Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, May 2001

The Case for Knowledge Management at DPA:

Is What We Don’t Know Hurting Us?

Laura LaMonica, D.P. & Associates Inc.

ABSTRACT:

In the Information Age, managing knowledge has become a necessity.  But it isn't as easy as it sounds.  Knowledge Management is not clearly defined or accepted in all circles, nor is it a panacea for all organizational woes.  Targeted toward specific knowledge problems, however, Knowledge Management can be a powerful performance improvement tool.  This article examines a national organization, DPA, and makes a case for applying Knowledge Management interventions and principles to address performance problems.


Introduction

I am a knowledge worker.  I don’t use physical power to produce a tangible product for sale.  Instead, I am representative of the growing population of workers whose brain is their brawn.  The raw material and product of my work is information and knowledge.  I am part of the human capital of my company.  My work, innovations and ideas, combined with those of other workers like me and leveraged, help my company earn a profit.  My presence in my organization is exemplary of the economic shift from the Industrial Age to the Information Age.  Information and knowledge have “become the preeminent economic resource – more important than raw material; more important, often, than money” (Stewart, 1997, p.6.)  A recent study conducted by Reuters Ltd. found that 95 % of American managers believe that information is “mission critical” to their organizations (Lewis, 1997)  Information:  words, data, facts and figures.  Ideas.  Not steel or natural gas.  This is more than an evolutionary change – it’s revolutionary. Joe Worker has traded his lathe for a laptop.  It is in the best interests of organizations today to help him use it.

About Us

D. P. and Associates, Inc. (DPA) Training Services specializes in the analysis of military aviation training requirements and the production of computer-based training solutions. Approximately 280 employees work from 27 offices near major military installments in eight states.  DPA training services are contracted by the customer for specific projects.   Projects are assigned to teams generally composed of Computer Graphic Artists (CGA), Programmers, Subject Matter Experts (SME) and Instructional Developers (ID) and are led by Project Managers (PM.)  Training services include complete instructional systems design based on the traditional ISD process from analysis to evaluation or can begin at any required step in the process.  Deliverables produced under contract by DPA may include training system components and/or documents and reports.

DPA is a knowledge company.  While the deliverables produced by the organization are tangible, they are created by the collective thinking of a team of knowledge workers.  IDs use knowledge of the ISD process to analyze current training situations and to devise instructionally sound training materials.  CGAs rely on expertise in enhancing and manipulating photographs or in designing graphics from scratch to supply courseware with suitable images.  Programmers utilize a complex knowledge of programming languages and authoring tools to craft courseware files that execute the training design.  SMEs are useful to a team precisely because of their expert knowledge of a specific topic, piece of equipment or system.  PMs are the glue of the team, drawing on team management skills to direct the team, make decisions and ensure the timely delivery of quality products.  It is the complex synergy of a highly knowledgeable team that enables the production of quality computer-based training and characterizes DPA as a knowledge company.

A Presenting Performance Issue

In the Fall of 2000, DPA’s Triangle office, located in Jacksonville, North Carolina, secured a contract with the United States Marine Corps.  The 3-month project was for the completion of a task analysis of T-58 Engine Test Cell operation and development of a recommendation for a training system to address any identified training need.  The deliverables for the project were two documents, one that detailed the existing training situation and recommendations and one that outlined tasks and learning objectives identified during the analysis.  I was hired as an Instructional Developer and given the lead in this project approximately one month before the contract was officially signed.  In a competitive job market scarce on highly desirable knowledge workers, with no military experience and a background in classroom training and curriculum design, I was the best person available for the job.

Perhaps the most shocking adjustment to my new position came with my desensitization to military acronyms.  Publications were littered with capital letter combinations and they peppered conversations, often and even more confusing, pronounced as a word.  I recorded important meetings and desperately sought resources to decode the words.  Military dictionaries available online were enormous and clumsy, encompassing far more than applied to my immediate situation.  Eventually, the best method became calling out the letters aloud in the office and letting the team, including three former Marines, decipher them.   

The task analysis became my monster under the bed.  Having never completed one in an official capacity, I searched desperately for resources that would provide guidance. Luckily and as a result of hours of searching, I stumbled across a military handbook on the Department of Defense web site, Marine publication 29612-3 that outlined the ISD/systems approach to training in detail.  Additionally, I was provided the name and phone number of a coworker in the DPA Arlington office who had extensive experience in task analyses.  Early conversations by phone with him were of limited assistance, as I had no context in which to balance his advice.  Having no solid frames of reference about the military, the subject matter or task analysis in general and unfamiliar with the structure and importance of the handbook I had accidentally discovered, terms like “pubs” and phrases like “stick to the 29612” had little meaning.  I faithfully wrote them down and hoped they’d make sense later.

In the following weeks I pored over the handbook and when the contract finally kicked off, began the task analysis with a stack of Engine Test Cell publications and shaky confidence.  As I began to encounter some of the terminology and markers indicated by the ID expert in context, I generated new questions and needed his assistance more often. He was working on other projects and spent a great deal of time out of town, at other locations and at conferences.  He faithfully returned my calls, but often hours or a day later.  He provided the names of other resources within the company, but as they had their own roles and responsibilities, the results were the same.  In the meantime, I often found myself unable to move forward on the project.  These delays were a source of great frustration for me.  There were moments that I considered that this might not be the job for me.  I persevered.

After an intense and laborious few weeks, the task analysis was completed and the deliverable documents had to be drafted.  A content description was available in the form of a Data Item Description, but there were no standards that I could identify within DPA that dictated how the deliverables should look.  I selected my own font and style and used the front matter from documents from another project undertaken by my office and pressed on.  The documents were delivered on time.

Months have now passed and I am a productive ID, contributing to task analyses on other projects and to other steps in the ISD process, often by drafting similar deliverable documents.  As I reflect on my experience with the Engine Test Cell project, I marvel at the learning curve that I struggled through to perform in my job and wonder if other new employees face the same steep hill.  I wonder how many leave the company in frustration.  A full 30 % of my first three months at work was spent searching for information or “stuck” waiting for expert assistance.  A casual inquiry of my teammates indicates that my experience, though unique to my situation, is not uncommon:  a Programmer with no experience in a specific authoring software package spent her first six months on the job “ramping up” on its use and searching online for methods of utilizing the program to meet the wishes of the customer; a CGA, highly skilled in graphic arts spent untold hours determining the best way to create one specific effect in a courseware project.  Now, due to the inevitable ebb and flow of project work, there are periods of time in which my skills and those of my coworkers are not being tapped at all and we face idle time.  In all of these cases the knowledge needed to perform, from the beginning of a project to past its completion, is available somewhere within the company – it just isn’t always readily available to those who need it when they need it.   

Why does it matter?  How a company manages the flow of knowledge and the creation of new knowledge is what distinguishes it from the pack of organizations against which it competes.  DPA is an organization that competes at a global level.  And while DPA is located in many places, I argue that it isn’t quite global.  Global organizations are not just those that have a presence in locations throughout the country or the world.  Rather, they leverage their geographic breadth by effectively sharing information and knowledge across boundaries and ensuring that each location benefits from relationships with offices in other areas (Brache & Rummler, 1997.)  We at DPA certainly accomplish this in many ways, but by not doing it as effectively as we could, what have we lost?  Who have we lost?  Who or what do we continue to stand to lose? “Once a company gains a knowledge-based competitive edge, it becomes ever easier to maintain its lead and ever harder for its competitors to catch up” (Quinn, Anderson & Finkelstein, 1998, p. 193.)  In the competitive market of government training, having that edge is everything.  The knowledge upon which we build our edge resides in our human capital.  If that human capital is not performing at an adequate level for up to 30 % of the first few months at work, is sitting idle or is leaving the company as a result, where is our edge?

Knowledge Management as a Solution

The concept of Knowledge Management is becoming more popular as companies begin to recognize the need to more effectively leverage their intellectual assets in the information age.  There are as many definitions and descriptions of what Knowledge Management is as there are practitioners to ask.  Karl-Erik Svieby, a well-respected veteran of the field of Knowledge Management suggests that the concept is best defined by how it is used (Svieby, 2000.)  Knowledge Management, within the context of its use at DPA, is opening and facilitating the flow of knowledge within the company so that it can be utilized and built on to improve the performance of individuals and teams and, as an end result, the organization. 

It is my belief that if we can successfully apply Knowledge Management as defined in this context, we will see a decrease in the amount of time it takes new workers, regardless of their skill gaps, to reach a desirable level of performance.  Additionally, the implementation of such a plan would, I believe, reduce or completely eliminate employee idle time.  I believe employee attrition would decrease as a result.  With a relatively high turnover rate of 19 %, the benefits of such a change would be considerable.

Perhaps the most important positive side effect of an endeavor to better manage the flow of knowledge in the organization is that of increased innovation.  DPA does a fine job of delivering quality products.  But might there be a better way of doing something lurking somewhere in one of the 27 offices around the country?  It’s likely.  But without the opportunity to share those ideas and build on them, they benefit no one.  In Managing Knowledge: Building Blocks for Success, authors Probst, Raub and Romhardt (2000) argue that many organizations may be in a “rut” and are unaware of or even suppress the development of such ideas:

“In general, the more familiar and automatic the task, the more difficult it is for us to recognize the importance of new knowledge, or to exchange ideas with colleagues about new ways of performing it.  As routines become more familiar, we usually grow more reluctant to believe that new procedures might improve our efficiency.  The knowledge of individuals thus becomes ‘set’; this is called ‘organizational blindness’” (p. 206.)

By opening the channels of communication of knowledge, by creating an environment in which knowledge sharing is encouraged and expected, we facilitate the growth of new knowledge and remove our organizational blinders. 

Better, faster, increased productivity.  Lower employee turnover.  Innovation.  These are the organizational improvements upon which we build our competitive edge.

Creating Knowledge Goals  

By first identifying the role that knowledge plays in performance at DPA, we can focus on the development of specific knowledge goals and objectives.  Knowledge goals “represent a translation of company goals into knowledge terms” (Probst, Raub & Romhardt, 2000, p. 66.)   From those objectives, an appropriate range of interventions may be designed that will improve our ability to share and develop new knowledge and contribute more effectively to the goals of the organization.

While a true Knowledge Management plan should encompass the entire organization, this paper focuses on its application to the specific performance issues identified earlier:

·        Up to 30 % time-to-perform for new employees

·        Idle time – no contributing performance by employees due to under-utilization.

Table 1 highlights the performance issues and the knowledge problems associated with the specific experiences

Performance Issue

Experience

Knowledge Problem

30 % Time-to-Perform

Difficulty with acronyms

Lack of knowledge of military / the customer

 

Dread of task analysis

Lack of skill / knowledge of the task analysis process

 

Poor access to expert / delays

Lack of knowledge of other experts / sources of knowledge within and outside the organization

 

Unsure of deliverable document style

Lack of knowledge of company product

Idle Time

Free time available  / underutilized

Lack of knowledge of company needs

Table 1 – Identifying Knowledge Problems

Two knowledge goals can be created to address the performance and knowledge problems identified in Table 1:

·        Every new employee should be completely oriented to the company, the customer, the product, and the position within two weeks of beginning work with DPA, thereby reducing the estimated time-to-performance.

·        Employees should be provided access to new learning and problem-solving opportunities that will enhance core competencies and processes desirable and inherent to DPA, thereby reducing employee idle time.

As with any objective, knowledge objectives should be measurable.  Benchmarks for both objectives can adequately be derived from internal company data and from a study of employee experiences.  Employee turnover, a business result related to both performance issues has already been determined from Human Resources data.  A survey of company employees can be utilized to calculate an average time-to-performance and idle time percentage.  This data would be subjective, but my experience is that most workers are their own harshest critics.

From the development of knowledge goals, we can design interventions to address the knowledge problems that are compatible with the way in which workers already do their jobs.  These interventions are the application of Knowledge Management to our company processes.

Designing Interventions

In order to effectively apply Knowledge Management interventions, it is important to distinguish between information and knowledge and understand their relationship.

Information is explicit knowledge; that is, it is data, procedures, rules, and principles that have been captured, written down and are available for use by others.  It is “the stuff of published material” (O’Driscoll, 2001, p. 73.)  At DPA, our explicit knowledge exists in the form of documents, handbooks, courseware, employee guides and other recorded material and it makes up the structural capital of our organization. 

Tacit knowledge, on the other hand, is not easily expressed, captured or quantified.  It resides “in one place – the human brain” (Nonaka, 1997, p. 5.)  It is, simply, “know how” (Nonaka, 1997, p.28.)  Tacit knowledge is what a CGA uses to improve a photograph with just the right amount of “tweaking.”  It is what enables a Programmer to know exactly which line of code to alter to make a specific action happen in a courseware program.  It comes from experience and growth in a position, isn’t written down anywhere and it is the core of DPA’s human capital.

The advent of databases, networks and the ultimate network, the Internet, has made the business of stockpiling and sharing explicit information fairly simple.  Corporate giants Andersen, Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers have led the pack in capturing and categorizing explicit knowledge into databases (Stewart, 1997.)  The argument for making such a move is compelling.  Today’s knowledge workers are literally drowning in information.  The problem is not one of availability, but of finding the right information at the right time.  Daily, workers receive e-mail messages, memos, letters, fliers and notes of information that they might need “just-in-case.”  Instead of helping workers be more effective, though, the result is that 49 % of managers feel they are unable to handle the volume of information they receive.  Another     38 % continue to waste substantial amounts of time searching for the right information, in spite of the deluge (Lewis, 1997)  The problem is likely only to get worse from here.  By creating a stock of relevant, usable information, a company can make the right information available to employees “just-in-time.”  

To imply that Knowledge Management involves only databases and Information Technology, though, is to dismiss its most powerful contribution to business processes.  Tacit knowledge is, by definition, that which cannot be easily captured and stocked.  And yet, it is the lifeblood of our organization.  In order to make better use of tacit knowledge, we must either find a way to transfer it directly to one another or capture what we can and make it explicit so that it can be shared throughout the organization.  We accomplish these feats by applying interventions that improve our knowledge flow and provide collaborative learning opportunities.   

Knowledge Goal #1

A wise colleague recently told me, “everything we do at work - we should be able to relate it back to the objectives of the whole organization.”  While this truth can be deemed self-evident, how can we realistically expect any employee, regardless of position to effectively contribute to the goals of the organization if he or she doesn’t know what those objectives are?  In order for new employees to begin performing effectively in a new position, they must first have a clear understanding of the company including what we do at DPA, who our customer is and what sort of products and services we provide. By providing this basic information, we help a new employee understand his or her contribution to our organizational purpose. 

Essentially, new workers first need access to a stock of explicit knowledge.  A useful stock of explicit information for a new worker, and in fact any worker at DPA would include a fact sheet about the company clearly explaining what we do and providing some company history.  A list of current projects including a description, location and contact information would offer new employees a clearer idea of how, where and for whom we do what we do.  Included should be a description of our military or civilian customer; for example, the branches with which we work, explanations for acronyms commonly encountered in our military work and the aircraft for which we design training.  Examples of products created by the company, including sample courseware and documents should be available to demonstrate to new employees the products and services provided to customers.  It’s worthwhile to note here that the company would be well served by the development of a standard format for deliverable documents to be made available to document writers.  Finally, it would be useful to include references relevant to specific positions.  Using my experience as an example, the Military Handbook 29612 should be readily accessible and available to IDs and perhaps to other employees as well.  We attempt to provide some of this information on our corporate web site, but I believe access to a much more detailed and in-depth review is in order for employees of the organization.

As I reflect on my task analysis experience, I lament that I did not have enough of an opportunity to dialogue in depth with someone who had previously completed a task analysis.  Often I felt that surely someone who had gone through the process would have some insight into which steps were most critical and which were, perhaps, unnecessary.  In short, I would have benefited from hearing more of the lessons learned, the tacit knowledge internalized by a group or individual who had completed a similar project.  The perfect solution in my case and for every new employee would be to shadow an expert.  The apprenticeship is perhaps the most common example of transferring tacit knowledge directly from one worker to another.  Through the process of observation, imitation and practice, the tacit knowledge of the expert becomes incorporated into the tacit knowledge of the apprentice (Nonaka, 1997.)  This technique can certainly be employed at DPA, but with risk of substantial expense due to the geographical spread of our organization.  While an option, this is perhaps not the most efficient use of our resources.

It is possible to effectively and economically capture lessons learned to be shared with new employees like me that would also benefit seasoned employees beginning new and similar projects.  By recording lessons learned before, during and after the completion of each project we undertake, DPA can capture the experiences, successes and “hard knocks” a project group has internalized through the process of project completion.  By making this tacit knowledge explicit, the entire company benefits from the knowledge of those that have “been there” and avoids repeating potentially costly mistakes.  One team’s hindsight becomes another’s foresight.   The completion of Emergent Learning Maps during phases of a project would allow Project Managers to draw on and record the experiences and expertise of each member of a team to share with other teams. 

Based on the US Army’s After Action Review, Emergent Learning was developed by Signet Learning Group founder Marilyn Darling and Charles Parry as a tool to promote learning through experience within the context of work.  Emergent Learning Maps enable a group to compare their original intentions and purposes with actual outcomes, results and behaviors.  Further, the maps allow the groups to identify what sort of steps and interventions may be necessary to reach the desired outcomes during an active or subsequent project.  The process allows a group to improve performance on the fly while a project is in work and identify and record best practices, or lessons learned, to be used by other teams and team members (Darling & Parry, 2000.)

Currently, Project Managers submit regular status reports regarding developments in on-going projects.  These reports are submitted to upper management and other project managers and reflect the point-of-view of that team leader.  It was recently requested that the frequency of these reports be reduced from bi-monthly to monthly.  I submit that the value of these reports is limited as they reflect the input of one leading member of a project team, are shared primarily with like members of other teams and are too frequent, thereby becoming a burden to the lone author rather than an asset to the collective group.  We should not forget that  “people in organizations act collectively but learn individually” (Kleiner & Roth, 1997, p. 139.)  By examining the learning of one individual of a team, we miss the larger picture.  Rather, utilizing the Emergent Learning Map process allows learning and discovery to take place at all levels within the team, tapping into valuable insights unique to each team member at strategic points in a project’s development.  Results are recorded and shared throughout the company, to be internalized and incorporated by new and all other members of the DPA workforce.

Developing a stash of explicit knowledge provides a good start for new employees.  Still, no amount of codified information can or should replace interaction with experts in the position.  It is through dialogue and discussion that we begin to find ways to verbalize our expertise and share it with others.  Therefore, we must find an economical way to facilitate this exchange.  I believe this can be accomplished by locking some information down and by creating more opportunities for collaboration between workers.  A directory of our 27 locations, employees with brief biographies and contact information needs to be created.  By identifying the expertise and experience of all DPA employees and noting their availability to help, new workers as well as those in need of specific assistance can readily locate resources in multiple locations within the company.  This increases the likelihood that all employees can get assistance when they need it and doesn’t place an undue burden on any one individual. Accessing a database of experts, new and experienced employees alike can identify co-workers who share their interests and can answer questions.   Providing a feature that allows the directory to be searched by keyword enhances its usability and the likelihood that users will locate someone whom can be of assistance.

Already we have inexpensive tools that allow us to interact with one another:  the telephone and e-mail.  My concern based on my experience thus far, however, is that these tools are insufficient.  This was further demonstrated to me at a recent conference.  A large group of DPA employees gathered and shared highlights of successes and challenges of projects in progress.  The “group think,” insight and learning that occurred during this meeting was considerable and exciting.  As a new employee, I learned and garnered more from the three meetings held at that conference than perhaps I did from my entire first month on the job. This type of group discovery simply cannot occur in the one-to-one channels of a telephone conversation or e-mail message.  And while this encounter was of tremendous help to me, it did nothing for those employees that could not be present.  The knowledge sharing ended with the meeting.  We must find a way to recreate that conference moment in an arena that allows everyone to share and saves the results for the benefit of every employee. 

It is my belief that the very nature of our geographical breadth provides us with a way to capture those discussions that might otherwise be lost in person.  By creating a virtual water cooler, we can set the stage to capture discussions and sharing of tips, expert assistance and experiences.  There are several means of establishing this environment. 

Groupware is “e-mail on steroids” (Radding, 1998, p.120.)  It provides a connected environment in which users can share files, post comments on bulletin boards, have live discussions and deposit information for use by other employees.  Groupware environments facilitate collaboration and the development of communities of practice.  Communities of practice are groups of individuals that learn together.  Learning is a social activity and it happens in groups, as demonstrated by our conference experience.  These groups usually form on their own, they are drawn together by social and professional forces and in them, members collaborate directly with one another.  Communities of practice are “among the most important structures of any organization where thinking matters…” (Stewart, 1997, p. 96.)  By definition, these groups cannot be formulated by directive; rather, they must arise independently from fertilized ground.  In a geographically diverse company such as DPA, the challenge is facilitating their development across boundaries.  Groupware is the communal greenhouse in which their growth can be cultivated.  Further, it can house all of the explicit knowledge identified previously and provide a forum in which to interact with and about that knowledge.  Commercial groupware products such as LotusNotes and GrooveNetworks are available both for a fee and for free online. 

Such an environment could also be created internally.  An employee web site could be developed to house the explicit knowledge discussed thus far and provide a platform for real time discussion.  Not all collaborative efforts need to be so complex, however.  A simple feature available in groupware products and separately as freeware is Instant Messaging.  This easily accessible and affordable technology can go miles toward connecting workers in multiple locations.  A list of contacts allows users to identify coworkers who are connected and available for dialogue.  Maximizing and combining the most useful qualities of the telephone and e-mail, users may correspond with multiple co-workers at a time and conversation is synchronous.  Users who wish to avoid interruption may simply set their messaging system to “away.”  By connecting all employees through such a tool we create an environment in which all users, regardless of location, may collaborate in an instant, one-on-one or in a group.

There are many technologies available to connect people, some simple and some complex.  Most important to this endeavor is that our focus remains on facilitating an environment that “creates value from a combination of content and people knowledge” (Leonard, 1999) and not on the technology that allows us do it.  It is critically important that we avoid “mistaking the software for the solution” (Malhotra, 1999.)

Knowledge Goal #2

The production of courseware and documents at DPA involves the input and expertise of several different types of workers.  During the ISD process, some workers are more heavily involved in specific stages of development.  For example, during the analysis phase of a project, SMEs and IDs are working primarily on the development of learning objectives, while in development, CGAs and Programmers are tapped more heavily.  Finally, between major projects, all workers may carry a lesser load of revision and maintenance of courseware that has already been developed and delivered.  The cyclical nature of this type of work leads to situations I have described as “idle time” – instances in which a worker is not being utilized as heavily as is usual in a busy project period.  It is during these periods of relative inactivity that I believe we miss our greatest opportunity to capitalize on our intellectual assets.

Every organization has a central set of competencies it needs to do what it does.  These propriety skills are difficult to replace and add high value to the company (Stewart, 1997.)  DPA is no exception.  Competency mapping is a process that identifies “which experts and knowledge structures are needed to support a given core process” (Probst, Raub & Romhardt, 2000, p. 82.)  By identifying which knowledge assets are important to the success of DPA and how they are distributed among workers and functions, we can more clearly identify where we have weaknesses.  We can then develop online training modules that can help available employees develop these proprietary skills.  “It will be increasingly hard for either the training or knowledge management department to fulfill its mission without the other” (Aldrich, 2001, p.75.)  That is, in my opinion, as it should be.

An added benefit of providing training online is the creation of the opportunity for employees to manage their own career development, a resource that may retain and motivate talented employees.  Identifying knowledge and skills needed by the company allows employees to “identify internal career paths of interest to them, benchmark their skill levels against those required for desired posts and then take initiative to close any skill gaps” (Pagnani, 1996, p.27.)  DPA is a company so busy designing training to improve the performance of the workers of its customers that, ironically, it often overlooks its own.  By utilizing training in an effective Knowledge Management intervention, we can strengthen our core processes and move toward creating an environment that fosters and encourages learning for all employees.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for idle time.  Creative conglomerate Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing (3M) encourages all employees to spend 15 % of their time at work on projects other than that to which they are assigned.  3M has discovered that “…giving people the freedom to have new ideas is one of the most important conditions for innovation” (Probst, Raub & Romhardt, 2000, p. 137.)  It is my belief that we can take a page from 3M’s book, modify it to suit our needs and encourage innovation of our own.  Every company, every team, every team member has encountered a problem at work for which they would like a solution.  It may be as simple as finding a better recipe for coffee in the morning (not an uncommon thought for those of us not used to java, military-style) to as complex as finding the best way to simulate an aircraft component 3-dimensionally.  I propose that we dedicate part of our virtual water cooler space to problem solving; a space that allows individuals to post issues that they face and for which they seek a resolution.  This virtual space would function much as an employee suggestion box might.  The difference, however, is that it would not be left to management to solve the issues.  Rather, employees would be invited to create and suggest solutions for the issues as their time permits.  The concept is much the same as a “brainstorming” session in which participants are encouraged to throw out thoughts and ideas, no matter how silly or far-fetched.  Such activities are useful because they have few rules to stifle creativity and often stimulate new ideas, sometime unrelated to the original thought.  The creation of this targeted “free space” would provide a forum for employees to provide input about problems that affect them directly, find solutions to problems they encounter regularly and even vent freely and anonymously about areas they feel need change.  Finally, an official “free space solutions form” could be created that would allow individuals and groups, if they desire, to submit formal proposals to the appropriate decision-making body for solutions whose implementation they feel would benefit the company and its employees.  An opportunity is thus created to recognize and reward individuals and groups for their contributions.

Interventions Summary

Table 2 summarizes the Knowledge Management interventions for the performance and knowledge problems previously identified that, I believe, if applied will achieve the desired outcomes of reduced time-to-perform of new employees and reduced employee idle time.  Also identified in the table are specific tools that may be used to carry out the interventions.

Performance Issue

Intervention

Tools

30 % Time to Perform

Create a database of explicit knowledge to manage the structural capital of the company and record knowledge of our customer

·        Extension of current web site

·        Groupware

·        Other internally developed database / collaborative space

 

Develop a list of lessons learned to be internalized and incorporated by other teams and on other projects

·        Emergent Learning maps

 

Create a forum in which new employees can interact with experts to facilitate the transfer and capture of tacit knowledge and promote the development of communities of practice

·        Directory of employees

·        Extension of current web site

·        Groupware

·        Other internally developed database / collaborative space

·        Instant messaging

Idle Time

Identify the core competencies of the company

·        Knowledge / Competency maps

·        Directory of employees

 

Design in-house training to target the development of proprietary skills in company employees

Distributed online via:

·        Current web site

·        Groupware

·        Other knowledge database

 

Designate virtual “free space” for employees to share problems / brainstorm solutions

·        Extension of current web site

·        Groupware

·        Other internally developed space

Table 2 – Summary of Interventions

Conclusion

The recent developments of Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model (SCORM) demonstrate a definitive movement in our profession toward sharing knowledge.  SCORM specifically targets the development of uniform standards for the creation of learning content so that it can be shared across environments and products.  The goal is the development of learning systems that can assemble content that meets the learner’s needs on the fly.  It is a movement from “just-in-case” to “just-in-time.”  SCORM seeks to empower the lowest common denominator – the learner.  This quality makes many people uncomfortable.  Much is the case in a commitment to managing knowledge in an organization more effectively.

Knowledge Management empowers workers.  Organizations that embrace Knowledge Management projects assign equal value to each individual in an organization and effectively say to employees “your knowledge is valuable to this organization – share it with us.”  It requires the development of an environment that values learning, sharing and reusing knowledge.  Fostering such an environment in an organization is not an easy, one-day project.  Like SCORM, this can be an uncomfortable movement.  It requires the vision and support of top management and buy-in by all employees.  Gaining the trust of employees often requires the development of incentives that encourage knowledge sharing and reuse.  Common barriers to sharing information include organizational blindness to the need and employee fear of releasing perceived power in expert status.  However,  “if there is no struggle, there is no progress.”  (Douglass, 1857.)

SCORM is an inevitable force on the landscape of web-based training.  It’s not going anywhere.  And neither is the need for organizations to take note of their intellectual assets and find ways to leverage them for profit.  “ In an economy where the only certainty is uncertainty, the one sure source of lasting competitive advantage is knowledge” (Nonaka, 1997, p.23.)  We have a wealth of knowledge at DPA.  Let’s start investing it.

References

Aldrich, C., Meeting of the Minds, Online Learning Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 75-76, 2001 

Brache, A., & Rummler, G., Managing an Organization as a System, Training, No. 2, pp.68-74, 1997.

Darling, M. & Parry, C., After Action Reviews,  2000; Retrieved April 19, 2001 from the World Wide Web:  http://www.signetconsulting.com/detail.html#AfterActionReviews

Douglass, F., No Progress Without Struggle!  From an address on West India Emancipation, 1857; Retrieved April 19, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.duboislc.com/BlackClassicVoices/BlackStruggle.html

Kleiner, A. & Roth, G., How to Make Experience Your Company’s Best Teacher, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, pp. 137-151, 1997, Harvard Press, Massachusetts.

Leonard, A., A Viable System Model: Consideration of Knowledge Management, 1999, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice: http://www.tlainc.com/jkmp.htm

Lewis, D., Dying for Information, Press Release 1997, Reuters Ltd., London

Malhotra, Y., Intellectual Capitalism:  Does KM = IT?  CIO Enterprise Magazine, September, 1999; Retrieved April 19, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cio.com/archive/enterprise/091599_ic_content.html

Nonaka, I., The Knowledge-Creating Company, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, pp. 21-45, 1997, Harvard Press, Massachusetts

O’Driscoll, T., Knowledge Management:  A Conceptual Implementation Model for an Illusive Concept. Managing Human Performance Improvement in Organizations:  Class Readings, pp.73-87, 2001

Pagnani, L. (Ed.), Compelling Careers:  Workforce Management Structures of the New “Employers of Choice”, 1996, The Advisory Board Company

Probst, G., Raub, S., & Romhardt, K., Managing Knowledge:  Building Blocks for Success, 2000, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., UK

Quinn, J., Anderson, P., & Finkelstein, S., Managing Professional Intellect:  Making the Most of the Best, Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management, pp.181-205, 1997, Harvard Press, Massachusetts.

Radding, A., Knowledge Management:  Succeeding in the Information-based Global Economy, 1998, Computer Technology Research Corp., Charleston, SC.

Stewart, T.,  Intellectual Capital:  The New Wealth of Organizations, 1997, Doubleday New York

Svieby, K., What is Knowledge Management? 2000; Retrieved April 19, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sveiby.com.au/KnowledgeManagement.html

Related Readings

Huang, K., Lee, Y. & Wang, R., Quality Information and Knowledge, 1999, Prentice Hall PTR., New Jersey

Albert, S. & Bradley, K., Managing Knowledge, 1999, Cambridge University Press UK

Fahey, L. & Prusak, L., The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management, California Management Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 265-276, 1998

Spencer, L., McClelland, D. & Spencer, S., Competency Assessment Methods:  History and State of the Art, 1994, Hay/McBer Research Press

 

Laura LaMonica is an Instructional Developer employed with D.P. & Associates Inc.  She works from the office located in Jacksonville, North Carolina.  Ms. LaMonica is also a graduate student in the Training and Development program at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina.  Ms. LaMonica may be contacted by email at either llamonica@dpatraining.com or llamonica@hotmail.com, by telephone [(910) 455-0400] or by fax [(305) 422-3160].