Assessing Progress With Knowledge Management Programmes

"One would be hard-pressed to find an organization satisfied with how it measures the impact of KM or an organization that has a complete, systematic approach to measuring it." (Carla O'Dell et. al, APQC)⁴⁶⁰

Summary

1    Every assessment of a KM programme requires a coherent model or framework against which to develop measures. Most frameworks are developed from critical success factors and incorporate enablers, foundations and core KM activities.

2    There is a spectrum of assessment methods, ranging from quick assessments of KM maturity, to systematic assessments of a KM programme, through to detailed assessments of specific KM activities.

3    Maturity models gauge how well the different parts of a KM initiative are integrated and how embedded KM is within organizational routine. Several organization use maturity models based on Carnegie Melon's Capability Maturity Model, originally developed for information systems.

4    Assessment methods use a combination of interviews and questionnaires in which respondent rate various KM factors on a qualitative scale. The results are commonly plotted on a radar chart. Differences between desired and actual, and between the responses of different respondents, provide opportunities for dialogue in workshops to increase understanding and to prioritize KM actions.

5    Another type of assessment is a knowledge audit. This provides an inventory of knowledge assets, and helps identify gaps in information and knowledge needs, as well as duplication of effort.

6    The importance of communities of practice has led to growing attention to measures of their effectiveness. As well as statistical measures of contributions and resource usage, surveys of community members and stakeholders, provide measures of overall effectiveness and business impact. Tools for social network analysis also provide indicators of the pattern of knowledge sharing in an organization.

7    It is increasingly common to use several methods simultaneously, depending on what is being analyzed and the purpose of measurement. Organizations are also making more explicit links between their main corporate performance measurement systems such as the business scorecard, and KM metrics.

8    Benchmarking is a useful tool to compare KM activities with those of other organizations. There is growing interest in Benchlearning®, a technique that extends benchmarking into a more structured approach to learning and knowledge sharing.

This chapter brings us to the last element of the ABBA framework – the baseline: assessing how an organization is progressing in its KM initiative. Typically, this involves making judgement of effectiveness of specific KM practices. Several diagnostic and assessment tools are available that enable organizations to do this. Some offer the ability to compare our own organization's performance with that of others through benchmarking. The chapter reviews some of these tools and users' experience of using them.

But to answer more fully the question "how are we doing?" these assessments need considering in their wider context, that of "what should we be doing?" To do this, the chapter starts with some frameworks that for thinking about KM initiatives in their wider context. It then moves on to a broad brush view of KM status in an organization through the lens of KM maturity models. After dealing with assessments, some more specific types of assessment are examined, including the knowledge audit and assessing communities of practice. The chapter concludes with a view "beyond the baseline" considering how assessments of progress can be used as a learning vehicle for striving for greater things in the future.

If you are a subscriber, click here to read the full briefing.

Click here to find out how to subscribe.