BUS5KMS Tutorial 10 for week 11 KM measurement and maturity Read these: • Bose, R. (2004). Knowledge management metrics. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(6), 457-468. • Ehms, K., & Langen, M. (2002). Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with KMMM Retrieved 18 October, 2009 • APQC’s Levels of Knowledge Management Maturity (2010) Hubert, C., and Lemons, D. , American Productivity and Quality Centre Read the articles above and the BLOG excerpt below 1. discuss the difference between measurement and maturity 2. does KM need a maturity model? For your hand written review of 200 words to be submitted individually today and Friday at 5:00 PM using the link provided on the LMS, please answer all two questions. Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? http://www.durantlaw.info/Does+Knowledge+Management+Need+A+Maturity+Model Just of late I've encountered a number of capability maturity models aimed at knowledge management. Capability maturity models have been around for a while in other disciplines, most notably in software development projects. Almost all of the models owe their origins to the collaboration between the US Department of Defense and the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University. The Capability Maturity Model was originally a tool to assess processes - in particular the processes of a contracted third party. In that sense its intent was to reduce risk. Capability models now abound and even have been internationally standardised as part of ISO 15504 . ISO 15504 sets six levels of capability maturity as follows: • Level 5 - Optimising Process, • Level 4 - Predictable Process, • Level 3 - Established Process, • Level 2 - Managed Process, • Level 1 - Performed Process, and • Level 0 - Incomplete Process. Notice anything here? It's all about process. Putting aside definitional issues, last time I looked knowledge management was about people, process, technology, and content. Capability maturity models are about process, so it begs the question "Does knowledge management really need a maturity model"? Well perhaps I put the definitional issue to one side too early. Capability models measure, or at least attempt to measure, maturity. But how can we measure something if we can't agree on what that something is! And what do we actually want to measure?I've blogged about this dilemma before. Coming up with measures for a knowledge management initiative is particularly difficult. It's too easy to report activity rates - how many children had a bath (to use an analogy) - because these are tangible and relatively easy to measure. Measuring and reporting the true impact of the initiative on the organisation - had a bath and came out clean – is much more difficult; if only because the impact will be variable, and not everyone will agree the strength of the outcome. Will a formal knowledge management maturity model help us? Six months into the development of TARDIS we were subjected to Manfred Langen's 2004 Knowledge Management Maturity Model™ . This model has two parts - an analysis model and a development model. In 2004 Langen's maturity levels had the following definitions: • ‘Initial means that information and its processes are not consciously controlled. Success in information management activities are a stroke of luck. • Repeatable means that the importance of information management is recognised and pilot projects on information exist. • Defined means there are stable and practised activities, which effectively support the information management of the organisation. These activities are integrated into day to day work and the technical systems enabling this are maintained. • Managed means there are common organisation wide strategies and standards, with regularly measured indicators of effectiveness and efficiency of information management. The activities are secured in the long term by organisation wide roles and compatible sociotechnical systems. • Optimising means the organisation has developed the ability to adapt flexibly in order to meet new requirements in information management without dropping a maturity level, even in the case of large external or internal changes.' See the problem? This time instead of measuring knowledge management we were being assessed against information management! Now jump forward to June 2008 and have a look at the Suresh and Mahesh model . Their maturity levels describe the position of knowledge management within an organisation, beginning with no knowledge management and finishing with a stable implementation. At least they use the words "knowledge management", but just what they are measuring is another thing all together. And now look at APQC's knowledge management maturity model. They say their maturity model: "provides a roadmap for moving from immature, inconsistent knowledge management activities to mature, disciplined approaches aligned to strategic business imperatives. The KMMM is integrated with APQC's Stages of Implementation™ so that implementation at each stage provides a foundation of success and a launching pad to the next stage." Again they use the words "knowledge management", but it's light on the how. And again I just don't know what they are actually measuring - mainly processes it seems. Until we have an agreed definition of just what "knowledge management" is, these generic frameworks provide at best some guides to how you might measure your initiative. They certainly don't provide the means for external bench-marking, and arguably as a knowledge management initiative matures and evolves they don't provide internal benchmarks - at least that's my TARDIS experience. Call me a cynic but I don't think knowledge management as a discipline needs a maturity model just yet. Definitions and what we are measuring matter, and none of these tools solve that impasse. Use them with extreme caution. Regards, GrahamRe: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Ian Fry on Mon, 28/07/2008 - 09:38. I don't have a problem with a CMM-KM concentrating on the processes. It is my position (which has drawn some criticism) is that the debates on a definition of KM, and whether it is alive, dead, or never existed, are very much secondary to the question - "How well are you doing the processes?" Those processes being the elements of KM - Communities of Practice - Collaboration - Knowledge Processing etc, whatever else you decide is KM for you. Having a software background, and being in on the CMM from early days, I have no problem measuring these processes in a CMM framework, and accepting that as a meaningful measure of how well I am doing KM. Re: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Mon, 28/07/2008 - 18:36. Hullo Ian - thanks for the comment. The TARDIS solution alluded to below actually concentrated on processes, with a huge emphasis on discipline in all meanings of the word. That said lets understand what processes we are measuring, and for that matter what we are trying to measure. • How do you measure collaboration? What is the measure? • How do you measure knowledge processing? For that matter what is it? • How do you measure communities of practice? What is the KPI? These are difficult questions, and I suggest one size does not fit all. Pat Byrne and I tried to develop a model which we called the KLOM (Knowledge Level of Maturity) - a KM MM (you can find a paper on it at the Holistech site ). We didn't meet much success, despite a willing environment to test it in. It all comes down to shared understanding and common meaning - something we constantly struggled with, and we don't have in the KM discipline. Regards Graham Re: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Ian Fry on Sun, 03/08/2008 - 14:11. "Knowledge Processing" - I used this term in deference to Joe Firestone, as we much use their terms or the gurus cannot understand it. When I first came to KM (from IT and AI) this is what I thought KM was all about. And I had a number of clients who needed this approach. It has gathered a lot around it (in my mind) but let me give you a brief example. Let us suppose, as an exercise, that Malcolm Turnbull has replaced Brendan Nelson, and the opposition has a new Climate Change policy. The news sites will show this, and there is a trail of past stories (either on the Climate Change, or Leader thread). But a Google searcher will/may see one of those previous items. So, do you mark up that item to indicate "WAS TRUE BUT IS NOT NOW"? If the site you are supporting is doing things like Wikis on a subscription basis, then your Professional Indemnity Insurance may be at risk, irrespective of disclaimers. Obviously, being able to answer "Are there any inconsistencies in the knowledgebase" is applicable in applications like Litigation Support. But then it goes further. There is an assembled body of knowledge in a group, both explicit and tacit, the techniques above may help the explicit, but you will need some surveymechanism to assess the tacit. Yes, I am talking about Knowledge Managers setting a Knowledge Exam - who sets the questions, who marks it, and what is "correct"??? Anyway, I beleive I have proof of concept prototype of an Ontology based approach to support this. My issue is to scale it up and prove it. Re: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Ian Fry on Fri, 01/08/2008 - 11:37. The KPIs will change with the level of maturity, and what you are trying to do. If we take COP as a sample, at the start you may want to be promoting it so you would construct measures like # COP, Membership, Activity levels # Informal or Formal Interchanges NOT supported by COP principles and assistance, as you move on/up the ladder more qualitative measures would evolve like - Is the COP the automatic source of choice after immediately available references, and of course my hobby horse - How many people OUTSIDE the group/organisation are in the COP. - What value-adds came out of each COP, rather than from direct business units So, I agree that one size does not fit all. What I do hold is that you do/ can / should measure it; to suit your needs; and that KM processes fit a "Maturity Model" concept in my mind: rather than a QA model or somesuch. Re: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Sun, 10/08/2008 - 17:25. Ian, Thanks for your comments and please accept my apologies for such a tardy response - I'm simply overwhelmed with work pressures. I suggest membership is a "how many children had a bath" measure. It says nothing about quality of contribution. actKM, which claims to be a community of practice (I think it is a community of interest) allegedly has well over 500 members, yet there are less than 12 regular contributors. So on membership you might give it one score, but on contribution you would have to give it a very different score. I also know there are many lurkers and quite a bit of back-channel traffic, but how does this help the collective? actKM might be an example of a value-add outside of the business unit, but how will you know, and how will you measure the impact? Your knowledge exam concept is interesting, but I think problematic. Who arbitrates the decision? I am reminded of the situation I found myself in whilst in Rwanda immediately after the genocide. Psychologists were sent to debrief us, but who was supposed to debrief the psychologists? In this case who decides that something actually is true and represents knowledge - the collective? I remain unconvinced of either the need or the utility of a generic knowledge management maturity model. Regards GrahamRe: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Pat Byrne on Thu, 17/07/2008 - 17:10. Hi Graham, you know my thoughts on KM and the KM world already. One of the reasons I believe that KM doesn’t need a maturity model is because it isn’t a discipline in its own right. From my understanding, MMs came from Carnegie-Melon University around the software discipline – the CMMI for example. Now software development is something you specifically do to develop a product or service say …. in this case developing software. Hence being able to refine that process and to get better and better at it, is something an organisation does, as software development is its core business or output. The CMMI actually contains some KM stuff by the way. KM though – isn’t core business or output for many organisations (perhaps libraries). It is generally something else. Managing information/knowledge may be something the organisation needs to do, but only as an enabler. So for example, if I was a trench digger. Getting better at digging trenches is what I should aim for hence a trench digging MM might be useful. But a KM MM to help me dig trenches ….. nuh …simply not interested. Having said that, managing information/knowledge on soil types and clay content in the areas that I work would be useful. But I don’t need a MM to help do that. It is a bit like saying I need a Money MM for my cash flow in a business. When in fact cash flow is just a key enabler for me to dig trenches. A far more important one than KM actually …not to devalue the knowledge required to do business in the first instance. That doesn’t mean you can’t get an accountant in to go over your cash flow issues. Just as you can get an IM/KM person in to look at your information/knowledge management practices….but both are only in the context of your digging trenches business. I believe it comes down to the fact that KM is never going to be a discipline/vocation/profession in its own right because KM is only an enabler in the context of your core business. Hence a KM MM …I doubt it. But having said all of that…perhaps KM might find how accountants do business useful …it isn’t a bad model and extends to many functions of a business …but the KM world will have to get over the idea that standards are simply not applicable to KM …coz it’s different…. :-) ….in fact dare I say it …but having IM/KM consultants as part of an accountancy firm is probably a really good match. cheers Pat Re: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Thu, 17/07/2008 - 20:19. Hi Pat. Thanks for an interesting comment and the examples. I agree knowledge management, like network analysis, is trans-disciplinary - that's what attracts me to them! I hadn't thought about this quality in the context of a maturity model, but I think you are onto something. There's a bit of literature around on the IM/KM accounting link. In fact there is an accounting firm in Brisbane that even has IM/KM "arm", although I can't remember their name just at the moment. Best Regards, GrahamRe: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Patrick Lambe on Mon, 14/07/2008 - 12:31. One of the problems I have found in trying to apply maturity models to KM is that KM can span a wide range of activity of different types. Different activities are often at different stages in the MM and averaging it all out doesn't really work (you lose the sense of what's really going on). Some people are always going to be just getting started. Re: Does Knowledge Management Need A Maturity Model? Submitted by Graham Durant-Law on Mon, 14/07/2008 - 15:47. Thanks for the insight Patrick - I agree. One of the problems we had in TARDIS was an annual 50% turnover of staff. Combine this with an evolving/emerging system and then try and apply a maturity model - it just doesn't work. Regards Graham