Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Le téléchargement de votre SlideShare est en cours. ×

Knowledge Retention Framework and Maturity Model

Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Publicité
Chargement dans…3
×

Consultez-les par la suite

1 sur 27 Publicité
Publicité

Plus De Contenu Connexe

Similaire à Knowledge Retention Framework and Maturity Model (20)

Plus par SIKM (20)

Publicité

Plus récents (20)

Knowledge Retention Framework and Maturity Model

  1. 1. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Knowledge Retention (KR) Framework and Maturity Model How to accomplish Knowledge Retention and assess its maturity Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – V.2
  2. 2. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Peer review: ☞ John Coles ☞ Dr. Lina Salazar ☞ Helen Gillman ☞ Chris Collison ☞ Focus Group KMI ☞ Patrick Burkhalter ☞ Kate Pugh ☞ Sarah Cummings ☞ Dr. John Lewis ☞ Tara Mohn, PMP, CKM ☞ Katharina Lobeck Table of Contents What is new Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Overview Of Knowledge Retention 1 2 Knowledge Retention Framework 3 Knowledge Retention Maturity Model 4 Knowledge Retention Process 5 Addenda: KRMM MEASUREMENT LEVEL DEFINITIONS KRMM ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS Version 2: Includes a revision of the framework and maturity model, a revision of the questions and offers a sample of the process. CLICK TO ACCESS ARTICLE
  3. 3. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Is Knowledge Retention? Section One: Knowledge Retention Overview What Who Engages in Knowledge Retention? How How to accomplish K.R.? How to assess its maturity? Have a KR Framework? Have a KR Maturity Model? Why
  4. 4. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Bibendum Knowledge Retention is an organization’s capability to retain unique and critical knowledge WHETHER TACIT, IMPLICIT OR EXPLICIT What Who sizes Individual Projects, small groups Departments, programs, functions Organization level Across organizations reasons Org. Memory Innovation & Co-creation Retirement & Job movement Networks & relationships Culture of collaboration Expertise development levels Board and executive Middle management Individual contributor scopes Person Role Task ways In-person Virtual Blended How Accomplish K.R. Assess maturity K.R. Framework Techniques Processes Tools GUIDANCE EXIT INTERVIEWS MENTOR/PROTÉGÉ YELLOW PAGES PROFILES VIDEOS AND MANY MORE… TEMPLATES DATABASES LESSONS LEARNED APPS WEBSITES AND MANY MORE… KNOWLEDGE JAM 4 STEP KR PROCESS KMAP APPRECIATIVE INQUIRY KNOWLEDGE CAFÉ AND MANY MORE… Explicit Tacit Knowledge Flexible and User-focus Follows ISO 30401:2018 Under KR. Leadership Involves Key Staff through Interviews and Focus Groups Baseline through 3 Levels ´ approach (questionnaire) Impact analysis vis-à-vis KR Framework 1 2 3 4 5 6 KR Framework provides a single, consistent approach for understanding Knowledge Retention. The framework creates an opportunity to broadly understand KR. Why KRMM can assess your current status, help you gain shared clarity on your desired future state, and provide recommendations for how to achieve that desired state. Improve learning, memory and performance Avoid knowledge drain and low employee engagement Months/years before; Days/weeks before or After the knowledge is gone INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE Why does this knowledge need to live on?
  5. 5. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Challenges and barriers Lack of buy-in Lack of commitment Lack of leadership ”this is how we always done things, nothing is going to change Cultural issues KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE “We do it, we have repositories” Lack of follow through and application “I already know everything” “I don’t like that person” “I have nothing to learn from you” “Will I lose my job if I share?” Other common barriers Time issues Lack of governance Concerns about litigations Lack of a central repository Definition of K Transfer and Retention “Faster to start from scratch” “I don’t have time” Resistance to share and receive Not seen as central to performance management Fear of being exposed - not being prepared Not part of process improvement Poor dissemination and application of lessons learned KR not recognized as a process Senior management
  6. 6. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention KRF provides a single, consistent approach for understanding Knowledge Retention. The framework creates an opportunity to broadly understand KR. Section Two: Knowledge Retention Framework (KRF) Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention
  7. 7. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Creating awareness & understanding Improving, Learning and Measuring Defining purpose & stakeholders Knowledge Mgmt Buy-in KM strategy available. KM Maturity KM balance: people, process and technology Knowledge flows KM policies and governance Culture towards collaboration Senior management engagement Org. Culture and Context Stakeholders Why & Purpose Process Definition Feasibility impact Prog. Definition What is the overall organizational purpose for Knowledge Retention? Is it for retirees or organization capabilities? Is it for individuals, teams or the organization? How much time do you have? Stakeholder analysis: Who has the knowledge? Who needs the knowledge? What are each of their needs? How long will the knowledge be valuable? Does the knowledge focus on a person, a role or a capability? Have you considered knowledge about people, process, and technology? Which polarities do you need to manage, and how? Which process(es) enable Knowledge Retention? Are there feedback loops and continuous improvement examples? What is the feedback from our customers and stakeholders? What is the quality of our processes? How much are we learning, and how quickly? What is important for us to measure? What tools do you use to measure and visualize and analyze the data? Learning Measurement Feedback The KR Framework K. Gaps
  8. 8. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Section Three: Knowledge Retention Maturity Model “Maturity relates to the degree of formality and optimization of processes; from ad-hoc practices to formally defined steps, to manage results metrics, to active optimization of the processes." KM Teaching Group Universitas Telkom
  9. 9. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention 01 02 03 04 05 Lesser Retention Higher Retention Level 01 Initial Ad-hoc Level 02 Repeateable but inconsistent Level 03 Defined processes Level 04 Managed and measurable Level 05 Optimized KR Maturity Model: The 5 levels of KR Maturity Awareness and understanding Stakeholders and Processes Improvement Learning and Measuring 3 Areas of assessment Shared clarity and context Judicious alignment of needs and resources Sustainable checks and balances
  10. 10. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention 01 02 03 04 05 Lesser Retention Higher Retention Level 01 Initial Ad-hoc Level 02 Repeateable but inconsistent Level 03 Defined processes Level 04 Managed and measurable Level 05 Optimized KR Maturity Model: The 5 levels of KR Maturity Awareness and understanding Stakeholders and Processes Improvement Learning and Measuring 3 Areas of assessment KM assessment Capacity assessment KR approach assessment Stakeholder assessment Infrastructure assessment Processes assessment Performance assessment Learning application assessment Measurement assessment
  11. 11. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention UNDERSTAND ENGAGEMENT TO KM Management engagement, culture and possibility to improve KR with KM processes and systems UNDERSTAND CAPABILITIES TO RECOGNIZE AND APPLY KNOWLEDGE From complete dependence on individual skills and abilities to expertise integration and knowledge leverage UNDERSTAND CURRENT APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE RETENTION AND ASPIRATIONAL APPROACH Where "they believe they are" and "where they want to be" UNDERSTAND INVOLVEMENT OF CRITICAL STAKEHOLDERS in enforcing knowledge retention and supporting learning and career development / motivation and incentives UNDERSTAND HOW STAKEHOLDERS CONTRIBUTE OR NOT TO THE RETENTION OF CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE Search and finding, usability, knowledge elicitation UNDERSTAND HOW STRUCTURE, PROCESSES AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTE TO KNOWLEDGE RETENTION OF TACIT, IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE UNDERSTAND WHETHER K-RETENTION IS CONSIDERED AS PART OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Relation to knowledge-drain / loss and how important is retention to performance UNDERSTAND HOW LEARNING CONTRIBUTES TO PERFORMANCE Impact of learning and application beyond statistics UNDERSTAND HOW THE K. RETENTION STRATEGY, PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS IMPACT ON THE ORGANIZATION´S PERFORMANCE AND THE IMPACT OF KNOWLEDGE LOSS AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDERS AND PROCESSES IMPROVEMENT LEARNING AND MEASURING
  12. 12. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Levels § Level 01: Initial ad-hoc § Level 02: Repeatable but inconsistent § Level 03: Defined process § Level 04: Managed and measurable § Level 05: Optimized Example: Assessment Result & Visual KM ASSESSMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT KR APPROACH ASSESSMENT STAKEHOLDERS ASSESSMENT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT PROCESSES ASSESSMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT LEARNING APPL. ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENT ASSESSMENT 01 02 03 04 05 LEVEL Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING STAKEHOLDERS AND PROCESSES IMPROVEMENT, LEARNING AND MEASURING
  13. 13. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention 01 02 03 04 05 This is where you think you are Where you wish to reach Example: Final Assessment Result This is where you actually are Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention KM ASSESSMENT CAPACITY ASSESSMENT KR APPROACH ASSESSMENT STAKEHOLDERS ASSESSMENT INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT PROCESSES ASSESSMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT LEARNING APPL. ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENT ASSESSMENT LEVEL 01 02 03 04 05 01 02 03 04 05
  14. 14. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Section Four: Knowledge Retention Process Are we thinking like small organizations ?
  15. 15. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Starting a team, document, share results. Tactical Process What is it that you need? Assessment Process Objectives, track status, funding levels, resource tracking. Programme Process Are we thinking like small organizations ? Initial assessment Where do you want to work? Is there an area the you already know you would like to work to improve? Do you need a clear picture? maybe maturity model can help you understand better Have you considered the Framework as supporting tool? How well is the situation? How is it handled? How is it delivered? How is it performed? How is it shared?
  16. 16. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention START 5. REFLECTION & LEARNING 4. IMPLEMENTATION 3 ASSESSMENT TOOLS DEFINITION 2 B A S E L I N E 1 OBJECTIVE What is it that you need? Where do you think you are WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT KR IS HAPPENING Interviews / focus groups with key stakeholders Where you actually are MATURITY MODEL COMPARISON Where you want to go MATURITY MODEL COMPARISON Agree on scope, timeframe, tools Assess Info sharing processes, and k drain/ risk critical points Identify the needs, who is involved, what resources are available Assessment Process: Show advancements MATURITY MODEL COMPARISON In-depth assessment Reporting, document lessons learned and good practices, recommendations How your part contributes to the whole Reflect, Document, Recommend Gain shared clarity of the need of KR Set-up Baseline based on priorities Detail analysis of required part: focus, needs, gaps, etc RE-START
  17. 17. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention • Understand the context, culture and support • Timeframe and resources • What capacity there is to carry out the system and transfer knowledge (SWOT) • Is there any specific approach, formal, ad-hoc, informal? Good practices? • Why are we retaining knowledge in movements? • Which movements? onboarding, transfer, departure • Who are the key stakeholders in the process: HR, PROGRAMME TEAM, ITC, ETC. - when and how to involve them? • Feasibility impact: • WHAT KNOWLEDGE: • PERSON/ROLE/TASK • DATA/DOCUMENTS • SKILLS / METHODS / TALENT / EXPERIENCE • NETWORKS • WHAT TOOLS/SYSTEMS/PROCESSES do we need to prevent from knowledge drain, identify and use critical and unique knowledge and prevent from reinventing the wheel? (explicit, implicit, tacit) • Knowledge gaps: map needs, priorities and lack of access to critical knowledge at various stages • Is the retention approach systematized? • Is it reviewed? Who participates in the revision? How often? • What have we learned from the previous retention initiatives? • Is the knowledge transferred being used? • How can we measure it? What is the impact? • How is the system sustained? • Are we mapping knowledge life cycles? • Assess improvement vis-à-vis Maturity Model Org. Memory Innovation & Co-creation Retirement & Job movement Networks & relationships Culture of collaboration Expertise development reasons How do you work-on with staff movements? ASSESSMENT: How to create an ongoing process that contributes to a culture of retention, access and transfer
  18. 18. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention One-to-One / Job-Specific Revision One-to-specific group (Leadership, HQ, Managers) One-to-individual/group/all Job Profile / Map / Critical Tasks Review Competence Mapping / Transition Plan Knowledge Loss Risk Assessment Key contact Template Handover report Exit Interview (smart questioning) After Action Review Check sheets The Bible Profile tasks priority definition Lessons learnt review The Wave Organization Journey Map & Trends Analysis Job Shadowing / Apprenticeship On-the job training / Coaching / Mentoring Mentoring / Active Senior Subject-matter expert part-time support / consultancies / short-term job bank One-to-group/all Emeritus programmes Wise/elderly support group History Scan / The Wave / Trends After Action Review / In-depth interview Group problem solving Revision annotated regulations Specific Institutional Memory revision In-depth lessons learnt revision History Scan Communities of Practice / Social networking Blogs / Wikis / Discussion Forums Ted chats (podcasts, videos, audio) Participation on-line Communities and Social networks Blogs / Wikis / Discussion Forums Ted chats (podcasts, videos, audio) Knowledge Café / Coffee Roulette Legacy talks / Oral stories / Storytelling Knowledge markets / fairs Knowledge Café / Coffee Roulette Legacy Talks / Oral stories / Storytelling Knowledge Market / Fairs Publications, Memoirs Participation at Trainings, Conferences Collaboration on e-learning tools, guidelines, tutorials, etc Publications / Memoirs Ad-hoc participation in trainings, Conferences, Ad-hoc support to develop specific training tools TACIT KNOWLEDGE External support coaching
  19. 19. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Addendum 1: KRMM Measurement Level Definitions 03 02 01
  20. 20. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention 3 AREAS TO KR ASSESSMENT LEVEL 1: INITIAL AC-HOC LEVEL 2: REPEATABLE BUT INTUITIVE LEVEL 3: DEFINED PROCESS LEVEL 4: MANAGED AND MEASURABLE LEVEL 5: OPTIMIZED 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING Share clarity and context KM Assessment UNDERSTAND ENGAGEMENT TO KM Management engagement, culture and possibility to improve KR with KM processes and systems No KM approach / vision No management engagement No supporting culture Ad-hoc processes and systems but no focus on KR KM Strategy may or not be created but management is not on board nor the culture helps. Depends on individual to retain the knowledge. Little retention but no systems to support. KM may or not be in place but there are processes and systems that support retention. Management may be involved and a collaborative systems conduce to a supportive culture KM in place supporting KR structures and processes. Senior management on board promoting a collaborative culture. Systems and process in place to set retention. Measurement targets the process. = level 4 + Feedback mechanisms. Measurement targets the impact and improves upon Capacity Assessment UNDERSTAND CAPABILITIES TO RECOGNIZE AND APPLY KNOWLEDGE From complete dependence on individual skills and abilities to expertise integration and knowledge leverage DEFAULT: Complete dependence on individual skills and abilities. REACTIVE: Ability to perform tasks constituting the basic business of the organization repeatably AWARE: restricted ability for data-driven decision making. Restricted ability to leverage internal expertise. Ability to manage virtual teams well. CONVINCED: Quantitative decision making for strategic and operational applications widespread. High ability to leverage internal and external sources of expertise. SHARING: Ability to manage organizational competence quantitatively. Strong ROI- driven decision making. Streamlined process for leveraging new ideas for business advantage. KR Approach Assessment UNDERSTAND CURRENT APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE RETENTION AND ASPIRATIONAL APPROACH Where "they believe they are" and "where they want to be” No KR strategy or vision Ad-hoc experiences, no critical K identification. Self- assessment is voluntary. Efforts may vary but there is a vision and identification of critical and unique knowledge. No revision. Employee self- assessment is generally done. There is a vision. Clear awareness of “knowledge drain” and definition of critical knowledge. Employee self- assessment is signed by supervisor and used during movements. There is a vision. Clear roles and responsibilities. Awareness and efforts to prevent knowledge drain. Critical and unique knowledge is prioritized. Feedback from employee self-assessment to drive the project. = level 4 + Measurement – revision scheduled of critical knowledge and update. Feedback mechanisms. Assess impact of KR.
  21. 21. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention 3 AREAS TO KR ASSESSMENT LEVEL 1: INITIAL AC-HOC LEVEL 2: REPEATABLE BUT INTUITIVE LEVEL 3: DEFINED PROCESS LEVEL 4: MANAGED AND MEASURABLE LEVEL 5: OPTIMIZED 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% STAKEHOLDERS AND PROCESSES Judicious alignment of needs and resources Stakeholders Assessment UNDERSTAND INVOLVEMENT OF CRITICAL STAKEHOLDERS in enforcing knowledge retention and supporting learning and career development / motivation and incentives Critical Stakeholders do not enforce retention practices. EG. HUMAN RESOURCES: Retention is not part of Personnel TORs. Mapping of staff but not shared. No mapping of jobs or critical knowledge. Some exit interviews and handover but more as protocol than feedback. There are some retention practices, some very personal driven. Not clarity, when these champions disappear, so do the retention practices. EG. HUMAN RESOURCES: Personnel participates in staff movements with “retention approach” – and develop demographic profiles shared ahead. Smart interviews and handover reports with feedback mechanisms and. mentoring There are some standardized processes across the organization. EG. HUMAN RESOURCES: Develop demographic profiles and movements considering career development. Incentives and contribute to sharing culture and motivation. Job maps are established across and development of policies for K- Retention. Practices include job shadowing, knowledge cafes, storytelling. = level 3 plus policy development for knowledge retention. Involved in definition of critical and unique knowledge: critical – task review and prioritization. =level 4 plus feedback impact assessments and constant improvement. 4 step-KR Process. Infrastructure Assessment UNDERSTAND HOW STAKEHOLDERS CONTRIBUTE OR NOT TO THE RETENTION OF CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE Search and finding, usability, knowledge elicitation Little involvement All process rely on infrastructure technology. Limited sharing processes. IT participates in developing retention systems. Infrastructure technology become relevant for retention. Some defined processes consider User´s request. Support findability, usability, search, elicitation. (low) involved in learning and improving. Support findability, usability, search, elicitation. (high) Machine learning. Processes Assessment UNDERSTAND HOW STRUCTURE, PROCESSES AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTE TO KNOWLEDGE RETENTION OF TACIT, IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE Preservation and transfer methods individual-driven. One way "pushed" communications Some tacit and implicit knowledge shared heavy on technology. Low - feedback without trust/safety, not honest or candid, sugar coated Critical skills definition. Technology and individual collaboration and sharing. Low trust. Tacit implicit and explicit knowledge considered. Low trust. Low - feedback with trust/safety, honest or candid in small groups/teams/projects Balance based on needs btw technology and individual. Trust Distinction between preservation, acquisition and transfer according to needs and audiences. High (automation, machine learning) Systems thinking Example: High - feedback with trust / safety / honest / candid at program/dept level - with double loop learning - visible improvement - giving back - reciprocate
  22. 22. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention 3 AREAS TO KR ASSESSMENT LEVEL 1: INITIAL AC-HOC LEVEL 2: REPEATABLE BUT INTUITIVE LEVEL 3: DEFINED PROCESS LEVEL 4: MANAGED AND MEASURABLE LEVEL 5: OPTIMIZED 0-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100% IMPROVEMENT, LEARNING AND MEASURING Sustainable checks and balances Performance Assessment UNDERSTAND WHETHER K-RETENTION IS CONSIDERED AS PART OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Relation to knowledge-drain / loss and how important is retention to performance Resistance to share and receive. Tendency to reinvent the wheel. Retention is not linked to performance. No accountability. K- shared ad-hoc based-on contacts. Individual - driven Resistance to share. Lower tendency to reinvent the wheel. No accountability. Some tacit knowledge shared heavy on technology. Not accountable. Identification of unique and critical knowledge as part of performance. Acknowledge learning from the past. Accountability. Critical and unique knowledge is shared across departments. And adapt old. Self assessment is part of performance. Explicit and tacit knowledge are considered. Collaboration is incentivized. Accountability Performance continues growing. Collaboration allows improvement with creativity and innovation. Accountability. Self assessment is essential for performance development. Learning Application Assessment UNDERSTAND HOW LEARNING CONTRIBUTES TO PERFORMANCE Impact of learning and application beyond statistics Learning relies on the individual. Learning is provided but not assessed. Learning is part of the system. Track and monitor learning. Analysis of who receives what training. Learning is part of the system. Limited assessment of impact of learning. Critical learning impacts performance. Learning and application. Measured + Feedback to improve. Measurement Assessment UNDERSTAND HOW THE K. RETENTION STRATEGY, PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS IMPACT ON THE ORGANIZATION´S PERFORMANCE AND THE IMPACT OF KNOWLEDGE LOSS No measurement Some measurement of the process Measure the process Measure the process and impact Measure on impact and improve upon.
  23. 23. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention Addendum 2: KRMM Assessment Guiding Questions 03 02 01
  24. 24. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING UNDERSTAND ENGAGEMENT TO KM. Management engagement, culture and possibility to improve KR with KM processes and systems UNDERSTAND CAPABILITIES TO RECOGNIZE AND APPLY KNOWLEDGE FROM COMPLETE DEPENDENCE ON INDIVIDUAL SKILLS AND ABILITIES TO EXPERTISE INTEGRATION AND KNOWLEDGE LEVERAGE UNDERSTAND CURRENT APPROACH TO KNOWLEDGE RETENTION AND ASPIRATIONAL APPROACH - WHERE "THEY BELIEVE THEY ARE" AND "WHERE THEY WANT TO BE" Supporting Questions Consider The Following Questions As Optional Guide, There Is No Need To Use Them All. 01 02 03 04 05 LEVEL KM ASSESSMENT No KM approach / vision No management engagement No supporting culture Ad-hoc processes and systems but no focus on KR KM Strategy may or not be created but management is not on board nor the culture helps. Depends on individual to retain the knowledge. Little retention but no systems to support. KM may or not be in place but there are processes and systems that support retention. Management may be involved and a collaborative systems conduce to a supportive culture KM in place supporting KR structures and processes. Senior management on board promoting a collaborative culture. Systems and process in place to set retention. Measurement targets the process. KM in place supporting KR structures and processes. Senior management on board promoting a collaborative culture. Systems and process in place to set retention. Measurement targets the process. CAPACITY ASSESSMENT DEFAULT: Complete dependence on individual skills and abilities. REACTIVE: Ability to perform tasks constituting the basic business of the organization repeatably AWARE: restricted ability for data- driven decision making. Restricted ability to leverage internal expertise. Ability to manage virtual teams well. CONVINCED: Quantitative decision making for strategic and operational applications widespread. High ability to leverage internal and external sources of expertise. SHARING: Ability to manage organizational competence quantitatively. Strong ROI-driven decision making. Streamlined process for leveraging new ideas for business advantage. KR APPROACH ASSESSMENT No KR strategy or vision Ad-hoc experiences, no critical K identification. Self- assessment is voluntary. Efforts may vary but there is a vision and identification of critical and unique knowledge. No revision. Employee self-assessment is generally done. There is a vision. Clear awareness of “knowledge drain” and definition of critical knowledge. Employee self- assessment is signed by supervisor and used during movements. There is a vision. Clear roles and responsibilities. Awareness and efforts to prevent knowledge drain. Critical and unique knowledge is prioritized. Feedback from employee self- assessment to drive the project. = level 4 + Measurement – revision scheduled of critical knowledge and update. Feedback mechanisms. Assess impact of KR. Tip: KEY TO UNDERSTAND 3 ASPECTS: SENIOR MANAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT TO KM AND KR PROCESSES, CULTURE ORIENTED TO COLLABORATION AND TRUST AND AVAILABILITY OF KM PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS TO SUPPORT KR. 1. STRATEGY & VISION THAT MEETS BUSINESS GOALS Is there a KM approach? Is the KM approach responding business goals? 2. SENIOR MANAGEMENT ENGAGEMENT Is the senior management / leadership in line with/understand a KM approach? Is the senior management supportive of KM? Is the senior management supportive of KR? 3. SUPPORTING CULTURE OF COLLABORATION What are the values that are important to the organization? What are the values that are important to the organization? Root cause of difficult problems. Relation to history. Rigid vs flexible approach / limits - frameworks / space for creativity and innovation. Approach to "critical thinking”. Credibility and "personalization" 4. KMPROCESSES Are there KM processes in place? Are they aware of the processes as K-related? Are the processes flexible and adaptable to the needs? Is there a readiness to improve processes? 5. KMSYSTEMS / TECHNOLOGY / TOOL Are there KM systems in place? Are they aware of the systems as K-related? Are the systems flexible and adaptable to the needs? Is there a readiness to improve systems? Tip: UNDERSTAND THE CAPACITIES TO RECOGNIZE AND APPLY NEW KNOWLEDGE, TO IDENTIFY ”CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE” AND THE LEVEL OF DEPENDENCY FROM THE INDIVIDUAL SKILLS AND ABILITIES TO EXPERTISE INTEGRATION AND KNOWLEDGE LEVERAGE. Purposes: benchmarking, recognition, understanding/awareness of KR, mm work inside my org for funding and productivity improvement. Understand our suffering, aware of knowledge drain, to establish system to relieve the suffering - where we are and where we want to go. Related to culture: the way things are doing around here. What is the usual process when new knowledge arrives - how is it handled / recorded / saved / codified / shared? . Tip: UNDERSTAND THE ASPIRATIONAL MODEL AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS AND WHERE THEY THINK THEY ARE 1. AVAILABLE K.R. STRATEGY THAT RESPONDS TO KMVISION/BUSINESS GOALS What is the current strategy is there is one? How the corporate memory is constructed? One department in charge or each one does they way? How the knowledge retention plans are coordinated? What are the challenges they foresee to the current approach? Where do they aspire to be? 2. AVAILABLE A K.R. PLAN(S) WITH ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Is there a clear distribution of roles and responsibilities : who does what? Is it homogeneous by department? Does it include a distribution of roles by individuals / teams / organization? (or just an organizational approach) Is it institutionalized? Or "flexible and not compulsory" approach? 3. INCLUDES APPROACH TO "AT RISK KNOWLEDGE" / K. LOST /DRAIN Is there an awareness to knowledge at risk / k. lost / k. drain? Is it specific approach by department / teams or generic? Is there any measure to counteract? (individual / teams-departments / formal - informal / generic-organizational? 4. INCLUDES PRIORITIZATION OF CRITICAL/UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE Is there an awareness of what is "critical knowledge"? Is this "critical knowledge" defined by individuals / teams / organization? Who determines what is critical? Is there a formal or informal process? Is there a way to prioritize critical knowledge? How? 5. CONSISTENCY & PERSISTENCY How often the "critical knowledge" is revised? Is there schedule for revision? 0-6 moths / 6m to 1 year / 1 years – more. How the critical knowledge is monitored / reviewed ? Is there a process of revision and approval? Are there feedback mechanisms in place? Is there a critical approach to define what is relevant? Double loop learning? How is new knowledge acquire and introduce? How does it remain? Personalized - institutionalized? Are there resources / staff allocated to this process / just informal / ad-hoc? Are there KEY performance indicators? If so- how do they transfer critical information? Feedback? motivation / incentives to K-Retention and Transfer? 6. EMPLOYEE SELF-ASSESSMENT Are there process where the individual determines what is critical to their position? Is there is, is this supervised? Is there a process? How this critical knowledge is passed on? Is it institutionalized? Is there a process?
  25. 25. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention UNDERSTAND INVOLVEMENT OF CRITICAL STAKEHOLDERS IN ENFORCING KNOWLEDGE RETENTION AND SUPPORTING LEARNING AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT / MOTIVATION AND INCENTIVES UNDERSTAND HOW STAKEHOLDERS CONTRIBUTE OR NOT TO THE RETENTION OF CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE. Search and finding, usability, knowledge elicitation UNDERSTAND HOW STRUCTURE, PROCESSES AND TOOLS CONTRIBUTE TO KNOWLEDGE RETENTION OF TACIT, IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE Supporting Questions Consider The Following Questions As Optional Guide, There Is No Need To Use Them All. 01 02 03 04 05 LEVEL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT Little involvement All process rely on infrastructure technology. Limited sharing processes. IT participates in developing retention systems. Infrastructure technology become relevant for retention. Some defined processes consider User´s request. Support findability, usability, search, elicitation. (low) involved in learning and improving. Support findability, usability, search, elicitation. (high) Machine learning. PROCESSES ASSESSMENT Preservation and transfer methods individual-driven. One way "pushed" communications Some tacit and implicit knowledge shared heavy on technology. Low - feedback without trust/safety, not honest or candid, sugar coated Critical skills definition. Technology and individual collaboration and sharing. Low trust. Tacit implicit and explicit knowledge considered. Low trust. Low - feedback with trust/safety, honest or candid in small groups/teams/projects Balance based on needs btw technology and individual. Trust Distinction between preservation, acquisition and transfer according to needs and audiences. High (automation, machine learning) Systems thinking Example: High - feedback with trust / safety / honest / candid at program/dept level - with double loop learning - visible improvement - giving back - reciprocate Tip: KEY TO UNDERSTAND THE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT TO ENSURE RETENTION BOTH AS INSTITUTIONALIZATION REFERENCE AS WELL AS DURING THE ACTUAL MOMENTS THAT REQUIRE TRANSFER AND RETENTION OF CRITICAL AND UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC -PROFILES & MOVEMENTS Does HR/Personnel assess the demographic approach and movements of staff? Is it shared? With whom? How often? 2. JOB-MAPS DEVELOPMENT COORDINATED WITH UNITS Is there a mapping of every job, roles, relation, critical k., how does it work in terms of requirements, solutions, processes, relations with others, etc. If there is a mapping who develops it? The individual / department / HR-personnel? Is this mapping Taken into consideration for staff development and movements? Does the mapping identify what is critical knowledge and if so to whom should be transferred? Is the learning and training included into the mapping? Are a minimum required skills per position taken into consideration when selecting staff or it is sometimes "flexible”. 3 ROTATION/MOVEMENTS CONSIDER STAFF CAREER DEVELOPMENT Do movements and rotation take into consideration career development? Or are they based on statistics? Do movement ensure knowledge retention process in an institutionalized manner? Are these processes standard? Are they always applied? Is feedback included to improve processes? Who is involved in the rotation processes? Are supervisors involved to ensure critical knowledge retention? Is enough time provided to ensure proper k. transfer and retention? 4. COORDINATED POLICIES TO RETAIN CRITICAL & UNIQUE K. Has personnel established a policy for k. retention before movements / rotation / separation? Is Personnel involved in the identification / approval of critical knowledge and retention processes? Has personnel a way of tracking critical knowledge? 5. ORG´S APPROACH TO ACQUIRE - TRANSFER & RETAIN K Does personnel encourage critical knowledge transfer and retention? Is personnel in charge of institutionalization of measures? Is this considered related too staff development? 6. PROCESSESS AND TOOLS ARE USED: EXIT INTERVIEWS, HAND OVER REPORTS, ETC - Which methods are used for that? Tip: CONSIDER THE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT, SUPPORT VS RESISTANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT. 1 LINKAGES WITH IT and RETENTION PROCESSES How IT influence senior management / leadership decisions? What is the role and involvement of IT in processes development? Has IT anything to do towards recording / ensuring archive of critical knowledge? 2. TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE (BARRIER?) Is technology infrastructure considered a barrier? Does every new system / dbase establish paths/linkages with previous / old ones? How old data is managed / archived / is there a way to recuperate it? Search / findability / usability approach towards k. retention systems . Tip: CONSIDER THE LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT , SUPPORT VS RESISTANCE FROM THE DEPARTMENT 1. HEAVY ON TECHNOLOGY VS INDIVIDUAL Where is the focus on retention? Is there a balance? Communication and sharing patterns? Documentation and codification 2 RELATION OF TRUST & DEVELOPMENT What are the motivational factors for knowledge transfer? Is the critical knowledge prioritized? Who determines the prioritization? How the old knowledge is archived? Who has access to it? Is there a knowledge lost risk assessment? 3 CRITICAL SKILLS DEFINITION Is there steps defined to minimize the impact of knowledge lost? How critical knowledge is captured? Is there a strategy / plan / process to identify knowledge at risk? is there a distinction in retention between knowledge and skills ? Is there a mapping /inventory of critical skills / tasks / priorities / objectives? Who knows about it? Who does it? 4 KNOWLEDGE PRESERVATION METHODS AND TOOLS (EXPLICIT) What tools and methods are used to preserve explicit knowledge? 5. KNOWLEDGE PRESERVATION METHODS AND TOOLS (TACIT) What tools and methods are used to preserve tacit knowledge? 6. METHODS FOR KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER Common methods for k. transfer 7. METHOD FOR ACQUISITION OF NEWKNOWLEDG Who identifies new knowledge? How this is being shared / archived / codified? Who knows about it? STAKEHOLDERS AND PROCESSES STAKEHOLDERS ASSESSMENT Critical Stakeholders do not enforce retention practices There are some retention practices, some very personal driven. Not clarity, when these champions disappear, so do the retention practices. There are some standardized processes across the organization. = level 3 plus policy development for knowledge retention. Involved in definition of critical and unique knowledge: critical – task review and prioritization. =level 4 plus feedback impact assessments and constant improvement. 4 step-KR Process.
  26. 26. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention UNDERSTAND WHETHER K-RETENTION IS CONSIDERED AS PART OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL Relation to knowledge-drain / loss and how important is retention to performance UNDERSTAND HOW LEARNING CONTRIBUTES TO PERFORMANCE Impact of learning and application beyond statistics UNDERSTAND HOW THE K. RETENTION STRATEGY, PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS IMPACT On the organization´s performance and the impact of knowledge loss Supporting Questions Consider The Following Questions As Optional Guide, There Is No Need To Use Them All. 01 02 03 04 05 LEVEL No measurement Some measurement of the process Measure the process Measure the process and impact Measure on impact and improve upon. Tip: KEY TO UNDERSTAND HOW KNOWLEDGE RETENTION IMPACTS PERFORMANCE AND THE LEVEL OF AWARENESS. WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A STRATEGY TO IDENTIFY UNIQUE AND CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE 1. COLLABORATIVE CULTURE VS RESISTANCE TO SHARE: MOTIVATION INCENTIVES. Ways of collaboration: flexibility - rigid / formal – informal. Is sharing rewarded / is it something everybody does in the same way? Is there trust in the processes of sharing/collaborating. How sharing / retaining and transfer done around here? 2. APPROACH TO ACCOUNTABILITY. Is there accountability in the process? - or retention is left to good will. Do people feel accountable for retaining and transfer critical knowledge? Does the process of retention encourage staff to share critical knowledge? 3. TYPE OF KNOWLEDGE SHARED Type of knowledge shared: context, relationship / contacts, person/role/task, history, project, architecture (where to find what?), parameters, group/department, basic education. How is "knowledge at risk” identified? Formal-informal / flexible-rigid? 4. COMMON WAYS OF TRANSFER KNOWLEDGE. What are the "usual" ways to transfer knowledge? Is there a distinction and understanding between Tacit, implicit and explicit knowledge? Is it focus on explicit knowledge only? Or also includes tacit knowledge? Is there an awareness of explicit (20% technology focus) and tacit (80% human focus?) where is the balance / equilibrium? 5. COMMONN WAYS OF RETAINING KNOWLEDGE. What are the "most common" ways to retain knowledge? Are they aware of the % of knowledge lost? 6. CAPACITY TO BRING BACK AND ADAPT OLD KNOWLEDGE. Are there pre-established ways to retain and reuse old knowledge. Is it reusing for the sake of doing it or is there a critical approach to improve what is was done? Approach to not reinventing the wheel. Who determines who the knowledge is re-used and adapted? 7. UNIQUE AND CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE - SELF ASSESSMENT. What kind of knowledge / skills do you now have that the organization will miss most when you leave? If you had to leave the organization suddenly, what are the critical issues that you need to inform / ensure they are passed on. Looking back what are the things you wished you had been taught early on in your job that you eventually learned? Key resources (procedures, manuals etc) that you use to do your job. What roles ("hats") do you play? What are the key evident and not evident activities that you normally carry out. What are the key resources / contacts / info flows. Are they any important type of knowledge at risk when you go? Any issue you are worried about? How did you learn the things you know? What were the critical training programmes? How to use programmes / tools / equipment / systems. Tip: CONSIDER HOW LEARNING CONTRIBUTES TO PERFORMANCE AND CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT 1. DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING VS SINGLE LOOP - (M&E) How the organization learns? Is it thought to be critical thinking? Is there space for questioning? And improving? Are there the internal process for assessment / M&E contribute to improvements? Are there processes for self- / department / organization evaluation contribute to improve systems and processes? Do they contribute to performance? 2. APPROACH TO FEEDBACK Does staff feel entitled to provide "critical and constructive feedback? Is feedback taken into consideration to "continuously improving" 3. TRACK AND MONITOR (LEARNING MEASUREMENT) Who determines what to improve? Is there a way to track and measure learning and k. at risk? 4. IMPACT OF LEARNING AND APPLICATION How learning is applied and measured? Mindset towards change . Tip: CONSIDER NOT ONLY MONITORING THE PROCESSES BUT ALSO THE IMPACT OF KR ON PERFORMANCE. MEASUREMENT REQUIRES MEASURING THE PROCESSES AS WELL AS IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE 1. M&E Monitoring and evaluation of k-retention plans and strategy Assess plan for knowledge at risk Assess impact and credibility of k-retention plan / strategy Measurement of impact of knowledge transfer Measurement of impact of learning in performance Impact of collaboration Flows of information Effectiveness of knowledge transfer 2. ONA ONA (organization network analysis) assess flows of information sharing IMPROVEMENT, LEARNING AND LEARNING Resistance to share and receive. Tendency to reinvent the wheel. Retention is not linked to performance. No accountability. K- shared ad-hoc based-on contacts. Individual - driven Resistance to share. Lower tendency to reinvent the wheel. No accountability. Some tacit knowledge shared heavy on technology. Not accountable. Identification of unique and critical knowledge as part of performance. Acknowledge learning from the past. Accountability. Critical and unique knowledge is shared across departments. And adapt old. Self assessment is part of performance. Explicit and tacit knowledge are considered. Collaboration is incentivized. Accountability Performance continues growing. Collaboration allows improvement with creativity and innovation. Accountability. Self assessment is essential for performance development. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT Learning relies on the individual. Learning is provided but not assessed. Learning is part of the system. Track and monitor learning. Analysis of who receives what training Learning is part of the system. Limited assessment of impact of learning. Critical learning impacts performance. Learning and application. Measured + Feedback to improve. LEARNING APPLICATION ASSESSMENT MEASUREMENT ASSESSMENT
  27. 27. Rocio Sanz, John Hovell © 2020 – v.2 Knowledge Management, Knowledge Transfer and Knowledge Retention § Rsanz7117@gmail.com § http://www.linkedin.com/in/rocio-sanz Rocio Sanz John Hovell § John.Hovell@STRATactical.com § http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JohnHovell1 Contact information:

×