How to Get the Most Out of
Exploration versus Exploitation
Download 0.91 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Codification versus Personalization
- Building Dynamic Capabilities
Exploration versus ExploitationWhen knowledge is in short supply, the focus must be on exploration. When an organization has less knowledge than is needed to execute its strategy or to defend its position, it must develop or acquire knowledge. Then, too, when competitors know more, the focus must be on knowledge acquisition. If knowledge in the industry is changing rapidly, and companies are rapidly innovating, creating new knowledge becomes the priority. On the other hand, when available knowledge resources and capabilities are more than adequate, the organization can further exploit the available knowledge, possibly within or across business units and sometimes even by entering new businesses. Exploration creates the knowledge needed to exploit new opportunities while maintaining the viability of existing ones. Exploitation provides the financial capital to fuel successive rounds of exploration. Exploration without exploitation is not economically viable in the long run. At the same time, after a point, exploitation without exploration will be like trying to pump water from a dry well. So companies must strive to maintain a balance between exploration and exploitation. The creation of unique, strategic knowledge takes time, forcing a firm to balance short-and long-term resource commitments. The firm therefore must determine whether its efforts are best focused on longer-term knowledge exploration, shorter-term exploitation, or both13. Exploration and exploitation activities must be linked and coordinated to reinforce one another in a virtuous circle. Balancing exploitation and exploration requires smooth knowledge transfer across functions and business units. Time delays between developing and applying knowledge as well as between applying and developing the next round of knowledge should be minimized. This requires a culture, reward systems, and communication networks that support the smooth flow of knowledge. Codification versus PersonalizationA second issue is whether a knowledge strategy should be centered on information technology or person-to-person contacts. According to Hansen, Nohria and Tierney14, some companies focus on codification, i.e., codifying and storing knowledge in databases for easy access by people across the organization. In other companies, the focus is on personalization, namely, building connections among people, the role of technology being limited to facilitating such connections and to helping people communicate this knowledge. The choice between codification and personalization should be driven by a company’s business strategy. Codification is recommended when the business needs to reuse knowledge assets effectively. For example, information technology consulting firms like Accenture use codification to provide high quality, reliable and fast information technology solutions to their clients. In contrast, where customized solutions have to be provided as in strategy consulting, personalization is preferable. Mckinsey is a good example. As Hansen, Nohria and Tierney put it, “A company’s knowledge management strategy should reflect its competitive strategy: how it creates value for customers, how that value supports an economic model and how the company’s people deliver on the value and the economics.” Thus companies that pursue an assemble-to-order or service strategy may be better off with codification. Those that provide highly customized product / service offerings or a product innovation strategy may find it useful to pursue personalization. Companies that have an effective knowledge management strategy predominantly pursue one of the two strategies and use the second to support the first. Hansen, Nohria and Tierney call it the 80-20 split. Companies should not get stuck in the middle. Trying to do both in equal amounts will fail to produce desired results. Just as a firm should either pursue cost leadership or differentiation, similarly it must make a strategic choice between codification and personalization. Firms focused on exploiting internal knowledge exhibit the most conservative knowledge strategy. Those who closely integrate knowledge exploration and exploitation without regard to organizational boundaries represent the most aggressive strategy. In knowledge-intensive industries, in cases where a firm’s knowledge significantly lags its competitors or where the firm is defending a knowledge position, an aggressive knowledge strategy is needed. In mature industries where technology is not changing much, a conservative strategy may make sense. Building Dynamic CapabilitiesIn their interesting book, The Only Sustainable Edge, John Hagel III and John Seely Brown point out that the paradigm for knowledge creation and sharing is undergoing major changes. Companies must not only be able to exploit fully their internal capabilities to differentiate themselves in the market place but also mobilize the resources of other companies to deliver greater value to customers15. As customers become more demanding, the knowledge within the firm may not be adequate. At the same time, if the company does not have unique specialized knowledge, it will be difficult to mobilize knowledge from outside. As the authors point out,16 “. . . distinct capabilities remain the basis of strategy but must rapidly evolve among collaborators to remain a source of strategic advantage. The competitive edge ultimately depends on a firm’s institutional capacity to rapidly deepen its distinctive capabilities and to accelerate learning across enterprise boundaries, rather than simply mobilizing static resources.” Hagel III and Seely Brown emphasize that companies must look for areas with the greatest potential for specialization and learning. They must closely watch the edges of business activity for this kind of capability building. Edges refer to the interfaces between enterprises, between industries / markets, between nations and between generations of customers. Companies must strike a balance between their core businesses and these edges which is where the potential to innovate and create value is maximum. Resources and opportunities emerging on the edge must be tapped to amplify the existing core capabilities. Directory: books books -> The English Arrive in America books -> Active Vocabulary books -> Books we finished XIV books -> The theology of the balaam oracles: a pagan diviner and the word of god books -> The rhetoric of the father books -> Sra: Imagine It!, Themes, Taking a Stand, Ancient Civilizations Ecology, Great Expectations, Earth in Action, Art and Impact, Level 6 books -> You Can If You Try Unit 7 Nonfiction books -> The tregenza family books -> Unconditional hatred Download 0.91 Mb. Share with your friends:
|