Re: KM ROI #question #value


Murray Jennex
 

I agree with you sort of Tim.  KM output is also a reflection of KM outcome as what we found is that the output doesn't happen if the KM participants/users don't see a value in what KM has done.  The output measures are the qualitative measures of KM outcome.  For example, leadership doesn't increase support unless there is a value story there to begin with.  Users don't increase knowledge contributions unless they see value in KM.  Even our own list server operates this way.  Some questions get a lot of responses while others get less, our group responds to questions they see value in answering.  Sure it might be a output (number of responses, length of responses, even amount of arguing) but it still reflects which questions were more successful and hence outcome.

The theory of why this is okay is based on Theory of Reasoned Action and Intent to Use.  Output measures indicate an intent to use KM at some point while the outcome measures reflect KM use.  I've done much research and in the voluntary use environment that KM is, intent to use is a critical measure to ensure continued KM use.  Continued KM use is critical as it is important to know that users WILL use KM in the future when appropriate, and this is a measure of KM success.  

So yes, two types of measures, those that reflect outcome of actual KM use, and those that reflect outputs that indicate Intent to Use.....murray jennex


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Powell <tim.powell@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>; km@... <km@...>
Sent: Tue, Oct 20, 2020 11:05 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question

Hi Murray,
 
From your list of success measures, it occurs to me that only the first group (impact on business processes) are measures of KM Outcome.  The other three groups are measures of KM Output – a critical distinction, in my view.
 
Also, input from KM practitioners (i.e., knowledge producers) should accompany – but not replace – input from knowledge users (client, patrons, customers).  The former are apt to be seen as positively biased, or even self-fulfilling, in my experience.
 
This is all 20/20 hindsight, I realize -- but offered in the hope that it helps your important work gain even greater credibility and traction with skeptical Corner Office types.
 
Kind regards,
 
Tim
 
TIM WOOD POWELL | President, The Knowledge Agency® | Author, The Value of Knowledge
DIRECT/MOBILE +1.212.243.1200 | ZOOM 212-243-1200
 
 
From: <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of "Murray Jennex via groups.io" <murphjen@...>
Reply-To: "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Date: Friday, October 16, 2020 at 10:14 PM
To: "km@..." <km@...>, "main@SIKM.groups.io" <main@SIKM.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question
 
by statistically validated I mean we surveyed KM practitioners and researchers on what they saw as success on a KM initiative as well as how they judged the success of that project/initiative.  we used principle component factor analysis to assess the factors and their grouping, chronbach alphas to judge internal consistency, correlation analysis to make sure all factors were necessary, and regression analysis of each factor group to KM project/initiative success.  The list I sent out were all factors considered statistically significant.  Yes, some are qualitative but the item was stated for instance: "as a result of the KM project/initiative we made changes to our organization's KM goals."  It turns out that this happens more in successful KM projects and initiatives than it does in those not as successful....murray

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Bounds <km@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Fri, Oct 16, 2020 5:25 pm
Subject: Re: [SIKM] KM ROI #question
Hi Murray,
What do you mean by "statistically validated"?
Surely saying something like "Changes to the organization's KM goals is a measure of KM success" is tautological at best?
Cheers,
Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Executive, Information Management
Cordelta
E: stephen.bounds@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 16/10/2020 7:26 am, Murray Jennex via groups.io wrote:
we statistically validated the following set of KM success measures:
 
Impact on business processes (6 measures):
1.         Improved the efficiency of the supported processes
2.         Reduced costs for the supported business process
3.         Positive return on investment for the supported processes
4.         Improved the effectiveness of the supported processes
5.         Improved decision making in the supported processes
6.         Improved resource allocation in the supported process
Impact on KM Strategy (4 measures):
1.         Changes to the organization’s KM goals
2.         Creation or modification of knowledge related key performance indicators (KPIs)
3.         Changes to the way the organization assessed knowledge use in the organization
4.         Changes in the organization’s incentives for using and sharing knowledge
Leadership/Management Support (4 measures):
1.         Increased verbal/political support for KM by top management
2.         Increased financial support for KM by top management
3.         Increased awareness of KM by top management
4.         Increased use/reliance on KM by top management
Knowledge Content (3 measures)
1.         Increased use or intention to use of knowledge content
2.         Increased identification of needed knowledge content and knowledge content sources
3.         Increased demand and/or searching for knowledge content
 
thanks....murray jennex, 
-----Original Message-----
From: Sachin Joshi <sachinjoshi.a@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2020 7:08 am
Subject: [SIKM] KM ROI #question
Hello all, this is my first post on this very insightful forum/group.

I am KM consultant in IT organization. We implement and monitor lot of good KM practices in our teams. We also see good benefits of all these, unfortunately showcasing them as quantitative benefits is always a challenge (I am talking about benefits such as reduction in xxxx, improvement in xxxx and so on... not about quantitative KM dashboard data such as no. of SMEs, no. of posts, no. of assets, no. of sessions, etc.).

The question which is always asked on KM performance is, what is the benefit. Change in culture, improvement in collaborating, creation of assets, etc. is not an answer to this. since this is just an output but not measure of benefit/success. Can someone share, how we can correlate KM with business benefits OR how can we show return on investment in KM. Thank you.

Join main@SIKM.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.