Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Where to Look for Knowledge
Management Success
Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., CISSP, CSSLP, PMP
Professor, San Diego State...
A little About Me









At San Diego State University since 2001
20 year commercial nuclear power engineer prio...
Introduction
This presentation is part of the IJKM effort to
define the KM discipline
 We propose that for KM to be consi...
Implementing KM
First we will discuss what it takes to have a
successful KM implementation
 We will look at two main topi...
KM/KMS Critical Success Factors


Critical Success Factors are those factors that
have been found to have the most impact...
Critical Success Factors
A Knowledge Strategy that identifies users,
sources, processes, storage strategy, knowledge
and l...
Critical Success Factors
 A common

enterprise wide knowledge
structure that is clearly articulated and
easily understood...
Critical Success Factors
Measures are established to assess impact of
the KMS/knowledge use and to verify that the
right k...
Success/Effectiveness Models
 Success/Effectiveness

models attempt to
take critical success factors and
established theo...
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
 O...
Discussion
 Ultimate

success, though, is through KM
and knowledge having an impact on the
individual and the organizatio...
Methodology
 Step

1 was to identify a definition of these
impacts through a definition of KM
success
 Generated explora...
Methodology
First survey results were used to generate a
second survey proposing a definition of KM
success and a set of m...
Exploratory Survey Findings


First survey results generated little consensus:








KM and KMS Success may not be...
Second Survey Findings


Practitioners tended to like the suggestions






Lower agreement on Process measures was
mi...
Thoughts on Researcher Response
 Basically

researchers missed the point

 They

wanted perfect measures
 Focused on th...
Conclusion
After analyzing the response results and
comments the following final definition was
supported (basically the A...
Next Step Research


Survey was generated to test the definition







Items for KM success as well as the four dime...
Research Design
 Data

was analyzed by segregating
responses into two groups
 Group

one consisted of those reporting on...
Research Design


Meeting the dimension determination methods:






Method 1 used the highest score for the associate...
Results: Respondent Demographics
Position

Overall
n=89

Successful
Project
n=57

Unsuccessful
Project n=32

KM
Practition...
Results (success/non-success)
Method
High Value
Method 1

Success
Group
n=57
3.4
(0.9909)

Average Value
Method 2

2.6
(1....
T-test Results (success/nonsuccess, all differences
significant)
High Value
Method 1
Average Value
Method 2
Item Count
Met...
T-test Results (7 score/6 score,
all differences significant)
Method
High Value
Method 1

7 Group
n=16
3.8
(0.5439)

Avera...
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...
Conclusions
 The

definition works

 The

more successful the project the more
likely dimensions and dimension items wil...
Dimension Items


Impact on Business Processes:












KM project improved the efficiency of the supported
pro...
Dimension Items


Impact on KM Strategy













KM project resulted in changes to my organization’s KM goals
...
Dimension Items


Leadership/Management Support








KM project resulted in increased verbal/political
support for...
Dimension Items


Knowledge Content (5 overall items)















KM project resulted in increased knowledge c...
Current Step
Our current activities are applying the KM
success measures to previous studies to see how
they would fare in...
Applying the Measures
 Impact

on business processes used the
original measures from the personal
productivity model and ...
Applying the Measures
 Impact

on KM strategy used a survey
on what drove engineers to add
knowledge content from the ori...
Applying the Measures
 Leadership/Management

Support used
the impact from the organization
creating a KM position during...
Applying the Measures
 Knowledge

content used the survey on
what drove engineers to contribute
knowledge, the personal p...
Conclusion
 The

application of the KM success
measures to an existing longitudinal
study that had previously been found ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex

606

Published on

Published in: Education, Business
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
606
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
33
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex"

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. 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
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. Jennex/Olfman KMS Success Model Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. 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
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. 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
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. 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
  34. 34. 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
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×