6. knowledge management —workshop 余文德 中華大學營建管理研究所副教授...
TRANSCRIPT
6. Knowledge Management—Workshop
余文德中華大學營建管理研究所副教授營建管理博士、土木技師
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Acknowledgements
The material presented here was originally
prepared by:Robert J. Osterhoff (2003)
• www.osterhoff.com
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Agenda•Workshop Discussion: Participant Expectations
• Background to Knowledge Management
• Purpose and Outcome of KM Project
• KM Methodology:
Phase I – Design and Implementation
Phase II – Total Integration
Phase III – Return on Investment
• Workshop Discussion: Current State Assessment of KM Activities
• Workshop Discussion: Selection of Pilot Project
• Characteristics of Effective KM Implementation
• Workshop Discussion: Developing a Project Implementation Plan
• Workshop Discussion: Key Success Factors
• Next Steps: Implementation and Evaluation
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Workshop Discussion: Participant Expectations
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Background to Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
“The process through which organizations generate value from their intellectual and knowledge-based assets.”
-- Knowledge Management Research Center
Knowledge
Management
KM: A Definition
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
The term “knowledge assets” refers to the accumulated intellectual resources of your organization. It is the knowledge possessed by your organization and its employees (staff) in the form of information, ideas, learning, understanding, memory, insights, cognitive and technical skills, and capabilities. Employees (staff), software, patents, databases, documents, guides, policies and procedures, and technical drawings are repositories of an organization’s knowledge assets. Knowledge assets are held not only by an organization but resides within its customers (patients), suppliers, and partners as well.
-- 2003 Baldrige Criteria
Knowledge
Management
Knowledge Assets
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge assets are the “know how” that your organization has available to use, to invest, and to grow. Building and managing its knowledge assets are key components for your organization to create value for its stakeholders.
-- 2003 Baldrige Criteria
Knowledge
Management
Knowledge Assets
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
42%26%
20%12%
Employee Brains
Paper Documents
Sharable ElectronicKnowledge
Base
ElectronicDocuments
Source: Survey of 400 Executives by Delphi
Knowledge
Management
Where Organizational Knowledge Resides
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
5% 2%24%
17%52%
Personal Experience OTJ
Training
Structured Knowledge Base
for Sharing
Other Formal Training
Source: Survey of 400 Executives by Delphi
Knowledge
Management
Primary Means of Knowledge Transfer
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Data
Unorganized Numbers,
Words, Sounds, Images
Information Knowledge
Data Arranged / Processed
Into Meaningful
Patterns
Information Put Into
Productive Use, Made Actionable
Knowledge is Different from Data and Information
Source: E & Y
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
KM is Different from Information Management
Knowledge Management Information Management
Emphasizes Adding Actionable Value to Content by Filtering, Synthesizing, Interpreting, Adding Context
Balanced Focus on Technology and Culture/Work Practice
Requires Ongoing Human Inputs and Linkage to Worker Communities
Emphasizes Delivery and Accessibility of Content
Heavy Technology Focus
Assumes Information Capture can be Standardized and Automated
Source: E & Y
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Framing Knowledge Management. . . 10 Domains
Arthur Andersen
Chevron
Dow
Hughes
Kaiser
NSA
Pricewater.
Sequent
Skandia
TI
USAA Microsoft
E&Y
Teltec
British Pet.
Monsanto
Hoffman LR
Bechtel
Accenture
Booz AllenCapturing &
Reusing PastExperiences
Capturing &Reusing PastExperiences
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
Sharing Knowledge & Best Practices
Sharing Knowledge & Best Practices
Mapping Networksof Experts
Mapping Networksof Experts
HP
Building & Mining Customer Knowledge
Bases
Building & Mining Customer Knowledge
Bases
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Understanding & Measuring the Value of
Knowledge
Understanding & Measuring the Value of
Knowledge
Leveraging Intellectual Assets
Leveraging Intellectual Assets
Producing Knowledge as a
Product
Producing Knowledge as a
Product
Source: Xerox
Embedding Knowledge in Products, Services,
Processes
Embedding Knowledge in Products, Services,
Processes
Xerox
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Sequent
Our Focus
Arthur Andersen
Chevron
Dow
Hughes
Kaiser
NSA
Pricewater.
Skandia
TI
USAA Microsoft
E&Y
Teltec
British Pet.
Monsanto
Hoffman LR
Bechtel
Accenture
Booz AllenCapturing &
Reusing PastExperiences
Capturing &Reusing PastExperiences
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
Sharing Knowledge & Best Practices
Sharing Knowledge & Best Practices
Mapping Networksof Experts
Mapping Networksof Experts
HP
Building & Mining Customer Knowledge
Bases
Building & Mining Customer Knowledge
Bases
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Understanding & Measuring the Value of
Knowledge
Understanding & Measuring the Value of
Knowledge
Leveraging Intellectual Assets
Leveraging Intellectual Assets
Producing Knowledge as a
Product
Producing Knowledge as a
Product
Source: Xerox
Embedding Knowledge in Products, Services,
Processes
Embedding Knowledge in Products, Services,
Processes
Xerox
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
What? How?
ArthurAndersen
Chevron
Dow
Hughes
Kaiser
NSA
Pricewater.
Sequent
Skandia
TI
USAA Microsoft
E&Y
Teltec
British Pet.
Monsanto
Hoffman LR
Bechtel
Accenture
Booz AllenCapturing &
Reusing PastExperiences
Capturing &Reusing PastExperiences
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
SharingKnowledge & Best
Practices
SharingKnowledge & Best
Practices
Mapping Networksof Experts
Mapping Networksof Experts
HP
Building & MiningCustomer
Knowledge Bases
Building & MiningCustomer
Knowledge Bases
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Understanding &Measuring the Value
of Knowledge
Understanding &Measuring the Value
of Knowledge
LeveragingIntellectual
Assets
LeveragingIntellectual
Assets
ProducingKnowledge as a
Product
ProducingKnowledge as a
Product
Sources: Xerox
Embedding Knowledge in: Products, Services,
Processes
Embedding Knowledge in: Products, Services,
Processes
Xerox
Process and Tools
Learning
Communication
Measurements
Recognition and
Reward
World Class KM
Environment
Transition and
Behavior Manageme
nt
123
4 5 6
Translating Theory into Action
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Why KM: The Benefits
• Encourages innovation within a sharing environment
• Respects employee knowledge and therefore value of your people
• Creates processes which reduce redundancy and eliminates waste
• Creates value by better knowing your customers and their requirements
• Avoids solving the same problem twice
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Purpose and Outcome of KM
Project
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Purpose of KM Project
• Provides an understanding of the concept of Knowledge Management (“learn by doing”)
• Effectively translates theory into action
• Creates an environment to experiment (pilot)
• Delivers immediate value to your organization
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Criteria for Project Selection
• Contributes to organizational improvement
• Recognized as a need by your people
• Project fully supported by senior leadership of the organization
• Capable of implementation (driven by scope of project)
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Project Output
• At least one (1) deliverable identified that can contribute to improved results
• Deliverable is documented and supported by an Action Plan
• Project can be measured against established success factors
Clear measurements identified
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
KM Methodology: Phase I – Design and
Implementation
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
World Class KM Environment
Transition and Behavior
Management
Process and Tools
Learning
Communication
Measurements Recognition and Reward
KM Cycle of Implementation
“Desired State”
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Process and Tools
Measurements
3
Communication
2
World Class KM Environment
Transition and Behavior
Management
1
Learning
4 5
Recognition and Reward
6
KM Cycle of Implementation
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
ManagementTransition and
Behavior Management
1
• Two components to Step 1:
Transition Behavior Management
• Driven by Culture of Organization
1 2
Infrastructure to put a Plan in
place
Interventions to change behavior
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Transition
• Secure senior management support and participation
• Establish a team to create a KM core competency
• Ensure a means of implementation assessment
• Identify critical success factors for implementation
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Behavior Management
• Senior management serves as role models for KM
• Create an environment where employees can question existing methods of operation
• Encourage employees to “experiment” in new techniques
• Behaviors of KM match the culture
Alternative is to introduce interventions (coaching)
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Organizational Implications
• Rigid structure ~ hierarchy?
• Inflexible leadership?
• Open to change?
• Validate that your organization is ready for KM implementation
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management Communication
2
• Inform all employees of KM (what, why, when, how)
• Be clear in your definition
• Explain employee relevance
• Put in print, video, Intranet
• Include organizational model of KM
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Communication
• Media use is critical, but….
….Behaviors are the most effective communicator
• Reinforced
• Continuous
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management Process and Tools
3
• The core of Knowledge Management:
Internal sharing
IT tools
Communities of Practice (CoP)
Design and use of the Internet / Intranet
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Process and Tools• Internal Sharing:
Create the physical environment for the exchange of knowledge (facilities modification)
Creation of “Knowledge Network”
Sharing of “best practices”
• Linked to self-assessment
• “Open sharing” system
• Seminars and forums
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Process and Tools
Source: APQC
Self Service
Facilitated Transfer
Networks
Resources Required
Explicit
Tacit
Results
Best Practice Sharing
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
IT Tools
• Guided and supported by professional IT suppliers
MS Share Point
Smart KM
• ShareWare (Lotus Notes, NetMeeting)
• Data Mining
Knowledge of your customers
Use as sales/marketing tool
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
“In an organization, a community of practice is a group of people who care about a common set of issues, share and develop knowledge in that domain, and thus steward a competence critical to the success of the organization.”
-- The Communities of Practice Consortium
Knowledge
Management
Community of Practice: A Definition
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Communities are Different from Groups/Teams
Communities Workgroup / Teams
Emerges Through Interaction
Can be Detected and Supported
Shared Interests, Practice
Legitimate Peripheral Participation, Apprenticeship
Technology Supports Legitimate Access, Membership and Peripheral Awareness
Created to do Tasks
Can be Designed and Created
Shared Responsibilities, Plans
Team Participation and Leadership
Technology Supports the Execution of Cooperative Tasks
Source: E & Y
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Communities are Different from Groups/Teams
Communities Teams
Driven by deliverables• Shared goals and results• Value defined by charter• Value in result delivered
Defined by task• Interdependent tasks• Clear boundaries
Develop by workplan• Everyone contributes• Managed by goals & plan• Team leader or manager
Bound by commitment• Mutual accountability for subtasks• Trust based on explicit agreement• Sense of achievement
Source: The CoP Consortium
Driven by value• Shared domain of practice• Value discovered / evolves• Value in ongoing process
Defined by knowledge• Interdependent knowledge• Permeable boundaries
Develop through learning• Variable contributions • Managed by making connections• Coordinator with core group
Bound by identity• Mutual accountability for the
domain • Trust based on reciprocity• Sense of belonging
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
… spend time together doing, thinking, talking
… help each other solve problems
… share information, insight and advice
… create shared artifacts
• over time, they developover time, they develop a shared historya shared history
• a communal identity around a shared passion
• relationships, roles, and ways of interacting
• common knowledge, practices, and approaches
Members of a community of practice typically …
CoP: Typical Activities
Source: The CoP Consortium
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
The functional The functional organizationorganization
The team-basedThe team-basedorganizationorganization
The multimembershipThe multimembershiporganizationorganization
The market-orientedThe market-orientedorganizationorganization
Communities of practice weave the organization around competencies without reverting to functional structures.
Communities of practice weave the organization around competencies without reverting to functional structures.
CoP: An Evolution in Organizational Design
Source: The CoP Consortium
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
• Within business units and projects
• Across business units and projects
• At the boundaries of organizations
• Across distinct organizations
CoP: Organizational “Fit”
Source: The CoP Consortium
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
CoP: Pitfalls to Avoid
• An interim step is required (i.e. establishment of a team-based structure)
• Restrictive by management
• Working environment not ready
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Use of the Internet/Intranet
• Data base (mapping) of “experts”
• Inventory of best practices within the organization
What is incentive to populate data base?
What is incentive to use the stored knowledge?
How is it maintained?
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Process and Tools
• Process Documentation (mapping and flowcharting) essential:
How to “share” knowledge
How to become a member of a CoP
Guidelines for use of the Intranet
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management Learning
4
• Create an awareness of Knowledge Management concepts
• Integrate KM with current training programs
• Train “masters” of Knowledge Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Learning
• Formal training vs. “learning” Traditional classroom vs. virtual
• Create curricula pertinent to KM strategy of the organization
Concepts of KM that are “trainable”
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management Measurements
5
• In-process measurements vs. results
• Intranet “hits” growth
• Number of CoP’s as % of population
• Best practices adapted
• Staff turnover
• Revenue growth
• Staff morale
• Customer loyalty
• Return on Assets
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Business Objectives: Leverage expertise and experience Leverage lessons learned Increase productivity and efficiency Improve quality and speed of technical decisions about product development Reduce product development/maintenance lifecycle Reduce total ownership cost Improve business intelligence Increase customer satisfaction Improve management of risk Leverage capabilities and expertise of suppliers and partners (and customers) Foster innovation/improve product innovation
KM Initiatives System Measures Output Measures Outcome Measures Communities of Practice Real time collaboration
Latency (response times) Number of downloads Number of hits to the site Dwell time per page or section Usability survey Frequency of use Navigation path analysis Number of help desk calls Number of users Frequency of use Percentage of total employees using
system Number of contributions Frequency of update Ratio of the number of members to the
number of contributors (conversion rate)
Number of members
Usefulness survey Anecdotes Attrition rate for members
versus non-members Number of “apprentices”
mentored by experienced colleagues
Savings and/or improvement in organizational quality and efficiency
Captured organizational memory Reduced attrition rate for community
members
Source: U.S. Dept. of the Navy Study
Measurements
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
KM Initiatives System Measures Output Measures Outcome Measures Special Interest Group Common Measures
Number of contributions Frequency of update Ratio of the number of members to the
number of contributors (conversion rate)
Number of members
Common Measures Attrition rate for members
versus non-members Number of “apprentices”
mentored by experienced colleagues
Savings and/or improvement in organizational quality and efficiency
Captured organizational memory Reduced attrition rate for community
members
Expertise Directory Common Measures Number of contributions Frequency of update
Common Measures Time to find relevant expert
Savings and/or improvement in organizational quality and efficiency
Lessons Learned Database Lessons about “doing the work”
Common Measures Number of contributions Frequency of update
Common Measures Time to find relevant expert
Savings and/or improvement in organizational quality and efficiency
Portal Common Measures Searching precision and recall Usage of personalization features Frequency of general search versus use
of predefined links Number of users with the portal as
their “home page”
Common Measures Printed communications cost
(reduced costs for printed newsletters)
Time spent “gathering” information
Reduced time to find relevant information
Reduced training time or learning curve (if portal is used to integrate multiple separate systems)
Collaborative Systems For design Including shared work repositories
Common Measures Network reliability/quality of service Number of patents/trademarks
produced Number of articles written plus
number of conference presentations/employee
Common Measures Number of projects
collaborated on Time lost due to program
delays Number of new products
developed Value of sales from products
created in the last 3-5 years Average learning
curve/employee Proposal response times Proposal “win” rates
Reduced cost of product development, acquisition and/or maintenance
Reduction in the number of program delays
Faster response to proposals Reduced learning curve for new
employees
Source: U.S. Dept. of the Navy Study
Measurements
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Example of a Flow Framework for a Community of Practice
Source: U.S. Dept. of the Navy Study
Measurements
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management Recognition and Reward
6
• Develop an incentive for sharing knowledge
• Develop a disincentive for hoarding knowledge
• Emphasize sharing in organizational meetings and forums
• Recognize behaviors and activities
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Recognition and Reward
• Sharing forums (booths)
• Discussion forums for use and re-use of knowledge
• Integrated as part of normal recognition and reward scheme
• Recognize behaviors and activities
• Customer, supplier, partner events
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
KM Methodology: Phase II – Total
Integration
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
• Internal assessment system reflects knowledge management
• Multiple knowledge management projects in place and successful
• There is an organized forum for sharing knowledge
• A high level award/recognition includes knowledge management accomplishments
Characteristics of Total Integration
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
• Performance appraisal evaluation includes knowledge management accomplishments
• Highly visible knowledge management projects aggressively communicated
• Tools and technology in support of knowledge sharing appropriately displayed and supported by collateral material
• Studies on knowledge management pervasively shared with others
Characteristics of Total Integration
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
• Pay and recognition systems reflect Knowledge Management
• Customer events, executive keynote speeches, customer advertising and public relations support Knowledge Management
Characteristics of Total Integration
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
KM Methodology: Phase III – Return on
Investment(Payback)
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
KM Return on Investment
• Difficult to quantify
• Longer term payback horizon
• Certain trust level needed by management
• …but the impact is experienced by customers, employees and stakeholders
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
low
Knowledge Sharing Intensity
Cos
ts
high
Investments in Knowledge Management
low
Knowledge Sharing Intensity
Cos
ts
high
Costs Incurred Because
Knowledge is Not Shared
low
Knowledge Sharing Intensity
Cos
ts
high
o
AA
BB
CCA. Investments are required to achieve higher
levels of Knowledge Management effectiveness and pervasiveness.
B. As Knowledge Management intensity and effectiveness increases, costs incurred due to lack of Knowledge Management are reduced.
C. An optimal investment in Knowledge Management can yield significant benefits in reduced “Total Costs” and improved results.
Examples of Investments• Communications • Learning Costs• K.S. Specialists• Systems Enhancements• Recognition Costs• Time To Share
Examples of These Costs• Lost Market Opportunity• Redo / Reinvent• Customer Dissatisfaction• Lost Productivity• Unsolved Problems• Reduced Customer Value
Cost of Sharing Cost of Not Sharing
o
Cost and Benefits of Effective Knowledge Sharing
Source: Xerox
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Three Step Process to Improve Knowledge Management
11 Create an understanding and recognition that Knowledge Sharing investments are currently suboptimal and that an increase in Knowledge Sharing intensity will yield significant reductions in the “Costs Associated with Not Sharing Knowledge” (e.g., Reduced Customer Value, Lost Market Opportunity, Redo, Reinvention, Poor Business Results).
low
Knowledge Sharing Intensity
Cos
ts
high
o
Cost of SharingCost of NotSharing
low
Knowledge Sharing Intensity
high
o
Cost of SharingCost of NotSharing
22 Increase resources and investments in Knowledge Sharing (e.g., dedicated resources, communications, system enhancements, etc.) to significantly reduce the “Costs Associated with Not Sharing Knowledge” and therefore reduce the “Total Cost” and significantly improve results.
33 Find ways to reduce the cost associated with Sharing Knowledge to achieve higher levels of Knowledge Sharing at lower costs. This creates a new optimum point and lower the “Total Cost” even further. As the “Costs Associated with Not Sharing” increase with market demands and advances in competition, moving to higher levels of Knowledge Sharing becomes increasingly critical.
low
Knowledge Sharing Intensity
high
Cost of SharingC
ost of Not S
haringo
Source: Xerox
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Workshop Discussion: Current State Assessment
of KM Activities
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Workshop Instructions
1.Based on the background lecture of Knowledge Management, list your organization’s activities that could be classified under the definition of KM, if any.
2.Were any of these KM activities successful? Why or why not?
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Workshop Discussion: Selection of Pilot Project
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Project Selection Guidelines
• First priority: Current KM activities
• Determine scope of project:
Technology and/or cultural change
Budgetary constraints
Employee/staff engagement
Time limitations
Expanded participation (suppliers, etc.)
• Assess your process capability
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
“Is there something missing from the
Domains listing that could be a potential
project?”
ArthurAndersen
Chevron
Dow
Hughes
Kaiser
NSA
Price Waterhouse
Sequent
Skandia
TI
USAA Microsoft
E&Y
Teltec
British Pet.
Monsanto
Hoffman LR
Bechtel
Accenture
Booz AllenCapturing &
Reusing PastExperiences
Capturing &Reusing PastExperiences
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
InstillingResponsibility for Knowledge Sharing
SharingKnowledge & Best
Practices
SharingKnowledge & Best
Practices
Mapping Networksof Experts
Mapping Networksof Experts
HP
Building & MiningCustomer
Knowledge Bases
Building & MiningCustomer
Knowledge Bases
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Driving KnowledgeGeneration for
Innovation
Understanding &Measuring the Value
of Knowledge
Understanding &Measuring the Value
of Knowledge
LeveragingIntellectual
Assets
LeveragingIntellectual
Assets
ProducingKnowledge as a
Product
ProducingKnowledge as a
Product
Sources: Xerox
Embedding Knowledge in: Products, Services,
Processes
Embedding Knowledge in: Products, Services,
Processes
Xerox
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Workshop Discussion: Developing a Project Implementation Plan
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
• Be as specific as possible
• Don’t assume actions…document them!
• Ensure a method of inspection is in place
Monthly review of activities and milestones
Accountability challenged
Discipline towards implementation
Implementation Plan Guidelines
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Activity Means to Achieve Timeline Resources Responsibility Status
What do you expect to accomplish?
Implementation Plan Guidelines
What specific actions, listed in detail, must you complete?
What are your key milestones for completion, by date?
What man- power, IT, other investment is required?
Who, by name, is accountable for milestone success?
What in-process assessment steps are being taken?
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Key Success Factors
• Is the project results-driven?
• Does the outcome produce real value for the enterprise?
• Can the project be measured?
• Do you have support and acceptance of management?
• Is the project relevant to your enterprise?
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Workshop Discussion: Key Success Factors
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Workshop Instructions
1.Using the activities you identified in your Action Plan, what are your primary characteristics of a successful KM implementation?
2.What are the barriers to successful implementation? How can these barriers be overcome?
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Knowledge Management Resources
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Resources
• Internet
• Books The Knowledge Creating Company (Nonaka and Takeuchi)
The Social Life of Information (Brown and Duguid)
Smart Business (Botkin)
Intellectual Capital (Stewart)
If Only We Knew What We Know (O’Dell and Grayson)
• Periodicals (magazines and white papers)
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Next Steps: Implementation and
Evaluation
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
• Implementation
Follow the Action Plan!
Perseverance
• Evaluation
Review milestone progress monthly
Solicit feedback from KM consultant
Next Steps
© 2003 Robert J. Osterhoff
Knowledge
Management
Thank You!