Tbit_a_465584 14..14 ++

This case study provides an in-depth analysis of Siemens' lessons learned when implementing knowledge management. For the analysis of the case-study data, we use established tools from the marketing literature, and integrate these with the change management literature. The aim is to provide a rich-yet-parsimonious conceptualisation of Siemens' lessons learned in dealing with two distinct implementation traps. The first trap is called customer trap and suggests that the needs of two 'knowledge management customers' have to be carefully balanced. Specifically, the 'end customer' of the initiative (the user of the initiative) and the 'business customer' of the initiative (top management) may have different expectations and requirements that need to be taken into consideration both separately and jointly. The second trap is called personalisation/standardisation trap and points to the need to balance standardisation (often needed due to the global scale of knowledge management initiatives) with customisation (too much of which can lead to an undifferentiated mix in which value propositions of individual initiatives are hard to appreciate). 1. Introduction Most business transformation initiatives fall short of the results that managers envisage. Large-scale, IT-enabled change is no exception. The popular press pegs the failure rate of knowledge management projects as high as 70% (e.g. Computerworld 2000) and the academic literature concurs. Many multi-year, multi-million dollar enterprise resource planning systems, for instance, have met with poor results (e.g. Ranganthan et al. 2004). The most recent disappointment is that despite the hype around Enterprise 2.0, this new technology seems unable to deliver on its promise to initiate, manage and sustain 'emergent collaboration' (e.g. Davenport 2007). Often-heard reasons for this track record include the realisation that short-term budget goals and responsibilities are often higher priority in business transformations than the long-term opportunities that investments in knowledge assets are supposed to bring about. As a result, there is a lack of employee acceptance of change across functions and processes, change is not supported across organisational levels, and fledgling opportunities for lasting transformation are obscured by current business concerns and operational constraints. The truth is that managers' attempts