Hi, 
I'm currently assisting an organisation with managing their project knowledge. They are looking to me to define an end-state. Something they can work towards. They keep on throwing Knowledge Maturity into the mix..... what would mature knowledge look like? 
I know of APQC's Knowledge Maturity framework but that looks more at KM as a capability. Any ideas on where to look or what to use to define "mature knowledge"? I'm kind of leaning towards - it depends on what you want, but maybe you have some ideas. 

Appreciate the input

Hi, 
I'm currently assisting an organisation with managing their project knowledge. They are looking to me to define an end-state. Something they can work towards. They keep on throwing Knowledge Maturity into the mix..... what would mature knowledge look like? 
I know of APQC's Knowledge Maturity framework but that looks more at KM as a capability. Any ideas on where to look or what to use to define "mature knowledge"? I'm kind of leaning towards - it depends on what you want, but maybe you have some ideas. 

Appreciate the input

On 3 Nov 2022, at 2:31 AM, Murray Jennex via groups.io <murphjen@...> wrote:

Patrick, I understand when you use the term knowledge you are using it in plural, no problem, I just didn't want you to think I was criticizing something I wasn't. My question and point is that as knowledge (in a singular state) matures it may reach an end state where it is only historical/archival in nature and will no longer mature. It may be used again, but it may not. For example, I do an engineering analysis of a problem and reach a solution, it is very useful knowledge as long as I have that component in service, but after a while the component becomes obsolete and is replaced, the knowledge of fixing the problem becomes obsolete in that unless I can relate it to another component it may not be useful directly. I still may retain it for training purposes or historical purposes but for all intents and purposes it has reached its maturity and end of life. I could also apply this logic to many social situations as there are many things we believed as knowledge in the past that would no longer be considered useful or appropriate, that knowledge has reached end of life and is useful only for historical purposes. Frankly, I believe all knowledge has a life cycle with some life cycles being very long and others fairly short. So in this context, I would suggest there is an end state for knowledge....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...>
To: main@SIKM.groups.io
Sent: Wed, Nov 2, 2022 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity

Hi Madeleine

I don’t think I would ever use the concept of “end state” with reference to knowledge, because all knowledge has to adapt continuously to changing demands, needs and opportunities. Projects may end, but the knowledge does not.

I do think capabilities are the right way to frame the question, because that covers the base of ensuring that knowledge is kept relevant. Similarly, I think one could define what a desirable knowledge environment/ infrastructure should look like to maintain different classes of knowledge to the necessary levels of relevance, accuracy, completeness, timely production, accessibility, etc.

For these attributes, not all knowledge classes are equal, “it depends” as you say what requirements they might want to set for different classes of knowledge. Some areas of knowledge are more slow moving or fast moving than others, and some forms of knowledge have very high dependencies and risk factors associated with them (e.g. when the technology changes quickly, or there are supply chain disruptions, or new regulatory requirements, or key lessons learned from a major incident).

I hope this is helpful

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 2 Nov 2022, at 11:06 PM, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi, 
I'm currently assisting an organisation with managing their project knowledge. They are looking to me to define an end-state. Something they can work towards. They keep on throwing Knowledge Maturity into the mix..... what would mature knowledge look like? 
I know of APQC's Knowledge Maturity framework but that looks more at KM as a capability. Any ideas on where to look or what to use to define "mature knowledge"? I'm kind of leaning towards - it depends on what you want, but maybe you have some ideas. 

Appreciate the input

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

Hi Mark,

I don't have any specific research to point you to, but suggest you might benefit from a "Scrum light" approach with a burndown tracker if you don't use one already.

The problem is that "pieces" is a blunt metric that can penalise writers handling complex content and encourages superficial delivery to increase throughput. To get around this, you need to introduce complexity estimates to your workload management processes.

This is how I would see it working:

1. As each new piece of work comes in, the team (not you) estimates how long it will take to complete. A typical Fibonacci estimator looks like this:
• 1 point = an hour or two
• 2 points = roughly 1/2 day
• 3 point = roughly a day
• 5 points = roughly 2 days
• 8 points = roughly 3 days
• 13 points = roughly a working week
• Anything larger = chunk it down into milestones and estimate these separately
2. All work effort gets registered and tracked in a backlog. For example, 100 pieces of work might equal 950 "points" of effort.
3. Every week / fortnight / month (whatever cadence works best for you), prioritise work and complete highest priority items. It is important to assess completion against your quality metrics and not set targets like "I expect you to finish 40 points of work each month". Work should be done because it's done, do not encourage gaming of the system.
4. After each period, track the team's output based on the completed number of points. Over time you will get a good sense of inflow and outflow rates, and what the team can sustainably complete each month. The estimates will become self-correcting to some extent, so never use the actual number as a target of productivity or again, this will quickly become gamed.

If you don't have time to implement this system now, you can "backcast" using the same process with your most recent months of output to produce the same estimate. This is not ideal because you will have the benefit of hindsight. However, it's better than nothing and provides something to go to management with.

If I'm not being clear, feel free to ask any questions here or offline and I'll be happy to help.

Cheers,
Stephen.

Kelsey,

 

Thanks for your perspective.  I 100% agree with you on not setting the quotas too high, especially absent any benchmarking that would substantiate it.  As for your questions, much of the knowledge authoring we do has multiple tabs/topics and runs multiple pages.  In addition, it is heavily ladened with links to source materials such as tables, images, etc.  A lot of complexity which would support a lower ratio.

 

I appreciate you reaching out.

 

Thanks,

 

Mark

 

From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Kelsey George
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 9:54 AM
To: main@sikm.groups.io
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SIKM] Information for Knowledge Management Capacity Planning #content-management

 

Hi Mark,

 

I’m currently working in a technical writer/knowledge management role and I’ve hit about 700 items for the year (including ~150 or so that we’re updates to existing documents). That being said, the subject matter experts were the primary authors and I act more in an editorial capacity. The expected length of the documents required (are these manuals or 1-page help guides, etc) would help determine whether these expectations are feasible for a year. At first glance, I would advise that it is better to set lower quotas for each technical writer and have them blow expectations out of the water than to set someone up for potential failure right out of the gate. 

 

I wish I had the data you’re looking for beyond anecdotal evidence, but it really depends on the skill of your team, how technical or complex the writing is, the participation of subject matter experts, and what materials need to be produced. Someone else may have better insight.

Hope that helps a little bit!

Kelsey George

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kelseydgeorge

On Nov 2, 2022, at 7:26 AM, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

Mark, thanks for the additional details.

Can anyone respond to Mark?

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information of Northwestern Mutual. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Northwestern Mutual immediately by returning it to the sender and delete all copies from your system. Please be advised that communications with {SECURE MESSAGE} in the subject line have been sent using a secure messaging system. Communications that do not have this tag may not be secure and could be observed by a third party. Our commitment to privacy: At Northwestern Mutual, your privacy is important to us. For more information about our privacy practices, please review our privacy notices.

Hi Mark,

On Nov 2, 2022, at 1:17 PM, Patrick Lambe via groups.io <plambe@...> wrote:

Hi Madeleine

I don’t think I would ever use the concept of “end state” with reference to knowledge, because all knowledge has to adapt continuously to changing demands, needs and opportunities. Projects may end, but the knowledge does not.

I do think capabilities are the right way to frame the question, because that covers the base of ensuring that knowledge is kept relevant. Similarly, I think one could define what a desirable knowledge environment/ infrastructure should look like to maintain different classes of knowledge to the necessary levels of relevance, accuracy, completeness, timely production, accessibility, etc.

For these attributes, not all knowledge classes are equal, “it depends” as you say what requirements they might want to set for different classes of knowledge. Some areas of knowledge are more slow moving or fast moving than others, and some forms of knowledge have very high dependencies and risk factors associated with them (e.g. when the technology changes quickly, or there are supply chain disruptions, or new regulatory requirements, or key lessons learned from a major incident).

I hope this is helpful

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Straits Knowledge

phone:  +65 98528511

web:  www.straitsknowledge.com
resources:  www.greenchameleon.com
knowledge mapping:  www.aithinsoftware.com

<SK18th_Anniv2020_emailfooter (2).jpg>

On 2 Nov 2022, at 11:06 PM, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi, 
I'm currently assisting an organisation with managing their project knowledge. They are looking to me to define an end-state. Something they can work towards. They keep on throwing Knowledge Maturity into the mix..... what would mature knowledge look like? 
I know of APQC's Knowledge Maturity framework but that looks more at KM as a capability. Any ideas on where to look or what to use to define "mature knowledge"? I'm kind of leaning towards - it depends on what you want, but maybe you have some ideas. 

Appreciate the input

On 2 Nov 2022, at 11:06 PM, Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> wrote:

Hi, 
I'm currently assisting an organisation with managing their project knowledge. They are looking to me to define an end-state. Something they can work towards. They keep on throwing Knowledge Maturity into the mix..... what would mature knowledge look like? 
I know of APQC's Knowledge Maturity framework but that looks more at KM as a capability. Any ideas on where to look or what to use to define "mature knowledge"? I'm kind of leaning towards - it depends on what you want, but maybe you have some ideas. 

Appreciate the input

On Nov 2, 2022, at 7:26 AM, Stan Garfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

Mark, thanks for the additional details.

Can anyone respond to Mark?