Topics

KM Maturity Model #maturity


TW <twallenhorst910@...>
 

I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?

thanks
Terry


Ranta, Dan <dan.ranta@...>
 

I may be able to help you.  What organization do you work for? 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of TW
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:46 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [EXTERNAL][sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model

 

I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?

thanks
Terry


John Hovell <jhovell@...>
 

Thanks for all the recent conversation on SIKM, really enjoying it! I'd also be interested in a KM maturity model, I'm familiar with the APQC one and have thought its pretty good? I suppose that I'm slightly less interested in the levels and more interested in the specific actions/deliverables (mindsets, processes, etc) that tend to happen at more and less "mature" KM orgs...

Thanks!
John


On Dec 7, 2012, at 5:51 PM, "Ranta, Dan" <dan.ranta@...> wrote:

 

I may be able to help you.  What organization do you work for? 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of TW
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:46 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [EXTERNAL][sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model

 

I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?

thanks
Terry


Murray Jennex
 

Kulkarni and Freeze published a KM readiness assessment model at HICSS and in IJKM but I don't have the cite...murray
 

In a message dated 12/7/2012 3:09:53 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jhovell@... writes:


Thanks for all the recent conversation on SIKM, really enjoying it! I'd also be interested in a KM maturity model, I'm familiar with the APQC one and have thought its pretty good? I suppose that I'm slightly less interested in the levels and more interested in the specific actions/deliverables (mindsets, processes, etc) that tend to happen at more and less "mature" KM orgs...

Thanks!
John


On Dec 7, 2012, at 5:51 PM, "Ranta, Dan" <dan.ranta@...> wrote:

 

I may be able to help you.  What organization do you work for? 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of TW
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:46 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [EXTERNAL][sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model

 

I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?

thanks
Terry


Gerard <gerard.bredenoord@...>
 

I am not a Military man but Gen Patton is one of my favourite people to quote, And increasingly I find them more and more applicable to KM strategy and impact.

 

When it comes to KM audits / reviews and assessments I like this one: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan next week.” .

 

The reason is that when doing an audit:

·         you look to the physical the measurable and the tangible. And in this day and age you usually run out of time or money before you get to using your resources for delivery,

·         audits have extreme difficulty in auditing the intangible – in most organisations the critical factor, and

·         what has been in the past is usually not a reflection on why the firm now wants to do something about KM.

 

Today I start with the outcome and more specifically clarifying with the sponsors and stakeholders what is it the organisation wants to achieve – i.e. what would success look like and most importantly when. I have found that although it is easy to get management to support KM they rarely have the same outcome in mind or when to get there.

 

Getting the primary and secondary objectives agreed and showing dependencies helps significantly not in doing an audit. The audit is then focussed on but identifying the assets (people, content, process and technology) available to achieve these outcomes. It also ensures the audit is focussed on re-using, leveraging investments made in the past and learning why they did not work.

 

For me, the assets which do not support these outcomes then become a separate matter of review and action. Action could be from retirement to re-alignment.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Gerard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: 08 December 2012 06:43
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model

 

 

Kulkarni and Freeze published a KM readiness assessment model at HICSS and in IJKM but I don't have the cite...murray

 

In a message dated 12/7/2012 3:09:53 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jhovell@... writes:




Thanks for all the recent conversation on SIKM, really enjoying it! I'd also be interested in a KM maturity model, I'm familiar with the APQC one and have thought its pretty good? I suppose that I'm slightly less interested in the levels and more interested in the specific actions/deliverables (mindsets, processes, etc) that tend to happen at more and less "mature" KM orgs...

 

Thanks!

John


On Dec 7, 2012, at 5:51 PM, "Ranta, Dan" <dan.ranta@...> wrote:

 

I may be able to help you.  What organization do you work for? 

 


From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of TW
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 4:46 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [EXTERNAL][sikmleaders] KM Maturity Model

 

I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?

thanks
Terry


Stan Garfield
 

Terry,

Thanks for your post. Here are a few links which may be helpful.

  1. KM Maturity has been discussed in this group before. You can search for "maturity" or "km maturity" in the search box for this group and find over 80 previous posts. Here is one recent thread http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sikmleaders/message/2983 
  2. Search in Google for these terms "knowledge management maturity" "km maturity" "knowledge management maturity model" "km maturity model" - you will find some useful results.
  3. I compiled a list which is at http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddj598qm_7dsttvphc 

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" wrote:
>
> I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
>
> thanks
> Terry
>


TW <terry.wallenhorst@...>
 

Thanks all - i'll take a look at what you've submitted and let you know if I need more. TW

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "TW" <twallenhorst910@...> wrote:

I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?

thanks
Terry


dynamicadaptation <gvalawebb@...>
 

I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the heart of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".

For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.

You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts you work with.

All the best

--- In sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com, "TW" <twallenhorst910@...> wrote:

I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?

thanks
Terry


Stan Garfield
 

Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the heart of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts you work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>


Cory Banks
 

You will find a few mentioned in the Knowledge Bucket (http://knowledgebucket.wikispaces.com/Capability+Maturity+Model).

I have an issue with the APQC maturity model as it tends to be focused on stage of implementation as opposed to maturity of capability. Just my thoughts.

I have found it easier to use maturity models for intangible value as opposed to trying to show ROI, but the stakeholders still have to agree that mature capability is a good thing.

Thanks

Cory Banks




On 10 December 2012 23:58, StanGarfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:
 

Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the heart of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts you work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Chris Collison <chris@...>
 

Terry,

You're probably swamped with Maturity models by now, but just in case...

 

Geoff Parcell and I wrote a 5-practice self-assessment to accompany "Learning to Fly" back in 2005.  It was on Stan's list.  Coincidentally just last week we re-drafted it to reflect some of the changes in emphasis in KM which we have noted in the past 8 years.

 

You are welcome to download it from:  www.chriscollison.com/doucments/KM_Self_Assessment_2013.pdf   Feedback welcome.

 

My approach with models (or self-assessment tools, as I prefer to describe them) is to use them as a tool to prompt a conversation about priorities and build a common language, rather than a set of absolutes because (as other have commented) KM is too contextual for a one-size-fits-all model.

Kind regards,

Chris

 

 



Chris Collison, Director & Founder,  Knowledgeable Ltd.

 Consultancy    ●    Strategic Advice    ●    Training
Because all of us are smarter than any of us...

Mobile:  +44 (0)7841 262900

___________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Cory Banks
Sent: 11 December 2012 13:58
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 



You will find a few mentioned in the Knowledge Bucket (http://knowledgebucket.wikispaces.com/Capability+Maturity+Model).

 

I have an issue with the APQC maturity model as it tends to be focused on stage of implementation as opposed to maturity of capability. Just my thoughts.

 

I have found it easier to use maturity models for intangible value as opposed to trying to show ROI, but the stakeholders still have to agree that mature capability is a good thing.

 

Thanks

 

Cory Banks




On 10 December 2012 23:58, StanGarfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

 

Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the heart of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts you work with.
>
> All the best
>

> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 





No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5450 - Release Date: 12/10/12


Chris Collison <chris@...>
 

Sorry - bit of a fat-fingers moment there!  (Thanks Gordon)

 

www.chriscollison.com/documents/KM_Self_Assessment_2013.pdf

 

 

From: Chris Collison [mailto:chris@...]
Sent: 11 December 2012 23:51
To: 'sikmleaders@...'
Cc: 'Geoff Parcell'
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

Terry,

You're probably swamped with Maturity models by now, but just in case...

 

Geoff Parcell and I wrote a 5-practice self-assessment to accompany "Learning to Fly" back in 2005.  It was on Stan's list.  Coincidentally just last week we re-drafted it to reflect some of the changes in emphasis in KM which we have noted in the past 8 years.

 

You are welcome to download it from:  www.chriscollison.com/doucments/KM_Self_Assessment_2013.pdf   Feedback welcome.

 

My approach with models (or self-assessment tools, as I prefer to describe them) is to use them as a tool to prompt a conversation about priorities and build a common language, rather than a set of absolutes because (as other have commented) KM is too contextual for a one-size-fits-all model.

Kind regards,

Chris

 

 

Chris Collison, Director & Founder,  Knowledgeable Ltd.

 Consultancy    ●    Strategic Advice    ●    Training
Because all of us are smarter than any of us...

Mobile:  +44 (0)7841 262900

___________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Cory Banks
Sent: 11 December 2012 13:58
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 



You will find a few mentioned in the Knowledge Bucket (http://knowledgebucket.wikispaces.com/Capability+Maturity+Model).

 

I have an issue with the APQC maturity model as it tends to be focused on stage of implementation as opposed to maturity of capability. Just my thoughts.

 

I have found it easier to use maturity models for intangible value as opposed to trying to show ROI, but the stakeholders still have to agree that mature capability is a good thing.

 

Thanks

 

Cory Banks


 

On 10 December 2012 23:58, StanGarfield <stangarfield@...> wrote:

 

Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the heart of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts you work with.
>
> All the best
>

> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2634/5450 - Release Date: 12/10/12


Patrick Lambe
 

I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts you work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Murray Jennex
 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Gordon Vala-Webb <gvalawebb@...>
 

I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

From: murphjen@...
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
To: <sikmleaders@...>
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Murray Jennex
 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray
 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:


I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

From: murphjen@...
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
To:
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 
In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Katrina Pugh <katepugh@...>
 

Hi, Murray et al -
 
A way you could look at it is as "dimensional" maturity. What I mean is that an organization may have higher or lower capacity to achieve based on the industry, competitive environment, talent, and psychological profiles of the employees. (Even the contiguous technologies, like a terrific socially-enabled CRM.)
 
That way, if there is some "breakaway KM" it's not hindered by the maturity model.
 
For example, an organization may be stumbling on the notion of identifying, exposing and tagging project content, but they love to TALK and have insatiable curiosity. I would encourage them to race ahead in the tacit knowledge-sharing initiatives, and let them defer (read: "stay immature"?) in content management.
,
(Patrick Lambe, perhaps that would also reduce the politicism of maturity.)
 
Kate
 
Katrina Pugh
Academic Director, Columbia Information and Knowledge Strategy Masters' Program
President, AlignConsulting
Author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass/Wiley, 2011)
katepugh@...
www.alignconsultinginc.com
617 967 3910 (m)
781 259 0340 (l)

-----Original Message-----
From: murphjen
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 6:36 am
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray
 
In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:


I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 
Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray
 
In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:


I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

P

Patrick Lambe
Partner
Tel: 62210383

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   







On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

Regards,
Stan

--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>



Douglas Weidner
 

Note: Blatant sales pitch follows, but it was prompted by the continued interest in KM Maturity Models.

 

Most maturity models are mere assessments, a diagnosis.

 

To be effective, they must be both diagnostic and prescriptive.

 

To be prescriptive, they must be backed by a robust KM Methodology, including strategic and change management considerations as has been done in the US DoD, starting back in 1994.

 

At the KM Institute we designed a Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™ in 1999. It was premature.

 

Over the last few years it has been updated and enriched with the KM Methodology. The methodology starts with A11 Understand KM, which points to our existing rich certification curriculum.

 

Stir all that together KMM, KM Methodology and curriculum, and you have what I think is the more expansive future need, a KM Transformation Solution™.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Best in Blended KM Training & Certification

Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)™

Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™, and

KM Transformation Solution

O: 703-757-1395

douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

KM Institute Corp. Video

Course Catalogue Video

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:36 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:



 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


Gordon Vala-Webb <gvalawebb@...>
 

To be useful as diagnostic "assessments" KM maturity models must be based on a validated methodology that applies to all (most?) organizations over all (most?) time.

In my view we don't have that validated methodology. We have claims to it - but none with independent, third-party, confirmation.

I suspect, given how context-specific K is - and hence its management - we are a long way from it.

I could imagine that you could develop a proposed industry-, size- and strategy-specific KM model (e.g. for large, global, consulting firm pursuing IT implementation work) that could then be validated. But even there new technologies (e.g. mobile, social networking, big data) are likely disrupting any current models.

G
Sent from my BlackBerry

From: "Douglas Weidner" <douglas.weidner@...>
Sender: sikmleaders@...
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:06:50 -0500
To: <sikmleaders@...>
ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...
Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

Note: Blatant sales pitch follows, but it was prompted by the continued interest in KM Maturity Models.

 

Most maturity models are mere assessments, a diagnosis.

 

To be effective, they must be both diagnostic and prescriptive.

 

To be prescriptive, they must be backed by a robust KM Methodology, including strategic and change management considerations as has been done in the US DoD, starting back in 1994.

 

At the KM Institute we designed a Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™ in 1999. It was premature.

 

Over the last few years it has been updated and enriched with the KM Methodology. The methodology starts with A11 Understand KM, which points to our existing rich certification curriculum.

 

Stir all that together KMM, KM Methodology and curriculum, and you have what I think is the more expansive future need, a KM Transformation Solution™.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Best in Blended KM Training & Certification

Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)™

Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™, and

KM Transformation Solution

O: 703-757-1395

douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

KM Institute Corp. Video

Course Catalogue Video

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:36 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:



 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


Douglas Weidner
 

Gordon,

 

One would hope a methodology is robust, despite technology evolution.

For instance, one would expect major components such as strategic planning and change mgmt to apply regardless of industry and organization size.

 

Clearly, appropriate KM initiatives would vary depending on organization characteristics.

We use a KM Solutions Matrix™ to compare organizational characteristics to proven KM applications.

 

Douglas

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Gordon Vala-Webb
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:40 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

To be useful as diagnostic "assessments" KM maturity models must be based on a validated methodology that applies to all (most?) organizations over all (most?) time.

In my view we don't have that validated methodology. We have claims to it - but none with independent, third-party, confirmation.

I suspect, given how context-specific K is - and hence its management - we are a long way from it.

I could imagine that you could develop a proposed industry-, size- and strategy-specific KM model (e.g. for large, global, consulting firm pursuing IT implementation work) that could then be validated. But even there new technologies (e.g. mobile, social networking, big data) are likely disrupting any current models.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


From: "Douglas Weidner" <douglas.weidner@...>

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:06:50 -0500

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: RE: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Note: Blatant sales pitch follows, but it was prompted by the continued interest in KM Maturity Models.

 

Most maturity models are mere assessments, a diagnosis.

 

To be effective, they must be both diagnostic and prescriptive.

 

To be prescriptive, they must be backed by a robust KM Methodology, including strategic and change management considerations as has been done in the US DoD, starting back in 1994.

 

At the KM Institute we designed a Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™ in 1999. It was premature.

 

Over the last few years it has been updated and enriched with the KM Methodology. The methodology starts with A11 Understand KM, which points to our existing rich certification curriculum.

 

Stir all that together KMM, KM Methodology and curriculum, and you have what I think is the more expansive future need, a KM Transformation Solution™.

 

Happy New Year.

 

Douglas Weidner, Chief CKM Instructor

Chairman, International Knowledge Management Institute

Best in Blended KM Training & Certification

Home of the KM Body of Knowledge (KMBOK)™

Knowledge Maturity Model (KMM)™, and

KM Transformation Solution

O: 703-757-1395

douglas.weidner@...
www.kminstitute.org
 



      

 

KM Institute Corp. Video

Course Catalogue Video

 

 

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of murphjen@...
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 6:36 AM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

it is what maturity models are for, illustrating the various stages of maturity and how to get to each one so they are roadmaps, multifaceted, experience based, and applied to an organizations's strategy/culture/etc. at least this is what maturity models in other fields do, like CMMI and the maturity model I designed for security organizations.  If the KM maturity models aren't doing this then they aren't designed well...murray

 

In a message dated 1/3/2013 3:23:46 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gvalawebb@... writes:



I'm all for (and this is what I hear you describing):
- roadmaps (visual representations of a proposed future path)
- that look at KM in a multi-facetted way
- and that draw on related-other's experiences
- and which are rooted in your organization's business model / strategy / culture / technology base . . .

Its just that I don't think that that is what the KM maturity models are.

G

Sent from my BlackBerry


Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 03:56:09 -0500 (EST)

ReplyTo: sikmleaders@...

Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: KM Maturity Model

 

 

Another thought on KM maturity models, I understand and agree they haven't been real useful but I would suggest their best use is in showing management a road map that helps explain why perhaps our organization is having a hard time using knowledge and a path on how to get to where we can use knowledge.  I've used them to explain how the current corporate culture needed to change before KM would really pay off and the model seemed to work pretty good for that purpose...murray

 

In a message dated 12/12/2012 5:27:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, plambe@... writes:



I'm also suspicious of KM Maturity models beyond providing a very high level look at what enablers might/might not be in place for enterprise wide knowledge management. To add to Gordon's remarks, our experience is that maturity levels tend to be extremely uneven across enterprises, a generic KM Maturity assessment tends to even these out, and what you actually want to be able to to do is leverage or scale hotspots of potential or capability, or address extremely weak capabilities (to the business). 

 

The maturity model approaches I have seen and used tend not to be very good at supporting this need. They are much more political instruments of (often weakly-founded) persuasion or comfort than on-the-ground KM enabling instruments.

 

P

 

Patrick Lambe

Partner

Tel: 62210383

 

website: www.straitsknowledge.com

 

Have you seen our new KM Planning Toolkit?   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Dec 10, 2012, at 9:58 PM, StanGarfield wrote:




 

 

< div>Just in case it is not clear who "dynamicadaptation" is, it's Gordon Vala-Webb.

 

Gordon, thanks for your reply.  I agree with you.

 

As long as a particular KM initiative is meeting the objectives set for it, it doesn't necessarily matter how it compares with initiatives at other organizations.  It's helpful to learn about, and possibly adopt, what others are doing by reading, attending conferences, participating in communities such as this one, and talking to colleagues at other organizations. But not necessarily in a formal, maturity level-based comparison.

 

Regards,

Stan


--- In sikmleaders@..., "dynamicadaptation" <gvalawebb@...> wrote:
>
> I'm deeply suspicious of the "maturity model" approach since it assumes a two things that are very rare between two different organizations let alone all organizations over all time: (1) a common understanding of "knowledge"; and (2) a shared business model. And, changing what people know - the hea rt of any KM effort - is an extraordinarily complex undertaking. So a simplistic A to B to C model simply doesn't capture what is happening. That is, "K" - and therefore "KM" - is highly contextualized and takes place within a complex system. There is, therefore, no one path of "maturity".
>
> For example - the "knowledge" - and its context - that is important in a government organization making decisions about entitlements is quite different from the "knowledge" that is important in a law firm advising clients. And how you manage the knowledge would be different as well.
>
> You are better off to start from an understanding of your own organization's priorities and strategy - and look for the most effective ways to help influence who knows what based on examples you've seen or read about or from experts y ou work with.
>
> All the best
>
> --- In sikmleaders@..., "TW" twallenhorst910@ wrote:
> >
> > I'm new to an organization that is just embarking on a KM program - one of the first things I'd like to do is assess their 'knowledge sharing' activities using a KM Maturity Model across multiple deminensions (e.g,, content, systems, culture, leadership support, etc). Does anyone have a model that has worked well and they are willing to share?
> >
> > thanks
> > Terry
> >
>

 

 


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2805 / Virus Database: 2637/6003 - Release Date: 01/02/13