Professional services firms utilise knowledge management tools, for example, IBM and Oracle solutions and toolkits, in their day-to-day client-facing operations. The effectiveness of toolkits must be evaluated to establish their actual value.
This article evaluates the current toolkit used by the South African client-facing professionals of a global multinational corporation.
Pragmatism philosophy was used because of the various perspectives needed to interpret the data. Data were collected from 30 participants who adhered to sample eligibility criteria. An interview was used to collect data to help determine which tools worked well and what had to be improved on.
The most value-adding tool was the Experience Tool, whereas the Collaboration Tool ranked the least valuable. The Collaboration Tool showed the most potential to increase its value. The results gave a clear indication of areas of improvement that will enable a professional services firm to strategically position its knowledge management toolkit towards adding value for client engagements.
The study contributes towards evaluating the knowledge management toolkit, analysing areas of improvement, and recommending components such as machine learning, online collaboration and other activities that would enhance the knowledge management toolkit.
Service excellence pivots on knowledge work and client engagement (Birkinshaw, Cohen & Stach
Organisations choose to invest in KM for different reasons, such as timely netting the knowledge of retiring people and sharing knowledge more efficiently for current and future operation (Hetey et al.
Knowledge, goodwill and brand are three of the most important factors contributing to an organisation’s value in the marketplace (Andriani et al.
The research problem identifies the gap in the subject field that focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of KM tools and resources in professional services firms. Specifically, there was no evidence in place that proved the effectiveness of the KM toolkit of the PSF. A method of deciphering in which areas the KM toolkit required improvement did not exist and therefore the research aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of KM tools in a professional services firm. In order to evaluate the tools, the objectives were:
to rank the KM tools of a professional services firm
to determine the current and potential value of KM tools of a professional services firm
to identify the value of KM tools from the perspective of client-facing users of a professional services firm.
Firstly, the article begins by reviewing the literature of KM toolkits for professional services firms. Secondly, it describes the research design, followed thirdly by analyses of research findings of how the KM toolkit provided solutions for client-facing professionals and what the gaps were in the KM toolkit. The article concludes with a recommendation of what needs to be implemented to improve the efficiency of the KM toolkit. Overall, the study contributes towards evaluating the PSF’s KM toolkit. The analysis of areas of improvement and recommendation of how to enhance the KM toolkit may also benefit other professional services firms’ KM initiatives.
Organisations that have implemented KM initiatives and toolkits are more likely to achieve competitive advantage (Sook-Ling, Choo-Kim & Razak
Multinational corporations such as professional services firms that operate at global scale often execute complex projects and processes. It is therefore not strange for even minor projects and repetitive business activities to include numerous stakeholders and technologies covering different functions, business areas and even geographies (Muras & Hovell
According to Muras and Hovell (
As technological tracking abilities become more refined, and machine learning improves the relevance of retrieved information, organisations are now collecting and measuring more data, and these trends are bound to increase as firms encounter even more advanced technologies (Dallemule & Davenport
Leading organisations acknowledge that innovation does not happen in seclusion; instead, using a variety of platforms for collaboration and knowledge transfer prompt innovation (Andriani et al.
Knowledge management tools focus on advocating innovation processes in an organisation, emphasising performance, competitive advantage, sharing lessons learnt, integration and continuous improvement of business processes (Jenab et al.
Information-based organisations are made up of experts and specialists who direct and guide their own performance via feedback from clients and colleagues (Drucker
Knowledge that one receives from outside the organisation.
Dedicated resources who generate knowledge for a specific reason within the organisation.
Fusion of knowledge, when people of different expertise are assigned to work together on a specific project.
Adaptation of knowledge occurs when there is a need to respond to new technologies or products in the market.
Knowledge networking is knowledge generated when people share knowledge in a formal or informal environment.
Nonaka and Takeuchi (
Knowledge management is shaped by interactions between people who create and share knowledge; processes that are ways in which the knowledge is shared, generated, organised and disseminated; and technologies that are devices used to store, generate and disseminate knowledge (Hosseini et al.
An organisation’s processes must be efficient and flexible enough to overcome present-day difficulties (Andriani et al.
Although process and technology are vital aspects of an organisation, it is the capability of
Knowledge management toolkits are important to deliver business value; however, some technologies could potentially hinder knowledge transfer, especially when a consultancy firm’s KM programme ‘fit for purpose’ is unclear (Donnelly
To evaluate the effectiveness of KM tools, the research methodology for determining which of the PSF’s KM toolkit elements were most effective and which needed adjustment follows next. The elements are Project Tool elements, Eminence Tool elements, Expert Locator Tool elements, Content Locator Tool elements, Research Tool elements, Compliance Tool elements, Instant Messaging Tool elements and Online Collaboration (OC) Tool elements.
Since the focus of this study was on evaluating the effectiveness of KM tools, rich text had to be collected to evaluate what has been working well and what has been lacking from the perspective of the client-facing users of the PSF’s KM tools. A qualitative research paradigm was best suited to evaluate the effectiveness of the KM toolkit from a pragmatism philosophy because of the various perspectives needed to interpret descriptive data (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill
The researchers followed an inductive approach, which meant that the researchers collected data to conceptualise the value creation framework of the KM toolkit for the PSF. Because a value creation framework was non-existent prior to the study, this study was designed to collect data on the perceptions, attitudes and beliefs of the research participants. As perceptions, attitudes and beliefs are difficult to quantify (Saunders et al.
To collect rich text, the interview schedule was aligned to the study’s four research questions and the data collection instrument consisted of semi-structured questions for each KM tool. The four research questions were as follows:
What aspects of the PSF KM toolkit are successful and why?
What aspects of the PSF KM toolkit are unsuccessful and why?
Which aspects of the PSF KM toolkit have been omitted?
What aspects of the PSF KM toolkit need to be amended to facilitate efficiency in client engagements?
The population of relevance was selected from a single multinational professional services firm based in South Africa. A non-probability, purposive sampling was used to answer the research questions from a list of relevant employees that were best able to answer the research questions and meet the criteria (Saunders & Lewis
The research interviewed all participants with respect to all tools within the KM toolkit. For this research, ‘KM toolkit’ referred to a set of separate platforms, each having the purpose of meeting client-facing professionals’ requirements to add value to client relationships. This article uses tool pseudonyms to assist in the discussion and anonymise the PSF’s proprietary tools in accordance with the conditions of obtaining ethics clearance for the research project.
The findings from the interviews for each tool were analysed by using an integrated interpretation and discussion method, which means qualitative data analysis steps included looking for patterns or themes in the data, followed by understanding and interpreting each theme. The current value of each tool was determined based on the feedback received from the participants. The feedback was categorised according to the themes that emerged from the data. The current value was given an overall rating, which was dependant on how good or bad each tool was perceived for each theme by each participant. Each tool’s potential value was based on participant feedback, for example, a declaration of being unaware of the tool and therefore unaware of its value; or the poor quality of data measured against the participant’s value criteria expressed in terms of professional client-facing work. The current value and potential value of each tool were analysed using the following rating guide developed for this study:
Follow-up face-to-face interviews were made up of five individuals from each of the roles as analysts, consultants, senior consultants, managers, senior managers and partners. The next section presents the research findings, analysis and discussion.
Participants’ perspectives, attitudes and beliefs regarding KM toolkit elements were analysed for themes and then interpreted. The approach was inductive because a value creation framework for the PSF was non-existent. This meant that the actual application of the KM toolkit in the PSF resulted in the conceptualisation of the KM toolkit value creation framework (
Conceptualisation of knowledge management toolkit for value creation framework at the PSF.
Verbatim feedback from interviews for culture of knowledge sharing (emphasis added).
Yes | No |
---|---|
‘…. consulting is more |
‘People |
‘… consulting |
‘… sharing is |
‘Yes we |
‘ |
‘ |
‘… people are |
‘… people |
|
‘… |
|
‘… |
|
‘… I do encourage but |
Culture refers to the operating environment and unsaid ethos; it is a crucial determinant of how effectively an organisation adopts and uses its KM toolkit. A combination of the market culture and adhocracy culture best describes the PSF. It hosts an entrepreneurial and creative environment where individuals feel free to make decisions and take initiative and risks. The PSF’s leadership are results-driven and hugely competitive with tough, bold leadership culture.
The rating guide that was developed in the ‘Research methodology’ section was used to analyse the findings for the rating of the current value (cv), and potential value (pv), of the Project Tool with elements relating to IP and experience, Eminence Tool, Expert Locator Tool with elements relating to expertise and experience, Content Locator Tool, Research Tool, Compliance Tool, Instant Messaging Tool, and OC Tool, as illustrated in
Current value and potential value of tools in the knowledge management toolkit.
The findings in
Verbatim feedback from interviews for expert locator tool (emphasis added).
Search | Awareness | Data quality | Agility |
---|---|---|---|
‘… |
‘… |
‘… include updates on KPIs for |
‘… |
‘… |
‘… there is value added |
‘… needs to be |
‘… |
‘… |
‘… need to be |
‘… quick, efficient and accurate |
‘… finding CVs to |
‘ |
‘… more |
‘… need to have |
‘… |
‘… |
‘… need to be in |
‘… need to be |
‘… |
‘… adds value for scheduling when |
‘… |
‘… need to be in |
‘… |
SECI, Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation; KPI, Key Performance Indicators; CV, Curriculum Vitae; PSF, professional services firm.
The PSF defines ‘expert’ as an individual who is highly skilled within a specific service and/or widely proficient on a specific industry. The Expert Locator Tool within the PSF equates to an explicit platform of expert locators. The responses regarding the value and usage of the Expert Locator Tool highlighted the following common themes:
With the increase of agility, quality, awareness and search, the usage and potential value of the Expert Locator Tool will also increase, thereby creating a fully optimal KM tool. These research findings suggest that an education and awareness drive is required to create greater levels of exposure for the value and usage of the tool. The campaign should be included in the PSF’s induction and on-boarding process, firstly, to create awareness of the value of the tool and, secondly, to facilitate the immediate update of content. The updating of the Expert Locator Tool should also be included in individuals’ performance rating systems to ensure quality of information. Quality of newly added information increases system agility and adds to leveraging of the existing, high-quality information.
For the expertise pillar of the KM toolkit – the Content Locator Tool – findings of the tool equate to a group of experts who one can access via an IM collaboration platform or email to access content across the firm’s geographical reach. The ‘I’m tool’ did not feature high in
For the IP pillar of the KM toolkit – the Project Tool and the Eminence Tool – the value of the Project Tool and Eminence Tool focuses on retaining the firm’s IP and expertise from an eminence and projects perspective. The Eminence Tool focuses on the storage and accessibility of thought leadership pieces generated by the PSF regarding industries, countries and trending topics. The accessibility and availability of these eminence pieces to clients and potential clients add credibility to the PSF. The Project Tool within the PSF is the process of updating past project experience and storing this IP in a tool. The storage and availability of this information also contributed towards adding value and credibility to the PSF specifically when dealing with client proposals, which require experience. An analysis of the responses regarding the value and usage of the Project Tool and Eminence Tool highlighted the following common themes:
The current value of the Project Tool is viewed at level 2. To increase its current value to its optimal potential value, participants suggested that senior management together with KM team should champion a drive for the Project Tool to be updated with quality content. Also, keeping track of projects has to be improved; post-project documents have to be completed and stored prior to project close off, and processes should be included in staff key performance measurements. Project tool content should go through a quality check to ensure confidentiality and that other language and logistical aspects align with the PSF’s policies.
Similarly, the Eminence Tool is viewed at level 2; it is currently used via a different search platform and not to its fullest potential. It could reach its potential value by making the PSF aware of how and where to access content and highlighting the tool’s marketing prospects. The content validity and relevance to African insights give the Eminence Tool a level 4 potential value ranking.
To achieve this level will require a robust communication and education drive within the PSF by using email communications, roadshows, posters and information sessions. Communications can also address the issue of how to effectively access the tool and how it can be used to increase credibility of the PSF in the market. Furthermore, it may be beneficial for the PSF to proactively distribute new material to client-facing employees, which will mitigate the concern of accessing relevant information. Participants also indicated that the PSF could be better aligned with Africa-specific topics, suggesting that a community of practice should be initiated with all industry experts to develop new local material.
For the insights pillar of the KM toolkit – the Research Tool and the Compliance Tool contain insights that are relevant only to the PSF. An analysis of participants’ value perceptions revealed that only two of the 30 participants made use of the Compliance Tool. Both participants concurred that the tool is valuable to client engagements; it offered company information and organograms, insight of various aspects of the local and global footprint of the PSF, financials and a number of important company statistics. The Research Tool helps with generating new intelligence about industries and trends by utilising a variety of sub-tools. These tools give access to big data to develop new and robust insights, which is then exploited in thought leadership pieces or business decision-making. Its value is perceived based on the PSF’s insights into client, company and industry acumen using external sources (various research tools), and internal sources (e.g. the Compliance Tool, discussed further below). Its greatest value is to generate IP and its current value was at a level 4. Two themes emerged from participants’ responses:
The value of the Research Tool can be optimised even further to achieve its potential value at level 5. A simpler navigation would assist users with searching and accessing data. A process of proactively extracting the required data and distributing the data to the PSF would add value. In addition, evaluating the industry and country gaps in data, outsourcing relevant tools to mitigate these gaps, assessing the credibility of existing data, and instituting a call for action to have the data updated would increase the value of the Research Tool. Faster response times for support on the tool, creating user support guidelines, information sessions, and allocating more resources to assist with research requests should be considered.
For the collaboration pillar of the KM toolkit – the IM Tool and OC Tool serve as collaboration tools in the PSF; the IM tool is mostly internally whereas the OC Tool is also applicable for external collaboration. The OC Tool, based on a SharePoint platform, focuses on external and internal collaboration both globally and locally. Four key themes about the collaboration pillar were visible from participants’ responses:
The current value of the IM Tool rated at a 0.5 level, though participants indicated that its potential value is at a 3.5 level. The value of the OC Tool rated at a 2 level, and its potential level at a 4.5 level. Twenty of the 30 participants were aware of the IM Tool, but they maintained that a sharpened awareness of the IM Tool would not result in an increased use of IM for collaboration.
The negative perceptions of 16 of the 20 IM-aware participants may have affected the way the PSF shares knowledge and it could in future reduce their agility towards meeting client requirements. There was deep concern from participants that the IM Tool was not easy to use and there was an overload of information, which made it difficult and time-consuming to sift through information to find relevant information. The participants who effectively used the IM Tool were able to see its value by incorporating this integrated collaboration solution. This means that collaboration can occur more rapidly, outputs are more agile, and innovation is possible. As mentioned above, The PSF’s organisational culture hosts an entrepreneurial and creative environment, and the potential value of IM could increase its ranked position in the collaboration pillar of the KM toolkit.
The KM toolkit pillars, elements and tools, illustrated in
These three components describe the PSF – an inherently client-facing organisation operating within a highly intense knowledge economy that seeks to utilise their intellectual capital to be able to generate competencies relevant to the client, stressing the need to innovate their advice to their clients. Intellectual capital and innovation are critical to the success of client-facing firms (Qureshi, Briggs & Hlupic
The above discussion was of the research findings relating to the tools in the KM toolkit and have been integrated with concepts from the literature as follows:
Central to the above five pillars of the KM toolkit, the Search, Links, Authoring, Tags, and Extensions and Signals (SLATES) model (McAfee
This section discussed the pillars of the KM toolkit and the role of interaction between people, processes and technology. Next, the gaps are identified for improvement of the KM toolkit.
Each tool within the KM toolkit depicted some elements that did not work very well and needed improvement.
Gaps for improvement.
Tools | Africa information | Quality of information | Updating process | Unaware | Accessibility |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project Tool | • | • | • | • | |
Eminence Tool | • | • | • | ||
Expert Locator Tool | • | • | • | ||
Content Locator Tool | • | ||||
Research Tool | • | • | • | ||
Compliance Tool | • | ||||
Instant Messaging Tool | • | • | |||
Online Collaboration Tool | • |
Bullets signal gaps. Empty cells signal no gap.
Gaps identified for the project tool were that there was an overwhelming need for information related to Africa, which remained unmet. This means that the PSF professionals are unable to find information that relates to Africa-specific topics, required by their clients. The inability to provide this information could mean a loss of client business as project experience evidence is not available. A firm-wide Africa campaign should be launched to capture Africa information.
The second weakness was that the quality of information provided on the Project Tool was not updated and of a poor standard because information was not being captured suitably. The poor quality of information provided is just as good as not having any information available because poor-quality information cannot be used for client engagement. There is a perception that the process of updating information takes too much effort. Another reason for the lack of contribution to the Project Tool could be the PSF’s culture of sharing, which is not a proactive culture. People do not openly share information unless requested to do so for a specific engagement. The Project Tool therefore has not reached a stage of maturity where it can be trusted for the most updated, reliable information. This tool is the PSF’s competitive advantage over other similar firms that are bidding for similar work because it depicts the firm’s expertise, and therefore ability, to deliver on the engagement. The lack of contribution to the tool means that the PSF is unable to demonstrate their competitive advantage to clients.
Concerning the Eminence Tool, the lack of awareness of where to access the tool led to the perception that the tool is not easily available and accessible, and therefore the participants were unable to find relevant information. Content that resides within this database was searched via a tedious process, which did not always result in the most accurate results. It was also a concern that this tool did not house enough Africa content of value to clients. The objective of this tool however is to centrally store the PSF eminence and not to develop the content. The lack of Africa content therefore could be the reason why this tool is underutilised. The underutilisation of the Eminence Tool means that the PSF is unable to demonstrate its innovative insights by creating the necessary exposure that is required to build vital client relationships. Verbatim feedback is presented in
Verbatim feedback from interviews for Eminence Tool (emphasis added).
Accessibility | Marketing | Content |
---|---|---|
‘… the information should be |
‘… used for |
‘… need to produce |
‘… should be able to |
‘… used to |
‘… |
‘The tool is |
‘… take to |
‘… content is localised from global topics, we need to have a more |
‘… needs to be more |
- | ‘… we need more of an |
‘ … should be |
- | - |
About the Expert Locator Tool, though most of the participants were familiar with the tool, many did not know exactly how to use the tool optimally to extract its intended value. There was a perception that it needed an update because it was mandatory but there was a lack of understanding the actual objective of the tool. Content is updated inadequately and consequentially the search results are not optimised. There is a perception that the process of updating information is time-consuming. Updating content means that one can find experts to work on specific projects for clients, being able to locate people who speak different languages for global mobility projects and being able to nimbly put together proposals by accessing relevant information. The value of the tool can therefore be seen to enhance competitive advantage by being agile and technologically innovative. Thus, data on the tool must be kept up to date and relevant.
A gap exists with both the Content Locator Tool and the IM Tool in terms of real-time access to relevant information, which is critical in a business that operates within a rigorous competitive climate. Utilising collaboration tools optimally can provide the basis for innovation and cross-functional thinking that will assist with encouraging a collaborative culture within the PSF. There is a need for the PSF to collaborate externally within a secure environment. Without a conducive environment to share knowledge proactively for the benefit of the entire organisation, the value of each of the tools to ultimately gain competitive advantage will not be realised.
Next, the recommendation is based on the research findings, analysis and discussion of the PSF’s KM toolkit.
Recommendations for knowledge management toolkit enhancement.
The recommendation is based on the research findings and literature review, which adds machine learning and gamification in addition to the suggestions that emerged from the interview, such as awareness campaigns, on-boarding presentations and e-learning courses on KM tools for all staff. The implementation of these recommendations will assist with enhancing the KM toolkit by ensuring that the current value of each tool reaches its potential value:
An evaluation of the current KM toolkit and recommendation of how to enhance the KM tools of a professional services firm could assist with the effective application of KM toolkits. The outcome of this research is a conceptual framework for describing and analysing the KM toolkit for a multinational company. The framework indicates the value creation that is realised from the implementation of a KM toolkit. In essence, understanding the reasons for a successful knowledge sharing culture will add value to the success of any KM programme. This study concludes that it is imperative to understand how KM can evolve with the changing work environment and integrate technological advancements for ongoing process improvements.
This research was limited to the KM toolkit of the PSF in South Africa. Therefore, the study findings do not depict the perspectives of international PSF employees. However, the findings give an indication of the perspectives of users of the South African based KM toolkit.
The authors would like to thank the Professional Services Firm for granting permission to conduct research at the firm and all the participants who participated in this study.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
All authors contributed equally to this article. The first author was a Master’s student, who was supervised by the other two authors.
This project was first registered in 2017 with the Faculty of Management, Higher Degrees Committee. Ethical clearance was obtained in 2017 from the Ethics Committee of the Department of Information and Knowledge Management (clearance number: FOM20170822_IKM001_2017).
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Recordings and transcripts of the interview data are available on request from the student author.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the authors.