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.
02 4 6 8 10 12 N o. o f S el ec tio ns KM program is robust. Continues through staff and administration changes Program exists, but is not evenly supported or well- communicated by management Program may or may not survive, depending on budget cycles, administrative changes, etc. FIGURE 14 Knowledge management continuity and persistence over time. 36 DO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ENJOY CONTINUITY AND PERSISTENCE OVER TIME? Figure 14 summarizes the results of 19 responses for Question 34 regarding the continuity and persistence of KM practices over time. Several STAs chose multiple selections, although it was not a questionnaire option. This probably demonstrates an unevenness of the KM programs across the enterprise. Some parts of it may enjoy strong continuity; in other parts, it may not. See Table H1 in Appendix H for detailed results for each STA and Table H2 for a few comments. Figure 14 shows that the continued existence of most KM programs is not necessarily a given and the programs are not part of the normal business-as-usual management process. DOES YOUR AGENCY USE METRICS (PERFORMANCE MEASURES) TO GAUGE THE VALUE ADDED OR EFFECTIVENESS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OR TO JUSTIFY COSTS? Results for Question 35 are summarized in Figure 15. Detailed results for each STA are found in Table H3, Appen- dix H. Results show minimal use of metrics to evaluate KM programs. DOES AGENCY HAVE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TRAINING AND/OR MENTORING PROGRAMS FOR STAFF TRANSFERRED TO NEW JOBS, NEW HIRES, OR THOSE NEW TO LEADERSHIP? WHAT INITIATIVES HAVE LED TO SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATION IN KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES? Figure 16 summarizes how many STAs have or do not have KM training or mentoring programs. The results show that the understanding of KM in the organization is probably not considered vital for full participation as an engaged employee. There were some useful comments regarding training and mentoring: ⢠Minnesota reported that this is a work in progress. ⢠Texas commented that they do not have such programs per se, except within each functional area, depending on what a new employee needs to know. ⢠Utah noted that it is improving in this area. CHAPTER EIGHT SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS REGARDING EFFECTIVENESS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND TRAINING INITIATIVES: QUESTIONS 34â37
37 No, we do not use metrics (17 responses) Yes (4 responses) FIGURE 15 Use of metrics. No (13 responses) Yes (8 responses) FIGURE 16 Training and mentoring programs. ⢠Virginia commented that such programs are part of a leadership development program that is evolving/ emerging. The final question, Question 37, asked whether the agency has found any specific initiatives to be especially effective in acceptance of and participation in KM practices within the organization. Three STAs answered affirmatively: Kansas, Minnesota, and Ohio. ⢠Minnesota commented that their electronic docu- ment management system (EDMS) is supported by senior management. Day-to-day work between EDMS staff and employees is fostering a common under- standing of the importance of information asset man- agement and the need to share information across the organization. ⢠Ohio commented that one of their most successful pro- grams for succession planning and knowledge transfer is the Engineer-in-Training program. Texas commented that the Pavement Forensics KMS Project includes a marketing plan for promoting the Pavement Forensics KMS when it gets closer to implementation.
