Mapping knowledge capital

1. Mapping knowledge capital Origins in information audits, a long established concept in information management These in turn derive from information resource mapping, a key activity in information resource management, first systematised by Burk and Horton in 1988 Other mapping approaches (e.g. Horn, 1969) are also pertinent

2. What makes KM different? Two things make KM different from IM: 1. the inclusion of interpersonal knowledge, or, as Skyrme puts it, �people knowledge� in addition to �object knowledge� 2. the shift from an internal perspective to an external one, that recognises multiple �opportunities for revenue generation� from KM activities For example: Sharing best practice (internal focus) is exploited as a best practice database (external focus) Expertise directory (internal focus) is exploited as a consultancy team (external focus) Customer knowledge (internal focus) is exploited in a customer profile database (external focus)

3. Tacit knowledge Knowledge that is not externally stored and does not have to be accessed Know how, who, when, where, why Intuition, trust, empathy, savoir faire�.. Expertise�.

4. Tacit Knowledge A critical component of knowledge management Distinguishes KM from earlier process models Distinguishes KM from the �organisation of knowledge� � ontologies, catalogues, classification systems�.

5. The tacit knowledge challenge�. Can tacit knowledge be managed? Can tacit knowledge be treated as an asset, if at all? Can it be observed and mapped? How does it intersect with explicit knowledge?

6. How do tacit and explicit knowledge intersect? SECI Four dimensions Four spaces where tacit and explicit meet A spiral of interaction A generalised process model

7. Mapping tacit knowledge Philippe Baumard: Tacit knowledge in organizations. London: Sage, 1999 Taxonomy: episteme (formal knowledge), techne (craft knowledge), phronesis (practical wisdom), metis (cunning) Working examples of �tacit knowledge maps� � empirical studies of organisations in crisis

8. Specific knowledge process maps Identify valuable organisational knowledge assets (skills and abilities of staff - obvious, latent or hidden) using representation and mapping techniques Examine existing processes, systems and resources Reconfigure systems and resources ? identification of existing conceptual links, form new links

9. BPR � a reminder�.. BPR = redesign process structures to: save costs save time by stream-lining processes (limiting the number of departments/people involved in a single process) removing non-value adding activities identifying where systems support is inadequate

10. Why do knowledge process mapping? Knowledge Management Framework (Scheer et al, 1998) recognises links and dependencies between business processes and KM advocates an integrated approach combining the advantages of KM and BPR argues that documenting knowledge processes should dovetail into analysis and modelling of business processes involved in BPR

11. Twofold objectives� Knowledge Management Framework architecture works at two levels: formal modelling e.g mapping and analysing knowledge processing management objectives: e.g. operation, control, monitoring and improvement of knowledge processes

12. Knowledge Process Mapping Products Knowledge structure diagrams - where information is held Knowledge maps - competencies of staff, departments and the organisation as a whole Business process models showing knowledge requirements and knowledge creation, i.e. knowledge-extended business process models

13. Knowledge Process Mapping Outcomes Outcome: aligning knowledge with evolving processes: facilitation of knowledge process redesign mapping of knowledge to implementation of change in (a) knowledge activity and (b) IT systems

14. Knowledge Asset Roadmaps Kingston and Macintosh (1999) argue that knowledge assets need to be represented in a manner which is: accurate complete comprehensible They have developed a format for representing �asset road maps� that captures details of knowledge types to be managed along a number of dimensions � who, where, what, why, when�.

15. Limitations of Knowledge Process Mapping Internal resources assume too much importance; external factors are ignored Access to data does not mean data will be used well Process driven behaviour inhibits experimentation, innovation and creativity Because tacit information is difficult to map it is often ignored Knowledge audit initiatives become more important than the knowledge itself

16. Further limitations�. The �process� approach does not address the real barriers to effective KM: studies show that culture is the biggest barrier to knowledge transfer (Leidner, 1998, p.10) Treating knowledge as �stock� is myopic (Fahey & Prusak, 1998, p. 267) Where do the boundaries of the knowledge audit lie? With the project? With the network? What about external knowledge?

17. Some extensions to the process approach� Skyrme has proposed an approach that may support auditing of knowledge to achieve results outside the organisation � this is mapping knowledge as a �driver�, not simply a �resource� Alternatively, Kaplan and Norton�s �Balanced Scorecard� may be deployed in KM audit work Or an in-house approach may be derived

18. External knowledge markets �K-business� = �an online business that capitalizes on an organization�s knowledge and exploits the Internet as a means of marketing and delivering it� A practitioner oriented approach See http://www.skyrme.com

19. Developing successful portfolios �Object knowledge� and �people knowledge� A characteristic of k-business is the move from documents to �blocks� and these can be managed systematically You can use approaches such as Horn�s Information Mapping, where a limited number of block types are specified (facts, principles, processes, concepts) and practical guidelines provided for creating each type. In addition, you may choose to develop features that �add richness and usefulness to information� These may result in profitable knowledge hybrids such as intelligent publications and e-learning platforms.

20. Auditing the knowledge in your business model Does it leverage other existing revenue streams? Does it minimize cost/increase efficiency? How easy and costly is it to scale by 10, by 100, by 1000? Are there appropriate incentives for others in the customer�s knowledge value system? What are the business risks? Are they limited? How uncertain is the outcome? What stops it becoming sustainable in the medium or long term? How novel is it for consumers? Does it increase your customer knowledge? Does it increase your customer�s knowledge? Does the model increase your own knowledge and intellectual capital at minimum cost?

21. KM auditing with the Balanced Scorecard Managers can audit knowledge in several areas simultaneously Four basic questions: What do we need to know about how our customers see us? - customer perspective What do we need to know to make us excel? - internal perspective What knowledge do we need to continue to improve and create value? - innovation perspective What do we need to know about shareholders perceptions? - financial perspective

22. Local measures For cycle time, quality, productivity and cost, managers must devise knowledge measures that work at local levels, as much of this action takes place at the department and desktop levels This linkage ensure that employees at lower levels have clear targets for actions, decisions, and improvement activities that will contribute to the company's overall mission An KM system that allows knowledge to be shared and exploited in a timely fashion is essential Innovation: targets keep changing

23. Financial measures Knowledge management must prove its value in terms of profitability, growth, shareholder value If improved performance fails to be reflected in the bottom line, do a knowledge audit and address the gaps Challenge: to make explicit linkage between KM, operations and finance: Strategy, not control, is at the center: Senior managers know what the end result should be, but they cannot tell employees exactly how to achieve that result, if only because the conditions in which employees operate are constantly changing

24. Further reading�. Baumard, P. (1999) Tacit knowledge in organizations. London: Sage. Burk,C. F. and Horton, FW (1988) InfoMap: A Complete Guide to Discovering information resources, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Davenport, T., Jarvenpaa, S., & Beers, M. (1996). Improving knowledge and work processes. Sloan Management Review, Summer, 53-65. Fahey, L. & Prusak, L. (1998). The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management. California Management Review, 40(3), 265-275. Kaplan, M. and Norton, J. (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: Measures That Drive Performance HBR January � February. Kingston, J., & Macintosh, A. (1999). A multi-perspective modelling of organizational memory: analysis and application. Unpublished paper. University of Edinburgh. Skyrme, D. J. Capitalizing on knowledge: from e-business to k-business. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 2001