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.

CULTURAL RECEPTIVITY Even a casual review of the literature regarding KM reveals that the overall cultural receptivity to sharing knowledge is a key factor in managing knowledge processes. Question 6 asked the STAs to rank their organization’s cultural receptivity based on such factors as: • Is knowledge sharing more common than knowledge hoarding? • Are KM practices encouraged and supported by man- agement? • Does staff enter into KM activities willingly? • Are practices encouraged, including documenting work, sharing lessons learned in after-action sessions, partici- pating in discussions about what went right or wrong, saving project documentation for future reference, building effective information repositories, or accessing information from external sources? Table F1 in Appendix F gives the results for each STA. Figure 4 summarizes the results. As Figure 4 shows, the combination of “largely negative” and “neutral” roughly balance that of “largely receptive” and “highly receptive.” One can conclude that while there is not outright opposition, neither is there a strong push for better KM implementation. From this, it is inferred that management attention can probably be characterized as “passively posi- tive.” In other words, there does not appear to be aggressive or assertive leadership from the executive level, but neither is there pervasive or persistent negativity. MANAGEMENT EXPECTATION THAT EMPLOYEES CONSULT PRIOR ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE AS EVIDENCED IN DOCUMENTS, DATABASES, KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE, AND OTHER RESOURCES Question 7 went beyond cultural receptivity to probe manage- ment attitudes regarding application of institutional memory to current work. It is interesting that of the 19 STAs responding to this question, all 19 answered “yes.” Comments as docu- mented in Table F3 in Appendix F articulated that whereas there is an expectation, the mechanisms for doing so are not 24 necessarily readily available or known. This reinforces the results shown in Figure 4. Overall, the receptivity can be char- acterized as neutral to weak positive and, as evidenced by the results for Question 7, management expectation for using insti- tutional memory is there; however, overall there is not a strong enough emphasis to require implementing a formal KM pro- gram to ensure that the business process is in place. WHO EXERCISES OVERALL AUTHORITY FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES? Question 8 sought to determine who in the organization has authority over KM practices. The following list derived from the responses of 18 STAs shows that in most cases overall authority in not specifically designated. A few STAs reported authority residing at the top executive levels. Also, the limited number of STAs responding to this question may indicate that the responder did not know and chose not to guess. Note that Table F3 in Appendix F gives complete comments. • Motor Vehicle Division program management • Shared by library and agency-wide records management • No one/none assigned • Director of design • Executive director • Two division directors • KM practices are accomplished by each office area • Director and division heads • No individual or unit—everyone • Director, senior staff, plus shared responsibility of district deputy directors • This is a sometimes in our organization, depending on the project and culture of the unit • Does not reside with any one person or even just one office, maybe the General Services Division • Senior leaders • KM officer. WHO EXERCISES STRONGEST LEADERSHIP OVER KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES? Question 9 was a follow-up to Question 8. It sought to deter- mine who exercises leadership, as opposed to who actually has authority. Again, the list shows a wide variety of responses CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS FOR QUESTIONS 6–12 REGARDING CULTURAL RECEPTIVITY, AUTHORITY, AND RESPONSIBILITIES

25 as to the type of training or job position of perceived leaders, as given by the 18 STAs that responded. • Section leaders in IT department and scattered through- out another division • Agency-wide records manager and supervising librarian • Librarian, agency-wide records managers, management professionals • Bridge engineer and engineer-in-training manager • Director of design • Executive director • Lieutenant governor and staff of division directors • None assigned • Research engineer • Communication division manager • Adopted as a culture, with leadership from senior management • Assistant director for planning/production and assistant director for highway management • Not sure • Project development director • Commissioner, chiefs, and district administrators • Information technology manager • Executive. WHO HAS OVERALL DAY-TO-DAY ENTERPRISE- WIDE RESPONSIBILITY FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES? Question 10 was a follow-up to Questions 8 and 9. The responses show a wide variety of skills and job titles. Over- all, there does not seem to be a clear-cut assignment of responsibility for KM, nor is there a recognizable pattern of professional or management training that logically leads to such an assignment. Table F6 in Appendix F provides complete comments. • Statewide records manager • No one • Systems software specialist • Executive secretary • Electronic document management system director • None assigned • Records Management Unit • Everyone • HR or Training units • Division deputy directors and district deputy directors, and related administrators in planning/production, high- way management, and HR • There is none now • Everyone in the department • Research Division has most responsibility • KM officer • Division directors • Training and development manager. ARE AUTHORITY, LEADERSHIP, AND DAY-TO-DAY OVERALL RESPONSIBILITIES THE SAME FOR BOTH PHYSICAL AND ELECTRONIC RESOURCES? Of the 16 STAs that responded to Question 12, 6 reported that the authority, leadership, and day-to-day overall respon- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 N o. o f s el ec tio ns No selections for overall negativity Largely negative Neutral Largely receptive High receptivity FIGURE 4 Cultural receptivity.

sibilities for KM practices are essentially the same for both physical and electronic resources and 10 reported they were not. Table F8 in Appendix F provides detailed STA responses. The implication behind the question has to do with how documents and other explicit KM resources are managed as STAs evolve from hardcopy to e-formats and new technolo- gies and practices are brought under the KM umbrella. Are the same individuals or work units responsible in terms of authority, leadership, and day-to-day responsibility regardless 26 of the technologies used? Are documents and other resources handled based on document type and content rather than sim- ply based on whether they are in hardcopy or in e-format? For example, would a hardcopy project plan and a similar document in e-format be handled the same in terms of length of retention, availability, etc.? Responses to this question suggest, both as summarized in Figure 5 and in the comments listed in Table F8 in Appen- dix F, that how documents in differing formats are handled seems to be evolving with no clear consensus on solutions. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 ST As Se le ct in g Yes, responsibilities are the same No, responsibilities are NOT the same FIGURE 5 Are authority, leadership, and day-to-day overall responsibilities the same for physical and electronic resources.