Siemens ShareNet: Building a Knowledge Network This paper provides briefing on Siemens history and discusses the challenges

faced by Siemens while implementing a KM tool ShareNet for the company. It also gives a detailed view as to how ShareNet helped in the growth and gaining efficiency in terms of services provided by the organization. The paper clearly states various facts and figures to show how effectively ShareNet was being used by its users. Besides this, main issue around which most of the paper revolves is to come up with a strategy for future of ShareNet. Because of the meltdown in telecommunications industry and competitive pressures, Information and Communication Networks (ICN) team was under pressure to cut cost for the tool. One of the learning from the paper is that a KM system should be such that it should transfer both codified as well as tacit knowledge of individuals. Both types of knowledge need to be transferred in order for true knowledge sharing to happen, as stated by a team me mber of Business Transformation Partners team in the paper. Features like knowledge library, urgent request, live chat rooms, discussion groups etc, as available in ShareNet, are some of the mechanisms that can be extensively used for such complete knowledge transfer. Another learning from the paper is that a KM system can be made as similar to the systems, mechanisms that people use almost daily. This is so because then people can effectively and easily use the system and would not find it difficult to make best use of it. This is clearly stated by Doring, president of ICN group strategy and its team, as one of the key aspects in design of ShareNet while in their first meeting. Another key takeaway from the paper is that when knowledge sharing is done via codification, the templates, etc can be made simple and clear enough such that people can easily use them and should contain field that can capture the real life feedback on implemented solutions, as stated by Manuth, a manager of the ShareNet team. As online forms for ShareNet were designed in the form of questionnaires, people could effectively transfer their tacit knowledge and experiences in the same. Also, these kind of mechanisms are more interactive as people can input their comments providing details as to how well the solution provided could be used and what more additions can be made, etc. The paper explains that a global KM system can be more helpful as compared to a centralized; only divisions based KM system. This is so because knowledge from all parts of the world, other departments will also be available and much better solutions could be found as and when required. The urgent requests feature of ShareNet is one such example wherein peoples queries were answered from various parts of the world and is thus also a way of communication that is faster and better between individuals who are sitting miles apart. This is stated by Manuth, quoting an example where a person in South America found a solution to his query from a person in Senegal who encountered a similar problem earlier and thus knew the solution. Also, later half of the paper clearly states that due to its global nature, knowledge transfer between various divisions was such that it helped the organization to get more projects. One such example is when data provided by team in Netherlands, helped the team in Switzerland to get a project in their hands. A KM system should be interactive enough so that the people using it dont feel that it is only being codified and nobody knows what happens after that. People feel comfortable to use it when the system gives them a feel of a two-way communication rather than only one way. Live chat rooms, discussion boards, were some of the features due to which ShareNet proved to be an interactive tool for its users. It can be learnt from this that providing interactive features helps in better usage of a KM system and creates the interest of people to use it in a better way. It can also be learnt from the paper that in creating or designing a KM system, the people who are eventually going to use the system can better tell how the system should be like so that based on their needs, everything necessary is taken into consideration. Manuth stated in the paper

Or, we could go out into the field and ask people, How should we do this? And thats what we did. This is a better approach in designing a KM system as the end user can better explain his need rather than just implementing a company policy in the system and asking the people to use it. It is also learnt from the paper that the people should be made aware of the KM system in the organization and should be given a hands-on as to how it can be used for their benefit. It is a challenge and should be considered as one of the initial steps by any KM team in an organization. As stated by Manuth in the paper, The first challenge was trying to get the word out. We were constantly marketing it. We put the logo on anything that moved-pens, caps. Thus, some of the techniques for promotion of the KM system were learnt from the paper that can be very helpful in making the end users aware of the system and its benefits. Also as stated in the paper, workshops can also be used for making such awareness and giving the people a hands-on on the system. The paper also mentions about the ShareNet managers and consultants appointed who policed the network, monitored the contributions for quality and offered feedback when appropriate. Such a hierarchy in the KM team can be helpful as the quality of the content uploaded in the system can be checked and also under such monitoring, the end user take the system seriously and contribute quality content which can be evaluated by the managers or consultants. Another take away from the paper is the motivation factor. The end users need to be continuously motivated so that they contribute and make good use of the KM system. Gerhard Hirschler, a ShareNet manager, stated, There were always excuses. People said, I havent the time to spend on this.. They tried the incentives and giving shares scheme to motivate such people, which gave positive results from the end users as people started using it. The paper quotes the figures as The scheme prompted significant increases in the quantity of contributions-in 200, over 396,000 shares were awarded. Thus, it can be learnt that incentives can be given to people based on their contribution to the system so that they are motivated to contribute more and more. One approach used by the organization, as stated in the paper, is using limited-time promotions in order to increase new object contributions and feedback on existing knowledge objects. It is clearly demonstrated via charts in Exhibits 8 through 11, the contributions almost doubled during these time periods. Thus, it can be learnt from this that such an approach can be helpful in promoting knowledge sharing amongst the individuals and motivating them to contribute. Another take away from the paper is that a KM systems performance and usage can be evaluated based on the number of users who actually contribute to the system, number of objects that are being added or updated in the system in a particular period of time, amount of time it takes on an average for peoples queries to be resolved or when they get the best suitable answer for their problem and also by knowing how many project deals the organization won due to the effective usage of the system. The Exhibit 8, 12, 13, 14 provide clear data for Siemens with respect to all these criteria and prove that ShareNet has been an effective tool for the organization. Also, Manuth states, that almost twenty-seven project deals were won because of the use and contribution of ShareNet which is thus proof of effectiveness the ShareNet in itself. Last but not the least, the cost factor plays an important role in managing the KM system itself. In terms of giving promotions and motivation to the end users, the incentives and shares awarded by the ShareNet team, led to increased of cost pressures on the team, which in turn led to the debate that divisions using the system should be charged or not so as to make the cost manageable. Thus, it can be learnt from this that cost effectiveness is another factor which should be considered when a KM system is being designed.