Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex

on

  • 740 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
740
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
722
Embed Views
18

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
22
Comments
0

4 Embeds 18

https://twitter.com 8
https://innovate.lexmark.com 5
http://storify.com 3
https://mail.google.com 2

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex Presentation Transcript

    • Where to Look for Knowledge Management Success Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., CISSP, CSSLP, PMP Professor, San Diego State University Editor in Chief International Journal of Knowledge Management Co-editor in Chief International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • A little About Me         At San Diego State University since 2001 20 year commercial nuclear power engineer prior US Navy Nuclear Propulsion Officer prior Over 150 articles, chapters, books, proceedings Editor in Chief International Journal of Knowledge Management Co-editor in Chief International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management Teaching Information Security, Systems Analysis and Design, Decision Support, Knowledge Management BA Chemistry and Physics, MBA, MS Software Engineering, MS Telecommunications Management, PhD Information Systems Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Introduction This presentation is part of the IJKM effort to define the KM discipline  We propose that for KM to be considered a discipline we must be able to identify what leads to KM success and define what is successful KM  Part of this project was to get some consensus on what successful KM is  We thought this would be relatively easy to do but were surprised by reality (but guess we shouldn’t be)  1/5/2007 Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Implementing KM First we will discuss what it takes to have a successful KM implementation  We will look at two main topics:    KM Critical Success Factors KM Success/Effectiveness Models Critical Success Factors tell us what needs to be present to be successful  Success/Effectiveness models help us understand:     How success factors relate to each other The process of implementing KM How to measure KM success Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • KM/KMS Critical Success Factors  Critical Success Factors are those factors that have been found to have the most impact on KM and are determinants of KM success    These success criteria were identified through a number of studies using a variety of research methods and overall looking at over 200 KM/KMS projects Success factors are presented in order of importance as defined by the number of studies that identified the success factor Note that all are critical success factors Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Critical Success Factors A Knowledge Strategy that identifies users, sources, processes, storage strategy, knowledge and links to knowledge for the KMS  Motivation and Commitment of users including incentives and training  Integrated Technical Infrastructure including networks, databases/ repositories, computers, software, KMS experts  An organizational culture that supports learning and the sharing and use of knowledge  Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Critical Success Factors  A common enterprise wide knowledge structure that is clearly articulated and easily understood (an ontology)  Senior Management support including allocation of resources, leadership, and providing training  Learning Organization  There is a clear goal and purpose for the KMS Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Critical Success Factors Measures are established to assess impact of the KMS/knowledge use and to verify that the right knowledge is captured  Search, retrieval, & visualization functions of the KMS support easy knowledge use  Work processes are designed that incorporate knowledge capture and use  Security/protection of knowledge  Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Success/Effectiveness Models  Success/Effectiveness models attempt to take critical success factors and established theory and relate them in a way that will explain why success occurs  Will look at The Jennex Olfman KM Success Model  Adapted the DeLone and McLean (1991, 2003) IS Success Model to KM  Model is a recursive model which indicates what has to be present for success to occur Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Jennex/Olfman KMS Success Model Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Discussion  The quality factors need to be considered in the development of the KM initiative and the associated KMS  Once created, the KMS and knowledge need to be used and/or re-used  Success is initially measured by adoption and use  Actual use was found to be a poor indicator  Intent to Use is a better measure Ease of Use  Near Term Job Impact  Social Factors Long Term Job Impact Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Discussion  Ultimate success, though, is through KM and knowledge having an impact on the individual and the organization  Defining impact has been nebulous or left to the individual/organization to define  The next stage of the research was to determine how to define and measure “impact”. Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Methodology  Step 1 was to identify a definition of these impacts through a definition of KM success  Generated exploratory survey using an expert panel from 30 IJKM IRB members  Used a set of basic definitions  Exploratory survey had 103 responses:  13 KM practitioners  70 KM researchers  20 others including students and academics interested in KM Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Methodology First survey results were used to generate a second survey proposing a definition of KM success and a set of measures that can be used to assess success  Second survey had 194 responses:     16 KM practitioners 114 KM researchers 64 others including KM students and academics interested in KM but not active KM researchers. Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Exploratory Survey Findings  First survey results generated little consensus:      KM and KMS Success may not be the same (very surprising finding to me as in my Churchmanian view of KM and KMS I find them to be inseparable) KM success is a combination of process and outcome with objective and subjective measures and getting the right knowledge to the right people Use is not a good measure of success Doers liked definitions that focused on firm performance Researchers (thinkers) do not seem to have a clear idea of KM success and in many cases expressed opinions that KM success cannot and should not be defined Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Second Survey Findings  Practitioners tended to like the suggestions    Lower agreement on Process measures was misleading, they didn’t subtract anything, only added Leadership was a problem due to its focus on supplying resources only Researchers couldn’t agree on much   Several either agreed with the definition then hated all the measures or hated the definition but liked the measures I think we all tend to have our own pet measures Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Thoughts on Researcher Response  Basically researchers missed the point  They wanted perfect measures  Focused on the complexity of the issue  Used both to say the research shouldn’t be done  However, that isn’t an acceptable answer A discipline must be able to define when it is successful  Managers expect to be able to define success  Practitioners must be able to define success Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Conclusion After analyzing the response results and comments the following final definition was supported (basically the AQPC definition with dimensions):  KM success is a multidimensional concept. It is defined by capturing the right knowledge, getting the right knowledge to the right user, and using this knowledge to improve organizational and/or individual performance. KM success is measured by means of the dimensions:      impact on business processes impact on strategy Leadership knowledge content Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Next Step Research  Survey was generated to test the definition     Items for KM success as well as the four dimensions were generated using the literature Used a 7 point Likert scale Survey was tested using an expert panel with some adjustments made Survey was administered using surveymonkey   Respondents with KM initiative experience were solicited using KM discussion forums, KM academic lists, and personal contacts were sent emails soliciting participation Two follow up emails were sent to encourage participation, data was collected for 3 months Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Research Design  Data was analyzed by segregating responses into two groups  Group one consisted of those reporting on a successful project (6 and 7 on a 7 point Likert scale)  Group two was all other respondents  Each response was then analyzed to determine if the dimension was met  Three methods used to determine if dimensions were met Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Research Design  Meeting the dimension determination methods:    Method 1 used the highest score for the associated items (dimension was met if this score was greater than 5) Method 2 used the average of the scores for the associated items (dimension was met if this score was greater than 5) Method 3 used the total number of associated items met with an item score of 6 or 7 (dimension was met if at least half the items had a score greater than 5) t-tests were run between the two groups to determine if they were significantly different  The success group was then split into two groups, the 7 score and the 6 score groups with t-tests run to determine if they were significantly different  Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Results: Respondent Demographics Position Overall n=89 Successful Project n=57 Unsuccessful Project n=32 KM Practitioner KM Manager Academic 20.2% (18) KM Researcher KM Student 20.2% (18) 24.6% (14) 31.6% (18) 12.3% (7) 22.8% (13) 8.8% (5) 12.5% (4) 25.0% (8) 37.5% (12) 15.6% (5) 9.4% (3) 29.2% (26) 21.3% (19) 9.0% (8) Respondents by Position, nearly a 50/50 split between academia and practitioners Experience (years) Successful Project n=57 Unsuccessf ul Project n=32 0-2 Respondents experience level Almost 2/3s with over 6 years experience Overall n=89 13.5% (12) 14.0% (8) 12.5% (4) 3-5 22.5% (20) 21.1% (12) 25.0% (8) 6-10 21.3% (19) 21.1% (12) 21.9% (7) >10 42.7% (38) 43.9% (25) 40.6% (13) Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Results (success/non-success) Method High Value Method 1 Success Group n=57 3.4 (0.9909) Average Value Method 2 2.6 (1.3595) Item Count Method 3 2.5 (1.3379) Total Items (25 possible) 13.4 (6.71091) Nonsuccess Group n=32 2.7 (1.3102) 1.3 (1.2854) 1.4 (1.3664) 7.7 (5.0902) Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • T-test Results (success/nonsuccess, all differences significant) High Value Method 1 Average Value Method 2 Item Count Method 3 Total Items (25 possible) t51=2.61 p < 0.01 t64=4.26 p < 0.01 t60=3.46 p < 0.01 t79=4.57 p < 0.01 Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • T-test Results (7 score/6 score, all differences significant) Method High Value Method 1 7 Group n=16 3.8 (0.5439) Average Value Method 2 3.5 (1.0328) Item Count Method 3 3.4 (0.8851) Total Items (25 possible) 17.4 (6.1207) 6 Group n=41 3.2 (1.0701) 2.3 (1.3233) 2.3 (1.3398) 11.9 (6.3332) t-test data t51=2.9787 p<0,01 t35=3.7243 p<0,01 t41=2.9997 p<0,01 t28=3.0513 p<0,01 Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Results - Visual 3.5 3 2.5 2 # Dim ensions Met 1.5 1 0.5 0 7 6 5 4 20 15 10 # Item s Met 5 0 7 6 5 4 Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Conclusions  The definition works  The more successful the project the more likely dimensions and dimension items will be met  The survey items are good indicators of measures that should be used to monitor for KM initiative success Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Dimension Items  Impact on Business Processes:       KM project improved the efficiency of the supported processes KM project reduced costs for the supported business process KM project had a positive return on investment for the supported processes KM project improved the effectiveness of the supported processes. KM project improved decision making in the supported processes KM project improved resource allocation in the supported process Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Dimension Items  Impact on KM Strategy        KM project resulted in changes to my organization’s KM goals KM project resulted in the creation or modification of knowledge related key performance indicators KM project resulted in changes to the way my organization assessed knowledge use in the organization KM project resulted in changes in my organization’s incentives for using and sharing knowledge KM projected resulted in my organization increasing its awareness/mapping of knowledge sources and users KM projected resulted in increased resources for our KM systems and repositories KM project resulted in the creation of new or additional knowledge capture processes Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Dimension Items  Leadership/Management Support     KM project resulted in increased verbal/political support for KM by top management KM project resulted in increased financial support for KM by top management KM project resulted in increased awareness of KM by top management KM project resulted in increased use/reliance on KM by top management Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Dimension Items  Knowledge Content (5 overall items)         KM project resulted in increased knowledge content in our repositories KM project improved knowledge content quality of our repositories KM project resulted in my increased use or intention to use of knowledge content KM project resulted in others increased use or intention to use of knowledge content KM project resulted in my increased identification of needed knowledge content and knowledge content sources KM project resulted in others increased identification of needed knowledge content and knowledge content sources KM project resulted in my increased demand and/or searching for knowledge content KM project resulted in others increased demand and/or searching for knowledge content Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Current Step Our current activities are applying the KM success measures to previous studies to see how they would fare in explaining the observed results  The example is a longitudinal study done on a nuclear power plant where KM and knowledge use were found to improve productivity    The initial study created a personal productivity model to show where knowledge use improved individual productivity Organizational improvement was shown using external measures such as capacity factor and NRC ratings Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Applying the Measures  Impact on business processes used the original measures from the personal productivity model and the external measures identified to indicate organizational success  5 of the 6 measures were found to be met Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Applying the Measures  Impact on KM strategy used a survey on what drove engineers to add knowledge content from the original study as well as the impact from the organization creating a KM position during the study  6 of the 7 measures were found to be met Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Applying the Measures  Leadership/Management Support used the impact from the organization creating a KM position during the study, the support given by management for doing the study, and the heightened awareness of KM by the NRC during the study  All 4 measures were found to be met Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Applying the Measures  Knowledge content used the survey on what drove engineers to contribute knowledge, the personal productivity model that showed increased demand for knowledge, and observations on actual use and perceived benefit.  All 5 measures were found to be met Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
    • Conclusion  The application of the KM success measures to an existing longitudinal study that had previously been found to be successful with KM through other means found that all but 2 measures were met.  The ultimate conclusion is that the set of measures is a good fit Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC