Design and Implementation of Knowledge Management Projects

by Montserrat Garcia Alsina
Professor in the Studies of Information and Communication Sciences Member of the research group KIMO (Knowledge and Information Management in Organizations)
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya

Knowledge management is an organizational practice that has been increased in the last 30 years, although the recognition of its intangible value goes back many more years (Penrose, 1959 cited in Spender, 1996). Since the 1990s there has been an increase in literature on the subject, and as of the current century, researchers have more specifically worked on norms, rules and methodologies that contribute to the progress of knowledge management as a discipline (Serenko et al. , 2010).

On the other hand, management systems in organizations are implemented and certified in a good part of organizations, with a focus on continuous improvement and excellence. Examples are the Quality Management System (ISO 9001, or the EFQM model of the European Foundation for Quality Management), or the Environmental Management System (ISO 14001), or the Information Security System (ISO 27001) , the R + D + I management system (UNE 166000) or the document management system (ISO 30300).

All these systems involve the study of organizational processes, within the framework of which the activities are carried out – both those common to any organization, as well as those specific to business activities. In these processes documents, information and knowledge are generated. The documents, beyond fulfilling their function of being evidence of compliance with the system requirements, gather knowledge about the organizational processes. Thus, considering that knowledge is the main raw material of the knowledge economy (Lisbon Council, 2000), and a basis for innovation (Garcia and Cobarsí, 2013; Serrat, 2010; OECD, 2005; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000 ), knowledge management, and the integration of management systems in knowledge management processes, would contribute to extracting value and generating competitive advantages (du Plessis, 2007; Diakoulakis et al., 2005; CEN 2004). Taking these reflections into account, it is of interest to include in them some methodological considerations on the design and implementation of knowledge management projects in organizations.

This article collects, first, the rules related to knowledge management. Second, it exposes the components of a knowledge management project and some of the frameworks developed. Finally, this article describes the phases and guidelines recognized as keys for an effective implementation of actions aimed at managing knowledge, highlighting the framework developed by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) in 2004, as an example of systematics to be applied in the knowledge management

RULES RELATED TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

In the last decade, various national and international organizations have made efforts to systematize the design and implementation of knowledge management projects. An example is the wide range of standards developed by standardization bodies such as those of the British, German, Austrian, European, as well as the International Standards Organization worldwide (Table I – not included). Even some of these models are aimed at more specific sectors such as public administration, health, or construction, or small and medium-sized companies. It is also worth noting the interest to take into account: aspects that can influence – as facilitators or innovators – in knowledge management practices, the competences that knowledge management professionals must gather, and the measurement of the actions carried out.

COMPONENTS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

A knowledge management project must take into account four components: people, processes, content and technology (Table II).

Taking these components into consideration, there are many frameworks designed to manage knowledge in organizations. Some partially incorporate the aforementioned facets, while others encompass them more holistically (Table III – not included).

Holistic frameworks are recommended to design and implement knowledge management projects in organizations, since they facilitate eliminating ambiguities, and achieve more creation and better exploitation of knowledge for strategic planning and development. decision making (Diakoulakis et al. 2004). Among the holistic frameworks, two stand out: that of Diakoulakis et al. (2004) and the aforementioned CEN (2004). The first, based on the knowledge management framework proposed by Rubenstein-Montano et al. (2001), offers a framework that covers different aspects: the organizational ones, those of their environment, and those of knowledge. The central elements of the framework are measurement, processes, objectives and environmental factors, connected by a cause-effect relationship platform. The second framework (CEN 2004) is the result of reflection work carried out by different institutions and companies belonging to various European countries. This framework integrates the business processes with the core activities of knowledge (identify, create, store and use), which includes the facilitating elements of management constituted by people and the knowledge capabilities of the organization in order to Integrate the actions. The CEN (2004) also contemplates the management measurement and the fulfillment of the objectives indicated in the actions.

KEY PHASES IN THE DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS
Broadly speaking, managing knowledge in organizations requires a set of specific processes and procedures in which the knowledge management phases are contemplated: identifying, creating, storing, sharing and using knowledge, taking into account account of the administrative and business processes of any organization (CEN, 2004). For this, we have a series of instruments that we can include in three groups, corresponding to the three stages in which a knowledge management project must be addressed:

1) knowledge audit
2) knowledge map organizational
3) creation of spaces and tools that support the knowledge management phases mentioned above (Raghu and Vinze, 2007; CEN 2004)

The knowledge audit serves as a starting point to design a knowledge management project, since it makes it easy to identify and collect: a) the information and knowledge resources existing in the organization and those required, for the performance of their duties; b) in which organizational processes knowledge is generated or what knowledge is required, and c) what structures are in the organization through which knowledge can be stored, distributed and managed (Levantakis et al., 2008 ; Garcia ‐ Alsina, 2004; Liebowitz et a. 2000). It is done through surveys and interviews with experts who participate in different organizational processes To this end, it is recommended to start from an interview script or form, in case the audit is carried out through questionnaires (García-Alsina, 2004). It is recommended to start with a pilot program that addresses a key area of the organization, in order to see the results clearly.

Once the audit has been carried out, a map of the knowledge of the organization, representing the intellectual capital of the organization (Figure 2) (Watthanan and Mingkhwan, 2012; Driessen et al., 2007; Huijsen et al. ., 2004, Kim et al, Wexler, 2001), both human, structural and relational (Table IV).

The type of content that the maps should collect depends on where they are oriented, although it is recommended that you collect the activities and knowledge necessary to carry them out, as well as your current location (inside or outside the
organization), how it is used and shared and how is that knowledge (tacit or explicit). In addition, there are different means to represent this knowledge, as well as various software to create maps and facilitate their visualization (Driessen et al., 2007; Eppler and Burkhard, 2007; Kim et al., 2003). In order to keep the map updated, it is advisable to establish periodic procedures for knowledge audits in the organization.

Finally, in the light of the knowledge map, the organization must analyze how the different phases of the knowledge cycle are developed, how are the existing information flows, what information needs are detected to reach the factors Critics of the organization’s success, consistent with its mission and vision, and the strategic objectives of the organization. In short, what are the strengths and lacks of strategic knowledge required in key processes of the organization. Aspects to consider in each phase are:

In the first phase, the knowledge needs that each member of the organization has to carry out the activities assigned in their responsibilities must be identified. It is important for this phase that each member knows the processes in which he participates and with which he relates in a transversal way in order to identify the flows of knowledge. It is also relevant to know where the necessary knowledge is located.

In the phase of creating knowledge, employees must start from the knowledge previously identified in the organization or outside it, and that which they already possess in their tacit or explicit form. In this phase, in addition to individual intellectual work, collective actions such as joint work sessions play an important role. Therefore, this phase is closely linked to the actions that take place in the knowledge sharing phase. An ideal instrument for creating knowledge, as well as sharing, are the practical communications.

The third phase, storing the knowledge created, is at the service of the other phases, since it has as its objective is to prepare the means so that knowledge can be identified, shared and reused in the future. In this phase it is important to have information systems that facilitate saving and retrieving information in a friendly way and in accordance with the defined information profiles, in order to preserve confidential knowledge. Likewise, in order to store and recover knowledge efficiently in storage systems, the definition of taxonomies is paramount.

In the fourth phase, sharing the knowledge created, the actions designed should facilitate the dissemination of existing knowledge in the organization and the creation of new ones. In order that this dissemination if done informally and exceeds the level of tacit knowledge generation, the creation of socialization spaces, either face-to-face or virtual, is used to be able to explain the shared and generated knowledge. At the time of carrying out the analysis of the maps, the type of knowledge created must be observed, and if there are already spaces to socialize tacit knowledge.

Finally, in the fifth phase, actions must be designed to use knowledge existing in the organization, created in it, or captured from the outside. It is the activity that justifies the effort made in the other phases. Examples of this use are obtaining the necessary knowledge to make decisions, design actions, or outline strategic plans.

In the light of the analysis made, the necessary actions must be designed so that knowledge is managed efficiently in each of the phases of the cycle, paying special attention to those phases where deficiencies have been detected.

Some of these actions for the different phases are (Figure 3):

Identify: maintenance of the knowledge map and process map, and definition of taxonomies to label the knowledge produced unequivocally, regardless of synonyms and polysemy.
Creating knowledge: creation of spaces for social interaction such as internal training courses, learning by doing, joint problem solving, collection of lessons learned, brainstorming, communities of practice (CoP), expert recruitment, Purchase of other companies with concrete know-how, attendance at congresses or fairs, etc.

Store: capture tacit knowledge through forms, reports, lessons learned from projects or communities of practice, yellow pages, forums, documentary or relational databases, compilation of frequent questions, etc.

Share: periodic distribution of newsletters, bulletin board, intranet, reports; established procedures to feed databases created for this purpose (repository, document manager, portals, CRM, ERP, yellow pages …), and transfer of tacit knowledge (workshops, training courses, CoP, job rotation…).
Use: when applying it to decision making, or designing new products or services, or in the development of activities, we apply value to the organization, and in turn we detect new knowledge gaps, that lead us to acquire new knowledge and restart the cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge management requires a system that addresses its design and implementation according to the characteristics of each organization. To do this, knowledge managers in organizations, before planning specific actions, must audit organizational knowledge in order to obtain a picture of how knowledge is being managed. This allows to detect strengths, potentialities and deficiencies. To do this, the knowledge maps that capture the situation at all times must be carried out and act as a roadmap that guides the design and implementation of the actions decided to identify, create, store, share and use knowledge efficiently.

Of the existing frameworks, those that incorporate the components of knowledge management (people, processes, content and technology) are revealed as the most efficient for designing and implementing knowledge management projects in organizations.

The integration of documentary techniques such as information auditing, taxonomy design or documentary languages such as thesauri, information architecture that facilitates information retrieval, design of document management systems, data management contents, maintenance of information resources and training in information skills are knowledge and skills that professionals who manage knowledge in organizations must have.

References

AENOR (2004). UNE‐EN ISO 14001:2004 Sistemas de gestión ambiental. Requisitos con orientación para su uso. (ISO 14001:2004)

AENOR (2004) UNE 166005:2004 IN Gestión de la I+D+I: Guía de aplica‐ ción de la Norma UNE 166002:2002 EX al sector de bienes de equipo.

AENOR (2006) UNE 166000:2006 Ges‐ tión de la I+D+i: Terminología y defini‐ ciones de las actividades de I+D+i.

AENOR (2006) UNE 166001:2006 Ges‐ tión de la I+D+i: Requisitos de un pro‐ yecto de I+D+i.

AENOR (2006) UNE 166002:2006 Ges‐ tión de la I+D+i: Requisitos del Siste‐ ma de Gestión de la I+D+i.
AENOR (2007). UNE‐ISO/IEC 27001: 2007. Tecnología de la información. Técnicas de seguridad. Sistemas de Gestión de la Seguridad de la Infor‐ mación (SGSI). Requisitos. (ISO/IEC 27001:2005)

AENOR (2008). UNE‐EN ISO 9001:2008. Sistemas de gestión de la Calidad. Requisitos.

AENOR (2011) UNE 166006:2011 Ges‐ tión de la I+D+i: Sistema de vigilancia tecnológica e inteligencia competitiva.

AENOR (2012) UNE‐ISO 30300. Infor‐ mación y documentación. Sistemas de Gestión para los documentos. Fun‐ damentos y vocabulario.

AENOR (2012) UNE‐ISO 30301. Informa‐ ción y Documentación. Sistema de ges‐ tión para los documentos. Requisitos.

Bueno, E.; Jericó, P.; Salmador, M.P. (2000). “Experiencias de medición del Capital Intelectual en España”. En Bueno, E.; Salamador, M.P. (Eds.). Perspectivas sobre Dirección del Conocimiento y Capital Intelectual. Madrid: Instituto Universitario Euro‐ forum Escorial, 2000.

CEN (European Committee for Stan‐ dardization – Comité Européen de Normalisation – Europäisches Komi‐ tee für Normung) (2004). European Guide to good Practice in Knowledge Management ‐ Part 1: Knowledge Management Framework. CWA 14924‐1:2004. Brussels.

Diakoulakis, I. E.; Georgopoulos, N. B.; Koulouriotis, D. E.; Emiris, D. M. (2005) Towards a holistic knowledge management model. Journal of Know‐ ledge Management, 8, (1): 32‐46.

Driessen, S; Huijsen, W. O.; Groot‐ veld, M. (2007). A framework for eva‐ luating knowledge‐mapping tools. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(2):109–117.
du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innova‐ tion. Journal of knowledge manage‐ ment, 11(4):20‐29.

EFQM. Modelo EFQM de Excelencia.

Eppler, M. J.; Burkhard, R. M. (2007). Visual representations in knowledge management: framework and cases. Journal of Knowledge Management, 11(4):112‐122.

Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government rela‐ tions. Research Policy, 29:109–123.

Garcia Alsina, Montserrat (2004) La Auditoria del Conocimiento como paso previo para definir un proyecto de ges‐ tión del conocimiento: metodología. Actas de las 9as.

Jornadas Catalanas de Información y Documentación. Bar‐ celona: Col.legi Oficial de Bibliotecaris i Documentalistes de Catalunya.

Garcia‐Alsina, M.; Cobarsí‐Morales, J. (2013). Investigación, Innovación e Información: el profesional de la información y documentación. Forum Calidad, (242):27‐33.

Huijsen,W., Van Vliet, H.; Plessius, H. (2004). Picture this: mapping know‐ ledge in higher education organiza‐ tions. In: Proceedings EISTA 2004, Orlando, FL, pp. 429–34.

Kim, S.; Suh, E.; Hwang, H. (2003). Building the knowledge map: an industrial case study. Journal of Know‐ ledge Management, 7(2): 34–45.

Levantakis, T., Helms, R., & Spruit, M. (2008). Developing a reference met‐ hod for knowledge auditing. In Practi‐ cal Aspects of Knowledge Manage‐ ment (pp. 147‐159). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Liebowitz, J.; Rubenstein‐Montano, B.; McCaw, D.; Buchwalter, J.; Bro‐ wing, C. (2000). The Knowledge Audit. Knowledge and Process Management, 7(1):3‐10.

Lisbon European Council (2000). Presi‐ dency conclusions. European Parlia‐ ment. Disponible en: http://www.euro‐ parl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm [Consulta: noviembre 2013]

OCDE (2005).Oslo Manual.Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innova‐ tion data. OECD and European Com‐ mission.

OECD (1996). The Knowledge‐Based Economy. Paris: OECD.
Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York: Wiley.

Raghu, T.S.; Vinze, A. (2007). A busi‐ ness process context for Knowledge Management. Decision Support Sys‐ tems, 43 (3):1062‐1079.

Rubenstein‐Montano, B.; Liebowitz, J.; Buchwalter, J.; Mccaw, D.; New‐ man, B.; Rebeck, K. (2001). A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decision Support Sys‐ tems, 31 (1), 5‐16.

Serenko, A.; Bontis, N.; Booker, L.; Sadeddin, K.; Hardie, T. (2010). A scientometric analysis of knowledge management and intellectual capital academic literature. Journal of Know‐ ledge Management, 14(1): 3‐23.

Serrat, O. (2010). Harnessing creati‐ vity and innovation in the workpla‐ ce.Washington, DC: Asian Develop‐ ment Bank.
Spender, J. C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal , 17:45‐62, Dec. 1996. Special issue.

Watthananon and Mingkhwan, 2012; Watthananon, J.; Mingkhwan, A. (2012). Optimizing Knowledge Mana‐ gement using Knowledge Map. Proce‐ dia Engineering, 32:1169–1177.
Wexler, M. N. (2001). The who, what and why of knowledge mapping, Jour‐ nal of Knowledge Management, 5(3):249–263.