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

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.

22 SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS REGARDING EXISTENCE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Questions 2, 3, and 4 on the questionnaire provided an overall assessment of whether or not a KM-related program exists in each STA and, if so, to what extent. Of the 38 responding STAs, 19 reported the existence of some formal KM program at varying levels within the organization. STAs that answered “no” to all of these questions were asked to cease taking the questionnaire and to return it. Figure 2 shows the nature of the existing programs. Note that although the option was not given on the questionnaire, several states reported that some aspects of their programs are enterprise-wide and others are in one of the other phases. For example, Arizona and Kansas reported the existence of both an “enterprise-wide program” and an “enterprise-wide program in rollout phase or unevenly devel- oped among divisions.” See Table D1 for detailed results for each individual STA. It is likely that some practices are carried out within STAs by certain departments or even at the individual employee level. It may be that such activities are not recognized as falling under the KM umbrella or are so informal that they are not generally recognized by the broader organization. Note, however, that the wording in the questionnaire for these ques- tions emphasized that although terminology may differ from STA to STA, the nature of the activities and practices was what was important. The comments (see Table D2) also show fragmented programs with some work units carrying out specific activ- ities, but showing a general lack of enterprise-wide imple- mentation. There are some exceptions: Virginia, for example, with its Knowledge Management Office, is moving toward a knowledge-oriented organizational culture. Elsewhere in this report is documented an interview with the Virginia Knowl- edge Management Officer. During the course of this research, it was learned indirectly that Maryland, although not respond- ing to the questionnaire, has launched a startup pilot KM program that is from inception being seen as an enterprise- wide endeavor. Texas has several initiatives that are well enough developed that they may coalesce into an overarch- ing program in time. Ohio also appears to be moving in that direction. However, the questionnaire results show that although STAs have some local KM activity, most of those reported activity at different levels of development, indicating that some practices within individual STAs have evolved into an enterprise-level business process, whereas others have not. This may indicate that KM activities are carried out in a bottom-up or middle-out manner, or even by individual “champions,” but that KM as a business process is not driven from the executive level as a core business process. Consid- ering that 11 STAs reported programs at more than one level, one can conclude that KM programs are not commonly embed- ded as an enterprise-level business management process (see Table D1). The data show a lack of an overall organizational level of purposefulness or intentionality regarding knowledge as a valuable, strategically important asset requiring a business management process. WHOM OR WHERE IS YOUR STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY POINT OF CONTACT? As a follow-up to Questions 2–4 regarding the existence of recognized KM programs, Question 5 simply tried to find out who or where is the point of contact to which individual employees turn when they need historical information or documents about previous programs or projects. Table E1 in Appendix E gives detailed results by STA. Thirty-three STAs responded to this question, with the majority making multiple selections. Figure 3 summarizes the overall results. Note that in the comments (see Table E2), eight STAs reported the library as the central functional unit. Others indi- cated records management, archives, or combinations of units. Again, because most STAs made multiple choices, the results probably can be summarized as “it depends.” Because the two most-selected choices were “go to different work units depend- ing on what is needed” and “on an informal basis go to knowl- edgeable individuals or supervisor,” the response indicates that when it comes to finding existing information, the individual employee probably has to know where to go in advance for any hope of success. This finding is reinforced by the 13 selections for “spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are.” CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS: QUESTIONS 2–5

23 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 N o. o f P ro gr am s Enterprise- wide, active, ongoing program or elements of such a program Enterprise- wide program but in roll-out or unevenly developed among divisions. In process of extending Active, ongoing KM program or elements thereof in certain divisions or work units Active pilot or startup that probably will be extended more widely throughout the organization Have pilot but not likely to be extended beyond its current scope FIGURE 2 Existing knowledge management programs. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 N o. o f S el ec tio ns Central functional unit Divisional level work unit or individual with KM responsibilities for that division Go to different work units, depending on what resource is needed On informal basis go to knowledgeable individuals or supervisor Spend a lot of time trying to figure out where things are Other FIGURE 3 Who or where is your organization’s institutional memory point of contact (multiple selections allowed).