Knowledge management dph day 2012


Published on

Published in: Education, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • * Par correspondance
  • Landry 2006
  • Meessen et al 2011, (Jansen et al. 2010). Choiet al. 2005
  • WeBex = web conferencing, meeting and events centre, on-line classroom environment .Wikis= , simple web pages that groups, friends, and families can edit together.Dropbox = service that lets you bring your photos, docs, and videos anywhere and share them easily.Facebook = is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who have something to shareSkype = a software application that allows users to make voice and video calls and chats over the Internet.Delicious= “Delicious is a Social Bookmarking service, which means you can save all your bookmarks online, share them with other people, and see what other people are bookmarking. It also means that we can show you the most popular bookmarks being saved right now across many areas of interest. In addition, our search and tagging tools help you keep track of your entire bookmark collection and find tasty new bookmarks from people like you.”
  • From our experience
  • Knowledge management dph day 2012

    1. 1. Knowledge Management Department Day 2012 Public Health Department David Hercot, Maria Paola Bertone & Bruno Meessen*
    2. 2. Knowledge“is nota static embedded capability or stable disposition ofactors,but ratheran ongoing social accomplishment, constitutedand reconstituted as actors engage the world ofpractice”Orlikowski (2002) 2
    3. 3. Evidence/ Tacit/implicit research knowledgeKnow “how” KNOWLEGDE Appropriate Acceptability/ skills at local legitimacy of level knowledge
    4. 4. Knowledge Management Strategies (KM)“enabling individuals, teams and entireorganizations to collectively and systematicallycapture, create, store, share and applyknowledge, to better achieve their objectives”Young (2008) 4
    5. 5. K value chain
    6. 6. SharingKnowledge 6
    7. 7. ISNT’IT THE JOB OF WHO ? 7
    8. 8. Ecological Niches in GH Policy Need to bring these Practice Research actors together International Actors
    9. 9. re-think audience interface publishing support 9
    10. 10. Ways of “sharing Knowledge”• Push• Pull generation• Interactions 10
    11. 11. Research outputs• Deliverables• Policy Briefs• Academic Conference Presentation• Peer reviewed papers• Press Release 11
    12. 12. Do you consider• Workshop with supposed implementers• One pager (25-3-1)• Blog post• Mailing/Tweet/Facebook/Linkedin• Contributing to discussions 12
    13. 13. Why we need to engage in KM strategies• Demand for Continuing Public Health Education• Visibility of Dpt• Relevance of K creation• Develop our network of – partners in research, – potential students and – funders• Need to find new ways of keeping touch with ground. 13
    14. 14. Why … cont’d (the research perspective)• What -> How – Appropriate research design • (Gertler Madon Parkhurst) – New methodological approaches • (Pawson, Marchal) – Good collaboration on the field • (op re and action re – Grodos Mercenier Remme Zachariah) – Co Production • (Community of practice as a way of coproducing relevant knowledge - Spiegel) 14
    15. 15. Why COPs“Strengthening capabilities for producing andapplying knowledge through direct engagementwith affected populations and decision-makersprovides a fertile basis for consolidating capacitiesto act on a larger scale. This can facilitate thecapturing of benefits from the “top down” (inconsolidating institutional commitments) and the“bottom up” (to achieve local results).”Spiegel 2011 BMC IH & HR 15
    16. 16. Community of Practice “a group of people who share a concern, set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” Wenger et al (2002) 16
    17. 17. Community of PracticeThree key dimensions define a CoP• Domain of interest,• Community of participating people and• Practice of sharing knowledge(Wenger et al, 2002) 17
    18. 18. The Galaxy of a CoP transactionaloutsiders lurkers peripheral Expert-to- occasional apprentice interactions experts alumni active beginners Peer-to-peer core group leaders interactions coordinator sponsors 18
    19. 19. Outline• Concepts• How do we do it?• Key Performance Indicators – an illustration• Brainstorming 19
    20. 20. Communities of Practice Launched Members ggle (other)PBF Feb 2010 594EBPB Mar 2008 113 (64)Fin Access Mar 2011HSD Feb 2012 27 (73)EV4GH (?) Feb 2010 127 (214) 20
    21. 21. How do we connect? Google Website Group Wiki pages Telephone e-mail Skype Dropbox Web Facebook Conferencing (WeBex) Face-to-face 21
    22. 22. Challenges of CoPs Power structures and hierarchies Build trust and mutual understanding Cultural and social values of collaboration vs. of individual success Resistance to change and to atypical knowledge 22
    23. 23. Conditions for success• Political buy-in• Face-to-face events and virtual interaction• “Rhythm” of activities• Added value to members• A facilitator,• A core group• IT tools adapted to audience 23
    24. 24. More Examples of KM• Push – Mailings – Conference Teaching• Pull generation – Commenting – SEO optimisation• Interaction – Workshops – groups 24
    25. 25. CONCLUSIONS 25
    26. 26. Opportunities of KM• Generation of new Knowledge• Increase relevance of Knowledge chain• Increase our relevance• Reducing carbon footprint, jetlag 26
    27. 27. Challenges of KM activities• The right domain• Adequate platform(s) -> New expertise• Online is not enough, F2F• Resources (time and money) 27
    28. 28. Outline• Concepts• How do we do it?• Key Performance Indicators – an illustration• Brainstorming 28
    30. 30. 30
    31. 31. Outline• Concepts• How do we do it?• Key Performance Indicators – an illustration• Brainstorming 31
    32. 32. BRAINSTORMING 32
    33. 33. If KM was to become a priority of the Dept• What would be the – Domains – Activities – Priorities – Challenges• Which KPI would you like to see reported by those engaged ? 33
    34. 34. Personal Notes fromdiscussion during presentation Incomplete, subjective, anonymised, unsorted and uncensored 34
    35. 35. • Because other do it: other concurrent universities/institutions engage in online media and communities so there is no guarantee that this will increase our visibility we might just be keeping abreast of what others are doing.• Do we need to go that (competitive) way?• Is it our role? We should publish papers and when there is enough new evidence WHO or other will organise a meeting with policy makers to share the new knowledge. 35
    36. 36. • Is it acceptable for implementers to be told by researchers from the North what they have to do ?• It takes a lot of time. Cost effectiveness has to be put in question.• There is a need for a Knowledge manager person. 36
    37. 37. • We need to monitor the audience. It’s a basic principle of marketing when they try to sell something. Who do you want to reach ? What do they want to hear ?• Look for similitudes with KCE Dominique Roberfroid. For synergies with new course he plans to organise.• Quamed is a COP• The message should be new enough to learn something to audience and close enough to their current knowledge to get people to move. 37
    38. 38. • Wikipedia can be very bad resource but the reality is that people use it.• Email remains the major source of communication for many• Mobile devices will be generalised among our audience (in Africa) in the coming years.• People in LBW settings tend to go to websites they know when they need an information. (Christophe – Environment) 38
    39. 39. • If your research is pertinent it will be picked up by those who need it.• The scientists who tweet are the good scientist that’s why they are more cited.• If you go to interactive discussion you open the window for sharing knowledge/information inexact or against your philosophy• It is easier/ more rewarding to network among like minded. Hence there might be a risk/benefit of selection bias for members in a network/cop. 39
    40. 40. • Do you know who is in your COP ? Aren’t the same persons in different COPs?• As a dpt we should do it but what to do should be carefully thought of.• Did you monitor how much of our alumni are engaging in the COPs? 40