Supporting knowledge management: a selection
of methods and techniques.
Karl Wiig
Knowledge Research
Institute 5211 Vicksburg Drive Arlington, Texas phone: 76017-4941 e-mail:
7111.1427@compuserve.com
Robert de Hoog
Dept. of Social Science
Informatics University of Amsterdam Roetersstraat 15 1018 WB Amsterdam The
Netherlands phone: +31 20 5256794 fax: + 31 20 5256896 e-mail: dehoog@swi.psy.uva.nl
Rob van der Spek
Kenniscentrum CIBIT Arthur van Schendelstraat 570 P.O.Box 573
3500 AN Utrecht The Netherlands phone: +31 30 2308900 fax: +31 30 2308999
e-mail: rvdspek@cibit.hvu.nl
Supporting knowledge management: a selection
of methods and techniques.
Abstract.
Carrying out knowledge management effectively requires
support from a repertoire of methods, techniques and tools. This paper provides
a selection of those methods. They are described according to a conceptual
framework that sees knowledge management as consisting of four activities that
are performed sequentially. These activities are Review, Conceptualize, Reflect
and Act. For each activity some methods are discussed while additional ones are
referred to in the existing literature. At several points in the paper links
with other contributions in this special issue are stipulated, as is also done
the other way round. It is concluded that there is already a comprehensive set
of support methods available, but for some peculiar aspects of knowledge assets
there are still gaps. This holds in particular for the tangibility and
measurability of knowledge assets.
1 Introduction.
During the last couple of years interest in knowledge
management has grown rapidly. This is evidenced by the increasing number of
books, conferences and seminars devoted to this topic. The material presented
varies greatly from general theoretical considerations to specific case studies.
However, it seems that the middle ground is not so well covered. With middle
ground we mean the area occupied by methods and techniques that are neither too
general nor too specific. Too general refers to the lack of operational value of
some of the theories and philosophies. Too specific signifies that the
techniques employed are only applicable in one or at most a few cases. The goal
of this paper is to present a selection of methods and techniques which can
start to populate this middle ground. This overview relies heavily on the
material in Wiig (1995), but provides a more coherent description framework and
adds some methods that emerged recently.
In section 2 we will present the description framework, which
is very similar to the one presented in van der Spek & de Hoog (1995). The main
part of the paper, section 3, provides a selection of some important methods and
techniques for knowledge management. We do not claim that the selection is
exhaustive. Being exhaustive would far surpass the admissible size of a paper in
a journal. Due to its wide ranging nature knowledge management can easily
accommodate methods and techniques developed in other fields. The reader should
feel free to use those whenever it suits his current purpose. We will focus
mainly on methods and techniques that are dealing with knowledge in the
first place. We will pull things together in section 4 and point to gaps that
are still existing in knowledge management’s repertoire.
2 Description framework.
Knowledge management does not carry it’s name accidentally.
Management normally means that “something” has to be managed. In other
words, we have a set of management activities directed towards dealing with an “object”,
which is the subject of knowledge management. This immediately defines two
important aspects of knowledge management: a knowledge management level
dealing with the knowledge object level. This simple distinction is
depicted in figure 1, and is fairly standard from a control theory point of view.
Figure 1: Levels in knowledge management.
It is clear that knowledge management, to be effective, has
to satisfy certain goals. If we see knowledge as a company resource, managing it
will basically have to live up to the goals common to all resource management,
that is taken care that the resource is:
-
delivered at the right time;
-
available at the right place;
-
present in the right shape;
-
satisfying the quality requirements;
-
obtained at the lowest possible costs.
Apart from the question how to achieve this, knowledge does
have some properties that are absent in almost all other resources used in a
company. Below we will list some of the most important characteristics that set
knowledge apart from other resources:
-
knowledge is intangible and difficult to measure;
-
knowledge is volatile, that is it can “disappear”
overnight;
-
knowledge is most of the time embodied in agents with
wills;
-
knowledge is not “consumed” in a process, it sometimes
increases through use;
-
knowledge has wide ranging impacts in organizations (e.g.
“knowledge is power”);
-
knowledge cannot be bought on the market at any time, it
often has long lead times;
-
knowledge is “non-rival”, it can be used by different
processes at the same time.
It is our belief that knowledge management should focus on
these unique properties of knowledge and come up with a set of methods, tools
and techniques that helps in tackling problems that arise from these and other
properties.
In figure 1 we distinguished the two levels we have to deal
with in knowledge management, but both ovals are still not further specified. In
order to put some flesh on them we must define in more detail their components.
For the management level we use the knowledge management cycle depicted
in figure 2.
Figure 2: The knowledge management cycle.
In figure 2 knowledge management is split into four separate
activities, each dealing with a particular aspect. Reviewing means checking what
has been achieved in the past, what the current state of affairs is.
Conceptualise is sitting back and try to get a view on the state of the
knowledge in the organization and analyzing the strong and weak points of the
knowledge household. Reflect is directed towards improvements: selecting the
optimal plans for correcting bottlenecks and analyzing them for risks which
accompany their implementation. Act is the actual effectuation of the plans
chosen previously. Most of the time the actions will be either one or a
combination of generic operations on the knowledge:
the knowledge (buy it, learning programs,
machine learning on databases);
distribute the knowledge (to the points of action,
KBS’s, manuals, network connections;
combine the knowledge (find synergies, reuse existing
knowledge);
consolidate the knowledge (prevent it from
disappearing, KBS’s, tutoring programs, knowledge transfer programs).
We will use the model of figure 2 to order a set of methods
and techniques that can assist the “knowledge manager” in carrying out the
knowledge management task. Before starting to describe this selection a word of
caution is needed. We have used the words methods and techniques in a very loose
way. Usually a method is a well defined set of procedures that can be applied
without much additional support by its user. For the current purpose this
definition seems to be too restrictive because things that will be useful could
be excluded. Thus we will also incorporate checklists, forms, tables, diagrams
etc. in the overview, not the least because they have proved to be useful in
practice. Additionally, we will be able by using the description framework to
identify gaps in the existing repertoire.
3 A selection of methods and techniques.
3.1 Review.
Though the Review activity is taken as a starting point, this
does not mean that in practice every KM cycle has to start at this point. But
from the point of view of this paper its seems to be the most obvious location
to do so. The Review activity will consist of two sub-activities: monitoring
performance and evaluation of the performance, discussed in more detail below.
3.1.1 Monitor performance.
Monitoring the performance of an organization from a
knowledge management perspective requires that the appropriate monitoring
procedures are in place and operational. These procedures will of course depend
on the kind of measures taken earlier and must be tailored to them. Most of the
time they will be linked to improvement projects as described in section 3.3.2.
But it are not only improvement plans that must be monitored.
More in general a keen eye must be kept on the knowledge household of the
organization. Especially important is watching the external environment for new
events that may have impacts on the way the organization is dealing with
knowledge In figure 2 this is shown as “incoming” arrows that will influence the
execution of the knowledge management cycle. A SWOT analysis as described in
section 3.2.2 will help in keeping track of external threats and opportunities.
Most organizations already have units specially working in the area of “business
intelligence” and their task can be enlarged to include knowledge related issues.
In addition it is very useful to install in all knowledge workers the
attitude of being on the lookout for weaknesses in the current way of working.
Lessons learned programs are particularly powerful for this (see for the
importance of lessons learned the papers by Junnarkar and van Heijst et al.,
this volume).
3.1.2 Evaluate performance.
The monitoring must be evaluated in the light of the original
objectives: did the implemented improvement plans led to the results envisioned?
This is of course a very tricky question, because the relation between actions
and results is quite often tenuous, especially when the time elapsed between
implementation of the action and occurrence of results is considerable. But even
if one is not interested in finding the precise causal relations between actions
and results, the important thing is to have an idea where the organization is
going from a strategic perspective. Wiig (this volume) describes these
strategies at two levels:
providing the driving forces
behind the organization;
knowledge management strategies, giving the main
focus to where the organization is heading with its knowledge household.
For more details the reader is referred to Wiig’s paper. Both
strategic aspects can be used to evaluate the current performance of the
organization against high levels goals. How to carry out this evaluation
depends on the nature what is to be evaluated. In principle general methods and
techniques for decision support or program evaluation can be used. Some of these
are described cursorily in section 3.3.1.
3.2 Conceptualize.
3.2.1 Inventory.
One of the most important elements for effective knowledge
management is to get a picture of the knowledge in the organization. This
amounts to finding answers to the question what uses the knowledge,
which knowledge is used, where the knowledge is used, when the
knowledge is used, and which organizational role provides the knowledge.
The conceptual structure we will employ for dealing with these questions is
given in figure 3.
Figure 3: Key aspects of an inventory.
The “what” is answered by identifying business processes, the
“which” refers to the knowledge assets that contribute to the successful
execution of business processes, the “where” and “when” are captured by the Time
and Location descriptors of a knowledge asset and the which organizational role
refers to abstract roles in an organization that participate in business
processes. In our view these roles can be played by different agents. We
will show below how the different methods and techniques enable finding answers
to these questions.
The first and foremost question one has to answer is the
identification of knowledge assets. However, this is not an easy task because,
as has been mentioned above, knowledge assets are rarely immediately visible.
This requires the selection of an appropriate description level for knowledge
assets. A convenient way to organize these levels is the knowledge detail
dimension displayed in table 1 (from Wiig, 1995).
Knowledge Span
|
Examples |
Knowledge domain |
Domains
· Internal Medicine
· Mechanical Engineering
· Business Management
|
Knowledge Region |
Regions
· Urology
· Automotive Mechanical Design
· Product Marketing
|
Knowledge Section |
Sections
· Kidney diseases
· Transmission Design
· New Product Planning
|
Knowledge Segment |
Segments
· Diagnosis of kidney diseases
· Gear Specification and design
· Product Marketability
|
Knowledge Element |
Elements
· diagnostic strategies, such as “When considering which
disease is present, first collect all symptoms, then try to explain
as many of them as possible with one disease candidate”
|
Knowledge Fragment |
Fragments
· “If the symptom is excruciating pain, then consider
kidney stone”
· “When there are too many gears in the transmission, the
energy loss will be excessive”
|
Knowledge atom |
· “Excruciating pain is a symptom”
· “Use case hardening of gear surfaces in
pressure range 4”
|
Table 1: Description levels for knowledge assets.
In table 1 the description levels are ordered from general (top)
to specific (bottom). From the perspective of an inventory the appropriate
description level should be somewhere in the middle of table 1. The top levels
are probably too general for providing sufficient details for later phases in
the knowledge management cycle. The lower levels are too detailed for an
inventory, because they are very close to the operational knowledge itself. In
later phases of the knowledge management cycle and when knowledge management
actions (e.g., building knowledge based systems) are taken up, the lower levels
will come to the fore (see for a “bottom up” view the paper by Wielinga et al.,
this volume). Thus for the inventory the knowledge section and/or
knowledge segment will be preferred
After establishing the description level, the next activity
is to identify the knowledge assets and link them to business processes
using them (see figure 3). For this a wide range of methods/techniques is
available under the name Basic Knowledge Survey Methods. Tables 2 and 3
summarize some of these methods (for more details the reader is referred to Wiig,
1995, chapter 6). In table 2 each method/technique that is mainly geared toward
the identification of knowledge assets is characterized with the following
aspects:
-
what the method is used for;
-
which other knowledge management methods it may provide
with information;
-
what it provides;
-
what the method is based on.
Knowledge inventory method
|
Description of aspects |
Questionnaire based Knowledge Surveys |
· Used to obtain broad overview of an
operation’s knowledge status
· May provide information to almost any
other KM activity
· Provides responses from many areas and
viewpoints categorized from the questions asked
· Analysis is based on complete
responses
|
Knowledge Mapping |
· Used to develop concept maps as
hierarchies or nets
· May feed into Knowledge Scripting &
Profiling, Basic Knowledge Analysis (see table )
· Provide highly developed procedure to
elicit and document concept maps from knowledge workers
· Analysis is based on interactive work
sessions, interviews and self elicitation
|
Knowledge Scripting and Profiling |
· Used to identify the elements of
knowledge intensive work
· May support almost all other activities
· Determine knowledge intensive steps,
activities and scripts.
· Analysis is based on interviews,
simulations, observations, interactive work sessions.
|
Table 2: Overview of knowledge inventory methods (identification
of knowledge assets).
Applying one or more of the methods and techniques from table
2 will result in an overview of which knowledge assets are “possessed” by which
agents having a location (e.g., a department) in the organization. According to
figure 3 we also need to link these knowledge assets to business processes. Of
course some information for this will be available from applying methods in
table 2, but a more detailed analysis is needed most of the time. Table 3
summarizes some methods/techniques that will support this linking of knowledge
assets to business processes. Just as in table 2 the methods are characterized
with the following aspects:
-
what the method is used for;
-
which other knowledge management methods it may provide
with information;
-
what it provides;
-
what the method is based on.
Knowledge inventory method
|
Description of aspects |
Task Environment Analysis |
· Used to understand which knowledge
assets play a role in which business processes
· May support Critical Knowledge Functions
and Knowledge Flow Analysis
· Explores and describes activities,
tasks, artifacts
· Analysis is based on interviews,
observations and simulation
|
Critical Knowledge Function Analysis |
· Used to locate knowledge sensitive areas
· May support bottleneck analysis and SWOT
(see section 3.2.2)
· Identifies and characterizes areas of
process related critical knowledge spots
· Analysis based on observations,
interviews, internal reports
|
Knowledge Use and Requirements Analysis |
· Used to link knowledge assets to
business processes, not unlike Task Environment Analysis
· May support valuation efforts,
identification of bottlenecks
· Identifies how knowledge is required
to perform knowledge work and how it is (not) used by knowledge
workers
· Based on requirements gathering at
different levels in the organization
|
Knowledge Flow Analysis |
· Used to gain insight into the knowledge
exchanges, but also knowledge “losses and gains” in the organization
· May point to areas of reuse of knowledge,
but also to problems in knowledge sharing
· Determines major flow of knowledge in
the organization, i.e., exchanges between departments, processes,
knowledge workers and the external environment
· Based on knowledge surveys and results
of process modeling
|
Table 3: Knowledge inventory methods and techniques (linking
knowledge assets to business processes).
As can be seen from tables 2 and 3 the methods and techniques
will in practice rely on each other because they can reciprocally use
information collected. The result of the inventory will be a broad and
relatively high level overview of the knowledge assets in an organization. It
has been shown to be convenient to “package” the results in a framework that
permits a quick look at the crucial aspects of knowledge assets. The framework
in table 4 has been used in practice and has been shown to be useful. It is a
slightly modified version of the frame presented in van der Spek & de Hoog
(1995),
General identifiers |
Name:
Domain:
Business processes:
Organizational role:
Current agents: |
the name of the knowledge asset (at segment or
section level, see table 1)
the knowledge domain (see table 2) to which the asset
belongs
the business processes in which the knowledge asset
is used as a resource
the organizational role to which the knowledge asset
is usually attached
agents (persons, computer programs, books etc.)
carrying the knowledge asset at the moment of analysis |
Content identifiers |
Nature:
Current proficiency levels:
Stability: |
the characteristics of the knowledge asset in terms
of quality (heuristic, formal, complete, under development etc.)
the level of proficiency at which the knowledge asset
is available to the organization
the rate of change of the content (fast, slow etc.) |
Availability identifiers |
Time:
Location:
Form: |
when the knowledge asset is available for business
processes (e.g., working days from 9-5)
the physical location of the knowledge asset (e.g.,
the main office, department of mortgages)
the physical and symbolical embodiment of the
knowledge asset (paper, in a computer program, in the mind of an agent
etc., language, format etc.) |
Table 4: Knowledge description frame.
A comparison between figure 3 and table 4 shows that the
latter captures the important aspects of the former. The knowledge description
frame in table 4 can be easily implemented in data base and hypertext systems,
serving as an organizing principle and high level entry interface for more
elaborate corporate memories (see also the paper by van Heijst et al., this
volume). For example, the “content” category can be further specified to the
level of knowledge elements, fragments and atoms by means of methods and
techniques used for knowledge engineering (see also Wielinga et al., this volume).
3.2.2 Analysis of strong and weak points.
The analysis of strong and weak points can be done in many
different ways. We will go deeper into two methods we have experience with:
Bottleneck analysis and S(strengths) W(eaknesses) O(pportunities) T(hreats) (SWOT)
analysis.
Bottleneck analysis.
Applying methods and techniques from tables 2 and 3 will give
information that point to bottlenecks concerning the use of knowledge. However,
before applying these methods one can direct the attention to certain “generic”
bottlenecks that frequently occur in organizations. This “sensitizing” is
important because most bottlenecks are not easily recognized, particularly not
by those who are closely involved in using knowledge assets. In Wiig (1995) a
list of knowledge related problems is given which can be used:
In most
organizations knowledge is not managed like other assets. Typically,
knowledge is not considered explicit as an asset, rather it is considered -
and therefore managed - as a commodity ( for a more detailed discussion of
the notion of an asset see Wilkins et al., this volume).
Insufficient knowledge at Point-of Action. In many
situations it is found that knowledge workers are asked to perform tasks for
which their knowledge is insufficient. They may not possess the required
knowledge themselves, nor may it be available through other sources like
knowledgeable co-workers, reference material, knowledge based systems etc.
Missed learning opportunities . It is often found that
valuable knowledge flows are missing by not providing feedback from
downstream activities to those who are upstream in the business process
chain.
Knowledge transfer is narrow. Quite often
organizations train their workforce to perform routine functions competently,
but neglect to prepare them to deal with exceptions. This happens when the
knowledge transfer to knowledge workers focuses on training rudimentary
skills, or when knowledge workers only perform a narrow set of tasks without
the opportunity to practice outside its boundaries.
Unnecessary division of tasks and decisions. For many
reasons task and decisions may be needlessly divided between departments,
specialty areas, individual workers etc. This typically propagates into the
division of knowledge which is needed to perform the complete task. In
practice this will lead again to narrow tasks and for the client to the
“many windows” phenomenon.
Another way to identify bottlenecks is to use the description
frame from table 4 and link observable symptoms to the different aspects of
knowledge. This leads to a list of “generic” bottlenecks and associated symptoms:
Limited reuse of knowledge over
business processes. Only one or a few business processes listed. Reinventing
the wheel.
Current agents. Vulnerability of knowledge. Only one
or a few agents listed. Departure of agent will cause problems.
Nature. Quality of knowledge for business processes.
If process is crucial and knowledge is very heuristic, mistakes and rework
will occur frequently.
Current proficiency levels. Indicators of proficiency
are at the low end of the scale. Agents are not well qualified for the job.
Mistakes, rework and increasing checking/controlling of work. Proliferation
of supervisors.
Stability. If stability is low a high rate of
innovation is called for. Feeling of falling behind the competition. Frantic,
undirected search for improvements, quick succession of products meeting
with limited success in the market.
Time. The knowledge is only available during a
limited period. Delay and queuing.
Location. The knowledge is not available at the
location where it is needed. Delay and communication (phone calls, sending
and receiving forms)
Form. The knowledge is in the wrong form, it cannot
be readily understood by others. Translation needed. Presence of tasks/processes
that don’t use the knowledge but only reformulate it.
Both approaches outlined above can be used, depending on the
state of the organization. If the knowledge assets have been described in an
inventory, the second approach may result in more specific bottlenecks than the
first. If not, the best way is to start with the first. Alternating between the
two will occur frequently in practice.
SWOT analysis.
Analysis of strengths and weaknesses of an organization and
the opportunities and threats it is facing is a well known and widely used
technique. In the context of knowledge management it can be used for at least
two different objectives:
For this paper the second is more relevant.
From experience we have learnt that it does not make sense to
start a SWOT analysis of the knowledge without a very clear definition of the
organizational goal(s) against which to measure the SWOT’s. Thus the
first indispensable step is to define this goal or these goals clearly. When
there are more goals it is better to perform a SWOT analysis for each goal
separately. Lumping too many goals together will confuse the analysis,
especially when SWOT’s are generated and judged by different people. In order to
make their opinion comparable they need the same frame of reference. The
procedure of finding SWOT’s can be different, ranging from intensive sessions
lasting for one or several days to individual interviews with knowledgeable
people. The approach we follow consists of the following steps:
-
Interview separately the relevant people. Do this in an
“open” way, that is without explicitly asking for SWOT’s. Focus the
interview by clearly outlining the selected organizational goal and the role
of knowledge in achieving it. This could also be part of other methods and
techniques mentioned in tables 2 and 3.
-
Analyze the interviews and classify the remarks made as
one of the SWOT’s. Analyze all the SWOT’s and combine comparable ones and
delete ones that are not relevant for the goal. This should be done by at
least three people in order to prevent biases. Try to limit the number of
SWOT’s in each category to not more than five.
-
Return to the people interviewed previously (and if
necessary other ones) and show them the five SWOT’s in each category. Ask
them to add at most five new ones to each category. Next ask them to rank
order the SWOT’s in terms of importance for the selected organizational goal.
-
Analyze the rank orders. If there is strong agreement
about the importance of the SWOT’s they can be introduced in the SWOT
Tactics Matrix (see Table 5). In case of significant disagreement, there
might be a problem that needs solving before any further progress can be
made in the area of knowledge management. Disagreement can reflect
disagreement concerning the goal, but also differences in values and
knowledge between the people participating in the SWOT exercise. It is even
possible that cliques exist, sharing their rank ordering, which may be
diametrically opposed to the one of another group. As there is no common
ground for building the SWOT Tactics Matrix, there will be also no common
ground for defining and selecting improvements.
-
Build the SWOT Tactics Matrix. This matrix sets off the
components of SWOT in columns and rows. The cell entries will become
proposals for improvement, indicated in italics are the general strategic
approaches that can be pursued. An example of a SWOT Tactics Matrix is shown
in table 5.
|
STRENGTHS
1. Good reputation in research
2. Gives company access to outstanding students
3. Multi disciplinary, wide range of competence
|
WEAKNESSES
1. Strong boundaries between research groups
2. Reward system not geared toward goal
3. Insufficient knowledge about market
4. Lack of overview of exploitable knowledge
5. Physical layout of building hampers knowledge
exchange
|
OPPORTUNITIES
1. Additonal funds can boost research
2. Current courses can be interesting for people
outside the university
3. Better planning in research
4. Advice and counseling are frequently requested
5. Shift toward applied research in funding bodies
|
Exploit |
Compensate |
THREATS
1. Competition of other universities, they all go in
the same direction
2. Other parties in the market are stronger
3. Financing of projects may make them less
profitable
4. Meet the goal the university has set in 1999
5. Doubts about the usefulness of the discipline,
lack of cohesion and direction, no major societal problems
|
Fight
|
Evade |
Table 5: Example of a SWOT Tactics Matrix.
Table 5 contains the results of a SWOT exercise carried out
for a faculty of a large university. The selected goal is to increase the income
generated from contract research to a certain level at a fixed point in the
future. The interviewees were asked to rank order the SWOT’s for the faculty’s
knowledge household from this perspective. In the rows and columns the number
refers to the aspects most frequently positioned as the most important one. Thus
for threats the major one is that all universities try to follow the same
strategy. If there are less than five entries in the opportunities/strengths
cell this may signify future problems.
Other ways of dealing with knowledge inventories can be found
in the paper by Junnarkar (this volume). The different maps that are build in
his approach are similar to elements outlined above (e.g., the knowledge map).
Wielinga et al. (this volume) explore another road: using libraries of
ontologies.
The Conceptualize phase is an important one that should be
carried out thoroughly. It provides the major inputs for the next phase where
the emphasis is on deciding. Aspects missed or left out in the Conceptualize
phase will decrease the quality of the decisions made in the Reflect phase,
because problems and bottlenecks are overlooked, alternatives are wrongly
specified or not at all, impacts of improvements and improvement plans will be
wrongly estimated and value conflicts will remain undetected.
3.3 Reflect.
The main goal of the Reflect phase is to produce improvement
plans that stand a reasonable chance of success when executed in the Act phase.
Though this seems to be a bit of academic hairsplitting, we want to keep the
distinction between an improvement and an improvement plan. In order to
implement an improvement, actions must be undertaken, actions which will have to
take into account organizational and other obstacles. In practice there will be
substantial iteration between the definition and selection of improvements and
the definition and selection of improvement plans. In the former the emphasis on
increasing the value of knowledge assets for the organization (i.e., the goal
function is mainly value oriented), while in the latter risks become more
important (i.e., the goal function is mainly oriented toward risk reduction).
3.3.1 Define and select improvements.
The Conceptualize phase will, as has been mentioned above,
produce a set of bottlenecks, problems, opportunities, weaknesses etc. for which
improvements must be identified. In addition, when not all improvements can be
realized at the same time or some may be too costly, they have to receive a
priority rating. This identification process is of utmost importance and it is
absolutely crucial to keep the analysis of problems and bottlenecks apart from
the definition of improvements until this stage. Many so-called improvements
came to grief simply because they were defined before a proper
Conceptualize phase had been carried out. Of all errors that can be made, the
worst ones are solving the wrong problem and selecting the wrong
solution. Especially when information technology could be involved these
dangers loom large. Another mistake is to think that improvements/solutions can
be simple, single measures. As managing knowledge is a complex task and
knowledge is deeply embedded in the workings of the organization it is only
rarely the case that something simple will bring big yields. Thinking in terms
of panaceas, is the usual companion of the two errors just mentioned.
Defining improvements is a difficult task which will require
a substantial number of iterations. Probably a good approach is to think in
terms of programs than in terms of more or less isolated actions. As the
actual definition of improvements depends strongly on the context, we will list
as suggestions some of those programs below.
.
Decision streamlining programs : The main
objective is to ascertain that the decisions are made with appropriate
knowledge as close to the Point-of Action as possible. This program will
combine training, information technology, delegation of authority,
combination of tasks as a set measures that have to work together.
Organizational flattening programs : The main
objective is to reduce the amount of control and rework embodied in all
kinds of “higher” functions and staffs. This program will focus on
improvement of the knowledge by better codification and distribution,
using information technology and business process reengineering.
Broad knowledge improvement programs : Improve the
organization’s capability to act intelligently by improving the general
knowledge level in all relevant personnel. Provide incentives and
possibilities for knowledge sharing.
“Lessons learned” programs : Improve knowledge
worker performance by exploiting knowledge bases containing digest of
positive and negative experiences. Transform the personal knowledge of
individuals to corporate knowledge. Document, soon after the experience
all valuable lessons learned in fixed formats by the people involved, if
necessary supported by other resources (e.g., information technology).
See also van Heijst et al. (this volume) for more details about “lessons
learned” programs.
Knowledge creation programs : Promote and support
innovation at all levels (not only R&D departments). Encourage and
reward new ideas. Keep track of new ideas which cannot be used at this
moment.
Strategic planning programs: Maximize the future
value of the organization by building on and developing the knowledge
strengths, while minimizing the dependence on the knowledge weak areas.
Use SWOT as a guide.
Partnering programs and strategic alliance planning:
Go for partner alliances in strong and weak knowledge areas. Use own
SWOT and SWOT of potential partners.
R&D planning: Maximize business value of R&D (or
start R&D) by analyzing the existence and potential value of missing
knowledge in operations and products.
Contracting for external services: Complement
in-house expertise only with required external expertise to minimize
cost, maximize use of internal resources and maximize knowledge transfer
to in-house people.
Another approach is to stay close to the SWOT Tactics Matrix.
This requires that the cells in this matrix must be filled with alternatives
that can deal with the four options. Table 6 shows how the SWOT Tactics Matrix
from table 5 could look like for the example.
|
STRENGHTS
1. Good reputation in research
2. Gives company access to outstanding students
3. Multi disciplinary, wide range of competence
|
WEAKNESSES
1. Strong boundaries between research groups
2. Reward system not geared toward goal
3. Insufficient knowledge about market
4. Lack of overview of exploitable knowledge
5. Physical layout of building hampers knowledge
exchange
|
OPPORTUNITIES
1. Additonal funds can boost research
2. Current courses can be interesting for people outside the
university
3. Better planning in research
4. Advice and counseling are frequently requested
5. Shift toward applied research in funding bodies
|
Exploit
· Profile faculty as having expertise in
relevant areas, publicize expertise map
· Liaise with congress/courses organizers
· Penetrate in boards of funding bodies
|
Compensate
· Consider reorganizing working arrangements
on a less “scientific” basis
· Modify reward system
· Conduct regular market surveys
|
THREATS
1. Competition of other universities, they all go in the same
direction
2. Other parties in the market are stronger
3. Financing of projects may make them less profitable
4. Meet the goal the university has set in 1999
5. Doubts about the usefulness of the discipline, lack of
cohesion and direction, no major societal problems
|
Fight
· Find particular niches for exploiting knowledge
· Capitalize on independent role of universities
· Improve cost calculations, estimate value of knowledge
assets
|
Evade
· Avoid starting “lost battles”, some areas are
politically already decided
· Don’t compete for projects that will loose money unless
it is seen as an investment
· Generate “compensation” in other areas in case the 1999
goal cannot be met
|
Table 6: Example of a SWOT Tactics Matrix with
improvements.
It is important to provide a substantial number of
improvements in the Matrix as the main goal is still to broaden the range of
options. When it comes to the selection of improvements, unattractive
alternatives will disappear, while untenable ones will not survive the risk
analysis of plans carried out in section 3.3.2.
Taking the bottlenecks as a starting point is also feasible.
However, there is a danger that the way a bottleneck is stated implies a bias
toward a certain improvement type. If we take the Location bottleneck and
the resulting effect of delay and communication it is tempting to think in terms
of information technology improvements. One could develop a knowledge based
system that contains the necessary knowledge and distribute it either physically
or through a network to where it is needed.. This overlooks other options like
training the knowledge worker at the point of action, providing a paper guide,
making communication less time consuming (e-mail) etc. In addition, the
knowledge based system alone will not do the job. Using it requires also
training, the system must be maintained, the necessary equipment must be in
place. Thus the improvement is not only the knowledge based system but all
associated measures are part of it.
After improvements have been identified they must receive a
priority, because most of the time they cannot be implemented together due to
constraints in time and money. Selection of improvements is thus needed.
Fortunately we are on firm ground for this problem. Decision analysis was
thoroughly researched during the last forty years and this resulted in a well
defined repertoire of methods. The most suitable approach seems to be
Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (or MAUT) as described in von Winterfeldt &
Edwards (1986). This method requires that all alternatives can be evaluated on a
set of attributes that represent important value concerns for the decision maker.
The overall value or utility of an alternative is a particular combination of
the values on the separate attributes. For eliciting value functions over
attributes and rules for combining attribute values, a wide range of procedures
is available. An extensive description of these is outside the scope of this
paper, because they are well covered by the cited literature. In addition there
is a suite of computer programs that automate parts of this procedure (e.g.,
Logical Decisions®), while Olson (1996) describes several other programs that
embody procedures that differ from MAUT. Computer programs are very useful for
investigating the sensitivity of the priorities for changes in some of the input
components (e.g., differences in importance between attributes). MAUT is based
on the idea of a single decision maker whose value concerns are elicited and
used. Quite often decision making concerning knowledge management improvements
is collective. This complicates the procedure because there is no satisfactory
solution to the question of interpersonal utility comparisons (“my values are
not other people’s values”). When decision making is collective one should turn
to procedures for group decision making, which range from pure negotiation games
to consensus seeking approaches (see for an overview op group decision making
Wilkenfeld et al., 1995).
Somewhere in the decision process the need can arise to put a
value on knowledge assets. This value can either be entirely judgmental or based
on some “objective” measurements, for example in terms of money. Finding such a
measurement is very hard indeed. Wilkins et al. (this volume) review several
proposals, but many only address the combined value of all knowledge
assets of an organization. Measuring the value of separate knowledge
assets is a different story, and the method proposed by Wilkins et al. (this
volume) still has a considerable number of limitations. However, every method
for measuring the value of knowledge assets will need a definition of the
knowledge assets to begin with. Thus a proper knowledge inventory is a
prerequisite for dealing with the valuation issue. The question of the value of
knowledge assets will surface in almost all phases in the knowledge management
cycle. In absence of a widely applicable method based on “hard” data, judgments
will for some time to come be the only way to deal with this valuation issue.
3.3.2 Define and select improvement plans.
After improvements have been chosen it is necessary to
translate them into operational plans. Most of the time this will amount to
starting one or more projects. Thus aspects normally needed for projects must be
paid attention to, like:
-
time scale (start date, end date);
-
budget (amount of money that the project has available);
-
deliverables (what is the project going to deliver and
when);
-
people and other resources (inputs to the project);
-
quality planning and control (who keeps track of the
quality of the products);
-
responsibilities (who takes care of what, who is the
project leader).
As each of these aspects will be instantiated differently
depending on the context, not much more can be said about them. However, the
risks involved in carrying out improvement plans must be carefully assessed.
Risks can be assessed by a simple schema that combines the
probability of occurrence of a risk with the estimated severity of the impact on
one or more quality features of the improvement plan. In general risks with a
high probability of occurrence and a severe impact must be taken serious. An
improvement plan exposed to several risks exhibiting this high/severe
combination, should be reconsidered, even if the expected gain from it is large.
If we take for example from table 6 the improvement “Consider reorganizing
working arrangements on a less “scientific” basis” and we have made a plan to
achieve this in six months, it can be that people entrenched in the current
structure will oppose the plan and the time scale because it could undermine
their position. If we estimate the probability of this to be high, and such
actions will create havoc in the organization, it might be wise to reconsider
the improvement plan.
Assessing risks can be supported by risk lists that serve as
memory support. Being forced to check for all risks in the list, will create
awareness of risks and forces people to think about them carefully. As yet there
are no risk lists for knowledge management plans, but for the time being use can
be made of lists developed for knowledge based systems development. In de Hoog
et al. (1994) such a list is provided consisting of the major components shown
in table 7. The risks are formulated in terms of possible impacts on different
aspects of the organization.
Organizational aspect |
Impact |
Description |
Tasks/processes |
Task differentiation |
More tasks may be needed to realize a function |
|
Task complexity |
Tasks may become more complex |
|
Task variability |
Tasks may show greater variety |
|
Task dependencies |
An improvement may increase the dependencies between
tasks |
|
Shift in workload |
Executing the task can become more demanding |
|
Formalisation of work |
More precise rules for doing the work |
People |
Knowledge capacity identified |
Profiling knowledge shows individual capacities |
|
Less personnel needed |
Increased efficiency may cause loss of jobs |
|
Other skills needed |
Old skills must be replaced by new ones, training
effort |
Structure |
Change in hierarchy |
Departments may become more important than others |
|
Units added or removed |
New unit ma be needed, others may be dissolved |
|
Vertical merging of units |
Units at different organizational levels are merged (e.g.
staff and operational) |
Power |
Decision making autonomy |
The freedom to decide decreases |
|
Responsibilities |
Responsibilities can shift to others |
|
Increased control, loss of power |
Rearranging knowledge may cause a loss of power for
individuals |
Table 7: Tentative risks/impacts list for improvement
plans.
Though most plans will be carried out in projects not all of
them will. Some are ongoing concerns which should become part of the normal
operations of the organization. For example, the improvement “Liaise with
congress/courses organizers” from table 6, will be something that is not meant
to happen in a limited (project) period of time. Nevertheless, it still
important to plan them and think about responsibilities and risks. Another
important aspect is to ask for periodic reports which will enable monitoring of
performance. As long as knowledge management is not incorporated into all normal
operations, one should not fall into the trap of believing that execution of
plans goes without further monitoring.
3.4 Act.
The Act phase of the cycle in figure 2 concerns the actual
“running” of the improvement plans. In the conceptual frame chosen in this paper
this work is not part of knowledge management. It belongs to adjacent areas
having their own methods, techniques and tools for support. Some of these are:
Many improvements will have
immediate consequences for people in the organization. To mention a few:
remuneration schemas, training, promotion, hiring of staff, mobility of
personnel etc. Human Resource Management is a well developed field and the
reader is referred to books like Noe et al. (1994) for more details.
Information Technology Another major enabler is
information technology. It offers all kinds of techniques that can be used
to improve the knowledge household. A non-exhaustive list is: knowledge
based systems, data base systems, machine learning, workflow systems, group
decision support systems etc. For developing these applications they have
their own methods and techniques. For example, for knowledge based systems
the comprehensive CommonKADS methodology is available, making knowledge
engineering results accessible (see for more details Wielinga et al., this
volume).
Organization development Quite often the way of
organizing and the way of working has to be resonsidered. Business Process
Reengineering is an important approach in this area (see Hammer & Champy,
1993), but others can be found in the literature (e.g., Lorsch, 1987).
The monitoring of the actions belong to the next step in the
cycle and is discussed in section 3.1.1, thus completing the circle!
4 Summary and conclusions.
In this paper a selection of methods and techniques was
presented for supporting knowledge management. They were ordered by means of a
conceptual frame representing the knowledge management cycle. Due to its wide
ranging nature many more methods and techniques can be included in the
repertoire of knowledge management. The book by Wiig (1995) is a major source,
but is still far from complete. Notwithstanding this comprehensive repertoire
there are still some areas which are less well covered. They are related to some
of the peculiar characteristics of knowledge mentioned in section 2:
: the proper description level of
knowledge assets is still under discussion;
measurability : the value of knowledge is hard to
determine, workable valuation schemas are not yet available though the paper
by Wilkins at al. (this volume) is a step in this direction;
lead times : learning is difficult to achieve, lessons
learned programs and the so-called “learning organization” are still far
from abundant;
agents with wills : implementing improvement plans
entails the analysis of risks, many risks are associated with the importance
of knowledge for behavior of people in organizations, good methods for
analyzing these risks are lacking.
Especially in these respects the repertoire can be extended
and most of the other papers in this special issue are devoted to one or more of
them.
References.
Hammer, M. & Champey, J. (1993). Reengineering the
corporation: A manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper Collins, New York.+
Hoog, R. de, Benus, B., Metselaar, C., Vogler, M. & Menezes,
W. (1994). Organization Model: Model Definition Document. Report ESPRIT
Project P5248 KADS-II, KADS-II/M6/DM6.2c/UvA/041/3.0, University of Amsterdam.
Lorsch, W.J. (Ed). Handbook of organizational behaviour.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P.M.
(1994). Human Resource Management; gaining a competitive advantage. Irwin,
Homewood.
Olson, D.L (1996). Decision aids for selection problems.
Springer Verlag.
Spek, R. van der & Hoog, R. de (1995). A Framework for a
Knowledge Management Methodology. In: K. Wiig, Knowledge management methods.
Practical Approaches to Managing Knowledge. Schema Press, Arlington, Texas,
379-393.
Standish Group International (1996). Report presented at the
International Project Leadership Conference, Paris.
Wiig, K. (1995). Knowledge management methods. Practical
Approaches to Managing Knowledge. Schema Press, Arlington, Texas.
Wilkenfeld, J., Kraus, S., Holley, K.M. & Harris, M.A.
(1995). GENIE: A decision support system for crisis negotiations. Decision
Support Systems, 14, 369-391.
Winterfeldt, D. von & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision
analysis and Behavioural Research. Cambridge University Press.
|
|
Коротко
о системе Е-МАСТЕР |
Е-МАСТЕР®
— система управления корпоративной информацией.
Е-МАСТЕР®
включает в себя возможности систем класса ECM (Enterprise
Content Management).
Система обеспечивает:
- Совместное создание и согласование документов
- Каждый документ может быть обсужден как при
помощи прикрепленного к нему мини-форума, так
и в главном форуме
- Разработанный документ может быть направлен
на согласование по указанному маршруту
- Хранение документов любых форматов
- Хранение и передача документов в зашифрованном
виде
- Встроенные системы восстановления после сбоев
и резервного копирования
- Поиск документов
- Возможность поиска по ключевым словам и другим
атрибутам документов (автор, дата создания…)
- Возможность поиска с помощью навигации по
рубрикам
- Управляемый доступ к документам
- Возможность установки доступа к документам
для различных категорий пользователей
- Возможность введения ограничений на работу
с документами
- Функциональный интерфейс пользователя
- Веб-интерфейс, позволяющий просматривать
карточки и скачивать файлы из системы хранения
документов
- Удаленный доступ или работа пользователя
из любой точки мира (при условии подключения
к Интернету).
|
|
Система FLAMORY™ |
FLAMORY™ — уникальный программный продукт, позволяющий сохранять историю действий пользователя на компьютере, таких, например, как работа в приложениях Windows, посещения сайтов и д.р.
Сохраненные последовательности действий, далее, можно просмотреть, сохранить в файл и передать коллегам. FLAMORY позволяет аккумулировать и делиться знаниями.
Работая с FLAMORY, обмен опытом, обучение новых сотрудников, обсуждения технологий, становятся, как никогда ранее, простой и удобной, в практических аспектах, задачей.
FLAMORY™ разрабатывается при участии специалистов KMSOFT.
Скачать бета-версию можно по этой ссылке.
|
|