Date   

Re: Weighing the benefits of productivity improvements #value

Bill Dixon
 

Hello Yao,
 
I was asked a similar question this morning and have also been formulating a response. 
 
I like the general approach you have taken in the draft of your article.  Without getting in too much detail, you do a good job describing one of the potential benefits of KM.  In our environment, KM can also help mitigate risk.  By leveraging not only best practices but by avoiding worst practices, we avoid making potentially costly mistakes over an over again.  The impact on the business can be significant.
 
I am adapting Yelden and Albers (2004) (http://www.tlainc.com/articl69.htm) approach to establishing business cases for KM initiatives to our environment.  They advocate the following framework for developing business cases around KM initiatives:,

1.      Strategy assessment

2.      Knowledge audit

3.      Knowledge and business strategy alignment

4.      Opportunity identification

5.      Value, business benefits, and evaluation

6.      Risk reduction techniques

"In order to make a successful justification, it is necessary to clearly identify all the options available with the associated risks involved with each choice.  Furthermore, it is required to first identify and separate the benefits of a given initiative, then determine its value to the firm, before proceeding to infer an associated cost and expected return for undertaking the effort.  Clearly delineating the expected hard and soft benefits of each aspect of the initiative will greatly aid in effectively justifying its need."

I will send you a copy when I am finished. 

Thanks for sharing your draft.

Regards,

Bill Dixon,

Ernst & Young, LLP

 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 10:16 AM
Subject: [sikmleaders] Weighing the benefits of productivity improvements

Hello KM peers, I am once again asked to justify what I am doing by associating my work in KM area to impact to business bottom lines such as hard-savings. This type of request must be common across KM and other collaboration related areas. It is a fair question but quite difficult to articulate.
 
Below is a short article I just wrote on how to measure the benefits of productivity improvements and I would like to hear what this group thinks on this topic (not only on workplace efficiency but also KM/Collaboration/Innovation etc). Thanks in advance!
 

One of the most significant challenges in today's knowledge work is to deal with explosion of "Information Overload". The saving of workers time in searching, accessing, and filtering the vast amount of information scattered across personal desktop, shared workspace, and enterprise repositories can be measured and potentially translated to hard-savings in workspace.

In the age of industry evaluation, we measure productivities by yields and through-put of the workers on the assembly lines. It is a bit harder to measure the productivities in the information age as knowledge work performed today as less mechanical and procedural in nature. Some type of work such as research and development can be measured by number of patents, number of design iterations, and product development lead times.

As an example, according to an IDC study, a knowledge work spends around an average of 9.5 hours per week searching for information. Based on the average salary plus benefits of $60,000/year from Department of Labor (2005), this would translate to $14,251.90 a year per worker. With improved enterprise search, there are two possible out-comes depends on the nature of the work. The knowledge workers can reduced the amount of the time spent on search for information. Or the they might actually spent the same or even more time on searching but discover more relevant information which results in improvements in the quality of the job deliverables. In the first case, a saving 10% of the time (1 hour per week) can be translated into potential saving of $1,425 a year per worker. If we only effected a 10% of the knowledge worker population at Ford, that would a saving of 3,000 x $1,425 = $4,275,000. Can this be translated to reduced workforce in term salary and benefits paid? Probably not, but we can safely say it would positively impacted the business bottom line indirectly through better work through-put, increased quality, and improved morale (reduced stressed at work). The second scenario is much harder to measure. If a research scientist can find a new connections among previously unknown facts due to improved search performance, the impact of productivity gain can be measured by new patents and innovate products that changes the competitive landscape in the industry. As we can tell, the benefits of various technologies on productivities can be measured directly through the amount of time saved. But the impacts are far more indirect and potentially very significant.

As you can see, there is a lot of "IF" statements. To a large degree, The numbers are anecdotal but yet very convincing to reflect the order of magnitude of the positive impact. Like other strategic investments, such as Knowledge Management, the returns are mixed with multitude of other internal and external factors when it comes to impact on bottom line. In a business environment of doing more with less, productivity improvement is not a "nice to have" but a basic element for survival.


Weighing the benefits of productivity improvements #value

Yao Ge
 

Hello KM peers, I am once again asked to justify what I am doing by associating my work in KM area to impact to business bottom lines such as hard-savings. This type of request must be common across KM and other collaboration related areas. It is a fair question but quite difficult to articulate.
 
Below is a short article I just wrote on how to measure the benefits of productivity improvements and I would like to hear what this group thinks on this topic (not only on workplace efficiency but also KM/Collaboration/Innovation etc). Thanks in advance!
 

One of the most significant challenges in today's knowledge work is to deal with explosion of "Information Overload". The saving of workers time in searching, accessing, and filtering the vast amount of information scattered across personal desktop, shared workspace, and enterprise repositories can be measured and potentially translated to hard-savings in workspace.

In the age of industry evaluation, we measure productivities by yields and through-put of the workers on the assembly lines. It is a bit harder to measure the productivities in the information age as knowledge work performed today as less mechanical and procedural in nature. Some type of work such as research and development can be measured by number of patents, number of design iterations, and product development lead times.

As an example, according to an IDC study, a knowledge work spends around an average of 9.5 hours per week searching for information. Based on the average salary plus benefits of $60,000/year from Department of Labor (2005), this would translate to $14,251.90 a year per worker. With improved enterprise search, there are two possible out-comes depends on the nature of the work. The knowledge workers can reduced the amount of the time spent on search for information. Or the they might actually spent the same or even more time on searching but discover more relevant information which results in improvements in the quality of the job deliverables. In the first case, a saving 10% of the time (1 hour per week) can be translated into potential saving of $1,425 a year per worker. If we only effected a 10% of the knowledge worker population at Ford, that would a saving of 3,000 x $1,425 = $4,275,000. Can this be translated to reduced workforce in term salary and benefits paid? Probably not, but we can safely say it would positively impacted the business bottom line indirectly through better work through-put, increased quality, and improved morale (reduced stressed at work). The second scenario is much harder to measure. If a research scientist can find a new connections among previously unknown facts due to improved search performance, the impact of productivity gain can be measured by new patents and innovate products that changes the competitive landscape in the industry. As we can tell, the benefits of various technologies on productivities can be measured directly through the amount of time saved. But the impacts are far more indirect and potentially very significant.

As you can see, there is a lot of "IF" statements. To a large degree, The numbers are anecdotal but yet very convincing to reflect the order of magnitude of the positive impact. Like other strategic investments, such as Knowledge Management, the returns are mixed with multitude of other internal and external factors when it comes to impact on bottom line. In a business environment of doing more with less, productivity improvement is not a "nice to have" but a basic element for survival.


Re: Update from Stephanie Barnes and Missing Puzzle Piece Consulting #personal

sswarup44 <sswarup44@...>
 
Edited

Congrats Stephanie,
All the best in your new position.


Sanjay Swarup
Program Manager KM
ManTech International


Re: My New Position #personal

Cornejo Castro, Miguel <miguel.cornejo@...>
 
Edited

Will be looking forward to what you do in that area, too :-).

Best regards,

Miguel


Re: My New Position #personal

Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

Thanks for the tip, Matt. Will definitely be checking that out -
especially keeping in mind your feedback. Am curious to know more...
Tom

--- In sikmleaders@..., Matt Moore <laalgadger@...> wrote:

Tom,

Congrats on the new role! Someone really needs to give Gartner's
coverage of collaborative software a kick in the pants - and I hope
it's you. Forrester have the edge on you guys at the moment.

Cheers,

Matt


Re: My New Position #personal

Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

Thanks, Valdis. Re competitors, don't know yet. I think Gartner would
like to think no one :-) That's based on the business model of
coupling our benchmarking research and analyst research with our
client needs and consulting offerings. No one else - not even IBM or
the Big 4 - have that ability. And Consulting is still relatively
small at Gartner compared to the aforementioned firms - orders of
magnitude smaller. So it's going to be interesting to see how that all
plays out.

--- In sikmleaders@..., Valdis Krebs <valdis@...> wrote:

Tom,

Congrats on your new position!

Who are your key competitors? The strategy arms of IBM GS, Accenture,
etc?

Valdis


Re: My New Position #personal

Matt Moore <laalgadger@...>
 

Tom,

Congrats on the new role! Someone really needs to give Gartner's coverage of collaborative software a kick in the pants - and I hope it's you. Forrester have the edge on you guys at the moment.

Cheers,

Matt


Update from Stephanie Barnes and Missing Puzzle Piece Consulting #personal

Stephanie Barnes
 

Hi Everyone,

I hope you are all well and enjoying the summer (or winter if you are
in the Southern Hemisphere)! :)

This email is to share some great news with all of you. After almost
5 years out on my own, doing knowledge management consulting, I have
accepted a full-time position with a consulting company here in
Toronto, called Ideaca Knowledge Services. I am a senior consultant
doing project management and senior business analysis activities in
their portals and collaboration practice. The practice focuses on
enabling business processes with portals and collaboration
technology, recognizing that technology is an enabler, and that
people and process are key elements in the success of any technology
initiative. From a technology perspective, the portals and
collaboration team focuses on SharePoint, but because technology is
only one component of what we do, we get to do other things than just
technology, like strategy and roadmaps. :)

It's a great fit for my existing clients because now I have a whole
pool of people to get involved in projects that were too big for me
to do on my own or for when I was too busy to do it all, and it's a
great fit for me, because I can focus on delivery of consulting and
not have to split myself between business development and delivery,
not to mention that I don't have to do all the administration
activities anymore. :)

My Missing Puzzle Piece Consulting business and webpage will remain
alive, just on the sidelines for now, so you can continue to contact
me through that route or, my new contact information at Ideaca is in
my signature below.

I hope to maintain and continue to grow my network in my new role,
and I look forward to hearing from any of you struggling with
SharePoint or other knowledge technology implementations. Ideaca has
a proven and balanced (people, process, and technology, as well as
business-IT alignment) strategy to being successful in the knowledge
services consulting domain and I am excited about this next step in
my career.

Best Regards,
Stephanie

Stephanie Barnes - Senior Consultant
T 416.961.4332 ext/vm 5193| F 416.673.5165 | C 416.522.5126 |
stephanie.barnes@...

Ideaca - Toronto | Edmonton | Calgary | Vancouver | www.ideaca.com
2007 Global Partner of the Year – Information Worker Solutions
2006 Global Partner of the Year – Microsoft Business Solutions
Technology Innovation
fromStrategytoSolution


Re: My New Position #personal

Valdis Krebs <valdis@...>
 

Tom,

Congrats on your new position!

Who are your key competitors? The strategy arms of IBM GS, Accenture, etc?

Valdis

On Aug 8, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Tom Short wrote:

Hello all - today marks my first week in my new job with Gartner
Consulting. We do technology and business strategy engagements that
leverage Gartner's world-class research and analysis to help clients
address strategic business issues. I'm aligned with our San Jose
office here in the Bay area, and will be focusing on developing new
business in our High Tech & Telecom Practice. There seems to be a lot
of interest around collaboration, innovation and general KM-related
themes, so I'm hoping that part of my background will be useful and
valued - we shall see.
best,
-Tom Short
tom.short@...
+1-916-414-2244


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



My New Position #personal

Tom Short <tman9999@...>
 

Hello all - today marks my first week in my new job with Gartner
Consulting. We do technology and business strategy engagements that
leverage Gartner's world-class research and analysis to help clients
address strategic business issues. I'm aligned with our San Jose
office here in the Bay area, and will be focusing on developing new
business in our High Tech & Telecom Practice. There seems to be a lot
of interest around collaboration, innovation and general KM-related
themes, so I'm hoping that part of my background will be useful and
valued - we shall see.
best,
-Tom Short
tom.short@...
+1-916-414-2244


Re: Framework/Methodology to build niche domain capabilities #expertise #methods

vs_shenoy <vs_shenoy@...>
 
Edited

Srinivas,

I agree with Al about there not necessarily being a framework or
model, as different groups view KM in different perspectives. You
might find it useful to consider the ideas you have and conceptualize
these as a framework that works best for your organization, rather
than using a cookie cutter approach.

I have tried approaching this from a process perspective, and used
this as the first step in knowledge discovery. When you begin
discovery, you will be surprised who the real SMEs are, who your
champions are and who/what barriers are to creating a creative,
knowledge sharing environment. It can also identify closed loops,
silos and even knowledge drains. The questions of what, why, when, how
can then be used to fill gaps you identify.

I would advise against considering a software solution and then
working backwards to understand where your processes would fit in.

Thanks,
Vinod

PS. The knowledge domain paper was an excellent read.


Re: Framework/Methodology to build niche domain capabilities #expertise #methods

sjagannath@...
 


Dear All,

Thought I could express in different words again. Here is my try....

We have a many groups supporting technology operations & at this point would like to improve on domain knowledge capabilities/competency.

As Al Simard suggests, its a wonderful idea to collate information from experts, formulate training programs & disseminate through various collaborative techniques. But the experts are not easily accessible. Given this scenario, may be alternative is to build domain capabilities through secondary research (from internet) as the key source & may be other means.
For which any methodology/framework would help, such that it could be a focused effort to build niche competency.

I understand its vague requirement/thought, but guess most of us are living with the same fact!

Regards,
Srinivas






"Albert Simard"
Sent by: sikmleaders@...

08/05/2008 07:25 PM

Please respond to
sikmleaders@...

To
cc
Subject
Re: [sikmleaders] Framework/Methodology to build niche domain        capabilities






Srinivas -

 
I don't necessarily have a methodology or process framework, but I've used KM techniques (group dialogue, collaboration) to extract tacit knowledge from groups of experts to generate systems models for knowledge services and model development.  The former is published; the latter is still under way.
 
Al Simard
 
Al Simard
 
 





Re: Framework/Methodology to build niche domain capabilities #expertise #methods

Albert Simard <simarda@...>
 

Srinivas -
 
I don't necessarily have a methodology or process framework, but I've used KM techniques (group dialogue, collaboration) to extract tacit knowledge from groups of experts to generate systems models for knowledge services and model development.  The former is published; the latter is still under way.
 
Al Simard
 
Al Simard
 
 
 
ve )


Re: Framework/Methodology to build niche domain capabilities #expertise #methods

steven.wieneke@...
 
Edited

Srinivas,

I have attached a paper that Karla Phlypo-Price and myself wrote in 2003 that may be helpful. The content for the most part is time independent.
https://sikm.groups.io/g/main/files/The_KM_Domain_October_2003.pdf

Regards,

Steven Wieneke
Global Technical Memory
& Closed Loop Learning
Global Engineering
General Motors Corporation
steven.wieneke@...


Framework/Methodology to build niche domain capabilities #expertise #methods

sjagannath@...
 


Dear All,

Any framework/methodology to improve niche domain knowledge capabilities of a group?

Most answers would revolve around building or developing body of knowledge, training materials, devising an certification program etc.
To probably build these body of knowledge/training material do we have a specific framework or methodology that could be followed.

Any material, best practice or internet resources would be of great help.

- Srinivas


Re: New poll for sikmleaders - Create a wiki page? #wikis #poll

Peter Dorfman <pdorfman@...>
 

I have used WikiSpaces and admire its simplicity.

Peter Dorfman

On Tue Jul 29 10:59 , "Albert Simard" sent:












Oky Doky

Just to get something going, I set up a page on Wikispaces. It seems
more intuitive than Wikidot.com (which also has firewall issues). On first
glance, It doesn't seem as powerful as Google wiki, but I can set it up
from work but outside of my work domain (our !@#$%^
firewall again!)

http://knowledge-life-cycle.wikispaces.com/

I seeded the page with content from the Northwest KM group site, which
doesn't have provisions for editing as in a wiki (I missed the bottom
paragraph!). Since someone already has an outline, let's begin
there.

Everyone can view the site, but only members can edit it. Although
there is a provision to invite people to join, I don't have all the
necessary e-mail addresses, so let's see how it works when you request
membership.

Anyone from SIKM with an interest in life-cycle management for knowledge is
invited to participate.

Just for clarification. There should be only one SIKM wiki containing
all our pages. If this doesn't end up as that site, I'll gladly move
whatever content we have to the "endorsed" site.

Al Simard


New poll for sikmleaders - Create a wiki page? #wikis #poll

sikmleaders@...
 

The following sikmleaders poll is now closed. Here are the
final results:


POLL QUESTION: We are looking at creating some KM content on a wiki page. Which approach would you want us to use?

Poll will be one week.

CHOICES AND RESULTS
- Add any KM content we want to develop to wikipedia, 10 votes, 55.56%
- I wouldn't take the time to contribute even if you set one up so it doesn't really matter to me. , 0 votes, 0.00%
- Create a new SIKM wiki page on a standalone free wiki service like Google sites. , 8 votes, 44.44%
- Wiki? What's a wiki?, 0 votes, 0.00%



For more information about this group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders

For help with Yahoo! Groups, please visit
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.html


Re: Wiki #wikis

Martin@Cleaver.org <martin@...>
 

Wikis might be considered to have a gravitational force: the larger
the number of articles the bigger the pull to view and contribute. The
wiki brings in both content and people.

Should we contribute to Wikipedia? Sure:

The broader the interest of the people, the more likely they are to
integrate topics from distant subject areas. The melding of
disciplines happens on Wikipedia for example because an
incompatibility between, say, a leading practice in KM and a leading
practice in Learning Management will be spotted as someone synthesizes
an overarching topic. Having every discipline in one place creates
conflict, which in turn spawns a process of reasoning, interweaving,
followed by negotiating, and spawning bridging topics and
cross-trained people. SIKM helping to generate knowledge is good.

Should SIKM have its own wiki?

Well, wikis can be used for any type of content. Maybe the answer to
this question rests in what kind of content we want to work on. Does
it make sense for our content to be melded with that of other groups?

I'd venture: some of it.

* For "definitional" best practices in knowledge management, why
would we want them separate?
* For meeting minute notes, why should they be shared?

There is not only our policy to consider, but also any public wiki we
plan on using. Wikipedia, for example, will delete content that does
not fit their mandate.

I don't really have answers to these, but I've plenty of questions...

Regards,
Martin

--
Martin@...
Chair, Wiki Symposium. Portugal September 2008.
http://www.wikisym.org
+1 416-786-6752 (GMT-5)

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:45 PM, noisedata <noisedata@...> wrote:
My point exactly... was aiming to get to this answer... if the goal is to
spread the word about KM and improve the quality of contributions in
"general public", wikipedia is the place to start... noone will look at yet
another wwwiki lost in the universe somewhere... people start looking at
wikipedia for answers... so there is the solution as David put it
straightforwardly... ;)

P


On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:04 AM, David Snowden <snowded@...>
wrote:

Of course there is another solution - contribute to the Wikipedia pages on
Knowledge Management, Community of Practice etc. At the moment only a very
small number of us look after those pages and I seem to spend most of my
time removing commercial promotion and vandalism.

That way the contribution would be to the wider community, of course it
would then be subject to scrutiny by a wider group of editors and might be
less comfortable in consequence.


Re: Wiki #wikis

Tom Condon
 

I think something like a wiki would be useful to capture the "golden
nuggets" of the various discussion threads, teleconferences, and
powerpoint files that are shared in this community so that the
knowledge can be organized in a way that makes it easier to find and
consume.

There are often great books, articles, website and services that are
discussed here but there is no list to go to and quickly look at them
all. You have to search through tons of threads to find those
nuggets. Same goes for answers to good KM questions.

So I would love to see a wiki with an often updated list of KM
references, a Q&A section, and perhaps a pofile for each of the
members.

Once possible wiki solution is discussed in this article:
http://blogs.bnet.com/businesstips/?p=1777

With that being said, I think those of us that are particular experts
in different areas of KM, such as CoP or business process
improvement, should share their general knowledge on the subject
through something like Wikipedia or Knol.

Thanks,

Tom Condon
Knowledge Management Officer
NATO HQ, Brussels Belgium
condontm@...

--- In sikmleaders@..., "Dale Arseneault"
<dalearseneault@...> wrote:


A colleague of mine pointed me to an interesting post titled
Resource
Fetishism <http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=1216> by Jono, who is Ubuntu
Community Manager for Canonical <http://www.canonical.com/> , and
looks
after the world-wide community of Ubuntu contributors and
developers.
(Ubuntu <http://www.ubuntu.com/> is a community developed Linux-
based
operating system).

In his post, Jono paints this common problem:

Its funny how the same approximate process seems to happen for many
communities, and sub-communities in projects. It happens a little
like
this:


* A new team forms from a small group of enthusiasts.
* They create a raft of resources - version control,
repositories,
mailing lists, IRC channels, bug trackers, councils, forums etc.
* A discussion happens on the new mailing list about which
website
CMS to use.
* The discussion lasts approximately a month. There are many
opinions. Bickering ensues. It turns into a Drupal vs. Wordpress
war.
* Two months pass, little has been achieved other than yet more
CMS
arguments archived to the Internet.

So, I read the thread that this post triggered, and I can't seem to
see
the core reason for the sikmleaders wiki in the first place. We
seem to
have gotten trapped in our own Resource Fetishism.

Can anyone enlighten me - what would we do with a wiki? why do we
need
one ? (regardless of the technology)
Dale Arseneault
http://reflectionskmoi.blogspot.com/


Re: Wiki #wikis

Peter Baloh
 

9181 - 9200 of 10190