Development of a General Knowledge Management Maturity Model

Transcription

1 Development of a General Knowledge Management Maturity Model L.G. Pee 1, H.Y. Teah 2 and A. Kankanhalli 3 1 School of Computing, National University of Singapore 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore , Republic of Singapore Tel: , Fax: , peelooge@comp.nus.edu.sg 2 School of Computing, National University of Singapore 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore , Republic of Singapore Tel: , Fax: , teahhuan@comp.nus.edu.sg 3 School of Computing, National University of Singapore 3 Science Drive 2, Singapore , Republic of Singapore Tel: , Fax: , atreyi@comp.nus.edu.sg Abstract As investments in Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives grow, there is an increasing need for coherent and comprehensible principles and practices to guide KM implementation efforts. Academics and practitioners have proposed various KM Maturity Models (KMMM) to formally capture the KM development process by assessing the extent to which KM is explicitly defined, managed, controlled, and effective. However, the proliferation of definitions and assumptions and lack of clear description of assessment methods have made their selection and application difficult for practitioners and their study complex for researchers. Based on such motivations, this paper reviews, compares, assesses and integrates existing KMMMs to propose an General KMMM (G-KMMM), which focuses on assessing the maturity of people, process and technology aspects of KM development in organizations. An accompanying assessment tool is also developed to facilitate practical application. Avenues for further research and practice are discussed. Keywords: Knowledge Management Maturity; KM Implementation

2 1. Introduction In today s highly volatile competitive environment, organizations are beginning to recognize the need to tap into knowledge assets diffused around the organization to remain agile. Undoubtedly, Knowledge Management (KM) has become one of the most sought-after capabilities by many forward-looking organizations. Documented cases of organizations that have achieved success through KM have served not only as a demonstration of the potential of KM but have also urged more bystanders to leap on the KM bandwagon. As investments in various KM initiatives inflate, the call for coherent and comprehensible principles and practices to guide KM implementation efforts has increased. To address these needs, researchers and practitioners have proposed maturity modeling as a way of formally capturing the KM development process by assessing the extent to which KM is explicitly defined, managed, controlled, and effective (e.g. Klimko 2001, Kochikar 2000, Kulkarni and Freeze 2004, Kulkarni and St. Louis 2003, Paulzen and Perc 2002). While many KM maturity models have been proposed, details on how an organization s KM maturity can be assessed and determined remain elusive. Specifically, among the nine models reviewed in this paper, only three i.e., Knowledge Process Quality Model (Paulzen and Perc 2002), Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model (Kulkarni and Freeze 2004), and KPMG s Knowledge Journey (KPMG 1999), have provided some details about their assessment method. Recognizing this gap, we attempt to address the following research question in this paper: How can an organization s level of KM maturity be assessed? The proliferation of many different KM Maturity Models (KMMM) adopting different definitions and assumptions has made their selection and application difficult for practitioners and their study complex for researchers. In addition, many of them have been criticized as ad-hoc in their development (Kulkarni and St. Louis 2003). Hence, an objective of this paper is to review, compare, evaluate and integrate existing KMMMs to develop a General KMMM (G-KMMM) that will provide clear definitions for important concepts as well as provide an assessment instrument for evaluating organizations KM maturity level. The expected contribution of this study is four-fold. First, as KM implementation involves significant organizational change in process, infrastructure and culture, it is unlikely to be achieved in one giant leap. The complexity of change involved in KM can be especially inhibiting to organizations new to KM. In this respect, the staged G-KMMM provides a general understanding and appreciation of gradual and holistic development of KM. It can serve as a roadmap that steers the implementation effort by providing a clear description and indication of the way forward. Second, for organizations that have implemented some form of KM, G-KMMM can support the ongoing development of KM by systematically analyzing their current level of KM maturity. The assessment instrument provided along with G-KMMM can also serve as a diagnostic instrument pinpointing aspects that necessitate improvement. It helps to determine essential activities and their priorities and indicates how to progress to the next level of KM maturity. This information can form part of a KM maturity profile to motivate organizational participants to improve on KM and inform KM investment decision-making. Third, by integrating existing KMMMs and clearly

3 defining important concepts, G-KMMM can potentially serve as a common model facilitating communication and improve understanding among researchers, practitioners, top management, employees, IS managers, and business managers. Fourth, G-KMMM can serve as a basis for comparison of units within an organization or between organizations. As the descriptions of maturity levels include the characterization of the activities to be achieved, entities can be ranked and compared, making benchmarking possible. This paper begins by reviewing, comparing and assessing existing models of KM maturity in Section 2. The proposed G-KMMM is then presented in Section 3. Section 4 concludes the paper by discussing possible avenues for future research and practice. 2. Review of Knowledge Management Maturity Models (KMMM) Maturity models describe the development of an entity over time, with the entity being anything that is of interest, e.g. human being, an organizational function, technology and process. In general, maturity models have the following properties (Klimko 2001, Weerdmeester et al. 2003): i) The development of a single entity is simplified and described with a limited number of maturity levels (usually four to six); ii) Levels are characterized by certain requirements, which the entity has to achieve on that level; iii) Levels are ordered sequentially, from an initial level up to an ending level (the latter is the level of perfection); iv) During development, the entity progresses forward from one level to the next. No levels can be skipped. In this paper, the entity of interest is KM. KM refers to the process of identifying and leveraging the collective knowledge in an organization to help the organization compete (Alavi and Leidner 2001). Adapting Paulk et al. s (1993) definition of process maturity to the KM context, we define KM maturity as the extent to which KM is explicitly defined, managed, controlled, and effective. The KM maturity model of an organization thus describes the stages of growth that the organization can be expected to pass through in developing KM. In building an ideal KMMMM, researchers have specified several requirements that need to be fulfilled. First, the model should be applicable to different objects of analysis, e.g. organization as a whole, traditional and virtual organizational unit, or KM systems (Ehms and Langen 2002). Paulzen and Perc (2002) suggested that one way to achieve this is to focus on processes rather than specific object of analysis. Second, the model should consider the views of different participants on organization s KM tasks (Ehms and Langen 2002). Specifically, Paulzen and Perc (2002) suggest that employees need to be involved in the assessment of KM maturity. Third, the model should provide a systematic and structured approach which ensures transparency and reliable handling of the assessment procedure (Ehms and Langen 2002). Similarly, Paulzen and Perc (2002) have also emphasized the importance of measurement and standardization. Fourth, the model should provide qualitative and quantitative results (Ehms and Langen 2002). Fifth, the underlying structure of the model should be comprehensible and allow cross references to proven management concepts or models (Ehms and Langen 2002). Last, the model should support continuous

4 learning and improvement (Paulzen and Perc 2002). In reality, it is unlikely that a single KMMM can satisfy all these requirements. One reason is that some of the requirements may be in conflict with each other in implementation. For example, Ehms and Langen (2002) suggested that the model should ideally be applicable to different objects of analysis (requirement 1. This may call for higher level of flexibility in formulation of the model and consequently result in a less systematic and structured assessment approach (requirement 3). Another example is that the ideal model needs to consider the views of different participants (requirement 2). This is likely to increase the complexity of the model and reduce its comprehensibility (requirement 5). Hence, the next best alternative to an ideal model is one that strikes a balance between these requirements. In the course of our research, we have identified nine existing KMMMs developed by researchers or practitioners. Typically, 5 to 8 levels of KM maturity are defined, starting from the lowest level where KM is non-existent, up to the ideal state where KM becomes embedded as a natural organizational practice. Existing KMMMs can be further categorized into two groups, depending on whether or not they are developed based on Software Engineering Institute s (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM). The following subsections will first provide a brief background on CMM. The existing KMMMs will then be discussed and assessed using the requirements of an ideal KMMM presented earlier. 2.1 Capability Maturity Model (CMM) CMM provides software engineering organizations with guidance on how to gain control of their processes for developing and maintaining software and how to evolve towards a culture of software engineering and management excellence. CMM is both a reference model for determining the software process maturity of an organization, as well as a normative model that helps software organizations in progressing along an evolutionary path from ad-hoc, chaotic software processes to matured, disciplined software processes (Herbsleb et al., 1997). By identifying the few issues most critical to software quality and process improvement, software engineering organizations can focus on a limited set of goals and work aggressively to attain them, thus achieving steady improvement in their organization-wide software process to enable continuous and lasting gains in software process capability. The model has gained considerable acceptance worldwide and has been regarded by many as the industry standard for defining software quality process (Herbsleb et al. 1997, van der Pijl et al. 1997). In the CMM, five levels of maturity are defined, with each level described by a unique set of characteristics (see <Table 1). Apart from level 1, several different key process areas (KPA) are identified at every maturity level. Each KPA indicates the areas that the organization should focus on in order to improve its software process. Each KPA is further described in terms of the key practices that contribute to satisfying its goals.

5 <Table 1> Maturity Levels of Capability Maturity Model (Paulk et al. 1993) Maturity Level Characteristics Key Process Areas (KPA) 1 Initial Software process is characterized as ad hoc, or even - Not applicable chaotic. Few processes are defined and success is due to individual efforts. 2 Repeatable Basic project management processes are established to - Software configuration management track cost, schedule and functionality. The necessary - Software quality assurance process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes in - Software subcontract management projects with similar applications. - Software project tracking and oversight - Software project planning - Requirements management 3 Defined Software process for both management and engineering - Peer reviews activities is documented, standardized and integrated into a - Inter-group coordination standard software process for the organization. All projects - Software product engineering use an approved, tailored version of the organization s - Integrated software management standard software process for developing and maintaining - Training program software. - Organization process definition - Organization process focus 4 Managed Detailed measures of the software process and product - Software quality management quality are collected. Both the software process and - Quantitative process management products are quantitatively understood and controlled. 5 Optimizing Continuous process improvement is enabled by quantitative - Process change management feedback from the process and from piloting innovative ideas - Technology change management and technologies. - Defect prevention In the year 2000, the CMM was incorporated into the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) project, which seeks to provide a single integrated set of models for various disciplines, including systems engineering, software engineering and Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD). Unlike the original CMM, CMMI characterized capability maturity in two ways, namely the Staged Representation and the Continuous Representation. The CMMI Staged Representation is similar to the original CMM. It offers a roadmap to achieve process improvement one step at a time, and is useful for organizations that are looking at improving their overall process capability. The summary components are maturity levels, which contain goals in terms of key process areas for the organization to achieve. On the other hand, the CMMI Continuous Representation offers a more flexible approach to process improvement and is useful for organizations that are looking at improving specific process areas, and wanting to have a choice of areas of implementation. The summary components are capability levels which can then be used to generate a capability level profile that will include both an achievement profile and a target profile. Although CMM is meant for describing software processes, researchers have suggested that it can be applied to KM maturity modeling. To the extent that software can be viewed as a knowledge medium, it is held that CMM can be adapted to the KM context (Armour 2000, Paulzen and Perc 2002). However, several differences between software management and KM need to be noted during the adaptation: Other

6 than domain differences, KM is less structured compared to software management. Practices within KM are not standardized and outcomes of KM are not easily measurable. KM activities are spread throughout the organization among a large number of knowledge workers. Hence, effectiveness of KM needs to be judged by perceptions of its users in addition to information regarding the existence of KM systems and related processes. As a result, KPAs in KMMM are defined somewhat differently from the CMM (Kulkarni and St. Louis 2003). 2.2 CMM-Based KMMM The following four CMM-based KMMM were identified: Siemens KMMM, Infosys KMMM, Paulzen and Perc s Knowledge Process Quality Model (KPQM), and Kulkarni and Freeze s Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model (KMCA). All four models are based on the original CMM and are thus described in Staged Representation. Like CMM, all models except KMCA identified five levels of KM maturity which are usually named after the corresponding levels in the CMM (see <Table 2). KMCA defines an additional level 0 to denote the complete lack of KM. <Table 2> Maturity Levels of CMM-Based KMMM Level CMM CMM-based KM Maturity Models Siemens KMMM Infosys KMMM KPQM KMCA 0 Not Applicable Difficult / Not Possible 1 Initial Initial Default Initial Possible 2 Repeatable Repeatable Reactive Aware Encouraged 3 Defined Defined Aware Established Enabled / Practiced 4 Managed Managed Convinced Quantitatively Managed Managed 5 Optimizing Optimizing Sharing Optimizing Continuously Improving Similar to CMM, each level of KM maturity is described by a set of characteristics (see <Table 3). However, it is observed that different sets of characteristics are specified in different KMMMs. Through careful analysis and consolidation, we identified a set of common characteristics. Each characteristic in this common list is specified in more than two KMMMs (see <Table 4). Hence, we expect that this list of common characteristics will be representative of the important aspects of each level of KM maturity.

7 Leve l <Table 3> Characteristics of Maturity Levels of CMM-Based KMMM Siemens KMMM KPQM Infosys KMMM KMCA 0 Not Applicable Lack of awareness of the need to manage knowledge - No conscious control of knowledge processes - KM unplanned and random - Awareness of the need to manage organizational knowledge - Value of knowledge assets recognized by organization - Pilot KM projects and pioneers exist - Stable and practiced activities that are integrated with everyday work process - Activities support KM at individual parts of the organization - Relevant technical systems are maintained - Individual KM roles are defined - First structures defined - Processes planned and documented - Structures to establish awareness of KM methods in organization - Partial technological support for KM methods - Systematic structure and definition of knowledge processes - Processes tailored to meet special requirements - Incentive system defined - Individual roles are defined - Systematic technological process support exist Use of metrics to measure and evaluate success - Common strategy and - Improve systematic standardized approaches process management. towards KM. - Incentives quantitatively - Organizational standards. managed - Impact of technological support is evaluated quantitatively - Continuous improvement - Flexible to meet new challenges - Metrics are combined with other instruments for strategic control - Structures for self-optimization - Technologies for process support are optimized on a regular basis - Pilot projects are performed - Only routine and procedural knowledge shared - Knowledge sharing is on need basis - Basic knowledge-recording systems in existence - Basic knowledge infrastructure established but knowledge is not integrated - Initial understanding of KM metrics - KM activities translated to productivity gains - Managers recognize their role in and actively encourage knowledge-sharing Use of metrics (project/function level) - KM is self-sustaining; high quality and usage - Enterprise-wide knowledge sharing systems in place - Able to sense and respond to changes - Culture of sharing is institutionalized - Sharing is second nature - ROI-driven decision-making - Organization a knowledge leader - Lack of identification of knowledge assets - Knowledge sharing discouraged. - General unwillingness to share knowledge - People do not seem to value knowledge sharing - Knowledge sharing is not discouraged - General willingness to share knowledge - People who understand the value of knowledge-sharing share their knowledge - Knowledge assets are recognized / identified - Organization s culture encourages all activities with respect to sharing of knowledge assets. - Leadership / senior management communicates value of and shows commitment to knowledge sharing - Sharing is recognized / rewarded - Explicit knowledge assets are stored by some means - Tacit and implicit knowledge are tracked - Sharing of knowledge is practiced - Leadership / senior management sets goals with respect to knowledge sharing - KM activities are part of normal workflow - KM systems/tools and mechanisms enable activities with respect to knowledge sharing - Centralized repositories and knowledge taxonomies exist - Employees find it easy to share knowledge assets - Employees expect to be successful in locating knowledge assets if they exist - Knowledge sharing formally/informally monitored and measured - Training and instruction on KMS usage is provided - Use change management principles in introducing KM - KM tools are easy to use - Mechanisms and tools to leverage knowledge assets are widely accepted - Systematic effort to measure and improve knowledge-sharing - KM tools periodically upgraded / improved - Business processes that incorporate sharing of knowledge assets are periodically reviewed

8 <Table 4> Common Characteristics and Maturity Levels of CMM-Based KMMM Description Lack of awareness of the need of KM Aware of importance of KM to organization Basic KM infrastructure in place KM activities are stable and practiced Individual KM roles are defined Management / leadership realizes their role in, and encourages KM Training for KM Common organizational KM strategy Use of metrics to govern KM Continual improvement of KM practices and tools Existing KM can be adapted flexibly to meet new challenges Siemens KMMM KPQM Infosys KMMM KMCA Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Level 4 Level 3 Level 3 Level 3 Level 2 (Knowledge Database administrator) Level 3 (dedicated KM Group) Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Level 4 Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 and 4 Level 4 Level 4 Level 4 Level 4 Level 3 (productivity gains) Level 4 (project / functional-level) Level 5 (organization-level) Unspecified. Probably Level 4 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Level 5 Unspecified. Probably Level 5 Level 5 Unspecified. Probably Level 5

9 Corresponding to CMM, each KMMM also identified KPAs that indicate the areas that an organization should focus on to improve its KM process and issues that must be addressed to achieve a maturity level (see <Table 5). Different KMMMs have specified different KPAs. Among them, people, organization, process and technology appear to be major KPAs common across all models. <Table 5> KPAs of CMM-Based KMMM KMMM Key Process Areas Remarks Infosys KMMM People Process Technology Siemens KMMM - Staff and Competencies - Cooperation and Culture - Leadership and Support - Environment and Partnerships - Knowledge Structures and Knowledge Forms - Process, Roles and Organization - Strategy and Knowledge goals KPQM People Organization Technology KMCA - Lessons-Learned - Expertise - Data - Structured Knowledge - Infosys does not differentiate between the 3 KPAs at maturity level 5 - Technology and Infrastructure - Perceptual (Behavioral) and factual (infrastructure-related) characteristics are identified for each of the 4 KPAs The four KMMMs fulfill some requirements of an ideal KMMM. First, all four KMMMs are based on the well-established CMM and adopt a staged structure. Each KPA, maturity level and corresponding characteristics are clearly defined. These KMMMs also allow cross-references to proven management concepts and models. Other than CMM, the characteristics of maturity levels imply that change management principles and practices may be valuable in managing progression along the maturity model; the KPAs identified suggest that concepts related to human resource, KM process and technology management can also be fruitful sources of information. Second, these KMMMs also support continuous learning and improvement. This is evident in that continual improvement of KM practices and tools and adapt existing KM to meet new challenges are common characteristics cited as important across models. Third, among the four KMMMs, KPQM adopts the process level of analysis. This suggests that KPQM can be applied to different objects of analysis. In contrast, Siemens KMMM, Infosys KMMM and KMCA take an organizational level view. A possible reason for this is that CMM, while based on processes, caters for only the evaluation of whole organizations (Paulzen et al. 2002). Being based on CMM, these three KMMMs adopted a similar view. On the other hand, KPQM is able to provide process level assessment because other than CMM, it is also developed based the Software Process Improvement and Capability model (SPICE or ISO/IEC15504), which is specifically designed for the assessment of management structures in software development. Fourth, all four KMMMs take into consideration the views of different participants on organization s KM tasks. This is apparent in that the common characteristics describing various maturity levels focus on different members of the organization. For example, the characteristic management/leadership realize their role in, and encourage KM focuses on management, while training

10 for KM focuses on KM users who are mostly employees. Fifth, there is evidence that all four KMMMs have proposed some formal assessment procedure. Siemens KMMM and Infosys KMMM have both been applied successfully internally or externally as consultation, and KPQM and KMCA provide some assessment questions for use with their models. However, the extent to which these approaches are systematic and structured, and ensure transparent and reliable handling of the assessment procedure is unclear because they are not documented in publicly available sources. Finally, all four KMMMs provide some qualitative results in terms of interview responses. On the other hand, it is uncertain if quantitative results are offered because the complete assessment procedures are unavailable. However, it seems that quantitative results can potentially be provided with the existing models. For example, Infosys KMMM suggests that productivity gains can be used as a metric governing KM. 2.3 Non-CMM-Based KMMM In the course of our research, the following five non-cmm-based KMMMs were identified, namely KPMG Consulting s Knowledge Journey (KPMG 2000), Klimko s KMMM (Klimko 2001), VISION KMMM (Weerdmeester et al. 2003), TATA Consultancy Services 5iKM3 KMMM (Mohanty and Chand 2004), and WisdomSource s K3M (WisdomSource 2004) KPMG Consulting s Knowledge Journey The KPMG s Knowledge Journey is one of the few maturity models that have been empirically tested. It has been applied to 423 organizations worldwide in a KM study (KPMG 2000), and adopted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as its KM assessment model (Chatwin 2002). Compared to other models and unlike CMM-based KMMMs, the Knowledge Journey is a more flexible model that looks at four key process areas, namely people, process, content and technology, with each area having a checklist of items (see <Table 6). The maturity of an organization is defined by the number and the mix of items applicable to the organization (see <Table 7). However, as the assessment of the maturity is done in a rather flexible manner, the Knowledge Journey provides a less prescriptive KM roadmap compared to other KMMMs Klimko s KMMM Klimko (2001) argued that there is a need for a clear-cut roadmap for KM development to provide vision as well as a description of the way forward. Based on the assumption that the first step in any KM implementation would involve the exploitation of existing knowledge and knowledge creation is considered only after that, a KMMM is proposed. The model identifies five maturity levels, namely initial, discoverer, creator, manager and renewer (see <Table 8). Except for the initial level, Klimko described the general expectations at each maturity level, and defined the key processes, organizational challenges and possible pitfalls associated with the level. Unlike CMM-based KMMMs, in this model not all characteristics need to be fulfilled in order to proceed to the next maturity level. For example, to achieve

11 maturity level 4, an organization needs only to achieve more than 2 characteristics from each KPA. <Table 6> Key Process Areas of The Knowledge Journey (KPMG 2000) Key Process Area Items People Implementing KM training/awareness (e.g. workshops or road shows) - Appointing knowledge officers and creating knowledge centers - Incentivising and rewarding knowledge working - Building and developing communities of practice - Establishing formal KM networks (e.g. dedicated workers in discrete groups, communities of KM practice) Process - Benchmarking or auditing the current situation - Creating a KM strategy - Implementing new systems for communities of practice - Designing other KM processes Content Technology - Creating a knowledge map - Implementing knowledge policies - Measuring intellectual capital - Carrying out a knowledge system audit or assessment - Implementing ways to share best practice - Use of KM software (either dedicated or Intranet or Groupware software) <Table 7> Maturity Levels of The Knowledge Journey (KPMG 2000) Maturity Stage Description 1 Knowledge Chaotic 3 or fewer items from all areas combined 2 Knowledge Aware 4 or more items from at least 2 areas 3 Knowledge Focused 6 or more items from at least 3 areas 4 Knowledge Managed More than 2 items from each area 5 Knowledge Centric All items VISION KMMM VISION KMMM (V-KMMM) is targeted at KM-oriented road-mapping and research-programming initiatives and takes on a very different approach (Weerdmeester et al. 2003). It consists of two different dimensions of maturity it has a research, technological development and demonstration (RTD) oriented maturity model, as well as an organization-oriented maturity model. The RTD-oriented maturity model assesses the maturity or evolution level of the target KM technology, while the organization-oriented maturity model appraises the human, organizational and general technological dimensions of KM. V-KMMM s RTD-oriented maturity model is built upon the Information Societies Technology s fifth Framework Programme and consists of four phases: the extraction of technology prognoses from predefined roadmaps, the consolidation and sorting of extracted technologies, the definition of maturity levels, and the development of technology life cycles. On the other hand, the organization-oriented maturity model is derived from Gallagher and Hazlett s (1999) Knowledge Management Formula (KMf), which is a theoretical framework that shows how KM relies on a mix between Ki (organizational knowledge infrastructure), Kc (knowledge culture) and Kt (knowledge technology). The organization-oriented maturity model defines four maturity levels which are presented in a quadrant (<Figure 1), which does not

12 appear to follow the staged approach used in most maturity models. V-KMMM is not designed as an imperative and rigid model, but can also be used in conjunction with other organization-oriented Maturity Models (such as Siemens KMMM). In this paper, the organization-oriented maturity model is deemed more relevant since it provides a more holistic review of KM maturity by integrating the cultural, organizational and technological aspects. Ki Kt Ki + Kt + Kc Kt + Kc No Ki Kc 1. Kf-0: User group has no Ki, Kt and Kc to support future generation KM 2. Kf-1: User group has predominantly Ki and no Kt and Kc to support future generation KM 3. Kf-2: User group has predominantly Kt and Kc but no Ki to support future generation KM 4. Kf-3: User group has Ki, Kt and Kc to support future generation KM Ki No Kt and Kc No Ki, Kt and <Figure 1> V-KMMM Organization-Oriented Maturity Model (Weerdmeester et al. 2003) TATA Consultancy Services 5iKM3 KMMM The 5iKM3 KMMM is part of the TATA Consultancy Services KM implementation methodology. It identifies five states of maturity, namely initial, intent, initiative, intelligent and innovative (see <Table 8). To sustain continuous growth, organizations need to progress step by step to attain the higher levels of knowledge maturity as there can be no short-cut to reach the highest maturity state. This can be achieved by systematically addressing three key foundation areas (KFA), namely people, technology and processes. The 5iKM3 acknowledges that disturbances in any of the three KFAs would result in a change in maturity state, but the impact would differ among KFAs and depend on the current maturity state. However, no specific details are given regarding these differences WisdomSource s K3M WisdomSource s K3M takes a system perspective of KM maturity by defining the characteristics of the KM system and measurements which must be in place in order to reach the next level of maturity (WisdomSource 2004). K3M identified eight levels of maturity. Unlike other models, K3M did not identify the lack of KM awareness to be the lowest level of maturity for an organization. Instead, it defines the first maturity level as having basic infrastructure for knowledge-sharing, which can exist in the form of a web portal or a content publishing system. K3M also differs from other maturity models in that it considers system implementation (level 2) and measurement (level 3) in separate maturity levels. Unlike CMM-based KMMMs, K3M skews towards technological assessment on the whole and lacks the people and cultural dimension. This implies that the K3M may not be able to provide a comprehensive

13 view of KM maturity compared to other multidimensional KMMMs Comparison and Evaluation of Non-CMM-Based KMMM Among these models, the V-KMMM defines 4 levels of maturity; the Knowledge Journey, 5iKM3, and Klimko s KMMM define 5 levels of maturity; and WisdomSource s K3M defines 8 levels of maturity (see <Table 8). Unlike other KMMMs, V-KMMM does not follow a progressive maturity pathway. Hence, it is considered to be incomparable to other KMMMs in terms of maturity levels. <Table 8> Naming of Maturity Levels of Non-CMM-Based KMMM Level Knowledge Journey 5iKM3 Klimko s KMMM K3M 1 Knowledge chaotic Initial Initial Standardized Infrastructure for Knowledge Sharing 2 Knowledge Aware Intent Knowledge Discoverer Top-Down Quality-Assured Information Flow 3 Knowledge Focused Initiative Knowledge Creator Top-Down Retention Measurement 4 Knowledge Managed Intelligent Knowledge Manager Organizational Learning 5 Knowledge Centric Innovative Knowledge Renewer Organizational Knowledge base / Intellectual Property Maintenance 6 Process-Driven Knowledge Sharing 7 Continual Process Improvement 8 Self-Actualized Organization <Table 9 compares the characteristics of maturity levels of the Knowledge Journey, 5iKM3, Klimko s KMMM and K3M. Among them, K3M has 8 levels of maturity compared to other 5 levels of other KMMMs. Considering that it does not identify the lack of KM awareness to be the lowest level of maturity, K3M does not have any level corresponding to level 1 of other KMMMs. Furthermore, judging from the content of the characteristics of each maturity level, several maturity levels of K3M sometimes reflects the characteristics of a single maturity level of other KMMMs. Hence, maturity levels in K3M can be considered as finer granulation of other KMMMs. Hence, in our comparison, several maturity levels of K3M are sometimes combined and taken to be comparable to a single maturity level of other KMMMs. We observed several common characteristics among the KMMMs. This includes the lack of awareness of the need to manage knowledge at level 1; the awareness of the need to manage knowledge at level 2; and having continuous improvement at level 5. However, although most non-cmm-based KMMMs have five-staged structure similar to CMM-based KMMMs, the stages are named differently and characteristics defining each stage differ across non-cmm-based KMMMs. Hence, extracting common characteristics to summarize these KMMMs is less feasible and less likely to be accurate and representative. Similar to CMM-based KMMMs, all non-cmm-based KMMMs except Klimko s KMMM identify KPAs that organizations should focus on in enhancing KM maturity (see <Table 10). In general, common KPAs include people, process, and technology.

14 Lev el Knowledge Journey <Table 9> Characteristics of Maturity Levels of Non-CMM-Based KMMM 5iKM3 Klimko s KMMM K3M Lack of awareness of the need to manage knowledge Does not demonstrate relationship between importance of KM and achievement of organizational goals No formal processes for using organizational knowledge effectively for business delivery - Does not pay specific attention to KM activities. - KM is considered as information management Awareness of the need to manage organizational knowledge - Awareness and implementatio n of KM across the organization may not be uniform - Pilot projects exists in some areas - Organization uses KM procedures and tools - Organization recognizes that KM brings some benefits to the business - Has integrated framework of KM procedures and tools - Some technical and cultural issues need to be overcome - KM procedures are an integral part of organizational and individual processes - Value of knowledge is reported to the stakeholders Organization realizes the potential in harnessing its organizational knowledge for business benefits - Organizations have knowledge enabled their business processes - Organizations are observing benefits and business impacts from KM - Has matured collaboration and sharing throughout the business processes - KM has resulted in collective and collaborative organizational intelligence Continuous improvement KM is institutionalized - Focus on internals (defining, scanning, codifying and distributing knowledge) - KM still considered information management - Challenge is to codify and deploy discovered knowledge - Focus on eternals (management commitment, understanding business needs, innovation) - Focus on creating knowledge that is of interest to future business needs. - Broad-based approach to KM, technology is secondary - Challenge is to understand future business needs and make forecasts on business environment - Institutionalized (document processes, promote sharing, manage resources, utilize sophisticated technology) - Individuals and organizational units dedicated to KM - KM has formal documented processes - Knowledge processes are measurable, quantitative control is possible - KM interfaces with quality management function - Challenge is to integrate existing and created knowledge, and to institutionalized KM processes Focus on inter-organizational co-operation and exploiting common ways of knowledge creation - Content publishing and management system in place (level 1) - Information is digitized and delivered from managers to staff via structured broadcasts and web portals (level 2) - Clear defined roles and deliverables (level 2) - Resources aware that they are accountable for achieving goals set by the management (level 2) - Measure retention of information delivered to staff via collection tools (level 3) - Digitizing and just-in-time delivery of information (level 4) - Measure retention (level 4) - Maintain up-to-date repository of organizational documents (level 4) - Gather, organize, improve and maintain individual and collective processes via secure, internal and customizable web portals (level 5) - Capture and just-in-time delivery of up-to-date work processes organized by role (level 6) - Knowledge collection tools captures feedback, best practices, and lessons learned from resources on the front-line (level 7) - Knowledge is shared, reused, analyzed and optimized (level 7) - KM provides online virtual representation of the organization and its functional units (level 8) - KMS forms the structural backbone for enterprise-wide innovation and

15 employee self-actualization (level 8) - Continuous filtering out of non-value-added work (level 8)

16 <Table 10> KPAs of Non-CMM-Based KMMM KMMM Key Process Areas Remarks V-KMMM Culture Infrastructure Technology The Knowledge Journey People Process and Content Technology 5iKM3 People Process Technology K3M Process and Technology - Model focuses on technological aspects - People aspects are described from a technological perspective The non-cmm-based KMMMs fulfill some requirements of an ideal KMMM. First, their underlying structures are comprehensible. Although they are not based on CMM, they follow a similar staged progression. They are different from CMM-based KMMMs in that most of them do not require organizations to fulfill all characteristics of all KPAs in order to achieve a maturity level. However, considering that clear rules are specified for progression along maturity levels, their structures are still considered comprehensible. On the other hand, although V-KMMM has more flexible rules for progression along the maturity levels, the rules are clearly specified. Similar to CMM-based KMMMs, these KMMMs state the characteristics of each maturity level and specify the KPAs. This allows the identification of important aspects and hence cross references to proven management concepts or models. Second, among the five KMMMs, continuous improvement and learning is supported in 5iKM3 and Klimko s KMMM as a characteristic of KM maturity level 5. Third, with regard to the object of analysis, the V-KMMM, Knowledge Journey, 5iKM3 and Klimko s KMMM appear to be applicable to organizations as a whole, and traditional and virtual organizational unit but not KM systems while K3M focuses on KM systems instead of processes. Fourth, the Knowledge Journey and Klimko s KMMM do explicitly consider the views of different participants on organization s KM tasks. This is evident in that they characterized maturity levels in terms of different members of the organization (e.g. stakeholders in level 5 of Knowledge Journey, individuals in level 4 of Klimko s KMMM). In contrast, V-KMMM and 5iKM3 do not specify whether views of different participants are taken into account and K3M focuses on technology. However, depending on the assessment approaches employed, the identification of different KPAs in these models suggests that opinions of different participants can indeed be solicited and considered. Fifth, all KMMMs except Klimko s KMMM are developed for actual consulting purposes and it is hence expected that they are accompanied by some formal approaches for assessing maturity levels. However, as detailed assessment procedure in not available in public sources, the extent to which they provide a systematic and structured approach which ensures transparency and reliable handling of the assessment procedure could not be ascertained. Finally, as with CMM-based KMMM, these KMMMs appear to provide largely qualitative results in the form of interview responses but quantitative results are also possible.

17 3. Proposed G-KMMM The proposed model is a descriptive model in that it describes the essential attributes that characterize an organization at a particular KM maturity level. It is also a normative model in that the key practices characterize the ideal types of behavior that would be expected in an organization implementing KM. 3.1 Structure of G-KMMM Similar to the majority of existing CMM-based and non-cmm-based KMMMs, the G- KMMM follows a staged-structure and has three main components, namely maturity levels, KPAs and common characteristics. Each maturity level is composed of several KPAs, and each KPA is described by a set of common characteristics. These characteristics specify the key practices that, when collectively addressed, help to accomplish the goals of a KPA. Our literature review reveals that like the CMM, most existing KMMMs (both CMM-based and non-cmm-based) identify five levels of maturity. Accordingly, the proposed KMMM adapted five levels of maturity from CMM and named them initial, aware, defined, managed, and optimizing respectively (see <Table 11). We renamed level 2 from repeatable to aware considering that repeatable is less intuitive in the KM context and that level 2 is mainly characterized by awareness of the need to manage knowledge. The G-KMMM dictates that organizations should progress from one maturity level to the next without skipping any level. In practice, organizations may beneficially employ key practices described at a higher maturity level than they are. However, until a proper foundation is laid, these practices are unlikely to attain their full potential. As maturity levels describe the issues that predominate at a level, skipping levels can be counter-productive because each level forms a necessary foundation from which to achieve the next. Hence, the ability to implement practices from higher maturity levels does not imply that maturity levels can be skipped. The majority of the KMMMs reviewed identify people-related, process-related and technology-related KPAs. The remaining KMMMs also refer to these aspects even if they do not explicitly mention these KPAs. It is expected that these KPAs, when used in conjunction, can provide a comprehensive assessment of an organization s KM maturity. In view of the observation that most KMMMs combine people and organization into a single KPA and to preserve parsimony, the proposed framework thus defines three KPAs, namely people, process and technology (see <Table 11). These KPAs concur with researchers suggestion that KM needs to consider organizational, human (i.e. psychological and sociological) and technological aspects in order to deliver thorough and successful business support (Quintas et al. 1997). The people KPA includes aspects related to culture and organization s strategies and policies; the process KPA refers to aspects concerning KM processes; and the technology KPA relates to aspects about KM technology and infrastructure.

18 <Table 11> Proposed G-KMMM Maturity Level 1 Initial Little or no intention to make use of organizational knowledge General Description People / Organization Organization and its people are not aware of the need to manage its knowledge resources Key Process Areas Process No formal processes to capture, share and reuse organizational knowledge Technology No specific KM technology or infrastructure in place 2 Aware Organization is aware of and has the intention to manage its organizational knowledge, but it might not know how to do so 3 Defined Organization has put in place a basic infrastructure to support KM 4 Managed / Established 5 Optimizing / Sharing KM initiatives are well established in the organization KM is deeply integrated into the organization and is continually improved upon It is an automatic component in any organizational processes Management aware of the need for KM - Management is aware of its role in encouraging KM - Basic training on KM are provided (e.g. awareness courses) - Basic KM strategy is put in place - Individual KM roles are defined - Incentive systems are in place - Common strategy and standardized approaches towards KM - KM is incorporated into the overall organizational strategy - More advanced KM training - Organizational standards Culture of sharing is institutionalized Knowledge indispensable for performing routine task is documented - Processes for content and information management is formalized - Metrics might be used to measure the increase in productivity due to KM Quantitative measurement of KM processes (i.e. use of metrics) - KM processes are constantly reviewed and improved on - Existing KM processes can easily be adapted to meet new business requirements - KM procedures are an integral part of the organization Pilot KM projects are initiated (not necessarily by management) - Basic KM Infrastructure in place (e.g. single point of access) - Some enterprise-level KM projects are put in place - Enterprise-wide KM systems are fully in place - Usage of KM systems is at a reasonable level - Seamless integration of technology with content architecture Existing KM infrastructure is continually improved upon The comparison of common characteristics identified by CMM- and non-cmm-based KMMMs shows that non-cmm-based KMMMs share less common characteristics among themselves than CMM-based KMMMs. In addition, these common characteristics are similar to those identified in CMM-based KMMMs. As a result, the common characteristics describing each KPA at each maturity level in the proposed model correspond largely to those identified in CMM-based KMMMs as presented in <Table 4 (see <Table 11). The proposed G-KMMM fulfills many requirements of an ideal KMMM. First, it can be applied to several

19 different objects of analysis, including the organization as a whole and traditional and virtual organizational units. However, it cannot be applied to KM systems. Second, it does take into account the views of different participants on organization s KM tasks as the proposed assessment instrument explicitly specifies the need to interview different participants and consult different data sources. Third, by explicating the assessment instrument, we attempt to provide a systematic and structured approach which ensures transparency and reliable handling of the assessment procedure. We also defined and detailed the important concepts, structure, maturity levels, their characteristics, and key practices in an endeavor to encourage comparison and standardization of definitions and measurement. Fourth, the results provided by the proposed KMMM are mainly qualitative. However, quantitative results may be generated when surveys instead of interviews are conducted to answer certain questions such as does the KMS improve the quality and efficiency of work? Fifth, to the extent that it follows the CMM s staged structure, it is considered comprehensible. It also allows cross references to proven management concepts or models like change management and strategy planning. Last, the proposed KMMM supports continuous learning and improvement as evident in level 5 s characteristics which state that KM is deeply integrated into the organization and is continually improved upon. 3.2 Assessment of KM Maturity Although most existing KMMMs are developed to address practical needs and it is believed that some form of assessment procedure exists for these KMMMs, they are rarely available in public sources. Among the KMMMs reviewed, only the assessment instruments of Knowledge Journey, KPQM, and KMCA are accessible. To facilitate practical application of the proposed G-KMMM, we developed an accompanying assessment instrument. For each KPA at each maturity level, a set of questions was developed to assess whether a subject organization has accomplished the key practices characterizing that maturity level (see <Table 12). For the organization to attain a certain level of maturity, its response to questions of that maturity level must be all positive. That is, it must carry out all key practices of that maturity level. By default, all organizations are at level 1 of the proposed KMMM. The questions used in the assessment instrument are adapted from existing instruments as suitable. These include the Knowledge Journey s KM Framework Assessment Exercise, KPQM, KMCA and the KM Assessment Tool (de Jager 1999). The KM Assessment Tool (KMAT) is a diagnostic survey that helps an organization in determining the effectiveness of its KM practices. New questions are constructed to assess aspects where suitable existing questions are not accessible. Data for answering the questions in the assessment instrument can be collected in several ways. Surveys can be administered to different organizational members to generate more quantitative data in the form of summarized statistics. Interviews can be conducted to gather richer and more in depth opinions. Both surveys and interviews can be used to collect data for different questions in a single assessment. In all cases, the assessment instrument can serve as a basis for developing the survey instrument or interview guide.