total 20.18 1.59 19.79 1.53 20.68 1.25 20.15 1.54 1.67
*** Significant at 1%, ** Significant at 5%
As seen from the table 4.2 the mean score for new product
development is 4.42 with F ratio showing nearly consistent response
from three groups as there is no significant difference among the
mean scores of G1, G2 and G3. Many textile units have strong R & D
base and liberal budget for this. Aarti International, Vardhman
Textiles, Trident group, JCT, OCM, Sheetal Exports and Arisudana
have very conducive work environment and encourage their employees
to take risk and experiment.
Development of new product is one of the riskiest but most critical
strategies in any competitive industry. Many companies build
competitiveness and earn profits through this. Global competition in the
textile and apparel industry has become more intense, due to which firms
need to be innovative while reducing product cycle times and cutting costs.
New product development either radical or incremental has become the key
success factor of industry to face the fierce competition. With increasing
global competition and evolving consumerism it is slowly becoming a must
for textile manufacturer to be innovative (Technopak Analysis, 2008). Firms
need to explore innovation both in terms of processes, marketing and
products. Activities like R&D and designing should be treated as key success
factors and a pre-requisite rather than an afterthought. Apart from process
based innovations companies should not shy away from exploring new
business models in the context of the ever changing consumption space. In
this regard there are many apparel companies who have already realized the
importance of “business” innovation to “survive” in the increasingly
competitive market place and are looking to differentiate their product
offering across various levels. There are many examples of textile and
apparel companies in India which are looking to innovate e.g. Arvind Ltd.
(Product innovation) is planning to develop denim salwar kameez and,
maybe saris to expand in the rural market. RBR Garments (Product
innovation) producing 'novel' garments using varied fabrics and fibre like
minerale fibre, soya bean fibre etc. Levi's marketing innovation includes
selling Jeans on EMI scheme.
Business transformation has scored the minimum mean value of 2.82
(table 4.2) indicating that not many companies seem interested in second
order change. From the value of F ratio it can be inferred that means are
significantly different for variables business transformation. Unlike other two
categories business transformation has been considered slightly important
factor by G3 (with mean scores of 3.25, 2.87 and 2.49 for G3, G1 and G2
respectively).The reason behind this can be organizational structure. These
firms are relatively large in size, operate in domestic as well international
markets, have more international exposure and are run professionally as
compared to many other units which are family owned. These factors make
these firms more open to change as compared to others. In G1 only officials
at Shital Group expressed their interest in business transformation as they
were in the process of restructuring.
4.3. DOMINANT FORMS OF KNOWLEDGE
There are various forms of knowledge ranging from knowledge
required for carrying out day to day activities to expert’ knowledge .
Dominant forms of knowledge in every organization may vary
according to its need, vision and philosophy. Table 4.3 presents one
way ANOVA calculations on statements regarding dominant forms of
knowledge in selected units.
Table 4.3
Dominant forms of knowledge in different sized categories of textile industry
Dominant forms
of knowledge
G1 G2 G3 Overall
F-ratioMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Know how 4.25 0.76 3.89 0.75 4.10 1.01 4.12 0.82 1.98
Know who 2.88 0.95 2.66 1.01 2.70 1.32 2.78 1.04 1.57
Know what 3.85 0.54 4.14 0.64 4.75 0.44 4.08 0.64 1.68
Know why 3.51 0.94 3.99 0.58 4.08 0.97 3.74 0.89 3.19**
Know whom 3.07 0.88 3.50 0.78 3.10 1.57 3.20 1.02 1.09
Know where 3.38 0.74 3.66 0.54 4.43 0.50 3.64 0.75 3.78**
Total 20.94 1.85 21.83 2.12 23.15 2.84 21.57 2.26 5.19***
*** Significant at 1%, ** Significant at 5%
Know-how is knowledge about how the elements of a system are
related to each other, and therefore resembles procedural or
architectural knowledge (Henderson and Clark, 1990). Know-what is
knowledge about what the elements of a system are, and resembles
declarative or component knowledge (Henderson and Clark, 1990).
Know-why, is not only knowledge about why the elements of a system
function together, but also why a firm operates in the way it does (Van den
Bosch and Wizk, 2000). Sanchez (1997) also elaborates that know-how,
know-why, and know-what forms of knowledge are related to state, process,
and purpose forms of knowledge in a system respectively. According to him,
know-how is knowledge about ‘how elements of a system are interrelated in
the current state of the system’ whereas know-why is knowledge about why
these parts are interrelated to produce its overall function.
Finally, Sanchez (1996) describes know-what as knowledge about
‘what courses of action are available to a firm’ and what its outcomes are
likely to be. Koontz (1964) adds that as management also involves managing
through and with other people and knowing who governs or possesses
certain elements of a system, however, know-who must be Included as one
of the basic building blocks. For example, know-who might refer to knowing
an R&D manager or knowing an employee who has knowledge about a
particular process (Van den Bosch and Wizk, 2000). Similarly, as managing
also concerns different parts of the firm and different geographical locations,
know where is another fundamental building block upon which eventually
managerial knowledge is built is.
Building on the previous example, know-where entails where the R&D
manager or the employee reside. Since management is also prosecuted at
different times, know-when constitutes the final basic building block. In the
example used, know-when is knowledge about when to consult the R&D
manager or the employee. From a broader perspective, know-when is also
related to the time dimension of strategy and strategic decision-making (Van
den Bosch and De Man, 1997).
Table 4.3 shows that overall mean value is maximum (4.12) for
know how followed by know what (4.08). As most of the units
undertaken during study are manufacturing units with huge
production plants, the procedural or know how form of knowledge is
most important. F value indicates uniform response from all
categories, there being no significant difference in the mean scores for
both forms of knowledge i.e know how and know what. Know who is
the least important form of knowledge with minimum mean score of
2.78. Know why and know where are third and fourth important
forms of knowledge . From the value of F ratio it can be inferred that
means are significantly different in G1, G2 and G3 for know why and
know where (overall mean scores for know why are 4.08, 3.99 and
3.51 for G3, G2 and G1 respectively whereas overall mean scores for
know where are 4.43, 3.66 and 3.38 for G3, G2 and G1 respectively.
Thus these variables are much more important in G3 as compared to
other groups.
As know why pertains to logic behind any action, importance of
this type of knowledge shows an open culture which is based upon
extensive training, open discussions, experimentation and pro change
attitude of the organization. As mentioned earlier too, the G3 firms are
bigger and professionally managed; therefore their knowledge
orientation is more than G1 and G2.
Know where pertains to specific knowledge centers or expertise
from where help could be obtained whenever required. It is clear from
discussion that relatively better management of G3 firms makes all
such locales clear to employees to save time and maximize
productivity.
4.4 MOST IMPORTANT AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE APPLICATION
There are certain areas of business in every organization where both
the extent of creation and application of knowledge are maximum. These
areas are also unique to every organization depending upon the need and
type of business involved.
Table 4.4 presents one way ANOVA calculations on statements
regarding most important areas of knowledge application.
Table 4.4
Most important areas of knowledge application in different sized categories of
textile industry
Most important areas of
knowledge application
G1 G2 G3 Overall
F-ratioMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Innovation 4.38 0.74 3.86 1.00 4.25 0.84 4.21 0.87 1.16
CRM 4.54 0.64 4.43 0.50 4.50 0.51 4.50 0.58 0.98
R & D 4.46 0.50 4.43 0.73 3.75 1.32 4.33 0.80 2.11
e Commerce and intranet 3.47 0.93 3.17 0.93 3.85 1.25 3.45 1.01 3.01**
Total 20.22 1.91 19.30 2.64 19.35 3.17 19.80 2.41 2.61*
** Significant at 5%, * Significant at 10%
Table 4.4 shows that overall mean value is maximum (4.50) for
customer relationship management (CRM). It is clear from F ratio that there is
no significant difference in the mean scores of G1, G2 and G3. This
strengthens the fact that the customers are of utmost importance for most of
the companies
CRM involves attracting, developing and maintaining successful
customer relationships over time (Berry and Parsuraman, 1991). Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) is about managing customer knowledge to
better understand and serve them. It is an umbrella concept that places the
customer at the center of an organization.
Customer service is an important component of CRM; however CRM is
also concerned with coordinating customer relations across all business
functions, points of interaction, and audiences (Brown, 2000; Day, 2000).
CRM is an ICT-facilitated corporate strategy that puts the primary focus of
the company not on the corporate process, and not even on the production
of products and services, but on the customer. At the core of CRM is the
development of the learning relationship that engages customers in a two
way dialogues that is effective and efficient for both the customer and the
firm. Also it is vital when a company hopes to succeed in a business.
Customers provide valuable feedback regarding products which can be
captured and copied in product designing and manufacturing for further
improvements. Further providing customer related information along with
sharing the best practice information can have benefits for hard measures
such as customer retention, cost saving and market share as well as soft
measures like customer satisfaction, market leadership, and customer
loyalty.
In Sportking, Duke and Essma frontline employees are regularly
called and updated regarding CRM and asked for the feedback they have
received from customers during customer interaction as they are vital link
between the company and the customers.
Research and development is the back bone of textile industry. R&D
in textile sector includes research on new materials and textiles and apparel
products, advanced textiles and clothing production technologies, Innovative
design and evaluation technologies, enhanced industrial systems and
infrastructure, lab quality control tests and site inspection of textiles and
cloths etc. The textile and clothing industry has high-value added segments
where design, research and development (R&D) are important competitive
factors (Nordas, 2004). The high end of the fashion industry uses human
capital intensively in design and marketing. The same applies to market
segments such as sportswear where both design and material technology are
important. R&D is important in industrial textiles where, material
technology is an important competitive factor.
From the above table it can be seen that overall mean score for
Research and Development 4.33. F ratio specifies that there is no significant
difference in the mean score of G1, G2 and G3. It therefore is inferred that R
& D is the second most important area of knowledge management. This can
be correlated with innovation which is generally an outcome of R & D.
Companies likes Vardhman, Trident, Jindal Cotex, Sheetal group, Rana
Ploycot, JCT and Aarti International have strong in-house research base and
liberal budget for it where continuous improvement and innovation are key
focus areas.
Textile industry is a dynamic industry with strong emphasis on
continuous innovation. Hug Shirt by Cute Circuit is a beautiful example of
Product innovation in apparel (Technopak Analysis, 2008). Cute Circuit,
based in UK, is a Fashionable Technology company that creates design
excellence in the fields of Wearable Technology and Interaction Design. The
company has developed a shirt called The Hug Shirt™ - a shirt that makes
people send hugs over distance. It’s a smart textile product with sensors
embedded in the shirt that feel the strength of the touch, the skin warmth
and the heartbeat rate of the sender and actuators that recreate the
sensation of touch, warmth and emotion of the hug to the shirt of the distant
loved one. The Hug Shirt™ was nominated as one of the best Inventions of
2006 by Time Magazine.
As can be seen from the table above innovation is the third important
area of knowledge management in textile industry of Punjab (with overall
mean score of 4.33). F ratio shows that three groups show similar level of
agreement as there is no significant difference among the mean scores of G1,
G2 and G3.
Due to limited use of Information and Communication
Technology in majority of the firms, ecommerce and intranet are not
considered to be important (with low overall mean score of 3.45) area
as far as knowledge applications is concerned. From the value of F
ratio it can be inferred that means are significantly different for e
commerce and intranet in three categories. It is relatively high for
G3(mean score 3.85) as compared to G1 and G2, indicating that G3
units are more techno savvy and rely more on IT for business and
knowledge related activities.
Although e-commerce has immense value while doing online
transactions .E-commerce can be B2B (Business To Business) and
B2C (Business to Customer). B2C commerce is the direct selling to
consumers through Internet. While B2B marketplace can be defined
as neutral Internet-based intermediaries that focus on specific
business processes, host electronic marketplaces, and use various
market-making mechanisms to mediate transactions among
businesses. Intranet is the electronic link within the company which
facilitates fast reach of information, exchange of ideas and knowledge
sharing. In spite of the importance of these, e commerce and intranet
are not very popular among majority of units.
4.5 FOCAL POINTS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN
ORGANIZATIONS
Focal points refer to knowledge centric activities in the organization
where knowledge is most commonly disseminated or produced.
Table 4.5 shows that the most preferred focal point of
knowledge is sharing knowledge and best practices as it has scored
maximum mean score (overall mean score is 4.54). Also F value
indicates that there is no considerable difference among mean scores
of three groups i.e. G1, G2 and G3.
Table 4.5
Most important focal points of knowledge management in different sized
categories of textile industry
Focal points of knowledge
management
G1 G2 G3 Overall
F-ratioMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Sharing knowledge & best
practices4.62 0.49 4.29 0.70 4.75 0.44 4.54 0.58 1.67
Capturing/recording
experiences4.00 0.56 2.64 0.72 2.98 1.07 3.43 0.95 6.87***
R& D/ Innovation 4.09 0.91 3.73 0.96 3.98 1.23 3.97 0.99 0.58
Total 12.71 1.44 10.66 1.78 11.70 1.95 11.94 1.86 3.67**
*** Significant at 1%, ** Significant at 5%
Stenmark (2000) highlights the importance of knowledge
sharing by defining knowledge management as caring and sharing of
knowledge. It is through knowledge sharing that knowledge is
internalized.
Study of knowledge sharing, which is the means by which an
organization obtains access to its own and other organizations’
knowledge, has emerged as a key research area from a broad and
deep field of study on technology transfer and innovation, while the
activities used to share knowledge, such as document exchange,
presentations, job rotations, etc. are important, overcoming the
factors that can impede, complicate and even harm knowledge
internalization are equally important in determining the ultimate
results of a knowledge-sharing efforts (Cummings, 2003).
As all the companies taken in the study are the manufacturing
units, technical knowledge has been highly vital for all. In addition to
providing such knowledge to key persons concerned through training
sessions, lectures and seminars etc, it is essential for these key
persons to further transfer and share this knowledge with their peers
and subordinates to make optimum use of it. In addition to this
specific knowledge, there is general knowledge which is used in day to
day activities (both technical and others) in the companies. To
encourage externalization of knowledge as well as to share the tacit
knowledge companies most commonly resort to knowledge sharing
and best practices.
At Vardhman it is performed through regular team meetings among
executives and regular quality circle meetings among people working at the
shop floor. People who contribute ideas that are practically viable and
beneficial are rewarded. Lot of knowledge exchange is done through reading
material and discussions. Best practices are picked up from within and
outside the company and are set as benchmark to be matched and followed.
At Trident, the process of making online communities to share ideas,
problems and seek technical help is in rapid progress. They are in the
implementation phase of knowledge management programme and have
created an online knowledge repository which is available to different people
depending upon their job profiles and knowledge requirements.
At Jindal Cotex, the competency matrix model is followed in which
desired competencies in each job are identified and people on their
respective jobs are trained as per the competencies required. Large amount
of knowledge transfer and sharing takes place as per parameters defined in
this model.
It can be inferred from table above that the second important
knowledge domain is R&D and innovation with overall mean score of
3.97. F ratio shows that there is no significant difference among the
mean scores of G1, G2 and G3 leading to the conclusion that three
groups have almost uniform response for this.
Innovation is closely related to R and D. As discussed earlier
also, it is very important for a company to have strong research base
because this is a vital centre for knowledge capture and creation.
DeCarolis and Deeds (1999) found that new knowledge measured by R
&D expenditures exhibited the greatest effect on firm’s performance.
Highlighting the importance of research and innovation in a firm
Stewart (1991) sites the example of Merck for rewarding its scientists
for research that adds to general store of knowledge, even if the
research does not immediately result in a marketable product. At
Merck, heavy investment is done on R&D (almost half of what is spent
on materials and manufacturing) for the purpose of knowledge
creation. In textile it is knowledge centre for new product
development, quality/ improvements of raw material and
manufacturing related knowledge.
As is clear from table 4.2 capturing and recording experiences is
not much important focal point of knowledge as mean score for this
variable is low (overall mean score is 3.43). F value indicates that
means are significantly different for capturing and recording
experiences in all three groups (mean score 4, 2.64 and 2.98 for G1,
G2 and G3 respectively). It therefore can be inferred that this is a
preferred focal point in G1 only whereas the other categories have
more focus on knowledge sharing. The term capturing and recording
experiences pertains to prominent experiences of the organization
which are associated with some major success or failure. Either of
these experiences becomes a basis of learning in which the firm tends
to repeat the incidents that led to success and avoid the events that
led to failure. Both of the experiences become the knowledge banks
which can be retrieved and used later.
4.6 MEAN EXTENT OF AGREEMENT AND A COMPARISON OF G1, G2
AND G3.
Tables 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 present the mean extent of agreement
regarding all twenty statements in G1, G2 and G3 respectively.
As per the table 4.7, the fourteen statements showing first level
of agreement for G1 are sharing knowledge and best practices,
competition, developing new products, customer relationship
management, research and development, globalization, changing
needs of customers, reduce cost, innovation, know - how, information
& communication technology, R and D/ innovation,
capturing/recording experiences and know- what.
Table 4.6.1
Mean extent of agreement on statements regarding imperatives and trends of
knowledge management in G1
Statements Mean SD Agreement
Sharing knowledge & best practices 4.62 0.49 I
Competition 4.56 0.56 I
Developing New Product 4.54 0.50 I
Customer relationship management 4.54 0.64 I
Research and development 4.46 0.50 I
Globalization 4.38 0.63 I
Changing needs of Customers 4.38 0.63 I
Reduce cost 4.38 0.63 I
Innovation 4.38 0.74 I
Know- how 4.25 0.76 I
Information & Communication Technology 4.12 0.80 I
R& D/ Innovation 4.09 0.91 I
Capturing/recording experiences 4.00 0.56 I
Know- what 3.85 0.54 I
Know- why 3.51 0.94 II
Ecommerce/intranet management 3.47 0.93 II
Know- where 3.38 0.74 II
Know- whom 3.07 0.88 II
Know- who 2.88 0.95 II
Enable business transformation 2.87 0.81 II
F-ratio 17.32*** (Significant at 1%), C.D. 0.7854
Rest of the statements show second level of agreement.
Table 4.6.2 present the mean extent of agreement regarding all
20 statements in G2. As seen in this table the statements with highest
level of agreement are changing needs of customers, customer
relationship management, research and development, competition,
globalization,
sharing knowledge and best practices, reduce cost ,developing new
products, know- what, information and communication technology,
know- why , know- how and innovation .
Table 4.6.2
Mean extent of agreement on statements regarding imperatives and trends of
knowledge management in G2
Statements Mean SD Agreement
Changing needs of Customers 4.43 0.50 I
Customer relationship management 4.43 0.50 I
Research and development 4.43 0.73 I
Competition 4.37 0.49 I
Globalization 4.29 0.46 I
Sharing knowledge & best practices 4.29 0.70 I
Reduce cost 4.14 0.35 I
Developing New Products 4.14 1.37 I
Know- what 4.14 0.64 I
Information & Communication Technology 3.99 0.65 I
Know- why 3.99 0.58 I
Know- how 3.89 0.75 I
Innovation 3.86 1.00 I
R& D/ Innovation 3.73 0.96 II
Know- where 3.66 0.54 II
Know- whom 3.50 0.78 II
Ecommerce/intranet management 3.17 0.93 II
Know- who 2.66 1.01 III
Capturing/recording experiences 2.64 0.72 III
Enable business transformation 2.49 0.68 III
F-ratio 8.89*** (Significant at 1%), C.D. 0.6273
The statements with second level of agreement are know- where,
know- whom and Ecommerce/intranet management. Rest of the
statements show minimum level of agreement.
Table 4.6.3 present the mean extent of agreement regarding all
20 statements in G3. As seen in this table the statements with highest
level of agreement are competition, reduce cost, changing needs of
customers, know- what, sharing knowledge and best practices,
globalization, developing new products and customer relationship
management.
Table 4.6.3
Mean extent of agreement on statements regarding imperatives and trends of knowledge
management in G3
Statement Mean SD Agreement
Competition 5.00 0.00 I
Reduce cost 5.00 0.00 I
Changing needs of Customers 4.75 0.44 I
Know- what 4.75 0.44 I
Sharing knowledge & best practices 4.75 0.44 I
Globalization 4.50 0.51 I
Developing New Products 4.50 0.51 I
Customer relationship management 4.50 0.51 I
Know- where 4.43 0.50 II
Innovation 4.25 0.84 II
Know- how 4.10 1.01 II
Know- why 4.08 0.97 II
R& D/ Innovation 3.98 1.23 II
Ecommerce/intranet management 3.85 1.25 III
Research and development 3.75 1.32 III
Information & Communication Technology 3.68 1.14 III
Enable business transformation 3.25 0.90 IV
Know- whom 3.10 1.57 IV
Capturing/recording experiences 2.98 1.07 IV
Know- who 2.72 1.32 IV F-ratio 6.98*** (Significant at 1%), C.D. 0.5382
The statements with second level of agreement are know- where,
innovation, know- how, know- why and R and D/ innovation. Statements
with third level of agreement are Ecommerce/intranet management, R&D
and information & communication technology. Rest of the statements show
minimum extent of agreement.
From table 4.6.1, 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 a comparison regarding Imperatives
and trends of knowledge management in G1, G2 and G3 can be drawn as
under:
1. Ever increasing competition is most important changes among
G1 and G3 whereas changing needs of customers is most
important change for G2 responsible for knowledge orientation.
Second important change for G1 is globalization, whereas this is
the third factor in order of importance for G2 and G3. Changing
needs of customers is the third important change for G1. For G2
and G1, the second important change is increasing competition
and changing needs of customers respectively. All three groups
have rated advent of information technology as the fourth change
responsible for knowledge orientation of organizations.
2. New product development is most important stimulant for
knowledge in G1 whereas this is rated as second major stimulant
by G2 and G3. Reducing cost is the biggest knowledge stimulant
for G2 and G3 and for G1 this is the second important stimulant.
3. Know-how, know -what and know - why are the most
important forms of knowledge in all units (G1, G2 and G3). Know-
where is dominant form of knowledge in G2 and G3 and know -
whom, is considered important by G2 only.
4. Most important area of knowledge application in three groups
is customer relationship management. This is followed by research
and development and innovation.
5. Sharing knowledge and best practices is the most important
focal points of knowledge in all categories; G1, G2 and G3 followed
by research and development/innovation. Capturing/recording
experiences is third important factor existing only in G1.
4.7 AN OVERALL PICTURE
An overall picture of extent of agreement in all the units taken
together (irrespective of category) is presented in table 4.7.
Table 4.7
Mean extent of agreement on statements regarding imperatives and trends of
knowledge management in textile industry of Punjab
Statements Mean SD Agreement
Competition 4.58 0.53 I
Sharing knowledge & best practices 4.54 0.58 I
Customer relationship management 4.50 0.58 I
Changing needs of Customers 4.46 0.58 I
Reduce cost 4.42 0.57 I
Developing New Products 4.42 0.86 I
Globalization 4.38 0.56 I
Research and development 4.33 0.80 I
Innovation 4.21 0.87 I
Know- how 4.12 0.82 I
Know- what 4.08 0.64 I
Information & Communication Technology 4.00 0.84 I
R& D/ Innovation 3.97 0.99 I
Know- why 3.74 0.89 II
Know- where 3.64 0.75 II
Ecommerce/intranet management 3.45 1.01 II
Capturing/recording experiences 3.43 0.95 II
Know- whom 3.20 1.02 II
Enable business transformation 2.82 0.83 III
Know- who 2.78 1.04 III
F-ratio 11.44*** (Significant at 1%), C.D. 0.7122
Depending upon the extent of the agreement it can be inferred that
the variables with highest level of agreement show the current imperatives
and trends of knowledge management in textile industry of Punjab. The
following conclusion thus can be made:
1. Ever increasing competition followed by changing needs of customers
are the most important changes in textile industry responsible for
knowledge orientation of firms. Globalization is the third major
change in this context. Advent of information and communication
technology is also important albeit to lesser extent.
2. Reducing cost and new product development are two most and
equally important stimulants for knowledge management.
3. Know-how and know-what are the most important forms of knowledge
in textile units taken for study. Know-why and know-where are
moderately important.
4. Most important areas of knowledge application is customer
relationship management. This is followed by research and
development and innovation.
5. Sharing knowledge and best practices is the most important focal
points of knowledge, followed by research and
development/innovation.
CHAPTER 5
Recommended