Page 313 -

296 Chapter 8

Box 8.6
An example: KPMG

KPMG International implemented KWORLD, an advanced global knowledge management
system. KWORLD, an online messaging, collaboration, and knowledge-sharing platform,
is reportedly the fi rst system of its kind built entirely from standard Microsoft compo-
nents — Microsoft Windows NT Server, including Microsoft Exchange, Site Server, and
Microsoft Offi ce, Outlook, and Internet Explorer. KWORLD is KPMG ’ s digital nervous
system based on the Microsoft concept.
KPMG invested over one year and $100 million in developing this universally accessible
knowledge-sharing environment, which allows its nearly one hundred thousand profes-
sional workers to conduct active conferences and public exchanges, locate customized and
fi ltered external and internal news, and access global- and country-specifi c fi rm informa-
tion. As acknowledged by Microsoft, KPMG is one of only fi ve organizations to embark
on its fast-track program to exploit fully the power of the web browser, integrate Microsoft-
based messaging, collaboration and knowledge-sharing applications, and push current web
technology to the “ limit. ” Knowledge is content in context, and KPMG ’ s global communi-
ties of practice — who marry knowledge about complex services to specifi c industries —
determine KWORLD ’ s contextual frames. KWORLD brings qualifi ed internal content and
fi ltered external content to each community with a click. KPMG foresees developing
KWORLD extranets to make KPMG a virtual extension of its clients.

Mashups were discussed in an earlier section as a form of portal (see the previous
section on Knowledge Creation and Codifi cation Tools). Both mashups and portals
aggregate content coming from different sources. However, there are some signifi cant
differences between the two tools. Portals are a somewhat older, more established tool
that serves to aggregate vetted and validated content to be stored for future use in an
organization. The purpose of a portal is to preserve organizational knowledge and to
make it available to all employees. Portals are well defi ned, often adhere to standards,
are updated according to an established schedule, only by those authorized to do so.
A portal is thus more formal in some ways. A mashup, on the other hand, is more of
a Web 2.0 application. Users tend to have complete control and autonomy in what
they choose to aggregate. This is often shared with others in a limited way (e.g., often
within their own community of practice). Mashups may have a limited life span as
they serve a specifi c purpose, such as putting together a presentation. Mashups are
not necessarily formalized nor do they need to be centralized in order to be useful
( Wong and Hong 2007 ).