The document discusses knowledge management strategies for public health departments. It defines knowledge management as enabling organizations to systematically capture, create, store, share, and apply knowledge to better achieve objectives. Communities of practice are proposed as a way to strengthen capabilities for producing and applying relevant knowledge through direct engagement with stakeholders. Challenges include building trust among participants and ensuring political buy-in and adequate resources for knowledge management activities.

1. Knowledge Management
Department Day 2012
Public Health Department
David Hercot, Maria Paola Bertone &
Bruno Meessen*

2. Knowledge
“is not
a static embedded capability or stable disposition of
actors,
but rather
an ongoing social accomplishment, constituted
and reconstituted as actors engage the world of
practice”
Orlikowski (2002)
2

3. Evidence/ Tacit/implicit
research knowledge
Know “how” KNOWLEGDE
Appropriate Acceptability/
skills at local legitimacy of
level knowledge

4. Knowledge Management Strategies (KM)
“enabling individuals, teams and entire
organizations to collectively and systematically
capture, create, store, share and apply
knowledge, to better achieve their objectives”
Young (2008)
4

5. K value chain

6. Sharing
Knowledge
6

7. ISNT’IT THE JOB OF WHO ?
7

8. Ecological Niches in GH
Policy
Need to bring these
Practice Research
actors together
International
Actors

9. re-think
audience
interface
publishing
support
9

10. Ways of “sharing Knowledge”
• Push
• Pull generation
• Interactions
10

11. Research outputs
• Deliverables
• Policy Briefs
• Academic Conference Presentation
• Peer reviewed papers
• Press Release
11

12. Do you consider
• Workshop with supposed implementers
• One pager (25-3-1)
• Blog post
• Mailing/Tweet/Facebook/Linkedin
• Contributing to discussions
12

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. 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. Why COPs
“Strengthening capabilities for producing and
applying knowledge through direct engagement
with affected populations and decision-makers
provides a fertile basis for consolidating capacities
to act on a larger scale. This can facilitate the
capturing of benefits from the “top down” (in
consolidating institutional commitments) and the
“bottom up” (to achieve local results).”
Spiegel 2011 BMC IH & HR
15

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. Community of Practice
Three key dimensions define a CoP
• Domain of interest,
• Community of participating people and
• Practice of sharing knowledge
(Wenger et al, 2002)
17

18. The Galaxy of a CoP
transactional
outsiders lurkers
peripheral
Expert-to-
occasional
apprentice
interactions
experts
alumni
active
beginners
Peer-to-peer core group
leaders
interactions
coordinator
sponsors
18

19. Outline
• Concepts
• How do we do it?
• Key Performance Indicators – an illustration
• Brainstorming
19

20. Communities of Practice
Launched Members ggle (other)
PBF Feb 2010 594
EBPB Mar 2008 113 (64)
Fin Access Mar 2011
HSD Feb 2012 27 (73)
EV4GH (?) Feb 2010 127 (214)
20

21. How do we connect?
Google Website
Group
Wiki pages
Telephone
e-mail
Skype Dropbox
Web
Facebook
Conferencing
(WeBex)
Face-to-face
21

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. 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. More Examples of KM
• Push
– Mailings
– Conference Teaching
• Pull generation
– Commenting
– SEO optimisation
• Interaction
– Workshops
– groups
24

25. CONCLUSIONS
25

26. Opportunities of KM
• Generation of new Knowledge
• Increase relevance of Knowledge chain
• Increase our relevance
• Reducing carbon footprint, jetlag
26

27. Challenges of KM activities
• The right domain
• Adequate platform(s) -> New expertise
• Online is not enough, F2F
• Resources (time and money)
27

28. Outline
• Concepts
• How do we do it?
• Key Performance Indicators – an illustration
• Brainstorming
28

29. KEY PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS
29

30. 30

31. Outline
• Concepts
• How do we do it?
• Key Performance Indicators – an illustration
• Brainstorming
31

32. BRAINSTORMING
32

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. Personal Notes from
discussion during presentation
Incomplete, subjective, anonymised,
unsorted and uncensored
34

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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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