KM2.0 Social KM in libraries
Case study
Karolien Selhorst
Digital Library/Knowledge
Manager Library of Vlissingen

“Libraries excel in managing information and
knowledge captured in books and documents,
but they fail in locating and managing the
knowledge potential in the heads of their own
people.”

• What is (social) knowledge management?
• Why is it relevant for libraries?
• Case study: Social KM in the Public Library of
Vlissingen
• Questions?

What is knowledge management?
“Knowledge management is concerned with the exploitation
and development of the knowledge assets of an organisation
with a view to furthering the organisation‟s objectives. The
knowledge to be managed includes both explicit, documented
knowledge, and tacit, subjective knowledge. Management
entails all of those processes associated with the identification,
sharing and creation of knowledge (…).” Rowley (1999: 418)

The value of KM for libraries
• “(…) to promote relationship in and between libraries,
between library and user, to strenghten knowledge
internetworking and to quicken knowledge flow.” Shangong
(2000)
• “(…) one more tool for designing effective library service.”
Townley (2001: 51) => improving the quality of the library-
customer relationship

Question
What do YOU think the value of KM is for libraries?

What is „social‟ KM?
• Knowledge management +
social tools
• People-centric
• Culture of teamwork + open,
transparent management

KM 1.0
• The old traditional, techno-centric
command and control form of KM
(< D. Gurteen)

KM2.0 or social KM
• People-centric KM (after action
reviews, communities of practice,
storytelling, etc.)
• Social tools
(wikis, blogs, social networks, etc.)

KM1.0 versus KM2.0
KM 1.0 KM2.0
• Top down • Bottom up
• Command and control • Distributed
• Centralised • Decentralised
• Focus on the technology • Focus on the people
• Knowledge is power • Knowledge sharing
• Closed culture (closed doors) • Open and transparent culture
• Directories provide contact info of trust (open doors)
• Social networks reflect
connections

KM2.0
• Don‟t focus on the tools, but look at the goals you want to achieve
• “Technology is a tool and like all tools it should fit your hand when
you pick it up, you shouldn't have to bio-re-engineer your hand to
fit the tool” (Dave Snowden)
• \"Participatory service and change are the heart of Library 2.0, and
technology is a tool that can help us get there“ (Michael Casey)

Question
How do YOU see social knowledge management?

Case study
SOCIAL KM IN THE PUBLIC LIBRARY OF VLISSINGEN

The Public Library of Vlissingen
• The public library of Vlissingen
lies at the heart of Zeeland
• Apart from the main building
the library provides services in
the nearby situated village, in
several local schools and the
nearby hospital
• The library has 45 staff
members

The Public Library of Vlissingen
• The customer-focused physical
and digital library:
– Customer-focused: we want to
provide a tailor-made service
to our customers
– The digital library: we aim to
be where our users are
(library2.0)

Why knowledge management?
• Library services are highly personal; the quality depends on the
interaction between library staff members and customers
• The public library of Vlissingen aims to improve customer service by
making it less dependent on an individual‟s expertise and
knowledge
• Customer service needs to be based on teamwork and shared
knowledge

KM issues and drivers
• In the last few years, knowledge transfer between staff members
and library customers has been far from ideal
• The library has several locations, which hampers internal knowledge
transfer
• Library management has become aware of the importance of KM in
order to efficiently reach the library‟s goals

KM strategy
• Step 1: knowledge audit
• Step 2: implementing the recommendations that follow the K-audit
• Step 3: integrating KM tools and practices
• Step 4: evaluating and monitoring KM (plan, do, check, act)

Social KM with two dimensions
Internal dimension External dimension

Step 1:The knowledge audit
• Goals of the K-audit
– To map and to evaluate the current knowledge practices and
culture and to identify potential knowledge gaps or overlaps
– Analysing the knowledge flow in three dimensions:
people, systems and processes
– Making the hidden knowledge potential more explicit.

The knowledge audit in 5 phases
• Planning the audit
• Collecting data
• Analysing and evaluating data
• Formulating and communicating recommendations
• Implementing recommendations => evaluating and monitoring

Doing a K-audit in 5 steps
Planning
Implementi
ng Collecting
recommend data
ations
Audit
stakeholders
Formulating,c
ommunicatin Analysing
g ,evaluating
recommendat data
ions

The knowledge audit: findings
• The intranet did not meet the needs of library workers
• No collective knowledge sharing and learning
• Library workers lacked a sense of „collective ambition‟
• Knowledge gap: web2.0-knowledge was missing

The knowledge audit:findings
• More than 50% of all library staff members was unaware of each
other‟s knowledge
• Thanks to the audit we now have detailed knowledge profiles of all
library staff members

The K-audit: recommendations
• The knowledge flow in 3 dimensions:
– People: The introduction of a new team-based service
concept => cultural change in order to stimulate team spirit
and the collective ambition
– Systems: The introduction of an internal wiki as a central
knowledge base and as a virtual means to exchange
knowledge throughout the library
– Knowledge processes: The initiation of „communities of
practice‟

The K-audit: recommendations
• Bridging the knowledge gap through an online web2.0-course
(„23Things‟)
• Mapping and making explicit staff members‟ hidden knowledge
through wiki knowledge profiles

Step 2: Implementation: Culture
• The introduction of a new service concept based upon
teamwork and knowledge sharing
• Staff members no longer serve customers on an individual
basis, but in teams (clusters)
• Goal: providing a better and „richer‟ customer service

Cultural change

Step 2: Implementation: a library wiki
• Official launch in March 2009
• Goal: facilitating library knowledge management
• 2nd phase of the wiki: integration of the wiki with learning network
through „Question Manager‟
• 3rd phase of the wiki: integration with „my library‟ application

Setting up a wiki in 6 steps
• Step 1: planning the wiki
• Step 2: designing the wiki
• Step 3: testing the wiki
• Step 4: training the users and launching the wiki
• Step 5: maintaining the wiki
• Step 6: evaluating the wiki

Wiki adoption
• Wiki users go through 5 phases (< Kübler-Ross):
– Denial “Why does our library need a wiki? What was wrong with the
intranet?”
– Anger “Stupid wiki”
– Bargaining: “I only want to contribute if the background is pink””
– Depression: “What‟s next?”
– Acceptance: “Maybe I should give it a try?”
• Where are we now?
– 60% is in the acceptance phase
– 30% is in the bargaining phase
– 10% is in the depression phase

Step 2: Implementation: QM
• „Question Manager‟: a new software that supports and makes
transparent the way customer enquiries are handled
• Customer enquiries are allocated to the librarian/expert with the
knowledge profile that matches the topic of the question
• QM enables staff members to work together on a „richer‟ answer for
the customer
• Answers – and library expertise - become more visible in Google
search results

Step 2: Implementation: bridging the knowledge gap
• Goal: bridging the knowledge gap in order to improve the
quality of customer service
• Web2.0 course: „23 Things‟
• „23 Things‟: learn about web2.0 in 23 steps
• Learning by playing and teamwork
• From April 2008 until October 2008

Step 2: Implementation: Coops
• Initiation of communities of practice that share
knowledge about the use of web2.0 in the library
• Goal: to stimulate people to share knowledge
beyond borders of their own teams + the bottom-up
realisation of „library2.0‟
• Results: the realisation/initiation of several
innovative web2.0-services and projects

Phase 2: social KM: external dimension
• Goal: sharing knowledge and communicating more
interactively with local community members
• Examples:
– A library blog
– LibraryThing
– Flickr

Phase 2: social KM: external dimension
• Sharing knowledge within the library is limited
• Sharing knowledge with other libraries offers new opportunities!
• The Zeeuwse Bibliotheek and the public libraries of Rotterdam and
Haarlem participate in one knowledge project
• Sharing knowledge on a national level in the Netherlands is the
ambition: QM makes this possible
• The public library becomes an important node in the knowledge
economy

Thank you for your attention!
Questions?
karosel64@gmail.com