Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Performance of Knowledge Management


Published on

How to ensure rightful performance of knowledge management programme in an organisation.

Published in: Leadership & Management

Performance of Knowledge Management

  1. 1. Performance of Knowledge Management Dr. Elijah Ezendu FIMC, FCCM, FIIAN, FBDI, FAAFM, FSSM, MIMIS, MIAP, MITD, ACIArb, ACIPM, PhD, DocM, MBA, CWM, CBDA, CMA, MPM, PME, CSOL, CCIP, CMC, CMgr
  2. 2. “Within the last years, nearly all major corporations started Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives, particularly to strengthen the knowledge base within the organization, especially to help employees share, activate and increase their knowledge to finally generate a more innovative, faster acting, competitive organization. Recognizing knowledge as the primary intangible resource to make companies more efficient and effective was the basis for the "knowledge-based economy" and for KM. Increasingly sophisticated customers, new technologies, eager new competitors, and the need for more innovative products forces companies to be able to manage their knowledge assets well. The introduction of a KM initiative is a large investment for many corporations. Therefore performance measurement systems are required to make the benefits and the performance of KM initiatives transparent. Especially in times of scarce budgets the usefulness of KM is in doubt, as the business impact of such initiatives often can be hardly quantified or is only indirectly measurable.” - Florian Resatscha and Ulrich Faisstb
  3. 3. “The ultimate test of any business is whether it leads to measurable improvements in organizational performance.” - Heeseok Lee and Byounggu Choi
  4. 4. Different Perspectives Regarding Knowledge Exchange Outcomes Source: David A. Bray, Benn R. Konsynski, Improved Organizational Performance by Knowledge Management
  5. 5. From Knowledge Management Enablers to Organizational Performance Source: Lee and Choi, Knowledge Management Enablers, Processes and Organizational Performance Culture •Collaboration •Trust •Learning Structure •Centralization •Formalization People •T-Shaped Skills Information Technology •IT Support • Socialization • Externalization • Combination • Internalization • Organizational Performance • Organizational Creativity Knowledge Creation Process Knowledge Management Intermediate Outcome Organizational Performance Social Perspective Technical Perspective
  6. 6. Hadanian, Borhani, Nekahi & Tolunia Perspective on Influencers of Knowledge Management Transformation to Organizational Performance Knowledge Management Performance Market Orientation Innovation
  7. 7. Contributors to Knowledge Management Maturity
  8. 8. Factors Affecting Effectiveness of Knowledge Management Transformation to Organizational Performance Adapted from Rasula, Vuksic & Stemberger, The Impact of Knowledge Management on Organizational Performance
  9. 9. Dekings Four Quadrants of Knowledge Management Measurements Instrument (Example) •Balanced Scorecard •Intellectual Capital Audits •Knowledge Portfolio •Tobin’s Q •CIV Business Impact of Knowledge Assets Quality of Knowledge Management Initiative Location and Value of Knowledge Assets Business Impact of Knowledge Management Instrument (Example) •Questionnaires •Cross Organizational Benchmarking Instrument (Example) •Analysis of Knowledge Quality •Technology Broker Instrument (Example) •Success Stories •Cost Saving Analysis •Scoring Models Knowledge Knowledge Management
  10. 10. The generic methods for measuring organizational performance in knowledge management are as follows. •Financial Measures •Intellectual Capital •Tangible and Intangible Benefits •Balanced Scorecard
  11. 11. 6P’s of KM Performance by Elijah Ezendu
  12. 12. KM Impacts in Organizational Philosophy, Processes, Practices, People, Products & Partners Monitoring and Evaluation of KM Impacts must be managed as a Structured Change Programme
  13. 13. Performance Indicator It’s a tool enabling the effectiveness of an operation or organisation to be measured, and allows an achieved result to be gauged or evaluated in relation to a set of objectives. Source: OECD
  14. 14. Properties of Performance Indicators i. Relevant to the purpose, policy and practice ii. Clearly defined iii. Reliable iv. Worth measuring v. Measurable vi. Galvanize action vii. Reflect results of action viii. Precisely defined as possible ix. Readily available within a reasonable time frame
  15. 15. Advantages of Performance Indicators i. Means of measuring organizational progress toward set objectives. ii. Give room for benchmarking and comparing various units, sections, departments and subsidiaries.
  16. 16. Disadvantages of Performance Indicators i. Act as bad measures if not well defined ii. Some vital indicators cant be easily measured iii. Issuance of complexity due to number of indicators
  17. 17. Key Performance Indicators in a Firm These are quantifiable factors that are clearly connected to drivers of business success in a particular firm.
  18. 18. Criteria for Selecting KPI i. Strong linkage to objectives ii. They should be connected to areas of the business that can be controlled iii. They should be quantifiable
  19. 19. Types of KPI 1. Directional Indicators 2. Quantitative Indicators 3. Actionable Indicators 4. Practical Indicators
  20. 20. Developing Targets based on KPI A Key Performance Indicator should drive managerial effort towards a mark of achievement, which is a target in accordance with set objective. KPI…….Reduce waste Target……50% by end of March
  21. 21. Expression of Performance Indicator • In terms of ratio of actual to standard • In terms of number of occurrence • In terms of a complex mathematical expression showing extent of occurrence • In terms of percentage of occurrence
  22. 22. North, Probst & Romhardt Performance Measurement Framework for KM Initiatives Cost indicators )Class II( Knowledge Base Indicators (Class I) Business Results System quality Knowledge Quality )Documents( Knowledge Specific Service Costs of Interventions Interceding Processes System Usage User Satisfaction Knowledge Transfer Within the Organization Intermediation and Transfer Indicators (Class III ) Effect Indicators on Business Results (Class IV )
  23. 23. Classes of Indicators Class of indicators Definition of term Knowledge base indicators (Class I) Constituents of the organizational knowledge base in qualitative and quantitative terms Cost indicators (Class II) Processes and inputs for changes in the organizational knowledge base (Costs) Intermediation and transfer indicators (Class III) Measure direct usage of the knowledge base and the results of knowledge transfer resulting in intermediate effects on the organization. Effect indicators on business results (Class IV) Evaluation of the effects on business results
  24. 24. Examples of System Quality Measures Performance Issue Indicator Implementation of performance measurement Quality of navigation structure How fast can the user find the desired information? Feedback buttons with ranking possibility on every portal page Quality of search engine Does the query result match what the user was searching for? Average time of query to request, plus feedback buttons Quality of expert search Is the required expert found quickly? Average time of query to request, plus feedback buttons
  25. 25. Examples of Knowledge Quality Measures Performance Issue Indicator Implementation of performance measurement Quality of the content Quality of the provided documents within the repository Feedback functionality attached to single documents. Higher rated documents are scaled up in the search lists. A repeated usage might also indicate a high-quality document. Reliability, Up- todateness, Relevance, Accuracy of the content Are the files and documents always up-to- date and do they fit the user's criteria? Internal ranking, Feedback buttons, Trust buttons referring to author of document Quality of experts Could the expert help? Feedback button referring to experts
  26. 26. Examples of Knowledge Specific Service Measures Performance topic Indicator Implementation of performance measurement Quality of knowledge distribution Is the right knowledge at the right time at the right person? Average time employees spent searching the information Support of communities and collaboration Do communities of practice share knowledge more efficiently? Feedback surveys of participants
  27. 27. Cost Types of KM Initiatives Cost types Items Hardware Server, Network, Infrastructure Software Portal Software, Network: One-time purchases or development costs Implementation Consulting, customizing, training, and testing costs; communication costs Support (Maintenance) Annual system administration, support, and maintenance costs
  28. 28. Examples of System Usage Measures Cost types Items Hardware Server, Network, Infrastructure Software Portal Software, Network: One-time purchases or development costs Implementation Consulting, customizing, training, and testing costs; communication costs Support (Maintenance) Annual system administration, support, and maintenance costs
  29. 29. Examples of Knowledge Transfer as Intermediate and Transfer Indicator Performance topic Indicator Knowledge transfer from organization to employees Period of vocational adjustment: The time to adjust a (new) employee to the given processes within the company decreases, because most of the necessary knowledge is available easier. Knowledge transfer from organization to projects Reuse Rate: indicates the percentage of failed objects. This performance measure can be applied to a number of "re-inventing the wheel" cases: another measure is reuse opportunities ratio – the ratio between actual reuse content compared to opportunities. Knowledge transfer from R&D to production Effectiveness of knowledge transfer from the Research & Development (R&D) department and the production area. A rating-based performance measure shows the closeness of working relationships between R&D and manufacturing using an internal self-assessment based on ratings. Knowledge transfer from production to Response time to customer queries: The response time can be tracked electronically and is closely correlated to the customer satisfaction. Response quality of customer queries: Average customer rating (internal and external) of overall technical capability of the firm in providing technical service and new product customer service innovations to bring value to the customers' future problems. Possible is an average rating by key external or internal customers using a 1 to 5 interval rating scale to evaluate various dimensions regarding product technology or process technology External knowledge spillover Response time to competitive moves: Time required for corporation to match the newest product of the competitor divided by the time required for competitor to match firm's newest product benefits. This indicates the ability of the corporation to maintain a leadership position or to match technology moves by the competition. The knowledge is generated by external experts, customers, supplier, competitors, and research institutions.
  30. 30. Examples of Indicators on Business Results Based on Balanced Score Card Performance topic Indicators Financials Shareholder Value, NPV, Profit, ROI, ROA, ROE, ... Customer Satisfaction Number of refunds made, number of merchandising items returned, etc. Explanation: the customer satisfaction may increase because of faster response times and a better understanding of customer needs due to external knowledge links. Internal Processes − Efficiency of internal processes: e.g. percentage of tasks/milestones achieved within a certain timeframe measures the efficiency of a group/unit. − Quality of internal processes: the fraction of tasks finished correctly: Potentials A possible measurement approach could include the KVA methodology. The process oriented view with learning time as basic metrics shows the performance of business units.
  31. 31. Balanced Scorecard Measures in KM Financial Objectives Indicators How should we appear to our stakeholders? Internal Objectives Indicators What must we excel at? Customer Objectives Indicators How should we appear to our customers? Vision & Strategy Objectives Indicators How should the organization look in the future? Learning & Growth Objectives Indicators To what extent are we able to change, improves and innovate?
  32. 32. Linkage Between Causes and Strategic Activities Knowledge Management Business Process Improvement Customer Relationship Management Budget & Cost Management Financial Results Business Processes Learning & Growth Customer Satisfaction Source: Balanced Scorecard Institute
  33. 33. Applicable Metrics at Various Stages of KM Maturity KMMaturity Time Pre-Planning Phase Use scenarios & simulations to explore projected measure results & effects Start-Up Phase Anecdotes & qualitative metrics are most valuable to convince people of KM value Pilot Project Phase Use definitive metrics to show real value to business objectives Enterprise Growth Phase Use mixture of metrics to show value across organization
  34. 34. Cases Adapted from European Journal of Scientific Research 1. Hewlett Packard HP has a decentralized organization with little sharing of information across its units. The business culture supports sharing but few units have been willing to invest in efforts that do not have fast payback for the involved. There has previously been some informal knowledge transfer when employees have changed business units. In order to solve this problem knowledge management was implemented. The following are the performance indicators identified: •Active involvement. •Number of participating employees. •Number of postings/contributions. •Number of downloads. •Number of calls to support function. •Support ratings. •Unique log-ins.
  35. 35. 2. KPMG The purpose of the KM system is to take advantage of the experience within the organization, both in Sweden and globally. The overriding objectives are to maximize value creation and realization for the organization and for their clients, by making universally and instantly available best practices, experiences, insights and connections to the right people. •Adoption curve to see knowledge culture progression. •Generated business. •Individual contributions to the further development of the organization and its employees. •Statistics of awareness. •Number of contacts gained. •Attitude of knowledge sharing. •Efficiency & visibility on the market. •Employee satisfaction. •Re-use of information and/or experience.
  36. 36. International Oil Companies’ Adoption of KM Company Adoption Of KM Origins Of KM BP 1996 Organizational learning/best practices transfer in upstream Royal Dutch Shell 1995 Organizational learning initiatives by corporate planning (e.g. scenario analysis, cognitive maps) Chevron 1996 Best practices transfers & cost reduction in Chevron’s downstream businesses ExxonMobil 2003 In Exxon: application of IT to E&P. In Mobil, best practice transfer in downstream ConocoPhillips 1998 IT support for E&P Schlumberger 1997 IT applications to drilling Halliburton 1998 IT applications to drilling and seismic analysis Marathon Oil 1999 IT applications to exploration Murphy Oil 2000 IT applications to exploration BHP-Billiton 2000 KM uninitiated by IT dept. - but not adopted company-wide Paragon Engineering Services Inc. 1999 KM practices based upon groupware, intranet, project files, & other IT tools Source: Robert Grant, The Development of Knowledge Management in Oil and Gas Industry
  37. 37. Motives for the Adoption of KM Company Motives for Adopting KM BP Amoco Following radical organizational decentralization, KM viewed as mechanism for achieving lateral coordination Royal Dutch/Shell In Shell’s highly-decentralized multinational structure, KM was a natural complement to strategic planning and career management as an integrating mechanism. With poor profitability during early 1990s, Shell came under strong pressure to make more effective use of its dispersed talent ChevronTexaco Chevron’s adoption of KM driven by pressured for cost reduction during early 1990s. Resulted in strong interest in transfer of best practices ExxonMobil Mobil enthusiastic adoption of KM during the mid-1990s was driven primarily by its desire to improve efficiency in E&P and in refining through improved identification and transfer of best practices ConocoPhillips Expansion of exploration, especially in deep-water Gulf of Mexico, created need for data management systems to support huge amounts of data being generated and processed and link them to decision processes Schlumberger Impetus for KM came from need to link rapidly advancing data management with systems that linked human expertise in globally distributed operations Halliburton Marathon Oil Desire to improve upstream performance through more effective linking of people to people and people to information Source: Robert Grant, The Development of Knowledge Management in Oil and Gas Industry
  38. 38. Activity The management of a multinational company with operations in 40 countries spread across 5 continents embarked on Knowledge Management Initiative focused on overcoming geographical barrier in knowledge sharing by using alternative means of communication. List the performance indicators that can suffice in this programme. …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………
  39. 39. Dr Elijah Ezendu is Award-Winning Business Expert & Certified Management Consultant with expertise in Interim Management, Strategy, Competitive Intelligence, Transformation, Restructuring, Turnaround Management, Business Development, Marketing, Project & Cost Management, Leadership, HR, CSR, e- Business & Software Architecture. He had functioned as Founder, Initiative for Sustainable Business Equity; Chairman of Board, Charisma Broadcast Film Academy; Group Chief Operating Officer, Idova Group; CEO, Rubiini (UAE); Special Advisor, RTEAN; Director, MMNA Investments; Chair, Int’l Board of GCC Business Council (UAE); Senior Partner, Shevach Consulting; Chairman (Certification & Training), Coordinator (Board of Fellows), Lead Assessor & Governing Council Member, Institute of Management Consultants, Nigeria; Lead Resource, Centre for Competitive Intelligence Development; Lead Consultant/ Partner, JK Michaels; Turnaround Project Director, Consolidated Business Holdings Limited; Technical Director, Gestalt; Chief Operating Officer, Rohan Group; Executive Director (Various Roles), Fortuna, Gambia & Malta; Chief Advisor/ Partner, D & E; Vice Chairman of Board, Refined Shipping; Director of Programmes & Governing Council Member, Institute of Business Development, Nigeria; Member of TDD Committee, International Association of Software Architects, USA; Member of Strategic Planning and Implementation Committee, Chartered Institute of Personnel Management of Nigeria; Country Manager (Nigeria) & Adjunct Faculty (MBA Programme), Regent Business School, South Africa; Adjunct Faculty (MBA Programme), Ladoke Akintola University of Technology; Editor-in-Chief, Cost Management Journal; Council Member, Institute of Internal Auditors of Nigeria; Member, Board of Directors (Several Organizations). He holds Doctoral Degree in Management, Master of Business Administration and Fellow of Professional Institutes in North America, UK & Nigeria. He is Innovator of Corporate Investment Structure Based on Financials and Intangibles, for valuation highlighting intangible contributions of host communities and ecological environment: A model celebrated globally as remedy for unmitigated depreciation of ecological capital and developmental deprivation of host communities. He had served as Examiner to Professional Institutes and Universities. He had been a member of Guild of Soundtrack Producers of Nigeria. He's an author and extensively featured speaker.
  40. 40. Thank You