© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/1 Knowledge Management in Capital Goods Companies Dr. Christian Hicks University of Newcastle upon Tyne

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/2 Capital Goods Companies Products and processes usually complex Customised to meet individual customer requirements Engineered-to-order Low volume, “lumpy”, erratic demand

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/3 Classification of ETO Companies Product / project focus “Normal” / “Radical” design Established / ad-hoc business processes

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/4 ETO Processes Physical / non-physical. Multistage - tendering, contract execution, operations, maintenance. All processes complex, interrelated and knowledge based. Processes dynamic and often reconfigured. General shift towards the outsourcing of physical activities.

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/5 Methodology Analysis of business processes using Structured Systems Analysis and Design Methodology. Classification of knowledge Identification of KM issues

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/6 Knowledge Classification Knowledge processing - generation, transfer, utilisation, identification, capture / retrieval, format, codification, assurance Domains - internal/ external, technical area, focus The part of the organisation’s performance affected by the knowledge management activity Formality - time and location dependency, MIS

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/7 Case Study Design and contract company - no physical processes Product orientated company Mainly “normal” designs but some “radical” design activities Established processes

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/8 Tendering Key process that had a large impact on project success / failure 75-80% of costs and delivery commitments made at the tendering stage Involves conceptual design and definition of major components and systems and suppliers. Includes performance and technical specifications, delivery schedules, price and commercial terms. Tendering normally carried out within severe time constraints with sparse knowledge and high uncertainty.

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/9 Tendering Requires a detailed knowledge of –Customers / market / operations –Design / manufacturing / suppliers –Product / systems / subsystems –Costs / lead-times / capabilities / capacities Tacit knowledge, previous experience and company culture are key.

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/10 Specific Conclusions Poor sharing of knowledge and information between multistage processes. No system for selecting ITTs worthy of response. Key knowledge of manufacture and operations gained prior to D&C strategy. Problem as older staff leave. Significant risk associated with supplier selection at the tendering stage. Poor reuse of knowledge across contracts.

© C.Hicks, University of Newcastle WAR/11 General Conclusions ETO companies are complex and dynamic organisations Interactions between wide range of processes that may be separated by a time lag. Formal processes have been modelled. Current research is focused upon identifying, classifying and documenting routines Objective is to identify improved KMA’s. The performance of the associated business processes will be compared.