Executive Interviews: Interview with Anil K Gupta on Knowledge Management
June 2008 - By Dr. Nagendra V Chowdary

Anil K Gupta
Anil K Gupta is the Ralph J Tyser Professor of Strategy
Organization at the Smith School of Business,
The University of Maryland at College Park.

Knowledge management initiatives have always been critical. It's just that they are becomingmore critical by the day. This is because of two factors: one, the more rapid obsolescence of existing technologies, products, processes, and business models; two, the rising intensity of competition. As a result of these two trends, companies have to be faster and more effective not only in utilizing what they already know but also in creating new technologies, products, processes, and business models. Doing so requires companies to be smarter at knowledge management.

• You have observed in one of your articles ("Knowledge Management's Social Dimension: Lessons from Nucor Steel", Sloan Management Review, Fall 2000) that building an effective social ecology is a crucial requirement for effective knowledgemanagement. What's social ecology all about and how is it built and nurtured in Nucor Corp.?
  In any large organization, there is no hope of effective and efficient knowledge management without leveraging the power of technology to connect people and for them to share databases. However, it is important to remember that technology by itself means little. It is people who use technology. And, people are as capable at abusing or misusing technology as they are at using it effectively and efficiently. Thus, effective knowledgemanagement requires that corporate leaders pay at least asmuch attention to ensuring that the organization has the right social ecology as they do to getting the technology in place. By social ecology, I refer to the formal and informal structure, systems, processes, and cultural values that guide people's behavior within the organization. Nucor has been a grandmaster at cultivating an effective social ecology for knowledge management. Nucor purchased raw materials and equipment fromthe same suppliers at market prices as every other steel company and sold its output also at market prices via third party channels. For over 30 years, what distinguished Nucor was that it cost the lowest and thus one of the most profitable producers of steel. The only explanation for this lies in the fact that Nucor's people became and remained systematically smarter at acquiring and utilizing the best technology for steel-making. As we explain in the SMR article, the roots of this capability lie in Nucor's social ecology rather than any proprietary access to any type of technology—be it for making steel or for managing information.

• You have outlined two key drivers of knowledge management knowledge creation and acquisition, and knowledge sharing and mobilization. Can you illustrate the differences between these two drivers and what do you think companies should do, so that they become central tasks in any KM initiative?
  I think of any company's intellectual capital as the product of what it knows multiplied by the speed with which it can mobilize what it knows across the entire company. Suppose an India-based unit of GE Healthcare comes up with an innovation either alone or in partnership with, say, Wipro Technologies. This is "knowledge creation and acquisition." However, for this innovation to have an impact on the entire business globally, it must also become known to and accessible by all other units within GE Healthcare globally. This latter process is "knowledge sharing and mobilization." These two tasks or drivers are different, but complementary.

• You have highlighted common pathologies and challenges in knowledge accumulation and knowledge sharing. Can you share with us some of those pathologies? Have they remained the same or have they changed over the years?
  The pathologies in knowledge management are rooted in the fact that organizations are run by people. Since human beings evolve very slowly, the pathologies today are pretty much the same as they were ten years ago. Some examples would be the "knowledge is power" syndrome and the "not invented here" syndrome. Despite the fact that organizations are created with the expectation that people will cooperate with each other, it is an everyday reality that colleagues within every organization also compete with each other (for recognition, promotions, better job titles, larger offices, and so forth). Corporate leaders have to be conscious of the various pathologies that can bedevil any knowledge management effort and ensure that the social ecology (and the supporting technologies) will help to keep these pathologies to the absolute minimum level possible.

• Is it correct to assume that KM is encouraged and practiced in more matured markets and industries? For, in a growing and potentially growing market/industry, unity of direction is more important than multiplicity of recommended courses of action?
  I disagree strongly. The importance of KM has nothing to do with whether or not you operate in a growing ormature market and whether or not you operate in a technology-intensive industry. For much of Nucor's life as a steel company, it operated in a very mature industry. In contrast, for its entire life, a company such as Google has operated in a very dynamic and high growth industry. KM is equally critical for both.

1. Knowledge Management Case Studies
2. ICMR Case Collection
3. Case Study Volumes