Valuing knowledge sharing in Lafarge

Abstract

This paper describes the detailed process of a knowledge sharing strategy at Lafarge, a global player in the construction materials industry. The case study explains why this company uses such a strategy to create value for stakeholders, provide a local access to know-how and build a knowledge sharing culture among divisions. It argues that a well-articulated approach of a knowledge sharing strategy consists in creating a knowledge portfolio, supporting a knowledge management structure, providing tools for collaboration and nurture a culture of knowledge sharing through awards. At the end, we discuss the lessons learned by the Corporate Knowledge Manager on this strategy and we study how she can quantify the value brought by its action. In a whole, this paper gives insights of critical issues in moving a global company towards a knowledge-sharing organization.

Investigating the Relationship Between Knowledge Sharing Strategies and Organizational Excellence Pillars

“…The last two hypotheses H5 and H6 of this research when tested uncovered that positive influences exist between KS strategies and TR. Similar results were found by other previous researchers, such as Bertot, et al (2010);Yao et al (2007); Perrin et al (2006);Cormican & O'Sullivan (2003).…”

“…To create transparency, Lafarge Management aligned the KS culture with internal company programs to promote collaboration and communities of practice (Perrin et al, 2006). Similarly, Kleinschmidt (2009) mentioned that many enterprise social tools allow people to easily collaborate either physically or virtually and do their job well within the overarching goal of promoting cross-team and cross-department sharing to promote transparency.…”

Making Links between Knowledge Management and Organizational Performance

“…The goal of these authors was to demonstrate KM effectiveness within organizations. The authors discuss the limitations of existing approaches by raising aspects related to the nature of knowledge, cultural and systems barriers, as well as the measure of return on investment (Perrin et al, 2006). Thus, the authors introduce a KM model based on four dimensions.…”

“…Perrin et al (2006) state that "The difficulties encountered by practitioners like Knowledge Managers tempted by this adventure and by researchers seeking to identify these problems, or even hoping to propose improvements, can be explained by the parcelling out of the different approaches and the absence of an integrative vision" p. 33.…”

“…Certain authors have suggested that this limitation requires an effort to define integrative frameworks that deal with an organization as a complete system (Earl, 2001;Hazlett et al, 2005;Martensson, 2000;Perrin et al, 2006). In addition, since KM holds a strategic role in organizational management, a proper understanding of how it can help improve the performance of organizations remains a priority for management research (Earl, 2001;Perrin et al, 2006;Quintas, 2008).…”