This research project investigated Knowledge Management (KM) practices within project-based organizations, aiming to identify effective strategies and common pitfalls to guide improvements. The study highlights that successful KM is more nuanced than simply capturing information, requiring alignment between an organization's understanding of knowledge and its actual practices.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
good afternoon and welcome to this APM
knowledge Sig webinar about the
Knowledge Management research project we
completed earlier this year I'm Judy
Payne chair of the APM knowledge Sig
today's speaker Nichola silburn uh and I
together we led the research project
that we're going to hear about it's now
my pleasure to introduce our speaker
Nicholas silban Nicholas is an
independent consultant and researcher
who specializes in information
management and information systems in the
the
workplace he's worked on numerous
engineering business information systems
and academic projects in Industries as
diverse as fluid engineering research
water utilities and higher
education Nicholas over to
you thank you very much indeed Judy for
that uh
introduction um over the next 40 minutes
or so I'm going to discuss the findings
of the um knowledge Sig uh research
project into km within project-based
organizations and there are two main
objectives for the webinar today the
first is to provide you with some
insights into the research project
itself um and into km within project-based
project-based
organizations the second uh principle
objective is to give you ideas
on uh and thoughts on good practice that
you can replicate back in your own
organization and bad practices that you
should try and avoid in order to achieve
those um objectives the webinar is
structured in four main parts the first
is to give you a little bit of
background to the study
itself the second is to give a brief
description of how we developed and
delivered the research project the third
is then focused on the survey results
and the key learning points from that
and then the fourth part of the webinar
is to bring together the overall good
bad and ugly observations and learning
away so why did we do the project well
there was anecdotal evidence amongst the
uh kig team and the events that it
carried out that um Knowledge Management
was all about having a Lessons Learned
database as the picture on the left illustrates
illustrates
this couldn't be further from the truth
and lessons databases Lessons Learned
databases um were often um places where
Lessons Learned From a project went to
die and were never seen again so the
Casey group also then found that it had
a sort of a headbanging um problem with
trying to get people to change this
view so it was time to gather some
evidence to see how project-based
organizations were handl in knowledge
and km in their organizations and to try
and identify good and bad
practice so the study
purpose was first of all to
identify um the state of km in project-based
project-based
organizations the second purpose was to
find out what could be done to improve
km within these
organizations and to do that there were
three further
purposes firstly to identify good
practices that organizations could
copy identify bad practices that
organizations should
avoid and to identify any ugly myths
that were around and to explode
them and as I go through the rest of the
presentation you'll see that little
figures will crop up from time to time
to reinforce this so we've got a smiley
face for good practices a devilish face
bad practices and a somewhat confused
frowning face for uh where confusion or myths
occur the research involved 22
organizations and over 200 um
individuals responding to an online
questionnaire we can see here the list
of organizations that took part and they
come from a range of uh Industries
including public sector third sector
transport engineering consultancy
manufacturing and utilities so what did
we look at well there were two main
complementary Parts um to the
research the first main part was to get
some indication of what people
understood by knowledge and what they
thought their organizations understood
by knowledge and how those organizations
then approached Knowledge Management
and to see whether those three items all
fitted together and to then establish
whether an organization actually does to manage
manage
knowledge the second main
component built on this foundation and
looked at knowledge structures within
organization so um how knowledge was uh
managed um from an organizational
perspective um what the level of
knowledge maturity was in an
organization against various
factors how knowledge was used and
shared across the Project Life
Cycle um and then what the key
observations and Improvement actions
were from um that
data to look at
it uh we took a five stage approach the
first stage was to look at existing
Frameworks and Concepts about knowledge
and Knowledge Management
um and look at their appropriateness and
to see whether they needed any further
development in order to achieve our
goals for the
project the second stage was to develop
some data collection instruments one of
which was uh an online questionnaire
that all uh participants completed and
the second was a short questionnaire on
uh knowledge uh in the organization
completed by a represent ative from each
organization the third stage actually
involveed collecting the
data the fourth part focused on
analyzing it um and we used uh
predominantly Excel for analyzing
numerical data and simple thematic
coding for looking at open-ended
questions to pick out themes from
comments people
made data was anonymized um throughout
the process so organizations had no idea
of which individuals within the
organization had
participated um and the published
results uh don't indicate which
organization is
which the final stage involved producing
a report for each individual
organization and that included specific
results for the organization as well as
results across all the organizations so
that um an organization could compare
itself with everybody else um and the
reports also included suggestions on
what the organization needed to do to
improve its km practices and maturity so
knowledge suggested that there were
three views on what knowledge
was and they were principally structural
process and
practice and these three views were
supported by how knowledge was defined
what the approach to knowledge was and
what typical practices were
exhibited by an
organization so if we just focus on the
the structural column for example then
knowledge will be designed in defined in
a very simplistic term and that is it's
a resource that can be captured
accumulated and shared
and the approach to knowledge will be to
go around capture it and then
disseminate it in a very formal
way typical practices that you would
undertake to support that would be the
lessons learn database um that was
described at the beginning an electronic
document and Records management system
manuals if your view on knowledge and km
was more Pro process orientated then
you've got a much more flexible thing
you see knowledge as a process of
knowing um you build relationships um
networks and trust and you encourage
those and you openly share knowledge and
in order to achieve that the kind of
practices you would exhibit would be
networks and communities making use of
communications Technologies and things
like uh social
software so there's three distinct um
categories there so if we look um at
some of the results if we look
specifically on the leftand side here of
the individual's perspective on
knowledge then we can see that just over
half um Define Knowledge from a process
perspective so they they see
it um as more a process of knowing
rather than a thing but a significant
proportion a third
take a structural view so they see
knowledge as something that can be
captured um and
accumulated only a small minority of
people uh profess the view to have a practice
practice
view if we then look at how um the
organizations are perceived to uh view
knowledge then um it's quite a
substantial majority in favor of a sort
of process view but there's a
significant proportion 9% are actually
unclear about what their view of knowledge
knowledge
is if we drill down and look at just a
single organization which had a process
view of knowledge we find that actually
the picture is not as clear as that
because some of the um uh approaches it
exhibits are not in alignment with its
process view so here we can see that
um some of the approaches it takes are
process approaches so there is a match
between the organization View and the
approaches that exhibits but on the
other hand it also exhibits um a
significant proportion of structural
behaviors and is also uh a bit confused
as well about knowledge or how to support
support
knowledge so it's a very mixed picture
that comes out of this looking at three
organizations in particular
this reinforces this message about how
um the organization actually uh
practices what it preaches as it were so
if we look at organization
2 it had a
confused picture as to its approach to
knowledge then if you looked at the supported
supported
practices a significant proportion is
red which means it's a structural
approach so it has a Lessons Learned um
database it also exhibits though other
practices which you would associate more
clearly with either being processed or
struct or or
practice so um for
example uh it has um a significant
proportion of of a process approach if
we look at organizational Organization
three it's stated
approach was
structural but um when you look at the
actual approaches it undertook so the
mechanisms it it uh it carried out there
isn't actually a structural one among
them or a pure structural one amongst
them um predominantly it includes uh process
process
approaches so things
like knowledge sharing
events it also has a significant
proportion of of approach or practices
that could be classified as as as
any um so for example competency
development Frameworks that encourage
knowledge sharing by contrast
organization uh
10 the stated approach was process but
its reported practices suggested a
significant structural element such as
Lessons Learned
repository and along a small proportion
of process and practice such as
technology mediated
Communications and this webinar is
actually a good example of knowledge
sharing using um technology mediated
communication so looking at um not
definitions of knowledge and approaches
to knowledge and Knowledge Management
what can we learn from
this the first um thing is that an
organization is good if it does what it
says it does so if an organization
believes that it has a process view on
knowledge so knowledge is a process of
knowing then it should exhibit um
approaches and practices that support
that a bad organization is one that
thinks what they are what they think
they are doing is not what they are
actually doing in practice so they might
organization but the practices and
approaches they exhibit are actually
contradictory to
that so they're not doing what they say
they're supposed to be
doing and then the ugly or ugly ones
tend to be the ones that are very
confused so they don't really know what
knowledge is and they're not really um
exhibiting uh practices that match
um their uh view the next sort of
grouping in the research looks at
organizational structures um for
km and these focused on four main
areas the first was the leadership of KM
so was there a central group or person
responsible for Knowledge Management in
the organization and we found this to be
very patchy both
across all the 22 organizations and
organizations we also looked at
Knowledge Management and where its home
was within an
organization now uh the project
management office would seem to be a
natural home because of its Central role
for all things project
management however few organizations
with pmos took advantage of
this a few organizations had a dedicated
knowledge manager but even in such
organizations not all respondents from
an organization were aware of this which
we also also asked about names for km
what did people actually call km if they
called it
anything and many organizations had
alternative names and strangely enough
organization in some organizations km
km and lastly in this particular section
of the research we asked people to
Define what was meant by km oh sorry to
identify if their organization had a
definition for what was meant by
km and we found that in most
organizations there was no explicitly stated
stated
definition where an organization had defined
defined
km worryingly not everybody knew about
it and some definitions
were standard industry definitions so
they weren't contextualized for the organization
concerned so what did we learn from this
particular part of the
research well you were a good
organization if you had clear km
leadership whether that be a part of the
organization responsible for km or a
specific individual
um identified with
CM also that the organization had a
clearly stated organization wide and
agreed definition of KM so basically
everybody was singing off the same hym
sheet bad organizations tended to have
no clear km leadership and they also had
no working definition of CM for their
organization and then there was again a
group of organizations where there was a
lot of
confusion um some people thought they
had uh a definition some people didn't
think they had um uh if there was one
they didn't know what it was and so on
so again that is something that needs to
be avoided is confusion the next sort of
main block of of the
research looked at the maturity of
Knowledge Management in the
organization and here participants were
asked to look at um the maturity of the
organization against eight factors so
strategy knowledge roles time for
knowledge business
performance excuse me colleagues
behaviors and
technology and to identify the level of
maturity of their
organization um based on whether they
thought it was initial so km was very ad
hoc in the organization whether it was
emerging so km was just
starting whether it was well established
um whether km was organization wide or
whether it was embedded in the
organization so it was the way we do
things around
here and we're just going to look at two
specific um aspects of
maturity leadership behaviors and time
for knowledge so if we look at
leadership behaviors first this is a
comparison of all 22
organizations and the bottom of the
graph is sort of bad and towards the top
of the graph is
good so if we look at organization
4 um people there consider it to be uh
essentially 100% level five so a very
mature organization where um leadership
behaviors are embedded in the
organization and leaders are exhibiting
behaviors that suggest that this is the
way we do things around here when it
comes to knowledge conversely organization
organization
18 um is predominantly at the negative
end of the scale so there's nothing um
uh uh mature about it at
all and organization 22 is very confused
because here we've got example of all
five levels of
maturity so some people think their
leaders are doing uh well and others
badly if we then look at time for
knowledge we can use this to a contrast
the factors because you'll see here that
the the colors are predominantly at the
bad end of the spectrum and we can also
look at um the individual organizations
again so number seven appears to allow
to have uh or appears to allow people to
have time for knowledge so it's mature
it understands what knowledge is about
and it enables people to um Carry Out
knowledge practices conversely number 11
is an organization that does not appear
to encourage time for
knowledge and again we have a confused
uh picture with um organization
60 where some people think they do have
time and others think they don't
so what can we
draw um out of this particular part of
the research H
organizations exhibited high levels of
maturity for more than one factor but at
least some of them did um exhibit a high
level of maturity for a factor which is
encouraging but it also suggests there
is room for
improvement some organizations were very
immature for one factor or more
um and again this shows that there is uh
a scope for improve and particularly
this applied two factors such as
knowledge roles which we
uh which is about the clarity of of your
role when it comes to knowledge time for
knowledge which we've already touched on
behaviors of colleagues and Technology
um they were the most immature uh
factors so it shows that there's quite a
lot of work for organizations to do in
those areas
a few
organizations exhibited all five levels of
of
maturity on one or more
factor and this suggests a number of
things firstly that they might have
different capabilities within the same
organization secondly that there could
be a lack of
awareness of KM or perhaps different
views on what constitutes km and how the
it should be noted though that having a
lowlevel maturity is not necessarily bad
providing your knowledge um the fact as
such and you work towards improving it
and also the same applies to sort of
being an ugly or confused organization
again it's not necessarily bad per se
but it shows that there is inconsistency
across your organization and the
individuals within it and that you need
to address that in
consistency the next part uh of the main
sort of focus of the research looked at
knowledge and the Project Life
Cycle and we used here the APM life
cycle definition of concept definition
development Handover and closure and benefits
realization and we looked and we we
asked people specifically about whether
they shared knowledge within a project
team shared knowledge with other project
teams used existing Knowledge from
within the project team and used
existing Knowledge from other projects
at each stage of this life cycle again
we found a very
mixed uh picture and here I've just
picked out two stages of the life cycle
and show you the comparison between the
four methods of using and sharing and
the two organizations and I've chosen
the concept stage and the Handover and
closure stage because they provide a
nice contrast um in the life cycle if we
organizations if we look at organization
18 it suggests a very confused picture
here because there isn't um a high
degree of consistency amongst the the uh
respondents from that
organization um um in the sense that
only we we've only got sort of up to 50%
of people saying that any of these using
and sharing activities actually take
cycle um if we then
look um at organizations at organization
six there's a very um consistent view
there that um knowledge is used and
shared within the team and across
project teams um across the entire life
cycle but if you compare that sorry at a
Handover and closure stage but if you
compare that with what organization six
gets up to at the concept stage there
isn't a there isn't the same level of
consistency and to sort of contrast that
we look at organization
seven um a very high level of agreement
there of sharing and use the concepts
stage but by
contrast um at the Handover and closure
agreement um and then if we look at organization
11 um there is no uh surprisingly there
is no sharing of knowledge with other
projects or use of Knowledge from other
projects at the concept stage and there
is only limited sharing of knowledge and
use of knowledge knowledge with other
projects at the Handover stage so this
seems to be an organization where
project teams sort of hang on to what
they know and lastly if we look at organization
organization
one um there is no sharing of knowledge
with projects at the concept stage but by
by
contrast um at the Handover
stage they um are in 100% agreement that
they share knowledge with other projects
now sort of drilling down on that
um it suggest and was confirmed that
they had a Lessons Learned database so
they were capturing knowledge and then
making it available to others in a
lessons learn database so the key
learning points from this uh part of the
the the process were that knowledge is
with know if if you're good um at doing
things then knowledge is shared within
the team and across
teams at all stages of the Project Life
Cycle but not many organizations lived
expectation uh if you had a very low
level of agreement or your focus of your
um agreement was not on um sharing
knowledge uh then it looked like uh you
predominantly had a Lessons Learned
database and knowledge was shared at the
end of The Project Life Cycle and lastly
it was a if if you were sort of uh an
ugly uh duckling as it were if knowledge
sharing was variable within the project
team and across teams throughout the
Project Life Cycle if there was a lack of
consistency um both uh at stages in the
life cycle and to how and to the extent
cycle so that's given you an insight
into the four main sort of chunks of the
research that was carried out out so
learn so our key
observations start off with the fact
that most individuals seem to understand
that knowledge is deeper than
information so they are aware that there
is a difference between the
two and most individuals also seem to
understand that knowledge can't be
managed using a simple capture and
disseminate approach like a Lessons Learned
database the other thing another key
thing that comes out is that the
approaches to km that an organization
exhibits don't always reflect the
organization or the individual's
understanding within an organization of
about and that the practices
organizations exhibit don't always match
um what the organizations view is on
knowledge so organizations do and say different
different
things and the most common reason for
this is probably because of confusion
between what constitutes knowledge and
what constitutes
information and how those terms are defined
it was also very clear that few
organizations have a working definition
of Knowledge
Management and few organizations have a
single name for Knowledge Management and
all this can lead to uh
confusion um when people move around
organizations interact with different
people from the same organization and so
on there was lots of evidence of
different practices in different parts
of the organization
and those practices in many many cases
were very
good um and the we think this is because
km is often Li Li is often left to
individual teams to
implement um because there's no Central
management of knowledge and km and
there's no in central individual
responsible for knowledge and km in the
organization so it's left to individual
teams to do their own thing in the in
the sort of free text element quite a
few individuals commented that their
Lessons Learned processes don't actually
work and this wasn't actually a question
we asked them um but it was a theme that
came out over and over again so there
are processes in place to learn from
projects um but those processes don't
work so uh projects don't learn
and team members don't learn we also
found overall that K maturity varies a
lot few organizations are actually
excellent at km so few organizations km
is embedded as a way of life um in their
organization some organizations were
actually quite open and acknowledged
that they were beginners in the process
and looking to learn from taking part in the
the
research many organizations were in
between so they showed varying levels of
maturity against the eight uh uh factors
of maturity in many
organizations people share knowledge
between projects of the Handover and
good so out of all these out of all this
this research and the key observations
we found and the and the uh data and so
on what would be the good things to copy
what would be the things to take
away firstly develop and Implement a
working knowledge of sorry a working
definition of knowledge which is agreed
by everybody secondly have a matching
definition of what km is in your
organization so once you've agreed what
knowledge is to your organization you
can then agree how km uh should be
organization you should also have a
single name for
km so that everybody is is singing off
the same Hy
sheet you should align your km practices
knowledge and Knowledge Management
Management
so your
uh technology your
behaviors and so on should match what
you actually say knowledge and Knowledge
Management is to your
organization they should support your
definitions you should consider having a
central having Central responsibility
for knowledge and Knowledge Management
in your
organization um and the project
management uh office is um an ideal
uh place because of its Central role in
project management as a whole and managing
managing
projects um and you should make sure
that knowledge is shared effectively
across the organization you could also
consider employing a s a specialist knowledge
knowledge
manager who can lead you down this uh
journey of increasing
maturity the things you should
avoid confusion between knowledge and
information both Knowledge Management
and information management are valuable
valuable
practices and they do
overlap but they are different and as
part of your uh definition of knowledge
and Knowledge Management you will be
able to uh clearly
state which which you should be doing
for what um
activity so they're both equally
important to the organization but you do
need to be aware that they are different
and avoid confusion between the two and
you should avoid managing information
when you set out to manage knowledge so
if you look at the the Lessons Learned
database for example um you've got a lot
of actual information in these databases
and having a lessons learn database
information so if you're setting out to
manage knowledge you need to be clear
what knowledge is and go about
supporting it in an appropriate way
and you should avoid having an
overreliance on Lessons Learned database
so you're not capturing knowledge
storing it and that storage just becomes
a morum to uh lessons that nobody is
at and you should also avoid just
sharing knowledge with other projects
there are plenty of opportunities to
learn from other projects as you go
through each stage of the Project Life
Cycle and then a couple of uh sort of
myths to explode one is that knowledge
is a thing that is written down it isn't
really so you should avoid
that um ugly things like inconsistent
practices um you should practice what
you preach so if you say uh knowledge is
this you should carry out the practices
to support it if they don't then you
just confuse people and you end up with
with a mess and lastly on the myths and
sort of ugly things don't believe
everything you read about km so what happens
next well there's the knowledge uh
specific interest group um within the
within the
APM and there are a variety of things
you can do now now you can visit the
research project web pages which have
now gone live and the uh web address um
is on the slide
here um and over a period of um the next
few months we'll be releasing in more
detail um the findings from the research
and you will have an opportunity to
comment and give your views on the
findings and how they relate to your
organization so we would encourage you
to take an Interactive approach to the
findings as they're published each month
over the coming
months i' also encourage you to watch um
the courageous conversation videos and
they're available on the um APM YouTube
stream um if you uh select um the most
popular um when you when you follow the
the link on the on the slide um if you
choose the most popular you'll find that
there's two or three videos uh produced
by the APM casig group um and they're in
the top 20 of the most viewed APM videos
and then lastly you could join the
knowledge Sig itself to be kept informed
and again that's that's
free actually um Can km be copied from
one company to another or does it need
to grow from the inside of a company uh
Nick is that okay with you if I have a
little stab answering that one yeah and
then uh and then I'll ask you if You'
got anything to add
um no it can't be copied is the simple
answer because Knowledge Management and
it's how successful it is it's very
dependent on the context on the specific
situation of a company uh on lots of
things like the organizational culture
the sort of work that's being
done and there is a temptation to just
go find an organization that is good by
some measure at Knowledge Management and
just copy what they do now that might
work uh but then again it might not now
that is actually the reason why the
research project and the uh the things
to avoid the things to copy and so on
that Nicks just been through was at a
very high level so things like know be
clear about what you need mean by
knowledge be clear about what you mean
by Knowledge Management make sure that
what you actually do in practice matches
what you say you're trying to do uh we
did it at that level rather than focus
on specific methods so unlike a lot of
things in project management the method
that you use actually isn't important
what's important is getting your ducks
in a row in the first place and actually
doing what you set out to
do I I would just reinforce um what you
said and the the fact that ultimately no
to organizations are the same so um even
though you might might have uh two uh engineering
engineering
consultancies um they will have uh con contextual
contextual
differences um and therefore um you can
take ideas from one organization to
another but you do need to um mold them
and contextualize them to your
organization and I think one of the one
of the biggest um issues with various
facets of of um business um is the fact
that um organizations try and copy each
other without realizing that they're
actually different
beasts can you give some project
orientated examples of information versus
versus
knowledge uh and again Nick I'll just
have a quick go at that one uh well Nick
because Nick gave an example of
Information Management um and that was
the use of a Lessons Learned database
and that is the very basic use of a
Lessons Learned database where people
put things in um and people from other
projects are expected to go and find um
things that they need to know and to
learn from it so at that level that is
very definitely Information Management
if the Lessons Learned database was a
little bit more sophisticated than that
and it had the name and the contact
details of the person who put the lesson
in there and somebody was to phone that
person arrange to meet them have a chat
with them have a some sort of dialogue
some sort of two-way conversation with
them where they could check their
understanding that then becomes more
knowledge than
information so that that's the example
that I can think of that there is a lot
of confusion about the definition of
knowledge and the definition of
information and to be honest even very
um knowledgeable specialized people and
academics disagree about it which is why we
we
presented um in this um webinar and also
in the research project we presented the
three main different views of what
knowledge is um and the structural view
of knowledge this is the capture and
disseminate view um that is basically
the same as
information it might also help you to
know that in the web pages which Nick um
there was a link to the research project
uh web pages which we will also
circulate separately when we post the
recording of This webinar so that you be
sure to see it um there is uh there is a
lot more information than we could
include in this webinar um in that uh
especially about uh knowledge and
information and the difference between
them so there's plenty more to go and
look up but that's a quick answer
information is stuff that you put in a
database knowledge is what you might get
if you have a conversation with the
person who put that information there
Nick anything this is your subject isn't
it anything to add the information
management bit is um um and I would have
I would have um again reinforced what
you said um but you you also need to and
this this is why we've sort of
reiterated throughout the presentation
about you coming up with a definition
for knowledge and Knowledge Management
in your own organization um because in
my research into specific areas of for
example defining Information
Management um you could probably find
that there was 100 people um had
produced 105 definitions for information
management and
information um so that's why ultimately
you as an organization need to Define
what you mean by knowledge and Knowledge
Management um and you need to make sure
that everybody in the organization knows
what that def what those definitions are
but you also so need to be clear that um
even though you're making your own
definition the definition is built on
solid sort of principles of knowledge
and Knowledge Management so for example
if your if your definition fell into the
structural category um then you would
your knowledge definition would be wrong
because you'd be looking at information
management but if it fell into the
process or practice categories then
you'd be well on your way how how do we
know that this is organizational
maturity and not individual interest I
think it's to do and I'm I'm drawing
here on on some other research I did
that looked at factors influencing people's
people's
behaviors um and actually there isn't
one uh sort of dominant factor and you
actually find that there's a
um uh quite a lot of interrelationships
between um the different factors that
will affect people's behavior so uh and
there's also elements of of
um uh that sort of go down into the
psychology of individuals and and so on
so we can only work with um the the data
we've we've got so it is
possible that um there are um um sort of
Behavioral or psychological or whatever
you like to call it reasons why um
somebody might um not um share or think
they don't have enough time to um deal
with knowledge um that is a possibility
yes but there's also um you know
organizations can again looking at the
time for knowledge thing can be quite um
explicit open um whatever you like to
call it about um encouraging people to
uh share knowledge um it can either be
done through um uh you know a number of
organizations cited their competency
Frameworks for their um employees as a
means of getting them to uh share
knowledge or reuse knowledge or have
conversations with people um that kind
of thing so um it's not an easy question
uh to answer and we are aware that um
you know that there is an element of of
um uh inter relationship between between
the different factors and between
factors that we didn't actually look at
as could it be that organization 4
thinks that they are on level five but
but they actually aren't um I've picked
that one out because um it is actually a
subjective thing uh what level an
organization is on and the reason that
we asked lots of people from each
organization to complete our survey was
so that we could get a range of views
from not just one person's view from
each organization
uh there is in fact a maturity framework
um which will be published on the web
pages when we get there uh when we get
to that part of research because we're
uh as Nick says we're publishing um the
different sections of the research in
monthly installments the idea is to
build suspense and make you more
interested I hope it works uh and the
will the maturity framework will be
published and that maturity framework
the best use of it is actually as a tool
to have a conversation around around
because it's more important to talk
about these things than to assign a
particular level a particular number to
any of the
factors which is what Publications does
the knowledge s have what is your
opinion of the gold standard book on km
best practice okay well the um if you
look at the if you look at the APM web
website uh Mike and anybody else um
actually starting with the uh with the
these research project Pages it's not a
bad place to start because there are
lots of Link links from those to um to
blogs that the knowledge Sig has done
and also to various articles some
written by the knowledge Sig and some
written by other people um as for the uh
the gold standard book or resource
um there isn't one there there are there
are some very practice-based books which
are often they tend to be too simplistic
and they don't take into account the
context and they tend to tell you what
to do rather than get you to think about
understanding the principles which is
the best way to approach Knowledge
Management and then there are some very
academic books which are most of them
are so academic that yeah they're
they're good if you're interested but
they don't actually tell you anything uh
give you any pointers about what to do
um the not some members of the knowledge
s team are actually writing a book which
is going to fill that Gap so uh so watch
this space I would like to engage with
my line manager to bring awareness of
the importance of
KM could you give me the right way to approach
approach
this uh that is a brilliant
question and then it goes on to say that
would would this be a a did you think
that's a statistical approach to prove
the benefits okay so that's just a lot
of people when they get when they start
out in Knowledge Management
try to demonstrate the benefits of
Knowledge Management the organizations
that do it well and and this isn't just
my subject subjective judgment
organizations that do it
well because they've won awards for
their Knowledge Management they all of
them that I know of have started
Knowledge Management by taking a leap of
faith so the thing that you need to do
Stuart or anybody else is find somebody
in your organization who's prepared to
take a leap of faith otherwise you will
spend a lot of time trying to quantify
things that can't really be Quantified
knowledge is intangible sharing
knowledge is intangible the benefits of
Knowledge Management can be tangible but
they're very unpredictable and it's very
difficult to uh to know what they're
going to be uh before you uh before you
Embark upon your Knowledge Management effort
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
