Topics

Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry) #metrics #maturity


Thomas Blumer
 

Hello,
 
We are trying to bring KM to the next level within our company. QAD is a software company that produces ERP software. While Knowledge Centric Support (KCS) seems like a great KM framework for our Support organization, I was wondering if something similar exists for Professional Services. In a first phase, I am interested to conduct an KM audit within our Services organization and to define KM related metrics around learning.
 
Please let me know if you know of a good framework. At the same time, have you ever tried to apply the framework described in "The Knowledge Management Fieldbook" written by Wendi R. Bukowitz and Ruth L. Williams?
 
I look forward to hearing what has worked for you.
 
Best regards,
 
Thomas Blumer
(805) 452 5731


Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Thomas – See the following for a paper on Knowledge Services best practices. 

http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc121/p536618_A1b.pdf

 

I am currently working on an architecture to implement the framework.

 

Al Simard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Blumer
Sent: January-13-14 2:40 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: [sikmleaders] Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry)

 

 

Hello,

 

We are trying to bring KM to the next level within our company. QAD is a software company that produces ERP software. While Knowledge Centric Support (KCS) seems like a great KM framework for our Support organization, I was wondering if something similar exists for Professional Services. In a first phase, I am interested to conduct an KM audit within our Services organization and to define KM related metrics around learning.

 

Please let me know if you know of a good framework. At the same time, have you ever tried to apply the framework described in "The Knowledge Management Fieldbook" written by Wendi R. Bukowitz and Ruth L. Williams?

 

I look forward to hearing what has worked for you.

 

Best regards,

 

Thomas Blumer

(805) 452 5731


Jeff Stemke
 

Here are two KM maturity models that I have worked with.

APQC KM Maturity model: covers a comprehensive range of topics (objectives, business case, budget, resources, change management, communition, processes, tools, metrics). Learn more: http://www.apqc.org/km-capability-assessment-tool

Innovation Value Institute develops a number of IT-related capability models. They have one for Knowledge Asset Management (http://ivi.nuim.ie/it-cmf/knowledge-asset-management). This is tightly focused on repositories and distribution of the assets in the organization.

In practice I have used elements of multiple models to fit my organization's needs.

--Jeff


Thomas Blumer
 

Hi Al,
 
Thank you for sharing your framework. I particularly liked Figure 3: "Defense R&D Canada as a system"
 
 
 
From a professional Services perspective, does anyone has good KPIs for such a model? Things I could think of that are important, but maybe not the best metrics because they focus on activity instead of outcome are:
 
Create:
-Training days
-Certifications acquired
 
Manage:
-Issues solved in forums
 
Use:
-Implementation days without escalation to R&D
-Number of escalations that happened too late
-Number of escalations that could have been avoided with proper training
 
Lost Knowledge:
-Turnover
-Retirements
 
Please let me know what worked for you well in the past. I still wonder if our VP of Support and the VP of Services actually agree to capture some of these metrics as they may reveal fundamental knowledge gaps.
 
Thanks,
 
Thomas
 
 
 


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:
 

Thomas – See the following for a paper on Knowledge Services best practices. 

http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc121/p536618_A1b.pdf

 

I am currently working on an architecture to implement the framework.

 

Al Simard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Blumer
Sent: January-13-14 2:40 PM
To: sikmleaders@...


Subject: [sikmleaders] Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry)

 

 

Hello,

 

We are trying to bring KM to the next level within our company. QAD is a software company that produces ERP software. While Knowledge Centric Support (KCS) seems like a great KM framework for our Support organization, I was wondering if something similar exists for Professional Services. In a first phase, I am interested to conduct an KM audit within our Services organization and to define KM related metrics around learning.

 

Please let me know if you know of a good framework. At the same time, have you ever tried to apply the framework described in "The Knowledge Management Fieldbook" written by Wendi R. Bukowitz and Ruth L. Williams?

 

I look forward to hearing what has worked for you.

 

Best regards,

 

Thomas Blumer



Thomas Blumer
 

Hi Jeff,
 
Thank you for the two great references. I have looked at the APQC model in the past and like the fact that the assessment is tied to a benchmark. What is your experience with the acceptance of a KM audit/maturity model within a company (or the executives) when comparing a standardized solution like APQC to a homegrown one?
 
Thanks,
 
Thomas
 
 
 


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Jeff Stemke <jstemke@...> wrote:
 

Here are two KM maturity models that I have worked with.

APQC KM Maturity model: covers a comprehensive range of topics (objectives, business case, budget, resources, change management, communition, processes, tools, metrics). Learn more: http://www.apqc.org/km-capability-assessment-tool

Innovation Value Institute develops a number of IT-related capability models. They have one for Knowledge Asset Management (http://ivi.nuim.ie/it-cmf/knowledge-asset-management). This is tightly focused on repositories and distribution of the assets in the organization.

In practice I have used elements of multiple models to fit my organization's needs.

--Jeff



Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...>
 

Thanks Thomas.  Anyone who admits to liking my stuff gets more!

 

There are lots of possible measures.  All of these can be absolute measures, percentages, relative to a baseline, or compared with best practices (e.g., APQC).  The following is not exhaustive – just off the top of my head.

 

Creation: See: http://www.slideshare.net/albertsimard/innovation-architecture

·         Publications, reports, presentations (research outputs)

·         Successful experiments, discoveries, new understanding (project success)

·         Lessons learned, management recommendations (organizational learning)

·         Innovations, prototypes, patents (products/services developed)  

 

Knowledge Management: See: http://www.slideshare.net/albertsimard/ksen-paradigm-shift-18-opt

·         Repositories in place, documents stored, successful searches (managing assets)

·         Views, Downloads, conversations, interactions (knowledge sharing)

·         Active Communities, social networks, outputs harvested (collaboration)

 

Preservation: (See: http://www.slideshare.net/albertsimard/cbc-capturing-knowledge-15

·         Expertise elicited, knowledge captured (continuously)

·         Legacy content available and searchable (future usefulness)

·         Job Blog in place (how knowledge work is actually done)

 

Use: See: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/27338.pdf

·         Distribution, accesses, views, downloads (passive knowledge transfer)

·         User interactions: explanations, consultations, demonstrations (active knowledge transfer)

·         Relevance, usability, timeliness (utility attributes)

·         User interactions: promotion, support, intervention (implementation support)

·         Implementation, application, use (the holy grail outcome!)

 

Al Simard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Blumer
Sent: January-14-14 5:57 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry)

 

 

Hi Al,

 

Thank you for sharing your framework. I particularly liked Figure 3: "Defense R&D Canada as a system"

 

 

 

From a professional Services perspective, does anyone has good KPIs for such a model? Things I could think of that are important, but maybe not the best metrics because they focus on activity instead of outcome are:

 

Create:

-Training days

-Certifications acquired

 

Manage:

-Issues solved in forums

 

Use:

-Implementation days without escalation to R&D

-Number of escalations that happened too late

-Number of escalations that could have been avoided with proper training

 

Lost Knowledge:

-Turnover

-Retirements

 

Please let me know what worked for you well in the past. I still wonder if our VP of Support and the VP of Services actually agree to capture some of these metrics as they may reveal fundamental knowledge gaps.

 

Thanks,

 

Thomas

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:

 

Thomas – See the following for a paper on Knowledge Services best practices. 

http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc121/p536618_A1b.pdf

 

I am currently working on an architecture to implement the framework.

 

Al Simard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Blumer
Sent: January-13-14 2:40 PM
To: sikmleaders@...


Subject: [sikmleaders] Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry)

 

 

Hello,

 

We are trying to bring KM to the next level within our company. QAD is a software company that produces ERP software. While Knowledge Centric Support (KCS) seems like a great KM framework for our Support organization, I was wondering if something similar exists for Professional Services. In a first phase, I am interested to conduct an KM audit within our Services organization and to define KM related metrics around learning.

 

Please let me know if you know of a good framework. At the same time, have you ever tried to apply the framework described in "The Knowledge Management Fieldbook" written by Wendi R. Bukowitz and Ruth L. Williams?

 

I look forward to hearing what has worked for you.

 

Best regards,

 

Thomas Blumer

 


Thomas Blumer
 

Hi Al,
 
Now, I have plenty of material to experiment with, thank you!
 
BTW: I found an interesting Knowledge Management Maturity comparison article in the Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2011:
 
 
Best regards,
 
Thomas Blumer
 
 


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:
 

Thanks Thomas.  Anyone who admits to liking my stuff gets more!

 

There are lots of possible measures.  All of these can be absolute measures, percentages, relative to a baseline, or compared with best practices (e.g., APQC).  The following is not exhaustive – just off the top of my head.

 

Creation: See: http://www.slideshare.net/albertsimard/innovation-architecture

·         Publications, reports, presentations (research outputs)

·         Successful experiments, discoveries, new understanding (project success)

·         Lessons learned, management recommendations (organizational learning)

·         Innovations, prototypes, patents (products/services developed)  

 

Knowledge Management: See: http://www.slideshare.net/albertsimard/ksen-paradigm-shift-18-opt

·         Repositories in place, documents stored, successful searches (managing assets)

·         Views, Downloads, conversations, interactions (knowledge sharing)

·         Active Communities, social networks, outputs harvested (collaboration)

 

Preservation: (See: http://www.slideshare.net/albertsimard/cbc-capturing-knowledge-15

·         Expertise elicited, knowledge captured (continuously)

·         Legacy content available and searchable (future usefulness)

·         Job Blog in place (how knowledge work is actually done)

 

Use: See: http://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pubwarehouse/pdfs/27338.pdf

·         Distribution, accesses, views, downloads (passive knowledge transfer)

·         User interactions: explanations, consultations, demonstrations (active knowledge transfer)

·         Relevance, usability, timeliness (utility attributes)

·         User interactions: promotion, support, intervention (implementation support)

·         Implementation, application, use (the holy grail outcome!)

 

Al Simard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Blumer
Sent: January-14-14 5:57 PM
To: sikmleaders@...
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry)

 

 

Hi Al,

 

Thank you for sharing your framework. I particularly liked Figure 3: "Defense R&D Canada as a system"

 

 

 

From a professional Services perspective, does anyone has good KPIs for such a model? Things I could think of that are important, but maybe not the best metrics because they focus on activity instead of outcome are:

 

Create:

-Training days

-Certifications acquired

 

Manage:

-Issues solved in forums

 

Use:

-Implementation days without escalation to R&D

-Number of escalations that happened too late

-Number of escalations that could have been avoided with proper training

 

Lost Knowledge:

-Turnover

-Retirements

 

Please let me know what worked for you well in the past. I still wonder if our VP of Support and the VP of Services actually agree to capture some of these metrics as they may reveal fundamental knowledge gaps.

 

Thanks,

 

Thomas

 

 

 

 

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Simard, Albert <albert.simard@...> wrote:

 

Thomas – See the following for a paper on Knowledge Services best practices. 

http://cradpdf.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc121/p536618_A1b.pdf

 

I am currently working on an architecture to implement the framework.

 

Al Simard

 

From: sikmleaders@... [mailto:sikmleaders@...] On Behalf Of Thomas Blumer
Sent: January-13-14 2:40 PM
To: sikmleaders@...


Subject: [sikmleaders] Professional Services KM Framework (Software Industry)

 

 

Hello,

 

We are trying to bring KM to the next level within our company. QAD is a software company that produces ERP software. While Knowledge Centric Support (KCS) seems like a great KM framework for our Support organization, I was wondering if something similar exists for Professional Services. In a first phase, I am interested to conduct an KM audit within our Services organization and to define KM related metrics around learning.

 

Please let me know if you know of a good framework. At the same time, have you ever tried to apply the framework described in "The Knowledge Management Fieldbook" written by Wendi R. Bukowitz and Ruth L. Williams?

 

I look forward to hearing what has worked for you.

 

Best regards,

 

Thomas Blumer

 



Lee, Jim <jlee@...>
 

As a provider of maturity models, I have intentionally only lurked in this thread instead of mentioning APQC’s Levels of KM Maturity for concerns of appearing to “sell” our model in lieu of simply sharing knowledge. However, gross mis-statements about our model leads me to respond. In the paper cited, http://www.tlainc.com/articl263.htm the authors state the following deficiencies in Table 1, item 2 (APQC’s model) as:

 

No Key Areas.

No Assessment methodology.

No validation.

No Extended organizational maturity

 

Each of those observations and assertions are unequivocally in error, and show a severe lack of understanding regarding our model and process for validation. Each of the listed areas are in fact addressed by our model and methodology. While I suspect that no harm has come of listing our model in this journal article, setting the record straight is the intent of my post.

 

In fact, I suspect that the authors’ only information about our model comes from reading a brief whitepaper since they indicate our authors as Hubert and Lemons (authors of the whitepaper only). In fact, our model was developed with the expertise of six leading firms from around the world, our own KM thought leader Dr. Carla O’Dell, and even co-developer of the original SEI CMMI maturity model, Dr. Bill Curtis in a thorough, months long development collaborative study. It is they who should be credited with authorship.

 

As a former academician myself, I understand the use of “surveys” of existing models to be useful during the literature search, but this lack of understanding leaves me wondering about the quality of the research in general. For that reason, I would encourage anyone interested in using any of the models cited to do their own due diligence.

 

To date, we’ve conducted more than 170 assessments—and validations—and are confident that it fulfills the needs of our users as many have used the results to inform their KM strategies and activities. To the participants of this forum, I apologize for this lengthy rant, but when a peer-reviewed journal publishes factual errors, I believe it is owed a correction to advance the state of research.

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

Jim Lee

KM Senior Advisor, APQC

+1-713-685-4764 – vmail (office)

+1-216-338-3548 – mobile (direct)

jlee@...

www.apqc.org

Make Best Practices Your PracticesSM

 


Thomas Blumer
 

Dear Jim,
 
Thank you for the clarification. I agree with you that such a research blunder in a peer-reviewed journal is a kind of shocking. I have not noticed the inappropriate APQC rating/comments in the meta-analysis I've sent out till you mention it. Believe me, it was not my intention to put the APQC model in a bad light. I think the model is actually pretty good and Cara was one of the person who inspired me to become more involved with KM in the first place. In addition, the KM Institute ranked the APQC model as a well balanced methodology, the initial model was maybe too focused on best practices and left out areas like new knowledge creation. To my knowledge, the new model addresses these areas now, is that correct?
 
Best regards,
 
Thomas Blumer
 
 
 
 


On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:56 AM, Lee, Jim <jlee@...> wrote:
 

As a provider of maturity models, I have intentionally only lurked in this thread instead of mentioning APQC’s Levels of KM Maturity for concerns of appearing to “sell” our model in lieu of simply sharing knowledge. However, gross mis-statements about our model leads me to respond. In the paper cited, http://www.tlainc.com/articl263.htm the authors state the following deficiencies in Table 1, item 2 (APQC’s model) as:

 

No Key Areas.

No Assessment methodology.

No validation.

No Extended organizational maturity

 

Each of those observations and assertions are unequivocally in error, and show a severe lack of understanding regarding our model and process for validation. Each of the listed areas are in fact addressed by our model and methodology. While I suspect that no harm has come of listing our model in this journal article, setting the record straight is the intent of my post.

 

In fact, I suspect that the authors’ only information about our model comes from reading a brief whitepaper since they indicate our authors as Hubert and Lemons (authors of the whitepaper only). In fact, our model was developed with the expertise of six leading firms from around the world, our own KM thought leader Dr. Carla O’Dell, and even co-developer of the original SEI CMMI maturity model, Dr. Bill Curtis in a thorough, months long development collaborative study. It is they who should be credited with authorship.

 

As a former academician myself, I understand the use of “surveys” of existing models to be useful during the literature search, but this lack of understanding leaves me wondering about the quality of the research in general. For that reason, I would encourage anyone interested in using any of the models cited to do their own due diligence.

 

To date, we’ve conducted more than 170 assessments—and validations—and are confident that it fulfills the needs of our users as many have used the results to inform their KM strategies and activities. To the participants of this forum, I apologize for this lengthy rant, but when a peer-reviewed journal publishes factual errors, I believe it is owed a correction to advance the state of research.

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

Jim Lee

KM Senior Advisor, APQC

+1-713-685-4764 – vmail (office)

+1-216-338-3548 – mobile (direct)

jlee@...

www.apqc.org

Make Best Practices Your PracticesSM

 



Lee, Jim <jlee@...>
 

Thomas,

 

I seem to have lost the specific response in this thread addressing your question to me, so consequently this may appear under a different post. Nevertheless, I did want to provide some additional clarifications to close this topic.

 

First, I was in no way suggesting that you cast any negative light on APQC nor its maturity model. In fact, I would thank you for sharing and exposing the journal article that you did.

 

Second, I would reiterate that because of that article, that others be wary of similar research and conduct their own determination of the facts. Again, another plus of your collegiality within this forum.

 

Finally, it does offer me an opportunity set the record straight. I am now convinced that the article writers did little more than to read the white paper describing the maturity model. Consequently, their assertion that the model, in their words, has “no key areas” is erroneous since our maturity model has four major areas: strategy, people, process, and content and IT, which are then further subdivided into 12 key areas. Regarding the lack of “assessment methodology” the authors are unaware of our requirement for specific, tangible evidence of capability prior to validation, which in turn is conducted against both the requirements of our best practices database, as well as the evidence provided by the other assessed organizations as a part of our validation process. Moreover, the “extended organizational maturity” perspective is addressed in many of the level 4 and level 5 capabilities of our model. Those capabilities by the way, are described in detail and come from the 150-item assessment tool which supports and informs our final maturity level assessment.

 

I’ll consider this thread completed, as I know that it wasn’t the intent of your initial post. Thanks for the chance to amplify the true nature of our model with the community.

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

Jim Lee

KM Senior Advisor, APQC

+1-713-685-4764 – vmail (office)

+1-216-338-3548 – mobile (direct)

jlee@...

www.apqc.org

Make Best Practices Your PracticesSM