On knowledge management measurement

It’s a fact of life that senior management nearly always love to see facts and figures. Facts and figures can be concise, are usually thought of as being objective, and provide decision makers with raw data from which to base decisions. Senior executives also claim they are time-poor and therefore only want to see just the facts, often in graphical or tabular form because they believe this information is easier to understand.

We therefore often have a problem conveying the full story of our work in knowledge management since we do not always have the facts and figures senior executives want. We often provide information that is easy to collect but does not provide real meaning.  The classic example is in using hit rates for intranet pages and web sites. High hit rates can often indicate confusion just as well as indicating purposeful traffic.

And, of course, facts and figures can be gamed. Work perfomance becomes artificially directed towards a narrow set of quantitative targets rather than the complete set of workplace activities and responsibilities. Narrow quantitative targets often stifle innovative thinking, limit team work, and inhibits building trust within organisations. Key performance indicators (KPI’s) are a classic case of turning targets into the target itself!

The other problem is that the outcome of a number of knowledge management processes and activities does not always show a direct linear relationship. The beneficial outcome might come out of a series of interconnected relationships and serendipitous exchanges that take time to yield a distinct outcome on which to report. Social network analysis and knowledge mapping are techniques helpful here but they themselves take considerable time and analysis.

One strategy that I have used in the past is to provide the “raw data” in graphical form with an explanatory paragraph under each graph or chart. It is important to place the graphical representation of the data in some form of explanatory context. Hit rates and traffic numbers on communities of practice are not sufficient on their own.

The other pieces of “data” I provide are stories – narratives of things that have happened as a consequence of an action. This action might be closing a business deal based on information gleaned from a community of practice. It might be that getting that particular report on time meant that the final prepared document for management was more informed and better reflective of the contextual environment.  Or it could mean that meeting the right person at the right time meant that the business plan had a greater chance of success. There are many outcomes that one can use.

The skill is in finding these examples and ensuring they represent the kinds of outcomes senior management want to hear and can understand.  While I think any form of conversation that enhances our understanding and capacity to work more effectively is a good thing, others do not. Choose outcomes that are meaningful to the person or people you are reporting to.

But don’t stop there.

I would also include a story (or narrative fragment) that might not be directly related to a business outcome, but demonstrates a more intangible element. If the narrative fragment is interesting enough, it is surprising how much this sparks some interest to hear more. These “tell me more” instances don’t always happen, but when they do, they can be even more powerful demonstrations of knowledge management work that just the data.

In this regard, it is vital that the knowledge manager establish and maintain personal and visible relationships with people throughout the organisation. Scaleability can be enhanced through communication channels like the intranet,  listservs, blogs, Twitter (if appropriate), and communities of practice. The knowledge manager must remain visible and be perceived to be an important gate keeper or lynch pin for people scattered throughout the organisation.

In reporting, I strongly recommend utilising both quantitative and qualitative information. If senior management have more meaning around the work of knowledge management, the better chance management will see the benefits.


5 responses to “On knowledge management measurement

  1. Pingback: Brad Hinton on knowledge management measurement « Fredzimny’s CCCCC Blog

  2. Nicely put Brad!
    I would add – get the subjects of the stories to tell it themselves, as short videos – then nobody can accuse you of selective interpretation or manipulative emergence!

  3. Dear Brad, I agree with a lot of your comments and the sentiment behind the same.
    One point though, in answer to your desire to convey KM measurement to stake holders: We at Areopa have now perfected a system for calculating the added value of intangible assets (including KM).
    We have created 77 Added Value Creating Phenomenon that (using econometric formulae) calculate the value of intangibles in a monetary sense.
    This is especially useful for KM implementation as we can value to amount of Human Capital in an organisation in US$ or Euros or whatever currency.
    We can also tell you how much is Tacit (a liability) and how much is explicit (an asset) which can also go onto corporate balance sheets (subject to accounting rules locally).
    It can also tell you how far down the road you are in KM implementation by periodic measurements. Great for all including the morale boost for KM implementation team members.
    Hope this helps.
    More info upon request.

  4. Pingback: השיטוטים של השבוע: 28 ליוני – 4 ליולי 2009 : ארבעה כיווני מידע

  5. Dear Brad,

    I experienced that knowledge management is somehow similar to financial management: people have knowledge as they owe money. First you have to explain that to them, then you have to build a system that allows them to make “investments” in knowledge and finally you have to stay and enjoy their smiling faces: they found a new way to work and a new way to make money from themselves.

    How to explain it? Simple.
    Knowledge management is something related to knowledge exchange, where the most important point is communication. Without communication there won’t be any knowledge exchange and therefore knowledge management.
    It that’s evident, you should note that the focus should be put on people, on those specific two individuals that act the knowledge exchange that is to be managed.
    Those two people exchange that knowledge (you need to know its characteristics), for a porpoise and through a medium (language, medium, …).

    Any system able to automatically monitor that variables (independently from the knowledge specifics and topics) will serve you as starting quality evaluation of the knowledge exchange within a contest.
    And if that system will be able to do the same calculation for any exchange, in any IT system, including written and voice communications, then you’ll have what you were talking about.

    I built up such a system in two occasions.
    The first one gave me the opportunity to increase productivity in my office in terms of a 75% in time and 50% in cost reductions, doubling the system users within the first year.
    The second one I succeeded to implement the system in an existing knowledge management software, helping developing a reputational tool for companies.

    I’m open to discuss and share.

    Mario Soavi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s