Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Comparative study of knowledge management and knowledge sharing culture in pharma industry ; dwija

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
A
PROJECT REPORT
ON
“Comparative Study Of Knowledge Management
Practices And Knowledge Sharing Culture In The
Pharma Indus...
A
PROJECT REPORT
ON
“Comparative Study Of Knowledge Management Practices
And Knowledge Sharing Culture In The Pharma Indus...
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that Ms. Dwija Oza, student of AES Post Graduate Institute
of Business Management, Gujarat ...
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Prochain SlideShare
Decision support system
Decision support system
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 79 Publicité
Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Diaporamas pour vous (20)

Publicité

Similaire à Comparative study of knowledge management and knowledge sharing culture in pharma industry ; dwija (20)

Plus récents (20)

Publicité

Comparative study of knowledge management and knowledge sharing culture in pharma industry ; dwija

  1. 1. A PROJECT REPORT ON “Comparative Study Of Knowledge Management Practices And Knowledge Sharing Culture In The Pharma Industry.”
  2. 2. A PROJECT REPORT ON “Comparative Study Of Knowledge Management Practices And Knowledge Sharing Culture In The Pharma Industry.” In partial fulfillment of MBA course Submitted by: DWIJA M. OZA (MBA-HR, 2005-07 Batch) Submitted to: DR.EKTA SHARMA AES POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT 2
  3. 3. CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Ms. Dwija Oza, student of AES Post Graduate Institute of Business Management, Gujarat University Batch 2005-07 has pleted her Grand Project titled “Comparative study ofsuccessfully com knowledge management practices & knowledge sharing culture in Pharmaceutic rma for the partial fulfillment of the M.B.A. Part II. ---------------------------- ---------------------------- Director Project guide Dr. A. H. Karlo Dr. Ekta Sharma Date: Place: als Industry” under the guidance of Dr. Ekta Sha 3
  4. 4. Acknowledgement his project work is a combined and shared contribution of all who directly or indirectly pported me in the research work and I sincerely thank them all for their contribution and support. First of all I am highly obliged to Dr. Ekta Sharma who guided me for the project and deria-Torrent Pharma Ltd; nd MR.Rishikesh Rawal (GM-HR,Plant), Mr. M.S.Oza (sr.GM-HR) – Zydus cadila healthcare ltd. for providing me the information and corporate support throughout the roject. k all thank all the respondents for giving would also like to thank Mr. Hitanshu Vora and Mrs. Sangeeta at AESPGIBM for their onstant support. T su helped to put the things in right perspective. My sincere thanks go to Mr. Jayesh Brahmbhat(AGM-HR) and Ms Vidya Bhupat -Intas Pharma ltd, Mr. Anuj Shah- Astron Reaserch center; Mr.Ramchandran(AGM-HR) and Ms. Miti Ran A p I would also like to than me their valuable time to respond the questionnaire. I c 4
  5. 5. Executive summary owledge practices at different Pharma companies and assess the knowledge sharing culture within. The study signifies the lack of formal KM practices te the prospective success for such formal system and strategy by building the base ground. y. ring culture is sharing is significantly higher than the R&D however the case is reverse with cororate. knowledge sharing culture for the future. Where the knowledge being the most important source of competitive advantage for the Pharma industry, the study is conducted to identify the kn and the supportive systems. However the presence of knowledge sharing culture at significant level indica The study was basically conducted at 3 pharma companies and 135 employees from different strata were included for stud The study also check the hypothesis that is the knowledge sha stronger at R&D center than corporate and plant in general. And the test very well reject the hypothesis against the plant that means at plant the knowledge The recommendations are also presented in the report as to how companies can build upon the 5
  6. 6. Preface “Kn factor in pr In the eco Tangible a intangible Kno owledge is being applied to knowledge itself. It is now fast becoming the one oduction, sidelines both capital and labor.”--PETER DRUCKER. nomic literature the assets are of two types: tangible and intangible assets. ssets are those, which are visible and have the material existence. And the asset is the “knowledge”. wledge is the awareness, consciousness or familiarity gained through experience Kno , exposure or learning. wledge management is the process of capturing, organizing, restoring and sharing the KM generates resources. KM can be best understood in terms of a discipline rather than just an IT solution. A on is importa ndent on several factors like the motivation of employees, company culture, top management support, reward of knowledge sharing etc. therefore the factors motivating a successful KSC along with technology should be given equal priority and thrust while outlining the strategies for installing and implementing a successful and sustainable KM in a corporate structure. Successful KM in any firm is means rather than just ends to increase its performance in highly competitive business world compared to its competitors. To conclude, firms based on the successful KM through sound knowledge sharing culture can easily benefits of higher revenue growth, competitive advantage, marketing advantage, employee development etc., in contrast to the firms having a sound KSC in the present era of globalization and liberalization. knowledge or information. is a process, a movement, or a strategy through which the organization the value from their intellectual property and knowledge of its human nd hence creating a knowledge sharing culture (KSC) across the organizati nt. The successful implementation of KM is highly depe 6
  7. 7. List Of content Sr.No. Particulars Page No. 10 2 Introduction To Knowledge Management Principles 13 6 tion Cycle 18 9 es In The Two Variables 20 7 Drivers Of KM 22 8 KM Enablers 23 7 2 5 38 2 Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 39 Chapter-1 Introduction To Knowledge Management 9 1 Introduction 3 Knowledge V/S Information 1 4 The Informa 5 Approaches To KM 1 6 Knowledge Com 9 An Overview Of KM Process 24 10 Knowledge Creating Process 2 Chapter-2 About Pharma Industry 31 1 Indian Pharma Industry 3 2 Post 2005 Scenario 32 3 Significance Of KM In Pharma Industry 3 Chapter-3 Company Profile 37 1 Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 3 Zydus-Cadila Healthcare Ltd. 40 7
  8. 8. hapter-4 Research Methodology 41 Objective Of The Study Sources Of Data 43 43 Chap er-5 arma s Cadila ng Chap er-6 eneral Observation 70 Chap er-7 Limitations Of The Study Bibliography Ann xure C 421 2 3 Methodology t Data Analysis 46 1 General Comparison Of KSC 47 2 KCS Profile Of Intas Ph 57 3 KCS Profile Of Zydu 60 4 KCS Profile Of Torrent Pharma 64 5 Hypothesis Testi 67 t Recommendations 69 1 G 2 Recommendations 71 t Conclusion 74 78 79 e 80 8
  9. 9. apter-1Ch o the knowledge management. Introduction t 9
  10. 10. 1. Introduction anage what it knows. During the 1990s, a number of siness principles gained attention as efforts "critical to your organization's success." wever, unlike other opportunities for a competitive advantage, knowledge management became a mode of operations for leading organizations. Now, more than 80 percent of major corporations have explicit knowledge management initiatives, and global organizations now ha f practice. The Journal of International Marketing estimated that spending on knowledge management was approximately $1 Through capturing lessons learned, reusing designs, transferring best practices, and enablin me a widely atic process of connecting people to people and people to the knowledge and information they need to act effectively and create new knowledge. We commonly see on executives' agendas the desire to increase responsiveness to customers, identify cost redundancies, improve new product/service development, improve the quality and productivity of work, and make better decisions. A response to these challenges will require use of an organization's best knowledge assets by a whole organization. That systematic capture, transfer, and use of internal and external know- how is a vital part of any business strategy. • With no common processes for sharing information among employees, partners, and customers, limited information exchange will occur among suppliers and the engineering, manufacturing, and service functions. Consequently, the organi- zation will experience ineffective design reuse, and product launch mistakes will be repeated. No business can ignore the need to m bu Ho ve hundreds of communities o 2 billion USD in 2003. g collaboration and access to expertise, knowledge management has beco adopted business practice and imperative. Knowledge management is a system 10
  11. 11. • If there is no company standard expertise locator or people finder, then the inability to locate subject matter experts will result in lost opportunities, lost time, past experiences and lessons learned, yet their time-to-competence needs to be compressed. owledge management. People want information they can use and trust from a single point of access. Also, an often- d acquired. Knowledge management can set the framework for how learning fits into the overall picture of developing Des ena and being incapable of applying the right resources to significant problems. And with too many different systems, proposals, and pricing sheets, sales representatives cannot have access to information they need when they need it. This can prolong the sales cycle and lead to less-than-best sales solutions offered to the client. • With retirement and turnover, knowledge is walking out the door everyday. New hires do not have the benefit of • Mergers and acquisitions result in two bodies of knowledge and expertise and two cultures that must assimilate quickly. • Portals and e-business are drivers of kn neglected point is that customers want access to your knowledge and to their business transactions with you. • Another driving factor is e-learning. Firms now must know where and how knowledge is really being created an employees and making them productive. pite these pressing needs, knowledge is sticky. Without a systematic process and blers, it will not move. 11
  12. 12. A knowledge management initiative enhances the performance. of the organization people. The goal is not to share knowledge for its own sake, although that is a e byproduct of the process. The goal is to enhance organizational performance by ly designing and implementing tools, processes, systems, structures, and cultures rove the identification, capture, validation, and transfer knowledge critical for n-making. and its valuabl explicit to imp decisio 12
  13. 13. 2. Introduction to knowledge management principles Knowledge management requires managers to work with complex and evolving issues, but there are some enduring characteristics and principles of KM that are important to know. What is Knowledge Management? Knowledge management is Capturing, organizing, and storing knowledge and experiences of individual workers and groups within an organization and making this information available to others in the organization. KM is the distribution, access and retrieval of unstructured information about "human experiences" between interdependent individuals or among members of a workgroup. Knowledge management involves identifying a group of people who have a need to share knowledge, developing technological support that enables knowledge sharing, and creating a process for transferring and disseminating knowledge. A widely accepted 'working definition' of knowledge management applied in worldwide organizations is available from the: "Knowledge Management caters to the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival, and competence in face of increasingly discontinuous environmental change.... Essentially, it embodies organizational processes that seek synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity of information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings." In simpler terms, Knowledge Management seeks to make the best use of the knowledge that is available to an organization, creating new knowledge in the process. 13
  14. 14. It and, andis helpful to make a clear distinction between knowledge on the one h inf ation and data on the other.orm Information can be considered as a message. It typically has a sender and a receiver. Information is the sort of stuff that can, at least potentially, be saved onto a computer. Data is a type of information that is structured, but has not been interpreted. Knowledge that has a use or purpose. Whereas info ledge exists in the heads of people. Kno It is • Data might be described as information rmation can be placed onto a computer, know wledge is information to which an intent has been attached. Context Independence important not to confuse the terms data, information, and knowledge. can be facts and figures presented out of context. Although data can trigger innovation or improve efficiency, it lacks inherent meaning and provides no sustainable basis for action. Data Understanding Information Knowledge Wisdom Understanding Understanding Understanding 14
  15. 15. • Information, on the other hand, is data presented in context so people might make use of it. Information sources may include: patents, trademarks, processes, manuals, drawings, reports, research, transaction data, and market research. • Knowledge as "information combined with experience, context, interpretation, and reflection."- Thomas Davenport. It is information in action that people can make use of, along with the rules ext of its use. Valuable knowledge is embedded in language, stories, , and tools. Sources of knowledge can include your customers, products, and processes; rules of thumb; skills and experiences; know-how; and pinpointing "how things work around here." 3. and cont concepts, rules 15
  16. 16. Knowledge v/s Information ge of KnoThe challen wledge Management is to determine what information within an rganization qualifies as "valuable." All information is not knowledge, and all knowledge is not valuable. The key is to find the worthwhile knowledge within a vast sea of informa n a) Knowledge Management is about people. It is directl and or motivations. It is not a technology-based concept. Although technology can support a Knowledge Management effort, it shouldn’t begin there. It is inextricably tied to the strategic objectives of the organization. It uses only the info tion that is the most meaningful, practical, and purposeful. c) Knowledge Management is ever changing. There is no such thing as an immutable law in Knowledge Management. Knowledge is constantly tested, updated, revised, and sometimes even "obsolete" when it is no longer practicable. It is a fluid, ongoing process. d) Knowledge Management is value-added. It draws upon pooled expertise, relationships, and alliances. Organizations can further the two-way exchange of ideas by bringing in experts from the field to advice or educate managers on recent trends and developments. Forums, councils, and boards can be instrumental in creating common ground and organizational cohesiveness. o tio . y linked to what people know, and how what they know can support business ganizational objectives. It draws on human competency, intuition, ideas, and b) Knowledge Management is orderly and goal-directed. rma 16
  17. 17. e) Knowledge Management is visionary. f) Knowledge Management is complementary. It can be i uch as Total Quality This vision is expressed in strategic business terms rather than technical terms, and in a manner that generates enthusiasm, buy-in, and motivates managers to work together towards reaching common goals. ntegrated with other organizational learning initiatives s Management (TQM). It is important for knowledge managers to show interim successes along with progress made on more protracted efforts such as multiyear systems developments infrastructure, or enterprise architecture projects. 17
  18. 18. 4. The information life cycle AcquiringUsing Processing Storing Dissemi- nating 18
  19. 19. 5. Approaches to Knowledge Management There is a broad range of thought on Knowledge Management with no unanimous def ition currently or likely. The approaches vary by author and school. For example,in Knowledge Management may be viewed from each of the following perspectives: • Techno-centric: Focus on technologies, ideally those that enhance knowledge sharing/growth, frequently any technology that does fancy stuff with information. • Organizational: How does the organization need to be designed to facilitate knowledge processes? Which organizations work best with what processes? • Ecological: Seeing the interaction of people, identity, knowledge and environmental factors as a co e system.mplex adaptiv • Combinatory: Combining more than one of the above approaches where possible without contradiction. 19
  20. 20. 6. Knowledge comes in two basic varieties • Explicit- formal/codified: Explicit knowledge is easier to document and share, contributes to efficiency, and easier to replicate. It comes in the form of books and among the former are assets such as patents, trademarks, business plans, marketing research and customer lists. As a general rule of thumb, explicit seful without the context provided by experience. Only 20 percent of what an organization contains is explicit. documents, formulas, project reports, contracts, process diagrams, lists of lessons learned, case studies, white papers, policy manuals, etc. Included knowledge consists of anything that can be documented, archived and codified, often with the help of IT.. Explicit knowledge may not be u • Tacit- informal/ un-codified: That means that 80 percent of what an organization knows is tacit in that it h interactions with employees and customers and through the memories of past vendors. Management of tacit knowledge calls for different processes from explicit knowledge management. This knowledge is hard to catalog, highly experiential, difficult to communicate and document in detail, ephemeral, and transitory. It is also the basis for judgment and informed action. Tacit knowledge leads to competency and a higher competitive advantage. Firms concerned about knowledge loss fear that tacit knowledge has not been captured (made explicit) or transferred so that others may benefit from it. is harder to articulate, steal, and transfer. Tacit/Un-codified knowledge can be found throug 20
  21. 21. Established organizations are typically swimming in enormous amounts of tacit and explicit knowledge, only some of which is valuable and durable enough to offer future competitive ad is to determine transferred. Th tacit kn vantage and justify the costs of retaining and transferring it. The challenge exactly what and where that knowledge is and how it can be captured and e approaches for explicit knowledge may be more mechanical; those for owledge are more difficult to identify. 21
  22. 22. 7. Drivers of knowledge management There are a number of 'drivers', or motivations, leading organizations to undertaking a knowledge management program. Perhaps first among these is to gain the competitive advantage that comes with improved or faster learning and new knowledge creation. Knowledge management programs may lead to greater innovation, better customer experiences, consistency in good practices and knowledge access across a global organization, as well as many other benefits, and knowledge management programs may be driven with these goals in mind. Considerations driving a knowledge management program might include: • making available increased knowledge content in the development and provision of products and services • achieving shorter new product development cycles • facilitating and managing organizational innovation • leverage the expertise of people across the organization • benefiting from 'network effects' as the number of productive connections between employees in the organization increases and the quality of information shared increases • managing the proliferation of data and information in complex business environments and allowing employees to rapidly access useful and relevant knowledge resources and best practice guidelines • facilitate organizational learning • managing intellectual capital and intellectual assets in the workforce (such as the expertise and know-how possessed by key individuals) as individuals retire and new workers are hired 22
  23. 23. 8. Knowledge management enablers A. Technology: Historically, there have been a number of technologies 'enabling' or facilitating knowledge management practices in the organization, including expert systems, knowledge bases, various types of Information Management, software help desk tools, document management systems and other IT systems supporting organizational knowledge flows. The advent of the Internet brought with it further enabling technologies, including e- learning, web conferencing, collaborative software, content management systems, corp rao te 'Yellow pages' directories, email lists, blogs, and other technologies. Each enabling technology can expand the level of inquiry available to an employee, while prov dii ng a platform to achieve specific goals or actions. B. Knowledge sharing culture: C uult re is a term that comprises of a set of rules, values, attitudes, and behavior of an organization. Basically the organizations are group of individuals and communities who share s values, norms, and rules to accomplish certain objectives. Eachome kind of shared org izan ation has a very distinct culture which outlines how the members of the organization relate to one another. C u fully influence human behavior and isult re is important because it can power extremely difficult to change. It exerts its influence from numerous invisible ways- from the kind of people who get hired, the formal and informal expectations made of human resources, the focus of reward systems, the structural aspects of the organization etc. which we will discuss in detail in the following chapters. 23
  24. 24. 9. An overview of Knowledge Processes The key l • al silos are likely to constrain effective knowledge sharing and ome together to capture, create and share relevant knowledge, in pursuit of business excellence. Such a team is empowered to develop best practices, maintain the knowledge repositories, and know edge management processes are: Linking people to people in teams through formal / informal structures, for them to effectively share knowledge. A Community of Practice (CoP) is one such useful structure. In large organizations with geographical spread, multiple business units, businesses, organization leveraging of collective knowledge of the enterprise. Communities of practice (knowledge communities or teams) formed around core competencies of the company help overcome this constraint. A CoP is a team of people who are practitioners of a well-defined knowledge domain (Packaging, engineering, sales etc.) who c develop and deliver relevant training programs to build the capability in the knowledge domain. 24
  25. 25. • Linking people to information / knowledge repositories / best practices - Intranets with efficient search engines provide an effective way to connect people to knowledge repositories with the capability for easy retrieval of needed information. 25
  26. 26. 10. The Knowledge-creating Process Know d transcends also transc interaction or between individuals and their environment. In knowledge creation, micro and macro interact with each other and changes occur at both the micro and the macro level: an individual (micro) influences and is influenced by the environment (macro) with which he or she interacts. The SECI process - the four modes of knowledge conversion le ge creation is a continuous, self-transcending process by means of which one the boundary of the old self into a new self by acquiring a new context, one ends the boundary between self and other, as knowledge is created via the s among individuals An organization creates knowledge by means of the interactions between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. We call the interaction between the two types of knowledge 'knowledge conversion'. In the conversion process, tacit and explicit knowledge expand in both quality and quantity (Nonaka, 1990, 1991 and 1994, and Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). The four modes of knowledge conversion are: • Socialization: from tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge • Externalization: from tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge • ombination: from explicit knowledge to explicit knowledge • nternalization: from explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge C I 26
  27. 27. Socialization Socialization is the process of converting new tacit knowledge through shared experiences. As tacit knowledge is difficult to formalize and often time- and space- specific, it can be acquired only through shared experience, such as spending time together or living in the same environment. Socialization may also occur in informal social meetings outside the workplace, where tacit knowledge such as a worldview, mental models and mutual trust can be created and shared. It also occurs beyond organizational boundaries. Firms often acquire and take advantage of the tacit knowledge mbedded in customers or suppliers by interacting with them. xternalization f this Another example is a quality control circle, which the manufacturing process by articulating e tacit knowledge accumulated on the shop floor from years on the job. The successful con rs on the sequential use of met h Co b This is the process of converting explicit knowledge into more complicated and systematic sets of explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is collected from inside or outside the organization and then combined, edited or processed to form new knowledge. The new explicit knowledge is then disseminated among the members of the organization. e E The process of articulating tacit knowledge as explicit knowledge is Externalization. When tacit knowledge is made explicit, knowledge is crystallized, thus allowing it to be shared by others, and it becomes the basis of new knowledge in new product development is an example o allows employees to make improvements on th ve ion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge depends ap or, analogy and models. m ination 27
  28. 28. The process of embodying explicit knowledge as tacit knowledge is internalization. Via in , trainees can internalize the explicit knowledge in their tacit knowledge base. Explicit knowledge can also be lations or experiments that trigger learning by doing. Creative use of computerized communication networks and large-scale databases can facilitate this mode of knowledge conversion. When the comptroller of a company collects information from throughout the organization and puts it together in a context to make a financial report, that report is new knowledge in the sense that it is a synthesis of information from many different sources in one context. The combination mode of knowledge conversion can also include the 'breakdown' of concepts. Breaking down a concept such as a corporate vision into operationalized business or product concepts also creates systemic, explicit knowledge. Internalization ternalization, explicit knowledge created is shared throughout an organization and converted into tacit knowledge by individuals. Internalization is closely related to 'learning by doing'. Explicit knowledge, such as product concepts or manufacturing procedures, has to be actualized in action and practice. For example, training programmes can help trainees to understand an organization and themselves. By reading documents or manuals about their jobs and the organization and reflecting on them such documents to enrich embodied in simu When knowledge is internalized to become part of individuals' tacit knowledge base in the form of shared mental models or technical know-how, it becomes a valuable asset. This tacit knowledge accumulated at the individual level can then set off a new spiral of knowledge creation when it is shared with others in socialization. 28
  29. 29. 11. Knowledge sharing culture in an organization dividuals collectively and interactively the light of their experience. Knowledge regarded as an important strategy for developing a competitive a ning. Today, knowledge sharing is widely acknowledged as indispensable for the sound health of the enterprises in the light of rapid advancements in the information technology across the world. The willingness to share is positively linked to growth and innovation, increased customer satisfaction, and increased shareholder value and organizational learning. Knowledge sharing is set of behaviors that involve the exchange of information or provision of assistance to others (Connelly & kelloway 2003) described the process of knowledge sharing as the manner in which in refine a thought, an idea, or suggestion in sharing has been dvantage for organizational knowledge can be stored and integrated to form the basis for installing competence, capability or routine and thus, it can contribute to creating competitive advantage. While knowledge sharing couture is generally defined as “a kind of environment where individuals are willing to disseminate information regardless of the size of the organization or company.” In order to do so individuals must adhere to the norms, values, attitudes and beliefs established by the organization or a company. It can be described as the culture where the ideas can be freely challenged and knowledge gained from other sources can be used. Knowledge sharing can occur through variety of media such as conversation, meetings, processes, best practices, databases, and questio 29
  30. 30. Ideally, knowledge sharing should be a corporate value, which defines how work gets one and how everyone thinks. In short, a culture of knowledge sharing is deeper than superficial individual behaviors and captures th organization It is a known fact that before a cultural change such as knowledge sharing can be ions, which exist within an org. i.e. the friendliness among the members of the corporation. In fact sociability makes work enjoyable, enhances spirit of teamwork, promotes info sharing, and creates openness to new ideas and information. After the brief introduction of the knowledge management principles and knowledge sharing culture next chapter examines the Pharma Industry in India d e hearts and minds of the people within an . There is wide agreement that most organizational cultures currently act as barrier to knowledge sharing and need to change to become more supportive of it (Gupta and Govindarajan, 2000). There are four key reasons why culture is seen as being at the base of how well knowledge is shared (Delong and Fahey, 2000): • Culture shapes people's assumptions about what knowledge is important. • Culture determines the relationship between levels of knowledge, i.e., what knowledge belongs to the organization and what to an individual. • Culture creates a context for social interaction about knowledge, e.g., what is sensitive, how much interaction or collaboration is desirable, which actions and behaviors are rewarded and punished. • Culture shapes the creation and adoption of new knowledge. effected, the org. involved must be taken into consideration while outlining any strategies for KSC. All culture tends to vary along two dimensions: • Solidarity • Sociability These two dimensions capture much of what we know about organizational culture. Solidarity refers to emotional and non-instrumental relat 30
  31. 31. Chapter-2 Pharmaceuticals Industry in India 31
  32. 32. 1. INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY The Indian Pharmaceuticals sector has come a long way, being almost non-existing ring 1970, to a prominent provider of health care products, meeting almost 95% of untry’s pharmaceutical needs. The domestic pharmaceutical output has increased at a CAGR) of 13.7% per annum. Currently the Indian pharma industry valued at approximately $ 8.0 billion. Globally, the Indian industry ranks 4th in terms of lume and 13th in terms of value. Indian pharmaceuticals industry has over 20,000 units. Around 260 constitute the organi The exports constitute alm of pharmaceuticals in India. India’s phar contr The export revenue now contribut he total revenue for the top 3 pharma majors: Dr Reddy’s, Ranbaxy a rmulations and exports are largely to developing nations in CIS, South E and Latin America. In the last 3 years generic exports to developed countries have picked up. 2. POST 2005 SCENARIO du co compound growth rate ( is vo zed sector, while others exist in the small scale sector. ost 40% of the total production maceutical exports are to the tune of $3.5bn currently, of which formulations ibute nearly 55% and the rest 45% comes from bulk drugs. es almost half of t nd Cipla. The fo ast Asia, Africa, By issuing the patent ordinance, India me WTO commitment to recognize foreign product patents from January 1, 2005, the cul ination of a 10-year process. In this new scenario, the Indian pharmaceutical manufactu rs won’t be able to manufacture patented drugs. To adapt to this new patent regime, the industry is exploring business models, different from the existing traditional ones. t a m re 32
  33. 33. New Business Models include: • Co • Contract Research g to experts, it will be an industry worth anywhere between $500 million to $1.5 billion by 2010. The global l of $14.8bn for the Indian Contract manufacturing than their western counterparts. Many Indian companies have made their plants cGMP compliant and India is also having the largest number of USFDA-approved encies like USFDA, MCC etc. for their manufacturing facilities. ntract research (drug discovery and clinical trials) • Contract manufacturing • Co-marketing alliances The focus of the Indian pharma companies is also shifting from process improvisation to drug discovery and R&D. the Indian companies are setting up their own R&D setups and are also collaborating with the research laboratories like CDRI, IICT etc. In 2002, the industry for clinical trials in India was $ 70 million. This market is growing at a rate of 20% per annum. Accordin R&D spend is to the tune of $60 billion, of which the non-clinical segment accounts for $21bn and the clinical segment accounts for $39bn. In terms of Indian prices, this translates into $7bn (at 1/3rd of US/EU costs) and $7.8bn (at 1/5th of US/EU costs) respectively. This constitutes a total potentia pharma companies. • Many global pharmaceutical majors are looking to outsource manufacturing from Indian companies, which enjoy much lower costs (both capital and recurring) plants outside USA. The Pharma companies are going for compliance with International regulatory ag 33
  34. 34. Indian companies are proving to be better at developing APIs than their competitors rget markets and that too with non-infringing processes. Indian drugs are either in to strategic alliances with large generic companies in the world of off-patent les or entering in to contract manufacturing agreements with innovator companies lying complex unde from ta entering molecu for supp r-patent molecules. ishman Pharma, and Zydus cadila healthcare ltd, orrent pharma ltd. etc. have been undertaking contract jobs for MNCs in the US and Europe.Indian their ad Novarti interme market suggest 2004. Some of the companies like D T companies started undertaking contract manufacturing of APIs as part of ditional revenue stream. Top MNCs like Pfizer, Merck, GSK, Sanofi Aventis, s, Teva etc. are largely depending on Indian companies for many of their APIs and diates.The Boston Consulting Group estimated that the contract manufacturing for global companies in India would touch $900 million by 2010. Industry estimates that the Indian companies bagged manufacturing contracts worth $75 million in 34
  35. 35. 3. SIGNIFICANCE OF KM IN PHARMA INSDYSTRY In present scenario Knowledge Management appears to be a facet of competitive advantage for the Pharma industry with emerging new business models and the concept of Knowledge process outsourcing. Because in the present competitive era, every organization/industry is trying to tap the knowledge by documentising, and that its human resources possesses. It shouldn’t be surprising that the global need to service the knowledge based functions is marching with well deserved confidence towards Indian Pharma industry. Not because of the cost differential but also because we have huge bank of qualified and educated people in our country. Many countries are now looking at India for highly technical and knowledge related tasks, giving birth to KPO (knowledge process outsourcing), which is a firm that provides technical and functional services to global giants.As cost saving from it, is much more as compared to the work being done in the home country. E.g. drafting and filing of patent in US is quite expensive. And it is where Indian Pharma Company grabs the opportunity. There are many factors which clients review before they engage in contract manufacturing in India, First, the nature of work done, then the various verticals that the organization specializes in, and not to forget the kind of specialized manpower and the knowledge available in the company. The crucial factor that in our favor is that the since we have abundant skilled professionals, lead-time for performing the task is comparatively lesser resulting in efficient and quick delivery. 35
  36. 36. In the pharma industry it is said that with Indian companies offering custom nthesis services at a competitive price lower by as much as 30-50% than the global costs and with clinical trials for as low as $25 million as compared to $300-350 million ecks for talented workforce is the basis of success in the harma industry. And that signifies the importance of presence of the knowledge sy elsewhere,” India could become the most preferred destination for outsourcing by contract research and contract manufacturing” and the key to en-cash all these opportunities lies within the concept of Knowledge management. The ability of an organization to retain the knowledge and experience of its human resources, in the era of high attritions and bottle-n p sharing culture within the organization, which this report tries to identify and assess as one of its objectives. 36
  37. 37. Chapter-3 Company Profile 37
  38. 38. Inatas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Founded by the visionary, Hasmukh Chudgar in 1976, Intas set off on its glorious journey by establishing a small unit at Vatva, near Ahmedabad, to cater to the needs of the chronic segments like Neurology and Psychiatry. Gradually Intas spread its wings into the ma tream of the Pharma market by launching divisions to cater to the needs of Global market. With established presence in the markets of Southeast Asia and Africa, and evolving presence in the regulated markets of USA, Europe and Latin America, I felt on the global pharma horizon. astroenterologists, N garnering over 1000 live registrations in more than 50 countries across the globe. The year 2007 will pro ANDAs in t At Intas, novation is the way of life. Intas was amongst the first companies to introduce new s in its formulations (like melt-in-mouth technology for peridone, sustained release in Alprazolam, once daily dosage for Isosorbide 5-Mono itrate and controlled release Sodium Valprolate).he pipeline. ins ntas is now making its presence eurologists and Psychiatrists. Intas has already succeeded in vide further impetus to its global business with 15+ In drug delivery system Dom N 38
  39. 39. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The foundations for Torrent were laid when 'Trinity Laboratories' began operations under est company among capital intensive companies in terms of ROCE in a study e its salience in other therapeutic areas as well. In the domestic market, the focus is exclusively on ethical allopathic market and the higher end of the institutional market velopment and New Drug Delivery Systems/Value added generics, Thereby transforming discoveries into the ighest quality therapeutic products. Opportunities for undertaking contract and collaborative research are being actively pursued. There would be a distinct focus on out- censing of its NCEs for development and global marketing. the able guidance of Shri Mehta whose efforts are worthy of emulation. 'Trinity' was later renamed as 'Torrent'. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited recorded a quantum leap in the year 1994. It has also been rated India's ninth b In the International operations arena, Torrent Pharma exports to more than 50 countries around the world with over 1000 product registrations. Torrent has to its credit, leading brands in various therapeutic segments. It is a dominant player in the therapeutic areas of Cardiovascular (CV), Central Nervous System (CNS), Gastro-Intestinal, Diabetology, Anti-infective and Pain Management. Efforts are on to increas in urban and semi-urban areas. Torrent R & D Centre has a team of over 560 scientists, who continue to offer dedicated services in the areas of Discovery Research, Generic Drug De h li 39
  40. 40. Zydus-Cadila healthcare Ltd. care under the aegis of the Zydus group. Zydus Cadila has a wide ranging presence in formulations, Active l, biological, pain management and anti-infective segments. a Healthcare plant at Navi umbai also commenced commercial production in 2001-02, taking the group's tally to seven fully operational; state-of-the-art manufacturing plants spread over three states of ujarat, Maharashtra and Goa. Founded in 1952, Mr. Ramanbhai patel started the company in partnership with Mr. Indravadan Modi under the name of Cadila laboratories. By the early 1990s, Cadila was ranked the third largest pharmaceutical company in India.(ORG -December 1991, 1992, 1993). in 1995, Cadila Laboratories emerged as Cadila Health Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API), diagnostics, health & dietetic foods, skin care and animal healthcare. A strong player in the domestic formulation sector, Zydus Cadila markets several need based therapies through its core divisions: Zydus Cadila, Zydus Alidac, Zydus Medica, Zydus Biogen and specialty divisions Zydus Neurosciences and Zydus Vaccicare. The company has solidified its position by launching several new products in cardiovascular, gastrointestina The group exports branded formulations to 43 countries worldwide. To step up growth in exports, Zydus Cadila has been focussing on introducing new molecules. With the acquisition of German Remedies Limited and Banyan Chemicals, Zydus Cadila's manufacturing premises now comprise 7 plants including its existing plants at Moraiya in Ahmedabad and Ankleshwar. The Zydus Altan M G 40
  41. 41. Chapter-4 Research Methodology 41
  42. 42. 1. Objective of the study • To understand the concept of knowledge management and knowledge sharing culture within the topic. • To identify and study the knowledge management practices in the pharma industry. • To identify the presence of knowledge sharing culture. • To assess the awareness of employees about the presence of knowledge sharing culture. • To compare the knowledg e knowledge sharing culture in various Pharma companies • To ana e level of d the plant and corporate house. • To generalize the results for the Pharma industry as a whole. e management practices and th lyze the hypotheses that is there a significance difference between th knowledge sharing culture in an R&D centers within the companies an 42
  43. 43. 2. Sources of data • Data collected for the purpose of the study was from primary source as well as secondary source Secondary data: s, presentations, Internet, and other possible resources. • Secondary data was collected from the journals, websites, organization’s yearbook Primary data: ation: 1.General information of the knowledge management practices in the sample Pharma companies was collected from interviewing the resource person. 2.The necessary data for KSC assessment was collected through questionnaires. Primary data contained two types of inform 43
  44. 44. 3. Research methodology he sampling techniques, the process of data collection and the instrument used for data collection. Research design T research methodology gives an idea about the type of research design, the The research design in this project was descri is qualitative in nature. The project carried out culture within the pharma companies. With the help of 9 dimensions hence the project includes describing knowledge management practices and assessment of knowledge sharing culture and thus it is a descriptive research design. Questionnaire ptive research design. It involves identifying KM practices and knowledge sharing The in tured questionn ire. This questionnaire was filled up by employees of the pharma companies. The ques the attributes which are qualitative in nature. As culture is a subjective term. strument used for the collection of the primary data was a struc a tionnaire had closed ended questions on a likert scale which helped in measuring 44
  45. 45. Sampling technique and sample size The sampling technique used in this project was a non-probability sampling. A non- pling technique in a non-probability sampling was that of a pling. Convenience sampling attempts to obtain a sample of convenient f the samples is left primarily to the resource person from HR in • Intas pharma pharma • Zydus-cadila • Corporate employees • Plant employees • R&D employees . As the questionnaire had Likert scale in it the scaling technique was on a 5 point scale. 5 was considered as strongly agree (100%) and accordingly the dimensions of the KSC were measured. probability sampling relies on the personal judgment of the researcher rather than chance to select samples. The sam convenience sam samples. The selection o the organization. The sample size was kept 135 for the project purpose. Samples were taken from the three pharma companies. That is 45 respondents from each • Torrent These 45 samples were further classified in three strata. that is 15 samples selected from each strata 45
  46. 46. Chapter-5 ysisData Anal 46
  47. 47. General comparison of KSC between the Pharma companies No. Parameters Intas Zydus Torrent 1 Openness to share 3.92 3.64 3.84 2 Team structure 3.51 3.5 3.85 3 Reward 1 3.383.46 3.2 4 Innovation& crea 4 3.67tivity 3.45 3.6 5 Top mgt support 4.013.86 4.01 6 Autonomy 3.783.28 3.57 7 T&D efforts 3.693.57 3.57 8 Bench marking and best practices 3.34 3.51 3.55 9 Tech. Infrastructure 3.6 3.37 3.59 Grand mean 3.55 3.56 3.71 Analysis: The above table indicates the mean scores for different parameters of the knowledge sharing culture with each of the 3-pharma companies. It is indicative that the level of the KSC is higher in the Torrent as compare to other two companies. However the inferences can better be extracted by looking at the scores for each parameter. 47
  48. 48. 1. Openness to share: openess to share 3.92 3.64 3.84 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT The s e highest mean score for openness to share learning and sharing the knowledge that is required for individual and tional growth. The following company is Torrent with score of 3.84, which is not sig frastructure will not give optimum results. cores indicate that th is at Intas at 3.92. That indicates that people by enlarge are receptive to organiza nificantly lesser. However, Zydus requires to foster the culture of openness which an essential element before practicing the Knowledge management as until and unless people feel the need for sharing of info; all technological in 48
  49. 49. 2. Team structure: Existancce of Team structure 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT Series1 The existence of team structure is highest with Torrent, which is a good sign indicative for the success of KM efforts. Highly effective have the characteristic of extensive flow of information. Which suffice the objective of any KM efforts. The two flow of info. Zydus and Intas are lagging behind at this particular aspect however these particular score are indicating the employees’ perception about the systems and processes that a collegial type of leadership can definitely encourage the team structure within the organization. 49
  50. 50. 3. Rewarding the innovation and knowledge sharing efforts: Rewarding innovation IN TA S ZYD U S TO R R EN T INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT for self-esteem under Maslow’s need hierarchy theory that imat rewarding for knowledge sharing etc. Zydus again is lagging in this practice. Any positive step at this aspect will irectly positively impact the first dimension that is openness to share. Best way to bring about any successful change in how people behave or support the culture change is to link it with the monetary or non-monetary reward. Reward satisfies the need ult ely positively reinforces the desired behavior. Intas has leading scores at this dimension, which indicates that, the management and leadership within the organization is actively trying to foster the knowledge sharing culture. The close follower is Torrent at 3.38 mean score which indicates that the higher scores at openness to share are probably a positive result of this practice of d 50
  51. 51. 4. Encouraging Innovation and Creativity: Encouraging Innovation 3.45 3.64 3.67 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT score. Overall scores are not satisfactory and all companies are nearly similar at. This is a perception of employees as to how much the innovation and creativity are encouraged in the routine way of getting things done. Constant Innovation is the key to sustainable competitive advantage for any Pharma company. It is necessary to create a climate that encourages innovation and learning without the fear of punishment for failure. Hence this dimension should anyway get a high 51
  52. 52. 5. Top management support: Top management suppport 3.75 3.8 3.85 3.9 3.95 4 4.05 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT Series1 Any kind of culture change requires a strong support and affiliation from the top anagement. As their behavior and action speaks louder than any other interventions. strategic issues. he drive out of such hesitation is necessary for the knowledge sharing and let the company to take the advantage of its human resources. m Torrent and Zydus considerably score high (4 approx.) on this parameter but the ideal score should be the complete 5 that they are moving towards. Intas is slightly lagging. And there may be any of the two reasons behind. • There may be fear of leakage of the company’s confidential information, which causes the flow of important information to the competitor. • Top management is unwilling to disclose organizational T 52
  53. 53. 6. Autonomy: 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT Autonomy Autonomy refers to the freedom to act and make decisions. This particular parameter can better be studied in KM concept in connection with top management support and encouragement to innovate and the existence of team structure within the organization. The score suggests that the all three companies are at different stage in this aspect The To n respectivel een the compan s rre t is leading at 3.78 mean score, and then comes Zydus and Intas following y. Though the scores are not satisfactory the difference is clear betw ie though being in the same industry with similar organizational structures. 53
  54. 54. 7. Training and development efforts: 3.5 3.55 3.6 3.65 3.7 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT T & D Efforts This aspect tries to measure how much the training is given importance and whether people share the insights of training with peer member and all. The scores are average for all companies that suggest the HR department to take active initiatives in developing the knowledge sharing and a learning culture. 54
  55. 55. 8. Bench-marking and best practices: Benchmarking & Best practices 3.34 3.51 3.55 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT The idea here is to have quantitative and qualitative information about how work gets done at other company and where do we stand in comparison with. And this dimension is rated lowest in comparison with all other 8, which gets an attention as in KM the bench marking the processes and practices is an essential feature. The low cores can be as a result of either lack of awareness on the employees’ part or the lack ent from the management side. s of encouragem 55
  56. 56. 9. Technological Infrastructure: 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 INTAS ZYDUS TORRENT Technology Infrastructure One of the essentials for the Knowledge management practices, scores nearly 3.5 for all 3 companies. Difference is not significant but the low scores indicate any of the two causes: • Lack of information system • Lack of awareness of the employees that makes the system unable to get the optimum results out of. Both the cases are worth attention however which particular reason is contributing the lower scores will be more visible at the KSC profile for each company. 56
  57. 57. KSC profile of Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd. No. Parameters Plant Corporate Research Center 1 Openness to share 3.83 3.84 4.13 2 Team structure 3.44 3.17 3.92 3 Reward 3.5 3 3.88 4 Innovation & creativity 3.45 3.2 3.71 5 Top mgt support 3.5 3.5 4.57 6 Autonomy 3.17 3.3 3.38 7 T&D efforts 3.55 3.37 3.79 8 Bench marking and best practices 2.67 3.6 3.74 9 Tech. Infrastructure 3.55 3.23 4.02 Grand mean 3.41 3.36 3.90 57
  58. 58. KM practices at Intas Pharma: • Though not under the label of KM practices. Intas has informal systems and practices available that can be put under the KM label. It very well the importance of its H d research etc. in the Pharma industry. • et, intranet and ERP system within the organiz flow of information. • A full fledge library and free Internet surfing is provided at research center update their kno e. • At plant level employees are regularly provided with skill-based training o shown the video clips of how the manuf ng act are at global Pharma companies is s bench ing activity, which is appreciable. have CKO (chief knowledge officer) on towards Knowledge m e o la e m of importance of knowledge and any commitment towards, which is not the case with other two companies. understands uman resources, Innovation an There is an Intern ensure the free ation to to enable the scientists to wledg and are als acturi ivities carried out . This ort of mark • However the organization does not appointed to lead the organizati anagem nt. • The company vision, and philosophies als cks th ention 58
  59. 59. KSC Assessment of Intas Pharma: • R& (me crea cture (mean=3.92). These are the imensions where the R&D scores are high with a significant margin. This effo rganization and hence gives the due importance to, as compare to the plant and corporate activities. • The n but it should not lead negligence of other two functions • Pla not (mean=2.69) are worth attention in the era where contract manufacturing is Pha • leve kno autonomy (mean=3.3), technological Infrastructure (mean=3.29), and innovation & creativity (mean=3.2) The data indicates the level of knowledge sharing is significantly higher at D center. And the highlighting factors are top management support an=4.57), technological infrastructure (mean=4.02), Innovation and tivity (mean=3.71) and team stru d infers that the top management very well understands the importance of R&D rts, for the competitiveness of the o above inference is positive side of the organizatio to nt scores are overalls at average i.e. between indifferent to agree side but satisfactory. However the lowest score at benchmarking practices becoming a competitive advantage and major source of business for the Indian rma Companies. Though the corporate functions are supportive and not the main front, the low l of KSC is worth attention. Areas of improvements are rewarding wledge haring (mean=3), 59
  60. 60. KSC profile of Zydus Cadila Healthcare Ltd. No. ch Parameters Plant Corporate Resear Center 1 Openness to share 3.79 3.62 3.50 2 Team structure 3.63 3.30 3.59 3 3 3Reward 3.63 4 Innovation& creativity 3.84 3.32 3.75 5 4.19 3.73 4.13Top mgt support 6 Autonomy 3.63 3.33 3.75 7 T&D efforts 4.05 3.41 3.25 8 Bench marking and best practices 4 2.89 3.63 9 e 3.72 3.14 3.23Tech. Infrastructur Grand mean 3.83 3.30 3.54 60
  61. 61. KM Practices at Zydus Cadila: • Though not under the label of KM practices. Intas has informal system able that can be put under the c understands the importance of its Human resources, Innovation and research stry. • ention the importance of the human intelligence within its HR philosophy and its mission statements. • the verge of introduction -ERP m, a the importance of free and consta ormat ithin organization to be effective. • as “Zydan” hich fla he la organizational news updates, achievements etc. • However the organization does not have CKO (chief knowledge officer) appointed to lead the organization towards Knowledge management. s and wellpractices avail KM s ope. It very etc. in the Pharma indu The organization does m and knowledge The company is on of SAP syste s it understands nt inf ion w the It has its quarterly magazine named w shes t test 61
  62. 62. KSC Assessment of Zydus Cadila: are, top management support (mean=4.19), T&D efforts (mean=4.05), benchmarking and best practices (mean=4). That mployees to increase their effectiveness and efficiency, and bench marking and best practices are being studied and implemented for necessary change which is a positive side of the organization. • However the low mean score at R&D are not an appreciable indication. There is high top management support (mean=4.13) but low-level scores and creativity. • Corporate has the minimum KSC scores. The contributing factors can be rocesses (mean=2.89). Though the corporate function is support function but need to be neglected. • The score at Zydus has a different composition. The plant mean scores are significantly higher than the corporate an R&D. • The highlighting factors shows that manufacturing, being a main front activity is given considerable attention it terms of training and developing e of T&D efforts (mean=3.25), openness to share (mean=3.5) and existence of reward system to encourage the innovation lack of innovation and creativity (mean=3.32), low level of autonomy (mean=3.33), and bench marking the practices and p 62
  63. 63. • The above all inferences suggests that at Zydus the efficiency and productivity are given more importance than the creativity and innovation however this may or may not be the actual case but the employee perception captured at the research indicates so. 63
  64. 64. KSC profile of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. No. Parameters Plant Corporate Research Center 1 Openness to share 3.95 3.6 3.98 2 Team structure 3.79 3.73 4.02 3 Reward 3.83 3.3 3 4 Innovation& creativity 3.95 3.47 3.59 5 Top mgt support 4.33 3.5 4.19 6 Autonomy 3.84 3.6 3.88 7 T&D efforts 3.92 3.37 3.8 8 Bench marking and best practices 3.9 3.5 3.25 9 Tech. Infrastructure 3.87 3.46 3.44 Grand mean 3.93 3.50 3.68 64
  65. 65. KM Practices at Torrent Pharma: As such there are no such formal KM practices carried out at Torrent, but high scores indicating the presence of knowledge sharing culture is the result o ities carried out names howev he s • Torrent has ERP-SAP system with KM module that ensures the easy and constant flo rganization wide. • It has discussion forum and Brain storming f n the et whe le post th They disc current events on such forums too. • It has its own magazine that flashes organization news, individual and organizational achievements etc. • There is no library at corporate or at plant but the R&D center has such facilities backed by a cyber area where the scientists can surf and get the latest knowledge up • The site of Torrent also contains a page about its intellectual capital that infers that the organization understands the importance of knowledge and gives importance though indirectly. • However the organization does not have CKO (chief knowledge officer) appointed to lead the organization towards Knowledge management formally. f following .activ under different er are t KM activitie w of information o orum o uss the con intran temporary issues and re peop eir queries and are replied. dates. 65
  66. 66. KSC Assessment of Torrent Pharma: Like Zydus the Torrent scores are also high for plant than the R&D and corporate. ean=3.9), and openness to share (mean=3.95). This indicates that the plant activities are given emphasis by the management and may be as a result the company has • the top management (mean=4.19), and autonomy (mean=3.88). This is a positive sign but management needs to satisfactory level of KSC but lacks the formal KM practices. • , innovation and creativity and low training and development are at low level but are significantly higher than industry average. That the company can • • The highlighting dimensions are High top management support (mean=4.33), T&D efforts (mean=3.92), benchmarking the practices and processes (m succeed to create high openness to share among the employees which is very positive side of the company. At research center there is high openness to share (mean=3.98), existence of team structure (mean=4.02), support from encourage the knowledge related activities more extensively. As the above score for R&D indicates that the there is Corporate scores are on average but can also be given the due importance to. Openness further improve upon. 66
  67. 67. Test of the Hypothesis: The study ideally suggests that the knowledge sharing should ideally be higher among the T&D e Test aqnalysis with the equal variances. H0: the plant em H1: the level of knowledge sharing at R&D is significantly higher than the plant. T- s Varian mployees than the corporate or plant employees. This is tested with the help of T- re is no difference in the level of knowledge sharing between the R&D and ployees. Te t: Two-Sample Assuming Equal ces Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 3.708148148 3.722963 Variance 0.139661823 0.106875 Observations 27 27 Pooled Variance 0.123268661 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 52 t Stat - 0.155037506 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.438695993 t Critical one-tail 1.674689154 P(T<= 0.877391986t) two-tail t Critical two-tail 2.006646761 The above output accepts the null hypothesis. That means the claim that the knowledge sharing is significantly higher than the corporate is rejected. 67
  68. 68. D is significantly higher than the corporate H0: There is no difference in the level of knowledge sharing between the R&D and corporate employees. H1: The level of knowledge sharing at R& T-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Variable 1 Variable 2 Mean 3.708148148 3.388148148 Variance 0.139661823 0.054892593 Observations 27 27 Pooled Variance .0972772080 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 52 t Stat 3.769739272 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000209498 t Critical one-tail 1.674689154 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000418997 t Critical two-tail 2.006646761 However the above output rejects the null hypothesis that means that the knowledge sharing is significant higher at R&D than the T othesis supports the result o nalysis. That infers that the knowledge sharing level is highest at plan lo s then and the least scores re at corporate. This is may be the operations are given more importance by the he pharma industry as a whole needs to respond to the latest KM trends. As the major ompetitors at the global market has well defined and well designed systems to create, apture, and restore the knowledge in this era of high attritions and talent scarcity. corporate. he above two hyp s gained at pri r a t the R&D fol w a management than the R&D. T c c 68
  69. 69. Chapter-6 Recomme tionnda 69
  70. 70. Recommendations: 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 Openness to share 2 Team structure 3 Reward 4 Innovation& creativity 5 Top mgAutonomy t support6 7 T&D efforts 8 Bench marking and best practices 9 Tech. Infrastructure Observations: The above graph indicates the overall KSC level in the Pharma industry as a whole. On the basis of that the following are the general trends observed. • No company has the formal KM practices and activities that can be linked with its overall strategy. However there is informal system within the industry as better understands the value of knowledge and human intelligence. • The level of knowledge sharing culture is considerable yet not satisfactory enough to support successful KM strategy. • The commitment from top management is there but the loopholes lie in the systems and practices to ensure the results. 70
  71. 71. Recommendations: 1. Based on the survey results and analysis, the companies seem to appreciate the potential and value of KM but needs some further education on the principles and specific methodologies, techniques, and tools as to how best to leverage their knowledge in their organization to evolve into a ``learning organization''. A short course in KM to senior managers may better familiarize the organization on the concepts, issues, pitfalls, and techniques, dealing with knowledge management, so that the organization would not fall behind its competitors who are already involved in KM initiatives. 2. Second, a knowledge audit should be conducted as a pilot study in a targeted business area within the company whose need for capturing preserving, and sharing knowledge of its expert employees is critical. The wledge audit would identify the types of knowledge needed in the targeted area, the types of knowledge missing and available, who needs ure this knowledge into a KM system, as well as providing recommendations on how to transform ets) should be measured, a study should be conducted to measure the intellectual capital (and its growth) in order , kno this knowledge, and how this knowledge is used. A gap analysis and specific recommendations for how best to capt the organization into a ``knowledge sharing culture'', would be conducted. 3. Based on the strong agreement that the intangibles in the organization (i.e. intellectual capital/knowledge ass to determine the value added benefits to the organization. 71
  72. 72. 4. To create a knowledge sharing culture, make a visible connection between sharing knowledge and practical business goals, problems or results. 6. knowledge to widely held core values. Don't expect people to share their ideas and insights simply because it is the right thing to do. 7. build a sharing culture, enhance the networks that already exist. Enable them with tools, resources and legitimization. 8. 5. It is far more important to match the overall style of your organization than to directly copy the practices developed by other organizations. To make sharing knowledge a natural step, think through how effective change happens in the organization. Make the visible artifacts of knowledge sharing ± the events, language, Web sites ± match the style of the organization, even if it intend to lead it into new behavior and approach. Link sharing Appeal to something deeper. By linking with core values of the organization values, you make sharing knowledge consistent with peers' expectations and managers' considerations. Align your language, systems and approach with those values. The values you link to do not need to obviously support sharing knowledge, but people do need to genuinely believe in them. They cannot simply be the "espoused values" in the company's mission statement. Human networks are one of the key vehicles for sharing knowledge. To Recruit the support of people in your organization who already share ideas and insights. Ask influential people and managers to encourage and even pressure people to share their knowledge. 72
  73. 73. 9. es, is a powerful determinant of one's own behavior. 10. Build sharing knowledge into routine performance appraisal. Other people's behavior, like alignment with business results and core valu Even when you plan to use sharing knowledge as a way to change the organization, our research suggests that the best strategy, ironically, is to first match the values and style of your organization. Don't start out a new campaign and new structures for sharing knowledge. Find the knowledge sharing networks that already exist and build on the energy they already have. 73
  74. 74. Chapter-7 Conclusion 74
  75. 75. Conclusion Concluding thought of the project is that though there is a high demand on the pharama industry to apply the KM practices and systems linked with its overall strategy the research suggest that the companies are still lagging behind in applications of KM. there is no formal activities and the intervention applied to create the knowledge sharing culture however the industry is mapped at i fferent level, Which suggests that there is need for the pharma industry to understand the importance of knowledge and human intelligence for the competit ce to take active efforts in this direction. s ndi iveness of the organization and hen 75
  76. 76. Limitations of the study • The inferences and generalization about the KM trends and knowledge sharing culture for the Pharma industry are drown from three companies only. • The sample size for the research purpose is only 135-whch s too small to generalize the inferences. • The responses of the respondents are their perceptions and hence there may be gap between the results and actual situation. 76
  77. 77. Bibliography Books: ls for putting information work. —Cliff Figallo & Nancy Rhine. in the new knowledge management—Joseph Firestone & Mark Mceloroy. • Knowledge management—Shelda Debowski • Managing Industrial knowledge- creation, transfer and utilization—Ikujiro Nonaka & David Teece. • Creating a learning Organization— • Role of executive in Knowledge management—Carla O’ Dell • HBR on knowledge management. • Building the knowledge management network-best practices, too • Key issues 77
  78. 78. References: • The ICFAI Journal of Knowledge management—Vol.IV No.1 March 2006 • Journal of knowledge management processes ott and Carla O'Dell anagement implementation--Gavin P. Levett and Marin D. Guenov ajor pharmaceutical company--Jay Liebowitz Site • Sameeksha—TECNIA Journal of management studies, Vol. 1, Apr-Sept 2006 • Leadership Excellence, August 2005. • Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge--Richard McDerm • A methodology for knowledge m • Knowledge management receptivity at a m s: • www.citehr.com • www.wikipedia.com • www.kmportals.com • www.sumtotalsystems.com • www.humancapitalinstitute.org 78
  79. 79. Chapter-8 Annexure 79

×