Search results

This paper reports on the results of a qualitative study of middle managers’ perceptions of knowledge management (KM) implementation in NZ organizations. Data were collected in a survey of 71 attendees of a KM presentation. The data were analyzed using qualitative coding principles. Two core issues were examined – barriers and drivers of KM. Subcategories under barriers were primarily concerned with factors internal to the organization such as organizational culture, leadership, and education. Drivers were mostly external to the organization and included competition, peer pressure, and the need for increased productivity. The results indicate that the way managers manage themselves and their organizations are perceived to be the biggest barriers to KM implementation.

When an organization needs to use scenarios as a framework for logically discussing internal and external issues, it should be aware of the two predominant causes of failure of scenario projects: (1) a lack of agreement on the purpose of the effort; and (2) a lack of understanding about how scenarios might help different organizational cultures and styles. To avoid these pitfalls, leaders need to first assess the potential usefulness of scenarios using the culture of their organization and the goals of the effort as context. This article discusses three organizational cultures and illustrates how each uses scenario planning for three different purposes (directional strategy, contingency planning, and learning and team building). “Leader‐driven organizations”: if the purpose of scenario planning is for setting direction, then scenarios are used to structure debate; however, in the end, the leader decides the direction and everyone follows, leaving the debate behind. If the purpose of the scenario work is for contingency planning, then scenarios would primarily be used to sensitize the leadership group to possible changes; not decision making on a specific topic. When learning and team building, then the leader driven culture use scenarios to open up the idea space in search of the out‐of‐the‐box ideas. Ideally, leaders make scenarios a way for people to work new ideas into the planning and decision‐making system. “Plan‐driven cultures”: such companies value stability. If the scenario work is for setting direction, then the outcome will only be valued if the events leading to an endstate are treated as critical path lists. “Evidence‐driven cultures”: develop in highly capital‐intensive industries that have long time horizons. Because long‐term commitments cannot be changed quickly, real evidence is of paramount value to these cultures. Scenarios provide a framework of expectations to match up with the real world as it develops.

Scenario development has traditionally been an outward looking process designed to enhance awareness of potential change in the external business environment. A set of techniques is presented here for bringing the business and its internal issues directly into the scenario development effort from the beginning. By casting strategies as scenarios, companies can gain many of the benefits of traditional scenario planning while accelerating the strategic decision making for organizations in high change environments.

This case study of scenario planning at Digital shows how top management uses the process for testing, probing, pushing, and provoking strategic thinking about the future. Middle managers find the scenarios helpful for modeling their current businesses.

How have managers handled the industrial relations ramifications of information technology? There is a diversity of approaches within an overall framework of employee acceptance of the need for technological change. However, the introduction of new technology is rarely handled strategically in the industrial relations area, and there is much to be learnt from approaches adopted by a small minority of mostly foreign‐owned organisations. The authors conclude by asking whether or not patterns will change in the 1990s.

We must expect the future to surprise us. Our worst pratfalls occur when we become overly proud of our ability to manage the future. Just when we finally learn to live with inflation, we're plagued by deflation. The oil price trends of the 1970s caught everyone by surprise, but no sooner did industry invest to conserve, than the glut struck. Government budget deficits have reached staggering proportions, but even the most wide‐eyed optimists didn't forecast inflation rates of just 3–4 percent, and interest rates gradually floating downward.

Scenarios are being used by corporate strategists as tools that adjust managers' mental models to reflect looming changes in their competitive environment. The rules for competing in the market are changing so rapidly that a past‐oriented mental model will lead to wrong decisions. A critical success factor is how fast the whole company—not simply individuals—can learn.