1.
HBS
-­‐
Case
Study
McKinsey
&
Company:
Managing
Knowledge
and
Learning
Bartle=,
C.
A
Dr.
Rivadávia
C.
Drummond
de
Alvarenga
Neto
2013

2.
The
Case
Method
-­‐
HBS
• The
case
method
is
not
only
the
most
relevant
and
pracDcal
way
to
learn
managerial
skills,
it’s
exciDng
and
fun!
• Simply
stated,
the
case
method
calls
for
discussion
of
real-­‐
life
situaDons
that
business
execuDves
have
faced.
• As
you
review
their
cases,
you
will
put
yourself
in
the
shoes
of
the
managers,
analyze
the
situaDon,
decide
what
you
would
do,
and
come
to
class
prepared
to
present
and
support
your
conclusions.
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

3.
How
Cases
Help
You
Learn
• Cases
will
help
you
sharpen
your
analyDcal
skills,
since
you
must
produce
quanDtaDve
and
qualitaDve
evidence
to
support
your
recommendaDons.
• In
class
discussions,
each
parDcipant
brings
to
bear
his
or
her
own
experDse,
experience,
observaDon,
and
analysis.
This
diversity
of
opinion
from
differing
perspecDves
offers
real
opportuniDes
for
shared
learning.
• Perhaps
the
most
important
benefit
of
using
cases
is
that
they
help
managers
to
learn
how
to
determine
what
the
real
problem
is
and
to
ask
the
right
quesDons.
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

4.
How
to
prepare
a
case?
• PART
I
-­‐
INDIVIDUAL
PREPARATION
• the
case
method
calls
first
for
you,
working
individually,
to
carefully
read
and
to
think
about
each
case.
• (Typically
about
two
hours
of
preparaDon
Dme
for
each
case
are
provided
in
the
schedule.)
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

5.
I. Read
the
professor’s
assignment/discussion
quesKons.
II.
Read
the
first
few
paragraphs,
then
skim
the
case.
III. Next,
read
the
case
more
carefully,
underlining
text
and
wriKng
margin
notes
as
you
go.
IV. Note
the
key
problems
or
issues
on
a
pad
of
paper.
Go
through
the
case
again.
V. Sort
out
relevant
consideraKons
for
each
problem
area.
VI. Do
appropriate
qualitaKve
and
quanKtaKve
analysis.
VII. Develop
a
set
of
recommendaKons,
supported
by
your
analysis
of
the
case
data.
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

6.
How
to
prepare
a
case?
• PART
II
–
DISCUSSION
GROUP
• Discussion
groups
are
characterized
by
intense
interacDon
that
deepens
the
parDcipants’
understanding
beyond
that
gained
through
individual
analysis.
• This
interacDon
includes
dialogue,
shared
experDse,
and
construcDve
argument.
• Many
parDcipants
find
that
they
not
only
deepen
their
understanding
of
the
material,
but
that
they
also
experience
an
increase
in
their
comfort
level
by
sharing
their
ideas
and
insights
later
in
the
large
in-­‐class
discussion.
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

7.
Benefits
of
a
Discussion
Group
• Be=er
understanding
of
the
material
• PracDce
in
teaching
and
learning
from
others
•
OpportuniDes
to
“test-­‐market”
ideas
and
opinions
prior
to
the
larger
in-­‐class
discussion
• Ability
to
get
to
know
a
handful
of
people
more
deeply
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

8.
Discussion
Group
Best
PracDces
• One
parKcipant
is
designated
as
the
discussion
leader
(Facilitator,
NOT
the
CEO!)
• AZendance
is
100
percent.
• All
members
parKcipate
in
the
discussion
and
share
responsibility
for
content.
• Groups
accept
differing
perspecKves
as
normal,
desirable,
and
inevitable.
Don’t
try
to
reach
consensus.
• Groups
are
disciplined,
focused,
and
use
Kme
wisely.
•
Members
accept
the
responsibility
to
learn
and
teach.
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

9.
PART
III
–
The
Classroom
Experience
• Now…
it’s
a
GO
TO
MARKET!
(I
mean,
CLASSROOM!)
• PASTURES
X
TAKEAWAYS
• COLD
CALLS
x
WARM
CALLS
• Please,
Raise
Your
Hand!
• GRADING
at
HBS
• And
now
relax.
Take
a
deep
breath.
Prepare
to
laugh,
learn,
and
enjoy
the
wonderfully
sDmulaDng
classroom
environment
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

10.
HBS
Learning
Best
PracDces
① Prepare!
② Discuss
the
case
with
others
before
class!
③ ParKcipate!
④ Share
your
related
experience!
⑤ Constantly
relate
the
topic
and
case
at
hand
to
your
business.
⑥ AcKvely
apply
what
you
are
learning
to
your
own
specific
management
situaKons,
past
and
future.
⑦ Note
what
clicks.
⑧ Mix
it
up!
⑨ Work
hard,
play
hard!
Source;
GCPCL
2010,
HBS

11.
Create
your
own
way!
• DescripDon
of
the
Company
• Problems
• SoluDon
• Results
• Link
to
Theory!

12.
CASE-­‐STUDY
WRITING
Research
Methodology

13.
BUILDING A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
METHODOLOGICAL STRATEGY TO UNDERSTAND
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THE BRAZILIAN
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT: MULTIPLE CASE
STUDIES FOR THE PROPOSITION OF AN
INTEGRATIVE CONCEPTUAL MODEL
Rivadávia
C.
Drummond
de
Alvarenga
Neto
–
FDC,
Brazil
Beatriz
Vladares
Cendón
–
UFMG,
Brazil
Ricardo
Rodrigues
Barbosa
-­‐
UFMG,
Brazil
ECRM,
Malta,
2009

14.
1)THE RESEARCH’S RATIONALE
AND MAIN RESULTS
• This paper describes the qualitative research methodology
utilized in an investigation on how Brazilian firms understood,
defined, implemented, evaluated and measured their
Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives, what were their
motives and what they expected to achieve with such initiatives;
• Previous quantitative works in the Brazilian organizational
context;
• Two presuppositions:
i. KM x IM/IT (information reductionism)
ii. KM Conceptual Integrative Mapping Proposition (FIGURE 1) ->
• The Results:
i. Presuppositions confirmed;
ii. A Major Shift:
• Knowledge as such cannot be managed, it is just promoted or stimulated through the
creation of ba or enabling contexts.
• From KM to the management of the enabling contexts in Knowledge Organizations

15.
2)RESEARCH PROCEDURES
AND METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES
• An investigation method should include theoretical
foundations, and a set of techniques which allow the
understanding of reality and the creative potential of
the researcher. In qualitative research, as well as in
quantitative ones, the set of techniques, although
secondary to theory, is important to guarantee the
soundness of the conclusions.
• This section presents the procedures and techniques
prescribed by the literature on case studies as well as
the methodological options chosen in this research
which are summarized in TABLE 1.

16.
TABLE 1
Qualitative research strategy
(Source: developed by the authors, 2009)
COMPONENTS METHODOLOGICAL CHOICES
1) Problem approach qualitative research
2) Research strategy case studies applied to organizational and managerial studies
3) Components of the research project research questions, assumptions, units of analysis,
logic connecting data to propositions, criteria for interpreting the
findings
4) Criteria for assessing the quality of the research project construct validity (MSE) external validity (replication logic –
literal/theoretical) and reliability
5) Typology of the case study multiple case studies with incorporated units of analysis
6) Case studies in three large organizations (allowed control of Centro de Tecnologia Canavieira - CTC (primary sector),
environmental variation) - operating in Brazil – one of each sector
of the economy – that have implemented Knowledge Management SIEMENS Brazil (secondary sector) and
PricewaterhouseCoopers - PwC Brazil (tertiary sector)
7) Units of analysis, sub-units of analysis and units of observation project or process of KM; organization and their members.
8) Data collection sources documentary sources (printed and electronic files), semi-
structured interviews and direct observation
9) Analysis of field data collected data reduction, display and verification/conclusions based on
inferences from evidences or premises.
10) Final considerations validation or refutation of the research propositions,
proposal of new knowledge and recommendations for future
studies

17.
Data
Collection
Data
Display
Data
Reduction
Conclusions:
Drawing/Verifying
Figure 3
Components of data analysis: interactive model
(Source: MILES & HUBERMAN, 1984).

18.
3) FIELD RESEARCH AND DATA ANALYSIS
• The case study protocol included preliminary information, semi-structured
interview programs and notes pertaining to documental research and direct
observation.
• A pilot study was carried out at Siemens do Brazil to test the research instruments
used in the semi-structured interviews, documental research and direct
observation. Proved valuable: alowwed for the refinement of data collection tools.
• All 17 scheduled interviews were conducted and resulted in approximately 530
pages of transcriptions and 35 hours of recording time. The interviews lasted
around one hour and 45 minutes and there were about five interviews in each
organization.
• In addition to semi-structured interviews and direct observation, paper and
electronic documents of various kinds were analyzed (.doc., .xls, .ppt, .pdf, intranet
screens, e-mails, internet sites & links, pictures, videos, etc.)
• Approximately 1600 pages of documents were gathered and analyzed, of which
approximately 12% were discarded as they did not suit the research purposes.
• On the whole, the field research produced about 2150 pages which later went
through analysis and reduction processes. Four reduction cycles (Miles &
Huberman, 1984) were needed to incorporate the data collected into the body of
the dissertation, as shown in TABLE 6.
• Eight matrices or reduction tables were produced based on the categories of
analysis.

19.
TABLE
6
ReducKon
Processes
–
Data
analysis
and
fieldwork
Reduction
processes From (pages) To (pages)
1st
2150 180
2nd
180 100
3rd
100 52
4th
52 final text
Source:
Alvarenga
Neto,
2005.

20.
TABLE
7
Data
reducKon
matrix
of
field
data
collected
by
category
of
analysis
Source:
Alvarenga
Neto,
2005,
2008.
6) SCENARIOS – PERSPECTIVES – KM BEST ORGANIZATIONAL PRACTICES
1. Difficulties, problems and obstacles confronted in the implementation of KM; what is the current situation?
2. Focus of change.
3. KM is shared in any closed circle of actors in the external organizational environment (customers, suppliers)?
4. Best organizational practices of KM.
ORG. SUMMARY OF THE COLLECTED DATA – FIELDWORK
1. (i) Cultural and behavioral; (ii) “[...] there are people that do not know how to share. They
believe that knowledge is power. “ (Applications engineer)
Siemens
2. (i) Culture and behavior; (ii) “[...] organization in business units (mini-companies concept), the
challenge is to create synergy among businesses.” (Regional director)
3. Yes. (i) Via technology portal of some communities of practice; (ii) “[...] partially;
PARTNERSCOM, virtual discussion forum with customers and competitors.” (Human
resources manager) (iii) “[...] PARTNERSCOM – partnership development program of
Siemens Mobile to develop applications for mobile phones such as games, vending- machines,
telemetry, among others.” (regional director)
4. (i) Chats, SHARENET that brings concrete results, communities of practice, competitive
intelligence; (ii) creation of sites and spaces (real and virtual) for the sharing, exchange, and
search for information and learning; (iii) “HAPPY-HOUR OF KNOWLEDGE for motivation,
information dissemination, learning, exchange and sharing.

21.
TABLE 8
Model of Analysis
Source: Alvarenga Neto, 2005, 2008
OBSERVATIONS
CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS
1) Motivation for KM
2) Organizational understanding and
definition of KM
3) Aspects and approaches considered by
KM
4) Scenarios, perspectives, best
organizational practices of KM
5) Sensemaking issues Environmental scanning, competitive intelligence, competitor intelligence,
environmental typologies among others
(a) Strategic management of information: information on internal records, information
6) Issues concerning knowledge creation:
systems and information architectures, issues concerning the organization and treatment
of information: collection, indexing, storage, recovering, selective dissemination and
taxonomies, among others; (b) organizational learning and communities of practice (real
and virtual); (c) organizational knowledge (generation codification/coordination and
transference of knowledge); (d) management of intellectual capital (human capital,
structural capital and customer capital)
7) Issues concerning decision making
Information sharing (policies, practices, barriers, behavior and organizational culture,
8) Issues concerning the enabling context
strategies, layout and meeting places for knowledge promotion and information sharing,
managerial styles and policies of alignment between knowledge management and
business strategy: (management models and architectures, essential competences,
environment and enabling conditions, knowledge vision); uses and users of information
within organizations.

22.
4) CONCLUSIONS
• This article described the qualitative methodology used in a
research study that proposes an integrative conceptual model of
KM.
• For such purpose the construction of a sound theoretic-conceptual
structure and consistent research methodology were paramount for
the discovery of reliable answers for the questions which guided the
study.
• Research assumptions were confirmed.
• The proposition of the integrative conceptual model of KM, based on
the three case studies, is supported by the recommendations of
Eisenhardt (1989) and Yin (2001), who assert that case studies are
valid for building theories and models as long as they abide by the
rigorous methodological procedures they recommend.
• The main contribution of the research – a proposal of an integrated
conceptual modeling of KM is described in Alvarenga Neto (2005,
2008).

23.
Source: Alvarenga Neto and Choo, 2009

24.
Source: Alvarenga Neto and Choo, 2009

25.
McKINSEY
&
COMPANY
• What
is
McKinsey?
• When
was
it
founded
and
by
whom?
• Any
use
of
external
data?
• What
does
Exhibit
1
tell
us?

26.
McKINSEY
&
COMPANY
• Founded
– (1926)
• By
– University
Chicago
Professor
–
James
McKinsey
• External
data
– Site,
Wikipedia,
Press
Notes,
Newspapers
– Mission,
Guiding
Principles
– Exhibit
2
– What
does
Exhibit
1
tell
us?

27.
Assignment
QuesDons
• 1)
Why
is
Knowledge
at
the
core
of
MCkinsey's
Business?
• 2)
The
case
provide
a
broad
view
of
problems
faced
by
three
managing
directors
-­‐
Ron
Daniel,
Fred
Gluck
and
Rajat
Gupta.
What
kind
of
problems
did
each
of
them
face?
• 3)
Think
about
the
three
mini-­‐cases
presented
in
the
case
study.
Judging
them
all,
do
you
think
McKinsey
was
effecDve
in
its
long-­‐term
process?

28.
Marvin
Bower
• Problems
Faced?

29.
Marvin
Bower
• Problems
Faced
– Economic
Turmoil
– Broad
Generalists
x
In-­‐Depth
Knowledge
– CompeDDon
(BCG)
• Experience
Curve
• Growth-­‐Share
Matrix

30.
Ron
Daniel
• Problems
faced?
• SoluDons
and
Decision-­‐Making?

31.
Ron
Daniel
• SoluDons
– A
Full
Time
Director
of
Traning
– New
Commitment
and
Mission
Update
•
“Serve
Clients
AND
Train/Develop
its
Consultants”
Structural
Changes
–
matrix
organizaDon
– T-­‐Shaped
Consultants
– More
FuncDonal
ExperDse
• K
in
2
areas
– Strategy
– OrganizaDon
• RESULTS
– Confidence
was
restored!
– New
Group
to
arDculate
the
firm’s
exisDng
K
in
the
organizaDon
arena
(Tom
Peters)

32.
Fred
Gluck
(not
MD
yet)
• Came
from
Bell
Labs
– “wanted
to
bring
an
equally
sDmulaDng
intellectual
environment
to
McKinsey”
• CreaDon
of
Centers
of
Competence
(Daniel
was
sDll
MD)
– K
Development
was
CORE,
NOT
Peripheral!
– InsDtuDonalized,
NOT
temporary!
– Responsibility
of
Everyone
– GOALS?
• “Develop
ExperDse
+
Renewal
of
the
Firm
Intellectual
Resources”
• SNOWBALL
MAKING
(pracDce
development)
X
SNOWBALL
THROWING
(client
development)

33.
• “Building
a
K
Infrastructure
–
“capture
and
leverage
the
learning”
– Resistance
– Launching
of
a
KM
Project
(1987)
• Common
Database
of
K
• Hire
of
a
Full
Time
Coordinator
for
each
PracDce
Area
• New
Career
Path
• Tools
&
Managerial
PracDces?
– FPIS
(Firm
PracDce
InformaDon
System)
– PDN
(PracDce
Development
Network)
– KRD
(Knowledge
Resource
Directory)

34.
FRED
GLUCK
(MD
–
1988)
• Problems
Faced?
• SoluDons
and
Decision-­‐Making?

35.
FRED
GLUCK
(MD
–
1988)
• Second
Phase
for
KM
– A
ConstrucDonist
PerspecDve
• “[….]
K
is
only
valuable
when
its
between
the
ears
of
consultants
and
applied
to
clients
problems.”
• SHIFT
IN
FOCUS
– From
developing
K
to
BUILDING
INDIVIDUAL
&
TEAM
CAPABILITY
– NEW
ORGANIZATIONAL
STRUCTURE
(EXHIBIT
4)
– From
“DISCOVER-­‐CODIFY-­‐DISSIMINATE”
to
“ENGAGE-­‐
EXPLORE-­‐APPLY-­‐SHARE”
– ET
(Engagement
team)
to
CST
(Client
Service
Team)
• “to
broaden
the
classic
model
of
a
single
partner
owning
a
client
to
a
GROUP
of
PARTNERS
WITH
SHARED
COMMITMENT
TO
EACH
CLIENT”
– DEVELOPMENT
OF
MULTIPLE
CAREER
PATHS
(EXHIBIT
6)

36.
3
MINI-­‐CASES
PETERS
-­‐
SYDNEY
BRAY
–
TELECOM
EUROPE
DULL
–
B-­‐TO-­‐B
Access
to
talent,
experDse
Transfer
ExperDse
AlternaDve
Career
Track
One
firm
culture
Documented
Learning
Building
Networks
Info-­‐Transfer
Only
Building
Networks
DifficulDes
of
specialist
career

37.
RAJA
-­‐
GUPTA
• 4-­‐Prongued
Strategy?

38.
RAJA
-­‐
GUPTA
• “since
MarDn
Bower,
every
leadership
group
has
had
a
commitment
to
leave
the
firm
stronger
than
it
found
it.
It’s
a
fundamental
value
of
McKinsey
to
invest
in
the
future
of
th
firm”
• 4-­‐Prongued
Strategy
– CreaDon
of
new
channels,
forums
and
mechanisms
for
K
development
and
organizaDonal
learning
(PracDce
Olympics)
– Emerging
Issues
important
to
CEOs
– McKinsey
Global
InsDtute
(more
af
a
research
agenda)
• Put
yourselves
in
the
shoes
of
GUPTA,
WHAT
WOULD
YOU
DO?

39.
RESULTS
Overall/Long-­‐term
Results?
BUILDING
OF
ORGANIZATIONAL
CAPABILITIES!
• RECRUIT
AND
DEVELOP
SUPERIOR
PEOPLE
• PROFESSIONALISM,
SELF-­‐GOVERNANCE
• STRONG
EMBEDDED
“ONE
FIRM”
POLICIES
AND
CULTURE
• GOING
BEYOND
IT….
• IC
&
OK

40.
GUPTA’s
term
was
quite
successfull!
• Global
Firm
– Fast
Growth
Strategy
– Vast
Expansion
– MAKE
Award
• K
oriented
/
KM
sDll
working
– “K
is
central
to
what
we
do”
• July,
2003
–
Gupta
was
succeeded
by
Ian
Davis

41.
THANK
YOU!
Obrigado!
谢谢
riva.drummond@unibh.br