Using a KM framework to evaluate an ERP system implementation

Purpose – Competitive advantage can be gained in several ways including gaining a knowledge advantage (K-Adv). This paper sets out to report on the first stage of broad study to assess the effectiveness of implementing an enterprise resource planning system (ERP) from a knowledge management (KM) perspective.

Design/methodology/approach – The study used a survey of a small but representative group to gain feedback in their experience of using the ERP system. Results are evaluated using a KM framework, the knowledge advantage (K-Adv) capability maturity model (CMM) tool that was initially developed for use by construction organisations to assess the impact of leadership and its supporting ICT infrastructure on the ability of people (by effectively creating, sharing, disseminating and using knowledge) operating in a highly dynamic business environment.

Findings – The K-Adv framework analysis for the study indicates that the ERP system was seen as a useful tool for cost management and that its deployment effectiveness is mainly dependent on human-to-human knowledge transfer about how to make the ERP system work. Also, how leaders in organisations facilitate and support people is a critical enabler of the ERP system deployment. The K-Adv CMM tool was useful in making sense of the degree of organisational maturity from a KM perspective.

Practical implications – The findings first highlight the usefulness of focusing on people-support in using the ERP adoption in this organisation's context and, second, they illustrate how a CMM tool like the K-Adv can be used to evaluate KM practices.

Originality/value – The likely effectiveness of use of an ERP is well-known. However, the originality of the paper is twofold. First, it explains effective ERP application drivers and inhibitors from a KM perspective. Second, it tests and adapts a tool that helps evaluate KM effectiveness and assists better understanding of how these practices are enacted from a cost management business unit perspective.

Land management practices associated with house loss in wildfires.

Losses to life and property from unplanned fires (wildfires) are forecast to increase because of population growth in peri-urban areas and climate change. In response, there have been moves to increase fuel reduction--clearing, prescribed burning, biomass removal and grazing--to afford greater protection to peri-urban communities in fire-prone regions. But how effective are these measures? Severe wildfires in southern Australia in 2009 presented a rare opportunity to address this question empirically. We predicted that modifying several fuels could theoretically reduce house loss by 76%-97%, which would translate to considerably fewer wildfire-related deaths. However, maximum levels of fuel reduction are unlikely to be feasible at every house for logistical and environmental reasons. Significant fuel variables in a logistic regression model we selected to predict house loss were (in order of decreasing effect): (1) the cover of trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses, (2) whether trees and shrubs within 40 m of houses was predominantly remnant or planted, (3) the upwind distance from houses to groups of trees or shrubs, (4) the upwind distance from houses to public forested land (irrespective of whether it was managed for nature conservation or logging), (5) the upwind distance from houses to prescribed burning within 5 years, and (6) the number of buildings or structures within 40 m of houses. All fuel treatments were more effective if undertaken closer to houses. For example, 15% fewer houses were destroyed if prescribed burning occurred at the observed minimum distance from houses (0.5 km) rather than the observed mean distance from houses (8.5 km). Our results imply that a shift in emphasis away from broad-scale fuel-reduction to intensive fuel treatments close to property will more effectively mitigate impacts from wildfires on peri-urban communities.