BusinessValueofKnowledgeManagement

BusinessValueofKnowledgeManagement - Business Value of...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Business Value of Knowledge Management: Return on Investment of Knowledge Retention Projects *Denise Johnson McManus Exxon-Calloway Faculty Fellow Calloway School of Business and Accountancy Wake Forest University P.O. Box 7285 Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109-7285 Telephone: (336) 758-6174 Fax: (336) 758-6133 [email protected] Daniel K. Fredericksen Information Resources Georgia-Pacific Corporation Atlanta, GA Telephone: (404) 652-7059 Fax: (404) 230-5678 [email protected] 1 2 3 • Larry Todd Wilson Knowledge Harvesting, Inc. 137 Orleans Drive Dauphin Island, AL 36528 Telephone: (251)-554-0446 [email protected] Charles A. Snyder Woodruff Professor Auburn University 411 Lowder Business Building 415 West Magnolia Avenue Auburn University, AL 36849-5241 Telephone: (334) 844-6504 Fax: (334) 844 –5159 [email protected] Corresponding Author 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Business Value of Knowledge Management: Return on Investment of Knowledge Retention Projects Denise Johnson McManus is an Assistant Professor of Information Systems and an ExxonCalloway Faculty Fellow in the Wayne Calloway School of Business and Accountancy at Wake Forest University. Dr. McManus received her Ph.D. from Auburn University. She has published in the International Journal of Information Technology and Management, International Journal of Technology Management, Information Resources Management Journal, Information Systems Management Journal, a case study in The Management of Telecommunications (Irwin-McGrawHill) and several conference proceedings. Her research includes telecommunications management, knowledge management and the strategic use and effects of information systems on organizations. She has held positions in three Fortune 500 companies and has twelve years of diversified Information Systems experience. Larry Todd Wilson is the Founder of LearnerFirst (1992), Knowledge Harvesting (1999), Virtual Collaboration (2003), and Knowledge Reserve (2004). He has led over 3,300 Knowledge Harvesting sessions and managed 43 client relationships related to creating corporate knowledge assets. He has produced 18 commercial learning software programs which are used in over 4,000 customer companies. One program was a finalist for a 1999 Codie Award; and one project was awarded the "1998 Most Innovative Application of Knowledge Management" by the Delphi Group. Designed, organized and led Knowledge Harvesting Workshops for 70 knowledge management professionals and launched 77 virtual communities. Authored 37 articles and 7 book chapters; delivered 29 conference presentations. Daniel K. Fredericksen is an IT Manager and KM practitioner with Georgia Pacific. He introduced knowledge-harvesting, communities of practice, and collaborative work tools as a means to capture, deploy, and grow expertise. He has implemented the knowledge management strategy for the company’s corporate information technology group documenting in excess of $1M in ROI from KM initiatives. His knowledge harvesting work was featured in the April 2001 issue of KM Magazine. He has hosted community-building sessions for the IEEE, presented at the Delphi Group's E Business Conference, and given keynote addresses for Lucent's Knowledge Summit. Charles A. Snyder is Woodruff Endowed Professor of Management (MIS) in the College of Business at Auburn University. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska. He has extensive managerial and consulting experience. His research interests include strategic management of information technology, knowledge management, and telecommunications management. He has more than 200 refereed publications including the International Journal of Information Technology and Management, Journal of Management Information Systems, Information & Management, the Academy of Management Review and Executive, California Management Review, and Decision Support Systems. Dr. Snyder is a member of SIM, ACM, DSI, IEEE, IRMA, AIS and other regional, national and international professional societies. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Business Value of Knowledge Management: Return on Investment of Knowledge Retention Projects ABSTRACT The impacts of current economic conditions, organizational downsizing, internal 8 and external terrorist attacks, as well as a reduction in personnel through retirement, 9 resignation, or death have increased recognition of the importance of managing 10 corporate knowledge. This recognition has reinforced the concept of Knowledge 11 Management (KM). Although the business value of Knowledge Management continues 12 to be debated, it is evident that organizations need to manage their valuable corporate 13 knowledge from a practical standpoint. While some companies report substantial 14 benefits from KM, others report that KM has not had an impact on the bottom-line. The 15 need for a systematic investigation of the impact of KM has become increasingly 16 essential. An investigation of the relationship between measuring the impact of KM on 17 the facets of business value is reported in this research. The results suggest that KM 18 investments in different types of knowledge retention projects have begun to show 19 positive results with respect to the organization. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Keywords: Business Value Knowledge Harvesting Competitive Advantage Knowledge Retention Intellectual Assets Return on Investment Knowledge Management ISRL categories: AC04, AI, FA, DA08, IB01, EI 3 Business Value of Knowledge Management: Return on Investment of Knowledge Retention Projects 1 2 3 4 5 6 It has been claimed that an organization’s most valuable resource is its 7 knowledge. Many researchers and practitioners agree that Knowledge Management 8 (KM) must be defined in terms of business objectives. Once these goals are defined, 9 organizations can determine what corporate knowledge should be harvested, organized, INTRODUCTION 10 managed, shared and measured. “Successful KM begins with hard decisions about 11 what knowledge is worth managing” (Rossett & Marshall, 1999). Although the business 12 value of Knowledge Management continues to be debated, it is evident that 13 organizations need to manage their valuable corporate knowledge from a practical 14 standpoint. Organizational resistance to KM efforts is attributed to the lack of evidence 15 that KM implementations are effective and can be measured, resulting in a positive 16 impact to the bottom-line. The difficult question, however, remains of how to measure 17 this valuable resource. 18 Organizations continue to be perplexed as they search for a methodology that 19 can be used to assess the effectiveness of KM within the organization. Successful KM 20 programs can demonstrate clearly defined links to bottom-line business benefits. 21 Therefore, it is essential that managers establish a substantive method to measure the 22 return on investment of KM. This study addresses the issue of KM effectiveness by 23 proposing a methodology that demonstrates a quantifiable and substantial return on 24 investment of knowledge retention projects within the organization. 25 26 4 BACKGROUND 1 2 3 A manager’s major concern should be centered on the knowledge required to 4 perform the organization’s critical processes and tasks, while attempting to facilitate 5 improvement and change as well as evaluate KM impacts within the organization. 6 Organizations, recognizing this need, are now striving to establish knowledge 7 management measurement systems to reveal the impact of KM in the dynamic 8 business environment. Furthermore, a principle value of communication is to establish a 9 way to improve knowledge transfer or sharing (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Davenport & 10 Prusak, 1998); thus, an effective KM plan must address organizational memory 11 management. The lack of effective management of knowledge could be because most 12 organizations are still struggling to comprehend the KM concept (Holsapple & Joshi, 13 2002); therefore, managers must analyze and understand the workflow and business 14 process of the organization to effectively manage the intellectual assets of the company, 15 (Bixler, 2002). 16 Knowledge Management 17 “Knowledge Management (KM) is the discipline that focuses on capturing, 18 organizing, filtering, sharing, and retaining key corporate knowledge as an asset” 19 (McManus & Snyder, 2003, p.89); while "managing the leadership, organization, 20 technology and learning aspects of internal and external intellectual assets through 21 retention and collaborative sharing of knowledge for the purpose of improving 22 performance and inspiring innovation throughout an enterprise” (Bixler, 2002, p. 18). 23 KM is a practice that finds valuable information and transforms it into necessary 24 knowledge critical to decision-making and action by integrating techniques from the 5 1 fields of organizational learning, performance management, and quality management 2 (Kirrane, 1999). 3 Institutionalizing knowledge sharing and implementing systems to capture 4 valuable knowledge are examples of KM-oriented activities. Knowledge retention is one 5 type of KM activity. For example, human resource professionals or knowledge 6 management personnel may perform these retention actions. HR-oriented knowledge 7 retention activities may include career succession planning, managing phased 8 retirements, contracting with consultants, reinventing the recruiting process, 9 and outsourcing. A KM system must be implemented to capture and retain the 10 knowledge gained from these activities. The relationship between managing 11 organizational improvement and conducting retention projects can be achieved by 12 applying the knowledge harvesting process, as illustrated in Figure 1. 13 14 15 16 _______________ Insert Figure 1 About Here _______________ 17 Knowledge Harvesting 18 Knowledge Harvesting1 is a mature methodology for rapidly converting top- 19 performer expertise into knowledge assets that improve the organization’s performance. 20 User organizations are protected from knowledge degradation resulting from personnel 21 losses, employee defections, and unavailability of needed experts at the right time and 22 place. These knowledge assets also contribute to corporate competitiveness, 23 profitability and valuation. The examples cited in this research are knowledge retention 1 Knowledge Harvesting is a registered trademark of Knowledge Harvesting Inc. 6 1 projects, which employed Knowledge Harvesting as the approach for eliciting and 2 organizing vital know-how. 3 Knowledge Harvesting is an integrated set of processes whereby the hidden 4 insights from top performers are converted into specific, actionable know-how that is 5 able to be transferred to thousands of employees via software (Snyder & Wilson, 1998). 6 The Knowledge Harvesting (KH) Framework presented in Figure 2 depicts this process 7 (Snyder, Wilson & McManus, 2000). 8 9 10 11 12 13 _______________ Insert Figure 2 About Here _______________ The KH framework can assist managers in their efforts to harvest and preserve 14 essential knowledge surrounding the organization’s key processes. The first step, 15 Focus, is to determine the existing explicit knowledge and implicit (tacit) knowledge that 16 is needed for the focal process. The second step consists of finding top performing 17 people and their critical activities. Once identified, an understanding of these activities 18 will be elicited from the key individuals. The activities of the top performers are educed 19 and logically mapped in the knowledge harvesting process. 20 The knowledge must be arranged in an organized coherent or systematic form. 21 The determination of how to properly package the knowledge so that it can be available 22 when and where needed is a necessity. These knowledge processes are recorded in a 23 database that is accessible through a software package. Sharing allows for the 24 distribution of captured knowledge throughout the organization to individuals or groups 25 that may require this relevant information. The purpose of a KM system is to allow 26 people other than the key players to use or apply the same decisions rules; thus, 7 1 employees can seek assistance from the database of knowledge that has be gained 2 and stored from the experts of the organization. Evaluation must be performed in order 3 to determine the effectiveness of the applications. The KM system must incorporate the 4 ability to adapt to new knowledge so that it can be refreshed. By instantly recording all 5 input information generated during the learning sessions, these processes increase the 6 organization’s ability to make effective use of all harvested know-how. 7 Although organizations view knowledge as one of the most important assets, it is 8 typically recorded as an expense, (Grayson, 1996). “Since managers are interested in 9 capturing relevant knowledge about the key processes of their firms, it is now apparent 10 that this should be part of the strategic goals of the company” (Snyder, Wilson & 11 McManus, 2000). It has been argued that KM is the process through which 12 organizations extract value from intellectual assets; thus, investments in KM should 13 create business value. While many organizations are discussing the value of KM 14 systems, few have determined the best methodology to measure this perceived value. 15 The proposed methodology in this research provides a means of calculating the 16 economic benefit of knowledge retention projects. 17 A review of the literature suggests that there have been numerous attempts at 18 quantitatively measuring knowledge capital; however, intangible knowledge within the 19 organization is very difficult to measure. The purpose of this research is to extend the 20 first step of the KM process, with a priority on developing an effective measurement 21 strategy for calculating return on investment. 22 8 1 2 3 KNOWLEDGE RETENTION PROJECTS A well-defined KM process should provide a foundation for the organization to 4 understand its knowledge resources and activities, resulting in a defined method of 5 organizational measurement. To extend the first step, Focus, of the KM framework, 6 Figure 3 depicts the three aspects of measuring KM value for organizational projects; 7 specifically knowledge retention projects, through project documentation. 8 9 10 11 12 13 ________________ Insert Figure 3 About Here _______________ Project Plan Project plans provide the design and scope necessary to define the requirements 14 needed for the work process. The plan includes steps for documenting, implementing, 15 and maintaining the KM system, with an emphasis on structure and return on 16 investment indicators that are accepted by the stakeholders. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 “Discussing the usefulness of a project plan is a first step in managing freewheeling employees and a project plan is an investment of time and money. If a manager decides to use a plan, reviewing the project variables will help provide ideas on the best project plan mechanics to use to control the project.” (Rosenwinkel, 1995). For the knowledge harvesting process, project plans should be aggregated into 24 three-month groups and should always be determined prior to measuring ROI. These 25 project variables can be broken down into people variables and project variables. 26 (Rosenwinkel, 1995). The project plan will have a milestone schedule, project-costing 27 information, and responsibility lists. It is our contention that the project plan is prepared 28 prior to knowledge harvesting and specifies the measures required to report ROI. 9 1 2 Value Proposition Value proposition states how KM can help the organization achieve its goals better, 3 faster, or cheaper. Value is considered to have worth in usefulness or importance to the 4 possessor. In determining the best methodology for assessing the value of KM, 5 managers must consider measurable process improvement, cost savings, business 6 enablement, and risk reduction. We focus on measures of process performance as the 7 best place to demonstrate the efficacy of KM. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A knowledge project should focus on a specific business problem that can be quantified, in terms of what the problem costs the company. The measurement for value is the most important thing. A knowledge management strategy based off of a fact-based business case that shows it will create value for the organization is vital, (MacSweeney, 2002, p. 44). “Value is often associated with some form of measurement. Today we have 15 slowly learned to value immeasurable things like knowledge but to value even more 16 intangible things like tacit knowledge is unusual “(Haldin-Herrgard, 2000, p. 362). It is 17 our contention that the impact of knowledge is measurable and the impact of elicited 18 tacit knowledge (implicit) should be measurable. 19 Return on Investment (ROI) 20 Return on Investment (ROI), a traditional financial measure, has been identified 21 as a financial indicator for measuring KM. The problem for measuring productivity for 22 knowledge workers is that much of their output is intangible; hence, surrogate measures 23 may be misleading. Performance measurement provides the organization with a 24 “device through which to focus and enunciate accountability” (Sharman, 1993) and “an 25 objective, impersonal basis for performance evaluation” (Sloma, 1980). 26 27 28 A recent study reported “that only a very limited number of organizations have a mechanism to track the return on investment in knowledge-based competencies or related intangible assets” (Chong, Holden, & Schmidt, 2000). 10 1 Measurement techniques should be applied to develop a method for generating a 2 class of information that will be useful in a wide variety of problems and situations (Zairi, 3 1994). Some firms attempt to measure KM by estimating the value of the tangible 4 assets, such as software or trained employees. Traditional financial methods, such as 5 economic value added, total cost of ownership or balanced scorecard may be very 6 effective with measuring tangible assets, but not intangible assets. Until organizations 7 determine an effective way to measure their intangible KM benefits, they will continue to 8 have constraints that will prevent the adoption/proliferation of the KM process. 9 Therefore, we present a methodology to measure the impact of elicited tacit knowledge; 10 11 12 13 14 specifically, return on investment for knowledge retention projects. STAGES OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT METHODOLOGY Since measuring knowledge is vital to organizations, it becomes a tool that can 15 be utilized to evaluate, control, and improve existing systems. “Organizational culture is 16 increasingly recognized as a major barrier to leveraging intellectual assets. Knowledge 17 ultimately assumes value when it affects decision making and is translated into action” 18 (DeLong, 2000, p. 126). Although many executives would agree that implementing KM 19 practices is logical and valuable to the firm, they are faced with continued request to 20 generate a financial report of the success of the knowledge retention projects. It is not 21 uncommon for senior managers to focus their attention on the ROI when deciding if a 22 project should “stay or go”. Thus, executives are more willing to calculate bottom-line 23 impact and deliver a dollar-value (ROI) for managing knowledge. 24 “It is argued that firms unable to manage knowledge assets will be increasingly 25 uncompetitive in the future business environment. However, the culture must adapt to 11 1 the new environment or else the ROI will indeed not support the business case (Nash, 2 2002). It is important that everyone involved define ROI in the same way, while 3 understanding the limits of the concept when used to support business decisions. 4 Specifically, for this research, we define ROI as the percentage return made over a 5 specified period of time as a result of investing in a knowledge retention project. Many 6 organizations have a misconception that a knowledge retention project will not indicate 7 positive financial results for years; however, the problem that should be addressed is 8 the appropriate metrics for measuring ROI for knowledge retention projects. As 9 illustrated in Figure 4, a four-stage approach for measuring return on investment is 10 presented. The brief description of the four stages is followed by a detailed analysis of 11 the orientation component of the definition stage, which is the focus of this research. 12 13 14 15 16 ______________ Insert Figure 4 About Here ____________________ 17 Definition Stage 18 The definition stage identifies the requirements of the project. A description of 19 the situation will be created by eliciting information from stakeholders concerning the 20 expected results of the proposed project. Questions will be posed to the stakeholders: 21 “What are the driver/signals for this project; what do you expect to be delivered from this 22 project; have you initiated similar projects in the past; and what is the orientation of the 23 project?” The purpose of this task is to explicitly understand and document the reason 24 for existence of the upcoming project; hence, identify the work requirements. In order to 25 accomplish this task, apparent traits will surface that are specific to the project and will 12 1 aid in determining the best orientation for this project. During this stage, the value 2 proposition will be created; thus, a review of the project plan is necessary to confirm the 3 requirements set forth by the stakeholders. 4 5 Cost Analysis Stage The cost analysis stage determines the costs associated with the knowledge 6 retention project. This analysis is considered the easiest task of measuring ROI; 7 however, it can be difficult to estimate time. The developmental labor, training costs, 8 maintenance labor, and cash outflows associated with plant, property and equipment 9 must be considered in this stage. Labor will be consistently divided into three 10 categories: consultants, dedicated full time employees and dedicated part-time 11 employees. Costs for training employees, which include compensation for trainers and 12 training materials, must be considered. In addition, maintenance labor is the labor 13 required to annually evaluate and adapt the knowledge asset, which may include 14 software and hardware upgrades. Finally, any cash outflows associated with plant, 15 property and equipment should be included in the cost analysis stage. 16 17 Benefit Analysis Stage The benefit analysis stage determines the non-cash benefits. Stakeholders must 18 answer questions: “Will you deploy the knowledge asset in phases; do you expect to 19 receive more than one payment; or do you expect equal payments?” It is important to 20 determine if the organization will redeploy or reduce personnel or equipment. Some 21 non-cash benefits that would be generated from a knowledge retention project would 22 include efficiency, such as reducing the number of customer support calls. In addition, 23 providing free training and/or certification to customers, partners, and suppliers, which 13 1 could result in delivering more revenue-generating courses to more customers. Finally, 2 shorter time to product deployment by shrinking training time, re-training for growth and 3 turnover, and increase productivity time on the job. In this stage, the organization can 4 measure intangible and tangible non-cash benefits. 5 6 The Computation Stage In the computation stage, the stakeholders must determine what financial results 7 can be calculated from the implementation of the project. They want to calculate cash 8 inflows, and cost of capital. Traditional measurements would include return on assets 9 (RONA), free cash flow (FCF), earnings before income tax (EBIT), return on investment 10 (ROI), and net present value (NPV). It is recommended that the stakeholders create a 11 list of candidate measures, create baselines and target measures, and determine 12 specific details about each measure. As the stakeholders apply these measurement 13 techniques to their projects, they will have a basis for comparison such that differing 14 types of projects can be compared and contrasted. 15 The four stages of ROI are valuable to all knowledge retention projects and 16 should be given careful consideration when initiating a new project. However, the 17 broader realm of the four stages is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, we focus 18 on one component of the definition stage. Specifically, this study will focus on 19 determining the orientation of a proposed knowledge retention project. 20 DEFINTION STAGE: DETERMINE ORIENTATION 21 In the orientation phase of the definition stage, the stakeholder must explain the 22 rationale for the project. In order to design an effective measurement system, we 23 contend that a process orientation should be taken from the beginning to find concrete 14 1 measures. Managers of critical company processes typically have well-established 2 measures of those processes and monitor them on a periodic basis. We will present six 3 orientations for the stakeholder to consider: efficiency, productivity, risk mitigation, 4 revenue, optimization and agility /adaptability/innovation. The following questions 5 represent the six orientations respectively: Are you trying to “move” work from one group to another in order to reduce or avoid cost? Are you trying to improve the overall level of productivity of the group? Are you trying to minimize risk associated with brain drain? Are you building a new product in order to increase or protect revenue? Are you trying to optimize human, technology and physical assets? Are you trying to enhance agility/adaptability/innovation? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 A detail description of each orientation, presented in Table 1 and the knowledge 15 harvesting work presented in Table 2, is discussed in the following section. _____________________ Insert Table 1 and Table 2 About Here _____________________ 16 17 18 19 20 21 Furthermore, the variability of ROI2 is presented in Table 1. The items were scored by 22 assigning a numeric value to each possible answer (e.g., narrow = 1; wide = 10). 23 Narrow represents high level of certainty that the project will report a specific ROI, with 24 limited variation. For example, an efficiency-oriented project has the potential of having 25 an ROI of 6:1, with minor variability. On the other hand, wide represents a high level of 26 uncertainty, with significant variability. 27 28 2 Return on Investment (ROI) can be calculated by using the following formula: (Total Benefit – Total Cost) ÷Total Benefit 15 Efficiency 1 2 3 Efficiency has been defined as the ratio of effective or useful output to total input 4 of any system, with a goal of minimizing wasted time and effort. Managers seek 5 efficiency when requesting that existing work be performed at lower costs or requesting 6 a budget decrease of 14%, while maintaining the same level of output. Organizations 7 continue to be challenged by the decision to either produce the same quality of work at 8 a lower price or outsource the work to save money. A knowledge retention efficiency-oriented project is one that yields the same 9 10 amount of work with less cost and less time. The purpose of this project is to enhance 11 operational efficiency and diminish the cost per transaction, while moving work from a 12 high-cost group to a low-cost group. Typically, the low-cost group lacks a baseline 13 process; thus, the goal is to get the process right or “doing the thing right”. An example 14 of this orientation would be to move a highly technical expert to a service center. The 15 captured expertise can be disseminated to the service center representatives; thus, 16 every employee in the service center should be able to solve routine problems. In the efficiency-orientation project, knowledge harvesting is primarily focused on 17 18 guidance and support information3. Guidance information4 is captured down to the 19 lowest level of abstraction, which provides all target learners/performers with explicit 20 know-how about accomplishing the requisite work. In addition, the typical ROI for the 21 efficiency-oriented project can be estimated as a ratio of 6:1. In other words, is the 22 stakeholder willing to spend one dollar today to potentially make six dollars tomorrow. 3 Support information helps a learner achieve understanding by delivering information such as basic definitions and purpose statements. 4 Guidance provides information for taking action. Guidance is also known as advice, coaching, how-to information, counsel, directions, instructions, methods, procedures, processes, prompts, explanations of the work, protocol, techniques, and tutoring. Four levels distinguish guidance: process, sub-process, task and element. 16 Productivity 1 Productivity is defined as having the power to produce; specifically, the rate at 2 3 which goods and services are produced especially output per unit of labor. When 4 focused on productivity, the unit of measure is expressed “in time.” Managers realize 5 that they must improve the productivity of their core competency, which is the most 6 important work they can perform. They continuously strive to build on their strengths, 7 with a target goal of ruling the market associated with their specific focus. Otherwise, 8 failure to adequately perform critical activities of a process could jeopardize the entire 9 business and make the organization vulnerable in the marketplace. Although capable 10 stakeholders are available to perform a process, they have difficulty achieving excellent 11 (expected) results (outcomes) or raising their performance level to a competent/expert 12 level. 13 A knowledge retention productivity-orientation project is one in which the same 14 amount of effort yields more work results. The purpose of this type of project is to 15 improve the overall productivity and facilitate knowledge transfer in order to extend the 16 abilities of others. The goal is to improve the overall average of productivity; thus, target 17 learners are doing the same job, but better. In this orientation, the strategy is work 18 effectiveness, while lowering cost per unit and increasing margin. A knowledge retention 19 project strives to increase the intellectual specialization within the organization, by 20 getting the right process or “doing the right thing”. An example of this orientation would 21 include a more effective troubleshooting process, whereby, one person can perform the 22 task originally requiring three to five individuals. The resulting benefit of this process is 23 to create a knowledge matrix with individuals who have differing perspectives on 17 1 different aspects of the problem. In the productivity-orientation project, knowledge 2 harvesting is primarily focused on signals5 and guidance levels two and three. Finally, 3 the typical ROI for the productivity-oriented project can be estimated as a ratio of 10:1. Risk Mitigation – “Brain Drain” 4 Risk Mitigation or “Brain Drain” is a term used to describe the gradual depletion 5 6 of intellectual power within the organization. This would be indicative of a gradual 7 diminution or drain on the resources of organizational knowledge. Corporations often 8 experience a natural reduction in personnel through retirement, resignation, or death. 9 When this natural attrition occurs, the “keepers” of the process or knowledge leave the 10 company increasing the risk of losing valuable knowledge. The company must 11 immediately address not only where the expertise loss occurs within the organization, 12 but also the staffing deficiency resulting from downsizing, merger/acquisitions and 13 attrition. Experts in these processes may prove difficult to locate or unavailable for 14 consultation. It is imperative that companies stop reinventing the proverbial wheel, by 15 creating a corporate memory to preserve vital knowledge. 16 A knowledge retention risk mitigation orientation project is defined as the gradual 17 depletion or complete loss of valuable knowledge that is essential to the success of the 18 organization. The primary purpose of this orientation is to sustain the current level of 19 productivity and mitigate any risks associated with employee migration. It has been 20 estimated that when companies are faced with “brain drain”, the average cost of 21 turnover is 1.5 times the annual salary of the job. On average, it takes 13.5 months for 5 Signal is a type of information that delivers contextual cues. It may be an issue, issue symptom, contextual or situational variable, environmental influence, stimulus, cause, influence, event, experience, perceptible or imperceptible trigger, change variable, unique circumstance, antecedent, or condition). . 18 1 new employees to maximize their efficiency. Therefore, the goal is get a new employee 2 to perform the prior employee’s workload in less time. The sacrifice of efficiency and 3 effectiveness are results of the loss of a valuable employee. One example would include a stakeholder group. As long as the stakeholder 4 5 group remains stable and relatively small (2-4 people), memory of the group's process 6 knowledge, decisions, actions, and rationales resides in the personal long-term memory 7 of the individuals. Individuals take with him/her the unique perspective of the group's 8 process knowledge that was stored in personal long-term memory; thus, difficulty arises 9 when someone leaves the original group and is replaced by a new person. If the entire 10 composition of the group turns over, eventually there is no one left who holds long-term 11 memory of the process, the group's history. The result is "brain drain" for the 12 organization. Therefore, human long-term memory is undocumented, and does not 13 become an organizational asset until after it is harvested and crafted into a knowledge 14 asset. 15 Knowledge harvesting work is equally focused on capturing support 16 information, signals and guidance. This focus coincides with the probability that new 17 performers have not been placed in the deficient work area; thus, the most extensive 18 set of information is needed. Brain Drain is similar to the productivity scenario. It is 19 necessary to determine if the work should be done; as well as, determine the 20 appropriate time to move from the baseline to the expected performance level. In 21 addition, the ROI for a brain drain-orientation project is estimated at a ratio of 10:1. 22 19 Revenue 1 2 3 Revenue has been defined as yielding a return on investment. It is the return 4 produced by a particular source. The company must generate additional revenue by 5 creating new products that leverage and integrate the product’s functional uses and the 6 customer’s requirements. Organizations attempt to differentiate their product/service in 7 the marketplace by packaging and deploying it to their customers. The most common 8 question to be answered by this type of project, “Where is the cash flow of the 9 organization generated?” In a revenue-oriented knowledge retention project, the 10 answer is knowledge. Thus, the organization is faced with how to externalize the 11 knowledge and embed it into the new products. 12 A revenue-oriented knowledge retention project is one that applies Knowledge 13 Harvesting as the means to capture know-how that will be used in a commercial 14 information product, intellectual property, or a new product in which its major attribute is 15 the embedded guidance. Revenue-oriented knowledge retention project managers 16 strive to achieve the same goal of differentiating products and adding value by 17 packaging and deploying their captured knowledge and process to their customers. The 18 purpose of this orientation is to increase sales, while creating a new source of 19 revenue. Usually, this happens in the context of product development. As a result of 20 Knowledge Harvesting, a next-generation product using codified know-how as the 21 foundation for differentiation will be produced and can best be illustrated in software. 22 For example, between 1993 and 1996, the American Society for Quality Control (now 23 named, American Society for Quality) partnered with LearnerFirst to produce a series of 20 1 electronic performance support systems. These PC Windows applications were 2 distributed to over 4,000 companies and created over $1,000,000 in total revenues. 3 Implicit-to-explicit knowledge that has been embedded into software makes the 4 knowledge tangible, accessible, transferable, and saleable. Software on non-proprietary 5 subjects has value and can be sold, licensed or traded to other organizations. Software 6 programs and sub-modules can be mixed, matched, aggregated, and divided into 7 similar but unique programs. E-commerce provides the ideal marketplace for software 8 knowledge assets, while ascribing monetary values and making it possible for these 9 assets to be included on corporate balance sheets. 10 Since the codified information will be sold or licensed, Knowledge Harvesting is 11 equally focused on capturing support information as well as level-two and level-three 12 guidance. This is due to the likely need that the producer will not be able to exactly 13 assess nor predict the proficiency levels of the target performers. In addition, the ROI 14 for the revenue-orientated project is estimated at ratio of 12:1. 15 16 Optimization Optimization is the procedure used to make a system or design as effective or 17 functional as possible. Stakeholders for this process work in more than one department, 18 which has the potential of misalignment in implementing the process. They must 19 address the barriers and obstacles, associated with this process, within the organization. 20 Since there are distributed groups of professionals, there is a significant need to 21 minimize the negative implications of growth. 22 Optimization-orientated project managers seek to establish a process that 23 provides positive outcomes, while promoting the growth of the business. Optimization- 21 1 orientated projects seek to enhance outputs from several inter-related processes and 2 thereby promote the growth of the business. The purpose of the project is to create a 3 model that captures the dynamics of a plant, organization, or significant sub- 4 organization. In the optimization-oriented project, knowledge harvesting work is 5 focused on eliciting signals as well as level-two and level-three guidance. The ROI on 6 this scenario is estimated as a ratio of 12:1. Agility/Adaptability/Innovation 7 8 9 In this orientation, three components must be considered: agility, adaptability, and innovation. Agility can be defined as being quick or alert, such as an agile mind; 10 adaptability is the ability to change or be changed to fit the circumstances; and 11 innovation is the act of introducing something new. Therefore, this orientation can be 12 characterized as changing quickly to fit the marketplace, while introducing a new 13 product or process. Stakeholders must gain a coherent grasp of the dynamics of rapid 14 changes in the marketplace. Thus, the primary goal may be to create new forms of 15 work, while establishing competitive positioning and marketplace awareness through 16 organizational leadership. 17 An agility/adaptability/innovation orientation project is one that creates a new 18 process by studying and capturing rapidly changing relevant knowledge. The purpose 19 of this project is to achieve an organizationally significant new approach for fulfilling 20 customer needs or managing the business. Cultural adaptation and change 21 management is required to effectively implement this type of orientation project. In the 22 agility/adaptability/innovation-oriented project, knowledge harvesting work is focused on 23 eliciting signals as well as level-two guidance. The ROI on this scenario is difficult to 22 1 estimate, because the project may be extremely successful with the potential of 100:1 2 ROI, or may be a failure with a loss. Therefore, we report the estimated ratio as being 3 greater than 12:1, with exceptions as stated above. 4 It is possible to quantify, qualify and prioritize the ways KM contributes to the 5 bottom line. We suggest that the persons responsible for KM select an appropriate 6 orientation to capture the key processes and potential ROI of the retention project. 7 8 9 ORIENTATION/SCENARIO CASE EXAMPLES The combination of the harvesting process and the best orientation method can significantly reduce time and result in improved performance. Real-world cases, from 10 an international forest products company, are presented to illustrate the application 11 approach of the six orientations. 12 13 Credit Management Case In 1999, the forest products company experienced the loss of a senior manager 14 (expert) in the area of delinquency and bad debt management. Due to a serious illness, 15 the manager notified the company that he would be seeking medial treatment and 16 would be leaving in two weeks. The company realized immediately that they had a 17 critical need to capture the expertise of the manager. Two knowledge harvesters 18 gathered information on the financial collection process over a six-week period, 19 including follow-up interviews with the expert after his departure. During the knowledge 20 harvesting process, the knowledge harvesters discovered that the loss of this valuable 21 employee had the potential to negatively impact the efficiency and effectiveness of the 22 department, which is indicative of the risk mitigation, “brain drain” orientation scenario. 23 The business result of harvesting the expert’s knowledge was a single source for 1 2 understanding how to manage delinquent accounts and how to respond to bad debt 3 events, e.g., bankruptcy, collections, etc. The final deliverable was an interactive tool 4 that was developed to capture and disseminate the key decisions relating to the 5 management and response to delinquent/bad debt events. The estimated cost of 6 developing the project was approximately $33,000, with a recognized benefit of 7 $150,000. The immediate benefits to the company included not only improved 8 productivity gains due to bad debt management practices being deployed, but also the 9 ability to move forward without replacing the senior manager. The total estimated 10 benefit over a three-year timeframe is approximately $450,000, with a net present value 11 of approximately $334,000. Therefore, the return on investment of this project was 12 approximately 10:1. The company considered this project a success and made the 13 decision to harvest the knowledge of other projects, as illustrated in the next three 14 cases. 15 16 Call Center Case Database Systems Services was challenged with maintaining and supporting an 17 increasingly critical Call Center Management tool with only one technical expert. The 18 company realized that they were experiencing a decreasing capacity to grow the Call 19 Center, with a potential result of losing all ability to manage the existing volume. To 20 address this issue, the stakeholders needed to capture the expertise of the technical 21 expert supporting the system. The business result of harvesting the expert’s knowledge 22 provided a single source for running the call center management tool, eGain. The 24 1 primary characteristic of this project, enhance operational efficiency and diminish cost 2 per transaction, indicated that it was an efficiency orientation scenario. 3 The deliverable captured the expertise from the technical expert and developed 4 an interactive tool around the key decisions relating to the call center, eGain. The 5 estimated cost of developing the project was approximately $12,000 with a recognized 6 benefit of $41,000. The total estimated benefit over a three-year timeframe is 7 approximately $124,000, with a net present value of approximately $89,000. Therefore, 8 the return on investment of this project was reported as approximately 6:1. The 9 efficiency gains from this project would include transferring 60% of the work from a high- 10 11 12 cost employee to a lower-cost employee. Data Reference Library Case The company was challenged with maintaining and supporting an increasingly 13 critical portfolio management tool with two technical experts. At best they would be 14 faced with a decreasing capacity to add critically needed functionality to a growing 15 information technology management tool. At worst, they could lose all ability to 16 maintain the system as it stands today. Therefore, they have a critical need to capture 17 the expertise of the Senior Systems Analyst supporting the system. The knowledge 18 harvesting process indicated that this case was an efficiency orientation scenario. The 19 business result of harvesting the expert’s knowledge provided a single source for 20 troubleshooting the IT portfolio management tool, Focus. 21 The deliverable captured the expertise from the Senior Systems Analyst and 22 developed an interactive tool around the key decisions relating to troubleshooting the 23 Focus tool. The estimated cost of developing the project was approximately $13,000 25 1 with a recognized benefit of $69,000. The total estimated benefit over a three-year 2 timeframe is approximately $207,000, with a net present value of approximately 3 $156,000. Therefore, the return on investment of this project was reported at a greater 4 than expected ratio of 10:1. Since the expert quickly adapted to the harvesting process, 5 it took less time for the harvester to capture his valuable information; hence, reducing 6 the time and cost required for the harvesting process. 7 8 9 Troubleshooting Case Currently, one of the manufacturing plants spends a substantial amount of time training shop personnel how to troubleshoot their Thermoforming process. 10 Troubleshooting expertise is distributed among a few process experts with no single 11 view of the process available. The plant is interested in developing an expert system 12 not only to solve problems with the thermoforming process, but also to be leveraged 13 across other Thermoforming process facilities. The knowledge harvesting process 14 indicates that this case is a productivity orientation scenario. The expected business 15 result of harvesting the expert’s knowledge will provide a single source of 16 troubleshooting expertise for the Thermoforming process. 17 The short-term deliverable was an initial evaluation of the process to determine 18 feasibility, scope, and broad requirements for an initial project to capture select 19 Thermoforming expertise and distribute the expertise using eGain as the engine. The 20 expected long-term deliverable is to engage a project to capture expertise, train 21 individuals at the facility to "harvest" knowledge, deploy the expertise to the production 22 floor, evaluate/enhance the effectiveness, and establish a plan to continually 23 renew/refresh expertise. The estimated cost of developing the project is approximately 26 1 $64,000, with a recognized benefit of $200,000. The total estimated benefit over a 2 three-year timeframe is approximately $1 million, with a net present value of 3 approximately $734,000. Therefore, the expected return on investment of this project 4 was reported as approximately 10:1. If this prototype proves to be successful, the 5 company will implement this process across four additional plants. 6 In the credit management case, the firm was forewarned of the imminent 7 departure of one of its key individuals. The firm recognized the importance of capturing 8 his intimate knowledge of a critical process and proceeded to work through the parts of 9 the knowledge harvesting process. The success of the credit management project set 10 the precedence to capture more valuable knowledge as illustrated in the other three 11 cases. This type of procedure allows firms to build survival capabilities for the potential 12 loss of knowledge, while measuring the return on investment of the project. 13 14 FUTURE RESEARCH AND LIMITATIONS While this study used “real-world” case studies, it is limited to one company’s 15 perspective; however, the proposed methodology was developed based upon the 16 experience of two knowledge-harvesting experts. Therefore, the study appears to 17 provide evidence that could be used for generalization of the findings. Currently, other 18 companies are adopting this methodology, which will be reported in future research. 19 This future research will provide a solid foundation for comparing and contrasting 20 different types of projects with differing ROI results across organizations and industries. 21 In addition, an important research area that needs investigation is an established 22 pre-measurement baseline, intervention, post-measurement methodology. This 23 methodology coupled with the ROI orientation methodology will provide companies with 27 1 feedback concerning the success of their knowledge retention projects. 2 DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 3 Our primary objective with this paper was to present a methodology that will 4 assist organizations in determining their return on investment in knowledge retention 5 projects, by focusing their efforts on the problem of measuring productivity of knowledge 6 workers, while defining the best orientation for the project, resulting in an accurate 7 return on investment measurement. As the ROI of knowledge retention projects, 8 demonstrated in the case studies, are applied, stakeholders will have a basis for 9 comparison such that differing types of projects can be compared and contrasted. 10 Overall, there was evidence that selecting the orientation that best fits the proposed 11 project will provide an approximate return on investment; thus, providing valuable 12 information to the manager making the decision to initiate the project. 13 As represented in these cases, the goal was to produce a dependable, credible 14 explanation of the bottom-line impact of knowledge retention projects. The value of 15 information in a knowledge asset is a function of its capacity to aid the target learner’s 16 understanding toward consequential results; hence, this value has some economic 17 benefit. 18 19 20 Implications The implications of this study are noteworthy for today’s organizations. As 21 illustrated in the case studies, companies realize the value of their intellectual assets; 22 however, they require specific financial reporting methods to communicate the value of 23 knowledge retention projects. Due to the impact of the current economic conditions, 24 businesses continue to be “squeezed” relative to financial and personnel resources. 28 1 Allocating resources and approving budgets has proven to be more difficult; therefore, 2 managers need a methodology that allows them to effectively measure different types of 3 projects with different returns on investment. This study can support management’s 4 requirements to have a method of measurement that is tangible and shows results that 5 are verifiable and “real”. 6 KM continues to evolve as a pivotal task for companies trying to survive in 7 today’s competitive marketplace; however, many companies have yet to realize value or 8 gain returns from their investments in managing knowledge (Desouza, 2003). It has 9 become evident that organizations need to manage their valuable corporate knowledge 10 from a practical standpoint. Thus, properly selecting an appropriate orientation method 11 to support the knowledge retention project effort can contribute to successfully 12 measuring ROI and to the competitive advantage of the company. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Knowledge Management has been a popular concept for several years; however, 15 conflicting definitions and controversies about the scope, content, and measurement still 16 cloud the issues. In this regard, we believe that the scope and measurement issues 17 may be clarified by the delineation of measuring the return on investment of knowledge 18 retention projects. Leaders of all KM initiative must eventually face the challenge of 19 proving the economic value of their efforts and results; however, there is not an agreed 20 right or wrong way to evaluate a knowledge retention project and calculate the return on 21 investment (ROI). As demonstrated in this study, knowledge retention project 22 development is difficult to quantify. By asking some simple questions, stakeholders can 29 1 go a long way in developing the business case to persuade their organization to invest 2 in their people, and not just see KM initiatives as an expense. 3 Until such time as solid ROI measures applicable to KM are developed, the 4 proliferation of KM as an essential component of a manager’s toolkit will languish. 5 Researchers must vigorously pursue investigations that will help develop sound and 6 adequate measures of KM success within organizational context, if the true potential of 7 KM is be realized. This research is an important step in the direction of developing 8 such measures. The degradation of valuable knowledge resulting from personnel 9 losses, employee defections, and unavailability of needed expertise at the right time and 10 place is inevitable; realizing the value of effectively capturing and disseminating tacit 11 knowledge is a necessity; and the strategic application of determining the best project 12 orientation is essential in assuring organizations that money invested in knowledge 13 retention projects will have a positive outcome on the company’s bottom-line. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 REFERENCES Bixler, C. “Knowledge Management and the Learning Organization Converge,” KMWorld (11:4), April, 2002, pp. 21-22. Bixler, C. “KM: A Source of Practical Solutions to Emerging Government Needs,” KMWorld (11:8), September, 2002, pp. 18-19. Chong, C. W.; Holden, T.; Wilhelmij, P. & Schmidt, R. A. 2000. "Where does knowledge management add value?” Journal of Intellectual Capital (1:4), 2000, pp. 366-383. Davenport, T. and Prusak, L. Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know, Harvard Business School Press, 1998. De Long, D.W. “Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management,” The Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4), 2000, pp. 113-127. Desouza, K. C. “Knowledge Management Barriers: Why the Technology Imperative Seldom Works,” Business Horizons (46:1), Jan/Feb, 2003, pp. 25-29. Glazer R. “Measuring the Knower: Towards a Theory of Knowledge Equity,” California Management Review (40:3), 1998, pp. 175-194. Grayson, C. J. “Taking inventory of your knowledge management skills,” Continuous Journey, Winter, 1996, pp. 367-372. Grover, V. & Davenport, T.H. (2001). “General perspectives on Knowledge management: Fostering a research agenda,” Journal of Management Information Systems, (18:1), 2001, pp. 5-21. Haldin-Herrgard, T. “Difficulties in diffusion of tacit knowledge in organizations,” Journal of Intellectual Capital, (1:4), 2000, pp. 357-365. Holsapple, C.W. and Joshi, K.D. “Knowledge Management: A Three-Fold Framework,” The Information Society, 2002. Kirrane, Diane. “Getting Wise to Knowledge Management,” Association Management (51:8), 1999, pp. 31-39. MacSweeney, G. (2002). “The knowledge management payback,” Insurance & Technology (27:7), 2002, pp. 41-44. McManus, D.J. & Snyder, C.A. (2003) “Synergy Between Data Warehousing and Knowledge Management: Three Industries Reviewed,” International Journal of Information Technology and Management (2:1/2), 2003, pp. 85-99. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 McManus, D.J. & Snyder, C.A. (2003) “Organization Value of Knowledge Management”, Information Resources Management Association International Conference Proceedings, May, 2003. Nash, I. (May, 2002). “Management not measurement is key,” Australian CPA (72:4) May, 2002, pp. 14-27. Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, K. The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1995. Rosenwinkel, J. “Project plans in the new world,” Journal of Systems Management (46:2), March/April, 1995, pp.34-39. Sharman, P. “The role of measurement in activity-based management,” CMA Magazine (Canada), September, 1993, pp. 25-29. Sloma, R. S. How to Measure Managerial Performance, Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc./Collier Macmillan Publishers, 1980. Snyder, C. A., Wilson, L.T., & McManus, D.J. “Corporate memory management: A knowledge management process model,” International Journal of Technology Management, Spring, 2000. Snyder, C.A., & Wilson, L.T. (1998). “The process of knowledge harvesting: The key to knowledge management,” Business Information Management: Adaptive Futures, 8th Annual BIT Conference, 43, 1998. Zairi, M. Measuring Performance for Business Results, Chapman & Hall, London, 1994 32 Figure 1: Organizational Improvement and Knowledge Retention Projects Manage improvement and change. Implement knowledge management. Conduct knowledge retention. Implement system to capture and retain knowledge. Apply Knowledge Harvesting. 33 Figure 2 – Knowledge Harvesting Framework Capable Stakeholders Knowledge Assets 34 Figure 3 – Knowledge Retention Projects Documentation Return on Investment Analysis Focus Value Proposition Project Plan 35 Figure 4 - Stages of Return on Investment (ROI) Analysis Definition Focus - Describe the situation - Determine the orientation. - Review the project plan. Cost Analysis - Calculate cash outflows associated with labor. - Determine costs of maintenance labor. - Calculate cash outflows associated with plant, property and equipment. Benefit Analysis - Determine non-cash benefits. - Determine the nature of the benefit stream. - Select applicable performance measures. Return on Investment Analysis Computation - Calculate cash inflows. - Determine the cost of capital. - Calculate Net Present Value. - Assess impact to EBIT, FCF, RONA. 36 Table 1 Orientationsa Orientations Definition Purpose Examples - Processing customer orders. - Converting resources or inputs into products. - Making delivery of products or services. - Managing inventories. - Billing the customer. - Providing after-sales service. - Delivering service to the customer. - Processing finance and accounting transactions. - Managing facilities and network operations. - Reporting information. - Managing physical resources. - Managing the tax function. - Ensuring compliance with regulations. - Monitoring the external environment. - Marketing products or services to relevant customer segments. - Planning for and acquiring necessary resources or inputs for manufacturing. - Developing human resources skills. - Developing and training employees. - Managing employee performance, reward, and recognition. - Developing and deploying enterprise support systems for information resources. - Deploying strategy to the work level. - Implementing systems security and controls. - Managing information storage and retrieval. - Managing information services. - Evaluating and auditing information quality. - Managing financial resources. - Managing external relationships. Efficiency Yields the same amount of work at less cost and less time Move work from high-cost group to low-cost group. Intent is to enhance operational efficiency and diminish cost per transaction Productivity Yields same amount of effort with more work results. Improve overall average of productivity and facilitate knowledge transfer to extend abilities of target learners. Risk Mitigation “Brain Drain” Gradual depletion or complete loss of valuable knowledge that is essential to the success of the organization. Sustain the current level of productivity and mitigate any risks associated with employee migration. - Monitoring the external environment. - Marketing products or services to relevant customer segments. - Planning for and acquiring necessary resources or inputs for manufacturing. - Developing human resources skills. - Developing and training employees. - Managing employee performance, reward, and recognition. - Developing and deploying enterprise support systems for information resources. - Deploying strategy to the work level. - Implementing systems security and controls. - Managing information storage and retrieval. - Managing information services. - Evaluating and auditing information quality. - Managing financial resources. - Managing external relationships. Approx. ROI 6:1 10:1 10:1 37 Table 1 Orientationsa continued Orientations Definition Revenue Optimization Agility/ Adaptability/ Innovation a Purpose Examples Approx. Applies KH as the means to capture know-how that will be used in commercial information product, intellectual property, or a new product. Yields a process that provides positive outcomes, while promoting the growth of the business. Increase sales – to create a new source of revenue. - Determining customer needs and wants. - Developing new product/service concept and plans. - Designing, building, and evaluating prototype products or services. - Refining existing products/services. 12:1 Create a model that captures the dynamics of a plant, organization, or significance suborganization. - Any one of these work processes may be the focal point for an optimization-oriented. - Knowledge Harvesting project. - Determining customer needs and wants. - Designing the organizational structure and relationships between organizational units. - Developing and setting organizational goals. - Marketing products or services to relevant customer segments. - Creating human resource strategies. - Planning for information resource management. - Formulating environmental management strategy. - Measuring organization performance. - Improving processes and systems. 12:1 Yields a new process by studying and capturing rapidly changing relevant knowledge. Achieve an organizationally significant new approach for fulfilling customer needs or managing the business. - Defining the business concept and organizational strategy. - Developing new product/service concept and plans. - Selecting relevant markets. - Creating human resource strategies. > 12:1 ROI Each orientation is defined as an example of APQC process framework. 38 Table 2 – Knowledge Harvesting Work Efficiency Is the focus well-defined or might it change? What is the extent of existing documentation? Are contributors easily identified and recruited or difficult to find and engage? How many people will use the packaged knowledge asset? What is the variability of ROI? What is the extent of startup work? What is extent of secondary sources of useful information? What should be the pace (timing of Knowledge Harvesting sessions)? What type of information should be captured? What is the estimated life time of the produced knowledge asset (until time that some adaptation is warranted)? Productivity Risk Mitigation “Brain Drain” Optimization Agility/ Adaptability /Innovation Yes Yes Usually, yes. Usually, yes. Some or none Focus may change Usually, none. Focus may change. None. Process documentation Contributors are easily identified and recruited. Some process documentation Contributors are easily identified and recruited.` Some or none Contributors may be easily identified and recruited. Usually, contributors are easily identified and recruited. Some Usually, contributors are easily identified but challenging to recruit. Few Usually, contributors are easily identified but challenging to recruit. Few Many Some Some 5 Variable due to complexity Few 6 Variable due to complexity Usually, none Periodically planned over weeks or months Signals, level two guidance, level three guidance Periodically planned over weeks or months Signals, level two guidance Revenue 2 Fast and easy 2 Quick, easy. Some Some Readily available Rapid, in succession over days Equal emphasis on support information, level three guidance and level four guidance Available Usually, available Some Periodically planned over weeks Equal emphasis on support information, level two guidance and level three guidance Periodically planned over weeks Equal emphasis on support information, level two guidance and level three guidance 24 months 24 months Periodically planned over weeks Equal emphasis on support information, level two guidance and level three guidance 12 – 24 months 24 – 36 3 4.5 36 months 36 months 39 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/13/2012 for the course BUS 611 611 taught by Professor None during the Spring '11 term at Ashford University.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online