HUMAN LEARNING - NATURAL DRIFT TO LOOSE COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE

HUMAN LEARNING - PROFESSOR CONCEDES CoP AS GOLD STANDARD IN EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT

 HUMAN LEARNING - 3,000 CoPS AT CATERPILLAR WORLDWIDE

MORE  IN  ARCHIVES...

RESEARCH NEWS NOTIFICATIONS...REGISTER

AUSTRALIAN HR EXPERTS DECLARING
KM GROWING ATLEAST IN IMPORTANCE
Page 3.

DEGREE OF IMPLEMENTATION
KM Strategies | KM Initiatives | KM Process | KM Documentation | KM Incentives |
KM Measurement | KM Culture

A. KM Strategies (5 items) - 19 %
> KM is embedded in business processes generally - 22 % Completely or Mostly
(58 % Slightly or Not at All)
> Defined responsibilities for KM initiatives - 14 %
(33% Not at All)

'It is a little disconcerting that 47 % of respondents report only slight
implementation of KM systems and ideas within the business processs
generally, and quite alarming that at third of respondent organisations do
not define responsibilities for KM initiatives at all.' (p.107)

B. KM Initiatives (9 items) - 24 %
> Employees have time to document new knowledge during and
after a project is finished- 12 %
> Budget is in place - 23 %
> Work is arranged in ways that encourage experiential learning - 22 %
> Learning is used to support existing core competencies - 33 %
> New core competencies are created - 20 %

'Thirty six percent report that work is arranged in ways that moderately encourage experiential learning, and another 36 % say this happens but only slightly.' (p.109)

C. KM Process (6 items) - 39 % [one item anomalous/ removed]
> Climate of openness and trust - 36 %
> Knowledge gaps identified - 22 %
> Knowledge is effectively disseminated through set procedures
and formal networks - 31 %

'Relatively high levels of implementation are also reported in areas like openness
and trust, dissemination of knowledge through set procedures and formal networks,
and by bringing employees together.' (p.108)

D. KM Documentation and Maintenance/Protection (7 items) - 28 %
> Process of best practice transfer has been formalised - 22 %
> Recording and sharing knowledge is routine and second nature - 11 %
> Effective cataloging and archiving procedures present,
electronically or hardcopy- 34%

E. KM Incentives (4 items) - 30 %
> Rewards are given for high performance, achievement of specific objectives- 39 %
> Productive teamwork is recognised and rewarded- 39 %
> People are singled out for their exemplary work in KM - 23 %
(58 % Slightly or Not at All)
> Intellectual capital is rewarded in the organisation - 20 %

'33 % of organisations only slightly recognise and reward individuals for exemplary KM work. A futher 25 % of respondents give no recognition whatsoever to such individuals. ' (p.111)

F. KM Measurement (5 items) - 19%
> Good KM behaviour is monitored and built into the appraisal system - 22 %
> Specific indicators are in place to manage knowledge - 11 %
> Financial and non-financial indicators are balanced - 19 %
> Senior management regularly reviews KM effectiveness to the whole company - 14 %
> Best practice of internal measurement methods are reviewed regularly - 28 %

'A futher third report that their senior management fails to review the effectiveness of
any KM measures that exist in the company.' (p.112)

F. KM Culture (5 items) - 28%
> Key players do not shirk the rules - 27 %
> Key players do not seek key information (just) for personal ends - 20 %
> Behaviours like hoarding, non-sharing etc are actively discouraged - 36 %

'The results are mixed... One has to wonder what the other 47 % are doing in this regard
(hoarding).'
__________________________________________________________________________

Statistical Conclusion Hypothesis 1

'The first hypothesis (H1) had predicted there would be no relationship between the act of acknowledging the importance of KM and the act of implementing a KM system. The results reported here are somewhat mixed. There is clearly some evidence of moderate to high degrees of importance being placed on the perceived significance of the KM concept. There is also evidence, in selected areas such as IT and compliance with legal requirements, of considerable degrees of implementation taking place. Nevertheless, the overall involvement of the obtained sample in very high levels of implementation in important areas such as KM responsibilities, targeting budgets to KM, identifying knowledge gaps, recognising and rewarding good KM performance and so on, is very disappointing.

Hypothesis One, it is argued, should therefore be upheld.'
[ No relationship between Stated Importance and Real Implementation - Ed.]