Assessment 2: KM Strategy – Draft Part A 3575167 Niazi,Junaid Jamshaid Khan Introduction While reasonably well written, your chosen scope is far too large for one person to take on in 12 weeks and to deliver on this in a meaningful way (particularly given it appears you are using secondary sources only). Your selection of Unilever is a scenario that I have repeatedly advised students against (i.e. very large and access to secondary sources only). If you continue with Unilever I suggest you reconsider the scope to an area of the business only not the whole company. However, be sure you can access sufficient information to undertake the task. This should include a brief explanation of the company’s overall vision and objectives (after all this is to what you assess the company’s desired and current state against in the “gap analysis”). What you have currently is not sufficiently explained. A structure chart would be useful. There is a lost opportunity to examine the “impact of organizational structure on KM” – both logical and physical (see Topic 4). The ‘four-tier’ hierarchy needs explanation. Approach and methods This should provide an explanation of the approach and methods used in the strategy (Zack’s approach) and the methods of data collection (e.g. interviews or secondary sources). What limitations (if any) are inherent in your chosen method? Analysis You need to focus on the gaps between current and desired state across the three KM infrastructures. Your use of the SECI model is too general and does not unpack ‘real’ issues in the organization at sufficient breadth or depth. That is, by the end of the section the reader should know: * Where Unilever wants to be in terms of the objectives stated earlier (i.e. must do/desired state) * Where Unilever currently is in terms of its performance against the objectives (i.e. can do/current state) The difference between the two being the strategic gap. I recommend considering issues from the “cultural”, “operational”, “technological” perspectives to ensure that you identify a wide range of issues in terms of the desired and current states. Typically a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis is used to as part of the analysis process. That is, strengths and weaknesses represent the current state (can do/current state) and the opportunities and threats, which are usually externally focused, represent the (must do/desired state). The reader should also understand: * What Unilever must know (desired knowledge state) in order to achieve the strategic objectives * What Unilever actually knows (current knowledge state) in relation to these objectives The difference here being the underlying knowledge gap that you address in the recommendations/KM Roadmap section. Again, I recommend considering issues from the “cultural”, “operational”, “technological” perspectives to ensure that you identify a wide range of issues in terms of the desired and current states. Again a knowledge-based SWOT may help in this pursuit. I suggest at the end it would be worth adding a table summarising the key strategic and knowledge gaps across each infrastructure with examples. In relation to cultural infrastructure When we cover topic 10 there is opportunity for you to draw on concepts such as the ‘knowledge friendly culture’ so try and consider that and how it applies at Unilever. You may also wish to consider whether there are sub-cultures present – for example between this store and headquarters of the organisation you are looking at. Provide references to support your argument. In relation to the operational infrastructure The operational infrastructure for KM is about structure (logical and physical), governance, KM instruments and K-based processes (e.g. creation, organisation, capture, sharing, application) (see Topic 5) yet you do not consider some of these aspects. You could, for example, describe the existing KM instruments in use at Unilever, report on their effectiveness. In terms of the technological infrastructure More detail is needed You should emphasize the content management, collaboration and knowledge transfer perspectives and how these can support this department manage its knowledge (see Topic 6). Even if you don’t focus on an issue (e.g. collaboration) it is worth noting the current state and why there is no need to focus/change in this regard. Again, try and highlight the current level of effectiveness, where things need improving and so on and include references to support your argument. Recommendations/Roadmap While it was not expected that you would have completed these recommendations by this point obviously more detail will be needed in the final report and be sure to explain not only WHAT but HOW. Be sure it is clear which recommendations link back to which gaps – i.e. how will implementing these recommendations close these gaps in order to meet the strategic objectives of Unilever? General Comments Junaid, your position is recoverable but this will require a concerted effort. More information needed to ensure you achieve both “breadth” and “depth” in your analysis and recommendations. Currently I could search/replace “Unilever” with “Nesltle” or similar company and glean the same story. This is one of the reasons I’ve mentioned on multiple occasions avoid choosing successful multi-national corporations and using secondary sources only. You should attempt to apply additional theory and concepts as covered in the course to the context of the case. GRADE: (8/20)