A Case Study of Unilever's Knowledge Management and its Objectives

This case study examines Unilever's Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives, organizational objectives, and the challenges they face. It explores Unilever's KM group, Communities of Practice (CoP), and intranet portals as key knowledge assets, distinguishing between tacit and explicit knowledge. The study details Unilever's KM activities, including framework development, CoP establishment, and knowledge sharing through various platforms and programs. It highlights the alignment between these activities and Unilever's goal to understand global customer needs. The case study also identifies a key issue: aligning corporate objectives with knowledge creation and transfer. It then evaluates the suitability of KM models like Choo and Wiig for Unilever's business. Furthermore, the assignment outlines potential KM challenges in knowledge creation, storage, and transfer, suggesting both IT and non-IT solutions. Finally, the study recommends the Meyer and Zack KM Cycle for Unilever, encompassing identification, refinement, storage, distribution, and presentation of knowledge.

Running head: CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
Case Study of Unilever KM
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
Table of Contents
Answer to Question 1......................................................................................................................2
Answer to Question 2......................................................................................................................4
Answer to Question 3......................................................................................................................5
Answer to Question 4......................................................................................................................5
References........................................................................................................................................7

2CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
Answer to Question 1
The organizational objective of Unilever can be seen from the provided case study. The
main objective of Unilever is to understand the needs of their customers all over the world with
the help of learning and knowledge. In the process of Knowledge Management (KM),
knowledge assets refer to the intellectual resources of the business organizations. From the
provide case study of Unilever, it can be observed that Unilever has different types of knowledge
assets related with their organizational objectives. First, the KM group is considered as the
greatest knowledge asset in Unilever as they are responsible for the smooth conduct of the whole
KM process in the company. After that, the Communities of Practices (CoP) and Knowledge
Domains are other major knowledge assets of Unilever as they bring together the key experts and
practitioners all over the world in the company for managing the knowledge. Apart from this, the
intranet portal software for knowledge sharing like e-groups and Geocrawler is major knowledge
asset of Unilever (Hislop 2013).
As per the provided case study, the knowledge assets in Unilever can be classified as
both tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. One part of the knowledge assets is tacit because
Unilever has embedded knowledge in the mind of their employees with the help of different KM
strategies; they are the KM group, CoP, Knowledge Domains, as they cannot be stored. On the
other hand, one art of the knowledge asset is explicit, as the company has established various
means like websites, documents and others to store knowledge; they are knowledge sharing
software like e-group, Geocrawler as the company can store knowledge after codified them.
From the provided case study of Unilever, it can be observed that the company has
undertaken different activities of KM and all of these activities are highly associated with the

3CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
knowledge objectives of the companies. The KM group of Unilever has developed a framework
for organizational knowledge process so that they can be focused to locate, capture, share,
transfer and create knowledge in the organization. After that, another major activity of Unilever
related to KM is the development of large number of CoP in their organization. For the initiation
of the works of these Cops, the KM team has also developed several knowledge workshops for
bringing together the KM practitioners and experts all over the world in the organization (Jones
and Sallis 2013). Moreover, the KM team of Unilever has also developed man functional
domains for the identification of any gap in the KM process. The development of intranet portal
can be considered as another major KM related activity of Unilever and the aim of this activity is
to provide assistance in knowledge sharing and collaboration process. For this reason, Unilever
has developed group chat systems like e-group and Geocrawler for providing instant support in
the KM process. Most importantly, Unilever has introduced a program called Learning Histories.
In this program, the KM team of Unilever uses to capture knowledge and learning from the
retiring employees (Liebowitz and Frank 2016). For this reason, the company has introduced
different game shows like Blind Date and Mastermind for the promotion of KM. Lastly, the
introduced program called Knowledge Debriefs available knowledge and information for the
employees from different projects of Unilever.
Hence, a positive connection can be seen between these KM activities of Unilever and
their organizational objective. Provided case study indicates towards the intention of the
company to make a strategic alignment between the knowledge creation and corporate objective.
The main objective of Unilever is to be ‘multi-local’ by understanding the needs of their
customers all over the world with the use of learning and knowledge. They also believe that it
will provide them with the necessary competitive advantage in the market. Thus, with the

4CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
implementation of the above-discussed KM activities, Unilever is hopeful to achieve their KM
related objectives (Dalkir 2017).
Answer to Question 2
As per the provided case study on Unilever, Unilever has a certain issue related to the
process of KM. The main issue is the extent of the alignment of corporate objectives and
strategies with the process of knowledge creation and transfer. In this process, the main concern
of the Chief Executive of Unilever, Paul Polman, is on the insufficient focus of learning and
knowledge on the delivery of better products and services to the end customers. Thus, the lack of
alignment between the KM and organizational objective is the main issue in the KM of Unilever
(Durst and Runar Edvardsson 2012).
Four major KM models are Sense-Making KM Model (Choo), Building and Using KM
Model (Wiig), Knowledge Spiral Model (Nonaka and Takeuchi) and Organizational
Epistemology Model (Von Krogh and Roos). Among these four models of KM, the Choo and
Wiig model is appropriate for the business of Unilever. In the Choo model, the integration of
external information and individual knowledge is done for organizational decision-making (Lee
et al. 2012). The same aspect can be seen in Unilever as the company has employed different
KM processes for the creation of knowledge to achieve organization objectives. On the other
hand, the two major components of Wiig model are knowledge matrix and well-developed
repository (Wiig 2012). As per the case study, one of the main objectives of Unilever is to
establish CoPs and various knowledge repositories. Thus, these two models are appropriate for
Unilever. The Nonaka and Takeuchi model involves in the transition of knowledge in a spiral
form that involves socialization, externalization, combination and internalization (Lai et al.

5CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
2014). It needs to be mentioned that Unilever does not follow such complex model in KM. The
Von Krogh and Roos model involves in the management of only tacit knowledge where the
presence of both tacit and explicit knowledge can be seen in Unilever (Roos and Von Krogh
2016). Thus, these two models are not appropriate for Unilever.
Answer to Question 3
Unilever can face four major challenges in their KM process. The first challenge can be
seen in the process of knowledge creation. It may happen that there is a lack of standardization in
KM process, staffs seldom share knowledge among themselves, the employees lack skills for
selling the products and others. The next challenge can be seen in the process of knowledge
storage. It can be happened that there is not adequate and effective system for storing the
organizational knowledge in the organization and this can be a major challenge. The next
challenge can be seen in the process of knowledge transferring. Major communication gap can
be seen between the senior and junior staffs that affects the knowledge sharing process (Galliers
and Leidner 2014). Moreover, it can also be happened that the mentees are not getting enough
information from the mentors in the organization. Most impotently, the company can face major
challenges in the application of knowledge in achieving the organizational objectives. Thus,
there can be both IT and non-IT solution of these problems. As a part of IT solution, the
company needs to establish expert system or knowledge database so that the junior employees
can easily obtain organizational information and knowledge (Holtshouse 2013). At the same
time, the company is also required to establish effective communication channel between the
senior and junior employees so that the employees can obtain knowledge and information from
the senior managers.

6CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
Answer to Question 4
It is recommended to Unilever that they should adopt the Meyer and Zack KM Cycle.
From the above diagram, it can be seen that there are five phases in this KM cycle. In the
first stage, the identification of major sources of information will be done. The next stage,
refinement, will include the process of collected data for the creation of knowledge objectives. In
the next stage, the knowledge will be stored in the organizational memory. The next stage
involves the distribution of this acquired knowledge to the users of the company that are the
employees and other staffs. In the last stage, the knowledge will be retrieved and presented to the
respected parties (Evans, Dalkir and Bidian 2015).
Identificat
ion
Refinement Storage Distribution Presentation
Feedback

7CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
References
Dalkir, K., 2017. Knowledge management in theory and practice. MIT press.
Durst, S. and Runar Edvardsson, I., 2012. Knowledge management in SMEs: a literature
review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(6), pp.879-903.
Evans, M., Dalkir, K. and Bidian, C., 2015. A holistic view of the knowledge life cycle: the
knowledge management cycle (KMC) model. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 12(1), p.47.
Galliers, R.D. and Leidner, D.E. eds., 2014. Strategic information management: challenges and
strategies in managing information systems. Routledge.
Hislop, D., 2013. Knowledge management in organizations: A critical introduction. Oxford
University Press.
Holtshouse, D.K., 2013. Information technology for knowledge management. Springer Science &
Business Media.
Jones, G. and Sallis, E., 2013. Knowledge management in education: Enhancing learning &
education. Routledge.
Lai, Y.L., Hsu, M.S., Lin, F.J., Chen, Y.M. and Lin, Y.H., 2014. The effects of industry cluster
knowledge management on innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(5),
pp.734-739.
Lee, S., Gon Kim, B. and Kim, H., 2012. An integrated view of knowledge management for
performance. Journal of Knowledge management, 16(2), pp.183-203.

8CASE STUDY OF UNILEVER KM
Liebowitz, J. and Frank, M. eds., 2016. Knowledge management and e-learning. CRC press.
Roos, J. and Von Krogh, G., 2016. Organizational epistemology. Springer.
Wiig, K., 2012. People-focused knowledge management. Routledge.