Identification of  ‘ knowledge value’ measurement indicators 10 º  Knowledge Management Forum Paolo Petrucciani   Siena, 2...
<ul><li>Project objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Specific client objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Methodologies and tools </li></u...
<ul><li>Objectives of accomplished study: </li></ul><ul><li>Define and create a series of indicators for:  </li></ul><ul><...
<ul><li>Specific client objectives (large public ICT company) </li></ul><ul><li>Basic for initiative, it was company need ...
<ul><li>Methodologies and tools utilized:  </li></ul><ul><li>(both theorical analysis and practical-operative applications...
<ul><li>Definitions and terminology of utilized tools:  </li></ul><ul><li>CSF- critical success factors </li></ul><ul><ul>...
<ul><li>Company X (large public ICT company), ~1600 headcount, technical professionals: about 700, client commitment for t...
<ul><li>(cont’) </li></ul><ul><li>creation of attributes/characteristics for every knowledge indicators-factors </li></ul>...
Followed workpath (graphical representation)
Examples – intermediate output (1) – point 4 of workpath
Examples – intermediate output (2) – point 6 of workpath
Examples – intermediate output (3) – point 7 of workpath
Examples – intermediate output (4) – point 8 of workpath
Examples – intermediate output (5) – point 9 of workpath 3.2.2  KM accessibility degree (1) This indicator expresses the p...
Final output (top management indicators dashboard)
Conclusions and results <ul><li>Conclusions about project workpath </li></ul><ul><li>creation of ad hoc instrumentation fo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2005 november 25 - Intervention 10 Km Forum - english version

455 views

Published on

Personal intervention to 10th Knowledge Management Forum - Jekpot - Siena - Italy

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
455
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2005 november 25 - Intervention 10 Km Forum - english version

  1. 1. Identification of ‘ knowledge value’ measurement indicators 10 º Knowledge Management Forum Paolo Petrucciani Siena, 25 november 2005
  2. 2. <ul><li>Project objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Specific client objectives </li></ul><ul><li>Methodologies and tools </li></ul><ul><li>Followed workpath </li></ul><ul><li>Examples – Intermediate output </li></ul><ul><li>Final output </li></ul><ul><li>Conclusions and results </li></ul>Agenda
  3. 3. <ul><li>Objectives of accomplished study: </li></ul><ul><li>Define and create a series of indicators for: </li></ul><ul><li>to identify critical knowledge in a company </li></ul><ul><li>to measure its value, under economical, professional and specialistic profile </li></ul><ul><li>to facilitate explicitation of tacit knowledge present in company professionals </li></ul><ul><li>to foster knowledge exchange </li></ul>Project objectives
  4. 4. <ul><li>Specific client objectives (large public ICT company) </li></ul><ul><li>Basic for initiative, it was company need to measure and assess its own capability: </li></ul><ul><li>to identify critical knowledge present within “walls” in the company, in its specialistic reference industry, or “how much its own professionals ‘know’, ‘know how to do’, and which are distinctive knowledge of the company” </li></ul><ul><li>to render explicit a series of tacit knowledge embedded in its own professionals, or ”how much knowledges and solutions are documented and placed at disposal to facilitate phenomena of internal productive efficiency and of ‘field experience’ capitalization” </li></ul><ul><li>to facilitate and optimize knowledge exchanges about technical- applicative issues, between various professionals, mainly to benefit institutional clients, or “how to establish and to orientate internal cooperations about sourcing, exchange and diffusion of know-how, technical and applicative, to advantage internal growth and core clients services” </li></ul>Specific client objectives
  5. 5. <ul><li>Methodologies and tools utilized: </li></ul><ul><li>(both theorical analysis and practical-operative applications) </li></ul><ul><li>CSF-critical success factors </li></ul><ul><li>paired comparison </li></ul><ul><li>collaboration matrix </li></ul><ul><li>KPI (key performance indicators) </li></ul><ul><li>balanced scorecard </li></ul>Methodologies and tools (1)
  6. 6. <ul><li>Definitions and terminology of utilized tools: </li></ul><ul><li>CSF- critical success factors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>useful indicators and data for top management, initially introduced by Rockart (1979), to evaluate which activities of an organization must be monitored and which characteristics/performances must be reached to ensure competitive performance on the market (key business activities) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>paired comparison </li></ul><ul><ul><li>techniques for confrontation and assessment, in pairs, of elements of a square matrix that has same elements on x and y axes and empty diagonal </li></ul></ul><ul><li>collaboration matrix </li></ul><ul><ul><li>company offices square matrix with identification of information, knowledge and consulting requests and typical offers between various offices, about different issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>KPI (key performance indicators) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>set of quantifiable measures for a company or a sector, utilized to gauge and confront strategic and/or operational performances (variable, both within the company and the industrial sector) (utilized also to measure company critical processes performances) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>balanced scorecard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>technique and methodology created by Kaplan and Norton (1993) to represent company results areas and to link strategic company objectives to operational ones, following some predefined classification and/or perspectives (economical-financial, customers, internal business processes, learning and growth) </li></ul></ul>Methodologies and tools (2)
  7. 7. <ul><li>Company X (large public ICT company), ~1600 headcount, technical professionals: about 700, client commitment for the project: 8-12 human resources. Timetable of the project: about 4 months. </li></ul><ul><li>Workpath followed for identification of KM indicators and fine tuning of subsequent measumerent instrumentation, was: </li></ul><ul><li>internal survey to identify critical success factors (CSF) , or factors that have direct impact on services/performances offer of the company to its customers, subsequently transformed in synthetic indicators of company knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>translation and attribution of these factors to 4 Balanced Scorecard perspectives (economical-financial, customer, internal business processes, learning and growth) </li></ul><ul><li>internal survey to identify key-criteria for collecting and measuring, in time, knowledge indicators-factors </li></ul><ul><li>graduation of relative importance of knowledge indicators-factors </li></ul><ul><li>graduation of relative importance of key-criteria, to measure them in time </li></ul>Followed workpath (1)
  8. 8. <ul><li>(cont’) </li></ul><ul><li>creation of attributes/characteristics for every knowledge indicators-factors </li></ul><ul><li>setting up of map: company business processes-phases of creation, formalization, sharing and re-use of knowledge created within the company </li></ul><ul><li>reconaissance of company key-knowledge[ables] (or core competencies) associated to each business process </li></ul><ul><li>structured identification of analytical performance indicators (KPI) linked, from a side, to tipical company knowledge associated to each business process, and, from the other side, to relative objectives of same processes, to measure their value </li></ul><ul><li>creation of top management dashboard related to company existing knowledge (knowledge asset) , for periodical knowledge monitoring and assessment (tool) </li></ul>Followed workpath (2)
  9. 9. Followed workpath (graphical representation)
  10. 10. Examples – intermediate output (1) – point 4 of workpath
  11. 11. Examples – intermediate output (2) – point 6 of workpath
  12. 12. Examples – intermediate output (3) – point 7 of workpath
  13. 13. Examples – intermediate output (4) – point 8 of workpath
  14. 14. Examples – intermediate output (5) – point 9 of workpath 3.2.2 KM accessibility degree (1) This indicator expresses the percentage of company employees which is allowed complete access to all “KM drivers” in the company (education, documentation system, internet, intranet, extranet, forum, press review) vs total employees. Increase in this indicator stays for a larger accessibility to KM tools within company employees.. <ul><li>NUMERATOR </li></ul><ul><li>employees registered allowed to any specific service (KM driver) with a minimum of 5 days of education in the year </li></ul><ul><li>DENOMINATOR </li></ul><ul><li>all company employees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HR data </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>internet, intranet, extranet users list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>documentation system users list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>employees activities sheets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>press review users list </li></ul></ul><ul><li>half-yearly </li></ul>Width of intersection subset : employees allowed to any specific KM driver (with a min of education: 5 days/year) total company employees X 100 INDICATOR TITLE/NAME + FORMULA elementary data organizational zoom feeding source survey periodicity INDICATOR DESCRIPTION AND RATIONALE <ul><li>all company </li></ul><ul><li>first layer departments </li></ul>Final objective 2 - “ Make knowledge usable” Executive dashboard – FIRST LEVEL “ Make knowledge usable – at Company level” Synthetic KM Indicator – SECOND LEVEL 3.2 Degree of encouraging KM tools utilization Second level - synthetic Third level - detailed Customer perspective third level - detailed First level – dashboard Overall company
  15. 15. Final output (top management indicators dashboard)
  16. 16. Conclusions and results <ul><li>Conclusions about project workpath </li></ul><ul><li>creation of ad hoc instrumentation for specific client, with techniques based on democratic methodologies and logics (voting, evaluation and confrontation) </li></ul><ul><li>measurement of knowledge value, from company “internal” point of view, but easily linkable both to balance sheet, management account and to specific company productivity and profitability indicators, also for external confrontations </li></ul><ul><li>facilitation of project unrolling, because based on diffused techniques related to shared decisions and final graduation/ranking of intermediate output (mainly for interested population: professionals) </li></ul><ul><li>Results for the company </li></ul><ul><li>continuos monitoring of internal knowledge exchange and possibility of alignments/adjustments of managerial and IT tools to support improvements, facilitations, impacts, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>immediate linkage of company knowledge exchange/sharing/transfer “value measurement” to quali-quantitatve company performance </li></ul>

×