National Academies Press: OpenBook

Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices (2007)

Chapter: Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey

« Previous: Chapter One - Introduction
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14035.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14035.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14035.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14035.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14035.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14035.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Two - Summary of Findings from Literature Survey." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2007. Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14035.
×
Page 18

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

13 In the literature survey for this synthesis study, the focus was primarily on selected recent references that explore specific KM practices. Authors vary in their points of view on KM, depending in part on chronology and in part on their own pro- fessional expertise. Earlier writings focused more on tech- nology, more recent writings on HR aspects. The most recent writings emphasize combinations of approaches using tech- nology, human resources, organizational development, and physical and digital document and content-rich repositories (people issues, process issues, and technology). Chapter two summarizes the findings from the literature survey and puts them into context in light of the findings from the responses given by the STAs to the questionnaire. Note that the literature survey findings regarding leave- taking have been included with the questionnaire results in chapter three. All references are annotated in the appendices and com- plete citation data are given in the References. Appendix J is an annotated literature survey of relevant standards and guidance documents issued by internationally recognized standards-developing organizations. These types of docu- ments are useful because they emerge from a broad consen- sus process and therefore offer a distilled view with input from many quarters. All of the documents referenced in Appendix J are “international,” in that they were not issued by U.S. standards-developing organizations. To our knowl- edge, the U.S. standards-developing community, as coordi- nated by the American National Standards Institute, has not published standards or recommended guidelines on KM, although the Malcolm Baldrige Award does include “mea- surement, analysis, and knowledge management” as one of its seven criteria. This award is given by the President of the United States to businesses—manufacturing and service, small and large—and to education and health care organiza- tions that apply and are judged to be outstanding in seven areas: leadership; strategic planning; customer and market focus; measurement, analysis, and KM; HR focus; process management; and results. However, there are excellent ref- erences from the International Standards Organization (ISO), CEN, Australia, Great Britain, and Denmark. Appendix K contains an annotated literature survey from a variety of sources organized around these topics: • Knowledge as an asset • KM as a business process • HR and organizational development in KM • Trans-disciplinary nature of KM • Characteristics of successful KM programs • Specific KM practices • Measuring KM effectiveness. Appendix L contains annotated resources of various types, including websites, academic institutions, and other resources. LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: KNOWLEDGE AS AN ASSET In a sense, the two references to Peter Drucker’s writings in this literature survey can be considered a set of bookends. There may have been others, but Peter Drucker laid out the overall concept of knowledge as a valuable asset that needed management attention in 1969. Thirty years later, he re- affirmed that, in his view, “the most important area for devel- oping new concepts, methods, and practices will be in the management of society’s knowledge resources” (Drucker 1997, p. 24). During the ensuing 30 plus years, KM has come of age as a business process. Leonard-Barton (1995) also saw knowledge as an asset, but her special emphasis was on how cultural climate affects an organization’s ability to take full advantage of knowledge as an asset. She moved beyond document management and information technology (IT) as sole key drivers, to include the “human resource” or what might be called the people- centric dimension. In her view, that dimension is needed to maximize our knowledge assets. Leonard-Barton’s view of the importance of knowledge as central to an organization’s success was reinforced by business writers Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) who claimed that KM is not something done simply at the personal level by profession- ally trained, conscientious employees, but is an organization- wide responsibility, at all levels. Their view was that knowl- edge creation was the most important factor behind the competitive success of Japanese firms. Indeed, the concept of managing knowledge as an asset, comparable to financial, physical, or human assets, is gaining in importance worldwide. ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems—Guidelines for Performance Improvements (2000) sets the stage for a wide- scale implementation of KM, because it specifically requires (for those organizations seeking certification) that both tacit CHAPTER TWO SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FROM LITERATURE SURVEY

and explicit knowledge is continually developed as a neces- sity to decision making and innovation. As a high-level qual- ity management document, it does not provide specific tools and techniques, leaving that for individual organizations to work out within their own context; however, because these standards are being adopted worldwide means that specific KM business processes are also being implemented by orga- nizations worldwide. Often, standards such as ISO 9004 are regarded as a require- ment. For example, organizations seek certification when they have met the requirements of certain standards. However, stan- dards also can be used as references, especially as a starting point when an organization is developing a new business process or making substantial changes. These documents typi- cally do not detail exactly how to execute management pro- cesses or specific practices, but they do specify what types of processes are necessary or recommended. Therefore, it is not suggested, for example, that STAs adopt any single standard or set of standards as a requirement within their own STA. It is not necessary to actually seek ISO 9000 certification, for example, to make use of the ISO quality management standards. However, in the case of standards issued by the ISO, it is noteworthy that to become certified an organization must implement the specific business processes detailed in the standard. At the end of 2004, 670,399 certificates had been awarded worldwide to business and industry, non-profit, and government organizations. The ISO website also notes that there has been a transition, and as of 2004 the service sectors are by far the biggest users of the standards, as compared with the manufacturing sectors that were formerly the pre- dominant users (see http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/ pressreleases/archives/2005/Ref967.html). This widespread adoption of a standard in which knowledge is spelled out as an important business asset that must be managed is significant and points to a growing understanding of the necessity of devel- oping business processes to accomplish a task. The Malcolm Baldridge Award is given by the President of the United States to businesses—manufacturing and ser- vice, small and large—and to education and health care orga- nizations that apply and are judged to be outstanding in seven areas: leadership; strategic planning; customer and market focus; measurement, analysis, and knowledge management; HR; process management; and results. The award process examines the management, effective use, analysis, and im- provement of data and information to support key organization processes and the organization’s performance management system (see http://www.quality.nist.gov/). LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AS BUSINESS PROCESS As seen, ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems—Guide- lines for Performance Improvements sets the stage for wide- scale implementation of KM. Although it does not describe specific processes, it indicates that to meet the general qual- 14 ity management requirements, organizations must develop business processes for handling knowledge assets. The five-part European Guides to Good Practice in Knowl- edge Management, published by the European Committee for Standardization, fills a gap between ISO 9004 and an organi- zation’s specific implementation of KM. The framework or context within which KM is a business process, at both the organizational and the personal level, is carefully laid out within a strong overall business focus. This is important. As seen from the questionnaire results, there is inadequate implementation of KM among STAs as an intentional, pur- poseful business process. Questionnaire results show that STAs do not routinely view knowledge as an asset of suffi- cient importance to warrant agency-wide attention. STAs wanting to understand the KM business process may find these Guides useful. Gleaning some key concepts from these Guides, it is noted that the organization needs to define its mission, vision, and strategy with regard to KM. A culture of motivation, in which people are respected, feel a sense of trust, belonging, and empowerment is necessary. Knowledge activities are seen as an integral part of a wider business process, and should be value adding, clearly communicated, understood, and accepted. Roles and responsibilities must be made clear. Individuals need to be acknowledged and rewarded for their contributions. The environment must be conducive for people meeting, working together, and sharing ideas and experiences. Furthermore, as for any other business process, the Guides indicate that there must be measurements of effectiveness. Technology and infrastructure must be in place to support the business process. Nontechnical facilities such as dedi- cated meeting rooms, help desks, and office spaces arranged to stimulate knowledge-sharing behavior are also needed. Knowledge assets must be captured so that they will remain when the employees depart. The Guides discuss change man- agement, because implementation of a KM system will inevitably require changes, perhaps even in the basic beliefs and behaviors of management and employees. According to Davenport (2005), KM business processes cannot simply be imposed on top of existing processes. de Holan et al. (2004) assert that tacit knowledge must be articu- lated and made explicit. The whole process must be routizined and codified. Explicit knowledge must be communicated. In other words, the whole process involves systems thinking and institutionalization of processes. Gordon and Grant (2005) provide us with basic under- standings about some of the challenges around the concept knowledge-as-power, which they discard for a better approach: knowledge-as-strategy. Gupta and Govindarajan (2000) warn us that technology infrastructure is not the answer, but the enabler.

15 Hammer et al. (2004) articulated that the goal is to get more out of the organization’s knowledge assets. The need is to improve the performance of the end-to-end business process by eliminating non-value-adding work. Indeed, Kucza (2001) spelled out such a systems approach by defining a KM busi- ness process model. Taken together, this brief summary of the literature sur- vey regarding KM as a business process indicates the necessity of developing an overarching business process, rather than a piece-meal “bottoms up” or even “middle out” approach. The annotated literature survey gives much more supporting evidence. LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: BARRIERS TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT The European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Man- agement, Part 2: Organizational Cultural reviews the com- mon barriers to the implementation of KM as a business process (p. 7): • Time and priority; • Difference between management statements and actions; • An enduring notion that “knowledge is power”; • Apathy about sharing knowledge; • “Not invented here” syndrome; • Reward systems that mitigate again knowledge sharing; • Differing cultures and subcultures; • Knowledge travels by means of language, and there may not be a common organizational language; • Considering the organization to be “machine-like”; • Organizational “amnesia”; • Growth in “virtual” working can hinder as well as help; • Overemphasis on technology or inadequate supporting technology; and • Knowledge does not grow forever, and organizations and individuals should unlearn and leave behind old ways of thinking. In the course of this research, interviews, and personal reflection, other impediments to strong business process implementation were observed, including: • “Hero” syndromes. • A system in which individuals believe that they must remain indispensable and therefore do not or will not share knowledge. • Employees seeing knowledge work as added on to an already over-full plate. • Lack of balance among disciplines; that is, over- reliance on IT as driver and not as enabler, over- reliance on documentation, or overreliance on people- to-people approaches. • Insufficient IT skills to develop sophisticated databases that handle textual information as something other than just “data,” necessitating applications of taxonomies, superior searching capabilities, etc. • Development of numerous startups, pilots, small work unit efforts, etc. without a coherent enterprise-wide strat- egy or a “systems thinking” holistic approach. • Inability of a small KM work unit to handle the work- load required to get KM practices sufficiently developed so that they can be spun off to work units. • Insufficient effort by KM specialists to spin off prac- tices and develop ownership by affected group, thereby freeing themselves up to develop new initiatives. LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: HUMAN RESOURCE AND KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT A review of our literature survey annotations reveals that KM has evolved from focusing on IT to a focus on document and content management. Most recently, the people-centric approach has joined these earlier disciplines to create a more coherent holistic process. Leonard-Barton (1995) relatively early on articulated the importance for KM of the people-centric view, especially for all managers and levels of managers, as opposed to the com- monly held view at the time that IT managers were mostly responsible. Gilmour (2003) also recommended a shift from the “publishing” model to the brokering model, based on col- laboration management. Australian Standard AS 5037 focuses on “the continuum of the knowledge ecosystem” (p. 18). It calls for an environ- ment where the organization is “knowledge aware.” There is fluidity about the organization and it can adapt readily to external factors. Networks can form, de-form, and re-form, according to their own life cycle (p. 19). There are barriers to inserting people-centric approaches. According to the European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Management, Part 2: Organizational Culture (pp. 12–13) these can include: • Illusion of invulnerability • Collective rationalization • Illusion of morality • Shared stereotypes • Direct pressure • Self-censorship • “Mind guards,” where people screen out information from outsiders that challenges the group’s assumptions and beliefs • Illusion of unanimity. The document goes on to discuss that these barriers can be mitigated by forming communities of interest, practice, or purpose. Values, belief, and trust come into the process. So do leadership styles; the credibility of leaders especially, but

also of individuals; and motivation that surpasses the stress inherent in the change process. Some useful tools for strength- ening the people-centric approach are: • Community building, • Observing and questioning, • Coaching and mentoring, • Narrative, and • Conversation and dialogue. LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: TRANS-DISCIPLINARY NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT In chapter eight, “Reflecting” (Australian Standard AS 5037), it states that KM promises deeper insights into an organiza- tion’s content and culture and its surrounding ecosystem than other business processes. This chapter reviews the emer- gence of KM as a discipline in the 1990s. Two strategies emerged: the first focused on collection, storage, and reuse of explicit knowledge in documents and IT systems. Much of the data gleaned from the STAs in this synthesis fell into this cat- egory. NASA and the World Bank both started at that point in their own KM developments. The NASA interview revealed that its engineers and other technical professionals expressed frustration over the inability to find documents they knew existed; therefore, the first order of business for the KM Office was to correct that. The World Bank did the same thing, institutionalized it as a day-to-day ongoing operational process, and then went on to more people-centric processes. The second early strategy focused on connecting people to people, where KM was seen as a social communication process with emphasis on tacit (personal) knowledge. Today, KM is a blending of these alternatives within spe- cific organizational contexts, and concentrates on a balance among the four elements: people, process, technology, and content (Australian Standards AS 5037-2005, p. 60). The Australians have contributed much to our understanding with the publication of this standard, which is not prescriptive, but a guideline. All organizations require an influx of knowledge from the outside in an organized, systematic manner to refresh them. Librarians and professionally managed libraries can play a key role in the KM business process. Newer skills involving classification, ontology, thesaurus construction, and information architecture development are important for constructing useful electronic repositories. NASA and the World Bank are both developing integrated, transactional databases that pull together multiple repositories. For example, when searching for potential team members, résumés, project documents, accounting charge records, and other data can be pulled together to create a composite view of an individual’s expertise. 16 LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: SUCCESS FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCCESSFUL KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS The following list is derived from many sources given in the literature surveys’ toolbox of success factors. Cross and Baird (2000) • Managers determine which lessons are worth learning • Managers deliberately develop organizational memory • Personal relationships are turned into organizational know-how • Knowledge rapidly finds its way into a distributed database • Learning processes are quickly structured to incorpo- rate new knowledge into daily activities • New knowledge is constantly embedded into databases, work processes, support systems, products, and services • Leverage the knowledge in databases with technology that enables dialogue. Davenport and Glaser (2002) • Specialized knowledge is baked into the jobs of highly skilled workers by embedding it into the technology workers need to do their jobs • Ensure a measurement-oriented culture • Ensure IT professionals know the business as well as the technology. Davenport et al. (1998) • Money is saved or earned—evidence of financial gain • Broad infrastructure of both technology and organization • Balanced structure that is flexible and evolutionary • Knowledge is easy to access • People are positive about creating, using, sharing knowledge • Project contains motivators • People may use multiple channels to transfer knowledge • Growth in number of resources • Growth in volume of content • There is strong likelihood the project will survive with- out support of particular individuals • Pervasive desktop and communications technologies • Established roles and organizational groups whose mem- bers have skills to serve as resources for others • Structured repository with categories, key terms, indexes, etc. • Responsibility for controlling decisions about knowl- edge structure assigned • “Knowledge-friendly” culture • “Hero” mentalities are avoided • Use language common to company culture • Raw, undistilled data does not get into repository • Concepts are framed in business terms employees can understand • Incentives and motivational aids are not trivial and are tied to overall evaluation/compensation system

17 • Senior managers send message that KM is crucial to organization, provide funding and other resources, clar- ify what types of knowledge are important. Zack (2003) • Attention is paid to application of existing knowledge • Attention is paid to creation of new knowledge • Worrying is not about “who works for whom,” but on “who needs to work with whom” • Organization learns from customers • Information is extracted from outside organization • KM activities are aligned with the organization’s strategy • Internal and external knowledge gaps are recognized and closed • Mission and purpose are defined in terms of knowledge • Position within the industry is defined in terms of knowledge • Strategies are formulated with knowledge in mind • Customers are segmented by how much can be learned from them • Organization is transformed into a learning organization • Cost of learning is seen as an investment, not a cost • HR management is taken seriously • Business model is thought out, taking knowledge into consideration. European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Manage- ment, Part 2: Organizational Culture (2004) • Barriers have been investigated and addressed • Individuals understand and can respond appropriately to cultural dynamics • High emotional intelligence • Actions show recognition of the importance of rela- tionships between individuals, working groups, organi- zations, and interorganizations • Policies and behaviors indicate an awareness of and ability to support knowledge • Use of informal and formal time encourages knowledge sharing • Organization is seen as dynamic entity with key points of expertise • Organization is structured in line with knowledge strategies • Individuals are coached into appropriate behaviors • Leadership qualities are valued and developed • Credibility is important • Recognition is a social benefit of effective communities of practice • Motivation is strongly linked to personal recognition • Importance of knowledge in developing competencies understood • Importance of sharing knowledge is made clear to staff • Concepts and practices of a learning organization are understood • Policies and management support developing com- munities • Employees use good judgment in deciding between internal and external resources • Coaching draws competence from the recipient • Storytelling is encouraged • Good meeting skills are developed • IT tools used for collaboration, knowledge capturing • IT systems have sufficient buy-in for long-term usability. LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES This research did not reveal a better compendium of spe- cific tools and techniques for KM than Australian Standard AS 5037-2005 Knowledge Management (2005, pp. 35–52). Some are more people-centric, some emphasize people-to- documents or explicit content, and still other are specific technological efforts. This document is probably the single most useful document referenced in this report. It approaches KM as an “ecological” process that integrates a rich, eclectic diversity of people-centric, people-to-documents or content and technological approaches. The document lists, together with descriptions, what are termed “enablers”—specific prac- tices that together underlie the KM business process. Not only is this an excellent list of practices, but it also shows how var- ious professional disciplines underlie the entire KM process. • After-action reviews • Business process mapping • Champions and advocates • Change management • Communities of interest • Communities of practice • Content management • Critical incident technique • Document management • Environmental scanning • Information auditing • Knowledge auditing • Knowledge literacy • Knowledge mapping • Leadership • Learning and development • Leveraging information repositories • Meetings and “share fairs” • Mentoring and coaching • Narrative management • Networks and communities • Physical environment • Play theory • Reflection • Rewards and recognition • Social network analysis • Storytelling • Strategic conversations • Taxonomies and thesauri • Technological integration

• Technologies for communication and knowledge sharing • Technologies for discovery and creation • Technologies for managing repositories. Knowledge Management Tools and Techniques: Practi- tioners and Experts Evaluate KM Solutions (Rao 2004, pp. 1–21) is also a rich source of tools and ideas. Included are examples and case studies. Rao provides the following tool categories, with some specific examples for each in- cluded here: • Content management—codification; authoring templates; multiple content types; sources; corporate libraries; per- sonnel directories; videos; company policies; external and internal websites; presentations; press releases; powerful abstracts; successful practices; innovations; lessons learned; meta-data features including classifi- cation, tagging, and validation; and web portals. • Knowledge taxonomies—tools with pre-built tax- onomies; tools with dynamically and automatically gen- erated taxonomies; and using these tools with human interventions, context-sensitive taxonomies, manual classification of content, clearly stated meta-data require- ments, and terminology standardization. • Groupware—tools for affinity building, knowledge mapping, threading, polling, group/collaborative docu- ment creation, e-mail, instant messaging, and meeting– thinking sessions. • Online communities of practice—web-based communi- ties, peer-to-peer sharing of insights, best practice sharing, knowledge sharing, innovation, learning, collab- oration, accountability rather than anonymity in knowl- edge networks, expertise directories, and networked vir- tual environments. • Enterprise portals—IT platforms of choice, on-demand workplace, single points for interaction and collabora- tion, transaction capability, management of digital assets, and binding together of various content and collaboration activities. • Social network analysis and design—knowledge flows, identifying gaps, surveys, recommender systems, role development, connectivity of workers, degrees of sep- aration, and exchange of knowledge. • e-learning—interleaving of learning and working, antic- ipate training needs, and bridge between classroom and on-the-job training. • Storytelling and narratives—art and graphics, theatri- cal tools, poetry, creating conversations, participatory observation, anecdote circles, organizational metaphors, knowledge blogging, break down silos, and descriptive language. • Wireless tools for knowledge mobilization—mobile technologies, real time, function across boundaries of space and time, and continuous economy. • Innovation and idea management systems—an “idea central,” a “hundred-headed brain,” responsible trans- parency, access to experts, serendipity, innovative cul- ture, drawing on past innovations. 18 Some of Rao’s (2004) ideas may seem somewhat “wild” or foreign to many of us—one has to wonder about a serious, sober transportation engineer using “art,” “theatrical tools,” or “poetry” to share his/her knowledge with others! However, a HR manager was observed using just such an approach to convey just what the company’s “return on equity” goals really meant, cutting through obtuse financial jargon to present a memorable lesson. APQC hosts an excellent website that contains many ideas for tools. Another excellent “idea central” type of website is the “Specialist Library for Knowledge Management” from the UK National Health Services. (Note the URL and other informa- tion can be found in the annotated reference in Appendix L.) Content Management Practices Content management techniques may be overlooked in the current rush to apply people-centric approaches. Here is where Boiko’s book, Content Management Bible (2002), comes to the rescue. Not quite a recipe book, but close, he details how one can actually create a content management system. Nor should the Transportation Research Thesaurus be overlooked. It is a well-developed meta-data tool, providing a specialized list of transportation-related terms, organized in hierarchical fashion, for use in taxonomy work, indexing, or as an authoritative source of words and terms for writers and editors. Use of such a thesaurus ensures consistency among multiple indexes and can pull together many different kinds of media into one topical framework. ANSI/NISO Z39.85-2001 Dublin Core Metadata Set: An American National Standard (ISO 2001) provides a method to adequately describe information and knowledge resources for future discovery. Anyone working in a database/Internet environment should be familiar with this standard, which has been adopted at the national level in the United States and is used worldwide. Perhaps Zack (1999) summarized it best when he listed the four primary resources for explicit KM: • Repositories of explicit knowledge; • Refineries for accumulating, refining, managing, and distributing the knowledge; • Organization roles to execute and manage the refining process; and • Information technologies to support the repository and processes (p. 47). According to Zack the repository of explicit knowledge: • Needs structure and content, • Is a “knowledge platform” from which many views of the knowledge can be derived,

19 • Uses the repository’s structural element as the knowl- edge unit, • Is indexed with appropriate concepts and categories, • Should accommodate date changes, and • Must accommodate additions to knowledge. In addition, according to Zack • The knowledge platform may consist of several reposi- tories, each appropriate to particular content. • The knowledge refinery represents the process for creat- ing and distributing knowledge contained in the reposi- tory. Roles must be assigned to ensure responsibilities are clear. • The IT infrastructure provides the pipelines for the flow of explicit knowledge (pp. 47–50). (Emphasis added by the author.) Communities of Practice Mike Burk has long been organizing communities of practice (COPs) at FHWA. The reader will find details about these programs elsewhere in this report. Burk (2003) thoroughly described what COPs are and how to make them effective. Snyder and de Souza Briggs (2004) present what is almost a “cookbook” on how to organize COPs on a sustainable basis. Hammer (2005) emphasizes the need for an executive spon- sor to ensure that participation in COPs is supported and that the organization will get a return on its investment. LITERATURE SURVEY SUMMARY: MEASURING KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS Liebowitz (2005) cites an example of how to measure KM. He chooses a KM initiative, and then defines system mea- sures, output measures, and outcome measures. His method- ology can be extended to any KM initiative. For example, for the initiative “communities of practice” he gives a “ratio of number of members to the number of contributors” as one system measure. An output measure example would be the “attrition or turnover rate,” and an outcome measure might be “savings and/or improvement in organizational quality and efficiency” (p. 37). This source may not be a cookbook; however, a careful reader can extrapolate from it and develop measures appropriate to his or her environment. European Guide to Good Practice in Knowledge Manage- ment, Part 4: Guidelines for Measuring KM is an excellent source for measurement techniques. The steps for identifying measures are (p. 10): • Defining your goals, • Identifying the stakeholders for your measures, • Defining the measures, • Deciding what data will be collected and how it will be collected, • Analyzing and communicating the measures, and • Reviewing the combination of measures. The Guide contains descriptions of some well-known measurement approaches including: • The Intangible Assets Monitor (focuses on a few rele- vant indicators depending on organizational strategy). • The Skandia Navigator (focuses on a collection of criti- cal measures—financial, customers, processes, long-term sustainability, human focus—that comprise a holistic view of performance and goal achievement). • The Patton Approach (based on best practices from research, practitioners, experiences, expert opinion, lessons learned, etc.). • A list of methods and tools for collective knowledge evaluation. Because this document is readily available, the measure- ment approaches are not described in detail here. Suffice it to say that Chapter 4 in the Guide lists 25 typical measures and key performance indicators. Appendix l is a good example of a diagnostic tool called “the Knowledge Quick Scan.” The reader is encouraged consult the actual document for specific details. The FHWA Knowledge Sharing Initiative, which is the terminology used for FHWA’s KM program, uses the bal- anced scorecard method to assess its progress in improv- ing business results through better knowledge exchange within FHWA and in the larger highway community. It uses four quadrants to organize its results: customer results, business results, initiative growth and processes, and out- reach and leadership activities (FHWA Knowledge Appli- cation, 2005, p. 1).

Next: Chapter Three - Summary and Analysis of State Transportation Agency Questionnaire Results and Literature Survey Regarding Specific Efforts to Capture Knowledge of Experienced Retiring or Exiting Employees »
Preserving and Using Institutional Memory Through Knowledge Management Practices Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 365: Preserving and Using Institutional Memory through Knowledge Management Practices explores practices regarding the preservation and use of institutional memory through the knowledge management practices of United States and Canadian transportation agencies. The report examines practices for the effective organization, management, and transmission of materials, knowledge, and resources that are in the unique possession of individual offices and employees.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!