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.

45 Thirty-three state transportation agencies (STAs) reported specific efforts to capture the knowledge of experienced retiring or exiting employees, which indicates that there is widespread recognition that this issue warrants attention. Key findings showed that • The exit interview was the most common effort made (see Figure 1 in chapter three). • Rehiring arrangements were typically on a temporary or contract basis. • Seven STAs reported having a succession plan process in place. • A few STAs assign individuals to document expertise. • Some STAs assign knowledge-capturing tasks to senior staff. However, overall, the questionnaire data plus the addi- tional comments as given in detail in Appendix C do not show that STAs routinely have purposeful, ongoing, enterprise- wide programs to deal with leave-taking in a methodical man- ner, on an ongoing basis, as part of the normal knowledge management (KM) business process. The annotated literature survey in Appendix I and Figure 2 (chapter four) suggests numerous short- and long-term practices. These practices are listed not as recommendations, but as perhaps “brainstorm” ideas. Indeed, some practices may not be practical or even legally possible within government agencies. However, orga- nizations can embed such practices into their normal business processes to ensure that employees stay on the job, retire- ments are anticipated, and leave-taking is not an unexpected event, but a normal part of the human resource side of the KM business process. Based on questionnaire responses, 19 STAs were identi- fied (including New Brunswick, Canada) that have adopted elements of KM programs or are trying to do so. Overall, it was concluded that most KM efforts are being made by individual work units, or what could be termed “piecemeal” or work group-level projects, or are pilot pro- grams. Although there are exceptions in California, Maryland, Ohio, Texas, and Virginia in some areas, in others agency- wide KM business strategies that permeate the culture and help define how business is done are not present. In addi- tion, few STAs reported procedural or policy documenta- tion that broadly define and support KM business practices. It is evident from the many initiatives and processes reported by STAs that there is substantial attention being paid to insti- tutional memory issues and, specifically, implementation of KM practices in the individual STAs at some level or by some individuals. However, a commonly acknowledged understand- ing of KM business processes was not found among agencies that might have been found if, for example, the focus had been on physical or financial assets. With the responses to the questionnaire came many com- ments about practices, documenting what in most cases seem to be recent initiatives. Some self-criticism was included as well about possible shortcomings. Some STAs stand out, how- ever. Certainly, Virginia, with its Knowledge Management Office and range of practices is one; however, its program at the time of the survey was just over two years old. One can see from the many comments and other results that Texas with its forensic pavement program and many other initiatives is another. The Texas Department of Transportation (DOT) views this program as a possible model. The California DOT, challenged by a large decentralized agency, has three specific functional units that carry most of the responsibility. The Ohio DOT possesses a strong KM initiative coming from its library function, with robust attention being paid to bringing external knowledge into the organization in a sophisticated, systematic manner, and with strong ties to transportation-rich reposito- ries. Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, and Ohio reported enterprise-wide KM programs, with California, Idaho, Min- nesota, Nebraska, New Brunswick, Pennsylvania, and Vir- ginia indicating that although they had enterprise-wide pro- grams, they were in the “roll-out” phase. In spite of these efforts, when it came to STAs that indi- cated their KM programs were robust enough to continue through staff and administration changes, the list was reduced to eight (see Table H1 in Appendix H). Ten agencies noted that their programs were not evenly supported or well com- municated by management, and four indicated that their programs might not survive a new budget cycle or top admin- istration changes. These questionnaire results may suggest that even enterprise-wide recognized KM programs are not embedded as a normal, ongoing business process and that knowledge itself is not consistently regarded as a strategically important business asset. This conclusion is supported by the few STAs that reported using metrics to gauge the effectiveness of their KM programs CHAPTER ELEVEN CONCLUSIONS

(see Table H3 in Appendix H). In addition, eight STAs have training or mentoring programs to help staff transferred to new jobs, new hires, or those new to leadership understand the agency’s KM practices and how to make the best use of KM resources (see Table H4, Appendix H). As to points of contact to which individuals may turn when information is needed, the preponderance of responses indicated that there is frequently no specified central point of contact, and that the individual has to “know where to go.” The most common responses were that: • Individuals must go to different work units, depending on what is needed. • On an informal basis, individuals go to knowledge indi- viduals or supervisors. • Individuals spend a lot of time figuring out where things are. This finding may point to inefficiencies in business pro- cesses, because searching for internal documents and infor- mation can be a major source of non-value-added activity, especially for professionals, who most likely need the infor- mation for their work, and whose labor rates are high. Note that those STAs that have formal libraries were more likely to indicate them or the records management unit as the central point of contact. The literature survey lists management standards that incor- porate and, if an organization wants certification, require that knowledge and document practices be embedded into the management process (see Appendix J). Countries and inter- national organizations have published guidelines for KM practices. Taken together with the other sources surveyed, it appears that the worldwide trend in the current global econ- omy is to develop KM business processes ubiquitously throughout organizations with strong support and recognition from every level of management. Taking into consideration the responses to questions regarding cultural receptivity, authority, leadership, day-to- day responsibilities, and management expectations, it is con- cluded that management attention can be characterized as “passively positive.” 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. One can cautiously conclude from the job titles of those with KM responsibilities that most KM practices occur from bottoms-up or middle-out initiatives. The data do not indicate that managing knowledge as a valuable asset is a high priority of top STA executives. There are few normal ongoing business processes established similar to those one would expect to find for physical, financial, or human assets. The job titles of those with have overall authority, who exercise leadership, or who have day-to-day responsibilities do not imply that these individuals have specialized training 46 in KM practices or that there is a career path. Responsibili- ties are often shared, typically diffuse, vague, and in some cases piecemeal. Responsibility appears to some extent to be based on the format of the “explicit” resource (see Table F7 in Appendix F). Most responding STAs indicated that management expects employees to consult prior organizational experience before embarking on new projects. However, the comments reveal that this is not typically a procedure-based normal business process, but is more a general, loosely defined activity. One STA, the Virginia DOT, commented that the practice is encouraged, but that directions on how to proceed are not nec- essarily given. This finding is further supported by indications of overall lack of training or mentoring programs to help em- ployees use KM resources and practices, as documented in comments to Question 36 in Table H4. Most of the STAs reporting the existence of KM programs (19) have at least one professional librarian on staff. Of those 19, 5 did not have a professional librarian on staff, and one of those hired a contract librarian to help with cer- tain functions. One agency, Idaho, has a formal library but no professional librarian on staff. There appears to be a strong correlation and there may be a causal relationship. Although librarians are not necessarily trained or capable in the broad aspects and technologies of KM, their professional expertise seems to play an important enabling role in STAs that do have KM programs. The importance of their professional expertise in concert with information technology (IT) staff skilled in content management and web building in the beginning stages of KM implementation can be seen at both the World Bank and NASA. In both cases, typical skills of professional librarians such as document management, tax- onomy building, indexing, and sophisticated search strate- gies were paramount in the early start-up phases of KM implementation and are now institutionalized as a normal business process. That said, it is also apparent from Figure 7 in chapter six that there are currently few human resource professionals assigned to KM responsibilities in STAs. A review of the current literature and the practices of two leading institutions, NASA and the World Bank, reveal that well-developed KM programs incorporate human resource professional expertise. Indeed, their skills are paramount in helping organizations deal with tacit knowledge, knowledge transfer, incorporating new understandings or lessons learned into training programs, incorporating KM skills and competencies into performance evaluation and award systems, facilitating workshops and communities of practice, establishing mentoring systems, social network analysis, facilitating after-action face-to-face meetings, etc. The World Bank, and other organizations revealed by the literature search, have harnessed IT skills to set up sophisti- cated, transactional web portals and other web-based tech-

47 nologies to manage KM resources. NASA, for example, is seeking to harness web technology in a more sophisticated fashion to facilitate KM processes. It is apparent that strong IT skills, in a supporting role to core operations, especially in the area of web portal design and integrated transactional databases, are paramount to organizations where KM per- vades the culture. The literature survey reveals an emerging consensus, however, that IT professionals, human resource professionals, and librarians all play vital enabling roles in the KM business process. One skill that appears to be pervasive in the KM process is the ability to communicate well, no matter what the pro- fessional specialty. There is no question that the informa- tion acquired for this study points to KM practices as trans- disciplinary among staff and multi-skilled on the part of individual staff members. The emphasis is on teamwork, com- munication, respect for others, open and responsible com- munication across work units, and openness to relative impermanence and fluidity. In the NASA interview, the point was made that there is a need for project teams to be formed quickly, with just the right skill mix, whether on a temporary or permanent basis, as the need arises. Overall, the questionnaire did not produce enough data to be able to report on budgeting. One STA, Virginia, reported that KM is a line item in the enterprise-wide bud- get. Four STAs reported KM budgeting as a line item on a divisional budget. Fifteen reported that there is no specific budget allocation. Based on the responses to questions regarding specific practices, tools, and techniques utilized, the most commonly used can be characterized as more traditional practices, which view knowledge capturing as mostly a by-product of normal work in the form of writing up and keeping normal work doc- umentation, by means of a records management system. Some STAs are implementing enterprise-wide electronic document management systems to manage, store, and provide ongoing access to this type of documentation. Most efforts seem to be in the area of documentation, which is very important and should not be underemphasized, especially as organizations move from hardcopy to an e-document environment. Indeed, both NASA and World Bank interviews revealed that the first phase of KM implementation involved a conscious and major effort in document management, which became an institutionalized ongoing platform to support other initia- tives. However, our current understanding of KM is the vital importance, but less frequently used by STAs, of human resource-oriented methods, such as communities of practice, knowledge-generating teams, oral interviews, lessons learned, face-to-face workshops, or social network analysis, all of which specifically target an individual’s implicit knowledge. Also less frequently used are the more sophisticated IT- oriented approaches, such as transactional portals tying multi- ple databases together for project management; sophisticated staff expertise identification by means of databases; advanced web-based approaches, such as team-share or “push” tech- nologies; or incorporation of enterprise-wide taxonomies. For storing KM resources, the biggest concern is in dis- crepancies between storage and preservation of hardcopy as opposed to electronic resources. Practices for hardcopy appear to be well ensconced in traditional, well-developed records management programs. Practices for electronic resources, however, are less well-defined, and seem to be based mostly on format rather than on the type of document or content. For example, in the hardcopy environment, one would expect without much thought, very different handling practices for, say, an agenda for a specific meeting as opposed to a formal final project proposal. It was not clear from this research that this kind of differentiation in handling based on type of doc- ument or content has been developed for the electronic envi- ronment. This also proved true regarding the question on destroying or making knowledge resources obsolete. The questionnaire results indicated a weak focus on strate- gies to provide clear access paths to explicit KM resources. The emphasis seems to be on which department “owns” it, rather than on the end-user who needs it. The results show that in most STAs the user must “know where to go” depending on the nature—whether based on format or content or document type—of the resource. In the matter of identifying and finding stored KM resources for application to current work and decision making, the most common responses indicated that overall, it depends on which work unit is handling the resource. STAs reported a variety of finding tools, mixtures of databases and manual (hardcopy) indexes, a substantial number of databases, clearinghouse- type websites, and knowledgeable individuals. A few states reported an intranet portal, which presumably offers a “one- stop-shopping” approach by means of some kind of unified display screen with links to various resources. Iowa and Minnesota reported on electronic document and records management systems. The Virginia DOT noted that an effort to create an enterprise-wide taxonomy is underway to allow searching of multiple repositories simultaneously. Once the resources are identified, however, most DOTs reported that physical resources, at least, are stored in rea- sonably convenient and accessible locations, and that deci- sions to move or destroy records are done carefully. This probably is the result of well-established records manage- ment programs. Seven DOTs reported as a high priority transferring available KM resources to the desktop; two have a “push” or proactive system. Therefore, perhaps one can conclude that hardcopy resources are more readily available than electronic ones. Texas reported an effort to deliver information more readily to external customers by means of the public website. The main conclusion is that institutional memory prac- tices exist at some level in at least 19 responding STAs, but

that overall strategic intentionality or conscious effort is not strongly evident from the results of this study. It was found, as revealed from the literature search and interviews, that KM practices are not as well-defined or measurable as other business processes. In recent years, KM practices have been implemented by business as an underlying internal process to support their evolution into customer-oriented, team- based, highly flexible global enterprises, where internal knowledge is viewed as a major asset. There is not a set pro- tocol or clear path for implementation such as may exist, for example, in the management of financial assets. Thus, it takes creativity and careful strategizing to implement KM practices that really deliver benefits and are embedded in day-to-day operations. According to the CEN Workshop Agreement 14924-1, efforts in many organizations have typically taken an IT approach, but the Agreements were 48 written specifically to help organizations align culturally and socially to take advantage of knowledge sharing within and beyond their organizational boundaries. This people- centric approach adds value to technology-focused initiatives. The goal is to put in place the cultural, human, environmen- tal, and technical ecology necessary to take advantage of collective knowledge. This synthesis study focused on uncovering and docu- menting current KM-related practices, both on the part of STAs and in other types of organizations. Further research might be undertaken to investigate whether workshops or a follow-up study identifying and recommend- ing specific approaches for actually implementing agency- wide programs would be useful to STAs.