Knowledge Management Processes: A Case Study of NTPC and POWERGRID

Abstract

The pre-dominance of power in infrastructure industry is a pivotal one and with the emergence of knowledge economy, it is imperative to use knowledge as an asset in power industry. Largely, knowledge-driven processes have occupied the central place in power industry as well. This necessitates that knowledge management is implemented in letter and spirit in this industry. Knowledge management processes are the most crucial part of knowledge management. This article outlines the knowledge management processes through an empirical study of the two leading power companies of India that is, NTPC and POWERGRID. The study has been carried out in these two companies by using secondary and primary data collected from various published sources besides from the companies under study.

Keywords

Knowledge management knowledge processes knowledge capitalization NTPC Ltd.POWERGRID public sector undertaking

Introduction

It is a universally acknowledged truth that knowledge economy has pervaded the entire world and ‘Indian knowledge economy has definitely identified knowledge firms as the primary driver’ (Richter and Banerjee, 2003, p. 2). The massive growth in information technology and knowledge transfer across the boundaries of the organization and eventually the nation has provided a major impetus to the phenomenon of globalization (Cheng, 2004; Green and Ruheler, 1995). Organizational knowledge sharing has gained recognition against this backdrop as one of the most important keys to performance in organization. Successful organizations today reward employees for seeking and sharing organizational knowledge, thereby creating a ‘knowledge pull’—a grass root desire, among employees to tap into their organizations intellectual resources (Hauschild et al., 2001). The onus on organizations to develop and maintain effective knowledge sharing practices that can transcend organizational and natural boundaries is even more given the globalization of business today. Apropos this, it attains importance that the entire gamut of knowledge management at organizational level is studied in detail from six points of view (i) theoretical aspects of knowledge management; (ii) processes of knowledge management; (iii) organizational and social aspects of knowledge management; (iv) managerial aspects of knowledge management; (v) technological aspects of knowledge management and (vi) application specific knowledge management (Schwartz, 2006). However, this article limits itself to the processes of knowledge only and that too in two leading power Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) in India.

In India, public sector organizations are those where more than 51 per cent of equity in a company rests with the central or state governments. The major objective of setting up public enterprises was to facilitate economic growth through industrialization and infrastructure development. It was envisioned that creation of such enterprises would result in income redistribution, employment generation, promotion of small scale and ancillary industries and balanced regional development. The private sector, on the other hand, is run for private profit and not controlled by the state. (Chawla and Joshi, 2010, p. 811).

NTPC and POWERGRID are two PSUs who are the industry leaders in the power generation and power transmission in India and because of these both of the companies have been selected for this study.

Rationale

This article aims at bringing the live phenomena of knowledge processes of NTPC and POWERGRID. It entails that the knowledge management processes of these two Indian power companies will provide the information and fact which can be further used by other power companies in India. Even professionals engaged in the knowledge management implementation will find it relevant and useful. The future researchers may refer to this case study for culling out general patterns which could be emulated by power industry as a whole, particularly in India.

Literature Survey

As an organization or for that matter, a society proceeds towards knowledge economy, they make their living from knowledge creation and knowledge application (Gottschalk, 2007). This movement entails the usage of knowledge in various forms, stages, situations and purposes. If we treat knowledge management as the chief driver of knowledge economy tabula rasa, we have to chart out various processes of knowledge management. The perusal of reading material, articles, books and research reports of various scholars including electronically available literature, knowledge management processes may be delineated under eight heads viz. knowledge creation, knowledge acquisition, knowledge collation, knowledge storage and use, knowledge dissemination, knowledge sharing, knowledge reuse and synthesis along with knowledge capitalization.

Knowledge Creation

The business transactions and activities create huge amount of data and information. In order to create value and remain in competitive advantageous position the firms have to create knowledge. ‘Creating knowledge requires the existence of a person or group of people who come up with new ideas, new concepts, innovative product or process etc’ (Ceptureanu and Ceptureanu, 2010, p. 150). ‘Thus, knowledge creation involves a people dimension, technology dimension and the processes that link the people and technology’ (Wickramasinghe, 2006, p. 333). Geisler and Wickramasinghe (2009) summarized this aspect when they narrated that ‘two conceptual streams of thought have emerged that describe knowledge creation either as a people or technology centric process’ (pp. 44–45). They further report that Nonaka’s ‘people-centric knowledge spiral’ is the most widely used framework for knowledge creation through socialization, combination, externalization and internalization.

It is almost an axiom that knowledge creation in firms lies at the heart of competitive advantage that ‘firms learn’, ‘firms know’ etc. have become common place expressions in much of the strategy and KM literature. However, it is not firms as such that learn and firms themselves do not process knowledge. So-called ‘firm-knowledge’ is composed of knowledge sets controlled by individual assets. (Foss and Mahnke, 2003 p. 86)

‘Spender’s people centric model’ (Newell et al., 2002) corresponds with Nonaka’s tacit knowledge which is part of SECI model proposed by Nonaka. Newell et al. have also quoted about Blacker’s ‘people-centric approach’ which depicts that knowledge can exist in several forms (encoded, embedded, embodied, encultured, embrained). By looking at various people centric models and approach, we may infer that different organizations require different models and no single model can be quoted ‘to fit all’ kinds of firms.

In addition to people centric approach some researchers have concluded that ‘technology-centric’ approach may also be used by way of mechanistic method which enables knowledge discovery in databases through data mining tool. Fuller and Wilson (2006, p. 188–189) reported through their research that ‘using case classification accuracy as the criteria neural networks have typically outperformed traditional parametric techniques (for example, discriminant analysis, logistic regression) as well as other non-parametric approaches (for example, various inductive learning systems such as ID3, C4.5, CART, etc.). This also takes care of creation of knowledge by using IF-THEN rules from trained feed-forward neural network used in classifiers. Neural network is basically a form of artificial intelligence in which a computer simulates the way human brain processes information. Possibly, this imposes limitations to neural network technique of knowledge creation and brings to the fore the centrality of the people centric approach’.

The latest research reported in the area of knowledge creation (Desouza and Paquette, 2011, p. 99) states that,

[T]he creation of knowledge occurs in many dynamic forms. Most often, it is through humanistic means, such as formal training, living through new experiences, or talking with people who share similar interest. Technical mechanisms also assist in the knowledge creation process, such as knowledge management systems, data warehousing and data mining activities. Therefore, the significance of the employee and supporting knowledge management technologies has grown substantially over recent decades. Organizations now live (or die) by their ability to create knowledge, innovate and generate value with new knowledge.

Knowledge Acquisition

Knowledge acquisition is an activity which explores the possibility of finding expertise which should be acquired from outside through ‘relationship with customers, suppliers, competitors and partners in co-operative ventures’ (Probst et al., 2002). It means it is the prerequisite of knowledge acquisition to ‘identify the required knowledge domains in alignment with the KM strategy, locate the source of this knowledge and acquire the required knowledge’ (Shukla and Srinivasan, 2002, p. 41). It underlines the importance of the outside view which, ‘is really a fresh view, which brings with it confidence that new order and sound logic can be applied through knowledge so that an organization can actually improve. Wherever the outside view comes from, it must be based on knowledge’ (Mathews, 2000, p. 10). Of late, firms have been seen increasingly interested in inter-firm relations and want to develop proximity with outside world.

Martinez–Cavas et al. (2012, p. 64) have reported that ‘the resource-based view of the firm points that intangible resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable and not substitutable in the long-term provide a competitive advantage for organizations’. They further state that this, ‘knowledge-based view of the firm also asserts that more innovative firms must leverage their acquisition capabilities to update their knowledge capital constantly to match new environmental conditions’. With this in view, firms should have their skills and ability through repeated interaction to reorganize and evaluate the pertinent external knowledge.

Business intelligence related technical tools can help companies in acquiring knowledge from other companies besides browsing the World Wide Web and Google Scholar and Wikipedia which have become axiomatic these days. Environmental scanning is also required by companies to devise new goals and strategies. However, apropos knowledge management the Competitive Intelligence becomes more useful. Parker and Nitse (2006, p. 44) have brought to the fore this fact more clearly when they write that ‘Competitive Intelligence’ (CI) is a process for gathering usable knowledge about the external business environment and turning it into the intelligence required for tactical on strategic decisions. The two are strongly connected because gathered CI has no long-term value unless an effective KM process is in place to turn the information into something usable.

Knowledge Collation

Collation stands for comparison and analysis of two or more sources of information. Its connotations cover calibration also because calibration involves comparing some measurement against a given standard. The codification and classification of the knowledge objects, synthesizing them, making them meaningful and relevant for the target group and adopting the knowledge to the ‘firm-specific’ needs form the objectives of collation (Shukla and Srinivasan, 2002). Knowledge collation is a must before it is relegated to repositories. In fact, two major categories—critical and not-critical should be ideally created before the nuances of knowledge collation are brought into play. The personnel who are responsible for collation or systems of collation should have an ‘awareness of organizational challenges’ (Martins and Meyer, 2012).

Knowledge management processes require a structured, ‘coordinated system for managing knowledge effectively’ (Xu and Wang, 2006). This is required in both forms of knowledge—tacit and explicit. ‘While explicit knowledge can be identified more easily, and systems and procedures can be developed to deal with it, for example through feedback and training, dealing with tacit knowledge poses a greater challenge’ (Goldsmith and Pillai, 2006, p. 314). These researchers offer a solution to these problems by suggesting that for collation of knowledge two types of memories—trans-active and mechanistic may be used.

Trans-active memory refers to the set of individual memory systems in combination with their intercommunications, trans-active memory exists as a property of a group as group members share their memories through their interactions with each other and with external memory devices. Mechanistic memory refers to information accessed from mechanical systems. A part of trans-active memory can be conceptualized as overlapping with tacit knowledge. Codifying such trans-active memory and systematizing it will enable the creation of inter-active procedures that could assess the level of miscalibration of users. (Goldsmith and Pillai, 2006, p. 314)

Knowledge Storage and Use

Once knowledge has been created, acquired or collated, it is to be stored in repositories so that individuals, groups and organization can have access to it.

Empirical studies have shown that while organizations create knowledge and learn, they also forget (i.e. do not remember or lose track of the required knowledge). Thus the storage, organization and retrieval of organizational knowledge, also referred to as organizational memory, constitute an important aspect of effective organizational knowledge management. (Gottschalk, 2007, p. 33)

Knowledge storage may be done in a hard copy form and electronically enabled tools, both. The documents in hard copy form may include ‘memos, reports, presentations, articles and so forth and put it into a repository where it can be easily stored and retrieved’ (Davenport and Prusak, 2000, p. 146). These documented knowledge are ‘to be integrated in the natural IT organizational environment’ (Levy, 2011, p. 588). Researchers (Allameh, et al., 2011, p. 1214) have concluded that,

[N]ew creating knowledge is not enough and mechanisms are needed to store acquired knowledge and retrieve it when needed. The concept of organizational memory is a great solution in this regard. Organizational memory includes knowledge residing in various component forms that may include written documentation, structured information stored in electronic databases, codified human knowledge stored in expert systems, documented organization procedures and processes and tacit knowledge acquired by individuals and network of individuals.

In this stage, the organization should classify the filtered knowledge and add it to the organizational memory (Benbya et. al., 2004, p. 212).

For storage and retrieval perspective, the repositories may be classified into three main categories—(i) external knowledge, (ii) structured internal knowledge and (iii) informed internal knowledge (Davenport and Prusak, 2000). Some of the aspects of these repositories should be supported by ‘an infrastructure capable of supporting the creation and maintenance (…….) and an environment that enables the cultivation and facilitation of knowledge sharing and organizational learning’ (Al-Hawamadeh, 2005, p. 22). Documentary repository becomes handy in this regard because it is computer based application for storing and retrieving documents in an organized way. It is generally equipped with a search engine that uses keyword matching and similar techniques to locate and retrieve documents of potential interest to users. Storing knowledge may also be done through a number of other means such as knowledge portal, learning reviews, knowledge cafes, after action reviews, document libraries knowledge clusters, expert locator, knowledge bases (Wikis), etc. Storage in the electronic memory provides unlimited storage capacity and the facility of digitalization.

The greater aim of knowledge storage is, in fact, its use in organization by personnel who require knowledge and want it at the right time and at the right place. In present time, the application and utilization of knowledge is the sole purpose of knowledge management so that ‘reinvention of wheel’ could be avoided and time and cost could be saved. The knowledge life cycle depicts ‘use’ of knowledge prominently as elaborated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: Wikipedia.

Some of the techniques used by personnel while applying knowledge include peer assist, communities of practices (CoPs), blogs, advanced search, mentor–mentee, apprenticeship, etc. Many of the firms apply ‘pull technique’ and ‘push technique’ also for the use of knowledge. No matter how many resources an organization forms into creating highly sophisticated knowledge systems, the question looms: will people use them? For any knowledge base or intranet to draw users, it has got to be ‘better’ at helping them find information than the systems and networks with which they are already comfortable and familiar. Having a solid framework and processes for making organizational knowledge available will ultimately ensure that people will use the information (Bukowitz and Williams, 1999, p. 75; O’Dell, 2004, pp. 12–13) concludes in her research through a reified figure as reproduced below that ‘Knowledge Management is successful when information and knowledge move through the stages in future and are actually used.’ This reification has been delineated in Figure 2.

Knowledge Dissemination

Knowledge dissemination has been known by various terms such as knowledge translation, knowledge transfer and knowledge exchange. It has been defined as the transfer of knowledge within and across settings, with the expectation that the knowledge will be ‘used’ conceptually (as learning, enlightenment, or acquisition of new perspectives or attitude) or instrumentally, (in the form of modified or new practices). There are, however, those who see dissemination as having other legitimate outcomes. Some of these outcomes include: (i) increased awareness; (ii) ability to make informed choices among alternatives; and (iii) the exchange of information; materials or perspectives. Dissemination is delivering and receiving of knowledge by engaging an individual in the process of transfer of best practices, lessons learned, innovations made or improved processes, etc., within the context of an organization. The relationship of key elements of dissemination leading to knowledge utilization as propagated by Asian Development Bank (2009) is depicted in Figure 3.

Figure 2.

Source: O’Dell, C. (2004).

The knowledge dissemination may be done through using information and communication technologies, human based social interactions and systems or through pathways and media based means and library means.

Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge sharing is that process which enables the knowledge held in individuals or groups to be transferred to others in an organization so that it could be applied for the improvement or creation of new products, services and processes (Van den Hooff and Ridder, 2004). The knowledge sharing process has been categorized into two main types of usage ‘personal advice usage’ and ‘electronic document usage’ (Haas and Hansen, 2007). The personal advice usage includes the direct contact between individuals when they meet, by phone or via e-mail, whereas electronic document usage covers sharing of electronic documents which can be used as stand-alone resources. However, sharing as a process entails ‘the act of placing knowledge by one at the disposition of others. Its ramifications include that it is a voluntary effort through which one gives and receives knowledge and develops a continuity of previous knowledge to the new knowledge which is to be innovated’ (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2011). Knowledge sharing has also been depicted as ‘solicited knowledge sharing’ and ‘voluntary knowledge sharing’ (Teng and Song, 2011). The environmental antecedents to knowledge sharing such as culture, structures and technology may vary as per the choice of solicited or voluntary types.

Figure 3.

Source: Asian Development Bank (2009).

It has also been argued that explicit knowledge can be shared easily whereas tacit knowledge is ‘inherently difficult to share because it is socially embedded’ and sticky (Osterloch and Frey, 2000). In fact, explicit knowledge because of its being already documented can be shared without any problem. However, tacit knowledge requires the help of mentor–mentee, apprenticeship, person-to-person contact, face-to-face communication, deputizing and other factors such as trust, respect and friendship in order to be shared. Two important tools—namely, narrative and story have been found to be of immense help in sharing the tacit knowledge (Connell, 2006; Snowden, 2006). A narrative is an account of connected events. It may also be said that it is the part of a fictional work that tells the story, as distinct from the dialogue. Snowden (2006, p. 680) has stated that, ‘One of the important aspects of narrative and one of the reasons it works is that it creates a higher resonance of new concepts of ideas with existing patterns than exist in the human mind’. The narrative explains three aspects of knowledge—information flow, namely, abstraction, codification and diffusion. It is because of these properties that narratives become so handy for sharing the tacit knowledge. Narratives have also been found as ‘sense-making devices’ presenting holistic practices and their context.

In juxtaposition to narrative,

[S]tories can be seen as one of the ways in which we can encode data about our environment, both personal and organizational. A particular strength of storytelling for knowledge management lies in its capacity not only to represent such sets of data, but also to offer some insights into the complex interrelationships between such data elements. In an organizational context, these interrelationships might help us to make sense of the organization (Connell, 2006, p. 721).

A distinction has been drawn between ‘the notion of narratives and the concept of story by taking “story” as the more specific and narrative as the basic and more general notion. This means that all stories are narratives but not all narratives are stories’ (Geiger and Schreyogg, 2012, p. 99).

‘Knowledge Translation’ is yet another tool which is gaining momentum for sharing of knowledge especially in Canada in the realm of clinical discourse. Some define the sharing of experiential knowledge as ‘Knowledge management’ and the sharing of research, facts and findings as ‘knowledge transfer’, coupled with translation, which includes exchange, brokering, interaction, or, mobilization.

Knowledge mobilization is putting available knowledge into active service to benefit society. It may be knowledge that has been gathered through systematic study or through experience. Both the research knowledge and experiential wisdom are worth sharing to the benefit of others. It is an obligation and a right to share and to have access to beneficial knowledge.

Enablers and Barriers to Knowledge Sharing

At this juncture, it is pertinent to have a look at the enablers and barriers to knowledge sharing. A number of scholars have delved in detail in these two areas. First, an attempt has been made to delineate the enablers. Enablers can be useful on two levels—individual and organizational. At individual level emotional state poised towards knowledge sharing becomes very important. The pride moves an individual towards eagerness and willingness both to share his or her knowledge. The hubristic pride enables an individual ‘to share out of the wish (—) for the collective interest’ (Williams and De Steno, 2008). ‘It implicitly assumes a utopian view of benevolent co-operators who voluntarily give up personal knowledge without appropriate award’ (Lam and Ford, 2010, p. 52). Motivation plays a pivotal role in knowledge sharing. Hedonic and extrinsic motivators reinforce the propensity for knowledge sharing. Hedonic motivator inculcates individual knowledge sharing whereas extrinsic can help the group or organization to part with the tacit knowledge.

In case of organization the knowledge sharing culture is required. Training and career progression are to be ensured by an organization to exhort the personnel to share the knowledge. Other human resource management related factors such as incentive, reward and recognition, job-rotation, job-shadowing, acknowledging the contribution of the individual’s normative attitude towards sharing are to be placed properly. Organizations can also take recourse to formation of cross-functional teams by bringing expert and knowledgeable personnel together for a better understanding of the know-how and skill of others. ‘Cross-functional co-operation promotes knowledge sharing, because it is associated with the perception of individuals on the collective use of the shared knowledge in pursuing common interest of the team’ (Ghobadi and D’Ambra, 2012, P. 286). Contextual factors at the organizational level such as ‘trust’, management support and learning are equally required to enable people to share their knowledge. An organization may also have to form ‘Expert networks’ to function as catalyst on the demand-side that is, individual’s knowledge seeking behaviour of people (King, 2006).

The barriers to knowledge sharing emanate from cultural differences and problems related with communication. In a path breaking study Lindsey (2006, P. 503) prepared an exhaustive list of barriers to knowledge sharing which is depicted in Annexure-I.

In addition to the above some barriers such as ‘no physical proximity to colleagues’, ‘unusability of knowledge’, ‘perception of knowledge as power’, ‘unawareness about who knows the relevant knowledge’ and ‘thought to be perceived as fool’ are also reported which hinder the knowledge sharing (Cabrera and Cabrera, 2002; McLaughlin et al., 2008). It is to be pointed out here that if the knowledge-sharing context undergoes a change, the barriers to knowledge sharing may also change.

Knowledge Reuse and Synthesis

Knowledge reuse stands for use of knowledge more than once. It entails that it is such a process by which ‘an entity is able to locate and use shared knowledge’ (Majchrzak et al., 2004) Oshri (2006, P.487) defines knowledge reuse as ‘processes [which] emphasize the centrality of knowledge within an organization by aligning information systems and communication technologies with human activity and organizational mechanisms, such as learning processes and organizational structures’. There are four types of reuses of knowledge viz. ‘shared work producers’; ‘shared work practitioners’; ‘expertise-seeking novices’; and ‘secondary knowledge miners’. Besides this the process of knowledge includes six stages: (i) approach for reuse; (ii) search for reusable ideas; (iii) scanning the reusable ideas; (iv) evaluating reusable ideas; (v) conducting the in-depth analysis of reusable ideas and selecting one which is most appropriate and; (vi) use the idea (Majchrzak, et al., 2004).

There are three major roles in the knowledge reuse process: Knowledge producer – the originator and documenter of knowledge, who records explicit knowledge or makes tacit knowledge explicit, knowledge intermediary— who prepares knowledge for reuse by eliciting it, indexing it, summarizing it, sanitizing it, packaging it, and who performs various roles in dissemination and facilitation, and knowledge consumer—the knowledge reuser, who retrieves the knowledge content and applies it in some way (Markus, 2001, P. 61).

In addition to these the knowledge reusers have to apply social mining for discovering patterns and codifying reusable experiences (Akoumianakis, 2009).

In order to ensure reuse of knowledge the same is to be synthesized in repositories of the organization. Different types of knowledge reusers perceive the role of repositories in different ways therefore the synthesis becomes equally important apropos knowledge.

The knowledge synthesis is a social as well as an individual process-sharing. Tacit knowledge requires individuals to share their personal beliefs about a situation with others. At that point of sharing, justification becomes public. Each individual is faced with the tremendous challenge of justifying his or her beliefs in front of others—and it is this need for justification, explanation, persuasion and human connection that makes knowledge synthesis a highly fragile process. (Vat, 2006, P. 533)

The challenge is how to design the infrastructure to enable spontaneous knowledge capture and transfer so as to turn the scattered diverse knowledge into well structured knowledge for reuse. Knowledge management architecture accommodating individual learning, organizational learning and intellectual property management put together may offer a viable solution to this conundrum.

The technique of building a ‘knowledge tree’ which includes all knowledge subjects, and explicitly marking the branches to be retained and those to be pruned is said to be an important practice in synthesis of knowledge. Finally, knowledge is to be integrated into routines and business processes of the organization as it makes its reuse more facilitating. Levy (2011, p. 588) has mentioned it succinctly when she says that,

The knowledge documented is to be integrated in the natural IT organizational environment. Yet, it was found to be very convenient, when such infrastructure was not available to document the information and knowledge using a WIKI system. The WIKI’s structure enables usage of a template, enabling light as well as tight connections between the items documented, and is suitable for integration within other existing intranet sites, as each page is a unique URL. Furthermore, the structure of WIKI suits the nature of the knowledge documented, as it does not cover all topics, rather the more important ones, forming a net with holes in between.

Knowledge Capitalization

In the twenty-first century, economic and social development depends increasingly on knowledge rather than labour and capital.

The most common denominator of the changing economic structure is a shift away from an economy driven and governed by material inputs into the productive process and its organization, toward an economy in which the transformations of productive and distributive processes are increasingly determined by symbolic or knowledge based inputs. (Stehr, 2005, pp. 124–125)

Capitalization, especially of knowledge has become even more urgent in the present financial and economic crisis. It stands for taking the ‘chance to gain advantage’ from existing knowledge of a firm. The point of focus today is knowledge and service production with more emphasis being laid on knowledge capital. This capitalization of knowledge stimulates key stakeholders to transform individual and institutional experience and knowledge into capital which can be used in future.

Machlup (2005, p. 46) has pondered over the issue of knowledge capitalization in terms of stock when he states that,

A fundamental distinction is commonly made between stocks and flows, usually with reference to goods, to capital funds, to money. The distinction also applies to knowledge. At any moment of time, there is a stock of knowledge; during any period of time there is a flow of knowledge.

So far as this stock is concerned, it includes the ‘recorded knowledge’ [Explicit] & ‘knowledge in the mind’ [Tacit]. ‘Knowledge as an economic good exhibits major limitations in terms of radical uncertainty, non-appropriability and non-rivalry in use. Much economic analysis has explored the implications with respect to tradability of knowledge’ (Antonelli and Teubal, 2010, p. 98). The capitalization of knowledge is usually analyzed by taking recourse to external socio-economic factors.

The process of knowledge capitalization involves the selling or producing economic added value in the knowledge for which it must be completely understandable and reproducible by both the inventor or others. Viale (2010, p. 31) narrates the process of capitalization in his seminal work by stating that,

The generation of economic value can be said to be ‘direct’ when one sells the knowledge for some financial, material or behavioural good. The generation of economic value is considered ‘indirect’ when it allows the production of some material or service goods that are sold on market. The direct mode comprises the role of personal know-how, such as in the case of a plumber or of a sports instructor. It also comprises the sale of intellectual property, as in the case of patents, copyrights or teaching. The indirect mode comprises the ways in which organizational, declarative or procedural knowledge is embodied in goods or services. The economic return in both cases can be financial (for example, cash), material (for example, the exchange of consumer goods) or behaviour (for example, the exchange of personal services.

Venture capital is a concrete example of ‘knowledge-driven capitalization of knowledge’ because it is a capital which is invested in a business project which involves large element of risk that can be taken care of by knowledgeable experts because it is a capital provided to early-stage, high potential, high risk, growth oriented and start-up companies (Ruhnka and Young, 1987). True private equity investments began to emerge in United States when knowledge economy started emerging (Ante, 2008). This was further strengthened apropos knowledge process of Law firms (Austin, 2010). It shows that knowledge capitalization is an important and probably the end process of knowledge management.

Knowledge Audit

A great body of current Knowledge Management literature refers to the Knowledge Audit as the very first and possibly the most important step of a knowledge management strategy. It entails the fit of knowledge management strategy with overall business strategy of the company. Knowledge management audit should follow normal audit pattern thereafter.

The knowledge audit serves to help the audited unit to determine if it ‘knows what it knows’ and ‘knows what it doesn’t know’ about its existing knowledge state. It will also help it to unearth what it should know to better leverage knowledge for business and competitive advantage. This enlightenment sets the agenda for the knowledge management initiative, programme and implementation. (Paramasivan, 2003, p. 499)

Cases

NTPC: A Company profile (Adapted from NTPC website ntpc.co.in)

India’s largest power company, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) was set up in 1975 to accelerate power development in India. A public sector undertaking of the Government of India, it is one of the pioneers in power generation in India. NTPC is emerging as a diversified power major with presence in the entire value chain of the power generation business. NTPC was ranked 341st in the 2010, Forbes Global 2000’ ranking of the World’s biggest companies. NTPC became a Maharatna company in May 2010, one of the only few companies to be awarded this status.

Be in the generating capacity or plant performance or operational efficiency, NTPC’s Installed Capacity and performance depicts the company’s outstanding performance across a number of parameters.

No. of Plants

Capacity (MW)

NTPC Owned Coal 16 30,855 Gas/Liquid Fuel 7 3,955 Total 23 34,810 Owned by JVs Coal & Gas 7 4,364 Total

39,174

NTPC has demonstrated the highest ever growth in the history and the same has been briefly touched upon a few highlights:

2,820 MW commissioned in 2011–2012, the highest ever in a single year, surpassing the previous year’s capacity addition record of 2,490 MW.

9,610 MW added during 11th Plan period ending March 2012, exceeding the Plan target.

Highest ever capex of ₹ 159.94 billion in 2011–2012 with group capex of ₹ 199.73 billion.

2,160 MW added in the first quarter of 2012–2013.

6,870 MW added in the past two years which is almost 20 per cent of the total capacity added since inception of NTPC.

Three 660 MW Super Critical Units commissioned and declared commercial at Sipat, the higher efficiency reduces CO₂ emissions substantially.

7,041 MW of work awarded since January 2012.

16,000 MW under construction.

Strong Operational Performance and Challenges

Operating one of the largest fleets in the world consisting of 120 units (only NTPC units) on commercial operation, Company’s operational excellence is at par with world standards with high levels of capacity utilization and reliability through use of latest technologies and best practices. Some of the operational highlights of 2011–2012 are:

6 out of 15 coal stations had Plant Load Factor (PLF) of over 90 per cent.

27.4 per cent share of NTPC group in total power generated in India, thus maintaining leadership position in the power sector.

85 per cent PLF achieved by the coal based stations as against the national average of 73.32 per cent.

89.5 per cent availability factor.

NTPC is committed to bring about continuous improvement in generation efficiency to scale still higher levels of performance.

Sound Financials

NTPC’s robust growth and operational excellence translate into sound financials. Prudent management of financial resources ensures that the fundamentals of the company remain strong and are leveraged for further growth and higher returns. Some of the financial highlights for the year 2011–2012 are:

Total revenue crossed ₹ 600 billion reaching ₹ 648.3065 billion, an increase of about 13 per cent over 2010–2011.

The net profit increased and stood at ₹ 92.2373 billion.

Paying highest ever dividend of 40 per cent.

Ranked 5th among all the listed companies in terms of PAT for 2011–2012.

Resounding success in raising USD 500 million from the international bond market which was oversubscribed more than five times with participation of over 200 investors, indicating robust confidence in NTPC among the international investors.

The Momentum Gets Stronger in 2012–2013

The overall growth and excellence achieved in the year 2011–2012 has led NTPC into still higher gear of performance as demonstrated in the results during the first quarter of year 2012–2013 as compared with the corresponding quarter of the year 2011–2012. Some of the highlights are:

Commissioned 2,160 MW capacity (NTPC Group).

Generation growth has been 7.80 per cent as against all India growth of 6.40 per cent.

Total revenue increased by 11 per cent to ₹ 168.45 billion.

Profit After Tax increased by 20 per cent to ₹ 24.99 billion.

Capex increased by 83 per cent to ₹ 39.78 billion.

During the year 2012–2013, NTPC Group has declared 2,320 MW capacity on commercial operation.

Thus, despite the numerous challenges and hardships being faced by the economy and the sector, NTPC is marching ahead with strong results with the help of well conceived strategies.

POWERGRID: At a glance (Adapted from POWERGRID website www.powergridindia.com)

Power Grid Corporation of India Limited (POWERGRID), the Central Transmission Utility (CTU) of India, was incorporated on October 23, 1989 under the Companies Act, 1956. POWERGRID was conferred the coveted Navratna status by the Government of India in May 2008 in recognition of its contribution to the Indian power sector and numero uno in transmission of power in country and the potential to become a global power major.

POWERGRID started its commercial operation in 1992–1993. The transmission assets along with manpower posted in the transmission system of various Central/Central-State Joint Venture Organizations such as NTPC, NHPC, NEEPCO, NLC, NPC, THDC, SJVNL, etc. were transferred to POWERGRID in phased manner till 1994. The RLDCs transferred from Central Electricity Authority (1994 to 1996) were modernized and National Load Despatch Centre (NLDC) established by 2009, (presently transferred to POSOCO), a fully owned subsidiary of POWERGRID.

The growth of the Company may be seen in terms of lifelong turn-over, profit, assets and manpower of the ratio as given below beginning 1992–1993 up to 20.10.2011:

1992–1993

2010–2011

Growth in %

Line length (ckt. km.) 22228 82335 370% Turnover (Rupees in billions) 6.34 91.00 1335% Profit (Rupees in billions) 2.37 26.97 1037% Assets (Rupees in billions) 35.21 593.52 1330% Manpower (Personnel)

61.67

97.75

58%

On amalgamation of seven companies with different culture, different rules and regulations which metamorphosed into one culture that is, POWERGRID culture with one set of rules and regulations for all employees. They have not lost even a single man day since their inception and they have been making profit also since beginning. This situation placed them in a unique position which has also manifested itself in our evolution in various areas of operation.

In the two decades of its existence, POWERGRID has scaled up its transmission network manifold to cater to the increased generation capacity addition. The company has established a transmission network of about 95,846 ckt. km and 157 substations having more than 1,44,303 MVA of transformation capacity. Compare this with POWERGRID at the onset of its commercial business in 1992–1993 operating 22,220 circuit km and 42 substations having transformation capacity of 12,200 MVA. POWERGRID has maintained its gigantic transmission network at an average liability of 99.94 per cent comparable to the best international standards.

Such outstanding track record has given an impetus to POWERGRID’s financial as well. In FY 2011–2012, POWERGRID achieved a turnover of ₹ 107.85 billion and a net profit of ₹ 32.55 billion, an increase of 19 per cent and 21 per cent respectively over the previous year. In order to bolster revenue streams and to remain a financially progressive organization in emerging market conditions, POWERGRID has diversified into synergetic businesses such as consultancy assignments at the national and international levels in transmission, distribution, telecom, etc.

The uneven distribution of energy resources in the country has necessitated development of a strong National Grid. Towards this, a perspective transmission plan has been evolved by POWERGRID for strengthening the regional grids and to enhance the inter-regional power transfer capacity of National Grid presently. National Grid with an inter-regional power transfer capacity of about 28,000 MW has already been established and the company plans to enhance the inter-regional power transmission capacity to 32,200 MW by March 2013.

POWERGRID has undertaken several technological innovations aimed at conserving Right-of-Way (ROW), minimizing impact on natural resources and human habitat and cost effectiveness in evacuation of power from the future generation projects. Having established the 765kV AC in the country, the company has taken leadership initiative to develop 1200kV system, the highest in the world, indigenously. A 1200kV UHVAC test station along with a 1200kV test line is being established at Bina in Madhya Pradesh as a collaborative effort with equipment manufacturers, for indigenous development of 1200kV equipments in India. Towards induction of the next voltage level in HVDC, POWERGRID has already started implementation of 800kV, 6000MW HVDC Bi-pole line from north-eastern region to northern region (Agra), which shall be the first of its kind (+800kV HVDC line) having the largest power carrying capacity and transmitting power over a distance of more than 2,000 km. These are pioneering initiatives even globally.

POWERGRID diversified into telecom business by leveraging the country wide transmission infrastructure and has established all India Broadband Telecom network of about 25,000 km with reliability of 99.99 per cent. Expansion is in progress for another 33,000 km. POWERGRID is the only service provider in the country having pan India overhead optic fibre network on its extra high voltage transmission lines. The network covers over 200 cities and towns providing connectivity to all metros, major cities and towns including remote areas of Jammu and Kashmir and north-eastern states. POWERGRID is also in the process of implementing state-of-the-art Multi Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) enabled network across the country.

Objective

The objectives of the study are twofold: (i) to delineate the processes of knowledge management in NTPC and POWERGRID, and (ii) to find out the tools that are enabling the knowledge management processes in these two companies to come into being and getting strengthened besides creating ‘ripple effect’.

Methodology

In this study, we have depended on the classification of knowledge management aspects by Schwartz (2006) and Knowledge Management Assessment Tool published by American Productivity and Quality Center & Arthur Anderson Consulting (1995) for narrowing at knowledge management processes. Primary data and secondary data in case of NTPC and POWERGRID were collected for analysis. While studying knowledge management processes in NTPC and POWERGRID, the observation and interview were used as research tools. In case of NTPC the ‘Knowledge Management Implementation in NTPC: an Indian PSU’ (Goel et al., 2010) and ‘A Study of Knowledge Management Practices and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour in NTPC’ by George (2012) were taken as repositories of secondary data.

Since this researcher is an executive in POWERGRID and that too in Knowledge Management Cell itself ‘observation’ as a tool of data collection was used more intentionally because it ‘entails systematic noting and recording of events, behaviour and artifacts (objects) in the social setting chosen for study’ (Marshall and Rossman, 2006, p. 98). The focus group interview of the team for knowledge management in NTPC and members of Task Force for Implementation of Knowledge Management in POWERGRID respectively was conducted because it is ‘often used for concept screening and refinement’ (Zikmund, 2003) besides structured interviews since ‘structured interviews are those conducted when it is known at the outset what information is needed’ (Sekaran and Bongie, 2010, p. 188). The secondary data sources were also used while studying NTPC and POWERGRID. The methodology has got an exploratory tinge. The case study research method was opted because it is ‘an enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real life context’ (Yin, 2003, p. 13) and it delineates ‘a human activity embedded in the real world’ (Gillham, 2005, p. 1). Woodside (2010) opines that case study method provides ‘the nuance necessary for capturing the thinking/doing process’. This method was also taken recourse to because NTPC and POWERGRID are in the industry of power and thus ‘generalization takes place in the minds of reader/consumer of the case study’ (McLeod, 2010, p. 35).

Analysis and Results

The creation of knowledge in NTPC and POWERGRID has been through Research & Development Department of NTPC and Technology Development Department of POWERGRID. The creation of tacit knowledge has been taking place in the minds of their personnel which get posted in the knowledge management portal under LAKSHYA in NTPC and Knowledge Bank in POWERGRID. Both of the companies have been using knowledge management technology through information and communication technology tools. So far as the acquisition of knowledge is concerned, the two companies under study have been found to take benefit of their networking with suppliers, stakeholders, vendors, customers, regulators and power traders. So far as the collation of knowledge nuggets is concerned, NTPC and POWERGRID are undertaking this exercise by maintaining and updating their knowledge management portals.

The storage of knowledge is being done in the repositories, databases, electronic devices and libraries by both NTPC and POWERGRID. Executives in NTPC are increasingly using ‘SAP System which provides a provision of knowledge management also. NTPC considers its KM Portal as the backbone of the KM System and helps the usage of knowledge throughout the Company in a big way.’ (George, 2012). The usage of knowledge is having progressive and increasing trends in POWERGRID as well. POWERGRID has got the task to ‘Share—Implement and maintain knowledge sharing systems on KM Portal (like groupware, bulletin boards, meetings, etc.) and disseminate (to the relevant target groups)’ (POWERGRID, 2010).

The dissemination of knowledge in NTPC and POWERGRID is taking place through their KM portals, leaflets, various publications and house journals. POWERGRID has published its knowledge maps & matrices (POWERGRID, 2011) NTPC has been disseminated knowledge through their ‘Domains of Operation & Maintenance, Engineering, Corporate Planning, Business Excellence, Commercial, Consultancy, Environment as utilization and afforestation, IT, Materials & Contract, Medical & Health Services, Project Construction & Erection, R&D, R&M, R&R & CSR, Safety, Vigilance & Finance’ (NTPC, Lakshya accessed on 16.10.2012). The dissemination of tacit knowledge in these companies is ensured through various training programmes, workshops, seminars, video conferencing, email and other mimeographs of seminars, etc. The sharing of knowledge in these companies is ensured through mentor–mentee programmes, cross functional teams, inter-departmental committees, project teams, induction training and project completion reports.

The reuse of knowledge has been the mainstay of NTPC and POWERGRID as they plan and expeditiously implement Power projects by using this process NTPC and POWERGRID both have formed various (CoPs) along its their business verticals of Operation & Maintenance of transmission assets, Project Management, Grid Management, Telecom and Consultancy and the business enablers of Human Resource Management, Finance & Information Technology. These CoPs are ensuring the reuse of knowledge and in this field, POWERGRID is in leading position. However, the reuse of knowledge in both of these companies has not reached the maturity stage.

The capitalization of knowledge in POWERGRID is only in its policy as depicted in their Policy Manual which reads ‘Monitor usage, assess/measure the benefits of the knowledge management in terms of the specified knowledge goals, get feedback, review and renew the knowledge bases (including identification of new knowledge to be captured), and embed knowledge into the organization’s value creating activities (services and/or information).’ (POWERGRID, 2010). However, NTPC has also finalized its policy in this area but did not publicize it.

The knowledge audit is an effort to understand where an organization stands in terms of knowledge management and its knowledge assets. ‘Knowledge audit assesses what knowledge assets are possessed by a specific organization. By knowing what knowledge is possessed, it is possible to find the most effective method of storage and disseminations’ (Liebowitz, 2000). Ideally, it should take place at the beginning itself.

However, NTPC and POWERGRID both did not undertake this exercise as a process of knowledge management formally.

The stages of knowledge management processes in NTPC and POWERGRID have been charted out in the flow chart in Figure 4.

Both NTPC and POWERGRID have entered the ‘third generation’ of Knowledge Management especially that of the knowledge management processes. However, the traits of third generation are not crystallized and stabilized because they lack unbound focus, innovation and knowledge capitalization. These power majors are striving towards meeting these conditions nevertheless.

In a nutshell, the bases of knowledge management processes in NTPC and POWERGRID are deeply rooted in their knowledge portals which depicts that knowledge management technology is the fountain head of their knowledge management processes. Intranet of these companies is primarily supported by information technology which plays a pivotal role in such a milieu. Since these companies are PSUs where the so-called top management is basically middle management, the knowledge sharing, use, reuse and capitalization have still not formed the part of the culture and repertoire of organization capital. In view of this, these companies need the impetus and fillip from top management that is, the administrative ministry viz. Ministry of Power, Government of India.

Figure 4.

Source: Developed by the author.

Conclusion

The entire gamut of knowledge management processes of NTPC and POWERGRID has come of age and it may be emulated by other power companies in India. Awareness about these processes should be created in a big way in NTPC and POWERGRID to develop the knowledge sharing culture. (At this stage, NTPC should go for Knowledge Audit so that they could get an in-depth understanding of the dynamics of knowledge management processes and may improve on the short comings and pitfalls especially in view of the fact that POWERGRID has partially conducted this while preparing its Knowledge Maps and Matrices [POWERGRID, 2011]).

Footnotes

Annexure–I

Barriers to Knowledge Sharing

absorptive capacity of receiving unit	feeling that the knowledge fits current context
access to the knowledge	fear of:
ambiguity regarding	becoming redundant
ethical situations	distortion or omission of information
knowledge seekers	exploitation once knowledge is shared
peers	losing confidentiality
reward	losing power once knowledge is shared
supervisor support	losing resources once knowledge is shared
the knowledge-sharing task	penalty if knowledge is shared
professional goals	risk
appropriate communication mode	global constraints including culture
appropriateness of the sharing channel	high costs of knowledge search
availability of:	hostile attitude toward knowledge sharing
dynamic channels to share knowledge	improper feedback
knowledge-sharing technology	inability to understand non-verbal cues
static channels to share knowledge	inability to voice relevant knowledge
time to dedicate to knowledge sharing	inappropriate physical appearance
communication direction	informal social groups or cliques
communication frequency	information overload
communication of organizational vision	internal resistance to knowledge sharing
communicator’s lack of credibility	know-it all attitude
compatibility of legacy systems	knowledge-sharing structures match compatibility
sharing systems	of the organization’s style
confidence in the knowledge	knowledge-sharing system simplicity
cultural differences	knowledge workers have a local orientation
defensiveness for gaining knowledge	lack of:
desire to retain information ownership	a knowledge-sharing facility
differences in perception of workers	clarity and conciseness
discontinuity in progress towards goals	common ground
effectiveness of sharing channel	contextual clues
effectiveness of the sharing system	interest in the subject matter
efficiency of the sharing system	motivation to participate
either-or thinking	reciprocity
emotional reactions to sharing	subject-matter knowledge
employees can identify the knowledge	trust
richness of transmission channels	understanding of technical language
existing resources sufficient to share	willingness to share
expected:	local problem constraints
associations with other shares	measurement of knowledge transfer
contribution to the organization	memory loss
recognition for sharing knowledge	motivational disposition of source
rewards for sharing knowledge	multiple languages used by knowledge workers
obvious link between sharing and the business’	resistance to change
problems	satisfactory content of the sharing transaction
operating environmental factors	self-interest
org. communicates good achievements	sender must establish legitimacy
overly competitive attitude	sense making
passive listening	skepticism toward sharing
perceived value of source’s knowledge	specialization of jobs
perception that knowledge will be of worth	specialized languages and methodologies
personality conflicts	state of mind
physical distance between workers	status or position
physical noise and distractions	strengthened group identity
poor communication skills (lack of)	strengthened personal responsibility
poor organization of ideas	structural barriers in hierarchical organizations
poor spatial arrangements	tendency of the receiver to evaluate
power and status relationships	time limitations
prejudice or bias	too many gatekeepers
prematurely jumping to conclusions	understanding of the context
preoccupation with an ongoing task	unit goals
prevention of free riders	unit subculture
professional cultures	unwillingness to listen
proprietary knowledge	usability of the knowledge
proprietary thinking	use of a network that motivates participation
questionable accuracy of information	user friendliness of knowledge-sharing
receiver perceives enhanced efficacy	system

Annexure–II

Task Force for Implementation of Knowledge Management in POWERGRID, interviewed on 15.10.2012

Sl. No.	Name of Department	Name & Designation of Committee Members
1.	Information Technology	Ms. Kumud Wadhwa, Chief Manager
2.	Corporate Planning	Mr. A J Rao, Chief Manager
3.	Engineering	Mr. A K Singh, Dy. Chief Design Engineer
4.	Finance	Ms. Prataksha, Chief Manager
5.	Operation Services	Mr. V K Bhaskar, Chief Manager
6.	System Operation	Ms. Minaxi Garg, Chief Manager
7.	Human Resources	Mr. K N Pandey, Chief Manager

Annexure–III

Questions used in Focus Group Discussion and Structured Interview:

Do you have any mechanism for knowledge-creation in your company?

Please list initiatives currently used in your company to gather, share and retain knowledge.

Do you use knowledge sharing mechanism? If so, how?

Have you got networks in place for dissemination of knowledge?

Which are the tools used by your company for knowledge dissemination?

Whether information for use across different establishments of your company is available to your personnel?

Have you developed a mechanism for effective cataloguing and archiving for your knowledge portal?

Do you ensure targeting knowledge provisions towards decision taking by your employees?

Do you practice job-rotation for your personnel in R&D and Technology Development Department?

How do you ensure reuse of knowledge in your company?

Have you devised any mechanism for knowledge capitalization in your organization?

Since you people have taken the mantle of knowledge management implementation across the length and breadth of your company, which are the knowledge management processes you use in your company?

References

Akoumianakis

(2009). Practice-oriented toolkits for virtual communities of practice. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 22(3), 317–345.

Al Hawamadeh

(2005). Knowledge management: Cultivating knowledge professionals. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Allameh

S.M.

et al. (2011). Examining the impact of KM enablers on knowledge management processes, Procedia Computer Science 3. Retrieved 21 July 2012, from www.Elsevier.com/locate/procedia

American Productivity & Quality Center and Arthur Anderson Consulting. (1995). Knowledge management assessment tool. Retrieved from http://kwork.org./white_papers/Kmat/html

Ante

S.E.

(2008). Creative capital: Georges doriot and the birth of venture capital. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Antonelli

Teubal

(2010). Venture capitalism as a mechanism for knowledge goverance. In Viale

Etzkowitz

(Eds), The capitalization of knowledge. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Asian Development Bank (2009). Disseminating knowledge products. Retrieved 27 July 2012, from Google.com

Austin

(2010). Law firms offer discounts, play matchmaker. The Wall Street Journal, 9 September 2010.

Bukowitz

W.R.

Williams

R.L.

(1999). The knowledge management fieldbook. Great Britain: Pearson Education Ltd.

10.

Cabrera

E.F.

(2002). Knowledge sharing dilemmas. Organisation Studies, 23, 687–710.

11.

Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2011). The influence of human resource management on knoweldge sharing and innovation in Spain: The mediating role of affective commitment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(7), 1442–1463.

12.

Ceptureanu

(2010). Knowledge creation/conversion process. Review of International Comparative Management, 11(1), 150.

13.

Chawla

Joshi

(2010). Knowledge management initiatives in Indian public & private sector organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(6), 811–827.

14.

Cheng

(2004). Culture as a special technology in globalization. In Cullenburg

Pattanaik

P.K.

(Eds), Globalization, culture and the limits of the market: Essays in economics & philosophy. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

15.

Connell

N.A.D.

(2006). Organisational storytelling. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

16.

Davenport

T.H.

Prusak

(2000). Working knowledge: How organisations manage what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

17.

Desouza

K.C.

Paquette

(2011). Knowledge management: An introduction. London: Facet Publishing. (p. 99).

18.

Foss

N.C.

Mahnke

(2003). Knowledge management: What can organisational economics contribute. In Smith

M.E.

Lyes

M.A.

(Eds), The Backwell Handbook of Organisational Learning and Knowledge Management (p. 86). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

19.

Fuller

C.M.

Wilson

R.L.

(2006). Extracting knowledge from neural networks. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management (pp. 188–189). London: Idea Group Reference Hershey.

20.

Geiger

Schreyogg

(2012). Narrative in knowledge sharing: Challenging validity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1), 97–113.

21.

Geisler

Wickramsinghe

(2009). Principles of knowledge management: Theory, practice and cases. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Armonk. (pp. 44–45).

22.

George

T.E.

(2012). A study of knowledge management practices & organizational citizenship behaviour in NTPC. Tattva Journal, 2(1), July 2012, 17–27.

23.

Ghobadi

D’Ambra

(2012). Knowledge sharing in cross-functional teams. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(2), 285–301.

24.

Gillham

(2005) Case Study Research Methods. London and New York, NY: Continuum.

25.

Goel

Sharma

G.R.

Rastogi

(2010). Knowledge management implementation in NTPC, an Indian PSU. Management Decision, 48(3), 383–395.

26.

Goldsmith

R.E.

Pillai

K.G.

(2006). Knowledge calibration. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

27.

Gottschalk

(2007). Knowledge Management Systems. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing.

28.

Green

Ruheler

(1995). Globalization, borderless worlds and the Tower of Babel: Metaphors gone awry. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 8(4), 55–68.

29.

Haas

M.R.

Hansen

M.T.

(2007). Different knowledge, different benefits: Toward – a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1133–1153.

30.

Hauschild

Licht

Stein

(2001). Creating a knowledge culture. The Mckingey Quarterly, 1(1), 74–81.

31.

King

W.R.

(2006). Knowledge sharing. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

32.

Lam

Lambermont Ford

(2010). Knowledge sharing in an organizational context. A motivation-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(1), 51–66.

33.

Levy

(2011). Knowledge retention: Minimizing organizational business loss. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 582–600.

34.

Liebowitz

(2000). The knowledge audit. Knowledge and Process Management, 7(1), 3–10.

35.

Lindsey

K.L.

(2006). Knowledge sharing barriers. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

36.

Machlup

(2005). Stocks and flows of knowledge. In Grundmann

Stehr

(Eds), Knowledge: Critical concepts Vol. III (Knowledge & the Economy). London and New York, NY: Routledge.

37.

Majchrzak

et al. (2004). Knowledge reuse for innovation. Management Science, 50(2), 174–188.

38.

Markus

M.L.

(2001). Towards a theory of knowledge reuse: Types of knowledge reuse situations and factors in reuse success. Journal of Management Information Success, 18(1), 57–93.

39.

Marshall

Rossman

G.B.

(2006). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

40.

Martinez–Cavas

(2012). Knowledge acquisition’s mediation of social capital-firm innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1).

41.

Martins

E.C.

Meyer

W.J.

(2012). Organisational and behavioral factors that influence knowledge retention. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(1).

42.

Mathews

M.L.

(2000). Knowledge-driven profit improvement: Implementing assessment feedback using PDK action theory. London; New York, NY: St. Lucie Press.

43.

Mclaughlin

et al. (2008). Barrier impact on organisational learning within complex organisations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 107–123.

44.

McLeod

(2010). Case study research: In counseling & psychotherapy. Los Angeles, CA and London: SAGE.

45.

Newell

S.M.

(2002). Managing knowledge work. New York, NY: Palgrave.

46.

National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) (2012). Lakshya (Knowledge Portal). Retrieved 16 October 2012, from www.ntpc.co.in

47.

O’Dell

(2004). The executive’s role in knowledge management. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill.

48.

Oshri

(2006). Knowledge reuse. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

49.

Osterloch

Frey

(2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organisational forms. Organisation Science, 11, 538–550.

50.

Paramasivan

(2003). Knowledge audit. The Chartered Accountant, November 2003.

51.

Parker

K.R.

Nitse

P.S.

(2006). Competitive intelligence gathering. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

52.

POWERGRID. (2010). Knowledge Management Policy. Gurgaon: Power Grid Corporation of India Limited.

53.

POWERGRID (2011). Knowledge maps & matrices. Gurgaon: Power Grid Corporation of India Limited.

54.

Probst

(2002). Managing knowledge building blocks for success. West Sussex: Wiley.

55.

Richter

Banerjee

(2003). The knowledge economy in India. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

56.

Ruhnka

J.C.

Young

J.E.

(1987). A venture capital model of the development process for new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(2), (Spring 1987), 167–184.

57.

Schwartz

D.G.

(2006). Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey: Idea Group.

58.

Sekaran

Bongie

(2010). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. New Delhi: Wiley India (P) Ltd.

59.

Shukla

Srinivasan

(2002). Designing knowledge management architecture: How to implement successful knowledge management programs. New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Response Books. A Division of SAGE Publications.

60.

Snowden

(2006). Narrative. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

61.

Stehr

(2005). The texture of knowledge societies. In Grundmann

Stehr

(Eds), Knowledge: Critical concepts Vol. III (Knowledge & the Economy). London and New York, NY: Routledge.

62.

Teng

J.T.C.

Song

(2011). An exploratory examination of knowledge sharing behaviors solicited and voluntary. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 104–117.

63.

Van den Hooff

Ridder

J.A.

(2004). Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organisational commitment, communication, climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 8(1), 117–130.

64.

Vat

K.H.

(2006). Knowledge synthesis framework. In Schewartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

65.

Viale

(2010). Knowledge driven capitalisation of knowledge. In Viale

Etzkowitz

(Eds), The capitalization of knowledge (pp. 31–73). Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

66.

Wickramasinghe

(2006). Knowledge creation. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

67.

Williams

L.A.

Steno

(2008). Pride and perseverance: The motivational role of pride. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1007–1017.

68.

Woodside

A.G.

(2010). Case study research: Theory, methods, practice. United Kingdom: Enerald.

69.

Wang

(2006). Integration of knowledge management and e-learning. In Schwartz

D.G.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of knowledge management. Hershey: Idea Group Reference.

70.

Yin

R.K.

(2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

71.

Zikmund

W.G.

(2003). Business research methods. Australia, UK, USA.: Thomson South-Western.