\fPage 10 98145018 EXHIBIT 1: COMPARISON OF VARIOUS OPTIONS Technology already being Open Source Content Paid KM Solutions Aspects used Management System (e.g., Google Search (e.g., SharePoint, blogs) (e.g., Joomla, Drupal) Appliance, Documentum) No licensing cost, but additional costs might be No licensing cost. Licensing cost applicable. Software cost incurred for developing an Organization could use Solution provider might various templates devised provide customized organization-specific templates by many developers solutions Hardware cost Energy/utility cost Webserver and database Part of the pricing Costs agreement Personnel cost Applicable Applicable Applicable Training required on SharePoint advanced features, blogging, and posting queries in Employees needed discussion forums. training on content Employees needed training Training management system on content management However, users knew about system modules the technologies and might modules have used some features in their work Functionalities such as Advanced features and functionalities such as Functionality Basic functionalities rating, emailing, and archiving articles, and search. No need for specific syndicating site content programs for viewing types of files Many employees might already be comfortable with some tools such as blogs Capable of and discussion forums that Capable, but initiatives Capable, but initiatives must promoting effectively promote must be designed to be designed to promote interactivity interaction and Information promote interactivity interactivity sharing. However, design initiatives must be changed to promote interactivity Confusion about their value Needs effective governance, relative to investment and incentive mechanisms. Technical issues such as Incurred. Behavioral issues Success might cause level of services provided such as ease of learning, unintended consequences; by open source CMS resistance to adoption Major concerns Behavioral issues such as 8-g., excess sharing of (specifically for ease of learning. Documentum). Technical irrelevantuseless information resistance to adoption. issues such as compatibility and integration with existing infrastructure Source: Created by authorsPage 2 98148018 HISTORY OF INSIGHTS ANALYTICS Insights Global Analytics was established to support the company's internal functions - such as the computers and tablets division, printers division, corporate marketing and data centre business - by analyzing and interpreting organizational data to facilitate data-driven decision making It was the analytics unit of one of the world's largest technology companies by revenue, and was among the world's top 50 valuable brands. Insights Global Analytics had 700 employees, mostly PhDs, MBAs, chartered accountants and statisticians from premier educational institutes in India and overseas for solving problems related to business decisions, planning, business intelligence optimization, supply chain planning, Web analytics and marketing strategy support. MOTIVATION FOR THE KM PROGRAM The success of any analytics project was dependent on providing quality insights based on the data analyzed. Depending on the complexity of a business question, teams worked together to integrate statistical and business knowledge and to deliver meaningful insights. The top leadership of Insights Global Analytics, being an internal analytics unit in the knowledge-intensive sector, knew that it had the employees and knowledge base to stay ahead of stiff competition from alternatives such as third-party vendors that might handle the outsourced analytics work; however, the company lacked an effective avenue for sharing knowledge across teams. Without a platform for sharing, employees faced difficulty in identifying which teams or individuals could help them. Insights Global Analytics also handled many processes using data to provide regular insights into markets, products and business operations. Employees involved in the processes had developed strong domain-specific knowledge and skills, such as automation to: reduce turnaround time, minimize errors in data analysis and reporting, and improve productivity; however, when they transitioned to new roles, the company often lost the employees' automation and domain-specific knowledge crucial to interpreting data and to employees working on other teams. Daily operations showed the need for a platform for sharing knowledge. Insights Global Analytics extensively used statistical tools such as Excel, IMP' and SAS, and statistical techniques such as market-basket analysis and time-series analysis. As the use of advanced statistical tools and techniques was rarely taught in schools, many of the analysts who joined Insights Global Analytics were interested in learning these advanced tools. As such, top management felt that a KM program was useful as a platform for employees because it would allow them to post their learning queries to the statistical experts in the unit more efficiently. Gupta came to Insights Global Analytics with a mandate to initiate a KM program platform that would facilitate the sharing and documentation of organization-wide knowledge. He realized that the market had abundant KM tools to use for documentation but the success of the KM program depended on whether employees perceived the knowledge sharing as useful - and even fun - rather than as an additional burden. Gupta favoured using unconventional approaches to K.M implementation to include abundant tacit knowledge pertaining to analytics techniques used for different processes and projects. In addition, conventional approaches would encounter difficulty in documenting many of the heuristics involved in analytics procedures. The Insights Global Analytics workforce was highly skilled in terms of educational qualifications and domain knowledge. If the KM program solely focused on documenting the underlying JMP is a statistical tool that can perform complex statistical analyses, including design of experiment and statistical quality control www.jump.com/software/and www.imp.convoapplications', accessed August 12, 2014.Page 3 98146018 knowledge, it would use a technical jargon familiar to specific domain specialists only. Employees who worked in other domains or who had other skill-sets would find the program incomprehensible, so its utility would be restricted to team boundaries. Hence, the KM platform would fail to achieve the primary purpose of enabling knowledge sharing across teams. AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS Gupta's major challenge was to select cost-effective technologies that would facilitate and promote knowledge sharing. He worked with Arun Sharma, a technical leader who had experience in Microsoft SharePoint, wikis, blogs and content management. Technology Selection Process Aware that Insights Global Analytics had high expectations from the KM program, Gupta and Sharma pondered their various technological options. With a few members of the leadership team and middle management, they brainstormed and identified three broad options: (1) technologies already used in the organization; (2) open source solutions; and (3) paid KM solutions. Technologies Already Used in the Organization Insights Global Analytics was already using various technologies, albeit for different purposes, such as storing team-specific documents. Microsoft SharePoint was a key technology used. SharePoint Microsoft SharePoint software included a Web browser-based collaboration function, process management module, search module and a document management function." Insights Global Analytics gave each team a SharePoint page for uploading team documents, posting team-based announcements and posting discussion questions. Also, a SharePoint page at the Insights Global Analytics level contained the link to access cach team's SharePoint. Team members could choose the access level for the different folders using SharePoint functionality to decide whether the folder would be accessible exclusively to their team or to the entire company. Hence, SharePoint technology could facilitate collaboration at both the team and organizational levels. In addition, SharePoint could also help in creating a document repository. Sharma believed that SharePoint was an existing cost-effective option, thus saving licensing costs associated with new software. In addition, using SharePoint would not generate additional hardware costs. Moreover, many employees were already using it so training costs would be minimal. However, Gupta disagreed, saying: Sharma presents a very rosy view of SharePoint, but that does not mean it can be easily used for knowledge sharing. We will have to devise a robust governance mechanism to facilitate flawless file sharing, file access, and [to] ensure confidentiality of information. We will have to tweak "http:/office.microsoft.com/on-ag/sharepoint-server-help/what-is-sharepoint-HA010378784 aspx, accessed February 21, 2014.Page 4 98148018 specific SharePoint templates to suit our purpose. Meanwhile, we must ensure that tweaking does not make future upgrades difficult and incompatible with future Office products. This even casts doubt on Sharma's assessment of the total cost of ownership of SharePoint. If the tweaked templates are very different from the existing templates, we will need to train our employees. We also need training on the new governance mechanisms, My experience suggests that it is easier to train employees in new software than to retrain them on modified versions because they develop specific habits of using software. Moreover, we might need dedicated staff to help administer the platform based on SharePoint. A middle manager questioned the other aspects of Sharma's assessment of the total cost of ownership, "I am unconvinced that Sharma has adequately computed the cost of ownership. If we use SharePoint for the KM platform, the data centres, which are the hardware, will be running for more hours, taking more workload and increasing power consumption." Another middle manager interjected, "I am not a technical expert, but cooling is crucial in the context of data centres. If workload increases, data centre heating and cooling will greatly impact performance by consuming more power." When Gupta asked Sharma what the data centre would cost, Sharma responded: I have limited information on data centre costs, but my Internet research shows that server costs and power consumption costs are the two important cost components. Websites on data centre costs' estimate server costs to be more than 30 per cent and power associated costs (power consumption, distribution and cooling costs) to be about 30 per cent. The precise cost structure depends on various assumptions such as size of facility (server load), power cost and server amortization cost. However, I think our server load costs should not be very high. Furthermore, we can use the existing networking equipment and infrastructure. A middle manager involved with daily operations expressed concern, "If initial hardware costs are less but overhead costs or operating expenses increase, will the total ownership cost really be less? If we increase energy use, we increase emissions - a poor scenario considering the increasing focus on our environmental impact.* Sharma countered, "The licensing cost savings will compensate for potential increases in the other costs." Gupta strongly refuted this view, "Software licensing accounts for a small portion of the total cost of ownership. Some estimate it as only 7 per cent of the total cost of ownership. Thus, licensing cost should not be given unnecessary importance." Sharma commented, "I think you are all correct in pointing out various issues with my optimistic view on SharePoint. However, I still believe SharePoint is our best bet." Internal Discussion Forums The KM team could use the technology available in the organization to start an online discussion forum where users could post their queries. This would help employees raise their queries or resolve their confusions and thus could meet one of the objectives. The KM technical leader could effectively create online discussion forums. One middle manager said: On the cost front, issues with internal discussion forums seem to be similar although on a smaller scale. Internal discussion forums will mean less training costs, but I am not sure whether James Harralton, Overall Data Contor Costs, Soptambor 18, 2010, http:/perspectives.mvdirona.com/2010/09/18/Over\\DataCenterCosts.aspx, accessed February 22, 2014.E 20210212 Session#6 Case1 Insight_Analysis_98148018_Amd.pdf 5 / 10 80% + Page 5 9814E018 hardware costs will be less in terms of the operating expenses. However, online discussion forums would save employee travel costs to address their confusion. Online discussion forums would save the cost of physical facilities used for discussion. Another middle manager said, "I do not think travel costs are a major concern. Our offices are only in Bangalore and Chennai. Will the platform costs be cheaper than physical facility costs?" A third middle manager said: We are focusing too much on cost and missing the big picture. What are the chances that these options will successfully promote a knowledge-sharing culture? Even if the KM team creates various discussion forums, can we guarantee that employees will visit such forums and post queries? Will we have a repository of the query postings and answers? Blogs The KM team considered creating internal blogs - that is, Web pages that individuals or groups maintained for posting thoughts about interesting issues. Using existing technology, the KM team could create an RSS feed option for individuals to identify interest categories so that the blogs would be delivered directly to their mailboxes. Gupta commented, "Blogs are similar to internal discussion forums in terms of costs and associated issues." A middle manager interjected, "We will have to buy a domain name and a hosting service"; but Gupta countered, "No, we will use Insights' internal blogs. The organization already uses the technology." However, the viability of blogs was strongly debated. Another middle manager said: Blogs make no sense without bloggers. Do we have enough bloggers in Insights Global Analytics? Moreover, does every team have bloggers who will contribute to the blog? For the blogs to be successful, we need a blogging culture that in turn requires a knowledge-sharing culture. In other words, blogs require a knowledge-sharing culture to be successful, not the other way around. Ashok Sen, a middle manager, questioned the utility of blogs: I foresee a different problem here. Many employees may like sharing content through blogging. However, a high number of blog posts do not ensure that knowledge is shared. Employees might share information unrelated to the organization's function and offering other employees no specific utility. In fact, they will find it difficult to navigate through the various blog posts to find relevant information. If we assign employees to moderate the blogs, we will be adding to their workload and must compensate them for the extra effort, but that does not guarantee that the blogs will provide quality information. If we hire employees to only moderate the blogs, we will find it hard to justify those additional expenses and recruitments to top management. We may underestimate the importance of moderators, but the quality of knowledge shared on the blogs will depend on the quality of the moderation and the moderators. Moderators must be qualified and knowledgeable enough to ensure the quality of the blogs. In addition, we must ensure that a blogging culture does not harm the overall work culture. 'RSS (most commonly expanded as "Really Simple Syndication") is a family of Web feed formats used to publish frequently updated works- such as blog entries, and news headlines - in a standardized format, www.w3schools.com/rsarss_intro.asp, accessed August 13, 2014.Page 6 9814E018 Gupta suggested, "I think we can address this issue by giving incentives to bloggers who post quality blogs based on their relevance and utility for the broader Insights Global Analytics community. This will motivate bloggers to post useful information." Sharma countered, "But we will need people to assess the quality of the blogs. Controlling blog quality is easier said than done." TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE IN THE MARKET Joomla Joomla was a popular content management system that offered functionalities such as rating articles, emailing articles, archiving articles and syndicating site content.' As an open source solution, Joomla had no licensing fee. However, software costs included costs to install third-party extensions for ensuring compatibility and exchange of documents with Microsoft Office. The installation of a new platform also required the training of employees. Furthermore, the installation of third-party applications necessitated compatibility with the existing platform. Joomla installation also required a Web server and database, thus resulting in hardware expenses. Robert Deousta, a member of the leadership team, commented on the advantages of Joomla, "It is an open source content management system with millions of downloads and is indeed a cost-effective option that we can easily customize to suit our needs, A large developer and designer community has developed extensions and add-ins for various purposes." Anirban Gupta, another member of the leadership team, countered, "What about the Web server and database costs? What about the compatibility between the Joomla system and our existing platform? Will our employees accept a Joomla-based KM system?" Sharma interjected: We can rent or buy a Web server. Renting space on a shared server is easy and relatively cheap - as low as $50" per month with 10Mb of storage for Website files. However, renting involves privacy and security risks. We will share the server infrastructure with other servers running on the same infrastructure, so it will be slower. Moreover, we will not have a simple Web address. It would be more expensive to rent our own virtual server, but we would get a simple domain name. However, other concerns would not be addressed. For complete control, we can buy and maintain our own server with storage based on our need, and get a simple Web address. The one-time cost will be at least $4,000 and monthly cost will be about $1,090 for access to the Internet backbone. We will be responsible for maintaining the server and for creating a database. We might get the server and database from other divisions. I think it is easy to address the cost issues, but the issue of compatibility between Joomla and the existing platform and effectiveness of a Joomla-based KM system requires further deliberation. Drupal Similar to Joomla, Drupal was also an open source content management system. ' Both Drupal and Joomla had no software licensing costs and required a data centre, Web server or database server. Moreover, employees may need training. Drupal was less visually appealing than Joomla, but had a better reputation for service. www.joomla orgy/core-features.html, accessed February 22, 2014. "All figures in US$ unless otherwise indicated. http:/drupal.org/, accessed December 2, 2013.Page 7 9814E018 PAID KM SOLUTIONS Gupta had other options, including a wide variety of paid KM solutions available in the market and offering various functionalities such as industry standard architecture, customizable look and feel, security features, and service-level agreements to ensure that solutions were always running. These options offered many advanced features such as advanced document repository systems with search features that could be operated from an organization's or service provider's server, thus offering flexibility and scalability. Opting for such solutions would free the small KM team from the responsibility of daily KM systems operations. Sharma suggested solutions such as Google Search Appliance and Documentum, both widely used in other organizations. Google Search Appliance Google Search Appliance was an integrated hardware and software product that used Google's powerful search engine technology and provided search functionality. ' Gupta calculated that many organizations were using Google Search Appliance along with their in-house content management system. The organization's knowledge repository was ineffective if the required knowledge could not be retrieved easily. Google Search Appliance addressed this issue by using conventional Google search engine technology to search for documents on an organization's servers, content management systems and databases. Sharma explained the pricing structure for Google Search Appliance: I estimate that we create about 50,000 new documents yearly. One version of Google Search Appliance can search up to 3 million documents [in all formats] and is priced around $30,000. That price may seem high, but it includes a server that connects directly to the network. We also get Google support, and can negotiate for training as a part of the package. Moreover, we are all familiar with Google search and will thus incur lower costs in time and training. Gupta understood Sharma's points, but he was thinking along a different line. He knew from experience that technology was just a component of a successful KM program. KM programs were meaningless without knowledge sharing. Tools could facilitate search, but the search would be futile in the absence of searchable documents. He argued: Search functionalities are a great tool. They are an effective add-on for our content management system or can even function as standalones if the documents are stored on the server. However, the crucial question is how do we promote a culture in which employees share their knowledge and store it on servers and databases? A search without searchable knowledge is meaningless. Documentum EMC Corporation offered Documentum, a content management system, which could be used to access unstructured information stored within a shared repository running on a central server. It had functionalities such as check-in/check-out access controls and workflow control, and had only an on- premise model that entailed an initial purchase cost and a maintenance agreement. The initial purchase cost was based on the number of users for each application or number of content servers. Sharma saw advantage in this cost model, "The cost structure based on the number of users for each application or the "www.google. comenterprise/search/products/gsa.html, accessed August 12, 2014.Page B 98146018 number of content servers gives us flexibility in selecting appropriate applications and the number of content servers." DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW Gupta realized that he needed support for the KM program from the second-line managers who would be the ones ensuring its wide adoption. He therefore met with them to hear their perspectives on the various technological options. One manager commented. "I will vouch for the Google search appliance and a paid content management system. The paid content management system will ensure that our contents are properly stored, and the search appliance will ensure that they are retrieved with ease." Another manager countered: This will be expensive for the organization. We have only 700 employees, and in the future, we will have about 1,000 employees, so we will not generate enough data to need a specific search appliance for retrieval. We can use an open-source-based content management system along with extensions and add-ins. Sharma interjected, "Some extensions and add-ins might be incompatible with our systems and may cause technical problems. Furthermore, open-source-based content management systems also require a Web server and database that will entail additional expenditure." Another manager asked, "What about existing technologies? We do not need to incur licensing costs and hardware costs." Sharma observed, "Our discussion revealed that it might be misleading to calculate ownership costs based solely on licensing and hardware costs." Gupta seconded Sharma's view, Another manager commented: I somehow feel that we have reduced the KM issue to a mere technical issue. We are only discussing the functionalities of platforms and their cost of ownership, I am confused about how these technological options by themselves will encourage the sharing of knowledge. We must think beyond the platform and consider a mix of options and initiatives that will foster a knowledge-sharing culture. Gupta agreed, but was still unclear about which technological option would be best for Insights Global Analytics. THE CONUNDRUM After Gupta listened to the managers' viewpoints, he met with Sharma to select a technological option for initiating the KM program at Insights Global Analytics. Sharma again discussed the various paid KM systems that he thought were suitable. However, Gupta was unsure about their effectiveness. Although paid KM solutions offered many advanced functionalities, he was not sure whether such solutions were appropriate for Insights Global Analytics. The top management mandate very clearly directed him to find a platform to break the silos across teams and motivate employees to share their knowledge. Gupta wondered whether advanced KM solutions themselves would achieve the objective. He had previously encountered various KM solutions that failed to inspire employees to share knowledge enthusiastically. Thus, sophisticated KM solutions could fail to offer an online document repository and a search function.Page 9 98148018 Gupta continued to wonder whether a sophisticated KM solution might be overkill. One KM technical leader said, "If the suitability of paid KM systems is confusing, why not select an open source content management system such as Joomla?" Open source content management systems did not involve licensing costs, but Gupta was not sure whether they would be cost effective and would promote a knowledge-sharing culture. The key question was whether it would be best to use technologies already being used in the organization The technical leader suggested that although using existing technologies would save licensing and hardware costs for the organization, it would lack many of the functionalities offered by advanced content management systems. The cost-effectiveness of any technological option could not be judged only on licensing and hardware costs. Sharma argued that they should consider the personnel (people) costs in labour and training as well as organizational benefits. Moreover, if they chose a technology based on licensing and hardware costs and the benefits failed to meet expectations, it would be very costly for the organization. Gupta reflected: I am confused about which technological options will be cost-effective and successful in promoting knowledge-sharing culture. Furthermore, we will also need to spend money on various initiatives to promote knowledge-sharing culture. [We should] summarize the pros and cons of each option and present it to top management (See Exhibit 1). However, Gupta understood that top management would be specifically interested in his recommendations about the most appropriate technology and would not be satisfied with a mere comparison of the various options. Should he recommend an unsophisticated technology already in use? If cost was his primary driver for decision-making, how should he compute the cost for each technological option? Should he consider an open source management system with more functionalities or stick to an existing technology? Should he base his recommendation on whether the technology promoted interactivity or whether the KM solutions offered advanced functionality? Depending on the technological option selected, what steps should he recommend for meeting the objective of promoting knowledge sharing? Gupta realized that there were many angles to consider