Calculating KM employees' productivity #value #metrics


Soha Radwan
 

I wonder if there are any of  articles/ writings that tackle the challenge of calculating the productivity of knowledge workers/ KM staff. In brief, sometimes HR people are not very aware of the nature of the KM work. Thus when auditing/ calculating the productivity of KM employees using number of hours, they sometimes disregard time taken in designing activities, work done in spreading the sharing culture, setting KM measures, etc. So have you come across any kind of related articles? Or even studies related to employees productivity when working with intangibles like KM, innovation, etc.?


Thanks and regards,

Soha



Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Soha,

This comes out of the social media space, but I believe it is still highly relevant to KM. My recommendation is to implement some form of relative return on investment measure (RROI). In other words, you should be looking to:

  • agree on desirable behaviours
  • agree on one or several methods for achieving these desired behaviours
  • use RROI as a metric to assess the cost effectiveness of each method in achieving its stated goals

This still requires agreement that there is an intrinsic good in performing these behaviours. If you are missing even that level of buy in then you need to do some sort of modelling of the benefits of KM. I'm not a fan of the "X minutes saved per transaction" approach as a rule. More often organisations will be more convinced by arguments of risk reduction or innovation harvesting through improved decision-making.

If you have a reasonably high volume process which can demonstrate a link to better KM, you can use a Monte Carlo to demonstrate benefits by simulating the expected change in system variable and financial outcomes. For example:

  • scenario X happens 4000 times per year
  • we currently have a trend of 10 severity 2 incidents and 30 severity 3 incidents per 1000 cases
  • applying improved KM aims to reduce severity 2 and severity 3 incidents by 20%
  • there is a 95% chance to yield benefits of $25000 -> $100000
    (that's not a real example, just illustrative)

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 7/11/2017 6:36 PM, soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

 

I wonder if there are any of  articles/ writings that tackle the challenge of calculating the productivity of knowledge workers/ KM staff. In brief, sometimes HR people are not very aware of the nature of the KM work. Thus when auditing/ calculating the productivity of KM employees using number of hours, they sometimes disregard time taken in designing activities, work done in spreading the sharing culture, setting KM measures, etc. So have you come across any kind of related articles? Or even studies related to employees productivity when working with intangibles like KM, innovation, etc.?

Thanks and regards,

Soha




Veronica Riggs
 

Hi Soha,

Our team has faced those same struggles, particularly as it pertains to the appropriate staffing of a KM team. The nature of the work makes it difficult to measure productivity, and can be challenging to describe.

While there isn’t a specific reference I can provide, I will share that we’ve recently implemented the Agile Time Boxing approach to help provide structure to the day. Our hope is that as we refine the amount of time needed each day for the various activities, natural timings will emerge. We can then use these to assess our team model.

Hope that helps point you in a direction.

Best Regards,
Veronica


Murray Jennex
 

I've attached 3 articles where I address measuring the value of KM.



Jennex, M.,Smolnik, S., and Croasdell, D., (2016). “The Search for Knowledge ManagementSuccess,” 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,HICSS49, IEEE Computer Society, January 2016.


this article presents a statistically validated model of KM success measures, it is pretty strong and backs up Steve's recommendation to use ROI (but also provides alternatives), its only real weakness is that it accounted for 67% of the variance meaning that there are still some measures we haven't found.



Jennex, M.E., (2008). “ImpactsFrom Using Knowledge: A Longitudinal Study From A Nuclear Power Plant,”International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), pp. 51-64.


this article presents my first attempt at quantifying the impact of using KM. The most interesting part is that I generated an engineer productivity model to assist in measuring engineer productivity and showing where KM impacted the model



Jennex, M.E., (2013). “KnowledgeManagement Success in an Engineering Firm.” Engineering Management Reviews,2(3), pp. 65-74.


this article uses an early set of measures and a non-statistical approach and applies it to the case study above to show that the measures and the models work together





I'm currently in the process of turning the first listed paper into a journal article.


Let me know if you have any questions....murray jennex

-----Original Message-----
From: soharadwan@yahoo.co.uk [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Nov 6, 2017 11:36 pm
Subject: [sikmleaders] Calculating KM employees' productivity





I wonder if there are any of articles/ writings that tackle the challenge of calculating the productivity of knowledge workers/ KM staff.In brief, sometimes HR people are not very aware of the nature of the KM work. Thus when auditing/ calculating the productivity of KM employees using number of hours, they sometimes disregard time taken in designing activities, work done in spreading the sharing culture, setting KM measures, etc.So have you come across any kind of related articles? Or even studies related to employees productivity when working with intangibles like KM, innovation, etc.?



Thanks and regards,
Soha


Murray Jennex
 
Edited

After just sending my previous email it occurred to me that a backwards way of doing this is by determining knowledge loss impact should an employee leave.  I have attached my article on how to do this:


Jennex, M.E., (2014). “A Proposed Method for Assessing Knowledge Loss Risk with Departing Personnel”  VINE: The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 44(2), pp. 185-209.
provides a methodology as well as guidance tables to actually score the impact and probability of an employee leaving and taking knowledge.  I think if you just used the impact part of the method you could get close to what you want
 
let me know if you have questions....murray jennex
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: soharadwan@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Mon, Nov 6, 2017 11:36 pm
Subject: [sikmleaders] Calculating KM employees' productivity



I wonder if there are any of  articles/ writings that tackle the challenge of calculating the productivity of knowledge workers/ KM staff. In brief, sometimes HR people are not very aware of the nature of the KM work. Thus when auditing/ calculating the productivity of KM employees using number of hours, they sometimes disregard time taken in designing activities, work done in spreading the sharing culture, setting KM measures, etc. So have you come across any kind of related articles? Or even studies related to employees productivity when working with intangibles like KM, innovation, etc.?
 
Thanks and regards,
Soha
 


 


Albert Simard
 

The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book.  There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so.   And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them.  This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation.  There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures.  Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.  


I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory."  The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.  


HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully.  Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure.  All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify.  "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court!  You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group. 


This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR.  Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour?  Absoltely not!  But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction.  To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions.  Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.  

 


Stephen Bounds
 

Hi Albert,

A government agency, right? HR is particularly problematic in this environment.

There are four problems:

  • performance ratings are applied inconsistently
  • performance ratings are often tied to pay rises
  • poor management is often indistinguishable from poor performance
  • there is no sense that HR is "on the side" of the employee
Combined, the atmosphere for these evaluations is entirely wrong for productive discussions about how to genuinely improve a staff member's performance.

In my last management role, I implemented monthly team iterations which emphasized that everyone had an equal role in supporting others to complete their work. Evaluations then became:

  1. Did you participate genuinely and to the best of your ability in the team process?

If yes, they passed my evaluation with flying colours.

Cheers,
-- Stephen.

====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 9/11/2017 2:05 AM, Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders] wrote:

The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate thateveryone is treated exactly the same and by the book. There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so. And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them. This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation. There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures. Even the vocabularyis carefully controlled.


I learned this the hard way when Ionce rated an employee whose productivity wasless than half of the project averageone notch below "fullysatisfactory." The amount of effortand paperwork related to that individualthat ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.


HR is not (and cannot be)well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully. Behaviors such as sharing and collaborationare softer and fuzzier andmuch more dificult to document and measure. All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify. "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court! You can document that someone participated in an activitybut not so muchwhether theyhelpedor hindered the work of a group.


This is why I contend that desirableKM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR. Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour? Absoltely not! But taking action requires that we firstunderstand relationships between KM, social context,and social interaction. To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfyingkey issues and appropriate management actions. Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.



Soha Radwan
 

Thanks a lot Albert. And looking forward to knowing more about the framework you put.

Meanwhile I am still struggling to give the HR an exact number of hours per year for each KM activity, and  struggling more in trying to convince them to at least go by work days not working hours. Honestly the point is not only about the calculation, but it is more about explaining the reason behind time taken in many activities which can not be " reducible into documentation" as you said it.




From: "Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: "sikmleaders@..."
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 19:05
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book.  There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so.   And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them.  This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation.  There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures.  Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.  

I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory."  The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.  

HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully.  Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure.  All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify.  "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court!  You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group. 

This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR.  Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour?  Absoltely not!  But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction.  To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions.  Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.  
 



Murray Jennex
 

the simple solution might just be to do a job task analysis and then assign an average number of hours for each task, this is the basis for the individual productivity model I sent you, and HR was accepting of it as it was the best quantification effort they'd seen at that point....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Wed, Nov 8, 2017 8:45 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks a lot Albert. And looking forward to knowing more about the framework you put.

Meanwhile I am still struggling to give the HR an exact number of hours per year for each KM activity, and  struggling more in trying to convince them to at least go by work days not working hours. Honestly the point is not only about the calculation, but it is more about explaining the reason behind time taken in many activities which can not be " reducible into documentation" as you said it.




From: "Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogrou ps.com" <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 19:05
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book.  There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so.   And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them.  This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation.  There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures.  Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.  

I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory."  The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.  

HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully.  Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure.  All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify.  "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court!  You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group. 

This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR.  Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour?  Absoltely not!  But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction.  To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions.  Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.  
 





Albert Simard
 

Soha - The real challenge, as I used to point out to science administrators, is that if you know enough about a process to state, in advance, how long it will take to complete, it may be useful work, but it isn't a very interesting (potential breakthrough) scientific problem.  It's referred to as evolutionary research.  Put another way, it isn't posible to predict how long creativity (revolutionary scienced) will take.  Unlike TV, where impossibled problems must be solved in an hour or less, the time, effort, and outcome for truly innovative breakthroughs can only be known after the fact.  


What I find most interesting is that the simple straightforward solution is often only found after considerable, convoluted, and complex reasoning.  For example, social interacion: https://www.slideshare.net/albertsimard/sikm-yin-and-yang-of-km began as a conversation about the elements of sharing and collaboration.  I then added negotiation to the framework and some time later, conflict.  At this point, I realied that the framework had two dimensions: goals and interests.  Months later, I realized that social interaction was a mirror image of Snowdens sense-making framework which provided a theoretical underpining to the work.  The framework, is process based.  That is, it identifies the steps involved in the flow of kowledge from start to finish - with no attempt to define a time frame.

www.slideshare.net
An enterprise architecture approach is used to integrate social, business, technological, and knowledge structures. A social interaction framework (sharing, c…


Albert Simard
 

Muray -


In developing the social context framework (published as an IGI book chapter) I note that many key internal human attributes, such as internal values, perceived safety, or personal interests cannot be observed, let alone, measured.  What we can observe are outward behavioral indicators, such as participation in groups, willingness to share, or people skills.  Notwithstanding our inability to measure things, there are identifiable management (not HR) actions that can be taken to improve the social context that underlies social interaction.  For example, management can support communities of practice, provide a safe trusting environment, and/or lead by example to enhance collaboration. 


The key problem was how to present a holistic picture of 77 social context criteria and 1200 indicators in a way that management could easily identify one to three criteia that most needed action.  It was literally two years after the original framework was developed that I hit on the idea of presenting the framework as a decision tree that enabled rapid filtering.  With this structure, management can identify a desirable goal, such as enhancing collaboration, and then examine only the six collaboration criteria with their asociated indicators and management actions.  Interestingly, this simple use of the complex framework only occurred to me when I responded to a question following a presentation six months after the chapter was published.  


So, we have a year to develop the original framework, two years of waiting until necessity resulted in a decision tree presentation, and another six-month delay until a question made me realize that I needed to shift from a backward to a forward-chaining approach.  That is, start with the problem to be solved and then consider appropriate solutions to that probvlem.  It all seems so obvious in retrospect. 


   


Albert Simard
 

This is addressed in the world of science by having individuals evaluated by a commitee of their scientific peers.  There are usually a number of people being evaluated with each person having one person from their specialty on the committee.  My guess is that medicine works similarly. 


Having served on my share of such committees I can vouch for their effectiveness.  Administrators like to count publications but this is only marginally important.  How does one rate the occasional (unpredictable) "home run."  Conversely, how does this compare with a dozen half-page field observtional articles?  A group of scientists can seperate the wheat from the chaff in a heartbeat.  There are all sorts of informal clues as to the productivity and quality of a scientist's work.  This is a case in which "you know it when you see it" realy works.  I am willing to bet that a similar process would work in many fields of knowledge work. 


I was continuouly struck by the frequency with which members of a committee clustered tightly around a mean rating when four out of the five members were from different disciplines.  And when a group (rarely) could not reach consensus, the reason was explained and the process was repeated, including a description of the problem.  When a scientist was proposed to be promoted to a senior scientist position the review was resubmited to a committee of senior scientists.  


It worked!


Albert Simard
 

ROI is a wonderful thing.  But take it from someone who has spent decades in creating new knowledge and then a couple more in attempting to managing that knowledge as a valuable asset, linking knowledge to outcomes ranges from difficult to impossible.


The best that we came up with is to link occassional home runs to the outcomes and benefits that they generated.  We found that a few results more than paid for an entire program.  Now, if we could only identify which lines of research were most likely to lead to a home run...!!!


The down side of all this was that the agencies who benefited from the federal research did not want to publicly admit their savings for fear of having their budgets reduced.


Ain't social science interesting!


Al Simard


Albert Simard
 

Stephen -


Right x 5.  


However, having worked for two diferent governments, I can state that a similar scientist evaluation process worked quite well in both cases.  I also like your approach, but would HR accept it?


Al


Soha Radwan
 

Thanks Murray, but it is somewhat challenging to assign average number of hours, especially for some new activities



From: "Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders]"
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017, 10:52
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
the simple solution might just be to do a job task analysis and then assign an average number of hours for each task, this is the basis for the individual productivity model I sent you, and HR was accepting of it as it was the best quantification effort they'd seen at that point....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Wed, Nov 8, 2017 8:45 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks a lot Albert. And looking forward to knowing more about the framework you put.

Meanwhile I am still struggling to give the HR an exact number of hours per year for each KM activity, and  struggling more in trying to convince them to at least go by work days not working hours. Honestly the point is not only about the calculation, but it is more about explaining the reason behind time taken in many activities which can not be " reducible into documentation" as you said it.




From: "Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogrou ps.com" <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 19:05
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book.  There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so.   And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them.  This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation.  There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures.  Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.  

I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory."  The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.  

HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully.  Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure.  All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify.  "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court!  You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group. 

This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR.  Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour?  Absoltely not!  But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction.  To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions.  Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.  
 







Soha Radwan
 

Hi Stephan,

I liked the concept, and it can be applied internally as KPIs for KM activities. But not sure how HR can think about it in terms of calculating employees productivity (Given that they want to assign number of hours to each activity, same as in production lines  related measurements )



From: "Stephen Bounds km@... [sikmleaders]"
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2017, 16:28
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
Hi Soha,
This comes out of the social media space, but I believe it is still highly relevant to KM. My recommendation is to implement some form of relative return on investment measure (RROI). In other words, you should be looking to:
  • agree on desirable behaviours
  • agree on one or several methods for achieving these desired behaviours
  • use RROI as a metric to assess the cost effectiveness of each method in achieving its stated goals
This still requires agreement that there is an intrinsic good in performing these behaviours. If you are missing even that level of buy in then you need to do some sort of modelling of the benefits of KM. I'm not a fan of the "X minutes saved per transaction" approach as a rule. More often organisations will be more convinced by arguments of risk reduction or innovation harvesting through improved decision-making.
If you have a reasonably high volume process which can demonstrate a link to better KM, you can use a Monte Carlo to demonstrate benefits by simulating the expected change in system variable and financial outcomes. For example:
  • scenario X happens 4000 times per year
  • we currently have a trend of 10 severity 2 incidents and 30 severity 3 incidents per 1000 cases
  • applying improved KM aims to reduce severity 2 and severity 3 incidents by 20%
  • there is a 95% chance to yield benefits of $25000 -> $100000
    (that's not a real example, just illustrative)
Cheers,
-- Stephen.
====================================
Stephen Bounds
Director & Principal Consultant
knowquestion Pty Ltd
E: sb@...
M: 0401 829 096
====================================
On 7/11/2017 6:36 PM, soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] wrote:
 
I wonder if there are any of  articles/ writings that tackle the challenge of calculating the productivity of knowledge workers/ KM staff. In brief, sometimes HR people are not very aware of the nature of the KM work. Thus when auditing/ calculating the productivity of KM employees using number of hours, they sometimes disregard time taken in designing activities, work done in spreading the sharing culture, setting KM measures, etc. So have you come across any kind of related articles? Or even studies related to employees productivity when working with intangibles like KM, innovation, etc.?
Thanks and regards,
Soha





Soha Radwan
 

Hi Veronica

Thanks for sharing this.

I think the problem arises from the lack of common understanding of some social activities from HR and the activity owner. Each has his own point of view. HR don't (or in some cases might not want ) to understand the nature of such activities. I think if they admit the existence of this variation,  they have to move away from the standardized orthodox approach they follow. This means that they have to think of a new framework for measuring productivity in such cases.



From: "Veronica Riggs veronicajoanna2003@... [sikmleaders]"
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Tuesday, 7 November 2017, 17:51
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
Hi Soha,

Our team has faced those same struggles, particularly as it pertains to the appropriate staffing of a KM team. The nature of the work makes it difficult to measure productivity, and can be challenging to describe.

While there isn’t a specific reference I can provide, I will share that we’ve recently implemented the Agile Time Boxing approach to help provide structure to the day. Our hope is that as we refine the amount of time needed each day for the various activities, natural timings will emerge. We can then use these to assess our team model.

Hope that helps point you in a direction.

Best Regards,
Veronica



Murray Jennex
 

its done frequently and frankly, if you can't do it then you aren't likely to be able to quantify productivity, sorry.


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Sat, Nov 11, 2017 10:04 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks Murray, but it is somewhat challenging to assign average number of hours, especially for some new activities



From: "Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017, 10:52
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
the simple solution might just be to do a job task analysis and then assign an average number of hours for each task, this is the basis for the individual productivity model I sent you, and HR was accepting of it as it was the best quantification effort they'd seen at that point....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wed, Nov 8, 2017 8:45 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks a lot Albert. And looking forward to knowing more about the framework you put.

Meanwhile I am still struggling to give the HR an exact number of hours per year for each KM activity, and  struggling more in trying to convince them to at least go by work days not working hours. Honestly the point is not only about the calculation, but it is more about explaining the reason behind time taken in many activities which can not be " reducible into documentation" as you said it.




From: "Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogrou ps.com" <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 19:05
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book.  There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so.   And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them.  This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation.  There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures.  Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.  

I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory."  The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.  

HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully.  Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure.  All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify.  "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court!  You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group. 

This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR.  Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour?  Absoltely not!  But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction.  To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions.  Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.  
 









Soha Radwan
 

May be we will not be able to quantify it this way, given that we are currently developing new social activities that focus on increasing creativity and innovation (which relies on intensive quality attributes rather than quantifiable number of hours) . But may be we can think of new ways to ensure employees are doing their jobs and achieving their goals without sticking to 'number of hours' concept, and then link it to productivity (output/input) 



From: "Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders]"
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Sunday, 12 November 2017, 10:36
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
its done frequently and frankly, if you can't do it then you aren't likely to be able to quantify productivity, sorry.


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Sat, Nov 11, 2017 10:04 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks Murray, but it is somewhat challenging to assign average number of hours, especially for some new activities



From: "Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017, 10:52
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
the simple solution might just be to do a job task analysis and then assign an average number of hours for each task, this is the basis for the individual productivity model I sent you, and HR was accepting of it as it was the best quantification effort they'd seen at that point....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wed, Nov 8, 2017 8:45 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks a lot Albert. And looking forward to knowing more about the framework you put.

Meanwhile I am still struggling to give the HR an exact number of hours per year for each KM activity, and  struggling more in trying to convince them to at least go by work days not working hours. Honestly the point is not only about the calculation, but it is more about explaining the reason behind time taken in many activities which can not be " reducible into documentation" as you said it.




From: "Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogrou ps.com" <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 19:05
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book.  There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so.   And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them.  This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation.  There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures.  Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.  

I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory."  The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.  

HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully.  Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure.  All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify.  "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court!  You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group. 

This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR.  Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour?  Absoltely not!  But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction.  To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions.  Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.  
 











Murray Jennex
 

you need some artifact to measure.  If you look at the engineer productivity model I sent you can see that it included things like number of reports or analyses, drawing changes, etc.  KM can be expected to make a knowledge worker more proficient in producing their work artifacts.  Unfortunately, I don't know of any productivity model that HR will accept that does not include some discreet artifact that is produced and can be measured in some way.  You could possibly use customer interactions and problem resolutions as measures, but I don't think you will be able to get away with using something like customer satisfaction.  In all cases though to quantify using numbers of artifacts this will include some time measurement component, such as artifacts per hour or per day


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders]
To: sikmleaders
Sent: Sat, Nov 11, 2017 10:51 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



May be we will not be able to quantify it this way, given that we are currently developing new social activities that focus on increasing creativity and innovation (which relies on intensive quality attributes rather than quantifiable number of hours) . But may be we can think of new ways to ensure employees are doing their jobs and achieving their goals without sticking to 'number of hours' concept, and then link it to productivity (output/input) 



From: "Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Sunday, 12 November 2017, 10:36
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calcula ting KM employees' productivity

 
its done frequently and frankly, if you can't do it then you aren't likely to be able to quantify productivity, sorry.


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Sat, Nov 11, 2017 10:04 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks Murray, but it is somewhat challenging to assign average number of hours, especially for some new activities



From: "Murray Jennex murphjen@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders@...
Sent: Thursday, 9 November 2017, 10:52
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
the simple solution might just be to do a job task analysis and then assign an average number of hours for each task, this is the basis for the individual productivity model I sent you, and HR was accepting of it as it was the best quantification effort they'd seen at that point....murray


-----Original Message-----
From: soha radwan soharadwan@... [sikmleaders] <sikmleaders@...>
To: sikmleaders <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wed, Nov 8, 2017 8:45 pm
Subject: Re: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity



Thanks a lot Albert. And looking forward to knowing more about the framework you put.

Meanwhile I am still struggling to give the HR an exact number of hours per year for each KM activity, and  struggling more in trying to convince them to at least go by work days not working hours. Honestly the point is not only about the calculation, but it is more about explaining the reason behind time taken in many activities which can not be " reducible into documentation" as you said it.




From: "Albert Simard albert.simard@... [sikmleaders]" <sikmleaders@...>
To: "sikmleaders@yahoogrou ps.com" <sikmleaders@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 8 November 2017, 19:05
Subject: [sikmleaders] Re: Calculating KM employees' productivity

 
The challenge, as I see it, is that HR must be able to demonstrate that everyone is treated exactly the same and by the book.  There are not inconsequential legal iplications for failing to do so.   And the laws are sufficiently complicaged that it requires specialists to know them.  This, in turn, requires that everythiong that HR does must be reducible to documentation.  There must be forms with everything spelled out, starting with recruiting posters, through position descriptions and performance evaluations to termination procedures.  Even the vocabulary is carefully controlled.  

I learned this the hard way when I once rated an employee whose productivity was less than half of the project average one notch below "fully satisfactory."  The amount of effort and paperwork related to that individual that ensued during the following year was simply not worth the effort.  

HR is not (and cannot be) well suited to addresing behavioural or social isues which are at the heart of what KM needs to function sucessfully.  Behaviors such as sharing and collaboration are softer and fuzzier and much more dificult to document and measure.  All-important positive or negative atitudes are difficult to quantify.  "You know it when you see it" won't stand up in court!  You can document that someone participated in an activity but not so much whether they helped or hindered the work of a group. 

This is why I contend that desirable KM behavior rests squarely in the realm of leadership and culture - not HR.  Does this mean that we should give up trying to enhance KM behaviour?  Absoltely not!  But taking action requires that we first understand relationships between KM, social context, and social interaction.  To that end, I recently put together a framework that integratres the three processes in a way that enbles idenfying key issues and appropriate management actions.  Although it is only a start, it is a step forward.