While I was waiting at the hospital, I’ve managed to read through a number of books. One of my recent favourite is the Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. Suprise suprise, the first article reviewed was the work of Ikujiro Nonaka. Just so happened, I discussed the works of Nonaka on my last supervisor meeting. I mentioned the revelation Nonaka made, regarding the so-called “hypertext organisation”. One of the thing that captured my attention was the inverted pyramid which represents this new organisational model. Nonaka was half-right, I believe. He predicted the coming of the internet and how it would transform the way knowledge is created within a company. However, the prediction did not come true until the coming of Web2.0 technologies. I realised that I might be on to something big.

Can we really say that in 50 years, the management model of companies will be nothing like what it is today? But perhaps we don’t need to look that far, and just look at the next 10 years. How would company be managed in 10 years time? Or better, how would the young generation changed how IT is managed in 10 years time? More on this later…

• Innovation is the key to sustained competitiveness
• Traditional Knowledge Management (KM) systems do a poor job of capturing and making visible the tacit knowledge of knowledge workers
• Need to address ramifications of Web2.0 tools from technical & cultural view

My opinion:
This paper is interesting for me, for a number of reasons. It reaffirms the fact that innovation is the key to sustaining competitive advantage, that traditional KM system is doing very poorly, and that companies looking into adopting Web2.0 tools need to consider technical and cultural ramifications of such systems.

The author explained that traditional KM systems is too resource intensive, counter-intuitive, and ultimately ineffective. I tend to agree with the points above: traditional KM systems are controlled using a top-down approach, and in most cases the process of contribution is tangled in bureaucracy. In order to contribute some material, it must go through a series of review process. This creates an unnecessary bottleneck and double handling of tasks. Contribution should be fast and easy, and this is where Web2.0 tools come in, it gives the power to everyone to play an active role.

The other good points that the author brought up is the ramifications of adopting Web2.0 tools, not only from a security point of view, but also from a cultural point of view. What’s interesting is that the subject of the research is located in China. Web 2.0 has always been based on the principle of openness and transparency, it’s unclear how successful iBridge would be considering China’s harsh record on censorship. However, it needs to be noted that the author did point out that President Hu Jintao acknowledges important changes need to happen to support China’s innovation strategy.

All and all, the paper provides an interesting view of Web2.0 adoption in China, no less that this is a government project. iBridge will need to be followed up as the paper studied iBridge far too early in it’s life to provide a useful insight.

The authors started off with an introduction to two related research paradigm: behavioural science which seeks to uncover truth, and design-science which seeks to extend boundaries of knowledge by creating new and innovative artefacts. In the business context, these two paradigm continuously interact with one another: Truth and utility is inseparable. As behavioural science identify the problems (truth), design science provides or creates a utility to solve it.

For the main part of the research, the authors specifies seven guidelines for researchers interested in performing design-science research. (1) Design-science research must produce a viable artefact, (2) address important and relevant problem, (3) evaluated in the business environment using quality attributes, (4) contribute to knowledge, (5) use rigorous methods in the creation and evaluation of the artefact, (6) use available means to reach the desired ends while satisfying laws, and (7) presented to both technology and management-oriented audiences. They are not a strict guideline (i.e. not mandatory), and need to be used in context of the nature of the problem and environment. The bottom line for researchers is that the new artefact must provide a utility that can be demonstrated.

For the last part, the authors uses three exemplar articles and analysed how they fared compared to the proposed design-science guidelines. The first example (Gavish and Gerdes, 1998) demonstrates methods as an IT artefacts, while the rest demonstrates instantiation as an IT artefact.

Overall, the paper provides a good source of knowledge for design-science researchers. However, there are a couple of drawbacks. (1) The flow of the argument can be improved, sometimes the authors jump back and forth from one concept to the other without a clear purpose , (2) a model could have been developed to summarise metrics to help new researchers use the guidelines effectively.

Key Points of Interest:

• The creative generation
• Operational efficiency ≠ Strategic efficiency
• Communities of purpose (self-organising teams)

My Opinion:

There are a lot of concepts discussed within this book, but on this post I will only discuss the ones relevant to my research.

For the first point, in my other readings the younger generation has always been viewed as the creative generation. With the tools and technology that’s now available, anyone can produce movies, make music. However, Gary Hamel’s sentiment on the creativity extends far beyond the arty stuff. He made a good point while everyone has a creative side, successful companies like Whirlpool and Toyota use it to their advantage to solve organisational problems. Relating this to my research, I think there is a value to investigate the Web 2.0 tools as a mean to unleash this creative side of the younger generation.

The second point that I find really interesting is that operational efficiency does not equate to strategic efficiency. I find this interesting, as I can relate back to my past readings, where a lot of the authors pointed out that the more lean (and/or integrated) an organisation is, the more difficult it is to adapt to changing environment. Operational effeciency alone is not enough in the information age. Things change rapidly and it puts significant pressure for organisation to quickly adapt. What is suggested within the book is that the two efficiency is not mutually exclusive, organisation can indeed achieve both operational and strategic efficiency.

The above is a subject that’s long been a personal interest of mine, so I will dedicate a bit of time later on and write a post (or two) on this subject.

The third concept that is interesting to me is the concept of self-organising teams. The author made a mention of how unrewarding work has become, a majority of workers are not as engaged to their work as they possibly can. This means wasted capability and lower productivity. Like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Hamel’s Hierarchy of Contribution ranks passion as the ultimate driving force for employee engagement in the workplace. Passionate employees go over obstacles (to solve organisational problems), but only recently collaboration and social networking tools helps employees with common interest find each other and work together for a cause.

To begin with, Webster & Watson identified the challenges for theoretical development on the IS field of study down to two major factor: (1) The relative youth of the IS field, and (2) the complexity of assembling a review in an interdisciplinary field. The second point is a valid and very important, as IT/IS is more so embedded into the business. IT/IS cannot be viewed in isolation and the implication for the potential reviewers is that they must have a broad knowledge base to build their case and draw up a conclusion.

On the next part, the authors draws a parallel of writing a review to writing a thesis. They specifies two types of review:

1. Mature topic where an accumulated body of research exists that needs analysis and synthesis, and
2. Emerging issue that would benefit from exposure to potential theoretical foundations.

For the main part, Webster & Watson guides potential reviewers on the process of writing a good review. Some of the key points are: the review must attract the reader early on, be based around central concepts, and build upon past findings (research).

The authors then states that a review should identify critical knowledge gaps and motivate researchers to fill these gaps. It can be achieved by examining past research and develops a model for future research. The authors also provides a recommendation for reviewers who wishes to develop a model and justify its propositions:

1. Provide a theoretical explanations,
2. Present past empirical findings, and/or
3. Draw upon practice and experience.

There is a need for a balance between the three in order to make a solid argument. The theory is central to the case, but it need to be backed up with past findings and draws relevance to current practice (and/or the reviewer’s own experience).

To finish off the review, the reviewers must re-evaluate the theory by inviting feedback from its peers. On this subject, there is an emerging trend of mass collaboration, and it would be insightful if the author can revisit their paper and provide an update on how this feedback process have changed since 2002.

Mission Statement: To provide insight from an IT perspective, as workplace habits and norms are changing influenced by the growing proportion of technology savvy younger generations in the workforce.

Basically, my research direction is now heading into two major area:

1. Confirming / breaking the younger generations stereotype (generalisation)
2. Investigate Web 2.0 and mass collaboration tools in the business

John brought up the first point in the last meeting, it seems that this is an area worth exploring. My belief as I mentioned before, is that over-generalising can lead to inconclusive or yet, incorrect results for the purpose of the research. So far, most of the research on the younger generation only provides generalised statements. Those who are based on hard facts and data are normally focused on discipline other than IT (such as HR). The lack of research in this area could be an opportunity. Such research could provide a good insight on the technological aptitude of the younger generation. Some things that immediately comes to my mind are:

• How do you define technology savvyness?
• Is there a way to measure it?
• How does their technological aptitude changes when they enter the workforce (real job)?
• How does it influence the rest of the employees?
• etc.

The second point is to look at the tools that support the people, the Web 2.0 and mass collaboration tools. Both are hot topics on the popular press, one of the reasons that strikes me is that the younger generation is a creative lot, and thus they need tools that support their freedom of expression. But for the research, it needs to be related back to the business. So, I’ve jot down a number of key questions:

• What is the current snapshot of Web 2.0 and mass collaboration tools in the business?
• What are the business drivers for these adoption?
• How are these tools being adopted?
• What are the best-practices (or unique application) of these tools in the business?
• Do these tools add value in the long term? If so, how do you measure it?
• etc.

Again, I need to stress that this is the first attempt and I will refine these questions further down the track.

These key questions are also posted under “Research Objectives” section of the blog.

Key Points of Interest:

1. There is a lot of internal friction between different camps.
2. Microsoft is now putting more emphasis on sales than technology.

My Opinion:

One of the chapter that really took my attention was the part about Bill’s (Gates) retirement. Although he was instrumental in shaping Microsoft to the giant it is today, he was losing touch with the customers. His retirement was perfectly timed, as by that time the rules of the games have changed dramatically and quite simply he wasn’t the right man for the job anymore. As sad to see him go, it was the right thing to do for the sake of the company’s survival. As MJ Foley put it, it’s not about the technology nowadays as much as it’s about the people. So, Microsoft will need to change dramatically, and reinvent itself as Microsoft 2.0.

Two main information that I was searching for prior reading the book was insight about Microsoft people, and SharePoint.

As I’ve mentioned before, there seems to be a lot of internal struggle within the company. The book mentions about the old guards vs. new kids mentality, and unfortunately for its own good the old still dominates. The mood is for change though, but it won’t happen overnight.

I was a little dissapointed to find a limited amount of information on SharePoint. In my opinion, it is a cornerstone in their Office strategy moving forward, and extremely important to win over the younger generation. Marketed as a collaboration tool, SharePoint will be important in the next 3 to 5 years as the workplace and working habits evolve to include much more collaboration. It’s their new cash cow, and it’s attracting competition from all areas.

To sum up, the book gives an insight to what is happening within Microsoft. But unfortunately it’s scarce on details, especially the bits I’m interested in. However, MJ Foley writes a blog on ZDNet about Microsoft, so hopefully there will be updates on Microsoft people and SharePoint.

Note: Office 14 will be out soon, it will be exciting how Microsoft will develop their productivity and collaboration platform further (OCS included).

Through my readings so far, I began to form a bit of understanding about the motivation and wisdom behind this (new) web tools. There is a lot to cover however, hence I decided that I should set a central theme for my research.

“IT Management Revolution“

There is an intimate relationship between the younger generation with technology. We use technology as an enabler more intensely than our parents ever does, we use it spontaneously and sometimes rather informal. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that many of us have a high degree of confidence in our (technology) skills. I’m not referring to programming skills, but the ability to quickly grasp and embrace new technology. More often than not, we are the early adopters.

This technology proficiency will have a big impact on the perceived value of IT in the enterprise, more so as technology is ingrained day-in day-out. So how does the younger generation perceive IT in the enterprise? Is it any different from the previous generation?

More importantly, is this a question worth asking?

If we can understand how IT is currently perceived and what is expected in the future. Then it is a starting point for an IT Management Revolution.

As I’ve mentioned to John, one of my research supervisor, I’ve had some thoughts about altering my research. Not anything utterly major, but just a slight shift of focus.

My proposed research is on the growing Gen Y workforce and how it can affect IT within the enterprise. Why IT? Two main reasons: One, my background is in IT/IS. Two, Gen Y grew up with the internet. The two are almost synonymous: Facebook? MySpace? YouTube? It’s a daily staple for us.

Which brings to the point that Gen Y is the workforce of the future. Slowly but surely they will replace the generation before them and along the way they create change. It is a common, recurring theme.

My initial focus was on the tools we use: blogs (like this), wiki, social network sites, and so on. I thought it would be a good idea to analyse how these tools are being used in the enterprise and then compile a sort of best practices guide. However, I believe I’m not thinking big enough.

After reading a couple of books, “The Future of Management (Hamel, G. & Breen, B. 2007)” and “Wikinomics (Tapscott, D. & Williams, A.D. 2008)”, I’ve broadened my perspective. Instead just the tangible and apparent, I would like to dig a little bit deeper and analyse the intangibles as well. I want to understand the wisdom, the principles, and the motivation.

To start, and to keep me focused on the goal, I’ve written my mission statement below.

Mission Statement: To help companies (big and small) understand and extract the potential of its younger workforce through technology solutions.

You may notice a number of things. First, instead only the enterprise, I want companies of all sizes benefit from my research. Second, in reality there is a big grey area between the generation preceding the Y (Gen X) and the generation superseding it, it’s very easy to fall into stereotyping and I want to avoid it. Third, instead of just IT/IS, I’m referring to a broader term of technology solutions. How IT/IS will evolve in the next 5 – 10 years is anyone’s guess.

Over the coming weeks, I will elaborate more on my mission statement, my research focus, while at the same time refining the research question and research methods.

Keep an eye on this space!