Iran aerospace industries' KM approach

based on a comparative study: a

benchmarking on successful practices
The Authors

Mostafa Jafari, Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and

Technology, Tehran, Iran

Peyman Akhavan, Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science

and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Mehdi N. Fesharaki, Computer Department, Malek Ashtar University of Technology,

Tehran, Iran

Mohammad Fathian, Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of

Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Purpose – The main objective of this paper is to develop a knowledge management

(KM)approach in Iran aerospace industries based on the findings through the analysis of
successful practices in KM area.

Design/methodology/approach – A qualitative case study technique has been used in

this paper for data collection and analysis. For that, “grounded theory” research approach
has been selected by which the collected data from successful organizations in KM
adoption are categorized and analyzed. The extracted concepts were deployed in Iran
aerospace industries to present a KM approach through benchmarking.

Findings – The overall results from the case studies analysis were positive, thus
reflecting the appropriateness for benchmarking. The extracted concepts clarify how to
develop KM approach in an organization. This approach has been applied in a large case
study in Iran and is supported by practical implementation in Aerospace Industries
Organization (AIO), one of the most important high-tech industries in Iran.

Practical implications – This paper provides a helpful roadmap for practitioners in

implementing KM through out the organizations and especially in large-scale ones. This
helps to ensure that the essential issues are covered during design and implementation
phase. For academics, it provides a common language for them to deploy a KM approach
in the organizations.

Originality/value – This study is probably the first to provide a benchmarked integrated

KM approach based on the critical success factors extracted by analysis in a multi case
study research. This study further opens up new lines of research and highlights
implications for KM efforts through benchmarking. It gives valuable information and
guidelines which hopefully will help the leaders to deploy KM in their organizations.

Article Type:

Case study

Keyword(s):

Knowledge management; Benchmarking; Aerospace industry; Iran.

Journal:

Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology: An International Journal

Volume:

79

Number:

Year:

2007

pp:

69-78

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

0002-2667

Introduction

Knowledge management (KM) is known as a systematic, goal-oriented application of

measures to steer and control the tangible and intangible knowledge assets of
organizations, with the aim of using existing knowledge inside and outside of these
organizations to enable the creation of new knowledge, and generate value, innovation
and improvement out of it (Wunram, 2000).

Knowledge has always been central in the functioning of society. However, in today's
“knowledge economy” organizations are increasingly aware of the need for a “knowledge
focus” in their organizational strategies as they respond to changes in the environment.
For many organizations, this has meant that the character of knowledge has changed
towards a more objective, theoretical knowledge with a focus on the codification of
knowledge into systems (Bell, 1999).

It is necessary to say that we are now changing steadily from an information age to a
knowledge age, where knowledge has been recognized as the most important aspect in
human life. Individuals and organizations are starting to understand and appreciate
knowledge as the most valued asset in the emerging competitive environment.
Knowledge is a powerful tool that can make changes to the world. It is now considered as
the main intangible ingredient in the melting pot that makes innovation possible (Syed-
Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004).

KM creates a new working environment where knowledge and experience can easily be
shared and also enables information and knowledge to emerge and flow to the right
people at the right time so they can act more efficiently and effectively (Smith, 2001).

For a deeper understanding of the KM processes, an attempt to express the hidden

meaning of data, information and knowledge is necessary. Data mean a set of discrete
and objective facts concerning events. Therefore, they can be construed as a structured
record of transactions within an organization. Information is data with attributes of
relevance and purpose, usually having the format of a document or visual and/or audible
message. Knowledge is linked to the capacity for action. It is intuitive, therefore hard to
define. It is linked to the users' values and experience, being strongly connected to pattern
recognition, analogies and implicit rules (Joia, 2000).

Meanwhile by the comparison of different definitions of “KM” the following aspects of

high relevance are resulted during KM adoption (Wunram, 2000): “Exploitation of
existing knowledge, Creation of new knowledge, Process orientation, Goal orientation,
Value orientation, Improvement orientation, and Innovation orientation”.

KM is about interventions in the organizations' knowledge base, which by definition

includes individual and collective intellectual assets that help an organization to perform
its tasks (Probst et al., 2000). It undergoes regular changes that constitute organizational
learning (Senge, 1990). A review of the early KM literature shows that raw technical
approaches drew the initial interest, but are not sufficient to produce the desired outcome
of KM (Davenport and Prusak, 1998). While intranets and information repositories may
provide means for people, they are not good in helping people apply the new knowledge
in the context of process work (Massey et al., 2002). Therefore, every KM initiative has
not only technical aspects, but also involves people and processes.
Considering the importance of aerospace industries and the role of knowledge in these
kinds of organizations, KM in the design of aerospace systems addresses the question of
how designers can share, capitalize, and re-use knowledge in an effective and reliable
way. KM is situated in groups, organizations, and communities, playing different roles in
the design process. Design of aerospace systems has specific properties, such as dealing
with complexity, traceability, maturity of knowledge, interaction between experts,
awareness of the status of information, and trust in knowledge (Boy and Barnard, 2003).

Nowadays, aerospace organizations are technologically experienced, and they have spent
multi million dollars for reaching the advanced knowledge, advanced equipments and
machines to which millions of people entrust their lives every year. So technical
information and knowledge has to be completely identified, captured, stored and shared
effectively between the experts.

In this paper, we show how to develop a KM approach for Iran Aerospace Industries
Organization (AIO) through the findings of a multi case study research analysis. The
authors implement a qualitative technique for data analysis at the first part of the
research, and then deploy the findings of research to AIO as benchmarking for
developing a KM approach.

Methodology

In the methodological approach for this study, the authors adopted a qualitative research
design due to their need for rich data that could facilitate the generation of theoretical
categories that could not derive satisfactorily from existing data. In particular, due to the
exploratory nature of this research and the interest of authors in identifying the main
subjects, events, activities, and influences that affect the progress of KM in the
organizations, they selected the grounded theory style of data interpretation, which was
blended with the case study design.

Grounded theory approach (GT) is a highly systematic general methodology used for the
data collection and analysis of any sort of data. Its purpose is the generation – not
verification – of explanatory theory of basic common pattern in social life, by
continuously comparing data (Glaser, 2001). GT rests on notion that the world is socially
organized in latent patterns, which will emerge if researched properly (Glaser, 2003). A
key concept to GT is that of the main concerns of participants involved in a substantive
area. GT considers the continual processing and resolving of that concern to be the prime
mover of participants' behavior (Glaser, 1998). GT therefore aims at surfacing these
latent social patterns via the conceptualization of the opinions, actions, etc. of these
participants (Glaser, 2003). GT generates theory from minimum prior knowledge. As an
inductive method, it seeks to discover theoretically relevant issues from data, rather than
from existing theories, preconceived notions or professional interests. By entering a
research field with as few predetermined ideas as possible, increases the theoretical
sensitivity of the researcher (Glaser, 1978). Since, no researcher can possibly obliterate
all the previously theories learnt, the trick is to line up what one takes as theoretically
plausible with what one finds in the substantive field via an emergent fit (Glaser and
Strauss, 1967).

Data used in this paper comes from a longitudinal study during a two-year period
examining knowledge establishment processes in different companies. Finally, some
more famous corporations which were successful in KM adoption were selected. This
research paradigm, which was based on an in-depth qualitative study, has some similarity
to ethnography (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994) and other forms of research that derive
their theoretical insights from naturally occurring data including interviews or
questionnaires (Marshall and Rossman, 1989). Especially, the researcher should intervene
in the results of project on a matter of genuine concern to them on which they have a
genuine need to take action. Research data and insight are gained alongside or on the
back of the intervention.

The data collected over the two years of the intervention have derived from different
papers, journals, books, reports and also through browsing the internet. During these
interventions, the expressed experiences, views, action-centered dilemmas, and actual
actions of selected companies have been recorded as research data. The data analysis for
the research consists of four stages:

1. accumulating different data;

2. developing an in-depth case history of the company activities from the raw data
that provided all the information;
3. open coding and subsequent selective coding the in-depth case history for the
characteristics and origin of KM process in the company; and
4. analyzing the pattern of relationships among the conceptual categories.

In the first stage of the data analysis, chronological descriptions of the project's activities
were constructed with respect to KM process in the companies, describing how it came
about, when it started, who was involved (rank of authority in the company), the level of
involvement, and the major outcomes. Through this work, an in-depth case history of the
project was completed. The second stage of analysis involved coding the in-depth case
history with respect to its characteristics, origin and effects. This was a highly iterative
procedure that involved moving between the in-depth case history, existing theory, and
the raw data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967).

The data were subjected to companies, cyclical, evolving interpretation and

reinterpretation that allow patterns to emerge. The GT is based upon the researchers'
interpretation and description of phenomena based on the actors' subjective descriptions
and interpretations of their experiences in a setting (Locke, 2001). This “interpretation”
strives to provide contextual relevance (Silvermann, 2000).

For each case, many reports and data were collected. After reviewing all data, some of
them were selected. In this analysis we were to answer:

• Why did these companies have to apply a KM program?

 • What are the essential issues of KM program in these companies?
• What are the critical success factors of KM program for a company?

For that, data from 14 successful companies in KM program were collected; Ernst &
Young, Hewlett-Packard, BusinessEdge Solutions (www.businessedge.com), Microsoft,
Teltech, Siemens, JPL, Compaq, Xerox, Chrysler, IBM, Phonak, Ford motor, and Rolls-
Royce were our selected companies.

In the next step, through selected input data and by categorizing and combining them,
main concepts were understood and their specifications distinguished.

Concepts are the basic units of analysis since it is from conceptualizations of data. Corbin
and Strauss (1990) state:

Theories can't be built with actual incidents or activities as observed or reported; that is,
from “raw data.” The incidents, events, happenings are taken as, or analyzed as, potential
indicators of phenomena, which are thereby given conceptual labels. If a respondent says
to the researcher, “Each day I spread my activities over the morning, resting between
shaving and bathing,” then the researcher might label this phenomenon “pacing” as a
main concept. As the researcher encounters other incidents, and when after comparison to
the first, they appear to resemble the same phenomena. Only by comparing incidents and
naming like phenomena with the same term can the theorist accumulate the basic
concepts for theory.

Distinguishing the relations between concepts and axial and selective coding are the next
stages of this step. Literature comparison with the results of each stage is the main
mechanism of emerging and appearing new ideas and concepts. This will be continued
until saturation stage. In this stage new cases will not add any new concept to the
findings. Table I shows the specifications of this part of the research.

Data analysis

By analyzing input data of selected companies, some concepts were found for answering
the questions of research about critical issues of KM success for developing a KM
approach. The extracted concepts have been shown in Table II. Now here we discuss
more about some important concepts.

From the strategic point of view, each company has some strategies for reaching its
objectives. For being successful on implementing KM system in the organization,
knowledge efforts and knowledge strategies should be aligned completely and correctly
with organization strategy.

Success of every program and planning in the organization depends directly on CEO
support and commitment. Of course a KM program also needs complete CEO support for
being successful in implementation.
For developing knowledge in the organization there should be some centers to lead
knowledge activities. This can be done through knowledge committees, communities of
practice, knowledge teams and network of experts. For spreading knowledge policies and
totality of knowledge in the organization, employees should become completely and
deeply familiar with knowledge concepts. So, training programs are very important for an
organization which is to conduct KM.

The other extracted concept is reengineering. The process of “reengineering” involves the
breaking of old, traditional ways of doing business and finding new and innovative ways,
and from the redesigned processes, new rules emerge that determine how the processes
will operate (Hammer, 1990). Considering Business Process Reengineering (BPR)
definition, usually the processes in the organizations have not been well designed. Now if
we want to establish a KM system on a weak foundation, knowledge efforts will be
failed. So, BPR helps the organization to decentralize and define a value-oriented
structure, in that KM system can be implemented correctly. Knowledge sharing plays an
important role on implementing and executing KM system. Knowledge sharing can often
be done effectively by regular or event-triggered knowledge sharing occasions. Regular
means repeated at specific intervals while event-triggered means at specific events like,
e.g. a project's end, coming up of a new technology, etc. Of course knowledge sharing
between employees needs a strong culture, trust and also transparency in all over the
organization. The political and cultural surroundings are known from the analysis of
knowledge culture because effective KM cannot take place without extensive behavioral,
cultural, and organizational change.

There is a need to initiate according the changes. This especially aims at creating an
environment where knowledge sharing is encouraged. In 3M, for example, a company
that has been successfully innovating for years, all employees can use 15 percent of their
working time for pursuing their own dreams. This arrangement clearly points out the
interest of the management in culture openness and knowledge creation, especially
regarding innovation, and the company has been successful with this. So, organizational
culture should be considered as an important driver for KM systems.

Great and important programs in the organization need to be executed first on a pilot,
then results should be studied, and possible amendments should be done through
feedbacks. Then, the program can be generalized and executed in all over the
organization on condition that taking suitable results from the pilot. KM system should
also be executed first in a pilot for taking the best results.

Knowledge audit is the other extracted concept. Knowledge audit is defined as a survey
measuring knowledge re-use and communication, cultural receptiveness to KM and
valuing of knowledge, KM opportunities, and deficiencies, gaps and problem areas and is
very important in KM systems.

Now, we discuss on KM architecture. KM architecture is the other main concept that has
been extracted through the case study analysis. An organizational architecture can be
defined as a complex, multi-dimensional construct expressing principles that guide how
the organization is to be designed, that is, how the elements of the business model are
actually organized and executed. Knowledge architecture can also be defined as a
logically set of principles and standards which guides the engineering (high level design,
detailed design, selection, construction, implementation, support, and management) of an
organization's KM system infrastructure. So the companies which are to design their KM
system should be really sensitive to construct their knowledge architecture correctly and
robustly.

The above-mentioned factors affect on success of KM system directly or indirectly and

have also effects on each other. Table II shows these items in a concise way. These
findings show that organizations should design their knowledge architecture in an
effective way and align all their knowledge strategies with organizational strategies.
Knowledge sharing is necessary and network of experts should be organized in the
company for leading knowledge efforts.

CEO support and commitment plays a very important role in KM systems. Some factors
such as BPR, decentralization, trust and transparency are directly dependent to CEO
support and commitment.

Knowledge identification and knowledge capturing are also important in a KM system

and storage the knowledge of organization should be applied for both tacit and explicit
knowledge. Continuous training for employees should be applied through seminars,
training courses, and conferences. The role of educations should not be forgotten in
training programs.

For knowledge sharing, transparency in all over the organization and also a strong culture
and good atmosphere of cooperation between employees are necessary. Also, trust factor
enables KM efforts and also helps knowledge sharing. Network of experts are also known
as the enablers of KM system. These networks lead knowledge activities through
scientific committees, communities of practice, knowledge teams and knowledge centers
and drive knowledge efforts in the organization.

Knowledge management in aerospace organizations

Aerospace and defense companies are facing increased pressure to boost efficiency as
they cope with shifting demands for new aerospace systems in a highly competitive
environment, but the inherent complexity of aerospace and defense means that companies
cannot achieve significant efficiency gains unless they provide a global workforce with
streamlined access to highly technical information. This requires a unified content value
chain, where information can be easily shared within and between relevant organizations
(Documentom solutions for the aerospace and defense industries, 2004).

The design and construction of knowledge is incremental. Aerospace systems are

designed over time. They are tested, modified several times and certified. The resulting
observation product, usually called experience feedback, is provided to designers who
use it to modify their current understanding of the artifacts they have designed.
Knowledge about these artifacts becomes progressively mature through this incremental
process.

To reduce costs, most of aerospace organizations have increased their outsourcing to

suppliers of subassemblies (such as engines, structures, landing gear and avionics) and
concentrating on their core competencies of design, assembling and marketing aircraft.
At the same time, they have made efforts to reduce, reorganize and rationalize their
supply base. Thus, KM in the supply chain has also become critical (Bozdogan et al.,
1998; Gostic, 1998; Allen et al., 2002).

KM in the design of aerospace systems addresses the question of how designers can
share, capitalize and re-use knowledge in an effective and reliable way. KM is situated in
groups, organizations and communities, playing different roles in the design process.
Design of aerospace systems has specific properties, such as dealing with complexity,
traceability, maturity of knowledge, interaction between experts, awareness of the status
of information, and trust in knowledge (Boy and Barnard, 2003).

NASA defines KM in this way:

Knowledge management is getting the right information to the right people at the right
time, and helping people create knowledge and share and act upon information in ways
that will measurably improve the performance of NASA and its partners.

This means providing access to information at the time people need it to make the best
decisions possible for mission safety and success (Holcomb and Keegan, 2002).

Aerospace systems are increasingly challenging to manage, and system interactions are
growing more complex. An integrated KM approach could access knowledge that is
currently spread across many people and organizations, addressing issues of the:

• social domain;
• cognitive domain;
• information domain; and
• physical domain.

This pattern has been extracted from an article published by Jafari et al. (2006), in which
the KM dimensions have been mapped by network warfare techniques. Network-centric
warfare (NCW) is an emerging theory of war in the information age. It is also a concept
that, at the highest level, constitutes the military's response to the information age
(Cebrowski, 2002). The term network-centric warfare broadly describes the combination
of strategies, emerging tactics, techniques, and procedures, and organizations that a fully
or even a partially networked force can employ to create a decisive war fighting
advantage (Garstka, 2000).

AIO knowledge management approach: benchmarking from the best practices

The importance of aerospace industries is known for every country. The AIO leaders
have also understood the vital role of KM in aerospace industries and that is why KM
efforts have seriously been started in Iran aerospace industries. The necessity of
developing a comprehensive KM approach for Iran aerospace industries was the best
incentive for the authors of this research. The most important dimensions of KM system
have been considered in this approach through the findings of the first part of the research
including best practices in successful corporations (Figure 1).

AIO managers believe that if they do not start managing their organizational knowledge,
they will repeat their mistakes and worse, they will never learn from their successes and
can never grasp their great vision, launching the Iranian National Satellite to capture the
space.

By now, Iranian engineers and scientists have spent many years working on an important
national project - launching the first Iranian National Satellite - and have learned from the
senior members and eventually mentored junior team members. Through these years,
AIO's knowledge base and abilities are growing up. Today's engineers and scientists may
work years on a project and then move on. Individually, they may gain a lot of
knowledge, but that knowledge remains in their minds with them and is not captured or
passed on broadly for future missions. New employees are tossed into a maelstrom of
project implementation and expected to perform without any substantial introduction to
organizational processes, history, culture, and lessons learned.

In this way, AIO's knowledge is believed as the organization's primary, sustainable

source of competitive advantage. Considering physical assets age, today's workforce is
mobile, and technology is quickly bypassed. However, the leaders of AIO believe that
knowledge in AIO can endure. This knowledge is a fluid mix of aerospace experience
and know-how that allows AIO's employees to strive for achieving the great wish of
launching the Iranian National Satellite through continuous learning and sharing of this
knowledge between the experts.

Those companies whose cultures promote knowledge-sharing and individual learning

have high employee retention, attract high-quality employees, and have a workforce that
focuses on fixing the problem rather than fixing the blame.

KM is the spark that will ignite AIO's ability to get the most from the investments have
been made in its workforce and information technology, and to harness the considerable
intellectual capital within the organization and its partners. Implementations in KM build
upon technology and information to help and guide AIO through the complexities of
working with different teams and making ever-more-complex decisions. AIO has many
of the key ingredients to making KM succeed: a highly intelligent workforce, a need to
learn in order to succeed, and some technical infrastructure.

Considering the large amount of knowledge in AIO, and strong belief of top managers
about knowledge as the most important capital and the most important output of AIO, the
managers decided to establish a KM system in the organization. The commitment of
senior managers and their strong wish and belief on it, helped movement towards a
knowledge-based organization.

Usually, management efforts in an organization are geared toward survival, while making
a profit and KM efforts are no different. There are several key characteristics that should
exist in a learning organization and the AIO leaders are sensitive enough about them.

Leadership in the knowledge enterprise is responsible for practicing strategic planning

and systems thinking approaches, making best use of resources, fostering a culture that
encourages open dialogue and team learning, and finally, for encouraging and rewarding
risk taking, learning, and knowledge sharing.

Considering the findings of this research about the best practices done in successful
corporations in KM area, a systematic KM approach was developed for AIO which will
be explained as follows.

After vision definition, Iranian National Satellite launch was considered as the main and
the most important objective, and then strategies were selected and defined including
organizational and knowledge strategies while were discovered by the findings of this
research as the important concepts in KM adoption.

Knowledge strategy is defined as the strategies that facilitate knowledge objectives in the
organization. Every organization that is to establish a KM system has some main
objectives and specially knowledge objectives. Knowledge strategies show how an
organization can reach its knowledge objectives in an effectively way. Knowledge
strategies in AIO were defined by close relationship between strategic research center and
knowledge centers.

BPR was discovered as the other main concept for KM systems. As the traditional and
hierarchical structure of the organization was not agile enough, so BPR was started in the
organization. Moving towards a process-based organization with a horizontal structure
were the main targets of BPR in AIO. The BPR project resulted focus on process,
especially R&D processes. Meanwhile the organizational structure was decentralized and
designed in a way that, process teams could communicate with each other as fluent as
possible.

One of the most important challenges in AIO was available organizational culture which
has also distinguished as an important concept in the case studies. Resistance against the
change is a main topic in cultural changes. This problem was being solved through an
action plan. Different sessions and meetings were hold for common clarity of the subject.
In these sessions, the importance of KM system and its functions were completely
explained and the necessity of moving towards this system was explored and discussed.
Also many seminars were hold, and different bulletin and magazines were published to
help employee and managers get familiar with KM and its role in different organizations,
especially in aerospace industries. All these plans were helping in acceptance the change
and cultural changes.
Owing to the necessity of training and developing the human resources in a knowledge-
based organization, AIO started training programs for the employees. These programs
were followed in different domains and especially academic educations in the
universities. Short-term training (during the work) and training seminars were some other
programs for developing human resources in AIO.

In addition to training, many other programs are followed in AIO. As some programs
faced with some limitation at the first sages, they should be executed in small
dimensions, which had been explored in this research as pilot. So some pilots were
selected and the programs were deployed in them. One of these programs was reward
system. After the pilot program, the results were explored for getting feedback. The
weaknesses and strengths of the programs were monitored, and finally after some
amendments, those programs were deployed to all around the organization.

Knowledge centers, knowledge sharing and knowledge committees were distinguished as

the other main concepts. In this way, each department of AIO was equipped by a
developed research center that all R&D activities were directed by it. All these research
centers could share knowledge and communicate with each other horizontally. Also a
KM department was organized in each of these research centers and a CKO (chief
knowledge officer) was appointed in order to settle and arrange knowledge and also
facilitate knowledge sharing inside and outside of the organization.

Gradually, knowledge committees were established in different scientific groups and

knowledge sharing process was started seriously between different committees. These
knowledge committees had been emerged from different departments of the organization.
They had different meetings with each other continuously and regularly in order to share
their experiences and scientific findings in the best way. In this way, the network of
experts was gradually formed in AIO.

Meanwhile different programs such as knowledge identification, knowledge capturing,

and storage of knowledge were defined. Knowledge repositories, knowledge committee,
and network of experts were established in order to share the knowledge more strongly
and swiftly.

The available knowledge in the organization should be identified and captured in the best
way. This knowledge should be organized and codified in order to better utilization in the
organization. Meanwhile, saving the knowledge of organization (tacit and explicit) is one
of the most important elements of a KM system. Skill databases, expertise database, and
storage of tacit and explicit knowledge of the organization are as important as the other
elements of KM systems. If an organization cannot store its knowledge truly, the most
important property of the organization (knowledge) may be missed easily. Personal KM
is the first important factor in knowledge storage that can be applied through a suitable
documentation system. Knowledge bases are also vital for knowledge storage. Of course
for aerospace industries which are equipped with a large amount of knowledge, these
factors are very crucial and should be considered carefully. All these items were
distinguished as some important findings of the first part of the research and considered
in KM approach of AIO.

Also all departments started to extract their knowledge map in order to identify and
capture their knowledge in a better way. Transparency in all official relations in the
organization and especially financial transparency were deployed in all over the
organization in order to motivate employees and reinforce their trust and participation as
have been discovered as the main concepts through the case studies analysis.

The enterprise should have a structure that facilitates personal interactions and supports
communities of practice to capture tacit and explicit knowledge within the organization.

From the information technology point of view, it is necessary to say that the overarching
purpose of information technology (IT) is to increase productivity in the workplace. To
that end, IT departments now assemble complex systems of specialized hardware and
software applications to serve the varied and distinct information needs within the
company. As technology was subsequently adopted and embraced by large businesses
and organizations such as AIO - and then customized to meet their growing information-
handling needs – emphasis switched from group communication to more sophisticated
ways of inputting, organizing, storing, and retrieving the burgeoning mountains of data.

Now emphasis is swinging back from data storage and manipulation toward interpersonal
communication as the most effective means of exchanging knowledge.

There are many ways in which IT inherently understands the model of the knowledge
network and may be able to save itself some work in the long run by helping to establish
strong technical bases for them. Circumstances define the choice of technology as the
knowledge network begins and gets up to speed. The longer range considerations of the
technology were tied to the purpose of the knowledge network in AIO too.

Knowledge networks exist primarily for learning, but they have many other purposes.
They are formed to manage and complete projects, to generate new ideas and
innovations, and by educating and inspiring their members, to stimulate more productive
activity in the workplace. Software design is becoming increasingly specialized to serve a
wide variety of specific interactive and collaborative purposes, and though many
companies include their products under the broad banner of “online community tools,”
they all lean toward serving certain types of group needs over others that are possible
through information technology.

Considering the importance of KM architecture, it has been developed as a system

integrator between the other concepts. As earlier discussed, KM architecture can be
defined as a logical set of principles and standards which guides the engineering (high-
level design, detailed design, selection, construction, implementation, support, and
management) of an organization's KM system infrastructure. KM architecture focuses on
KM by a systematic approach and integrates all factors related to KM to prepare a
suitable architecture for knowledge in the organization. Therefore, the companies that are
to design their KM system should be sensitive to construct their KM architecture
correctly and robustly as was considered in AIO too.

Figure 1 shows the conceptual KM approach for Iran aerospace industries. This figure
represents the knowledge cycle including knowledge identification, knowledge capturing
and storage, knowledge audit and knowledge sharing in the outer layer.

Management, human resources, organizational dimensions, and culture are the main
topics which cover some other related concepts.

Management issue includes support and commitment of CEO, strategic planning and
money spending. All these topics are related to “management” closely.

Organizational structure, transparency, decentralization, and centers of knowledge are

some important issues which are linked to organizational dimension.

Human resources topic includes some concepts such as knowledge committees, network
of experts, conferences and knowledge sharing, and finally, the culture topic points to
some important issues such as trust, transparency, alignment of knowledge strategies by
organizational strategies and knowledge sharing.

It is clear that knowledge sharing is nearly repeated in all topics. This is because of the
importance of knowledge sharing in KM domain. By knowledge sharing, knowledge can
increases and survives in the organization. Knowledge can sediment in the organization
through knowledge sharing that can cause knowledge creation.

The political and cultural surroundings are known from the analysis of knowledge culture
because effective KM cannot take place without extensive behavioral, cultural, and
organizational change. This especially aims at creating an environment where knowledge
sharing is encouraged. This arrangement clearly points out the interest of the
management in culture openness and knowledge creation, especially regarding
innovation. Since, most knowledge processes are on a more or less voluntary basis and
knowledge is to a large degree personal, there should be a culture of motivation, a sense
of belonging, empowerment, trust, transparency and respect within an organization
before people really start engaging themselves in developing, sharing and using
knowledge. It requires a culture in which people are respected, based on the knowledge
they have and the way they are putting it to use for the organization.

Pilot, information technology, training programs and BPR are located at the middle of the
figure. They are crucial factors which should be considered with the other concepts for
developing a successful KM approach; and finally KM architecture is located at the
center of figure which shows the important role of it in linking of the different concepts
in KM.

The author's emphasis on this factor can be clarified through the definition of KM
architecture as discussed earlier. Knowledge architecture was defined as a logically set of
principles and standards which guides the engineering of an organization's KM system
infrastructure. So the organizations and especially aerospace ones, which are to design
their KM system, should be really sensitive to construct their KM architecture.

Conclusion

The aerospace industry produces high-value added products and services that can act as a
knowledge base for other manufacturing industries too. Owing to the large amount of
knowledge and intellectual capital inside the aerospace industries, applying an effective
KM approach is a vital necessity for this kind of industries in different countries. In this
paper, we followed a benchmarking for developing a KM approach in Iran aerospace
industries through analysis of some successful corporations.

A qualitative case study technique has been used in this paper for data collection to gain
insights into the topic being investigated. For that, “grounded theory” research approach
has been selected by which the collected data from real case studies (successful
organizations in KM adoption) were categorized and analyzed through specific stages.
The extracted concepts demonstrated critical success factors of KM system within
organizations. These concepts were benchmarked to develop a KM approach in Iran
aerospace industries. The suggested approach can act as a roadmap for the leaders who
are to establish KM in their organizations.
Mostafa Jafari
Peyman Akhavan
Mohammad Fathian
Figure 1KM approach in Iran aerospace industries

Table ISpecifications of the research first part

Table IICritical issues of knowledge management

References

Allen, M. (2002), A Study to Examine the Future of Turboprop Aircraft, The George
Washington University and Back Aviation, Washington, DC, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Atkinson, P., Hammersley, M. (1994), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage,

Thousand Oaks, CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Bell, D. (1999), The Axial Age of Technology Foreword: The Coming of the
Postindustrial Society, Basil Book, New York, NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Boy, G., Barnard, Y. (2003), "Knowledge management in the design of safety-critical

systems", available at: www-
eurisco.onecert.fr/Wise/Publication/ECS03_BoyBarnard_Final.pdf, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Bozdogan, K. (1998), "Architectural innovation in product development through early

supplier integration", R&D Management, Vol. 28 No.3, pp.163-73.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Cebrowski, A.K. (2002), "New rules, new era pentagon must embrace information age",
Defense News, October 21-27, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (1990), "Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria", Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13 No.2, pp.3-21.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge – How Organizations Manage

What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Documentom solutions for the aerospace and defense industries (2004), EMC
Corporation, available at: www.documentum.co.uk, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Garstka, J. (2000), "Network-centric warfare: an overview of emerging theory",

PHALANX: The Bulletin of Military Operations Research, Vol. 33 No.4, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Glaser, B.G. (1978), Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded

Theory, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Glaser, B.G. (1998), Doing Grounded Theory: Issues and Discussions, Sociology Press,
Mill Valley, CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Glaser, B.G. (2001), The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted

with Description, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Glaser, B.G. (2003), The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description's Remodeling of
Grounded Theory Methodology, Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Aldine, Chicago,
IL, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Gostic, W.J. (1998), "Aerospace supply chain management", MIT Sloan School of
Management, Boston, MA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Hammer, M. (1990), "Don't automate, obliterate", Harvard Business Review, July-

August, pp.110.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Holcomb, L., Keegan, B. (2002), Strategic Plan for Knowledge Management, NASA
Publication, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Jafari, M., Fathian, M., Akhavan, P., Fesharaki, M.N. (2006), "Mapping network warfare
techniques to KM", KM Review, Vol. 9 No.4, pp.28-33.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Joia, L.A. (2000), "Measuring intangibles corporate assets: linking business strategy with
intellectual capital", Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 1 No.1, pp.68-84.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Locke, K. (2001), Grounded Theory in Management Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,

CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Marshall, C., Rossman, G. (1989), Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, London, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Massey, A.P., Montoya-Weiss, M.M., O'Driscoll, T.M. (2002), "Knowledge management

in Pursuit of performance: insights from nortel networks", MIS Quarterly, Vol. 26 No.3, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Probst, G., Raub, S., Romhardt, K. (2000), Managing Knowledge, Wiley, Chichester,
NY, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning
Organization, Currency/Doubleday, New York, NY, August, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Silvermann, D. (2000), Doing Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Smith, R. (2001), "A roadmap for knowledge management", available at:

www2.gca.org/knowledgetechnologies/2001/proceedings, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Syed-Ikhsan, S.O.S., Rowland, F. (2004), "Benchmarking knowledge management in a

public organization in Malaysia", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No.3,
pp.238-66.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Wunram, M. (2000), "Concepts of the CORMA knowledge management model",

available at: www.corma.net, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Further Reading

Davenport, T. (1996), "Knowledge management at Hewlett-Packard", available at:

www.mccombs.utexas.edu/kman/hpcase.htm, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Davenport, T. (1997a), "Knowledge management at Ernst & Young", available at:

www.mccombs.utexas.edu/kman/E&Y.htm, .
[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Davenport, T. (1997b), "Knowledge management at Microsoft", available at:

www.mccombs.utexas.edu/kman/microsoft.htm, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Davenport, T. (1998), Teltech: The Business of Knowledge Management Case Study,

McCombs School of Business, University of Texas, Austin, TX, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Graham, A.B., Pizzo, V. (1996), "A question of balance: case studies in strategic
knowledge management", European Management Journal, Vol. 14 No.4, pp.338-46.

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Jennex, M. (2005), Case Studies in Knowledge Management, Idea Group Publishing,

Hershey, PA, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

Pudlatz, M. (2002), Case Study: The Siemens ICN Knowledge Management Challenge,
available at: www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin, .

[Manual request] [Infotrieve]

About the authors

Mostafa Jafari an Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering Department in Iran

University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran, with BE in Mechanical and
ME in Productivity and PhD in Industrial Engineering from IIT, Delhi. Working in area
of strategic planning, BPR, knowledge management, with more that 20 research paper
and five books in area of industrial engineering. Mostafa Jafari is the corresponding
author and he can be contacted at: mostafajafari2006@yahoo.com

Peyman Akhavan received his MSc degree in Industrial Engineering from Iran University
of Science and Technology, Tehran in 2003, and currently is PhD student in the same
university. His research interests are in BPR, Knowledge Management, Information
Technology, and Strategic Planning. He has published 1 book and has more than 20
papers in different conferences and journals. E-mail: akhavan@iust.ac.ir
Mehdi N. Fesharaki

received his MSc degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering from Sharif University
of Technology, Tehran in 1986, and the PhD degree in Computer Engineering from
University of NSW, Australia in 1994. He is currently an Associated Professor in the
Department of Computer at the Malek Ashtar University of Technology at Tehran. His
research interests are in Knowledge Management, Knowledge Engineering, IT-based
Operations Management, Decision Making, and Meta-heuristics. He has published more
than 20 papers in the international conferences and 7 papers in international journals. E-
mail: fasharaki@mut.ac.ir

Mohammad Fathian an Assistant Professor of Industrial Engineering Department in Iran

University of Science and Technology (IUST), Tehran, Iran, with MSc and PhD in
Industrial Engineering from Iran University of Science and Technology. Working in area
of information technology, electronic commerce, knowledge management, with more that
18 research paper and three books in area of industrial engineering and information
technology. E-mail: Fathian@iust.ac.ir