Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Organisational structure in support
of the
IT Knowledge Worker
By Gary Merrigan
A dissertation presented in fulfilment of the requirements for a Master of
Science (MSc) in Management of Operations.
Oscail - Dublin City University
Supervisor: Dr. Melrona Kirrane, Dublin City University
May 2007
Page 2
Declaration
I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the
programme of study leading to the award of MSc. Management of Operations is
entirely my own work and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the
extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work.
Signed: _____________________________ Student Number: 89802390
Gary Merrigan
Date: 11th May 2007
Page 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely acknowledge the guidance and support of my supervisor
Dr. Melrona Kirrane throughout this dissertation year and in particular during the
final completion of the dissertation document.
I would also like to acknowledge the support afforded to me by Liam Boyle and all
of the tutors during the taught programme. I learned a lot from them all.
I would particularly like to express my appreciation to my colleagues in the Rehab
Group Information Technology Department whose participation in this study was
paramount. I am also grateful to the Director of Finance for his support and for
granting me the time to conduct interviews and gather information.
Finally, to my wife Karen, my daughter Ciara and my son Eoin, I thank you for your
extraordinary patience over the three years of this MSc. programme.
Page 4
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .................................................................... 4
Abstract ................................................................................... 7
List of tables ............................................................................ 8
List of figures .......................................................................... 9
Chapter 1 - Introduction ...................................................... 10
1.1 Introduction and Overview ........................................... 10
1.2 Dissertation Structure ................................................... 11
Chapter 2 - Literature Review ............................................ 12
2.1 Defining the Knowledge Worker ................................. 12
2.2 The Importance of Knowledge Workers ...................... 15
2.3 Knowledge Worker Motivation .................................... 16
2.4 Knowledge Worker Collaboration ................................ 20
2.5 Knowledge Workers and the Learning Organisation .... 22
2.6 Knowledge Worker and Organisational Structure ........ 25
2.7 Knowledge Worker Performance ................................. 29
2.8 Summary ...................................................................... 31
2.9 Conclusions and need for research ............................... 33
Chapter 3 - Research Methodology / Implementation ...... 36
3.1 Introduction ................................................................. 36
3.2 The Research Setting ................................................... 36
3.3 The Research Participants ............................................ 36
3.5 The Research Instrument .............................................. 37
3.6 Research Design .......................................................... 40
3.7 Research Ethics ............................................................ 43
3.8 Limitations ................................................................... 44
3.9 Summary ...................................................................... 45
Chapter 4 – Results............................................................... 46
4.1 Introduction ................................................................ 46
4.2 Autonomy ................................................................... 46
4.2.1 Introduction ....................................................... 46
4.2.2 Discretion .......................................................... 46
4.2.3 Decision Making and Authority ......................... 47
4.2.4 Boundaries ......................................................... 47
4.3 Motivation .................................................................. 48
Page 5
4.3.1 Introduction ....................................................... 48
4.3.2 Commitment ...................................................... 48
4.3.3 Involvement ....................................................... 48
4.3.4 Variety ............................................................... 49
4.3.5 Remuneration .................................................... 49
4.4 Continuous Learning ................................................... 49
4.4.1 Introduction ....................................................... 49
4.4.2 The need for continuous learning ....................... 49
4.4.3 Mentoring .......................................................... 50
4.4.4 Time for Learning.............................................. 50
4.5 Working Environment ................................................. 50
4.5.1 Introduction ....................................................... 50
4.5.2 Layout and Design ............................................. 51
4.5.3 Interruptions ...................................................... 51
4.6 Department Communications ...................................... 52
4.6.1 Introduction ....................................................... 52
4.6.2 Methods of Communication .............................. 52
4.6.3 Meetings ............................................................ 52
4.6.4 Collaboration ..................................................... 53
4.7 Technology Supports .................................................. 53
4.7.1 Introduction ....................................................... 53
4.7.2 Operational Technology Supports ...................... 54
4.7.3 Individual Technology Supports ........................ 54
4.7.4 Collaborative Technology Supports ................... 54
4.8 Leadership / Management Style .................................. 55
4.8.1 Introduction ....................................................... 55
4.8.2 Strategic Context ............................................... 55
4.8.3 Management Style ............................................. 55
Chapter 5 – Discussion ......................................................... 56
5.1 Introduction ................................................................. 56
5.2 Discretion .................................................................... 56
5.3 Decision Making and Authority ................................... 57
5.4 Boundaries ................................................................... 58
5.5 Commitment ................................................................ 58
5.6 Involvement ................................................................. 59
5.7 Variety ......................................................................... 59
5.8 Remuneration ............................................................... 60
5.9 Need for Learning ........................................................ 60
5.10 Mentoring .................................................................. 61
5.11 Time for Learning ...................................................... 62
5.12 Environment, Layout and Design ............................... 63
5.13 Interruptions ............................................................... 63
Page 6
5.14 Communication / Meetings ........................................ 64
5.15 Collaboration ............................................................. 65
5.15 Technology Supports ................................................. 66
5.16 Strategic Context ........................................................ 67
5.17 Management Style ..................................................... 67
Chapter 6 – Recommendations and Proposals for Future
Research ................................................................................ 68
6.1 Introduction ................................................................ 68
6.2 Recommendations ....................................................... 68
6.3 Implications of Research ............................................. 70
6.4 Limitations .................................................................. 70
6.5 Further Research ......................................................... 71
Bibliography .......................................................................... 72
Glossary of Terms ................................................................. 77
Appendices ............................................................................ 78
Page 7
Abstract
Organisational structure in support of the IT Knowledge Worker
By Gary Merrigan
The purpose of this research was to obtain an understanding of the characteristics of
Knowledge Workers operating in an information technology department with the aim
of identifying opportunities for improvements in support of their roles.
A six month ethnographic observation of these Knowledge Workers was conducted
together with a set of semi-structured interviews which were used to elicit the
motivational factors, collaborative needs and preferred organisational structure for
each individual Knowledge Worker. This data was then aggregated and analysed
using thematic content analysis to extract the major themes which exist within the
dataset. The analysis of this data showed that Knowledge Worker requirements are
both individual to the specific Knowledge Worker and common across all
Knowledge Workers.
These results were interpreted in light of the prevailing literature in this area and
potential means of addressing these issues in the short, medium and long term were
outlined. These means are in the areas of improved communications, increased
autonomy, developing collaboration, promoting cross-pollination of ideas and
providing sufficient time to allow for reflection and adaptation.
Page 8
List of tables
Table 1: Inhibitors to knowledge transfer Page: 21
Table 2: Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Page: 38
Modes of Inquiry
Page 9
List of figures
Figure 1: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Page: 17
Figure 2: Vroom’s Expectancy Theory Page: 18
Figure 3: Needs Theory Characterisation of Computer Page: 19
Professional’s Acquired Motives
Figure 4: Group IT Department Organisational Chart Page: 37
Figure 5: Research Combined Perspective – Preferred Page: 43
Organisational Support
Page 10
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 Introduction and Overview
The Rehab Group is an independent not-for-profit organisation working for social
and economic inclusion among people with disabilities and others who are
marginalised. Each year more than 60,000 people access its training, employment,
social care and commercial services in the Group's network of some 200 centres
across Ireland and the UK. The Organisations philosophy is based on the belief that
regardless of a person's disability or social circumstances, it's ability that should
determine success in life.
The Rehab Group also believes that information technology will continue to grow as
a vital tool in addressing the challenges of providing efficient, high quality healthcare
services. The management and motivation of Information Technology (IT)
Knowledge Workers within the constraints of the IT Department of the Rehab
Group, whose core competencies are not in IT, presents a particular challenge. The
IT Department is a support service for the organisation as opposed to a primary
business unit and is resourced on this basis.
The dependency on Knowledge Workers in an IT department means that the
maximisation of their productivity will be essential to the performance of the
department and thus, the organisation, and the motivation of Knowledge Workers
will potentially be a major factor in improving and sustaining productivity.
The Knowledge Worker relies on the organisation to provide the supports to allow
them to best perform their work but their requirements do not and cannot exist in a
vacuum. Organisational supports for Knowledge Workers will improve performance
but they are constrained by normal business issues such as budget, physical space,
available human resources and business objectives. There are various frameworks or
‘enabling environments’ available in support of the Knowledge Worker, but these are
generic and must be tailored to fit the specifics of the organisation.
To address these specifics, this research reviews the literature relating to Knowledge
Worker characteristics and organisational support. These theoretical frameworks are
Page 11
further used to help analyse the findings from data collected from the ethnographic
study and participant interviews.
1.2 Dissertation Structure
The remainder of this Dissertation is structured as follows:
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
The literature review examines publications and research relating to Knowledge
Workers and Knowledge Worker organisational support. The review concentrates on
the particular characteristics of the Knowledge Worker including their motivational
factors, working methods and preferred organisational structure.
Chapter 3 – Research Methodology / Implementation
In this chapter the methods chosen for this research and the reasons why they were
chosen are discussed. A detailed description of the process of data capture and
analysis is provided, and the organisational environment being examined is
described.
Chapter 4 – Results
In this chapter, a review of the results of the research is presented. These results are
classified under the major themes which emerged as a result of the thematic content
analysis.
Chapter 5 – Discussion
In this chapter, the interpretation of the results outlined in chapter 4 are discussed.
These results are examined in the light of the prevailing literature.
Chapter 6 – Recommendations and Proposals for Future Research
This final chapter of this Dissertation is used to consider the findings of this research
and will demonstrate how these findings address the research topics under
consideration. Limitations of the research and suggestions for future research are also
discussed.
Page 12
Chapter 2 - Literature Review
This literature review primarily examines the topics relating to the concept of the
Knowledge Worker. The unique characteristics of Knowledge Workers are identified
as well as their motivations and preferred organisational structures in support of their
work methods. The primary function of this literature review is to provide a context
which supports an in-depth study of Knowledge Workers in an information
technology service department with the objective of optimising the organisational
structure in support of their roles.
2.1 Defining the Knowledge Worker
In 1959, Peter Drucker coined the term ‘Knowledge Worker’ when describing a
person who contributes to the work force through processing existing information to
create new information which could be used to help define and solve problems
(Davenport 2005). Drucker (1998) says Knowledge Workers believe they are paid to
be effective, not to work nine to five, and that smart businesses will strip away
anything that gets in their Knowledge Workers way. Since the publication of
Drucker’s seminal work, there has been many definitions of the Knowledge Worker,
most of which appear to have stayed loyal to Drucker’s original theme:
Rogoski (1999) suggests that Knowledge Workers are continually learning
and are aware that knowledge has a limited shelf life.
Kumar (2000) defines Knowledge Workers as people who use their intellect
to convert their ideas into products, services or processes.
Alter (2005) believes that they [Knowledge Workers] don’t like to be told
what to do; they enjoy much more autonomy than other workers; and much of
their work is invisible and impossible to measure, because most of what they
do goes on in their heads or outside of the office.
Davenport (2005) defines Knowledge Workers as workers that have high
degrees of expertise, education, or experience, and the primary purpose of
their jobs involve the creation, distribution, or application of knowledge.
Drucker (1999) further refines the definition of Knowledge Workers by dividing
them into two categories ‘Core Knowledge Workers’ and ‘everyone else’;
Page 13
1. Core Knowledge Workers are those in specific ‘knowledge management’ roles.
Examples include Chief Information/Knowledge Officers, Knowledge Managers,
Librarians, Content Managers, Information Officers, and Knowledge Analysts.
2. ‘Everyone else’ constitutes all the other Knowledge Workers – doctors, nurses,
dentists, pharmacists, managers, technicians and administrators.
Davenport and Prusak (2000) also offer the following expanded attributes of the
Knowledge Worker which are quite useful and generally agreed upon by most
authors (Nonaka 1991), Rogoski (1999), Alter (2005);
All jobs require knowledge to some degree, but Knowledge Workers are
those whose jobs are particularly knowledge-orientated
Knowledge Workers are usually intelligent
Knowledge Workers differ from other kinds of workers in their autonomy,
motivations and attitudes
Knowledge Workers enjoy their autonomy
Knowledge work tends to be unstructured
Commitment is important to Knowledge Workers
Kidd (1994) provides a particularly clear definition of Knowledge Worker when she
says: “. . . the defining characteristic of Knowledge Workers is that they are
themselves changed by the information they process”. Kidd’s analysis of the
characteristics of Knowledge Workers concluded that:
Our model of Knowledge Workers suggests instead that when these
people [Knowledge Workers] are informed by a new fact, then, by
definition, their model of the world is reformed. (Kidd 1994 pg189)
Kidd’s definition appears particularly relevant given that the literature defines the
Knowledge Worker in terms of their attitude, behaviour, insights, intuition and
personal beliefs as opposed to any specific professional or academic achievement.
Despite these refinements, there is still a lack of consensus regarding the definition
of Knowledge Workers. Collins (1997) disagrees with Drucker and Davenport’s
categorisation and definition of Knowledge Workers and argues that knowledge
work and Knowledge Workers are characterised by confusion and ambiguity:
Page 14
Why not, instead of bandying around buzzwords such as Knowledge
Work, begin from the understanding that all workers are Knowledge
Workers and that all have skills and working knowledge, rather than
claim it as the possession of a minority group. If we are to regard
workers as key resources, why begin from an initial assumption
which implies that many have only the most limited resources at their
disposal? (Collins 1997 p48)
The difficulty in articulating a definition of knowledge work is perhaps a
consequence of the apparent difficulty in defining the term knowledge. Pears (1972)
believes that while most people have an instinctive understanding of what knowledge
is, when it comes to defining this term it soon becomes clouded with abstractions.
According to Nonaka (1991):
In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure
source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge. And yet ...
few managers grasp the nature of the knowledge-creating company -
let alone how to manage it. The reason: they misunderstand what
knowledge is and what companies must do to exploit it. (Nonaka
1991 pp21)
Davenport and Prusak (2000) attempt to express the value of knowledge and the
characteristics of knowledge which they believe can make knowledge hard to
manage:
Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual
information, and expert insight that provides a framework for
evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It
originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it
often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but
also in organizational routines, processes, practices, and norms.
(Davenport and Prusak 2000 p5)
Krogh et al (2000) suggest that knowledge is a concept that can be extremely
meaningful, positive, promising - but hard to pin down. They refer to an important
concept - that knowledge is both explicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is reasonably
easy to understand and can be formulated in documents such as policies and
procedures. For example, a software engineer may perform systems analysis and
document user requirements in the form of specifications, workflows, process maps
etc, thereby making the knowledge explicit. Designing and developing the resulting
software, however, may utilise other kinds of knowledge which are tied to the senses
such as individual perceptions, experience, design, creativity and intuition. This tacit
Page 15
knowledge is often difficult to describe to others, however, Krogh et al (2000)
believe that tacit knowledge can be made explicit through a process they refer to as
‘articulation’.
By contrast, Wilson (2002) appears to disagree with the concept of ‘articulation’
arguing that knowledge is what we know and is a mental process that exists in our
minds and only in our minds, in other words, that knowledge cannot be externalised.
…Collections of messages, composed in various ways, may be
considered as 'information resources' of various kinds - collections of
papers in a journal, e-mail messages in an electronic 'folder',
manuscript letters in an archive, or whatever. Generally, these are
regarded as 'information resources'. Thus, data and information may
be managed, and information resources may be managed, but
knowledge (i.e. what we know) can never be managed, except by the
individual knower and, even then, only imperfectly. (Wilson 2002
pg2)
2.2 The Importance of Knowledge Workers
The concept of knowledge management and knowledge work can be traced as far
back as (Drucker 1969) and (Machlup 1973). In his review of the production and
distribution of knowledge in the United States in 1962, Machlup offered the concept
that in addition to researchers and planners, company executives, the secretaries, and
all the ‘transmitters’ of knowledge would become the focus of analysis on the
production and distribution of knowledge. Drucker (1969 cited in Davenport 2005)
suggests that “… to make knowledge work productive will be the great management
task of this century, just as to make manual work productive was the great
management task of the last century” (Davenport 2005 pg8)
It is apparent from the large volume of literature available that there is a broad
acceptance of knowledge management in contemporary organisations and that this
confirms the prescience of Drucker and Machlup (Davenport and Prusak 2000). In
addition, there are significant numbers of publications, services and software
available to support the management of knowledge (Cortada 1998). (Davenport and
Prusak 2000) say they believe that most managers in organisations are aware of
knowledge management and indeed many have become advocates and practitioners.
Page 16
Davenport (2005) offers three reasons why the Knowledge Worker is important to
the world economy;
1. They [Knowledge Workers] are a large and growing category of workers. It is
important that such a large group are productive or we are going to have a
problem with the economy overall.
2. As Knowledge Workers tend to be highly educated and experienced they are also
more expensive for organisations to employ, another reason why productivity and
performance within this particular group is important.
3. They are the key to growth in many economies.
2.3 Knowledge Worker Motivation
Bartol and Martin (1998 cited in Cesare and Sadri 2003) implied that motivation is
fundamental to almost all behaviour at work and reinforce this through their
references to some of the major motivational theories including Maslow’s Hierarchy
of Human Needs, Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory, Vroom’s Expectancy Theory and
McClellands Needs Theory. These theorists take different directions in their
exploration of employee motivation; Maslow’s theory focuses on the specific needs
of the individual, Vroom examines motivation in the context of the interaction
between the individual and his or her work, Herzberg focused on the traits of worker
job-satisfaction and McClelland’s utilises a model of identified socially acquired
motives which were organised into three categories; affiliation, achievement and
power.
Maslow (1943) building on the work of Murray (1938 cited in Carson 2003), refined
Murray’s original list of twenty needs that humans try to satisfy, into five basic sets
of needs namely; Physiological, Safety, Social, Esteem and Self Actualisation.
Maslow positioned these needs in a hierarchy which represent the order in which the
needs are required to be satisfied. Maslow’s hierarchy is illustrated in Figure 1
below.
Page 17
Figure 1. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Bookladder.com 2007)
The ultimate goal is to achieve self-actualisation, however, this can not be attained
until the other lower level needs are met (Carson 2003). Given the importance of
their roles to the organisation, this suggests that Knowledge Workers are likely to
have achieved the first two levels of Maslow’s hierarchy. Maslow (1943) suggests
that if people have the capacity to develop through the hierarchy of needs, then they
are almost morally obliged to do so. In other words, if a Knowledge Worker has the
ability to be healthy and happy then they should try to achieve these goals. In the
context of Maslow’s theory, this also suggests that Knowledge Worker motivational
goals would focus on the levels of Social, Esteem and Self-actualisation.
Herzberg (1959 cited in Tietjen and Myers 1998) believes that an employee’s
motivation to work is best understood when the respective attitude of that employee
is understood. By analysing the results of a questionnaire about an employees
experiences when feelings about his/her job were more positive or negative than
usual Herzberg proceeded to classify certain factors into two distinct categories
namely, Motivators and Hygiene. The Motivator category expressed the factors
which contributed to happy feelings or good attitude within the employee. Herzberg
purported that these factors were generally task related. Hygiene, the group which
reflected the more unhappy or bad attitude, Herzberg claimed, were not attributable
to the job itself, but to the conditions that surrounded the execution of that job.
The Motivator group (or job related group) contained such factors as; recognition,
achievement, possibility of growth, advancement, responsibility and the work itself.
Page 18
The Hygiene group (or extra-job factors) contained such factors as; salary,
interpersonal relations – peers, interpersonal relations – supervisor, interpersonal
relations – subordinates, working conditions, factors in personal life, status and job
security. According to Herzberg’s theory, the absence of the hygiene factors can
cause job dissatisfaction, but their presence does not necessarily motivate or create
satisfaction.
According to Herzberg et al (1959), motivators cause positive job
attitudes because they satisfy the worker’s need for self-actualisation
(Maslow 1954), the individuals ultimate goal. (Tietjen and Myers
1998 pg227)
Herzberg’s inclusion of salary in the Hygiene group suggests that remuneration is not
perceived as a primary motivator. Smits et al (1995) examined this salary
classification further with a particular focus on the impact of salary on the job and
career attitudes of Information Systems Professionals. Smits et al (1995) conclusion
which appears to be consistent with Herzberg (1959 cited in Tietjen and Myers 1998)
Hygiene category was that “… salary acts mainly as a benchmark to help I/S
professionals gauge early career progress and fit”.
Vroom (1964) developed a theory wherein the motivation of employees to perform at
work was established to be the result of three specific categories of belief that they
held about their work. The beliefs are labelled as 1) expectancy, 2) instrumentality
and 3) valence. The concept is clear; expectancy is a simple belief that if one invests
effort at work that it will result in performance, instrumentality is the belief that if
one performs, there will be a reward and valence is the employee’s perceived value
of the reward received. Vroom’s expectancy theory is illustrated in Figure 2 below.
Figure 2. Vroom’s Expectancy Theory (Introduction to Management 2007)
Page 19
For Knowledge Workers, the concept of valence presents a challenge to
organisational management. Herzberg (1959 cited in Tietjen and Myers 1998)
categorisation of salary as a “Hygiene” factor shows that other rewards such as
promotion, more autonomy and other benefits may be a more appropriate and
effective way to engage the knowledge workforce. The emotional orientation that
Knowledge Workers may hold regarding rewards suggests that it is important that
each individual’s values should be understood when rewarding good performance.
McClelland (1970 cited in Toledo and Unger 1983) suggested in his ‘Needs Theory’
that socially acquired motives can be divided into three categories: affiliation,
achievement and power. People with a high affiliation motive tend to develop
interpersonal relationships in an attempt to seek out others with similar beliefs.
People associated with high achievement motives have a desire to perform well and
reach required quality and excellence standards. Finally, people with high power
motive generally have a need to be highly competitive and like to win arguments,
persuade others and to exercise power and authority. Using McClellands model,
Toledo and Unger (1983) proceeded to analyse the motivating factors of computer
professionals as they relate to McClelland’s three categories. The conclusions
suggest that computer professionals [Knowledge Workers] in the data processing
field have a low need for affiliation, but have a high need for achievement. See
Figure 3.
Affiliation Achievement Power
Project favourable image,
need assurance from
others
Need standards for
excellence and
challenging situations and
feedback
Need to have power and
authority, must win
arguments
High
Low
The Computer Professionals Profile
Page 20
Figure 3. Needs Theory Characterisation of Computer Professional’s Acquired Motives (Toledo and
Unger 1983 pg2)
Toledo and Unger (1983) analysis of computer professionals motivation utilising
McClelland’s needs model provides an interesting conclusion in the context of the
Knowledge Worker characteristics as presented in the literature review. The apparent
‘low need for affiliation’ motive for the data processing personnel is consistent with
the notion of ‘individualism’ identified by most authors as a key trait of Knowledge
Workers. The ‘higher need for achievement’ motive is also consistent with the focus
of the Knowledge Worker on quality and the need for continuous learning and
improvement.
Osteraker (1999), with an emphasis on the Learning Organisation, puts forward a
contrasting perspective regarding motivation based on needs. Citing Maccoby
(1998), Yankelowich and Immerwahr (1986) and Carr and Pihlanto (1996) as critics
of needs theory, Osteraker suggests that the criticism exists because of the failure of
needs theory to effectively consider the uniqueness of the employee and the specific
constraints in which the organisation operates. While acknowledging the more
detailed development of theories since Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Osteraker
suggests that the general motivational factors have remained the same and asks the
question “Are the theories too static to explain effectively what motivates employees
of today?” (Osteraker 1999 pg73).
Many motivational theories appear to ignore the very real constraints
under which most organisations operate and which may severely
limit the motivational factors that they can provide for employees.
Mumford (1991 cited in Osteraker 1999 pg75)
In her conclusion, Osteraker claims that new needs theories are not necessarily the
way forward but new methods of applying the older theories are certainly required:
By accepting the participation of employees in the motivational
process and fostering a dialogue between the examiner and the
examined, the values in the organisation are allowed to influence the
whole motivational process. (Osteraker 1999 pg77)
2.4 Knowledge Worker Collaboration
The importance of knowledge transfer is a recurring theme, and most authors refer to
it as a significant part of the effective management of Knowledge and Knowledge
Page 21
Workers. However, as evidenced in the literature, knowledge, particularly tacit
knowledge is difficult to transfer.
Trauth (1999) offers a different perspective to Knowledge Worker collaboration
when she examines the ‘paradox’ of Human Resource Management practices and its
apparent conflict with goals of Organisational Knowledge Management. Trauth
analysed the findings of three studies of information sector workers in Europe and
the United States and compares them with the data presented by an information
technology workforce convocation conducted in the United States in 1998. Trauth
maintains that information professionals [Knowledge Workers] are generally
managed as ‘skill sets’ or ‘knowledge sources’ rather than people. Trauth goes on to
say that in such an environment it is very difficult to motivate information
professionals to share such an important asset as their expert, tacit knowledge. This
lack of mutual loyalty breeds an ‘every worker for her/himself’ mentality. Trauth
concludes by suggesting that information professionals require some motivation to
share highly valuable tacit knowledge about the firm or industry. Changes as simple
as giving more attention to personal development and training can significantly help
develop greater employee commitment and trust, which in turn, can enhance
organisational performance.
Even if the issues described by Trauth are addressed and employer/employee trust
and loyalty are developed or restored, there may be other barriers which exist to
challenge the development of collaboration amongst Knowledge Workers.
Davenport and Prusak (2000) examine the culture of knowledge transfer when they
tackle the issue of Knowledge Worker collaboration. They refer to cultural factors
that inhibit knowledge transfer as ‘frictions’, because they slow or prevent transfer
and are likely to erode some of the knowledge as it tries to move through the
organisation. They set out a table of the most common inhibitors and possible
solutions as shown in Table 1.
Friction Possible Solutions
Lack of trust Build relationships and trust through face-
to-face meetings
Lack of time and meeting places; Establish times and places for knowledge
Page 22
narrow idea of productive work transfers: seminars, talk rooms,
conference reports
Status and rewards go to Knowledge
Workers
Evaluate performance and provide
incentives based on sharing
Lack of absorptive capacity in
recipients
Educate employees for flexibility; provide
time for learning; hire for openness to
ideas
Belief that knowledge is prerogative of
particular groups, not-invented-here
syndrome
Encourage non-hierarchical approach to
knowledge; quality of ideas more
important than status of source
Intolerance for mistakes or need for
help
Accept and reward creative errors and
collaboration; no loss of status from not
knowing everything
Table 1. Inhibitors to knowledge transfer (Davenport and Prusak 2000 pg97)
Collaboration is a fundamental requirement for the creation of an environment
wherein knowledge transfer is exercised to the overall benefit of the organisation.
While the focus of this research is on organisational structure in support of the
Knowledge Worker, it is appropriate to recognise the work dedicated to a concept
known as ‘The Learning Organisation’ as there appears to be significant correlation
between the attributes that support the environment of a collaborative Learning
Organisation and the needs, requirements and desires of the Knowledge Worker as
evidenced in the literature.
2.5 Knowledge Workers and the Learning Organisation
Peter Senge, who popularised Learning Organisations in his book ‘The Fifth
Discipline’, described Learning Organisations as:
Learning organizations [are] organizations where people continually
expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where
new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective
aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see
the whole together. (Senge 1990 pg3)
Page 23
According to Lles and Sutherland (2001), there are five key features of a Learning
Organisation;
1: Organisational Structure
Learning organisations have management structures which support employee
involvement in the organisation and employees are empowered to make relevant
decisions. Structures to support teamwork and networking are enabled across the
organisation. This organisational structure attribute of the Learning Organisations
aligns to the requirement for Knowledge Workers to have a high level of autonomy
in terms of decision making authority. The structure also addresses the challenge of
knowledge transfer as expressed by some authors. (Drucker 1995; Davenport 2005;
Krogh et al 2000)
2: Organisational Culture
Learning organisations have strong cultures that promote openness, creativity and
experimentation among members. Members are encouraged to acquire process and
share information. This culture of acquisition and processing of information forms
the basis of Knowledge Work as evidenced in the literature.
3: Information Systems
Information systems are used to improve and support practice as opposed to the
traditional approach where systems are used simply for control purposes. Referring
specifically to the use of technology in support of the Knowledge Worker, in the
introduction of his paper Marwick (2001) writes:
The extent to which knowledge transformation within and between
tacit and explicit forms can be supported by the technologies is
discussed, and some likely future trends are identified. It is found that
the strongest contribution to current solutions is made by
technologies that deal largely with explicit knowledge, such as search
and classification. (Marwick 2001 pg1)
4: Human Resource Practices
People are recognised as the creators and users of organisational learning. The focus
is on the provision and support of individual learning. The organisation promotes the
acquisition and sharing of new skills and knowledge. The focus on ‘individual’
Page 24
learning acknowledges the uniqueness of employees particularly those with
‘specialist’ qualities such as Knowledge Workers.
5: Leadership
Leaders model the openness, risk-taking and reflection necessary for learning, and
communicate a compelling vision of the learning organisation. They ensure that the
workforce have the capacity to learn, change and develop.
The similarities between the five Learning Organisation features described by (Lles
and Sutherland 2001) and the Knowledge Transfer “frictions” described by
(Davenport et al 2000) are striking, particularly under the headings of Organisational
Culture, Human Resource Practices and Leadership. In both cases, the reference to
the importance of appropriate Human Resource Practices supports the argument
posited by (Trauth 1999) that people need to be recognised and managed as
individuals rather than ‘skill sets’ or ‘knowledge sources’
However, there is some debate as to whether organisations are capable of learning;
Sunassee and Haumant (2004) state that “While individual learning is generally well
understood, the subject of whether or not an entire organisation can learn is still a
source of debate”. Nevertheless, the structure of a learning organisation as described
by Lles and Sutherland (2001) seems to cater for the needs of the Knowledge
Worker, and as such it may be prudent to consider the implementation of all or part
of this framework.
However, Snowden (2004 cited in Laycock 2005) of the Cynefin Centres for
Organizational Complexity, does not necessarily agree that the theoretical framework
of the Learning Organisation is a good attribute in the context of Knowledge Worker
management. Commenting on the behaviour of the Knowledge Worker, Snowden
remarks:
Too much management theory and practice works on the basis of
defining an ideal form of behaviour – and then enticing staff into it -
a lot of emphasis on vision and values, which is characteristic of the
Learning Organization, illustrates this – conformance is not the same
as commitment. Snowden (2004 cited in Laycock 2005 pg524).
Page 25
Knowledge Worker attitude and behaviour is largely influenced by their own
motivation, commitment and trust. However, it is also influenced by the
environment, supports and opportunities which are presented to them by their
employer. Drucker (2001) states that:
It is only the organisation that can provide the basic continuity that
Knowledge Workers need to be effective. It is only the organisation
that can convert the specialised knowledge of the Knowledge
Worker into performance (Drucker 2001 pg308).
2.6 Knowledge Worker and Organisational Structure
Authors such as (Drucker 1995, Davenport 2005, Krogh et al 2000), characterise
Knowledge Workers as employees that are highly skilled, have considerable
autonomy, flexible working conditions, are highly valued in the market place, and
have become less dependent upon their immediate employer for employment.
In the paper “How ‘free’ is the free worker?” Donnelly (2004), the objective was to
shed light upon the reasons why Knowledge Workers are afforded such working
conditions. Using a large consultancy firm as a case study, Donnelly set out to
establish what actual level of flexibility was available to Knowledge Workers. The
results confirmed that many Knowledge Workers command large remunerations and
are able to negotiate significant concessions from employers, however; the results
also highlighted a dependency on the employer by the Knowledge Worker for
employment, skill enhancement and access to resources.
Davenport (2003) promotes the concept of an ‘enabled’ environment when he states:
Knowledge Workers need good processes and technology, but they
also need an organizational structure that doesn't get in their way; an
office that facilitates both quiet, concentration-based work and the
free interchange of ideas with co-workers; the ability to both stay put
and move around; and the right combination of team structures and
individual accountability. (Davenport 2003 pg1)
Kelloway et al (2000) also subscribe to the concept of creating a working
environment in support of the Knowledge Worker. They define Knowledge Work as
a profession, a characteristic of individuals, and as an individual activity. They
further suggest that employees are likely to engage in knowledge work to the extent
Page 26
that they have the (a) ability, (b) motivation, and (c) opportunity to do so. To that
end, Kelloway et al (2000) purport that the task of the management of Knowledge
Work should be focused on establishing these very conditions.
The concept of nurturing the Knowledge Worker instead of attempting to control and
measure is a key personnel management strategy of the CEO and senior management
of technology company Google. Adopting the principles first described by Drucker,
Google seek to “strip away everything that gets in their Knowledge Workers way” to
achieve the competitive advantage which Drucker suggests will be the single biggest
factor for competitive advantage in the next twenty five years (Drucker 1969).
Schmidt and Varian (2005) have defined a set of ten principles which they use to
help make Google’s Knowledge Workers more effective. The Google Knowledge
Worker management principles are as follows:
1. Hire by committee
Job applicants who interview at Google generally speak to at least a half dozen
interviewers drawn from by management and potential colleagues. The concept is
that if Google hire great people, involving them in the hiring process should
result in more great people.
2. Cater to their every need
In addition to standard package fringe benefits, Google ensure that first class
supports are available to their Knowledge Workers; this includes excellent dining
facilities, gym, laundry rooms, massage and dry cleaning. The concept is that
Knowledge Workers such as programmers like to program – not do their laundry,
so Google make it easy for them to do both. The minimisation of non-work based
distractions is an interesting concept from Google. This environment makes it
more straightforward for Knowledge Workers to focus on problem solving and
work productivity, and supports their desire for continuous learning with
minimum distraction – all of which are key attributes of Knowledge Worker
satisfaction as established by (Drucker 1997; Rogoski 1999; Davenport and
Prusak 2000). This environment also assists Knowledge Workers in climbing
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – allowing the Knowledge Worker to focus on
higher achievement goals in order to reach self-actualisation. (Maslow 1943).
Page 27
3. Pack them in
The focus here is on collaboration. Almost every Google project is a team
project. The open plan working environment supports easy communication
allowing Knowledge Workers to confer with colleagues with immediate access.
The team focus by Google is helpful in trying to address the challenges of
Knowledge Worker collaboration expressed by Trauth (1999) and Davenport
(2005).
4. Make coordination easy
Because all members of a team are within a few feet of each other, it is relatively
easy to coordinate projects. A weekly e-mail update to their working groups
enable Knowledge Workers to share progress and gives all workers an easy way
to track what everyone else is working on, making it much easier to monitor
progress and work flows.
5. Eat your own dog food
Google workers use the company’s tools intensively. New software initiatives
are extensively used and tested by Google’s own employees. The successes of
many Google initiatives are as a direct result of meeting the needs of some of
their most demanding customers – Google’s own Knowledge Workers.
6. Encourage creativity
Allowing Google Knowledge Workers to work up to 20% of their time on
projects of their own choice enables creative people to be creative. The extensive
use of a company wide email suggestion box which allows other employees to
comment on and rate the suggestions posted, helps the best ideas to percolate to
the top. Google’s encouragement of creativity would appear to be a strategy to
support the development of motivation and commitment across its workforce.
This level of interaction and collaboration surrounding the generation of ideas
addresses a significant number of motivational needs established by Maslow
(1943); Vroom (1964), Herzberg (cited in Tietjen and Myers 1998). In particular,
this management principle directly addresses some of the specific individual and
working environment motivational concerns expressed by Osteraker (1999).
Page 28
7. Strive to reach consensus
Google believe that ‘the many are smarter than the few’ and solicit a broad base
of views before reaching any decision. This process may take longer; however, it
always produces a more committed team and better decisions.
8. Don’t be evil
Google foster an atmosphere of tolerance and respect, not a company full of yes
men.
9. Data drive decisions
Almost every decision is based on quantitative analysis. Analysts provide
performance metrics and plot trends to keep management and staff as up to date
as possible.
10. Communicate effectively
Regular ‘all-hands’ assembly with announcements, introductions and questions
and answers are key to effective communications within Google. This allows
management to understand what their Knowledge Workers are thinking and vice
versa.
(Schmidt and Varian 2005) define the ten principles in support of the Knowledge
Worker. However, a significant amount of the principles; namely 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 10
appear to promote a more collaborative environment which is generally more
associated with the Learning Organisation than the individual Knowledge Worker
profile (Sveiby and Simons 2002, Trauth 1999). The combination of understanding
the unique qualities that define the Knowledge Worker with the application of the
principles of the Learning Organisation would appear to have created a dynamic,
creative and flexible work environment for Google’s Knowledge Workers.
Irrespective of the optimisation of the organisational structures, there remains a need
for all organisations to be able to monitor the performance of their workers. In
addition, some means of measuring the increase in performance of Knowledge
Workers to gauge the effectiveness of any organisational change is required.
Page 29
2.7 Knowledge Worker Performance
An important theme apparent throughout the literature is the concern about the lack
of control over the Knowledge Worker by management and the inherent ‘invisibility’
of the work that Knowledge Workers do. There appears to be some doubt about the
need for this full scale autonomy claimed by the Knowledge Worker. Davenport
(2005) feels that we let Knowledge Workers get away with saying there is no process
to their work, and that every day is different. Davenport maintains that managers of
Knowledge Workers can get more from their people:
When it comes to Knowledge Workers, we pretty much hire smart
people and leave them alone. No quality measurements, no Six
Sigma, no reengineering. We haven’t formally examined the flow of
work, we have no benchmarks, and there is no accountability for the
cost and time these activities consume. As a result, we have little
sense of whether they could do better. Davenport (2003 pg2)
McGee (2003) has a different perspective wherein he cites Kim Sbarcea, Chief
Knowledge Officer (CKO) at Ernst & Young Australia, commenting on her dislike
for the term ‘Knowledge Management’. It reminds her of ‘Taylorism’ – the scientific
management of factory work: “We speak of ‘capturing’ knowledge; we obsess about
measuring its effectiveness and watch for the bottom line impact of knowledge
management initiatives” McGee (2003 pg1). Sbarcea prefers a more organic
approach to managing knowledge and prefers to call knowledge managers
‘Knowledge Enablers’. McGee empathises with Sbarcea’s view and believes that
prior to Frederick Taylor, some manual work was perceived to be a craft, with master
and apprentice working the process. According to McGee the knowledge economy
brings us back to a world of craft were a significant amount of work is invisible and
takes place inside our heads. So how can this ‘craft’ be supported and managed?
Ash (2004) argues that Knowledge Workers can be managed; however, he maintains
that it is crucial to adopt and facilitate a counselling-leadership style of management.
He sees command and control style as an outmoded concept and advocates the
concept of organisational harmony:
… People need the resources of an organisation, which include
structure, discipline, capital, networks, stature and mission. Equally,
the organisation needs the human and emotional involvement of
people in order to capitalise on their natural assets. Ash (2004 pg3)
Page 30
The literature review thus far has identified that Knowledge Workers do enjoy a
much higher level of autonomy than the more procedural based workers. The high
level of ‘thinking’ involved also suggests that traditional performance measurement
in terms of input and outputs are no longer appropriate. Chilton and Hardgrave
(2004) explore the ambiguity which they propose exists when evaluating general
employee performance. They define ‘performance’ as a term which is often used to
refer to the degree to which an employee has executed his or her assigned duties.
They suggest that certain ambiguity may present when employee duties are
interpreted differently by different rater’s and ratee’s. While Chilton and Hardgrave
(2004) do not specifically mention the Knowledge Worker, it is likely that this
ambiguity will apply to the Knowledge Worker given the ‘intangible’ nature of a
significant portion of their work.
Konata et al (2000) however, vehemently believe that knowledge cannot be
managed; only enabled. By ‘enabled’ Konata et al, mean creating an environment
whereby Knowledge Workers are nurtured, supported and encouraged to share a
space where knowledge is created, exchanged and used for a sustained competitive
advantage. In relation to performance measurement, Konata et al caution that “… a
narrow definition of performance and value can end up undermining a company’s
competitive advantage rather than maintaining them. In the post-industrial
knowledge economy, innovation is the name of the game …” (Konata et al 2000
pg174).
Drucker (1997) defines five factors that determine Knowledge Worker productivity:
1. Definition of the task – Knowledge productivity demands that we ask the
question “What is the task?”, in other words the focus is on what needs to be
done rather how it should be done.
2. The responsibility of productivity is imposed on the Knowledge Worker
themselves i.e. Knowledge Workers manage their own productivity and have
autonomy for their own performance
3. Knowledge work requires continuous learning on the part of the Knowledge
Worker, but equally continuous teaching on the part of the Knowledge
Worker.
Page 31
4. Quality of output is at least equally as important as quantity of output.
5. The Knowledge Worker should be seen and treated as an asset rather than a
cost. It requires that Knowledge Workers want to work for the organisation in
preference to all other opportunities.
It seems apparent that irrespective of the organisational structure that is
implemented, that Drucker’s five factors should be taken into account.
2.8 Summary
While there appears to be some ambiguity concerning a definitive description of the
Knowledge Worker, the existence of certain Knowledge Worker characteristics such
as autonomy, skills/education, tacit knowledge, continuous learning, motivation and
commitment are agreed across the literature. The literature describes Knowledge
Workers as educated, committed workers who use their intellect to convert their
ideas into products, services or processes (Drucker 1999, Kumar 2000, Rogoski
1999). Their work is generally unstructured and involves significant ‘thinking time’;
therefore, a lot of their work is ‘invisible’ and impossible to measure. Most of what
they do goes on inside their heads, and their actions and decisions are based on their
insights, experience and intuition as a form of tacit knowledge (Alter 2005).
Changes in business practice, particularly the increase in globalisation, brings with it
high levels of uncertainty and inability to predict the future (Nonaka 1991).
Organisations need the capability to re-think and understand business problems
afresh given the continuous changing environmental conditions. As a result,
Knowledge Workers are a large and growing community of workers in the
workplace and as such, it is important to ensure that they are productive (Davenport
2005, Drucker 1969).
However, Knowledge Workers are different from traditional procedural based
workers. They have developed high degrees of expertise, education and experience
and their primary purpose is to create, distribute and apply knowledge (Davenport
2005). As Kidd (1994) put it “… the defining characteristic of Knowledge Workers
is that they are themselves changed by the information they process”. They
especially differ from other kinds of workers in their autonomy, motivations and
attitudes (Davenport and Prusak 2000). Their desire for continuous learning and
knowledge acquisition is based not only on their need to grow intellectually, but also
Page 32
on their awareness that knowledge itself has a limited shelf life – this is particularly
true of Information Technology Knowledge Workers (Marwick 2001, Rogoski 1999,
Wilson 2002).
There is some dissenting opinion, however, of the concept and characteristics of
Knowledge Workers. Collins (1997) is sceptical of the notion that Knowledge
Workers are worthy of differentiation from the rest of the working population. He is
of the opinion that if organisations are to value workers as key resources then it
would be best to begin from an understanding that all workers are Knowledge
Workers, rather that claim that is a possession of a minority group. Collins’ view is
supported by Wilson (2002) who struggles with what he refers to as the ‘utopian’
idea whereby “individuals are given autonomy in the development of their expertise,
and where ‘communities’ within the organisation can determine how that expertise
will be used’ (Wilson 2002, pg14). Wilson proffers a more dystopian view by
stating that whatever businesses claim about people being their most important
resource, they are never reluctant to rid themselves of that resource (and the
knowledge it possesses) when market conditions decline. Nevertheless, the majority
opinion in the literature does appear to be in favour of differentiating the Knowledge
Worker from other kinds of workers; and therefore brings with it significant
challenge to organisations that wish to support and optimise the use of this valuable
asset.
There is some debate regarding the ability of organisations to ‘manage’ Knowledge
Workers and convert their tacit knowledge into explicit information which can be
utilised throughout the organisation. Some authors (Davenport 2005, Ash 2004)
maintain that Knowledge Workers can and should be managed, albeit with different
management styles and practices to those traditionally associated with procedural
based workers. Others such as Krogh et al (2000) are adamant that Knowledge
Workers and knowledge work cannot be managed, but subscribe to the idea that
organisations should endeavour to create an enabling environment in which
Knowledge Workers can operate effectively.
It is clear that organisations should do whatever they can to support Knowledge
Workers in their work environment (Drucker 1999). However, the autonomous and
non-routine nature of their work needs to be considered when designing an
Page 33
appropriate work environment. The concept of an ‘enabling’ environment for
Knowledge Workers is a recurring theme in the literature. While there are some
enabling frameworks presented, they are necessarily abstract and cannot address the
context of a specific work environment (Nonaka 1991). The concept of a ‘new’
enabling environment for Knowledge Workers suggests that traditional
organisational structures and performance measures associated with more procedural
type workers are becoming less and less effective tools when managing Knowledge
Workers (Chilton and Hardgrave 2004). Despite the absence of viable suggestions
for changes to existing work practices, it seems certain that these existing practices
cannot continue unchanged if organisations wish to effectively support the
Knowledge Worker.
There is a view that Knowledge Workers are dependent on the organisation for
resource, facilities and focus (Ash 2004). Knowledge Workers are likely to engage in
knowledge work to the extent that they have a) the ability, b) motivation and c)
opportunity to do so (Kelloway et al 2000). There is also the challenge presented by
prevailing organisational constraints which can impact on the ability for any
organisation to support its Knowledge Workers. Physical space, available human
resources, budgetary limitations and business objectives are among some of the areas
which can potentially impact on the organisations ability to satisfy the motivational
needs of Knowledge Workers described in the literature (Osteraker 1999). In order to
design an organisational structure, which is optimised in support of the Knowledge
Worker, a thorough understanding of the commitment, motivations, ability and
nature of the work of each individual Knowledge Worker must be obtained. A
detailed understanding of the work environment and organisational constraints must
also be understood, and become an integral part of the design (Ash 2004, Davenport
2005, Nonaka 1991).
2.9 Conclusions and need for research
This literature review has explored the definition of Knowledge Workers and their
main characteristics (autonomy, skills, tacit knowledge, continuous learning,
motivation and commitment). In addition, it has been shown that Knowledge
Workers perform unstructured working and require thinking time, and that this
differs from traditional procedural based workers.
Page 34
Knowledge Workers are considered an important part of the global economy and are
growing in importance in the workplace, particularly as we evolve towards a
knowledge economy (Toffler 1999). However, this increased reliance on Knowledge
Workers means that the maximisation of their productivity will be essential to the
performance of organisations and the motivation of Knowledge Workers will
potentially be a major factor in improving and sustaining productivity.
Motivation of Knowledge Workers together with their high degree of expertise and
experience and their desire for continuous learning is another challenge in sustaining
productivity. There is dissenting opinion as to whether Knowledge Workers should
be differentiated from procedural workers in terms of the management
approach/style and efforts to motivate and sustain productivity improvements.
However, the majority opinion is that Knowledge Workers are a special case and
deserving of their own management style and organisational supports.
The Knowledge Worker relies on the organisation to provide the supports to allow
them to best perform their work but their requirements do not and cannot exist in a
vacuum. Organisational supports for Knowledge Workers will improve performance
but they are constrained by normal business issues such as budget, physical space,
available human resources and business objectives. There are various frameworks or
‘enabling environments’ available but these are generic and must be tailored to fit the
specifics of the organisation.
Information technology workers are considered to be Knowledge Workers and they
fit the broad definition of Knowledge Workers given by Drucker et al. The
management and motivation of IT workers within the constraints of the IT
Department of an organisation, whose core competencies are not in IT, presents a
particular challenge. The IT Department is a support service for the organisation as
opposed to a primary business unit and is resourced on this basis. Is it possible to
optimise the environment to best meet the needs of the Knowledge Workers within
it? What are their motivating factors? What do they feel is limiting their
performance? Can an approach be established which maximises the performance of
the majority without having a negative impact on any of its other staff? These
Page 35
questions must be addressed within the context of a detailed understanding of the
specific organisational constraints.
The generic nature of the ‘enabling frameworks’ outlined above means that a specific
approach will have to be established for this organisation. Given the similarity
between the tasks performed by this department and similar departments in similar
organisations, any specific approach which emerges may have application in more
than just one organisation.
Page 36
Chapter 3 - Research Methodology /
Implementation
3.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the research methodology used to capture data for analysis in
answer to the research question stated in chapter two. The research setting and the
participant profile is described. In addition, research ethics are considered as well as
a review of the possible research limitations associated with this particular approach.
3.2 The Research Setting
The Rehab Group Information Technology Department (Group IT) is an in-house
resource that provides technology-based services to all Rehab Group companies
throughout Ireland and the UK. The Department plays an integral role in identifying
opportunities for the organisation to meet its business goals through the strategic use
of technology. Group IT was formed in August 1996 with an initial staff of two, but
has since developed into a team of eleven. As part of the Rehab Group’s
‘Committed to Excellence’ initiative, Group IT is currently defining Key
Performance Indicators to track its own performance in IT service delivery, and the
impact of technologies on the organisation as a whole. Group IT currently holds the
FAS Excellence through People award and has targeted assessment to the ISO 9000
standard in 2007. The Group IT service portfolio includes the following services:
Strategic Planning Systems analysis
Standards, policy and procedure Software design and development
Infrastructure security Procurement
Project Management Helpdesk
3.3 The Research Participants
In order to deliver the range of information technology services in the Group IT
portfolio, Group IT has in its full time employment a number of highly skilled,
highly trained employees. The nature of their work and the way in which their work
is delivered qualifies them as Knowledge Workers as defined in the literature
Page 37
research in Chapter 2. A group of six employees representing a cross section of IT
Knowledge Workers were invited to participate in the research all of whom accepted,
and are denoted by an asterisk as illustrated in the organisation chart in Figure 4
below.
Figure 4. Group IT Department Organisational Chart
The six participants represent a range of different IT-related Knowledge Worker
disciplines including Project Management, Network and Security design, Software
Engineering and End-user Technical Support.
3.5 The Research Instrument
There is considerable debate regarding the relative value of qualitative and
quantitative modes of inquiry (Patton 1990). Siegle (2007) echoing the views of
Merriam (1988 cited in Siegle 2007) and Croswell (1994 cited in Siegle 2007) distil
the predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative modes of inquiry into a useful and
convenient table shown as Table 2 below:
Software Development * Developer #1 Developer #2
UK/Scotland
* Support #3 Support #4
* Network Security
User Support
* Team Leader * Support #1 Support #2
Procurement
Chief Information Officer Gary Merrigan
* Project Manager
Group IT Department Structure
Page 38
Quantitative Mode Qualitative Mode
Assumptions
Social facts have an objective reality
Primacy of method
Variables can be identified and
relationships measured
Etic (outside's point of view)
Assumptions
Reality is socially constructed
Primacy of subject matter
Variables are complex, interwoven,
and difficult to measure
Emic (insider's point of view)
Purpose
Generalizability
Prediction
Causal explanations
Purpose
Contextualization
Interpretation
Understanding actors' perspectives
Approach
Begins with hypotheses and theories
Manipulation and control
Uses formal instruments
Experimentation
Deductive
Component analysis
Seeks consensus, the norm
Reduces data to numerical indices
Abstract language in write-up
Approach
Ends with hypotheses and grounded
theory
Emergence and portrayal
Researcher as instrument
Naturalistic
Inductive
Searches for patterns
Seeks pluralism, complexity
Makes minor use of numerical
indices
Descriptive write-up
Researcher Role
Detachment and impartiality
Objective portrayal
Researcher Role
Personal involvement and partiality
Empathic understanding
Table 2. Predispositions of Quantitative and Qualitative Modes of Inquiry (Siegle 2007 pg1)
For this study, an approach was required which would address specific organisational
factors that potentially impact on performance and effectiveness of the research
participants. A detailed understanding of the culture of the organisation would allow
for an interpretation of contextual and historical aspects of the organisation, namely
Group IT (Lee 1993). Strauss and Corbin (1990 cited in Hoepfl 1997) state that
qualitative research, broadly defined, means "any kind of research that produces
findings not arrived at by means of statistical procedures or other means of
Page 39
quantification". Where quantitative researchers seek causal determination,
prediction, and generalisation of findings, qualitative researchers seek instead
illumination, understanding, and extrapolation to similar situations.
It is the ‘illumination’ or insight potential of a qualitative study that makes this
particular research method appropriate. The inherent ‘invisibility’ of the Knowledge
Worker activities as evidenced in the literature, means that ‘context’ is an important
part of understanding how Knowledge Workers utilise their tacit knowledge.
… if you can’t get them [Knowledge Workers] to describe their work
in detail, you have to observe it in detail. Systematic observation –
also known as ‘shadowing’ or ‘ethnography’ is often an effective way
to understand how Knowledge Workers do their work. (Davenport
2005 pg18).
Whilst the literature describes with reasonable consistency the characteristics of the
Knowledge Worker, there is little clarity evident in the literature regarding the
implementation of methods to help further understand how these characteristics can
be supported and developed to their full potential within the constraints of
organisational structure. Therefore, an appropriate research methodology should be
one which provides an opportunity to observe and analyse the context of Knowledge
Worker motivations and decisions that underlie their behaviour and work methods.
This observation and analysis should provide input into the creation of an
environment in which optimally supports the Knowledge Worker.
Qualitative approaches are frequently less structured than quantitative
ones. They are concerned with describing, understanding, developing
and discovering… Cresswell (1994 cited in Shipton 2001 pg9).
It was decided that ethnographic research was the most appropriate approach
considering the intimate setting required to capture the specific Knowledge Worker
contextual variables (Burgess 1982). In ethnography, contextual observation is
fundamental, often occurring through participant observation conducted in the field.
The ethnographic methodology can be distinguished from other methods of
qualitative research by its focus on a particular community or culture. A culture is "...
made up of certain values, practices, relationships and identifications" (Massey 1998
pg1). Therefore, a workplace function such as an information technology department
could be described as a culture; with policies, procedures and relationships between
Page 40
employees and management. Ethnography involves observing people in the natural
settings in which they live/work. This is especially useful when studying Knowledge
Workers as the process provides an opportunity to observe, analyse and interpret
Knowledge Workers in practice, gaining insight and supply of rich data through
interaction with the Knowledge Workers and their specific work environment. As
Siegle (2007) explains:
Human behaviour is significantly influenced by the setting in which it
occurs; thus one must study that behaviour in situations. The physical
setting e.g., schedules, space, pay, and rewards and the internalised
notions of norms, traditions, roles, and values are crucial contextual
variables… (Siegle 2007 pg1)
The ‘complete membership’ role allows researchers adopting such a role to
participate overtly in their research (Adler & Adler 1987). The basis for this is that
the researcher and the subject group “relate to each other as status equals, dedicated
to sharing in a common set of experiences, feelings and goals” (Adler & Adler, 1987,
p67) and therefore there is no need to assume a covert role. The pre-existing
relationship of the researcher and the research participants (manager to staff) had a
significant influence on the decision of the researcher to adopt an overt and inclusive
approach to the ethnographic research.
Shipton (2001), Siegle (2007) and Cresswell (1994 cited in Shipton 2001) agree that
this deep immersion of the researcher within the subject group will yield a good
understanding of the group. Adler & Adler further categorise their ‘complete
membership’ role into two more categories namely; Opportunistic and Convert. It is
the ‘opportunistic role’ which best categorises the researcher’s role during the
ethnographic research for this study. Adler & Adler (1987) opportunistic role is
described as a member already involved in the subject group that they eventually
decide to study. In this context the researcher assuming this role must “create the
space and character for their research role to emerge” and then examine the overall
setting from a different perspective.
3.6 Research Design
Page 41
Participant observation was conducted over a period of six months from October
2006 -March 2007. During this observation period, field notes, minutes of meetings,
email correspondence, internal departmental reports and staff appraisals were
accumulated for analysis and interpretation.
In addition to material captured from the ethnographic research, participant
interviews were conducted to capture individual opinion of preferred organisational
structure in support of their roles:
… it should be noted that there are distinct advantages in combining
participant observation with interviews; in particular, the data from
each can be used to illuminate the other. (Hammersley and Atkinson
1995 pg 131)
It was felt that highly structured interviews would be too restrictive given the
ethnographic approach to the research. Within the boundaries of an ethnographic
interview, conversation must be facilitated and leeway must be given to the
interviewee to talk on their own terms (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995 pg143). In
order to stimulate these conversations these semi-structured interviews were guided
by a series of open questions designed to encourage participants to express their
thoughts, feelings and recommendations concerning organisational supports for their
roles.
The guide questions were influenced by the main themes as evidenced in the
literature review and the additional themes identified from the data gathered during
the participant observational fieldwork. Given the qualitative nature of the research,
and the openness of the questions it was felt important that a sufficient number of
questions were available as participant answers were likely to vary in length. The
interview questions are listed in Appendix B.
The interviews were conducted in a private office meeting room at a time agreed in
advance, and were digitally recorded with participant permission. This location was
chosen to ensure that no interruptions took place during the course of the short
interview sessions. Data were recorded using a combination of the recorded
transcripts and contemporaneous notes. A total of six interviews were conducted,
each interview being approximately thirty minutes in duration. Each of the
participants had also been interviewed as part of the standard appraisal cycle.
Page 42
Given that the questions chosen for the research were specifically designed to
address the themes which emerged in the literature review, a method for matching
the answers given in the interviews to these themes was necessary. Thematic content
analysis enables the use of different types of information in a systematic manner
whilst increasing the accuracy of understanding and interpretation of observations of
people, events, situations and organisations (Boyatzis 1998). This analysis technique
appeared to offer the best means of eliciting the main themes within the data
collected.
Based on Boyatzis (1998) thematic content analysis guidelines, the digitally recorded
interview transcripts were word processed and printed on hard copy to facilitate
repeated review. The data were reviewed using a compare and contrast process to
help extract observable patterns between or amongst the data collected.
This process, called ‘immersion and crystallization” by Miller and
Crabtree (1992), requires extensive note taking during the processing
of the information. (Boyatzis 1998 pg42)
The note taking or ‘coding’ process was executed by re-reading the data, and with
each pass comments were written directly in to the body of the text with a view to
identify and ‘code’ similar patterns or themes in the text.
Coding can be thought about as a way of relating our data to our
ideas about these data. Coffey and Atkinson (1996 cited in Boyatzis
1998 pg5)
To aid the consistency of coding, a ‘code book’ was maintained using an electronic
spreadsheet. The code book is a register containing the following information about
codes created within the data:
The name of each code word.
The parent of the code word (If applicable)
The code word’s definition.
By defining the criteria for each code in the code book, the characteristic or issue
constituting the theme is established and used as a reference when coding additional
segments of the data. This helped to ensure that codes were applied consistently
Page 43
across the entire data set (Boyatzis 1998). As the data coding developed, independent
codes were grouped by classifying each theme in the margin of the documents
alongside each sentence or paragraph as appropriate.
The code book was then updated to reflect the relationships between the code
grouping, creating a family tree of parent and child codes. The final stage of the
thematic analysis was the collation of all information under the themes, ready for
analysis and interpretation.
The combined perspectives of the literature review, the participant observation, and
the participant interviews were interpreted in the light of the emerging themes
relevant to the study in order to develop recommendations in support of the identified
Knowledge Worker preferred organisational structure.
Figure 5. Research Combined Perspective - Preferred Organisational Support
3.7 Research Ethics
Measures have been taken to ensure that the confidentiality of all participants in this
study are maintained at all times. The specific measures taken are as follows;
Research approval
Approval and support for this research dissertation was approved in writing by the
Director of Finance, Rehab Group – see appendix D.
Literature Review
Knowledge Worker
Ethnographic
Study
Knowledge Worker
Interviews Preferred
Organisational
Supports
Page 44
Informed Consent
Each participant was invited to partake in this study on a voluntary basis. Each
participant received a thorough explanation of the research process and the planned
use of the research results and confirmed their understanding and acceptance by
signing a consent form – see appendix C.
Confidentiality
Data captured during this study was analysed and reported in such a manner that no
participant could be individually identified. Pseudonyms were used as appropriate
and participant names were omitted to ensure anonymity.
Without Prejudice
All participants were assured that the data recorded as part of this research was held
in confidence and analysed as a means to recommend improvements to the
organisational structure in support of their roles. As such each participant was
encouraged to speak freely and honestly without prejudice.
3.8 Limitations
Bias
While bias is an inherent part of any ethnographic study it is important to
acknowledge that bias may have occurred (Massey 1998). Qualitative research
significantly relies on ‘interpretation’ not just by the researcher, but also by the
research participants as their story unfolds (Wolcott 2001). Any bias presented is
based on personal experience of the observation process and is interpreted and
presented with regard to the theories as evidenced in the literature review in chapter
two.
Timeframe
The six months observation period for this study could be regarded as a relatively
short period of time compared to ethnographic research norms which are typically
conducted over a period of one or more years. While the day to day activities of the
participants were captured and analysed in detail, there remains the risk that a ‘full-
cycle’ of Knowledge Worker activities may not have been observed. Hammersley
Page 45
and Atkinson (1995) indicates that temporality may be an issue i.e. attitudes and
behaviours may change over time.
Sample Size
There were a total of 6 participants representing 55% of Group IT total staff
numbers. While the practical limitation of timeframe was considered in the design of
this research, this sample size may be regarded as small for the purposes of
ethnographic research.
3.9 Summary This research was conducted in an ethnographic fashion over a six month period,
with six participants of an eleven member information technology department. These
participants were chosen with a view to eliciting the most wide ranging view of the
major themes which emerged from the literature review. The observational
component of the ethnographic research involved the analysis of various working
materials namely minutes of meetings, email correspondence, internal departmental
reports and staff appraisals. In addition, semi-structured interviews were used to
capture the views of the participants with regard to the themes in the literature.
The entirety of this data was analysed and interpreted using thematic content analysis
(Boyatzis 1998). The ethics and limitations of this form of research and analysis /
interpretation were also covered.
In the following chapter, the findings of this thematic content analysis will be
presented and discussed.
Page 46
Chapter 4 – Results
4.1 Introduction
The themes which emerged from the literature review formed the basis of the
thematic content analysis which was performed on the data derived from the
ethnographic observation and interview components of the research methodology.
The data presented in this chapter is broadly grouped on the basis of the major
themes which were identified, namely Autonomy, Motivation, Continuous Learning,
Working Environment, Department Communications, Technology Supports and
Leadership/Management Style.
Following the presentation of the data, an interpretation of the results/findings is
presented.
4.2 Autonomy
4.2.1 Introduction
Autonomy emerged as a key theme throughout the data, however not with the same
intensity as suggested by the literature. While most participants expressed the need
and preference for autonomy, some participants qualified the associated
responsibility by stating that it was important they work closely with colleagues and
accept input from them in the decision making process.
4.2.2 Discretion
Four out of six participants stated that they required and enjoyed an adequate level of
autonomy in the workplace. Of the remaining two participants, one stated that they
did not have enough autonomy, and the other stated that they did not require full
autonomy.
The data also indicated that the need for autonomy and discretion can grow
organically over time, as staff become more familiar with their roles and the
organisation.
Page 47
4.2.3 Decision Making and Authority
Decision making and authority, although closely linked to discretion was considered
worthy of its own theme analysis due to the amount of references to decision making
made by the participants in this study. It was clear from the data that there exists
some differences regarding the levels of authority required by participants. In some
cases authority appeared to be matched at precisely the right level for the
participants’ role. In another case however, there appeared to be a significant
mismatch in the participants perceived required level of authority to that of the
management team, and this seems to have caused him considerable frustration
performing his role.
There was also evidence in the data that considerable decision making authority
existed within some functions. The process of software design and development for
example, appeared to operate almost entirely separately from the rest of the
department’s activities. Only in areas of expenditure or impact on other systems did
software engineers have the need to consult with line management or other
functional experts.
4.2.4 Boundaries
The notion of boundaries of work, decisions, authority and responsibility surfaced
from the data during the observation part of this study. On a number of occasions,
participants challenged each other on the appropriateness of certain individuals
performing certain tasks or indeed making certain types of decisions.
It appeared that responsibilities and job specification should supersede the
willingness to provide help. These concerns were presented in the context of quality
and level of service to end-users as opposed to encroachment on others area of
responsibility.
Whilst the apparent need for autonomy and a continuous desire to learn exists in the
data, some practical examples of the need for boundaries exist. Care must be taken
not to make unilateral assumptions without an opportunity for such items to be
discussed by the rest of the team, prior to their communication to users.
Page 48
4.3 Motivation
4.3.1 Introduction
As evidenced in the literature, motivation is fundamental to almost all behaviour in
the workplace. It is important to understand the motivational factors that influence
Knowledge Worker behaviour, so that an appropriate work environment can be
created that stimulates their production.
4.3.2 Commitment
Participant commitment to their work and the organisation presented itself in
numerous ways in the data. Evidence of commitment ranged from working late
through to significant investment of personal time researching and developing
processes and standards in their field of expertise. Particular determination and
persistence was evident when participants had an opportunity to troubleshoot or
develop new methods directly associated with their work.
Out of hours work is a recognised part of the job within Group IT. Weekends and
bank holiday weekends were seen as a window of opportunity to get things done,
with minimum impact to service users.
4.3.3 Involvement
The desire by participants to be involved in department wide activities is apparent
from the data. Although consistent with the need for new knowledge and continuous
learning, this theme was presented in the context of a desire by the participants to
feel connected to their colleagues and the overall IT service provision in order to
heighten their awareness of the entire activities of the department.
The utility derived from frequent meetings was described by one participant as being
worth the time away from the main day job and any backlog that would build up
during the meeting. The need for a more formalised, department-wide meeting at
intervals ranging from monthly to quarterly was also expressed.
Page 49
4.3.4 Variety
Variety of work activities emerged as an important theme in the context of
participant motivation. While each participant of this study performed high level
unstructured tasks, there was evidence in the data of repetitive work in their day to
day activities. One participant juxtaposed the repetitive nature of some regular tasks
with the constant opportunities for learning presented by project work and new
systems and seemed to be content with the amount of variation in their tasks.
Project work and the prospect of new challenges was a consistent requirement of all
participants of this study. Another participant stated that “The exposure to a number
of work activities keeps me interested and focused”.
4.3.5 Remuneration
Remuneration did not feature as a key motivator for participants in this study. With
the exception of one participant there were no references whatsoever to remuneration
during the observational period or indeed the participant interviews. This single
participant also referred to salary as a secondary motivator compared to other aspects
of their employment; “What motivates me to come in the mornings is a combination
of the challenge and professional pride … I expect that if you do a job to a certain
level of quality then the rewards will follow on from that”.
4.4 Continuous Learning
4.4.1 Introduction
As evidenced in the literature, the need for continuous learning is a key trait in the
profile of Knowledge Workers. This requirement emerged repeatedly throughout the
data. All participants expressed a need for continuous learning; however, there
emerged some potential constraints of knowledge acquisition which are important to
understand when considering organisational structure in support of learning.
4.4.2 The need for continuous learning
All participants without exception expressed their desire and need for continuous
learning in support of their respective roles. As one participant put it, “Learning is of
primary importance … No matter how good you are, there is always something new
Page 50
that you haven’t worked on and it is a challenge”. The learning opportunities desired
by the participants were not limited to information technology topics in particular;
other participants expressed an interest in the different activities of the organisation.
The participants focus on continuous learning and skills development is also apparent
from the documentation produced during the six-monthly Personal and Development
(P&D) reviews. When analysed as part of the field research for this study, the P&D
documentation confirmed that approximately 60% of all support requests from the
participants’ to management during the reviews were concerned with training,
education or skills development.
4.4.3 Mentoring
Regarding methods of learning and knowledge transfer, mentoring and face-to-face
communication was a desire expressed by four of the participants. Participants
described the benefit of ‘face time’, with one stating that he: “…would remember
more from a five minute conversation with somebody than I would from a two page
report”.
Mentoring was not the only vehicle of learning identified from the data; instructor
led courses, self-study, seminars, books and journals and online internet research
were also mentioned as viable learning methods; however, these methods were
expressed as secondary preferences to face-to-face mentoring style learning.
4.4.4 Time for Learning
A recurring concern apparent from the data is the availability of time to be able to
satisfy the learning needs of the Knowledge Worker. As shown in section 4.3.2,
learning is of significant importance to the participants of this study; however, there
exists some time constraints regarding the ability of the organisation to support these
endeavours.
4.5 Working Environment
4.5.1 Introduction
The physical environment in which the participants perform their tasks featured in
the data as an important element of organisational support for their work. The
Page 51
observational phase of this study uncovered two main potential barriers to creating a
supportive physical environment for Knowledge Workers.
4.5.2 Layout and Design
Most participants made reference to a growing concern about the physical work
space in which they perform their tasks. Group IT operates primarily within an open
plan area, with two rooms reserved for management staff and one room occupied by
two software developers
The physical constraints of office space and office layout and design appeared to
have negative impact on some of the participants of this study in that it was noted
that the developers are located away from the main IT open plan area.
The open plan design appears to support some of the participants in a very positive
way, but has the opposite effect on others. A number of positive factors were
evidenced in the observation phase of this study such as; the ease with which
helpdesk support technicians could consult with each other on any given query; the
ability to share information and efficiently plan project work, due to the close
proximity of colleagues; and the general sense of involvement and team spirit due to
the frequent interaction of the support team.
However, the open plan design had some negative aspects such as the lack of a quiet
environment and the disturbance caused by others conversations.
4.5.3 Interruptions
Interruptions to work were highlighted by participants to varying degrees. In some
cases, interruptions were perceived to be an inherent part of the role such as in the
case of helpdesk technicians. Participants performing other roles such as software
development were more sensitive to the impact of interruptions to their work.
Higher levels of frustration and loss of productivity due to interruptions were evident
in the data and are well described by another participant as “upsetting my train of
thought”.
Page 52
The risk to project delivery is also a potential negative consequence of the levels of
disruption to the participants work. Having to rely on others with differing priorities
was expressed as a concern.
4.6 Department Communications
4.6.1 Introduction
Communication amongst Knowledge Workers is an important factor in the success
of a multi-functional technology service department. However, dissatisfaction was
expressed by participants with various aspects of the current communications
approach.
4.6.2 Methods of Communication
Communication with colleagues, customers and suppliers is an integral part of the
delivery of the Group IT service. All six participants confirmed their need for
electronic mail as an efficient means of communication. However, further analysis
revealed that email was generally used as a point of clarity or confirmation,
particularly if the communication was used as part of a project task management or
correspondence with customers or suppliers.
Five out of six participants preferred to capture information or communicate a
concept through face-to-face meetings and conversation. The reason for this
preference was summarised by a participant who said; “Sometimes in terms of trying
to get the message across or explain it, face-to-face or telephone is the best way
because you actually have feedback and body language etc.
4.6.3 Meetings
The subject of meetings created considerable debate both during the observational
phase of this study and indeed during participant interviews. The main arguments
emerging from the debate were that meetings are a good idea provided that they are;
a) necessary and b) relevant. Over a two month period, on average each participant
attended five meetings a week.
However, the data also revealed that while meetings are important, they appear to
lack structure and management, resulting in the majority of them being not as
Page 53
effective as perhaps they should. The pros and cons of department meetings were
articulated by a number of participants; whilst frequency appeared to be okay, there
were issues expressed with the management of meetings, their flow and the lack of
brevity of some attendees. One participant challenged the need for some meetings to
be convened at all and expressed concern about losing time for necessary tasks to
unnecessary meetings.
4.6.4 Collaboration
There exists, in the data, evidence of participant support for one another and
interaction with one another in the performance of their roles. Most participants
stressed the importance of collaboration and indicated some degree of satisfaction
with the current supports available in Group IT. Another participant described the
need for full cooperation from IT colleagues in order to complete their service
delivery; “Collaboration is very important to me … It's a constant interaction with
the relevant people, without them I cannot finish the job properly”.
Another participant indicated that there are areas for improvement in collaboration,
noting his reliance on others and the annoyance that their failure to meet targets can
cause.
There was a dissenting opinion, namely that collaboration is not a significant
requirement given the specialist skills required to understand his area of expertise.
This participant felt that he only needed to collaborate with third parties, in certain
circumstances.
4.7 Technology Supports
4.7.1 Introduction
As an information technology service department, Knowledge Workers within Group
IT are exposed to numerous technologies during their everyday work. However, the
data raises the question as to the effectiveness of these systems in support of
Knowledge Workers.
Page 54
4.7.2 Operational Technology Supports
It was evident from the data that sufficient technology supports were available to
support the general operation of Group IT. Support systems including helpdesk call
tracking database, project management systems and general network monitoring
tools were in place to support the day to day requirements of the participants.
However, it was also evident from the data that these systems were not utilised to
their full extent. For example, a review of the functionality of the Group IT call
tracking system revealed that the Knowledge Base function of the software had only
five entries in its database indicating that this valuable functionality was significantly
underutilised.
4.7.3 Individual Technology Supports
The range and quantity of technology supports in use in Group IT reflected the need
by participants to use software and hardware technologies in direct support of their
specific roles. These requirements were a mixture of technologies common to all and
those which are role-specific.
Participants stated that some additional technology support were required,
particularly in the area of remote working, mobile technologies and diary
management.
4.7.4 Collaborative Technology Supports
The need for collaboration amongst the participants was identified as an important
aspect of their work. The existing interdependency between department functions
means that in order for operational work or project work to be successfully delivered,
communication and information sharing needs to be efficient and effective.
However, most participants stated that there are very little technology supports
available in Group IT to enable collaboration to be easily and efficiently executed.
Page 55
4.8 Leadership / Management Style
4.8.1 Introduction
The literature repeatedly suggests that traditional leadership and management styles
are not appropriate when dealing with Knowledge Workers. This study uncovered
some specific participant preferences concerning management strategy, supports and
intervention.
4.8.2 Strategic Context
During the observational phase of this study, it was apparent that Group IT activities
were primarily focused on operational aspects of IT service delivery. It was also
clear from the data that a strategic view (and detailed plan) existed within the
department, albeit within the ‘confines’ of the management team. Despite this, there
seemed to be a lack of awareness of this strategy amongst operational staff. During
participant interviews, two participants referred to the lack of communication of the
broader details of IT planning and a perceived sense of secrecy. In addition, the
ongoing organisational restructure due to the appointment of a new senior
management team was causing some disquiet.
4.8.3 Management Style
The level of commitment to their work demonstrated by the participants is an
indication that the current management style in practice within Group IT has been
reasonably effective, given that commitment requires a significant amount of
motivation to execute. However, there did not seem to be one distinct management
style which would suit all participants.
Page 56
Chapter 5 – Discussion
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to combine the results of this study and the theoretical
frameworks presented in the literature review, and analyse them in the light of the
inherent organisational constraints of the Rehab Group Information Technology
Department.
5.2 Discretion
Alter (2005) believes that Knowledge Workers do not like to be told what to do and
that they enjoy much more autonomy than other workers. Davenport and Prusak
(2000) agree with Alter and suggest that Knowledge Workers not only need
autonomy, but enjoy the privilege of autonomy and perceive it to be a considerable
motivating factor.
The data supports this; however, it appears that the level of autonomy required by
Knowledge Workers is dependent on a number of factors such as experience and
expertise. When analysed further, participants that expressed a need for full
autonomy tended to be more established in terms of longevity of employment within
Group IT. One of the longest serving participants commented that “… where things
like independence and responsibility comes into place, in fact sometimes I think like
I am my own boss, from Monday to Friday I am looking after my own work and I set
my own deadlines”.
It is difficult to define precisely what autonomy means to each participant based on
the data alone. However, the data does suggest that autonomy has a different
meaning for each individual and that not all autonomy is created equal. The levels of
preferred participant autonomy evidenced in the data can almost be described as
relational; too much autonomy imposed on a Knowledge Worker that doesn’t require
it may be detrimental to their performance and too little autonomy for a Knowledge
Worker that feels they need it, may have the same effect.
Page 57
There were also some tangible constraints evident in the data which need to be
considered when assessing and designing appropriate levels of discretion for each
participant. The nature of and the interdependency between roles within Group IT,
influences the assignment of the constituent tasks of any given project.
5.3 Decision Making and Authority
It is essential that decisions made within Group IT are taken with a full
understanding of the context of overall business priorities. The request by
Knowledge Workers for authority to make “final decisions” must exist within this
constraint. Despite the Knowledge Workers considerable domain expertise, decisions
need to be evaluated across a number a number of headings such as risk, cost,
business service impact and other relevant criteria – which the Knowledge Worker
may not be aware of or privy to.
There exists in the data some evidence of project delay due to existing Group IT
decision making processes. An analysis of project milestones for five projects
running between November 2006 and March 2007 indicated that three of the projects
had some delay imposed upon them due to the need for management review.
Following these reviews, some projects proceeded as per the Knowledge Workers
recommendation, whilst some did not. This reinforced the view of an individual
Knowledge Worker that the review process simply delays the decision making
process, however, ‘sanity checking’ is considered an important part of project
delivery as it ensures high quality, least cost service provision to the business.
Alter (2005) suggests that Knowledge Workers do not like to be told what to do and
enjoy higher levels of autonomy than other workers. Davenport (2005) also cautions
that “Knowledge Workers are usually intelligent, so be careful about assuming that a
particular work task is unnecessary, or that a work process can be improved upon
easily” (Davenport 2005 pg24). Davenport’s view is evident in the data; one
participant expressed some frustration with the management review process and
stated “… that I keep my finger on the pulse of my area of responsibility and
expertise and I think most of my recommendations are relevant and should be
applied”.
Page 58
There exists an opportunity and indeed a challenge to balance the needs of the
Knowledge Worker and organisational requirements surrounding the process of
decision making.
5.4 Boundaries
The concept of boundaries is a theme not frequently mentioned in the literature,
although Davenport (2005) alluded to the concept when he described autonomy and
the Knowledge Worker; “ … efforts to improve Knowledge Worker performance
may involve removing some discretion from the Knowledge Worker” (Davenport
2005 pg17).
While a flexible environment is required to support the motivational needs of
Knowledge Workers, this must be balanced with the appropriate demarcation of both
expertise and responsibility to ensure a consistent high quality service to Group IT
service users.
5.5 Commitment
Davenport and Prusak (2000) suggest that a demonstration of commitment by
Knowledge Workers means that certain levels of trust and loyalty have been
established, which is important to Knowledge Worker effectiveness.
During an interview one participant described the importance of being committed
when he said “In terms of motivation I feel committed to the organisation, committed
to the department, committed to you [Line manager], and committed to my own job.
And that I have a job to do and if I don't perform to sufficient quality then I let down
the department and the service we provide”. This level of commitment was evident
in all participants and appears to be driven by trust, loyalty and a high level of
interest in performing their particular roles. High levels of commitment were
particularly evident when participants were given the opportunity to be involved in
and influence the design and planning of project work within the department. This
sense of ownership appeared to increase the participant’s level of focus and
commitment to project activities.
Page 59
5.6 Involvement
The innate curiosity of Knowledge Workers with regard to activities outside of their
own specific domain of expertise was highlighted by Davenport (2005) when he
observed that Knowledge Workers like to be told certain things such as the broader
significance and implications of their tasks.
Initially, the data appeared to indicate a sense of collaboration within Group IT;
however, further analysis of the data indicated that in fact the requirement for
involvement is merely a means of keeping in touch with the other activities of the
department. Most of the participants were interested in the other activities of the
department and how their work impacted and supported them.
When asked about the usefulness of knowing about other IT department activities,
one participant offered a different perspective; “It would be very useful because my
role looks at all different areas of our service. … (and there) may be an impact on the
existing structure to support (new products)”.
The need to be involved in and understand other activities of the department was
widely expressed in the data. There is currently no mechanism in the organisational
structure to facilitate this interest and develop it to a more collaborative level.
5.7 Variety
Schmidt and Varian (2005) subscribe to the idea of variation of work for Google
Knowledge Workers suggesting that it holds their interest and stimulates creativity.
Within Group IT Knowledge Workers also have an opportunity to work on a variety
of projects. However, this variation is constrained by the requirements of the
business. While this structure facilitates their requirement for varied activities, there
is evidence from the data that novelty may be more important than completeness.
A detailed review of the Group IT project schedule for the period December 2006 to
March 2007 identified for two participants in particular, that whilst all of their
project activities had started, none of them had been completed. On average, they
had stalled at approximately 40% completion.
Page 60
Another example of this direct negative impact to service delivery was evidenced in
the observational field notes of this study. On many occasions, participants were
observed physically leaving their workstations to involve themselves in tasks outside
their role, to the detriment of their assigned tasks and the service delivery aspirations
of the department. Whilst appreciating the view of Krogh et al (2000) of the need for
organisations to ‘create the right context’ in their organisational structure to foster
solid relationships and effective collaboration, this must be balanced against the
needs of the organisation and cannot be achieved at the expense of service delivery.
5.8 Remuneration
The lack of participant reference in the data to remuneration supports the view of
Smits et al (1995) that salary acts mainly as a benchmark to help Knowledge
Workers gauge early career progress and fit. This conclusion is also consistent with
Herzberg (1959 cited in Tietjen and Myers 1998) Two Factor Theory, wherein
remuneration is reviewed as a hygiene factor i.e. not a primary motivator.
A potential explanation for this lack of reference to remuneration maybe the fact that
annual salary reviews had been conducted in early October 2006 which was outside
the scope of the observational period of October 2006 (mid October) to March 2007.
It is also possible that the participants perceive their salary scales as a satisfactory
level of compensation for their work. Participants also appeared to value other
sources of reward such as training, autonomy and the opportunity for continuous
learning through organisational supports.
5.9 Need for Learning
Workers in the information technology sector need to continuously update their
skills in line with technological developments (Rogoski 1999). The rate of change of
technology solutions means that a significant part of the IT Knowledge Workers role
is allocated to research and knowledge acquisition (Marwick 2001). The data
appears to support this view. However, it is important to note that due to the rapid
rate of change in information technology developments, the need for continuous
knowledge acquisition may be more of a requirement than a choice, and that this may
have skewed the data.
Page 61
However, there also exists evidence in the data that Knowledge Workers have a
considerable appetite for the general consumption of knowledge - not just related
directly to their specific job role. When asked how important learning and new
information is for their role, one participant replied “It’s probably the number one
thing that I would set as a goal in my life. Both when it comes to IT related stuff for
the job, and non-IT related stuff for personal life etc. Acquisition of knowledge not
just for the sake of it, I like to use it as well”.
One participant expressed some dissatisfaction regarding the amount of learning
opportunities that were presented by the organisation. This participant’s perception is
particularly interesting considering that Group IT training records had indicated that
this participant alone had consumed 25% of the overall department training budget in
the first quarter of 2007. This indicates that the need for continuous learning is
relative each Knowledge Worker. Some may never be satisfied with the level of
training offered even where they received bigger allocation of budget. However, the
need for training must exist within the context of the budget allocated to the
department, the need to provide training to all staff, and the requirement for training
activities to be aligned to the needs of the business.
5.10 Mentoring
The data supports the literature regarding a preference by Knowledge Workers for
personal contact in knowledge acquisition and transfer. McGee (2003) referred to
Knowledge Work resembling traditional craftsmanship, where workers were
responsible for doing a total job in small groups, and where knowledge was tacitly
passed on from masters to apprentices. “Tacit knowledge transfer generally requires
extensive personal contact. The ‘transfer relationship’ may be a partnership,
mentoring, or an apprenticeship, but some kind of working relationship is usually
essential” (Davenport and Prusak 2000 pg95).
It appears from the data that the participants agree with this view. However, the data
also revealed a potential barrier to successful mentoring, namely that there needs to
be a certain level of ‘compatibility’ between the individuals. As Davenport and
Prusak (2000 pg98) put it “People can’t share knowledge if they don’t speak the
same language”.
Page 62
One participant demonstrated this particular difficulty when describing a preference
for interaction with external consultants over internal department colleagues; “Maybe
it is that I can deal with them [external consultants] on a more logical or a technical
level – actually that's probably what it is”.
Mentoring and ‘face-to-face time’ is the preferred method of learning for most
participants in this study. This preference offers some opportunities for Group IT; for
example, optimising the use of training budget by adopting a train the trainer
approach and passing on the knowledge internally through the use of workshops and
mentoring programs. However, the ability to effectively manage a mentoring
environment is also challenged by the availability of suitably skilled, ‘compatible’
individuals. Where possible, each Knowledge Worker should become a mentor in
one skill or technology. This distribution of responsibility as well as training budget
would be appear to be a more equitable solution than simply empowering one “super
mentor”.
5.11 Time for Learning
Continuous learning is a requirement of Knowledge Workers and is particularly
important in the field of information technology. Senge (1990) is of the opinion that
people should be able to work in an environment “where collective aspiration is set
free and where people are continually learning to see the whole together” (Senge
1990 pg3). While this is a commendable ideal, it is evident from the data that the
existing day-to-day workload of the participants and the increasing demands for
service made by the business, poses a significant challenge when trying to create an
‘enabling environment’ in support of knowledge acquisition within the department.
The impact of day-to-day work pressures and its effect on learning is also evident in
the Group IT training and development records, which were analysed during the field
research for this study. According to the documentation only 25% (2 out of 8
programmes) of approved training programmes scheduled for the first quarter of
2007 had been completed. The primary reason for this lack of progress was the
unavailability of the participants to report for training due to commitment to ongoing
department projects and other business initiatives.
Page 63
Nevertheless, participants demonstrated a laudable commitment regarding time for
learning by taking other measures to ensure that some quota of learning was achieved
in the workplace. One participant outlined his willingness to work late at his own
expense in order to become familiar with new technologies. Another participant
recognised the value in creating time not just for learning but for reflection; “I think
we [Group IT] need a more structured approach to reflection – Where are we at?
Where are we trying to get to? No harm in lifting our heads above the parapet every
so often to make sure we are still on track”. This is an important point as an
organisation working at full capacity does not have time for reflection or the
resources available with which to adapt to change. To be truly effective, learning
time should be formally incorporated to the overall scheduling of Knowledge Worker
activities.
5.12 Environment, Layout and Design
The physical working conditions in support of Knowledge Workers are very
important. As Davenport (2003) suggested “Knowledge Workers need good
processes and technology, but they also need an organizational structure that doesn't
get in their way; an office that facilitates both quiet, concentration-based work and
the free interchange of ideas with co-workers; the ability to both stay put and move
around …” (Davenport 2003 pg1). The data supports the literature; however, there
are significant challenges in accommodating the ideal physical configuration in
support of Knowledge Workers due to the limitations of physical space on the Rehab
Group campus.
The geographical spread of Group IT employees poses some difficulty, particularly
in the area of collaboration, knowledge transfer and the general involvement of all
employees in the department service. This was stressed by one participant whose
office is located in a separate building to the rest of his IT colleagues.
5.13 Interruptions
As evidenced in the literature, significant levels of concentration are required by
Knowledge Workers given the high level of thinking and problem solving involved
in the processing of their work. Therefore, excessive interruptions to Knowledge
Worker concentration can potentially reduce the efficiency and quality of their
Page 64
output, not to mention the considerable opportunity costs associated with
unproductive distractions.
It is also evident from the data that the sources of interruptions that impact on
Knowledge Workers are numerous and varied. Technology has increased the risk and
the variety of ways and ease by which Knowledge Workers can interrupt and be
interrupted. Tools such as telephones, voicemail, email, internet and instant
messaging – which are supposed to promote efficiency and which are the preferred
tools of the participants in this study, are also potentially the greatest source of
disruption to Knowledge Workers.
It is clear from this study that a strategy to counter the impact of unnecessary
interruptions is required. This strategy must address the issue of Knowledge Worker
disruptions, whilst providing minimum impact on collaboration opportunities and
must exist within the organisational constraints of Group IT.
5.14 Communication / Meetings
The preference for communication which emerged from the data is a reiteration of
that which was expressed earlier with regard to mentoring style / preferred learning
environment i.e. face-to-face transmission of knowledge or conversation. The
importance of conversation is emphasised by Krogh et al (2000), when they purport
that it is the most natural and commonplace of human activities and an effective way
to “confirm the existence and content of knowledge, or aim to create new
knowledge” (Krogh et al 2000 pg128). In addition, conversational interaction
generates trust which in turn helps to develop a collaborative approach to business
issues.
It is also evident however, that there is a current lack of any formal organisational
supports in Group IT whereby participants would be afforded the time and facilities
to converse on a more regular basis.
In addition to informal conversation, the need for more formalised meetings also
emerged from this study. However the effectiveness of these meetings is a concern,
particularly with regard to their relevance and structure. Knowledge Workers have a
Page 65
preference for efficient and effectively managed meetings from which they can gain
some value in return for the investment of their time.
Davenport and Prusak (2000) believe that the best way an organisation can support
knowledge transfer amongst its workforce is to “hire smart people and let them talk
to each other”. The lack of Knowledge Worker availability is a general barrier to
most initiatives involving learning, communication and knowledge transfer – all the
more reason why meetings and other opportunities to converse should be optimally
managed.
5.15 Collaboration
The level of collaboration required by participants appears to vary depending on their
particular roles and perceived level of expertise. The more junior participants
expressed a preference for increased collaboration with their more senior colleagues.
However, this need for collaboration was noticeably unidirectional. As evidenced by
the fact that some senior participants only referenced external third parties in respect
of their need for collaboration and seemed to implicitly regard junior colleagues as
not worthy of collaboration.
Geographical position is challenge where collaboration is required, because it is
difficult to feel part of a community when you are physically located outside of the
community. One participant based in the UK finds it difficult to sustain levels of
interaction with the support team in Ireland. This participant echoed the desire for
more collaborative participation across Group IT, but acknowledged the difficulty of
distance between himself and his Irish colleagues; “I believe in cross functional
teams so that people can learn from each other. I think if we were engaged more in
general discussions with other parts of the business I think it could be very beneficial
for all concerned instead of people sitting in silos. But this is difficult to achieve over
the telephone alone”.
The literature generally refers to collaboration challenges in the context of such
topics as trust and staff relationships. However this study did not reveal any
particular issue concerning participants trust and willingness to participate in
knowledge transfer initiatives. The main issue that emerged from the data regarding
collaboration in Group IT is the apparent lack of opportunities and support for such
Page 66
initiatives to take place more often. The availability of Knowledge Workers, the
geographical distance between some of them appear to be the main challenge for
collaboration supports within Group IT.
5.15 Technology Supports
The under-utilisation of certain existing technology supports was apparent in the
data. One participant acknowledged the fact that systems are under utilised when
specifically referring to the helpdesk logging system. Analysis of the Group IT
training programme for 2005/6 confirmed that sufficient training had been delivered
during the implementation of new systems, and that appropriate personnel had been
in attendance.
Another challenge apparent from the data appears to be the issue of available time to
execute these new skills and products in the workplace, a problem which appears to
be particularly prevalent with Knowledge Workers according to Davenport (2005
pg62); “Few Knowledge Workers have any spare time today for recording their most
recently learned lessons, or for taking calls from co-workers seeking their expertise.
If we want Knowledge Workers to adopt these knowledge behaviours, we will have
to free up some time for them to do so”.
On review each participant demonstrated a high degree of discipline with regard to
the organisation of their individual work data. Each participant organised data and
information into organised folders. The folders were classified by project, or by
subject matter and information were easily retrieved from the participant workstation
when required. However, as this data resided on central file servers which were
located in the office, access to this information was limited when the participants
were visiting customers or working from home.
The participants expressed a desire for convenient access to all sources of knowledge
that they require to best perform their work irrespective of their physical location.
Technologies such as mobile phones, Personal Digital Assistants and BlackBerry
devices are potential technology supports for the Knowledge Worker to support them
is this manner. The ability to communicate and transfer information while mobile
could potentially facilitate the development of a more collaborative environment
within Group IT.
Page 67
5.16 Strategic Context
It was apparent from the data that the participants in this study were concerned about
the general level of communication from the Group IT management team regarding
the future plans for the department and its services. This concern may have been
exacerbated by the prevailing organisational change implemented by the newly
formed General Management Team. However, there needs to be an understanding
that there will always be occasions when information cannot be communicated due
to its sensitivity or confidentiality.
Nevertheless, it is important that Knowledge Workers understand the impact of their
work in the context of Group IT and the broader context of the organisation. As
Davenport (2005) suggested, they [Knowledge Workers] need to know the industry
direction, the organisation position within the industry, and how their individual
performance relates to these factors. This information needs to be formulated, agreed
and clearly communicated to Knowledge Workers so they can recognise that their
work and any autonomy which is associated with it, must exist within the strategic
and operational context of organisation in its entirety.
5.17 Management Style
Ash (2004) believes that a command and control style is not suitable when managing
Knowledge Workers and suggests that managers adopt a more counselling –
leadership style. Participants of this study had no direct issues with the management
style which currently exists within Group IT. This style provides the participants
with both a significant degree of autonomy and a high level of access to management
team members.
However, as evidenced by the data which emerged in this study, the level of
autonomy is not sufficient for some of the participants and the access to the
management team members may not be in the preferred format for these participants.
While the literature refers to various strategies for motivating and managing
Knowledge Workers, there appears to be no single collective way to achieve this.
Individual personalities, motivations, values and beliefs would appear to require an
approach customised on a case by case basis. This approach needs to be both
pragmatic and mindful of the prevailing organisational constraints.
Page 68
Chapter 6 – Recommendations and
Proposals for Future
Research
6.1 Introduction
This study identified a number of organisational constraints which may limit the
motivational improvements that Group IT can provide for its Knowledge Workers.
Despite these constraints, a number of recommendations have emerged which appear
to be achievable in the short to medium term. More significant changes may be
achievable in the long term with additional organisational supports / resources. These
recommendations are outlined below.
6.2 Recommendations
Short Term
1. Regular communication briefings should be held to ensure that Knowledge
Workers are aware of the overall service activities of Group IT.
2. The management review process should, where practicable, involve relevant
Knowledge Workers. This is required to ensure efficient, informed decision
making within the context of overall business priorities.
3. The Group IT staff appraisal procedure should be updated to include incentives
based on knowledge sharing. This is likely to encourage more interaction
between Knowledge Workers and should help to develop staff commitment to
increased collaboration.
4. The use of mobile technology should be explored as a means of introducing a
potentially more convenient, flexible method of information access for
Knowledge Workers.
5. Knowledge Worker training schedules should be reviewed with the aim of
identifying opportunities for internal mentoring programmes. Where possible,
each Knowledge Worker should become a mentor in one skill or technology.
Page 69
This distribution of responsibility as well as training budget will ensure a more
equitable solution than simply empowering a single “super mentor”.
Medium Term
6. The levels of discretion afforded to Group IT Knowledge Workers should be
re-assessed to take into account their relative levels of experience and expertise.
These should be interactive sessions allowing Knowledge Workers significant
input to the process of assessing the level of autonomy with which they are
most comfortable.
7. Cross functional teams should be established with a view to ensuring that all
available expertise is utilised during project and service planning and that
Knowledge Workers have an opportunity to become more aware of their
colleagues work and to feel able to contribute their own insights. This cross-
pollination of ideas has the potential to create new methods of addressing the
organisations business needs in addition to promoting an increased sense of
ownership of Group IT service activities.
8. Communications technology should be explored as a means of facilitating
interactions between Knowledge Workers. Technology has the potential to
combat the constraint of physical space on the Rehab Group campus and offers
an opportunity to engage more fully, geographically dispersed team members.
Longer Term
9. Group IT staff numbers should be increased to address growing service
demands whilst providing time for reflection, collaboration and adaptation.
10. Physical layout and design of workspace should be reviewed with the aim of
creating an environment which:
a) Facilitates collaboration amongst Knowledge Workers
b) Improves their ability to share information and efficiently plan project work
c) Promotes a sense of involvement and team spirit due to the ease of
interaction of team members
d) Provides for the most efficient promulgation of ideas
Page 70
6.3 Implications of Research
Three main factors emerged from the results of this study which are perhaps worthy
of consideration when designing an organisational structure in support of Knowledge
Workers.
1. Knowledge Worker needs are relative to each Knowledge Worker. Whilst the
participants of this study shared common characteristics such as the need for
collaboration, the level of collaboration required by participants appeared to
vary depending on their particular roles and perceived level of expertise.
2. While the literature refers to various strategies for motivating and managing
Knowledge Workers, there appears to be no single collective way to achieve
this. Individual personalities, motivations, values and beliefs combined with the
unique working methods of Knowledge Workers, would appear to require an
approach customised on a case by case basis.
3. It is essential to talk to Knowledge Workers and not to assume that all is okay.
Only through conversation and face-to-face interaction with Knowledge
Workers is it possible to understand their innermost thoughts and desires.
6.4 Limitations
Bias
Considerable effort was made to ensure that objectivity was maintained at all times
during this research. There is no evidence in the data that the subjects altered their
performance due to increased observation (the Hawthorne Effect). However, the use
of the ‘researcher as instrument’ approach (where the researcher is the head of the
department) introduces some risk of bias in this study.
Timeframe
The six months observation period is quite a short time for a study utilising
ethnographic and thematic content methods. The large volume of data generated in
this research required significant time to analyse and interpret due to the considerable
manual work involved in the thematic ‘coding’ of the data segments. Those
considering a thematic content analysis approach to their study should consider
Page 71
acquiring appropriate technology in support of the analysis of the data. The time
required to gain sufficient familiarisation with the technology should also be factored
into the research plan.
Sample Size
While the practical limitation of timeframe was considered in the design of this
research, this sample size may be regarded as small for the purposes of ethnographic
research.
6.5 Further Research
The detailed description of the research methodology in this dissertation may provide
useful insights to researchers planning to engage in a qualitative research study using
thematic content analysis.
The list of recommendations set out in section 6.2 may provide a basis for future
research through the application of these changes in support of IT Knowledge
Workers in other organisations and the measurement of the impact that these changes
have in their particular work environment. These recommendations could also be
applied to Knowledge Workers working in a different industry such as healthcare, to
see if the findings of the research have application in the support of Knowledge
Workers in other industries.
Perhaps the most immediate opportunity for further research is that which addresses
the limitations set in section 6.4 (Bias, Timeframe, Sample Size). Repeating the
approach used herein, whilst varying one or more of these variables, may provide
insights into the validity of the results obtained and the utility of the
recommendations which followed from same.
Page 72
Bibliography
Adler, P.A., and Adler, P. 1987. Membership roles in field research: Vol. 6.
Qualitative research methods. USA: Sage Publications.
Alter, A. 2005. Knowledge Workers need better management [Online]. Available
from: <http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1843978,00.asp> [Accessed 20th
November 2006].
Ash, J. 2004, theKnowledge [Online]. Available from:
http://www.bookladder.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=4
Baker, L.M. 2006. Goliath Knowledge is Power: Observation a complex research
method (Ethnological methods) [Online]. Available from: goliath.ecnext.com
(Commercial Purchase) 4th March 2007].
Blackmore, S. 1999. The Meme Machine. London: Oxford University Press
Bookladder.com, 2007, Motivational Theory: Overview of key issues in Student
Motivation [Online]. Available from:
<http://www.kwork.org/Resources/Ash_interview.pdf> [Accessed 4th January 2007].
Boyatzis, R.E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information – Thematic Analysis and
code Development. London: Sage Publications
Burgess, R.G. 1982. Field research: A source book and field manual. London: Allen &
Unwin
Carson, C.M. 2003. A historical view of Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y.
Management Decision. 43 (3), pp450-460
Cesare, J. and Sadri, G. 2003. Do All Carrots Look The Same? Examining the
Impact of Culture on Employee Motivation. Management Research News. 26 (1),
pp29-40
Chilton, M. A. and Hardgrave. B.C. 2004. Assessing Information Technology
Personnel: Toward a Behavioral Rating Scale [Online]. Available from:
<http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1020000/1017122/p88-
chilton.pdf?key1=1017122&key2=5662444511&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=
634665&CFTOKEN=62811529> [Accessed 11th November 2006].
Collins, C. 1997. Knowledge work or working knowledge? Ambiguity and confusion in the analysis of the “knowledge age”. Employee Relations. 16 (1), pp38-50
Cortada, J.W. 1998. Rise of the Knowledge Worker. USA: Butterworth-Heinemann
Creswell, J. W. 1994. Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. CA:
Sage Publications.
Page 73
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. 2000. Working Knowledge. USA: Harvard Business
School Press
Davenport, T.H. 2003. A Measurable Proposal. CIO Magazine, [OnLine] Available
from: <http://www.cio.com/archive/060103/order.html> [Accessed 11th February
2007]
Davenport, T.H. 2005. Thinking for a Living. USA: Harvard Business School Press.
DCU 2006. Guidelines on best practice in research ethics. [Online]. Available from:
<http://moodle.dcu.ie/mod/resource/view.php?id=108405> [Accessed 10th January
2007]
Drucker, P. 1969. The Age of Discontinuity. New York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. 1994. The Age of Social Transformation [Online]. Available from:
<http://www.providersedge.com/docs/leadership_articles/Age_of_Social_Transform
ation.pdf> [Accessed 28th January 2006].
Drucker, P. 1995. Managing In a Time of Great Change. England: Butterworth-
Heinemann
Drucker, P. 1997. The Future That Has Already Happened. Harvard Business
Review. (September-October 1997)
Drucker, P. 1998. The coming of new organization. Harvard Business Review,
pp.45-53.
Drucker, P. 1999. Knowledge Worker Productivity: The biggest challenge, 80
pp287-304
Drucker, P. 2000. Managing Knowledge means Managing Oneself. Leader to
Leader. 16 pp8-10
Drucker, P. 2001. The Essential Drucker. New York: Collins
Gary, L. 2005. Peter Senge: the dynamics of change and sustainability [Online].
Available from: <http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4709373/Peter-Senge-
the-dynamics-of.html> [Accessed 13th December 2006].
Gold, R. 1958. Roles in Sociological Field Observation, Journal of Social Forces, 16
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. 1995. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 2nd
Ed. London: Routledge
Handy, C. 1990. Inside Organizations. London: Penguin Books
Handy, C. 1995. Gods of Management. London: Arrow Books Limited
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., H. 2006. Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership
[Online]. Available from:
Page 74
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/leadership/styles/situational_leadership_hersey_
blanchard.htm, [Accessed 6th January 2007]
Introduction to Management, 2007, Motivation [Online]. Available from: <
http://www.wmc.ac.uk/flm/motivation/vroom.html> [Accessed 8th January 2007].
Kidd, A. 1994. The Marks are on the Knowledge Worker. [Online]. Available from:
<http://interruptions.net/literature/Kidd-CHI94-p186-kidd.pdf> [Accessed 10th
November 2006]
Krogh, G.V., Ichijo, K. and Nonaka, I. 2000, Enabling Knowledge Creation. New
York: Oxford University Press
Kumar, N. 2000. Where the rubber meets the road [Online]. Available from:
<http://www.siliconindia.com> [Accessed 5th September 2006].
Laycock, M. 2005. Collaborating to complete: achieving effective knowledge
sharing in organizations. The Learning Organisation. 12 (6), pp523-538
Iles, V. and Sutherland, K. 2001. Managing change in the NHS London: NHS
Service Delivery and Organisation Research and Development.
Machlup, F. 1973. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United
States. USA: Princeton University Press
Maslow, A.H. 1943. A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. 50 (4),
pp 370-396
Maslow, A.H. 1954. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row
Massey, A. 1998. 'The Way We Do Things Around Here': The Culture of
Ethnography [Online]. Available from:
<http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/2961/waywedo.htm> [Accessed 20th December
2006].
McGee, J. 2003. McGee’s Musings – Is knowledge work improvable? [Online].
Available from: <http://www.mcgeesmusings.net/2003/02/06.html> [Accessed 16th
October 2006].
Merriam, S. B. 1988. Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nonaka, I. 1991. The Knowledge Creating Company. Harvard Business Review. 69,
November-December, pp96-104.
Osteraker, M.C. 1999. Measuring motivation in a learning organisation. Journal of
Workplace Learning. 11 (2), pp73-77
Pears, D. 1972. What is knowledge? London: George and Unwin
Page 75
Perlson, M. R. 1982. How to Understand and Influence People and Organizations.
New York: Amacom
Prusak, L. 2001. Where did knowledge management come from? IBM Systems
Journal. [Online]. Available from: <
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/prusak.html > [Accessed 4th February
2007]
Rajkumar, R., del Ray Chamorro, F.M., van Wegan, B. and Steele, A. 2000. A
Framework to Create Performance Indicators in Knowledge Management [Online].
Available from: <http://ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-
34/roy_et_al.pdf> [Accessed 5th July 2006].
Rogoski, R.R. 1999. Knowledge Workers Top Company Assets. Triangle Business
Journal. 14 (19), p21
Schmidt, E. and Varian, H. 2005. Google: Ten Golden Rules [Online]. Available
from: <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10296177/site/newsweek/> [Accessed 3rd
February 2007].
Senge, P. 1999. The Fifth Discipline: The Learning Organisation. USA: Random
House Books
Shipton, H. 2001. Organisational Learning: quantitative v. qualitative approaches –
selecting the appropriate methodology [Online]. Available from:
< http://www.wlv.ac.uk/PDF/uwbs_OP02_01_Shipton.pdf> [Accessed 5th January
2007].
Siegle, D. 2007. Qualitative versus Quantative – Del Siegle [Online]. Available
from:
< http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/research/Qualitative/qualquan.htm> [Accessed
6th January 2007].
Smits, S.J., Tanner, J.R. and McLean, E.R. 1995. Herzberg Revisited: The Impact of
Salary on the Job and Career Attitudes of I/S Professionals [Online]. Available from:
<http://delivery.acm.org.remote.library.dcu.ie/10.1145/220000/212588/p92-
smits.pdf?key1=212588&key2=9369252711&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=120807
35&CFTOKEN=77777437> [Accessed 11th February 2007].
Sveiby, K.E. and Simons, S. 2002. Collaborative Climate and Effectiveness of
Knowledge Work – an empirical study [Online]. Available from:
<http://www.emeraldinsight.com.remote.library.dcu.ie/Insight/ViewContentServlet?
Filename=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/2300060501.pdf> [Accessed 19th
January 2007].
Taylor, F.W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper &
Row
Tietjen, M.A. and Myers, R.M. 1998. Motivation and job satisfaction. Management
Decision. 36 (4), pp226-231
Page 76
Toffler, A. 1990. Power shift: Knowledge, wealth and violence at the edge of the
twenty-first Century. New York: Bantam Books
Toffler, A. 1999. The Third Wave [Online]. Available from:
< http://www.accd.edu/pac/philosop/phil1301/Wave3lec.htm> [Accessed 28th
January 2007].
Toledo, M. and Unger, E.A. 1985. Another Look At Motivating Data Processing
Professionals. [Online] Available from: The ACM Digital Library
<http://delivery.acm.org.remote.library.dcu.ie/10.1145/1040000/1036355/p1-
mata.pdf?key1=1036355&key2=0709252711&coll=portal&dl=ACM&CFID=12081
798&CFTOKEN=11687049> [Accessed 9th February 2007].
Trauth, E.M. 1999. Who owns my Soul? The Paradox of Pursuing Organisational
Knowledge in a Work Culture of Individualism. [Online] Available from: The ACM
Digital Library
<http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=299655&coll=ACM&dl=ACM&CFID=5680
6&CFTOKEN=31872618> [Accessed 15th December 2006].
Wilson, T.D. 2002. The nonsense of knowledge management. Information Research.
[Online]. Available from: <http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html> [Accessed
21st January 2007]
Wolcott, H.F. 2001. Writing Up Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications
Page 77
Glossary of Terms
Excellence through People: Excellence through People is the Irish national human
resource management standard. It has been welcomed and supported by employers,
their staff, trade unions and government.
Organised Folder: Originally a Microsoft Windows concept. It is a directory on a
computer that is available to other computers on the same network via the Microsoft
Windows Network Protocol.
Page 78
Appendices
Appendix A: The many methods of qualitative research
Appendix B: Participant Interview Questions
Appendix C: Research Study - Participant Consent Form
Appendix D: Research Study – Rehab Group Approval
Page 79
Appendix A.
The many methods of qualitative research.
1. Participant-Observation
2. Ethnography
3. Photography
4. Ethno methodology
5. Dramaturgical Interviewing
6. Sociometry
7. Natural Experiment
8. Case Study
9. Unobtrusive Measures
10. Content Analysis
11. Historiography
12. Secondary Analysis of Data
Page 80
Appendix B.
Participant Interview Questions
Session Opening Questions
Step me through a typical day, from the time you come into work to the time
you leave.
How repetitive or variable are the activities of your typical day?
Job autonomy
In terms of delivering your work, what level of autonomy do you have?
Would you prefer to have more or less autonomy than you just described?
How much influence do you have on the objectives of your work (i.e. on what
you are expected to achieve)?
Are you allowed to plan and schedule your work yourself?
Can you set your own working pace?
What level of discretion can you exercise within your role?
Information and Information Systems
In terms of department and general business communications, do you think
your manager keeps you well informed?
How effective is information and knowledge transfer between yourself and
your colleagues?
How can this be improved?
What is your preferred communication method (i.e. meetings, email, reports
etc) in support of your role? Why?
How effective are the department information technology systems in support
of your role?
How can they be improved?
Collaboration
How much interaction with colleagues and customers exists in your work
area?
What is the most effective way for you to communicate with your colleagues
and customers?
Page 81
How important is team collaboration in enabling you to perform your work?
Are you satisfied with the level of collaboration that exists within the
department in support of your role?
Opportunity/Job complexity
Do you feel that you utilise all of your knowledge and skills in your work?
What is required to enable these skills to be utilised?
Does your work require problem solving and decision making?
How important is learning new skills/knowledge for you to deliver your
work?
Innovativeness
Does the atmosphere of the department encourage you to be innovative and to
develop new ways of working?
How do you get help and support from your colleagues in implementing your
ideas?
How you collaborate with others in order to research and develop new ideas?
How are your proposals for improvement responded to in the department?
Do you feel that your work results are appraised justly in the department?
Satisfaction/Motivation
What attracts you to your current role?
What aspect of your work is the most fulfilling in terms of satisfaction?
What areas of your work are you dissatisfied with?
Organisational Supports
What, if anything, do you think needs to be changed in the department to help
support you in delivering your work?
Do you think the various functions within the department support each other
in their respective goals?
How does the organisation support you with your learning/training process?
Page 82
Appendix C.
Research Study - Participant Consent Form
I volunteer to participate in a research project conducted by Gary Merrigan, Chief
Information & Technology Officer, Rehab Group. I understand that this research
project is designed to gather information about Knowledge Workers preferred
organisational structure within the Information Technology Department with a view
to recommending structural changes in support of the department employees. I will
be one of six people being interviewed for this research.
My participation in this project is voluntary and I may withdraw and discontinue
participation at any time.
I understand that interview discussions will be interesting and thought-provoking. If,
however, I feel uncomfortable in any way during the interview session, I have the
right to decline to answer any question or to end the interview.
Participation involves engaging in 30-45 minute interviews conducted by Gary
Merrigan. Notes will be taken during the interviews and a digital audio recording of
the interviews and subsequent dialogue will be made. I understand that audio
recordings are a prerequisite for participation in the study.
I understand that I will not be identified by name in any reports using information
obtained from this interview, and that my confidentiality as a participant in this study
will be maintained at all times.
I have read and understand the explanation provided to me. I have had all my
questions answered to my satisfaction, and I voluntarily agree to participate in this
study.
I have received a copy of this consent form.
_____________________________________
Print Name
___________________________________ ________________________
Signature Date
Page 83
Appendix D.
Research Study – Rehab Group Approval
Oscail,
Dublin City University,
Dublin 9.
To Whom It May Concern:
Gary Merrigan has full permission to undertake research in the Rehab Group for the
purposes of his dissertation for a Master of Science in Management of Operations.
Permission is also granted to internal and external examiners to read this dissertation
for assessment purposes.
Yours sincerely,
____________________________
Keith Poole
Director of Finance
Rehab Group
