Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex

Where to Look for Knowledge
Management Success
Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., CISSP, CSSLP, PMP
Professor, San Diego State University
Editor in Chief International Journal of Knowledge
Management
Co-editor in Chief International Journal of Information
Systems for Crisis Response and Management
Copyright Foundation for Knowledge Management.com, LLC

A little About Me









At San Diego State University since 2001
20 year commercial nuclear power engineer prior
US Navy Nuclear Propulsion Officer prior
Over 150 articles, chapters, books, proceedings
Editor in Chief International Journal of Knowledge
Management
Co-editor in Chief International Journal of Information
Systems for Crisis Response and Management
Teaching Information Security, Systems Analysis and
Design, Decision Support, Knowledge Management
BA Chemistry and Physics, MBA, MS Software
Engineering, MS Telecommunications Management,
PhD Information Systems

Introduction
This presentation is part of the IJKM effort to
define the KM discipline
 We propose that for KM to be considered a
discipline we must be able to identify what leads
to KM success and define what is successful
KM
 Part of this project was to get some consensus
on what successful KM is
 We thought this would be relatively easy to do
but were surprised by reality (but guess we
shouldn’t be)


1/5/2007


Implementing KM
First we will discuss what it takes to have a
successful KM implementation
 We will look at two main topics:





KM Critical Success Factors
KM Success/Effectiveness Models

Critical Success Factors tell us what needs to
be present to be successful
 Success/Effectiveness models help us
understand:






How success factors relate to each other
The process of implementing KM
How to measure KM success


KM/KMS Critical Success Factors


Critical Success Factors are those factors that
have been found to have the most impact on
KM and are determinants of KM success






These success criteria were identified through a
number of studies using a variety of research
methods and overall looking at over 200 KM/KMS
projects
Success factors are presented in order of
importance as defined by the number of studies that
identified the success factor
Note that all are critical success factors

Critical Success Factors
A Knowledge Strategy that identifies users,
sources, processes, storage strategy, knowledge
and links to knowledge for the KMS
 Motivation and Commitment of users including
incentives and training
 Integrated Technical Infrastructure including
networks, databases/ repositories, computers,
software, KMS experts
 An organizational culture that supports learning
and the sharing and use of knowledge



 A common

enterprise wide knowledge
structure that is clearly articulated and
easily understood (an ontology)
 Senior Management support including
allocation of resources, leadership, and
providing training
 Learning Organization
 There is a clear goal and purpose for the
KMS

Measures are established to assess impact of
the KMS/knowledge use and to verify that the
right knowledge is captured
 Search, retrieval, & visualization functions of
the KMS support easy knowledge use
 Work processes are designed that incorporate
knowledge capture and use
 Security/protection of knowledge



Success/Effectiveness Models
 Success/Effectiveness

models attempt to
take critical success factors and
established theory and relate them in a
way that will explain why success occurs
 Will look at The Jennex Olfman KM
Success Model
 Adapted

the DeLone and McLean (1991,
2003) IS Success Model to KM
 Model is a recursive model which indicates
what has to be present for success to occur

Jennex/Olfman KMS Success Model


Discussion
 The

quality factors need to be
considered in the development of the KM
initiative and the associated KMS
 Once created, the KMS and knowledge
need to be used and/or re-used
 Success

is initially measured by adoption

and use
 Actual use was found to be a poor indicator
 Intent to Use is a better measure
Ease of Use
 Near Term Job Impact


Social Factors
Long Term Job Impact


Discussion
 Ultimate

success, though, is through KM
and knowledge having an impact on the
individual and the organization
 Defining impact has been nebulous or
left to the individual/organization to
define
 The next stage of the research was to
determine how to define and measure
“impact”.

Methodology
 Step

1 was to identify a definition of these
impacts through a definition of KM
success
 Generated exploratory survey using an
expert panel from 30 IJKM IRB members
 Used

a set of basic definitions

 Exploratory

survey had 103 responses:

 13

KM practitioners
 70 KM researchers
 20 others including students and academics
interested in KM

Methodology
First survey results were used to generate a
second survey proposing a definition of KM
success and a set of measures that can be
used to assess success
 Second survey had 194 responses:






16 KM practitioners
114 KM researchers
64 others including KM students and academics
interested in KM but not active KM researchers.


Exploratory Survey Findings


First survey results generated little consensus:








KM and KMS Success may not be the same (very
surprising finding to me as in my Churchmanian
view of KM and KMS I find them to be inseparable)
KM success is a combination of process and
outcome with objective and subjective measures
and getting the right knowledge to the right people
Use is not a good measure of success
Doers liked definitions that focused on firm
performance
Researchers (thinkers) do not seem to have a clear
idea of KM success and in many cases expressed
opinions that KM success cannot and should not be
defined

Second Survey Findings


Practitioners tended to like the suggestions






Lower agreement on Process measures was
misleading, they didn’t subtract anything, only
added
Leadership was a problem due to its focus on
supplying resources only

Researchers couldn’t agree on much




Several either agreed with the definition then hated
all the measures or hated the definition but liked the
measures
I think we all tend to have our own pet measures

Thoughts on Researcher Response
 Basically

researchers missed the point

 They

wanted perfect measures
 Focused on the complexity of the issue
 Used both to say the research shouldn’t be
done
 However,

that isn’t an acceptable answer

A

discipline must be able to define when it is
successful
 Managers expect to be able to define success
 Practitioners must be able to define success

Conclusion
After analyzing the response results and
comments the following final definition was
supported (basically the AQPC definition with
dimensions):
 KM success is a multidimensional concept. It is
defined by capturing the right knowledge, getting
the right knowledge to the right user, and using
this knowledge to improve organizational and/or
individual performance. KM success is measured
by means of the dimensions:







impact on business processes
impact on strategy
Leadership
knowledge content

Next Step Research


Survey was generated to test the definition







Items for KM success as well as the four dimensions
were generated using the literature
Used a 7 point Likert scale
Survey was tested using an expert panel with some
adjustments made

Survey was administered using surveymonkey




Respondents with KM initiative experience were
solicited using KM discussion forums, KM academic
lists, and personal contacts were sent emails soliciting
participation
Two follow up emails were sent to encourage
participation, data was collected for 3 months

Research Design
 Data

was analyzed by segregating
responses into two groups
 Group

one consisted of those reporting on a
successful project (6 and 7 on a 7 point
Likert scale)
 Group two was all other respondents
 Each

response was then analyzed to
determine if the dimension was met
 Three

methods used to determine if
dimensions were met

Research Design


Meeting the dimension determination methods:






Method 1 used the highest score for the associated
items (dimension was met if this score was greater
than 5)
Method 2 used the average of the scores for the
associated items (dimension was met if this score
was greater than 5)
Method 3 used the total number of associated items
met with an item score of 6 or 7 (dimension was met
if at least half the items had a score greater than 5)

t-tests were run between the two groups to
determine if they were significantly different
 The success group was then split into two
groups, the 7 score and the 6 score groups with
t-tests run to determine if they were significantly
different



Results: Respondent Demographics
Position

Overall
n=89

Successful
Project
n=57

Unsuccessful
Project n=32

KM
Practitioner
KM
Manager
Academic

20.2% (18)

KM
Researcher
KM Student

20.2% (18)

24.6%
(14)
31.6%
(18)
12.3%
(7)
22.8%
(13)
8.8%
(5)

12.5%
(4)
25.0%
(8)
37.5%
(12)
15.6%
(5)
9.4%
(3)

29.2% (26)
21.3% (19)

9.0%
(8)

Respondents by Position, nearly
a 50/50 split between academia
and practitioners
Experience
(years)

Successful
Project
n=57

Unsuccessf
ul Project
n=32

0-2

Respondents experience level
Almost 2/3s with over 6 years
experience

Overall
n=89

13.5%
(12)

14.0%
(8)

12.5%
(4)

3-5

22.5%
(20)

21.1%
(12)

25.0%
(8)

6-10

21.3%
(19)

21.1%
(12)

21.9%
(7)

>10

42.7%
(38)

43.9%
(25)

40.6%
(13)


Results (success/non-success)
Method
High Value
Method 1

Success
Group
n=57
3.4
(0.9909)

Average Value
Method 2

2.6
(1.3595)

Item Count
Method 3

2.5
(1.3379)

Total Items (25
possible)

13.4
(6.71091)

Nonsuccess
Group
n=32
2.7
(1.3102)
1.3
(1.2854)
1.4
(1.3664)
7.7
(5.0902)


T-test Results (success/nonsuccess, all differences
significant)
High Value
Method 1
Average Value
Method 2
Item Count
Method 3
Total Items (25
possible)

t51=2.61 p < 0.01
t64=4.26 p < 0.01
t60=3.46 p < 0.01
t79=4.57 p < 0.01


T-test Results (7 score/6 score,
all differences significant)
Method
High Value
Method 1

7 Group
n=16
3.8
(0.5439)

Average Value
Method 2

3.5
(1.0328)

Item Count
Method 3

3.4
(0.8851)

Total Items (25
possible)

17.4
(6.1207)

6 Group
n=41
3.2
(1.0701)
2.3
(1.3233)
2.3
(1.3398)
11.9
(6.3332)

t-test data
t51=2.9787
p<0,01
t35=3.7243
p<0,01
t41=2.9997
p<0,01
t28=3.0513
p<0,01


Results - Visual
3.5
3
2.5
2

# Dim ensions
Met

1.5
1
0.5
0
7

6

5

4

20
15
10

# Item s Met

5
0
7

6

5

4


Conclusions
 The

definition works

 The

more successful the project the more
likely dimensions and dimension items will be
met
 The survey items are good indicators of
measures that should be used to monitor for
KM initiative success


Dimension Items


Impact on Business Processes:












KM project improved the efficiency of the supported
processes
KM project reduced costs for the supported business
process
KM project had a positive return on investment for the
supported processes
KM project improved the effectiveness of the supported
processes.
KM project improved decision making in the supported
processes
KM project improved resource allocation in the
supported process

Dimension Items


Impact on KM Strategy













KM project resulted in changes to my organization’s KM goals
KM project resulted in the creation or modification of knowledge
related key performance indicators
KM project resulted in changes to the way my organization
assessed knowledge use in the organization
KM project resulted in changes in my organization’s incentives for
using and sharing knowledge
KM projected resulted in my organization increasing its
awareness/mapping of knowledge sources and users
KM projected resulted in increased resources for our KM systems
and repositories
KM project resulted in the creation of new or additional knowledge
capture processes

Dimension Items


Leadership/Management Support








KM project resulted in increased verbal/political
support for KM by top management
KM project resulted in increased financial support for
KM by top management
KM project resulted in increased awareness of KM by
top management
KM project resulted in increased use/reliance on KM by
top management


Dimension Items


Knowledge Content (5 overall items)















KM project resulted in increased knowledge content in our
repositories
KM project improved knowledge content quality of our repositories
KM project resulted in my increased use or intention to use of
knowledge content
KM project resulted in others increased use or intention to use of
knowledge content
KM project resulted in my increased identification of needed
knowledge content and knowledge content sources
KM project resulted in others increased identification of needed
knowledge content and knowledge content sources
KM project resulted in my increased demand and/or searching for
knowledge content
KM project resulted in others increased demand and/or searching
for knowledge content

Current Step
Our current activities are applying the KM
success measures to previous studies to see how
they would fare in explaining the observed results
 The example is a longitudinal study done on a
nuclear power plant where KM and knowledge
use were found to improve productivity






The initial study created a personal productivity model
to show where knowledge use improved individual
productivity
Organizational improvement was shown using external
measures such as capacity factor and NRC ratings


Applying the Measures
 Impact

on business processes used the
original measures from the personal
productivity model and the external
measures identified to indicate
organizational success
 5 of the 6 measures were found to be
met


 Impact

on KM strategy used a survey
on what drove engineers to add
knowledge content from the original
study as well as the impact from the
organization creating a KM position
during the study
 6 of the 7 measures were found to be
met

 Leadership/Management

Support used
the impact from the organization
creating a KM position during the study,
the support given by management for
doing the study, and the heightened
awareness of KM by the NRC during
the study
 All 4 measures were found to be met

 Knowledge

content used the survey on
what drove engineers to contribute
knowledge, the personal productivity
model that showed increased demand
for knowledge, and observations on
actual use and perceived benefit.
 All 5 measures were found to be met


Conclusion
 The

application of the KM success
measures to an existing longitudinal
study that had previously been found to
be successful with KM through other
means found that all but 2 measures
were met.
 The ultimate conclusion is that the set
of measures is a good fit

Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (10)

Ähnlich wie Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex

Ähnlich wie Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex (20)

Mehr von SIKM

Mehr von SIKM (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Where to Look for KM Success - Murray Jennex