Topics

KM Maturity Model: Request for your views #maturity


Jeevan Kamble
 

Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:
  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)
Following are the areas:
  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledge sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training
Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan


Martha Heyman <mheyman@...>
 

Jeevan –

 

I’m not sure what you’re asking for, but when I build a capability and maturity model for KM I identify 4 to 5 dimensions (e.g. governance, technology, people, content, processes) and then begin to identify the key focus areas within each dimension. As I develop the practice statements for each focus areas, I often find it to be an iterative process of adding/removing focus areas as well as shifting what I thought the dimensions to be. More often than not, I find 4 levels of maturity to be sufficient, although I have gone to 5 levels when I’ve needed that level of granularity.

 

Is that the sort of commentary you were seeking?

 

Regards,

Marti

 

Marti Heyman  |  Director Knowledge Management Strategy  | INQUIRA, Inc.
Mobile: +1.302.377.3463  |  Direct/Fax: +1.610.869.3363
mheyman@...  |  http://www.inquira.com

 


Patrick Lambe
 

I have a general problem with enterprise-wide maturity models, in that (a) maturity levels tend to be patchy and inconsistent across different divisions/depts; (b) personnel and especially leadership changes can make radical and unpredictable differences to the maturity levels.

Maturity models are intended as I understand it to move the organisation as a whole as if it were a coordinated integrated whole, whereas in KM, you often need targeted initiatives focused on resolving specific issues to gain traction. The idea of a single consistent knowledge sharing and usage culture is mostly untrue, in my experience.

How do folks deal with this?

P

Patrick Lambe

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   






On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:38 AM, jeevan kamble wrote:

 

Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:
  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)
Following are the areas:
  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledge sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training
Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan



Chris Collison <chris@...>
 

Hi Jeevan,

A few thoughts on this.

 

Firstly, I think you're wise to segment the audience for your models - as you say, their KM needs will be different.

 

I have worked a fair bit with KM maturity models (aka self-assessments), and I would advocate that you build each model with members of the three workstreams, rather than imposing a model on them.  I have found that techniques like "anecdote circles" work well with groups  to help them surface the topics which matter most.  Building the content with them (using their words) gives a strong sense of ownership.

 

I wouldn't worry if your three workstreams generate different priorities and practices, as well as different content.  For example, your Support Staff may feel that "Analysing Customer Feedback" is important enough to merit a practice (with five levels) in its own right.  Directing all through groups to use the same 8 topics may be counterproductive.

 

The topics you have suggested look like a reasonably holistic list - you have covered most of the bases - but your people are the best judge of whether they are right for your company.

 

To respond to Patrick's question:

I see models/self-assessment tools as devices to stimulate a conversation between people who have good practices to share, and people who have an appetite to learn.  The model provides a common language (preferably one which people have co-created).  This common language surfaces the patchy nature of maturity, but in that patchiness, it reveals the potential for learning and sharing.

You can insert your favourite KM process to support the sharing - peer assist, world cafe, storytelling etc.  The maturity model serves to "get people to the right table for the conversation" - than the sharing and learning starts.

 

This was the basis of the work the Geoff Parcel and I did in the book "No More Consultants"

and is where the "River Diagram" works particularly well as a visualisation tool.

 

Hope this helps.

Chris

 

 

on the web: www.chriscollison.com

read my blog: chriscollison.wordpress.com

see me on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/chriscollison             Chris Collison        

email me: chris@...                                                     Knowledgeable Ltd...          

call my mobile: +44 7841 262900                                                Because all of us are smarter than any of us.

link in with me: www.linkedin.com/in/chris_collison

follow me on twitter: chris_collison

 

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of jeevan kamble
Sent: 13 August 2011 03:38
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model: Request for your views

 




Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:

  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)

Following are the areas:

  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledge sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training

Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan





Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Chris, Jeevan and all,

My chief concern with the idea of a KM maturity model is that there is no single "best practice" for KM.

To the extent that best practice exists at all, it must surely be tied to the business process itself, not to the KM techniques used to improve it.

For some business processes, a knowledgebase may be best practice. Sometimes a call center script is best practice. Sometimes free-flowing collaboration is best practice. Sometimes mentoring is best practice. Sometimes devoting 20% of staff time personal projects is best practice.

Trying to reconcile these conflicting approaches into a unifying KM maturity model seems — to be frank — to be a fool's errand.

Far better to be clear about what you are doing and develop a Software Development Maturity Model, a Testing Maturity Model, and so on.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

On 15/08/2011 7:30 PM, Chris Collison wrote:
To respond to Patrick's question:

I see models/self-assessment tools as devices to stimulate a
conversation between people who have good practices to share, and people
who have an appetite to learn. The model provides a common language
(preferably one which people have co-created). This common language
surfaces the patchy nature of maturity, but in that patchiness, it
reveals the potential for learning and sharing.


Douglas Weidner
 

Patrick,

 

I agree with your comments.

 

The KM Institute’s Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™ has multiple streams or considerations, which in the terminology of maturity models means it is less staged (sequential),

than continuous (it allows/recognizes need for iterative loops).

 

Of the various components, the more traditional, staged paths include enterprise wide considerations such as change management and strategy/planning/governance maturity.

 

In addition, the model allows for maturity by major specific initiatives, which can be continuous, (iterative) and of course can vary as to criteria based on type of initiative – Best Practices Management Process, Lessons Learned Management Process, Rethink Learning, Innovation, Repository, another we call “Connect & Collect”, etc.

 

It would be nice if KM was simple, but unfortunately it is not.

 

Of course, based on our industry’s history, any practitioner who considers KM simple will probably err on the side of simplicity and is probably doomed to failure.

 

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Best in Blended KM Training & Certification

Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)

and Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)

www.kminstitute.org

703-757-1395

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:39 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model: Request for your views

 

 

I have a general problem with enterprise-wide maturity models, in that (a) maturity levels tend to be patchy and inconsistent across different divisions/depts; (b) personnel and especially leadership changes can make radical and unpredictable differences to the maturity levels.

 

Maturity models are intended as I understand it to move the organisation as a whole as if it were a coordinated integrated whole, whereas in KM, you often need targeted initiatives focused on resolving specific issues to gain traction. The idea of a single consistent knowledge sharing and usage culture is mostly untrue, in my experience.

 

How do folks deal with this?

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:38 AM, jeevan kamble wrote:



 

 

Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:

  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)

Following are the areas:

  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledge sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training

Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan

 

 


 

Consider a KM maturity model to be more of a perspective on the readiness of an organization to plan, integrate, and sustain a KM framework in the organization and the maturity model concept/approach takes on a different meaning and in fact may be more useful.  Without a standard framework for KM, as it is unique for each organization though perhaps following similar concepts and practices, I would suggest that shift in how a KM maturity model could be used provides greater value in its use.  It’s a guide and a reference point that can be based on any number of context criteria.  Bottom line—one size can’t fit all and a maturity model is essentially a baseline.

 

For consideration

 

Bill

 

Bill Kaplan CPCM | Great Falls, Virginia 22066 | 571.934.7408 | 703.401.4198 (direct) | Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/ckobillkaplan

Working KnowledgeCSP 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at  www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed and others who are authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that unauthorized use, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately.  Since this communication may contain confidential or legally privileged information, please do not forward to any third party without written authorization from the sender or Working KnowledgeCSP.

 

 


Stan Garfield
 

I think that KM programs don't neatly fit into predefined levels or categories, and there is limited benefit in trying to make them do so.  Instead, I prefer to define three key goals for a program, measure progress against those goals, and then replace the goals which have been achieved with new ones on an ongoing basis.

For each of the three goals, the program might be at very different stages.  In one KM program I led, one of our initial goals was that each project should have a collaborative team space.  When this was achieved and in fact was institutionalized, we replaced it with a goal that all employees should belong to at least one community of practice.  We were initially far off from achieving that goal, but once we email-enabled our community discussion boards, membership soared, and we reached 60% against a goal of 100%.  So we were at different levels of achievement for different goals, and thus there was no one overall maturity level.

If I were to use a maturity model, I would use three levels:

1.     Beginning – starting to implement a KM program by identifying needs and planning implementation; goals being defined

2.     Intermediate – KM planning done, some needed KM elements implemented but not fully adopted, and some not yet implemented; goals defined, but not yet achieved

3.     Advanced – most identified needs are being met, and new ones are being identified and planned for implementation; original goals achieved, and new ones are being identified

 

Once the Advanced level is reached, the program needs to be continuously refreshed, or the organization may slip back to Intermediate.  If a continuous improvement program is in active use, then the Advanced level can be maintained.

 

Another option is benchmarking, which can be useful in identifying KM programs to emulate, learning about proven practices, and getting useful suggestions from others.  An outcome could be "we should implement a communities program similar to Company X" or "we should replicate Company Y's best practice replication process."


Murray Jennex
 

I agree Patrick and while my maturity model research has been focused on security organizations and software development, I do believe maturity models are best applied to an organization that is colocated in a single to very few organizations.  I do believe you can have a governance maturity model on a enterprise scale but that will be a little different.  In the case of KM I would look at an enterprise maturity model as being something with a enterprise knowledge model/onotology and enterprise availability of tools and processes and such.....murray jennex 
 

In a message dated 8/15/2011 12:38:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, plambe@... writes:


I have a general problem with enterprise-wide maturity models, in that (a) maturity levels tend to be patchy and inconsistent across different divisions/depts; (b) personnel and especially leadership changes can make radical and unpredictable differences to the maturity levels.

Maturity models are intended as I understand it to move the organisation as a whole as if it were a coordinated integrated whole, whereas in KM, you often need targeted initiatives focused on resolving specific issues to gain traction. The idea of a single consistent knowledge sharing and usage culture is mostly untrue, in my experience.

How do folks deal with this?

P

Patrick Lambe

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   






On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:38 AM, jeevan kamble wrote:

 

Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:
  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)
Following are the areas:
  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledge sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training
Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan



Seth Earley
 

We have used maturity models for the following:

1.       Determine the gap in capabilities for a specific process

2.       Understand where a particular department, functional area or process is on the learning curve

3.       Determine order of magnitude resources that are needed to deploy an application or process

 

I agree that maturity is lumpy.  An organization may have some units that are much more mature in a specific area and less capable in another area. We typically look at multiple departments and processes when doing maturity models.

 

Different business units may have different drivers and market conditions that could lead to different maturities.  For a publishing client, one part of the business was a newspaper, another was a book publisher.  For the news division, the clock speed of information was minutes to hours.  The book publisher months to years.  For information architecture maturity, the news division was much farther along the learning curve. 

 

At an insurance company, the maturity model was used to assess a baseline at the start of projects and understand where the project expected to bring the department, function or process at the end of the project.  This was a gating activity managed by the PMO.  No project could get mobilized unless there was a current state maturity assessment and then an end state projected maturity. 

 

This was one sanity check on the project.  For example, if a project was being done for a department or process that had stage 2 maturity for, say, architecture and at the end they projected stage 4 but this was a 2 month project, then the sponsor would know that project leads were not being realistic. 

 

We are in the midst of a  maturity model for content processes and metadata.  I would welcome anyone’s participation – we’ll share results on Sept 7th and also donate $2 to a charity for every survey completed.

 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Content_Management_Practices_2011

 

Seth

 

Seth Earley

CEO
_____________________________

EARLEY & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
Cell: 781-820-8080

Email: seth@...  

Web: www.earley.com

 

Follow me on twitter: sethearley

Connect with me on  LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/sethearley   

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 7:08 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model: Request for your views

 

 

I agree Patrick and while my maturity model research has been focused on security organizations and software development, I do believe maturity models are best applied to an organization that is colocated in a single to very few organizations.  I do believe you can have a governance maturity model on a enterprise scale but that will be a little different.  In the case of KM I would look at an enterprise maturity model as being something with a enterprise knowledge model/onotology and enterprise availability of tools and processes and such.....murray jennex 

 

In a message dated 8/15/2011 12:38:41 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, plambe@... writes:



I have a general problem with enterprise-wide maturity models, in that (a) maturity levels tend to be patchy and inconsistent across different divisions/depts; (b) personnel and especially leadership changes can make radical and unpredictable differences to the maturity levels.

 

Maturity models are intended as I understand it to move the organisation as a whole as if it were a coordinated integrated whole, whereas in KM, you often need targeted initiatives focused on resolving specific issues to gain traction. The idea of a single consistent knowledge sharing and usage culture is mostly untrue, in my experience.

 

How do folks deal with this?

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Aug 13, 2011, at 10:38 AM, jeevan kamble wrote:



 

 

Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:

  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)

Following are the areas:

  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledge sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training

Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan



 


Paul Rehmet
 

Several years back when I worked for a large technology services firm, we developed a maturity model that was useful in contextualizing our KM activities.  The maturity levels were meant to characterize what key parts of our organization would look like as we improved our practices:

1. Ad Hoc Enterprise - Knowledge Siloed
Characterized by inconsistency and reinvention

2. Efficient Enterprise - Knowledge Aware
We know what we've done, standard practices are followed, we execute predictably and consistently, etc.

3. Smart Enterprise - Knowledge Enabled
We put our knowledge into action, making informed decisions, improving delivery practices based on experience and feedback, developing compelling client proposals, etc.

4. Agile Enterprise - Knowledge Led
We seize market opportunities, anticipate threats, lead the market, lead our customers, etc.

We then looked at content, processes, technology, structures and people aspects that would help increase our capability.  This was one of the ways we prioritized our KM projects.  And from time to time we would take a critical look at how our KM program affected our company's KM maturity.  Rather than claiming success say after setting up some communities of practice, the maturity model would help us think about whether desired business outcomes such as sales or project delivery improvements were being achieved.

Paul


On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:24 PM, StanGarfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
 

I think that KM programs don't neatly fit into predefined levels or categories, and there is limited benefit in trying to make them do so.  Instead, I prefer to define three key goals for a program, measure progress against those goals, and then replace the goals which have been achieved with new ones on an ongoing basis.

For each of the three goals, the program might be at very different stages.  In one KM program I led, one of our initial goals was that each project should have a collaborative team space.  When this was achieved and in fact was institutionalized, we replaced it with a goal that all employees should belong to at least one community of practice.  We were initially far off from achieving that goal, but once we email-enabled our community discussion boards, membership soared, and we reached 60% against a goal of 100%.  So we were at different levels of achievement for different goals, and thus there was no one overall maturity level.

If I were to use a maturity model, I would use three levels:

1.     Beginning – starting to implement a KM program by identifying needs and planning implementation; goals being defined

2.     Intermediate – KM planning done, some needed KM elements implemented but not fully adopted, and some not yet implemented; goals defined, but not yet achieved

3.     Advanced – most identified needs are being met, and new ones are being identified and planned for implementation; original goals achieved, and new ones are being identified

 

Once the Advanced level is reached, the program needs to be continuously refreshed, or the organization may slip back to Intermediate.  If a continuous improvement program is in active use, then the Advanced level can be maintained.

 

Another option is benchmarking, which can be useful in identifying KM programs to emulate, learning about proven practices, and getting useful suggestions from others.  An outcome could be "we should implement a communities program similar to Company X" or "we should replicate Company Y's best practice replication process."



Murray Jennex
 

good model, but the hard part is how to assess where you are.  I think many of us are saying that it is nearly impossible to say the total organization is at level x.  Instead, I know I think that sub-organizations could be rated but not the total organization....murray jennex
 

In a message dated 8/15/2011 8:34:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, paul.rehmet@... writes:


Several years back when I worked for a large technology services firm, we developed a maturity model that was useful in contextualizing our KM activities.  The maturity levels were meant to characterize what key parts of our organization would look like as we improved our practices:

1. Ad Hoc Enterprise - Knowledge Siloed
Characterized by inconsistency and reinvention

2. Efficient Enterprise - Knowledge Aware
We know what we've done, standard practices are followed, we execute predictably and consistently, etc.

3. Smart Enterprise - Knowledge Enabled
We put our knowledge into action, making informed decisions, improving delivery practices based on experience and feedback, developing compelling client proposals, etc.

4. Agile Enterprise - Knowledge Led
We seize market opportunities, anticipate threats, lead the market, lead our customers, etc.

We then looked at content, processes, technology, structures and people aspects that would help increase our capability.  This was one of the ways we prioritized our KM projects.  And from time to time we would take a critical look at how our KM program affected our company's KM maturity.  Rather than claiming success say after setting up some communities of practice, the maturity model would help us think about whether desired business outcomes such as sales or project delivery improvements were being achieved.

Paul

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:24 PM, StanGarfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
 

I think that KM programs don't neatly fit into predefined levels or categories, and there is limited benefit in trying to make them do so.  Instead, I prefer to define three key goals for a program, measure progress against those goals, and then replace the goals which have been achieved with new ones on an ongoing basis.

For each of the three goals, the program might be at very different stages.  In one KM program I led, one of our initial goals was that each project should have a collaborative team space.  When this was achieved and in fact was institutionalized, we replaced it with a goal that all employees should belong to at least one community of practice.  We were initially far off from achieving that goal, but once we email-enabled our community discussion boards, membership soared, and we reached 60% against a goal of 100%.  So we were at different levels of achievement for different goals, and thus there was no one overall maturity level.

If I were to use a maturity model, I would use three levels:

1.     Beginning – starting to implement a KM program by identifying needs and planning implementation; goals being defined

2.     Intermediate – KM planning done, some needed KM elements implemented but not fully adopted, and some not yet implemented; goals defined, but not yet achieved

3.     Advanced – most identified needs are being met, and new ones are being identified and planned for implementation; original goals achieved, and new ones are being identified

 

Once the Advanced level is reached, the program needs to be continuously refreshed, or the organization may slip back to Intermediate.  If a continuous improvement program is in active use, then the Advanced level can be maintained.

 

Another option is benchmarking, which can be useful in identifying KM programs to emulate, learning about proven practices, and getting useful suggestions from others.  An outcome could be "we should implement a communities program similar to Company X" or "we should replicate Company Y's best practice replication process."



Patrick Lambe
 

Chris: I love the idea that the model gets people to the table for conversation on what needs to improve - this is exactly the right way to approach KM I think. But I'm not really sure that "Maturity Model" is the right term to use. What you are talking about is what would be called in learning terms a formative assessment, not a summative assessment, but the "baggage" with maturity models is that people assume they are supposed to tell you exactly where you are, and furthermore there's an assumption of linear progress involved - I have seen lots of organisations hopping all over the map, as people and agendas change. "Self Diagnosis Model" or "Improvement Identification Model" or "KM Planning Model" might be more accurate ascriptions.

Stephen: I agree that maturity models work better for technical processes, some of which are implicated in KM. The trouble as I see it that many aspects of KM are highly sensitive to individual managers' decisions and attitudes, not to mention participation decisions by individual employees. Even if you get the infrastructure and high level governance right, this does not itself guarantee the outcomes you desire, and hence the maturity assessment is only marginally useful.

Douglas: I'm struck by the fact that you agree with my comments but then go on to describe a model which is exactly what troubles me. I have tried to work with such models as you describe and I find myself time and again managing the maps more than managing the territory. It reminds me of my student days when I avoided doing my exam revision by drawing up incredibly detailed multi-track and multicoloured revision schedules, only to find I hadn't factored in the time needed to manage the schedules. Endless distraction, no real work done.

Bill: I do take the baseline argument, and general maturity models can describe useful baseline things to have in place. But as with my reflection on Stephen's comment, the problem is that it's so abstracted from the coalface of what needs to be done that it has very little planning utility - Chris' approach is a much more pragmatic one.

Stan: I like your goal-oriented approach, but in terms of overall assessment (we are "Intermediate") it suffers from the "lumpiness" problem, and it doesn't really sound like a maturity model in the traditional sense - ie there are universal markers for a maturity level across organisations. Your approach sounds closer to Chris' to me.

Murray: yes this has some use for infrastructure and governance aspects of KM, but it doesn't tell the whole story for assessing an overall KM level.

Seth: it sounds like your approach is more information management focused, and more amenable to quantitative measurement... which does sound (like technical processes) more accessible to maturity model approaches.

Paul: I really like the goal driven approach, but again I'm not sure this is a maturity model approach in the traditional sense - it sounds more like strategic visioning and specifying the capabilities to meet that vision. The link to outcomes is very very important, I like it very much, but maturity models in general don't tend to provide this very granular outcome specification.



I'm just wondering whether we're force fitting the useful and pragmatic approaches into an unsuitable term with very misleading and highly distracting baggage.

Having said all this, I was involved with setting up and administering a KM excellence awards process for iKMS, a professional KM association in Singapore. The awards have three levels (similar to the actKM awards) - Bronze (which means starting to show business impact); Silver (real business impact in parts of the organisation); Gold (pervasive business impact across the organisation). This is an assessment model but it's peer-driven - meaning there has to be a conversation between (and within) the external assessment panel about the kinds of impact brought about by KM, and the extent of  the impact. As Chris says, part of the value is in the conversations that occur, and there is also a political value in having an independent "grading" depending on the level of the awards. But lumpiness is an issue here too... "Gold" award winners are vulnerable to criticism whenever they screw something up, because they are supposed to have a pervasively impactful KM system. 

If I have to sum up the problems of applying a maturity model idea in KM is that:
KM performance is lumpy
KM performance is unstable
KM performance is extremely sensitive to small decisions by many people.

This doesn't sound like "maturity" is the right kind of context to me. "Health" might be better.

Best

P




Patrick Lambe

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   






On Aug 15, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Chris Collison wrote:

 

Hi Jeevan,

A few thoughts on this.

 

Firstly, I think you're wise to segment the audience for your models - as you say, their KM needs will be different.

 

I have worked a fair bit with KM maturity models (aka self-assessments), and I would advocate that you build each model with members of the three workstreams, rather than imposing a model on them.  I have found that techniques like "anecdote circles" work well with groups  to help them surface the topics which matter most.  Building the content with them (using their words) gives a strong sense of ownership.

 

I wouldn't worry if your three workstreams generate different priorities and practices, as well as different content.  For example, your Support Staff may feel that "Analysing Customer Feedback" is important enough to merit a practice (with five levels) in its own right.  Directing all through groups to use the same 8 topics may be counterproductive.

 

The topics you have suggested look like a reasonably holistic list - you have covered most of the bases - but your people are the best judge of whether they are right for your company.

 

To respond to Patrick's question:

I see models/self-assessment tools as devices to stimulate a conversation between people who have good practices to share, and people who have an appetite to learn.  The model provides a common language (preferably one which people have co-created).  This common language surfaces the patchy nature of maturity, but in that patchiness, it reveals the potential for learning and sharing.

You can insert your favourite KM process to support the sharing - peer assist, world cafe, storytelling etc.  The maturity model serves to "get people to the right table for the conversation" - than the sharing and learning starts.

 

This was the basis of the work the Geoff Parcel and I did in the book "No More Consultants"

and is where the "River Diagram" works particularly well as a visualisation tool.

 

Hope this helps.

Chris

 

 

on the web: www.chriscollison.com

read my blog: chriscollison.wordpress.com

see me on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/chriscollison             Chris Collison        

email me: chris@...                                                     Knowledgeable Ltd...          

call my mobile: +44 7841 262900                                                Because all of us are smarter than any of us.

link in with me: www.linkedin.com/in/chris_collison

follow me on twitter: chris_collison

 

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of jeevan kamble
Sent: 13 August 2011 03:38
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model: Request for your views

 




Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:

  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)

Following are the areas:

  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledge sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training

Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan







Murray Jennex
 

Thanks Patrick, that was the point I was making, that an enterprise KM maturity model is too difficult...murray
 

In a message dated 8/15/2011 11:44:59 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, plambe@... writes:


Chris: I love the idea that the model gets people to the table for conversation on what needs to improve - this is exactly the right way to approach KM I think. But I'm not really sure that "Maturity Model" is the right term to use. What you are talking about is what would be called in learning terms a formative assessment, not a summative assessment, but the "baggage" with maturity models is that people assume they are supposed to tell you exactly where you are, and furthermore there's an assumption of linear progress involved - I have seen lots of organisations hopping all over the map, as people and agendas change. "Self Diagnosis Model" or "Improvement Identification Model" or "KM Planning Model" might be more accurate ascriptions.

Stephen: I agree that maturity models work better for technical processes, some of which are implicated in KM. The trouble as I see it that many aspects of KM are highly sensitive to individual managers' decisions and attitud es, not to mention participation decisions by individual employees. Even if you get the infrastructure and high level governance right, this does not itself guarantee the outcomes you desire, and hence the maturity assessment is only marginally useful.

Douglas: I'm struck by the fact that you agree with my comments but then go on to describe a model which is exactly what troubles me. I have tried to work with such models as you describe and I find myself time and again managing the maps more than managing the territory. It reminds me of my student days when I avoided doing my exam revision by drawing up incredibly detailed multi-track and multicoloured revision schedules, only to find I hadn't factored in the time needed to manage the schedules. Endless distraction, no real work done.

Bill: I do take the baseline argument, and general maturity models can describe useful baseline things to have in place. But as with my reflectio n on Stephen's comment, the problem is that it's so abstracted from the coalface of what needs to be done that it has very little planning utility - Chris' approach is a much more pragmatic one.

Stan: I like your goal-oriented approach, but in terms of overall assessment (we are "Intermediate") it suffers from the "lumpiness" problem, and it doesn't really sound like a maturity model in the traditional sense - ie there are universal markers for a maturity level across organisations. Your approach sounds closer to Chris' to me.

Murray: yes this has some use for infrastructure and governance aspects of KM, but it doesn't tell the whole story for assessing an overall KM level.

Seth: it sounds like your approach is more information management focused, and more amenable to quantitative measurement... which does sound (like technical processes) more accessible to maturity model approaches.

Paul: I really like the goal driven approach, but again I'm not sure this is a maturity model approach in the traditional sense - it sounds more like strategic visioning and specifying the capabilities to meet that vision. The link to outcomes is very very important, I like it very much, but maturity models in general don't tend to provide this very granular outcome specification.



I'm just wondering whether we're force fitting the useful and pragmatic approaches into an unsuitable term with very misleading and highly distracting baggage.

Having said all this, I was involved with setting up and administering a KM excellence awards process for iKMS, a professional KM association in Singapore. The awards have three levels (similar to the actKM awards) - Bronze (which means starting to show business impact); Silver (real business impact in parts of the organisation); Gold (pervasive business impact across the organisation). This is an assessment model but it's peer-driven - meaning there has to be a conversation between (and within) the external assessment panel about the kinds of impact brought about by KM, and the extent of  the impact. As Chris says, part of the value is in the conversations that occur, and there is also a political value in having an independent "grading" depending on the level of the awards. But lumpiness is an issue here too... "Gold" award winners are vulnerable to criticism whenever they screw something up, because they are supposed to have a pervasively impactful KM system. 

If I have to sum up the problems of applying a maturity model idea in KM is that:
KM performance is lumpy
KM performance is unstable
KM performance is extremely sensitive to small decisions by many people.

This doesn't sound like "maturity" is the right kind of context to me. " Health" might be better.

Best

P




Patrick Lambe

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   






On Aug 15, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Chris Collison wrote:

 

Hi Jeevan,

A few thoughts on this.

Firstly, I think you're wise to segment the audience for your models - as you say, their KM needs will be different.

 < /p>

I have worked a fair bit with KM maturity models (aka self-assessments), and I would advocate that you build each model with members of the three workstreams, rather than imposing a model on them.  I have found that techniques like "anecdote circles" work well with groups  to help them surface the topics which matter most.  Building the content with them (using their words) gives a strong sense of ownership.

I wouldn't worry if your three workstreams generate different priorities and practices, as well as different content.  For example, your Support Staff may feel that "Analysing Customer Feedback" is important enough to merit a practice (with five levels) in its own right.  Directing all through group s to use the same 8 topics may be counterproductive.

The topics you have suggested look like a reasonably holistic list - you have covered most of the bases - but your people are the best judge of whether they are right for your company.

To respond to Patrick's question:

I see models/self-assessment tools as devices to stimulate a conversation between people who have good practices to share, and people who have an appetite to learn.  The model provides a common language (preferably one which people have co-created).  This common language s urfaces the patchy nature of maturity, but in that patchiness, it reveals the potential for learning and sharing.

You can insert your favourite KM process to support the sharing - peer assist, world cafe, storytelling etc.  The maturity model serves to "get people to the right table for the conversation" - than the sharing and learning starts.

This was the basis of the work the Geoff Parcel and I did in the book "No More Consultants"

and is where the "River Diagram" works particularly well as a visuali sation tool.

Hope this helps.

Chris

on the web: www.chriscollison.com

read my blog: chriscollison.wordpress.com

see me on YouTube: www.youtube.com/user/chriscollison             Chris Collison        

email me: chris@...                                                     Knowledgeable Ltd...          

call my mobile: +44 7841 262900                                                Because all of us are smarter than any of us.

link in with me: www.linkedin.com/in/chris_collison

follow me on twitter: chris_collison

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of jeeva n kamble
Sent: 13 August 2011 03:38
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model: Request for your views




Dear All,

To start with we see plenty of KM Maturity Models on web.

I am trying to build specific KM Maturity for 3 different set of work streams in a software organizations that have different KM needs including:

  1. Software Development (Developers, Business Analysts)
  2. Testing (Testers)
  3. Support Staff (Who handles/resolves incident tickets)

Following are the areas:

  1. Strategy (Business alignment, top management support)
  2. Culture (Awareness, Org culture)
  3. Process (Reward, harvesting)
  4. Technology (Tools)
  5. Knowledg e sources, quality
  6. Knowledge Sharing and Collaborations
  7. Knowledge and skills levels
  8. Learning and Training

Appreciate to know your views and insights.

Thanks & Regards
Jeevan







Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Patrick,

On 16/08/2011 4:44 PM, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Stephen: I agree that maturity models work better for technical
processes, some of which are implicated in KM. The trouble as I see it
that many aspects of KM are highly sensitive to individual managers'
decisions and attitudes, not to mention participation decisions by
individual employees. Even if you get the infrastructure and high level
governance right, this does not itself guarantee the outcomes you
desire, and hence the maturity assessment is only marginally useful.
Good point. Even where quantitative assessment is possible, improvements may be stymied by the staff you have.

It leads me to the chicken-and-egg problem: are the people a product of the culture, or is the culture a product of the people? And can a culture be meaningfully influenced without changing the mix of people present in the organisation, or who influence the organisation?

In the private sector, organisations theoretically have the ability to shape their cultures by acting to remove members that don't fit. But in practice there are often 'non-negotiables' such as the founding CEO or a majority shareholder director. Public sector and non-profits often have even less flexibility in their ability to pick and choose staff.

Perhaps a more appropriate approach for KM is to understand "points of fitness" and to strive for whichever one best fits the potential of the team -- instead of adopting the One True Way (TM) mentality of the Maturity Model?

Cheers,
-- Stephen.


Stan Garfield
 

Patrick, I agree.   I have compiled links to many articles on KM maturity models  (including one from you).

--- In sikmleaders@..., Patrick Lambe wrote:
> Stan: I like your goal-oriented approach, but in terms of overall
> assessment (we are "Intermediate") it suffers from the "lumpiness"
> problem, and it doesn't really sound like a maturity model in the
> traditional sense - ie there are universal markers for a maturity
> level across organisations. Your approach sounds closer to Chris' to me.


Patrick Lambe
 

Thanks Stan, very useful. That article from Straits Knowledge is about 5 years old and represents the model I have been struggling with... I should probably take it down once my thinking gets clearer.

P

Patrick Lambe

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   






On Aug 17, 2011, at 5:23 AM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

Patrick, I agree.   I have compiled links to many articles on KM maturity models  (including one from you).

--- In sikmleaders@..., Patrick Lambe wrote:
> Stan: I like your goal-oriented approach, but in terms of overall
> assessment (we are "Intermediate") it suffers from the "lumpiness"
> problem, and it doesn't really sound like a maturity model in the
> traditional sense - ie there are universal markers for a maturity
> level across organisations. Your approach sounds closer to Chris' to me.




Patrick Lambe
 

Hi Stephen

Mary Douglas thought that culture and people's behaviours were reflexive - culture guides group memory and gives its people the tools for thinking (mental models, values, stories of identity and group memory), but people also modify and contribute to cultures through their actions and influences.

In theory cultures can be modified by removing people whose behaviours don't "fit" - the problem is that what's important to a culture is often determined by the collective, not by individuals, except where you have a culture that defers to an extremely strong leadership - GE under Jack Welch comes to mind. Even then the collective culture always outlasts the leaders. Procter and Gamble is at the other end of the scale - they are known for chewing up and spitting out leaders that try to modify the underlying culture. HP's culture under Carly Fiorentina was not so much change by design as a change by attrition.

The other problem of course is that KM/knowledge sharing is only one of many possible contenders for what's important to a culture.

I like the idea of "points of fitness" very much. It resonates with the idea of "health" - we might have an idea of what constitutes general health and wellbeing, but of course for every individual there are differences in what that means.

Some time back I decided to get fit and not trusting my own willpower started working with a personal trainer. He/she typically starts by getting you to set goals for yourself - and these can differ considerably from person to person, and for individuals at different stages in their lives.

It might be as simple as a weight loss target, one person wanted to fit into a specific wedding dress six months hence, another wanted to achieve mental and physical wellbeing, it might be self esteem of confidence with members of the opposite sex, it might be to aid recovery from an illness, some people work out to motivate their partners, some are forced by their parents to avoid known health problems in the family, some simply work out as a stress reduction strategy, and so on.

I think the idea of a KM health/fitness model is much more amenable than the idea of Maturity to the kind of pragmatic, self-determining approaches that Chris and Stan were describing, and much more accommodating of the complexity of organisations and their cultures.

P

Patrick Lambe

weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
website: www.straitsknowledge.com
book: www.organisingknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?

http://store.straitsknowledge.com

On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Stephen Bounds wrote:

Hi Patrick,

On 16/08/2011 4:44 PM, Patrick Lambe wrote:
Stephen: I agree that maturity models work better for technical
processes, some of which are implicated in KM. The trouble as I see it
that many aspects of KM are highly sensitive to individual managers'
decisions and attitudes, not to mention participation decisions by
individual employees. Even if you get the infrastructure and high level
governance right, this does not itself guarantee the outcomes you
desire, and hence the maturity assessment is only marginally useful.
Good point. Even where quantitative assessment is possible,
improvements may be stymied by the staff you have.

It leads me to the chicken-and-egg problem: are the people a product of
the culture, or is the culture a product of the people? And can a
culture be meaningfully influenced without changing the mix of people
present in the organisation, or who influence the organisation?

In the private sector, organisations theoretically have the ability to
shape their cultures by acting to remove members that don't fit. But in
practice there are often 'non-negotiables' such as the founding CEO or a
majority shareholder director. Public sector and non-profits often have
even less flexibility in their ability to pick and choose staff.

Perhaps a more appropriate approach for KM is to understand "points of
fitness" and to strive for whichever one best fits the potential of the
team -- instead of adopting the One True Way (TM) mentality of the
Maturity Model?

Cheers,
-- Stephen.


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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Patrick,

I like Mary's theory it resonates with what I've witnessed empirically. It seems to me that there's a whole unmined field of research in terms of people/culture interactions ... eg what made GE 'controllable' by its leader, while P&G was not?

I find it all fascinating but appreciate that it's difficult to quantify and test hypotheses in this space because of all the uncontrolled variables and understandable reluctance to be real-life guinea pigs.

This line raised my eyebrows as well:

On 17/08/2011 12:33 PM, Patrick Lambe wrote:
The other problem of course is that KM/knowledge sharing is only one
of many possible contenders for what's important to a culture.
Funny what adding a slash can mean! I agree that in many cultures knowledge sharing may not be important, but it's unfortunate if KM is seen as only relating to *promotion* of knowledge sharing.

Riffing on the 'points of fitness' idea again, I strongly believe KM needs to be a discipline that can apply to *any* starting point. We should still have something meaningful to say about how to optimise an organisation full of intransigent knowledge-hoarding egomaniacs!

Cheers,
-- Stephen.


 

I agree with this perspective...which is why I always took to my clients about their “readiness to do KM” rather than “maturity” as part of my KM organization assessments.

 

Bill Kaplan CPCM | Great Falls, Virginia 22066 | 571.934.7408 | 703.401.4198 (direct) | ckobill |

 

 

Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com

 

The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or individuals to whom it is addressed and others who are authorized to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that unauthorized use, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately.  Since this communication may contain confidential or legally privileged information, please do not forward to any third party without written authorization from the sender or Working KnowledgeCSP.

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Patrick Lambe
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:34 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model: Request for your views

 

 

Hi Stephen

Mary Douglas thought that culture and people's behaviours were
reflexive - culture guides group memory and gives its people the tools
for thinking (mental models, values, stories of identity and group
memory), but people also modify and contribute to cultures through
their actions and influences.

In theory cultures can be modified by removing people whose behaviours
don't "fit" - the problem is that what's important to a culture is
often determined by the collective, not by individuals, except where
you have a culture that defers to an extremely strong leadership - GE
under Jack Welch comes to mind. Even then the collective culture
always outlasts the leaders. Procter and Gamble is at the other end of
the scale - they are known for chewing up and spitting out leaders
that try to modify the underlying culture. HP's culture under Carly
Fiorentina was not so much change by design as a change by attrition.

The other problem of course is that KM/knowledge sharing is only one
of many possible contenders for what's important to a culture.

I like the idea of "points of fitness" very much. It resonates with
the idea of "health" - we might have an idea of what constitutes
general health and wellbeing, but of course for every individual there
are differences in what that means.

Some time back I decided to get fit and not trusting my own willpower
started working with a personal trainer. He/she typically starts by
getting you to set goals for yourself - and these can differ
considerably from person to person, and for individuals at different
stages in their lives.

It might be as simple as a weight loss target, one person wanted to
fit into a specific wedding dress six months hence, another wanted to
achieve mental and physical wellbeing, it might be self esteem of
confidence with members of the opposite sex, it might be to aid
recovery from an illness, some people work out to motivate their
partners, some are forced by their parents to avoid known health
problems in the family, some simply work out as a stress reduction
strategy, and so on.

I think the idea of a KM health/fitness model is much more amenable
than the idea of Maturity to the kind of pragmatic, self-determining
approaches that Chris and Stan were describing, and much more
accommodating of the complexity of organisations and their cultures.

P

Patrick Lambe

weblog: www.greenchameleon.com
website: www.straitsknowledge.com
book: www.organisingknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?

http://store.straitsknowledge.com

On Aug 16, 2011, at 9:31 PM, Stephen Bounds wrote:

> Hi Patrick,
>
> On 16/08/2011 4:44 PM, Patrick Lambe wrote:
>> Stephen: I agree that maturity models work better for technical
>> processes, some of which are implicated in KM. The trouble as I see
>> it
>> that many aspects of KM are highly sensitive to individual managers'
>> decisions and attitudes, not to mention participation decisions by
>> individual employees. Even if you get the infrastructure and high
>> level
>> governance right, this does not itself guarantee the outcomes you
>> desire, and hence the maturity assessment is only marginally useful.
>
> Good point. Even where quantitative assessment is possible,
> improvements may be stymied by the staff you have.
>
> It leads me to the chicken-and-egg problem: are the people a product
> of
> the culture, or is the culture a product of the people? And can a
> culture be meaningfully influenced without changing the mix of people
> present in the organisation, or who influence the organisation?
>
> In the private sector, organisations theoretically have the ability to
> shape their cultures by acting to remove members that don't fit.
> But in
> practice there are often 'non-negotiables' such as the founding CEO
> or a
> majority shareholder director. Public sector and non-profits often
> have
> even less flexibility in their ability to pick and choose staff.
>
> Perhaps a more appropriate approach for KM is to understand "points of
> fitness" and to strive for whichever one best fits the potential of
> the
> team -- instead of adopting the One True Way (TM) mentality of the
> Maturity Model?
>
> Cheers,
> -- Stephen.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>