Knowledge Maturity #maturity
|
Madeleine Du Toit
Hi,
I'm currently assisting an organisation with managing their project knowledge. They are looking to me to define an end-state. Something they can work towards. They keep on throwing Knowledge Maturity into the mix..... what would mature knowledge look like? I know of APQC's Knowledge Maturity framework but that looks more at KM as a capability. Any ideas on where to look or what to use to define "mature knowledge"? I'm kind of leaning towards - it depends on what you want, but maybe you have some ideas. Appreciate the input |
|
|
|
Patrick Lambe
Hi Madeleine
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I don’t think I would ever use the concept of “end state” with reference to knowledge, because all knowledge has to adapt continuously to changing demands, needs and opportunities. Projects may end, but the knowledge does not. I do think capabilities are the right way to frame the question, because that covers the base of ensuring that knowledge is kept relevant. Similarly, I think one could define what a desirable knowledge environment/ infrastructure should look like to maintain different classes of knowledge to the necessary levels of relevance, accuracy, completeness, timely production, accessibility, etc. For these attributes, not all knowledge classes are equal, “it depends” as you say what requirements they might want to set for different classes of knowledge. Some areas of knowledge are more slow moving or fast moving than others, and some forms of knowledge have very high dependencies and risk factors associated with them (e.g. when the technology changes quickly, or there are supply chain disruptions, or new regulatory requirements, or key lessons learned from a major incident). I hope this is helpful P
Patrick Lambe
Partner Straits Knowledge phone: +65 98528511 web: www.straitsknowledge.com resources: www.greenchameleon.com knowledge mapping: www.aithinsoftware.com 
|
|
|
|
This reminds me a bit of how science works. Early on in the development of a scientific field, there is an opportunity for a Darwin, Einstein, Newton, etc. to come along and completely overhaul it. But as the field becomes more mature, the opportunities for that radical new knowledge to be discovered diminish, and most of the new knowledge is incremental improvement of understanding within the current paradigm rather than creating a new one -- still valuable but not as game-changing. These scientific fields are often considered "mature."
So within an organization, there might be categories of knowledge that you could classify as (provisionally) "mature" mainly because the organization has been operating in that field for a long time and knows it inside and out. This still doesn't mean that it's a once-and-for-all end state, but rather that (given limited resources), the current opportunity cost of trying to gain more knowledge in that area suggests that other less mature areas might give you a better payback. |
|
|
|
Cindy Hubert
Hi Madeleine, your question is one that we get at APQC quite often - worded in a variety of ways. I got my braintrust (and partners in crime) at APQC together (Lauren Trees and Darcy Lemons) and here are some insights. You are correct in that the APQC Levels of KM Maturity model does look at KM capabilities, but if you look at level 5 capabilities, you can get a sense of how a mature knowledge asset might be characterized / defined.
A lot of the level 4/5 KM capabilities are aligned with “mature knowledge” (e.g., knowledge assets leveraged for competitive advantage; KM aligned with the enterprise vision, mission, and strategy; KM aligned with innovation and enterprise excellence; KM used for collaborative value creation with suppliers and customers; knowledge used as a marketable asset; knowledge flow processes embedded in core business processes; KM efforts are correlated to business and employee performance outcomes). The capabilities are more universal, but the results are going to be more unique to each organization’s industry and KM strategy/goals. Another thought is that you may can look at the schema of "best practice". Many of our members have formal definitions for moving knowledge into more "mature" status via promising practice - successfully demonstrated practice - proven practice - best practice. There are alot of ways people have defined this to show stellar knowledge. Finally, we also spend time with our members looking at how to define "critical knowledge". While this doesn't necessarily correlate to "maturity", it can highlight what knowledge is considered valued / relevant / important to the business. Enjoyed the responses from the other community members - it's a great topic. Thanks, Cindy Hubert @APQC |
|
|
|
Nancy Dixon
Madeleine,
I have looked at how KM developed over the years and how it continues to develop. What I have learned is that organizations, when they approach KM, nearly always start with the first era of information management and then continually add capabilities
as they move forward. Happily, as the first diagram illustrates, even information management, the first era, has become more sophisticated with new tools and new ideas. I wrote a chapter that describes the history and changes in more detail, but the diagram,
gives a pretty clear picture. As the green, updated, diagram Illustrates, the leading edge of KM now is the creation of new knowledge or innovation if you prefer. The green diagram mentions three process that reflect that aspiration, agile, design thinking
and complexity thinking. The question is how can KM facilitate the creation of new knowledge in organizations! I have some ideas about that, but that is the question we should be addressing.
Nancy
Pres. of the US Academy of Professional Dialogue
Coaching Virtual and In-Person Teams
|
|
|
|
Endro Catur
Hi Madeleine I am also currently assisting a humanitarian agency developing their KM system. At the beginning they also ask the same question about end state. I was inspired by APQC and agree with Patrick that it was about capability and the actual indicators would be different fot each otganization. The capability that I suggested to organization was unconscious competence on knowledge capturing, sharing, seeking, utilization etc. by staffs. At organizational level, those competence can be measured in work process, behaviors and culture. So, instead of the knowledge itself, it is the desired processes, behaviors and culture as well as competence that mark as 'end state'. In reality, the end state would appear as the end of a cycle - organization is redefined (updated goals, business models, products etc.) - and beginning of a new cycle. Hope this helps. --- Salam. Regards. --- Endro Catur Nugroho IAF Certified Professional Facilitator Resume: http://bit.ly/EndroCatur-Resume CV: http://bit.ly/EndroCatur-CV LinkedIn: http://bit.ly/endrocn Email: endro.catur@... Mobile: +628558884441 Thank you for your email. If you expected reply but have not yet received it from me in three days, please contact me at the mobile number above. This e-mail and its attachment, if any, is intended for the addressee. The content is private and confidential and may contain copyright and/or legally privileged information. If you receive this email in error, please notify me immediately and delete this email together with any attachment. Any unauthorised use, dissemination, or copying of this message, or any attachment, is strictly prohibited. On Thu, Nov 3, 2022, 00:36 Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit=iqbusiness.net@groups.io> wrote: Hi, |
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
Patrick, I understand when you use the term knowledge you are using it in plural, no problem, I just didn't want you to think I was criticizing something I wasn't. My question and point is that as knowledge (in a singular state) matures it may reach an end state where it is only historical/archival in nature and will no longer mature. It may be used again, but it may not. For example, I do an engineering analysis of a problem and reach a solution, it is very useful knowledge as long as I have that component in service, but after a while the component becomes obsolete and is replaced, the knowledge of fixing the problem becomes obsolete in that unless I can relate it to another component it may not be useful directly. I still may retain it for training purposes or historical purposes but for all intents and purposes it has reached its maturity and end of life. I could also apply this logic to many social situations as there are many things we believed as knowledge in the past that would no longer be considered useful or appropriate, that knowledge has reached end of life and is useful only for historical purposes. Frankly, I believe all knowledge has a life cycle with some life cycles being very long and others fairly short. So in this context, I would suggest there is an end state for knowledge....murray jennex -----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> To: main@SIKM.groups.io Sent: Wed, Nov 2, 2022 11:17 am Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity Hi Madeleine
I don’t think I would ever use the concept of “end state” with reference to knowledge, because all knowledge has to adapt continuously to changing demands, needs and opportunities. Projects may end, but the knowledge does not.
I do think capabilities are the right way to frame the question, because that covers the base of ensuring that knowledge is kept relevant. Similarly, I think one could define what a desirable knowledge environment/ infrastructure should look like to maintain different classes of knowledge to the necessary levels of relevance, accuracy, completeness, timely production, accessibility, etc.
For these attributes, not all knowledge classes are equal, “it depends” as you say what requirements they might want to set for different classes of knowledge. Some areas of knowledge are more slow moving or fast moving than others, and some forms of knowledge have very high dependencies and risk factors associated with them (e.g. when the technology changes quickly, or there are supply chain disruptions, or new regulatory requirements, or key lessons learned from a major incident).
I hope this is helpful
P
Patrick Lambe
Partner Straits Knowledge phone: +65 98528511 web: www.straitsknowledge.com resources: www.greenchameleon.com knowledge mapping: www.aithinsoftware.com 
|
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
Asking for an end state makes sense as it gives a target to work toward, that said, the answer may not be satisfying. My understanding of maturity models in PM, KM, and elsewhere is that at the top level of maturity, the end state, the program is essentially ubiquitous in your business processes and knowledge use and is continuously improving. I would clarify on this in that we would be measuring knowledge use and benefit and have all the capabilities and processes in place to maximize return on knowledge use. For PM, knowledge use would be in lessons learned and having processes in place that ensure PM processes are continuously improved/updated based on project knowledge captured in lessons learned as well as by PM team members using their experience to enhance PM processes. I would suggest that this could be measured in increased project success rates and lower project overhead costs and streamlined project processes and documentation. Does this sound kind of what they are looking for? thanks. Murray Jennex
Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., CISSP, PMP
Gensler Professor of Computer Information Systems
Paul and Virginia Engler College of Business, West Texas A&M
Editor in Chief, International Journal of Knowledge Management -----Original Message-----
From: Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> To: main@SIKM.groups.io Sent: Wed, Nov 2, 2022 10:36 am Subject: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity Hi,
I'm currently assisting an organisation with managing their project knowledge. They are looking to me to define an end-state. Something they can work towards. They keep on throwing Knowledge Maturity into the mix..... what would mature knowledge look like? I know of APQC's Knowledge Maturity framework but that looks more at KM as a capability. Any ideas on where to look or what to use to define "mature knowledge"? I'm kind of leaning towards - it depends on what you want, but maybe you have some ideas. Appreciate the input |
|
|
|
Hi Madeline
May I offer some additional insights?
I believe it is not always necessary to apply a maturity model. More important to decide what outcome you want (your requirements) from investing and implementing KM concepts and practices and the strategy to implement that outcome. It’s been my experience that use of maturity models can make a difference when you are comparing one organization to another, often in a competitive space, or you want to benchmark off a competitor or standard.
Regarding defining “mature knowledge,” it is context relative and that would be part of the “to be” discussion for what outcome one wants for investing and implementing KM based on the requirements for developing a strategy and its implementation. It most certainly includes the areas you discussed as well.
I have attached some time earlier articles on KM and PM, one from Stephanie Simon, one from PMI , and an earlier presentation on KM/PM I did in 2011. There are good examples of “mature knowledge” from several different perspectives. I hope you find these useful.
v/r
Bill
Learn more about the solutions and value we provide at www.workingknowledge-csp.com
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of
Murray Jennex via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 14:51 To: main@SIKM.groups.io Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity
Asking for an end state makes sense as it gives a target to work toward, that said, the answer may not be satisfying. My understanding of maturity models in PM, KM, and elsewhere is that at the top level of maturity, the end state, the program is essentially ubiquitous in your business processes and knowledge use and is continuously improving. I would clarify on this in that we would be measuring knowledge use and benefit and have all the capabilities and processes in place to maximize return on knowledge use. For PM, knowledge use would be in lessons learned and having processes in place that ensure PM processes are continuously improved/updated based on project knowledge captured in lessons learned as well as by PM team members using their experience to enhance PM processes. I would suggest that this could be measured in increased project success rates and lower project overhead costs and streamlined project processes and documentation. Does this sound kind of what they are looking for? thanks. Murray Jennex
Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., CISSP, PMP Gensler Professor of Computer Information Systems Paul and Virginia Engler College of Business, West Texas A&M Editor in Chief, International Journal of Knowledge Management -----Original Message----- Hi, |
|
|
|
Here’s a link to the PMI website re: knowledge management. Perhaps this will give you some good information: Project management knowledge management (pmi.org)
Tom Olney – PMP, CKM PSCU
From:
main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io <mdutoit@...> Hi, CAUTION: This email originated outside of PSCU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If in doubt, use the Phish Alert button at the top of your Outlook toolbar to report suspicious emails.
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lambe
Hi Murray
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
You are quite right to make a distinction between specific knowledge artefacts/ resources and knowledge in general or “knowledges” pertaining to a domain, and I accept that specific knowledge resources (usually explicit) may reach an end state. However, I find it more useful to think of the broader knowledge ground out of which those resources are produced, which guides how they are applied, and which determines when they need to be updated, discarded or replaced. And against that ground, (as you point out) different knowledge resources change at different paces - “knowledge pace layering” if you like. Managing that environment is the real point, I think. For example, in your case of the engineering solution, yes the solution is interesting and important, but the “ground” of knowledge out of which that solution was produced and in which is it used, is the more important resource, I think, because it is that which tells us how and when to renew it. Why more useful? Because none of what we do makes sense if we don’t look beyond the resource to the purpose and context of using the resource. P
Patrick Lambe
Partner Straits Knowledge phone: +65 98528511 web: www.straitsknowledge.com resources: www.greenchameleon.com knowledge mapping: www.aithinsoftware.com 
|
|
|
|
Nick Milton
Madeleine, if you are looking for a “goal line” – ie something that can be measured against - you might consider ISO 30401, the Management Systems Standard for KM, with the following caveats:
Given these caveats, ISO 30401 can still be useful. I am not personally a huge fan of maturity models, as I see KM more as a cultural phase-shift rather than a gradual maturing. But if your organisation wants to know what an end-state might be for KM, one answer is “the end-state is a fully embedded, operating and continually improving KM management system”, and if they ask “how will we measure if we have got there”, one answer could be “you can measure against the criteria within ISO 30401”
Nick Milton
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io
Sent: 02 November 2022 17:36 To: main@SIKM.groups.io Subject: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity
Hi, |
|
|
|
Leif Edvinsson
Have look at - ISO 30401 Global Knowledge Index by K4All, Dubai Hi, |
|
|
|
Hi Madeline, I’d echo a lot of what Nick says.
On ISO30401, you could take a look at the KM Canvas which Paul Corney, Patricia Eng and I included with the KM Cookbook. It contains a set of practical questions which map to the standard, and can be used to test readiness/resilience – and prompt the right conversations about priorities. All the best for your journey... Chris
From:
main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of Nick Milton <nick.milton@...> Madeleine, if you are looking for a “goal line” – ie something that can be measured against - you might consider ISO 30401, the Management Systems Standard for KM, with the following caveats:
Given these caveats, ISO 30401 can still be useful. I am not personally a huge fan of maturity models, as I see KM more as a cultural phase-shift rather than a gradual maturing. But if your organisation wants to know what an end-state might be for KM, one answer is “the end-state is a fully embedded, operating and continually improving KM management system”, and if they ask “how will we measure if we have got there”, one answer could be “you can measure against the criteria within ISO 30401”
Nick Milton
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io>
On Behalf Of Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io
Sent: 02 November 2022 17:36 To: main@SIKM.groups.io Subject: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity
Hi, |
|
|
|
Robert L. Bogue
As I’ve been watching this I’ve been considering the original question and wondering if we’re talking about an end state – or if we’re talking about a vision. The distinction I’m making is that an end state is more prescriptive. A vision is less specific and more inspiring.
That leads me to the question – how would we know if we have an organization that’s mature in it’s KM initiatives? Is the evidence found in a set of policies and procedures that make knowledge management an explicit part of the functioning of the organization? (and at what level since 100% isn’t reasonable) Is it the way that people behave in terms of capturing, codifying, and sharing their own knowledge?
Maturity models and the ISO standard are fine but not always so great on knowing when the destination has been reached (if that’s possible.)
Rob
------------------- Robert L. Bogue O: (317) 844-5310 M: (317) 506-4977 Blog: http://www.thorprojects.com/blog Want to be confident about your change management efforts? https://ConfidentChangeManagement.com Are you burned out? https://ExtinguishBurnout.com can help you get out of it (for free)
From: main@SIKM.groups.io <main@SIKM.groups.io> On Behalf Of
Patrick Lambe via groups.io
Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 3:05 AM To: main@SIKM.groups.io Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity
Hi Murray
You are quite right to make a distinction between specific knowledge artefacts/ resources and knowledge in general or “knowledges” pertaining to a domain, and I accept that specific knowledge resources (usually explicit) may reach an end state.
However, I find it more useful to think of the broader knowledge ground out of which those resources are produced, which guides how they are applied, and which determines when they need to be updated, discarded or replaced. And against that ground, (as you point out) different knowledge resources change at different paces - “knowledge pace layering” if you like. Managing that environment is the real point, I think.
For example, in your case of the engineering solution, yes the solution is interesting and important, but the “ground” of knowledge out of which that solution was produced and in which is it used, is the more important resource, I think, because it is that which tells us how and when to renew it.
Why more useful? Because none of what we do makes sense if we don’t look beyond the resource to the purpose and context of using the resource.
P
Patrick Lambe
|
|
|
|
Tim Powell
Hi Madeleine,
TLDR: They’re asking you the wrong question. I’d advise you to dig further to determine their intention behind it. == I’m always guided by Peter Drucker’s visionary aphorism, “Knowledge is the business.” And by Heraclitus’ that “You cannot step in the same river twice — because it’s never the same river.”
Like the business itself, Knowledge must be dynamic. Is there an “end state” envisioned for the enterprise — a sale of the business, for example, or declaration of bankruptcy? Assuming not, the construct of an “end state” for knowledge exists in theory only. In practice, knowledge must continually evolve to meet the ever-changing needs of the enterprise — and changing conditions in the business ecosystem.
I’m seconding similar comments made by Patrick, Nancy and others earlier. Even the name “end state” implies that Knowledge can/should be static — far from the case, in my experience.
This is not just my opinion. The ISO 9001:2015 specification states clearly (in section 7.1.6) that the continual refreshing of organizational knowledge is a core knowledge role. In my experience, though, it’s too often overlooked in the day-to-day practice of KM.
How to best achieve such “knowledge dynamism” is of great interest to me. In fact, I’m hosting a workshop Monday afternoon at KMWorld on avoiding “zombie knowledge” — the walking dead of knowledge.
Thanks for this question that has already garnered some interesting and useful responses!
tp
TIM WOOD POWELL | President, The Knowledge Agency® | Author, The Value of Knowledge | New York City, USA | TEL +1.212.243.1200 | SITE KnowledgeAgency.com | BLOG TimWoodPowell.com |
From:
<main@SIKM.groups.io> on behalf of "Madeleine Du Toit via groups.io" <mdutoit@...>
Hi, |
|
|
|
Murray Jennex
I agree with you Patrick as I would look at learning how to do the analysis and how to improve that process as a reflection of KM maturity (you would be surprised how many organizations don't think of learning to do the process better and just focus on the outcome). I was just speculating that in the PM world they are probably looking at knowledge processes a little differently. PM is about managing short term activities to a conclusion, it is all about the end state when it comes to achieving project success and realizing project benefits. In that world asking for the end state is a very valid request and I think we need to work within their culture on this. Yes, we know that KM is an evolving set of capabilities and goals and continuous improvement. PM focuses on continuous improvement but with respect to very measurable goals. I don't think we will win many PMs over by not recognizing that they work in a world of short term activities with measurable goals and end states. Currently, PMs think of project knowledge as lessons learned, we can help them expand that concept to be more inclusive of process and capability improvement. However, I think PMs will only shake their heads at us if we refuse to work our concepts into the way their world works. PMs are more concerned with knowledge (singular) than broad knowledge (plural) and they are very focused on measuring benefits. When PMs say end state they mean after the project completes. Our answer that there is no end state means to PMs that we aren't talking projects and instead have moved into programs, perhaps we should state that very clearly PMs are not doing stand alone KM projects but that they need to look at as a KM program with a series of KM projects. The KM projects can and must have an end state with measurable benefits and goals. Most of our discussion has focused on the KM program (and rightfully so). My read of the original question leads me to see this difference in concepts and perhaps that is the first step to answering this question, emphasizing that KM is not a project but a program....murray
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Lambe <plambe@...> To: main@SIKM.groups.io Sent: Thu, Nov 3, 2022 2:04 am Subject: Re: [SIKM] Knowledge Maturity #maturity Hi Murray
You are quite right to make a distinction between specific knowledge artefacts/ resources and knowledge in general or “knowledges” pertaining to a domain, and I accept that specific knowledge resources (usually explicit) may reach an end state.
However, I find it more useful to think of the broader knowledge ground out of which those resources are produced, which guides how they are applied, and which determines when they need to be updated, discarded or replaced. And against that ground, (as you point out) different knowledge resources change at different paces - “knowledge pace layering” if you like. Managing that environment is the real point, I think.
For example, in your case of the engineering solution, yes the solution is interesting and important, but the “ground” of knowledge out of which that solution was produced and in which is it used, is the more important resource, I think, because it is that which tells us how and when to renew it.
Why more useful? Because none of what we do makes sense if we don’t look beyond the resource to the purpose and context of using the resource.
P
Patrick Lambe
Partner Straits Knowledge phone: +65 98528511 web: www.straitsknowledge.com resources: www.greenchameleon.com knowledge mapping: www.aithinsoftware.com 
|
|
|
|
Patrick Lambe
Absolutely Murray, in fact my thought on reading the original question was that the PM mindset is to manage from start to end, and that may be where the particular phrasing of the question came from.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
However, I’m not sure I agree on accommodating to this mindset too much, without giving some push back, especially with regard to double loop learning, and managing critical knowledge across multiple projects. I think your distinction between a project and a program is an excellent way to do that. P
Patrick Lambe
Partner Straits Knowledge phone: +65 98528511 web: www.straitsknowledge.com resources: www.greenchameleon.com knowledge mapping: www.aithinsoftware.com 
|
|
|
|
Madeleine,
For us this accomplishes several things:
Implementation? For us, implementation of KM efforts and initiatives have always been about small, incremental wins that each build on each other. That way we bring along our audiences without losing them by moving too quickly, and allows us to:
Best regards,
David B. Graffagna
|
|
|
|
Matt Finch
This is also where I'm interested in exploring how scenario work can feed into KM - those key questions
depend so much on extrinsic contextual factors, both within the business environment and beyond, that it might be fascinating as well as useful to manufacture contrasting and challenging plausible visions of the futures which await.
What does "the end game"/maturity/successful implementation look like, depending on the future context that the organization finds itself moving into - and especially if it's not a context that was anticipated or desired?
Matt
|
|
|
