OECD Knowledge Management Project: Report - Danish Pilot-Survey

OECD Knowledge Management
project
Report - Danish pilot-survey
Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey
OECD SURVEY OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................................................2
1.1 W HY A SURVEY OF KNOWLEDGE M ANAGEMENT IS NEEDED ................................................................................................2
1.2 BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE PROJECT WHAT WILL THE MAIN STUDY BE USED FOR?..............................................2
1.3 THE PART NERS..............................................................................................................................................................................3
1.4 W HAT WILL THE PILOT STUDY BE USED FOR?..........................................................................................................................3
1.5 W HO IS INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY? ..........................................................................................................................................4
2. METHODOLOGY OF THE PILOT STUDY.........................................................................................................................4
2.1 P ROCEDURES AND METHODS......................................................................................................................................................4
3. THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN GENERAL .................................................................................................................................6
3.1 HOW THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS DRAWN UP .............................................................................................................................6
3.2 THE DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE M ANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................6
3.3 THE STRUCTURE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................................7
3.4 A CCOMPANYING LETTER............................................................................................................................................................7
3.5 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS RELATING TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................................................7
3.6 A DJUSTMENTS IN THE DANISH SURVEY IN RELATION TO THE OECD QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................10
4. TENDENCIES IN THE DATA................................................................................................................................................. 15
4.1 GENERAL TENDENCIES ..............................................................................................................................................................15
4.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS WHO DO NOT PRACTISE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT .........................................16
4.3 A NSWERS SEEN IN RELATION TO BACKGROUND VARIABLES...............................................................................................16
4.4 CORRELATION BETWEEN RESULTS OBTAINED AND LEVEL OF ACTIVITY............................................................................16
5. DENMARKS SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................ 18
6. CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATION TO DANISH DECISION MAKERS ...................................................... 19
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 21
APPENDIX 1. THE QUES TIONNAIRE IN DETAIL ........................................................................................................... 22
APPENDIX 2: CORRESPONDENCE TABLE BETWEEN THE OECD QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE
DANISH QUESTIONNAIRE........................................................................................................................................................ 36
APPENDIX 3: DEFINITIONS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT............................................................................. 37
APPENDIX 4: SEQUENCE CHART OF THE PILOT STUDY......................................................................................... 38
ATTACHED:
RESULTS OF THE DANIS H SURVEY (OVERVIEW)
Page 1
15-04-2002
OECD Survey of Knowledge Management

1. Introduction
The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) has taken the initiative
to conduct an international survey on what kinds of Knowledge Management practices are used
in the private sector, and how effective these are perceived to be. This interim report 1 results
from a pilot study conducted towards this end. The purpose of the pilot study is to develop and
test out the questionnaire to be used in the eventual analysis. Statistics Canada has been the
leading force behind the pilot study, which is also being carried out in Germany, the USA and
possibly Australia.
The aim of this pilot study undertaken by the Centre of Management is
to develop further, and to test out, a questionnaire on the use of Knowledge
Management in the private sector in Denmark.
The pilot study has resulted in this interim report, which contains the Centre
of Managements proposals for improving the questionnaire.
The final questionnaire will later be used to investigate what kinds of
practices are employed to promote the sharing, transfer, assimilation and
maintenance of knowledge in the private sector in the OECD countries, and
to what extent organizations find them effective.
This section briefly introduces the background to the project.

1.1 Why a survey of Knowledge Management is needed
The utilization of knowledge has been seen as a significant factor in giving an enterprise
competitive advantage. Organizations which have looked seriously at their use of knowledge
have discovered that they possess more knowledge than they realise. As the Danish company
Systematic puts it in its recent intellectual capital report 2 : If only Systematic knew what
Systematic knows - pointing to the great benefits that arise from being able to identify, gather
and utilize knowledge in such a way as to derive maximum value from it. This sets new
challenges for management. For intellectual capital has to be managed and Knowledge
Management is now on the agenda. At any rate, that is what we are told by modern
management theorists3 .
So far, however, there have been few studies of Knowledge Management, and those that exist
focus primarily on large enterprises. They provide no basis for cross-border analysis, nor for
linking data with other national or international studies. Moreover, although the concept of
Knowledge Management is today more and more widely used, there is no common terminology
to deal with the concept.
1.2 Background and aims of the project what will the main study be used for?
The OECD will set the spotlight on Knowledge Management by carrying out a survey of the
kinds of practices that are used to acquire and share knowledge in the private sector, and how
effective these are considered to be.
1
The final report will be sent out 14 days after the fourth OECD meeting, due to be held in March 2002.
This report can be downloaded on www.systematic.dk
3
See for example Drucker (1993), who directly refers to the age we live in as the knowledge society in Post-capitalist
society , New York: HarperBusiness, 1993; Peter Holdt Christensen (ed.) Viden om ledelse, viden og virksomheden,
(Knowledge about management, knowledge and business), Samfundslitteratur, 2000; George Von Krogh, Kazuo
Ichijo, Ikujiro Nonaka Enabling Knowledge Creation How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the
Power of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 2000
2
Page 2
15-04-2002
OECD governments will be able to use the results of the study in deciding what forms of
intervention could help promote business competitiveness through Knowledge Management.
Private companies will be able to use the results as an inspiration and a starting point for
comparative studies.
Trade associations and researchers will be able to use the results to evaluate the impact and
effects of various practices, among other things by linking the data with other national
databases.
It is intended that the survey of Knowledge Management be carried out on a regular basis
within the OECD with a view to establishing a benchmarking database which would facilitate
international comparison among OECD countries. It is hoped that this database will be linked
with other data through using existing official surveys in the respective countries. At the same
time the aim is to standardise the terminology used throughout the OECD.
The aim of the main survey is to investigate what kinds of practices are
used to promote the sharing, transfer, assimilation and maintenance of
knowledge in the private sector in the OECD countries, and to what extent
organizations find these practices effective.
1.3 The partners

The investigation will be carried out in the form of a survey. The following countries are
participating in discussions on the formulation of the questionnaire: Canada, Germany, France,
the UK, Australia, Italy, Denmark, Holland, the USA and Sweden.
Three countries - Canada, Germany and Denmark were commissioned to test out the
questionnaire by conducting pilot surveys 4 . Statistics Canada is the chief editor of this pilot
study, and in addition to the survey has carried out - in spring 2001 - a comprehensive series
of interviews. Denmark also carried out a series of interviews prior to the pilot survey. The
results of these interviews are included in this report.
1.4 What will the pilot study be used for?
The Centre of Management has used the information gathered by the pilot study to evaluate
how well the questionnaire works.
The aim of the pilot study is to improve, and to test out, a questionnaire
which will later be used to investigate the use of Knowledge Management in
the private sector in the OECD countries.
In addition, the Centre has done separate analyses which give some indication as to how
Danish companies are working with Knowledge Management, but it must be stressed that a
representative survey has not been carried out.
The results of the Danish study will be compared with the results from the other pilot studies.
i.e. those from Canada and Germany. This will happen at a meeting of the OECD in March
2002.
The pilot study has resulted in this interim report, which contains the Centre
of Managements proposals for improving the questionnaire and gives a first
indication of how KM is used in Denmark.
Pilot surveys may also be carried out in the USA and Australia
Page 3
15-04-2002
1.5 Who is included in the survey?

The object of the study is the entire private sector. The questionnaire is aimed at the top
manager of a given organization, i.e. the administrative director (chief executive officer), since
it is the top manager who may be expected to have overall strategic insight. In the Danish
questionnaire, however, no instructions were given as to who was to fill it out. The reason for
this was that we hoped to reveal relevant target groups by asking at the end of the
questionnaire who in fact had completed it. It has not yet been determined whom the final
OECD questionnaire should be aimed at.
2. Methodology of the Pilot Study

2.1 Procedures and methods
This study came into being as a result of a series of OECD meetings. Two of these meetings
were held before the pilot study was undertaken, and are not therefore referred to in this
report 5 .
The pilot study consisted of
Two meetings held by the Danish survey group, which consisted of leading authorities
in the fields of both Knowledge Management and survey techniques.
A series of interviews conducted in 6 Danish organizations.
A pilot survey carried out among 200 Danish organizations.
These procedures are illustrated in the sequence Chart in Appendix 4.
Survey group
The group consisted of the following individuals:
Benedicte Stakemann, Erhvervsfremme Styrelsen (Committee to Promote
Industry), Copenhagen
Peter Stendahl Mortensen, Analyseinstitut for forskning (Institute of Analysis and
Research), Aarhus
Marianne Stang Vland, Learning Lab Denmark, Copenhagen
Henning Madsen, Handelshjskolen i Aarhus, (Aarhus Business School), Aarhus
Heine Larsen, Ementor Denmark A/S, Copenhagen and Handelshjskolen i
Kbenhavn, (Copenhagen Business School), Copenhagen
Peter Holdt Christensen, Institut for Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi, Handelshjskolen i
Kbenhavn, (Institute of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen
Business School), Copenhagen
Bettina Hst Poulsen, the former Erhvervsministeriet, (The Danish Ministry of
Business Affairs), Copenhagen
The group held two meetings the first focussing on the original OECD-questionnaire, the
second on the results of the preliminary interviews. Both meetings gave rise to valuable
comments as to how to conduct the next stages of the study.
The interviews
Interviews were carried out in six different organizations: one large and one small
manufacturing company, one large commercial enterprise, one large and one small service
enterprise, and a research center6 . The interviews were conducted in the following manner:
The material was handed to the respondent, as if he/she had received it by regular mail. The
5
The Centre of Management took part in the third OECD meeting in July 2001.
The latter is not in the target group (private firms). However, at this point in the survey it was thought relevant to
test out the questionnaire in an organization whose existence is based on the ability to gather and process knowledge,
since an organization of this kind could be expected to have given thought to the management questions under
consideration.
6
Page 4
15-04-2002
respondent was then asked to verbally explain his/her thoughts while filing out the
questionnaire. In this way the interviewers were able to get quite a good picture of the
questions and formulations that c aused difficulty, and in the process a number of modifications
were made to the phrasing of individual questions.
The translation process
In the first instance the OECD questionnaire was translated directly from American-English into
Danish, and the first interviews were carried out on the basis of this questionnaire. The
experience of these interviews and the survey group meetings led after considerable
discussion to a substantial reformulation of most of the questions, so that their meaning and
significance were expressed more precisely in terms that made sense to the respondents.
Translation is a critical factor in ensuring that a cross-border comparison of the results of the
final survey can be made.
Those countries that wish to participate in the eventual survey must be prepared to devote
significant resources to the translation process, so that appropriate adjustments are made for
differences of both language and management procedure.
The pilot survey
The pilot survey was carried out in 400 enterprises in Canada, 200 in Germany and 200 in
Denmark.
In this pilot study Denmark chose not to link up with other databases, since the purpose of the
pilot study was to test out and improve the questionnaire, rather than to conduct a
representative study of Knowledge Management practices. Instead, the Danish questionnaire
for the pilot survey was supplemented with a number of background variables.
During October 2001 the Danish questionnaires were sent out with the aim of making a pilot
survey which could be compared with the other pilot surveys in Canada and Germany.
The respondents interviewed expressed the view that the questionnaire was too
comprehensive, and several of them would have chosen not to fill it out. It was therefore felt
necessary to devote further resources to obtaining as high a percentage of respondents as
possible. A very large proportion of the respondents were therefore contacted by telephone
before the questionnaire was sent out; similarly, respondents were reminded to return the
questionnaire after the deadline had passed. As a result, 61 questionnaires were filled out and
returned representing a 30% response rate. There are strong indications that this response
rate could not be obtained with an ordinary survey involving no tele phone contact. Obtaining a
reasonable rate of response is therefore another critical element in the success of the final
survey, and methods of gathering data should therefore be discussed.
For the pilot survey a random group of private firms and organizations was selected from a
total database7 containing all Danish enterprises with more than 50 employees and all
corporations and private limited companies with fewer than 50 employees.
The number of respondents is too low to make a representative study, nor indeed was this the
intention. However, efforts were made to ensure that the distribution of different types of
enterprise in the survey in terms of both size and trade corresponded approximately to
that in the database as a whole. The distributio n of the different types of enterprise within the
survey is shown in the figures below.
Kbmandsstandens CD-direct (The Business Worlds CD-Directory)
Page 5
15-04-2002
Table 2.1: Distribution in the pilot survey by number of employees
Antal Employees:
1-19
20-49
50-99
100-249
250-499
500-1.999
2000+
Distribution in the
total database:
36%
27%
20%
10%
4%
3%
0%
Distribution in the chosen

population of 200
enterprises
33%
26%
16%
12%
3%
1%
9%
Distribution among the

questionnaires returned (61
respondents)
34%
27%
17%
14%
3%
2%
3%
As can be seen, there is a relatively large percentage of enterprises with fewer than 20
employees, a fact that should be borne in mind when the results of the pilot study are
analysed. Even though this gives a true picture of the private sector in Denmark, the relevance
of including such small enterprises in the final study should be discussed.
Table2.2: Distribution in the pilot survey by sector
Trade:
Not answered
Agriculture, fishing, primary product
development
Manufacturing
Energy and water supply
Building and construction
Hotel and restaurant industry
Transport, post and telecommunications
Advisory and finance services
Public and private service industries
Other
Distribution in
total database:
Distribution in
test group of
200
respondents
2%
24 %
0%
13 %
25 %
9%
12 %
15 %
0%
1%
24 %
1%
10 %
26 %
8%
18 %
12 %
0%
Distribution
among
questionnaires
returned (61
respondents)
5%
2%
20%
2%
7%
21%
5%
11%
3%
24%
3. The questionnaire in general

3.1 How the questionnaire was drawn up
The questionnaire was discussed at a series of OECD meetings. The first of these was held in
Denmark in February 2001, when a first draft of the questionnaire was drawn up. This draft
was further developed by experts from a large number of OECD countries, and tested out in
Canada. The Centre of Management was brought into the process in June, when the design of
the questionnaire was discussed, first at a meeting of the Danish survey group, and
subsequently at a meeting of the OECD. The final design was settled in July.
3.2 The definition of Knowledge Management
There is an overwhelming number of definitions of Knowledge Management (See appendix 3),
and several of these were tested out in Canada in the course of the interviews that were
carried out there in spring 2001. With this research as a starting point, the various definitions
of Knowledge Management were discussed at the OECD meeting in July.
The final definition was KM involves any systematic activity related to the capture and sharing
of knowledge by the organization. This definition does not contain any explicit reference to the
transfer, the creation, the maintenance or the utilization of knowledge.
Page 6
15-04-2002
The Danish pilot study has shown that it is unfortunate that the utilization of knowledge has
been left out. Further finessing of the definition, or discussion of alternatives to it, is crucial to
the success of the final survey
Knowledge Management involves any systematic activity related to the
capture and sharing of knowledge by the organization
3.3 The structure of the questionnaire

The starting point for the questionnaire is a list of practices which can be used in Knowledge
Management. These are grouped under the headings:
policies and strategies
leadership
incentives
knowledge capture and acquisition
training and mentoring
communications
Respondents who indicate that they use one or more of these practices are asked to continue
with the questionnaire, while those who indicate that they use none are asked to proceed to
question 10, which relates to incentives that might encourage the respondents to implement
such practices (this is referred to hereafter as the skip-pattern).
Questions 2 9 deal with the reasons for, and the results of, implementing Knowledge
Management practices. Respondents are also asked in this section to state who has prime
responsibility for implementing these practices, who initiated them, whether resources are
dedicated to these activities and whether their impact is measured. Finally, they are asked
whether there has been any resistance within their organization to these initiatives.
Questions 11-14 relate to background data and administrative questions.
3.4 Accompanying letter
The Danish questionnaire was accompanied by a letter, the main purpose of which was to get
the respondents to fill in the questionnaire. Considerable weight was therefore put on the ways
in which respondents would benefit from filling it out. The accompanying letter contained a
description of who was behind the study, how long it would take to fill in the questionnaire, the
reasons for participating, the benefits to participants, the background to the study and how to
get in contact with the researchers involved.
3.5 General observations relating to the questionnaire
The experience of conducting this pilot survey has revealed a number of areas in which further
work is required if benefit is to be drawn from the study. In Appendix 1 we go through each
question in the questionnaire, giving concrete proposals for further consideration.
The concept of Knowledge Management should be demystified
The definition of Knowledge Management gave rise to discussion both during the interviews
with respondents and among the survey group. The problem is that Knowledge Management is
not a known concept, or is understood differently by different people. Moreover, the majority
of Knowledge Management activities have other purposes besides acquiring and sharing
knowledge, so that it is difficult to find a completely clear definition.
Even more therefore needs to be done to demystify the concept, and to stress that, to a
greater or lesser extent, Knowledge Management is already going on in many organizations
as a natural part of management in general.
Page 7
15-04-2002
This is underscored by the fact that Question 1 whether in the interviews or in the pilot
survey sorts the respondents into those who do, and those who do not use Knowledge
Management. There were in fact no respondents among those interviewed who chose to
answer no to Question 1 and go straight to Question 10 not even among those who
indicated at the outset of the interview that they did not use Knowledge Management. The
same tendency can be seen in the pilot survey. Altogether seven of the 61 respondents chose
to use the skip possibility. Of these only three followed the skip-pattern envisaged. The others
either answered yes to Question 1 or skipped other parts of the questionnaire. This suggests
either that they had misunderstood the possibility of skipping, or that they did not understand
what they should do with the questionnaire. 8
This may be due to the fact that Knowledge Management has been defined too broadly, and
hence as something that everyone works with albeit perhaps unconsciously. If it is intended
that the concept be treated in this way, the questionnaire should be modelled accordingly,
partly by not giving respondents the chance to skip questions, and partly by formulating the
questions to make clear that Knowledge Management is a part of management per se.
In this case the definition is not particularly useful, and it will make no great difference to the
respondent which particular definition is selected. One suggestion would therefore be to leave
out the definition altogether and instead give a series of examples of the kinds of practices
that are being asked about, or examples of what Knowledge Management is not.
Alternatively, one could choose to see Knowledge Management as a series of particular
initiatives, over and above ordinary management, whose purpose is to make use of, and
hence derive benefit from, an organizations existing resources of knowledge. If this is the
intention that is, to ask about Knowledge Management as a set of systematic practices that
are consciously set in motion to promote the capturing and sharing of knowledge, and as
something over and above ordinary management the concept should be defined with
sufficient specificity to allow certain respondents to recognize their own organization as one
that did not use Knowledge Management.
It is essential to the success of the survey that the above should be clarified in relation to the
project as a whole, and that the questionnaire should then be designed accordingly. On the
basis of discussions with the survey group, and with participants from Canada and the OECD,
the Danish pilot survey has chosen to treat Knowledge Management as a part of management
in general, and the questionnaire has been designed accordingly. Apart from in the initial
definition and the headings, the term Knowledge Management has not been used.
Simple as opposed to complex practices for capturing and sharing knowledge
Question 1, which outlines a long series of practices designed to capture and share knowledge,
acts as a barrier because it begins by mentioning certain very abstract activities, namely
Policies and strategies. The interviews revealed that organizations which had not previously
worked with the concept of Knowledge Management first recognized the practices described in
Question 1.4, concerning Knowledge capture and acquisition, and 1.5, concerning Training
and mentoring. The order has therefore been reversed in the Danish pilot survey, so that
these more simple activities are mentioned before the more complex ones. The results of the
pilot survey also show that it is precisely these more simple practices that are used by most
respondents. Policies and strategies and Incentives are used by fewest.
In general the formulation of these questions should be made more accessible, possibly by
including brief examples under the practices mentioned.
These seven organizations were tested to see whether they differed in any particular characteristic from the other
respondents, but this was not found to be so.
Page 8
15-04-2002
The answers should also be simplified to just yes or no. In Denmark it is hard to find any
justification for distinguishing between practices introduced before or after 1999.
The weakness in the formulation of Question 1 also emerged in the responses to Question 2,
where the respondents were asked to state whether they used practices other than those
mentioned in Question 1. In the interviews everyone answered yes, plenty, thereby
expressing their feeling that the field had not been sufficiently covered - without however
being able to list other Knowledge Managament activities. In the pilot survey a quarter of
respondents cited other areas of Knowledge Management see Appendix 1 many of which
were supposed to have been designated by the formulations in Question 1. This merely serves
to emphasise that the content and formulation of Question 1 are critical. It was evident from
the interviews that, after filling in their answers to Questions 1 and 2, the respondents were
still vague about the meaning of Knowledge Management.
Reasons and results must be more nuanced
In Question 3 respondents are asked to give their reasons for engaging in practices designed
to acquire and share knowledge. In the interviews there was a marked tendency, in response
to these questions, to indicate that these activities were of crucial importance. The positive
bias in these responses is no doubt due to the fact that all the reasons listed were formulated
in positive terms, so that it was difficult not to accord significance to the practices mentioned.
If we are to get meaningful answers to these questions, this problem must be remedied, either
by finding a more neutral formulation, or by asking respondents instead to list different
activities in order of priority.
In Question 4 respondents are asked to report on the results they obtained by using practices
designed to capture and share knowledge. In the interviews, virtually all respondents wished
to answer Not applicable. Their argument was that a respondent might well believe that the
practice in queston was effective in a certain area - for example in increasing the number of
markets - but that this area was not relevant to his/her particular enterprise. It should also be
emphasised that these answers depend on the respondents own perception, and that it does
not matter therefore if the results in question cannot be documented.
The same questionnaire for all respondents?
The interviews were conducted in two service enterprises (one small, one large), two
manufacturing firms (one small, one large) and a large commercial enterprise. The attitude in
the latter organization was clearly we dont know anything about this sort of thing and the
individual questions were perceived as having little relevance to the daily work of a commercial
enterprise.
There are presumably differences in the kinds of knowledge that are important for different
types of organization, and therefore differences too in the kinds of practices required for
sharing knowledge. Further consideration should therefore be given to the surveys target
groups.
Rate of response
In the interviews respondents said that they would be unlikely to fill in the questionnaire if it
were simply sent by post. One argument for doing so, however, would be that the
questionnaire had research value, since they would prefer to answer this type of
questionnaire than one of the numerous ones sent by consultancies. It was considered
important that the questionnaire came from the former Danish Ministry of Business Affairs,
and some respondents stressed the fact that it was international.
Another reason for filling in the questionnaire was that it appeared to be well worked out and
easily accessible, and demystified the concept of Knowledge Management. This indicates the
Page 9
15-04-2002
importance of the accompanying letter and the phrasing of the Danish version of the
questionnaire.
Respondents were contacted in advance by telephone before the questionnaires were sent out.
For the most part it was the smaller enterprises that declined to participate. In the vast
majority of cases the reasons given were lack of time and resources to answer the many
questionnaires they receive each week. A small group declared that they had no interest in
participating, while a very few said that the questionnaire was simply too difficult and
inaccessible for them to answer.
The response rate in the Danish pilot survey was 30%, which is reasonable for a postal survey.
However, this percentage was obtained only with exceptional effort. The possibility of finding
other ways of collecting data, for example via telephone interviews rather than written
questionnaires, should be considered.
Formulation and phrasing translation bias
In the course of the interviews most of the questions were reformulated, and in certain places
the final phrasing was very different from the original translation. This points to a significant
problem with international surveys: namely, that translation bias may make it difficult to
conduct cross-border comparisons.
The main purpose of doing an international survey, however, is to promote the use of
Knowledge Management in each of the participating countries, and this aim can be achieved
even if the surveys are not directly comparable.
Nevertheless, the many reformulations required in the Danish case indicate that those OECD
countries that have not yet undertaken pilot surveys will have to reckon on doing so in order
appropriately to adapt their questionnaire to local conditions.
At the same time the difficulties experienced point to the fact that there is obviously a need to
standardise the terminology involved which is one of the purposes of this survey.
3.6 Adjustments in the Danish survey in relation to the OECD questionnaire 9
Attempts have been made in the Danish version to meet the difficulties described in paragraph
3.4, to the extent that this is possible without destroying the possibility of comparison with
pilot surveys in other countries. These adjustments, and their effects, are described below.
The abstract nature of the concept
To counter the problem that the concept is too abstract, the order of the sub-sections in
Question 1 has been switched around, so that the more commonly occurring Knowledge
Management activities come first. Thus the first sub-sections concern Knowledge capture and
acquisition, Training and mentoring and Communications , while Policies and Strategies,
Leadership and Incentives come last. The interviews had revealed that those respondents
who reported not having previously worked with Knowledge Management were liable to be
frightened off by over-abstract questions, and the aim was to avoid this.
If we look at Chart 1 0 25 together with Charts 1-6, it is clear that the most commonly used
practices are Knowledge capture and acquisition and Training and Mentoring, followed by
Communications, Leadership, and Policies and Strategies, and that the least used category
is Incentives. There are therefore good arguments for keeping this order of categories if the
aim is to signal that Knowledge Management is a part of ordinary management.
See the Correspondence table in Appendix 2

All the Charts can be found in the attached Results of the Danish Pilot survey
10
Page 10
15-04-2002
The dedication of resources to knowledge capture and acquisition

Question 1.4 C in the original questionnaire: Your firm or organization regularly dedicates
resources to detecting and obtaining external knowledge and communicating it within your
firm or organization is divided up in the Danish questionnaire. This was done because the
original formulation contains too many elements for a simple question. The four new questions
are: Is time regularly dedicated in your organization to obtaining knowledge; are there
specific budgets dedicated to obtaining knowledge; is time dedicated to communicating the
knowledge obtained; are there specific budgets dedicated to communicating the knowledge
obtained? The results of the pilot survey also appear to suggest that organizations are more
likely to devote time than financial resources to obtaining and communicating knowledge.
Figure 3.1: Division of questions concerning dedication of resources
Percentage that answer Yes, since 1999 or Yes, since the question
was put...
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Time for obtaining
knowledge
Budget for obtaining

knowledge
Time for communicating

knowledge
Budget for
communicating
knowledge
Since there is a considerable difference between organizations willingness to devote time on

the one hand, and money on the other, to obtaining and communicating knowledge, it seems
relevant to maintain this division. The difference however is not surprising, since it can be
difficult to budget resources specifically for obtaining and communicating knowledge, as these
activities tend to take place in the context of others: for example courses, meetings and other
activities.
Communications activities
Two aspects have been added under this heading in the Danish questionnaire, namely the
physical arrangement of the workplace and use of IT. As shown in Charts 3a and b, it is these
two aspects of communications that are most widely used, so there are good arguments for
keeping these two extra questions.
Non-applicable Knowledge Management practices
In Question 1 of the OECDs questionnaire, Knowledge Management Practices, one possible
answer is Dont know/Not Applicable. In Denmark it was decided to divide this question into
two, namely not applicable and dont know. The reason for this is that a cross on the answer
dont know cannot reasonably be construed as meaning that the particular practice is not
applicable.
If Charts 1a-6a are compared with the corresponding Charts 1b 6b, it emerges clearly that
this added dimension gives additional information. For example 4a shows that 52.5%
answered dont know/not applicable to the question concerning the use of certain policies or
Page 11
15-04-2002
strategies for capturing and sharing knowledge. If we study 4b it emerges that only 6. 6% gave
dont know/not answered, hence fully 45% responded actively by saying that the question
was not applicable.
Reasons for implementing Knowledge Management practices
In the Danish questionnaire, four possible answers have been added to the responses to
Question 3, which aims to reveal the reasons for implementing the practices indicated:
-
To
To
To
To
promote the transfer or sharing of knowledge with suppliers (3M)

identify unspoken (tacit) knowledge among employees (3N)
profile the organization as an up-to-date organization (3O)
improve the ability to take out patents and the possibility of doing so. (3P)
The decision to include these possible answers was taken at a meeting of the survey group.
These four additions mean that there are a total of 16 options. As Chart 8 shows, profiling the
organization and revealing tacit knowledge are among the reasons accorded highest
significance, while sharing knowledge with suppliers and the possibility of taking out patents
are considered of low importance, being listed respectively as nos. 14 and 16 when the options
are ranked in order of significance.1 1
Figure 3.2: Average significance of each of the four additional reasons
The significance of reasons for implementing Knowledge Management
Crucial
importance
Great
importance
Some
importance1
No
importance0
To improve knowledge
sharing with suppliers
To identify unspoken
knowledge
To profile the organization To improve ability to take

out patents
As previously mentioned, there is a tendency to answer all the questions very positively. In an
attempt to overcome this problem, the Danish questionnaire turned the scale around so that
the weakest answers come first. It cannot be shown conclusively what impact this has had, but
some indication of its effect will be given when the results of the Danish pilot survey are
compared with those from other countries. There is however still a tendency to see all the
possible answers as significant. Thus, as Chart 8 shows, one of the answers in the OECD
questionnaire that was accorded least significance to ease collaborative work among teams
that are physically separated - was nevertheless accorded great or crucial significance by
29%.
11
Thus 74% indicate that the implementation of practices relating to knowledge acquisition and sharing is of no
importance for their ability to take out patents, and 32% answer that these practices are of no importance for their
ability to share knowledge with suppliers.
Page 12
15-04-2002
Results of using Knowledge Management practices

Two new possible answers have been added in the Danish questionnaire to Question 4, which
aims to reveal the results of using the practices mentioned:
new relations with suppliers (4O)
new partnerships/cooperators (4P)
A good quarter of the respondents indicated that using these practices had been effective or
very effective in bringing about new relations with suppliers, and that it had been effective or
very effective in creating new partnerships. However, a large percentage see below
indicated that the answer new supplier relations was not applicable. When these additional
answers are listed alongside the OECD answers in order of effectiveness, new supplier
relations is placed no. 10, and new partnerships/cooperators no. 11, out of 16 possible
answers (see 9).
In contrast to the OECD questionnaire, we decided in the Danish questionnaire to give the
respondent the possibility of answering not applicable. Not surprisingly, the proportions of
such responses correlate very well with the averange rankings given to the various possible
answers in terms of effectiveness, as shown in Chart 9. The four options that are most
commonly regarded as not applicable are: prevents unintended duplication between similar
projects1 2 (56%), Increased number of markets geographically (44%), new supplier
relations (37%) and increased ability to obtain knowledge from public research institutions
(29%).
Figure 3.3: Possibility of stating non-applicable results
Proportion of responses stating that a given option is not
applicable
Prevents unintended duplication between similar projects
Increased number of markets (geographic)
New supplier relations
Improved ability to obtain knowledge from public research
institutions
Increased flexibility in production and innovation
Other new partnerships
Options
Increase in new products or services

Improved knowledge-sharing vertically
Improved corporate or organizational memory
Improved ability to obtain knowledge from other business
enterprises, trade literature etc.
Improved knowledge-sharing horizontally
Improved adaptation of products or services to client
requirements
Improved worker efficiency
Improved client or customer relations
Improved involvement of workers in workplace activities
Improved skills and knowledge of workers
0%
12
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
This may also be a result of the inaccessible way in which the question is formulated.
Page 13
15-04-2002
Sources of Knowledge Management practices

Following discussions in the survey group, three internal sources were added under this
heading in the Danish questionnaire, namely:
The Board
Owners and shareholders
Advisory Board
Chart 12 shows that none of the respondents claimed to have got inspiration from advisory
boards, whereas 23% of respondents indicated that owners and shareholders had been their
source of inspiration, and 19% got their inspiration from the Board.
One external source was also added, namely unions, but none of the respondents claimed to
have been inspired to practise Knowledge Management from this source: see Chart 13.
The motive for implementing or increasing activities
Four new possible answers were added under this heading to the Danish questionnaire,
namely:
Desire to improve the organizations image
Desire to ease globalisation
Desire to improve competitiveness
Desire to attract workers
Apart from the answer to ease globalisation , which was chosen by only 13%, these additional
answers were those most frequently selected by respondents: see Chart 18.
Background variables
As mentioned earlier, we chose in Denmark not to link the results with other databases. A
number of background variables have therefore been added in the Danish questionnaire, which
are intended for use only in the pilot survey. These are:
The organizations turnover
Trade
Geographical location
Geographic location of owners
Because of the small number of respondents, the conclusions we can draw on the basis of
these background variables are very limited. A few of the tendencies indicated are however
described in Section 4.
Who works with Knowledge Managament within an organization
The question of who within an organization should fill in the questionnaire was not really
clarified, either at the OECD meetings or during the interviews. In the Danish pilot survey it
was therefore decided to send the questionnaire directly to the administrative director (chief
executive officer), without however implying that it was he/she who should fill in the
questionnaire. Information as to who in fact filled it in is requested in the very last question.
It emerged from this that it was most often the administrative director himself who had filled
in the questionnaire, but titles of others who undertook to do so included Directors
Secretary/PA, Sales Manager, Financial Manager, Head of Production, Head of Planning and
Communications, Change Manager, HR (Human Resources) Manager, Regional Head, Principal,
Deputy Inspector and Project Manager.
Page 14
15-04-2002
4. Tendencies in the data

Since the purpose of the pilot study was to test out the questionnaire, no attempt was made to
make a representative study of the field. The questionnaire is very comprehensive, and could
therefore be used to test out a great many hypotheses. But because of the small number of
respondents, there is a limit to how many analyses it would be possible and reasonable to
carry out.
Nevertheless, certain tendencies are indicated by the available data. The following section
therefore deals with:
1. General tendencies: A description of the practices most commonly employed; the
reasons for implementing them; the results generally obtained; the persons responsible
for implementing the practices, and so on (Questions 1 through 10).
2. Characteristics of those respondents who do not practise Knowledge Management.
3. Answers seen in relation to background variables.
4. Correlation between the results obtained and the level of Knowledge Management
activities. (Question 1 compared with Question 4).
4.1 General tendencies
In Appendix 1 we look in detail at the results of the pilot survey and make a number of
recommendations for improvements. In this section we therefore confine ourselves to noting
general tendencies.
Charts 25, together with Charts 1 6, show what kinds of practices are implemented to
capture and share knowledge. It is evident from these that knowledge capture and acquisition
and training and mentoring are the practices most widely used. Knowledge capture and
acquisition occurs particularly through acquiring knowledge from other private enterprises and
dedicating time to obtaining and communicating knowledge. Training and mentoring occurs
mainly through encouraging experienced workers to share their knowledge with those who are
less experienced and encouraging workers to take further training.
Communications activities are also mentioned frequently. The use of IT, the physical
arrangement of the workplace, and the use of written documentation are the practices
employed most frequently in this regard.
Policies and strategies are implemented by approximately half the respondents, but are one of
the catagories of activity least commonly indicated. As can be seen from paragraph 4.4, the
data suggest that it is precisely this type of activity that yields the most effective results.
The most important reason for implementing practices designed to capture and share
knowledge is a desire to improve competitiveness.
The respondents find that Knowledge Management practices are effective in improving
workers skills and knowledge, in adapting products and services to client requirements, in
improving interdisciplinary knowledge sharing throughout the enterprise and in helping to add
new products and services. As indicated in paragraph 4.4, however, there is not much
evidence that these results - with the one exception of improved communication throughout
the workplace have been achieved through the use of Knowledge Management.
The majority of respondents place the responsibility for implementing these practices with the
top management, and only a few have measured the impact of these activities. The
management is also most frequently cited as the internal source responsible for initiating
Page 15
15-04-2002
activities designed to acquire and share knowledge, while the most commonly reported
external sources are competitors, customers and clients.
Approximately half reported dedicating economic resources to these activities, and half of
these expect to dedicate more resources in the next 24 months. Only a quarter of those who
do not currently set aside resources for Knowledge Management activities plan to do so within
the next 24 months.
Only 9% of respondents had encountered resistance to implementing these activities.
Increased competitiveness is the key motivation for implementing Knowledge Management
activities or increasing such activities, but the desire to attract workers, to avoid losing key
workers and to improve corporate image are also important motivating factors.
4.2 Characteristics of respondents who do not practise Knowledge Management
It is impossible from the data to conclude that there are any particular characteristics that
distinguish the few organizations that do not practise Knowledge Management from those that
do, and the skip-pattern in the questionnaire does not really work. This points to weaknesses
in the questionnaire which should be dealt with in the final version.
4.3 Answers seen in relation to background variables
Only the answers to Question 1 choice of practices relating to knowledge capture and
acquisition have been analysed in relation to background variables.
Geographical location ( chart 25)
-There are only small deviations among the respective data from from Zealand, Fyn and
Jutland.
Size as measured by number of employees (chart 26)
There is a tendency for activities involving communications, as well as policies and
strategies, to be used more frequently among large enterprises than among small ones. Small
enterprises are defined as those having between one and 19 employees, so perhaps what is
most surprising is that in other respects they resemble the medium-sized and large enterprises
so closely.
Trade ( chart 27)
There is a tendency for service enterprises to implement practices aimed at obtaining and
sharing knowledge to a higher degree than do manufacturing and trading enterprises.
Geographic location of owners (chart 28)
Overall it makes no great difference whether the owners of the enterprise are located in
Denmark or abroad.
4.4 Correlation between results obtained and level of activity
In what follows, level of activity refers to the length of time that a given Knowledge
Management activity has been practised. Thus the statement Yes, we have done this since
before 1999 is considered indicative of a higher level of activity than the statement Yes, we
have done this since 1999.
Chart 9 shows how respondents evaluated the effect of these activities on various areas. It can
be seen from this that Knowledge Management activities are seen as having been most
effective in the area of improving workers skills and knowledge.
If we compare the answers to Question 4 (results of practices implemented) with the answers
to Question 1 (activities) there is no very clear correlation. Surprisingly (in view of the above)
Page 16
15-04-2002
there is nothing to suggest that a higher level of activity improves workers knowledge and
skills. This is an interesting contradiction which merits further investigation.
Table 4.1 below shows the extent to which individual results have an important explanatory
effect on the level of activity. The tendency indicated here is that policies and strategies,
training and mentoring and leadership have the greatest impact on results.
Table 4.1: The explanatory effect of results on level of activity1 3
Average level of activity
Results
Knowledge
capture and
acquisition
activities
Training and
mentoring
activities
Communications
activities
Policies and
strategies
Leadership
Incentives
Improved skills and knowledge of workers
0,662
0,802
0,924
0,115
0,933
0,114
Increased our adaptation of products or

services to client requirements
0,819
0,174
0,560
0,401
0,957
0,604
Increased our knowledge-sharing

horizontally (across
departments/functions)
0,026
0,017
0,647
0,006
0,103
0,141
Helped us to add new products or services
0,997
0,435
0,381
0,078
0,787
0,077
Improved client or customer relations
0,576
0,047
0,171
0,062
0,202
0,071
Improved worker efficiency and/or

productivity
0,894
0,034
0,355
0,339
0,018
0,091
Increased our knowledge-sharing

vertically (up through the organizational
hierarchy)
0,004
0,232
0,477
0,001
0,108
0,108
Improved our corporate memory
0,127
0,000
0,126
0,003
0,009
0,595
Improved involvement of workers in

workplace activities
0,457
0,146
0,232
0,017
0,717
0,084
Led to new supplier relations (only in

Danish survey)
0,430
0,011
0,028
0,040
0,069
0,112
Led to new partnerships (only in Danish

survey
0,837
0,652
0,436
0,078
0,047
0,685
Increased flexibility in production and

innovation.
0,128
0,004
0,143
0,003
0,038
0,025
Improved our ability to capture knowledge

from other business enterprises, unions,
trade literature etc
0,102
0,260
0,358
0,068
0,799
0,748
Increased our ability to capture knowledge

from public research institutions, including
univerities and other state research
institutions
0,144
0,141
0,372
0,009
0,012
0,554
Increased our number of markets (more

geographic locations)
0,340
0,778
0,054
0,094
0,527
0,737
Prevented unintended duplication of

similar res earch and development projects
0,107
0,033
0,118
0,016
0,319
0,707
13
The table shows the significance (bold text) by comparing the average level of activity per cluster of sub-questions
in Question 1 (dependent variable), with the result variables in Question 4 divided into 2 levels: high effect (very
effective and effective) and low effect (somewhat effective and not effective) (independent variable).
Page 17
15-04-2002
5. Denmarks suggestions for improving the questionnaire

As can be seen from the above section, there are a number of areas that need to be adapted if
Denmark is to get any benefit from the survey. These are the areas which Denmark would like
to see discussed at the OECD meeting in March 2002.
The concept of Knowledge Management should be demystified, possibly by leaving out the
definition and using more examples of the activities in question. The question containing a list
of activities should be formulated more clearly, with examples of what is meant. It is worth
considering whether the sub-questions concerning incentives and leadership should be
phrased differently. We should also consider mentioning the more simple activities before the
more complex ones, in order to offer an easier introduction to the questionnaire. In the section
concerning the reasons for implementing Knowledge Management practices, the questions
should be formulated more neutrally with a view to avoiding bias. Where respondents are
asked about the results of their activities, they should have the option of stating that this is
non-applicable.
Initiatives to increase the response rate should be discussed and alternative methods
considered, for example internet analyses, telephone interviews or face-to-face interviews.
Thorough work has been done on the translation of the questionnaire to ensure that the
language makes sense to Danish respondents, and this task should not be underestimated
when other countries are brought into the survey.
It was considered advisable to change the order of the sub-questions in Question 1 and to
divide up Question 1.4 C into a series of sub-questions. It is suggested that the focus in the
final questionnaire should be partly on knowledge acquisition, partly on communicating
knowledge, while the dedication of time and resources is less relevant.
It appears that a large number of Danish respondents implement traditional practices i.e.
use of IT and physical arrangement of the workplace. Although most would argue that this is
scarcely a form of knowledge sharing, it is important that the whole scope of the concept
should be covered. Especially over time this will yield interesting information. Analyses that
compare levels of activity with results suggest that the most significant activities are Policies
and Strategies and Training and Mentoring, so it is important to retain these areas.
It is also important to find out which practices the respondents consider non-applicable.
In the question concerning the reasons for implementing Knowledge Management activities, at
least two possible answers should be added, namely:
to profile the enterprise as an up-to-date organization
to identify unspoken (tacit) knowledge among employees and possibly also
to promote sharing and transfer of knowledge with suppliers
A more nuanced formulation of Question 3 would probably give a more extensive picture of the
reasons for implementing practices relating to knowledge acquisition and sharing.
As far as the results of using Knowledge Management practices are concerned, there are good
arguments for adding a further possible answer: that the implementation of these practices
has led to new partnerships.
On the other hand consideration should be given to dropping the following options from the
questionnaire:
has prevented unintended duplication of similar projects
has increased our number of markets
has led to new supplier relations
has improved our ability to obtain knowledge from public research institutions
Page 18
15-04-2002
The following should be added as possible sources of Knowledge Management prctices:

the Board
owners and shareholders
As motives for implementing or introducing further activities we should add:
desire to improve corporate image
desire to improve competitiveness
desire to attract workers
6. Conclusion recommendation to Danish decision makers
The pilot study points to a number of hypotheses which it would be interesting to investigate
further:
Hypothesis: The acquisition and sharing of knowledge takes place primarily between
experienced and inexperienced workers as a part of their training.
Hypothesis: Most organizations do not see any reason to systematise the acquisition
and sharing of knowledge
Hypothesis: Meetings are not often used as a means of transferring knowledge.
Hypothesis: Activities designed to acquire and share knowledge are undertaken
primarily with a view to increasing competitiveness.
Hypothesis: Organizations do not dedicate specific budgets to the acquisition and
sharing of knowledge.
Hypothesis: Workers immediately accept, as part of their job, activities designed to
acquire and share knowledge.
Hypothesis: In small enterprises (fewer than 50 employees) the acquisition and sharing
of knowledge is perceived as something which the management and employees practise
daily.
Hypothesis: Large enterprises systematise practices designed to acquire and share
knowledge
Hypothesis: The acquisition and sharing of knowledge have a great impact on
employees level of skills and knowledge
Hypothesis: Knowledge sharing is promoted most effectively in so far as it is
incorporated in an organizations strategic activities.
Hypothesis: Intellectual capital reports are not perceived as a relevant tool for
knowledge sharing.
Hypotese: Fewer than 50% of enterprises make use of public sources of knowledge.
An investigation of these hypotheses is likely to lead to a variety of initiatives being
undertaken on the part of government to influence business enterprises in the desired
direction.
There is no doubt that the OECDs goal to put the spotlight on Knowledge Management - is
relevant for Denmark. Although no direct correlation can be proved between Knowledge
Management activities and business results, those who practise these activities have a clear
sense that the acquisition and sharing of knowledge, and especially the utilization of it, have a
considerable impact on a firms competitiveness. It is therefore important to raise awareness
of these activities. A large international survey is an effective means of doing this.
The greatest problem in this connection is the lack of clarity in terminology relating to the field,
but one of the aims of the survey is precisely to address this.
Cross-border comparison gives rise to technical problems, but also, more particularly, to
conceptual challenges which must be dealt with. The value of the study, however, does not
Page 19
15-04-2002
rest solely on such comparisons, and great inspiration will in any case be derived from putting
Knowledge Management into international focus.
In section 5 we looked at those areas which should be adapted in order to ensure the studys
relevance for Denmark most of them relating to a simplification of the terminology and
clarification of the concepts involved. Provided that these problem areas are addressed at the
OECD meeting in March , our recommendation is that Denmark should partcipate in the further
development of an international study on the practice of Knowledge Management activities and
the extent to which these are perceived to be effective.
Page 20
15-04-2002
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the following for their useful remarks:
Peter Holdt Christensen, Institut for Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi, Handels hjskolen i Kbenhavn,
Kbenhavn N. (Institute of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business
School)
Marie-Louise Winther Green, the former Erhvervsministeriet, Kbenhavn K (The Danish
Ministry of Business Affairs, Copenhagen)
Lars Kiertzner, Institut for Regnskab, Handelshjskolen i rhus (Aarhus Business School)
Heine Larsen, Ementor Denmark A/S, Kbenhavn N and Handelshjskolen i Kbenhavn,
Frederiksberg (Copenhagen Business School)
Henning Madsen, Handelshjskolen i Aarhus, Aarhus V (Aarhus Business School)
Peter Stendahl Mortensen, Analyseinstitut for forskning, Aarhus (Institute of Analysis and
Research)
Flemming Poulfelt, Institut for Ledelse, Politik og Filosofi, Handelshjskolen i Kbenhavn,
Kbenhavn N (Institute of Manageme nt, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School)
Bettina Hst Poulsen, the former Erhvervsministeriet, Kbenhavn K (The Danish Ministry of
Business Affairs, Copenhagen)
Benedicte Stakemann, Erhvervsfremme Styrelsen, Kbenhavn (Committee to Promote
Industry, Copenhagen)
Marianne Stang Vland, Learning Lab Denmark, Copenhagen
Page 21
15-04-2002
Appendix 1. The questionnaire in detail14

In this appendix we go through the questionnaire in detail, discussing each question in relation
to the answers obtained. The comments below have been gathered partly from the interviews,
partly from meetings in the survey group and finally from the pilot survey. This section looks
at all the comments together, whether they concern major or minor issues. In Section 5,
concerning Denmarks recommendations for improving the questionnaire, we looked at those
areas where change was in our view required before the actual survey was undertaken by the
OECD.
Here we go through the questionnaire systematically, and at the end of the Appendix make
further suggestions for improving the survey. The charts referred to can be found in the
attached Results of the Danish Pilot Survey.
Front page
The questionnaire looks rather inaccessible and requires explanation. This can be given in the
accompanying letter, but efforts should be made to make it as self-explanatory as possible.
Aim
The sentence: A highly mobile and aging workforce has increased the need for a better set of
knowledge retention, acquisition, sharing and transfer practices has not been included in the
Danish questionnaire.
Confidentiality
This clause has been changed in the translation, as the Canadian version is not relevant to the
Danish study.
The interviews confirmed that this clause was important for the Danish respondents.
Which Knowledge Management practices do you use within your firm or
organization? (Q. 1.)
The aim of this question is to find out which practices the respondents organization uses. If
the respondent puts a cross in one of the first two columns, he/she is invited to proceed with
the questionnaire; if not, he/she is asked to skip to Question 10.
A further purpose of this question is to give the respondent some guidance as to what kinds of
practices Knowledge Management involves. It would therefore be useful if this question were
amplified/put in context, for example by referring to other investigations or by giving a more
theoretical account of the kinds of activities involved.
Scaling
The different response-options seem inappropriate when a simple Yes or No answer is called
for by the questions. All the respondents interviewed requested clearer Yes/No options.
In the Danish questionnaire this problem has been overcome by clarifying the questions in
translation. Thus:
In Use Before 1999 is translated as Yes, we have done this since before 1999
Used Since 1999 as Yes, we have done this since 1999
Plan to Use in the Next 24 Months as No, but we will do so within the next 24 months
Dont Know/Not Applicable as No, this is not applicable and
Dont know.
Thus the latter is treated as two separate answers which should not be mixed together.
14
In this section we refer consistently to the numbers in the OECD version, since our purpose is to make
recommendations for improving this basic questionnaire.
Page 22
15-04-2002
These headings moreover were adapted to each sub-group of questions in order to get a clear
correspondence between question and answer.
It is hard to find any real justification in Denmark for dividing up the Yes category into In use
Before 1999 and Used since 1999. The respondents interviewed had difficulty in
remembering when a given practice had been implemented. Some respondents did not
distinguish between practices implemented before and after 1999. Others instead used the
scale to suggest different degrees of implementation, treating the column furthest to the left
as the one for activities practised to a high degree, while the second column was for activities
practised to a lesser degree.
On the No side, too, the various answers offered are not exhaustive. For though a given
Knowledge Management activity may well be thought relevant, there may nevertheless be no
plans to introduce it - for financial reasons, for example. Respondents who have not
implemented that practice, and who do not plan to do so within the next 24 months, are forced
to answer dont know or not applicable. Several of the respondents interviewed could point
out activities which they considered relevant, but which nonetheless for quite other reasons
would not be implemented within the next 24 months.
Simple as opposed to abstract activities
Question 1 is important, for it is here that the respondent makes up his mind whether he is
going to continue filling in the questionnaire. The interviews showed that respondents found it
difficult to get going on the questionnaire. The activities emphasised are too abstract, and
everyone interviewed was left with the feeling that there must be many more relevant
Knowledge Management activities than these. It is important that respondents do reply to
questions concerning activities which they use regularly and systematically.
The interviews showed that it was inadvisable to begin with questions concerning policies and
strategies, which respondents may find it difficult to relate to. For this reason the order has
been changed in the Danish questionnaire, so that 1.4 and 1.6 come before 1.1 and 1.3.
Recommendations
The scale should be divided up, so that not applicable is separated from dont know.
Yes since 1999 and Yes since before 1999 should possibly be put together.
The introduction to the questionnaire should be made easier, e.g. by changing the order
of the questions in Part 1, so that the more simple activities (1.4 1.6) come before the
more abstract ones
Policies and Strategies

Results of the pilot survey
As can be seen from Chart 1, more than half of the respondents have a values system or
culture intended to promote knowledge-sharing; approximately half have policies or programs
intended to improve worker retention, and more than half use partnerships or strategic
alliances to acquire knowledge. Many of the respondents have implemented these practices for
a long time since before 1999.
A quarter of respondents will formulate written policies or strategies for acquiring and sharing
knowledge within the next 24 months.
A very large proportion of the respondents state that the activities mentioned are not
applicable thus 72.1% consider that working with knowledge by preparing intellectual capital
reports is not applicable for their organization. Almost half 45.9% - consider that it is
irrelevant to have written policies or strategies for acquiring and sharing knowledge.
Page 23
15-04-2002
Results of the interviews

Most of the respondents interviewed found it difficult to answer the question whether or not
their organization had a written knowledge management policy or strategy. (1.1 A) Some
argued that Knowledge Management is written into several different strategies, and can
therefore be found in several places. Others argued that not all policies are written.
Nevertheless, only 6.6% in the pilot survey answered dont know, so it would be interesting
to investigate in more detail whether the 45.9% who answered not applicable really did feel
that this was the case.
Several of the respondents interviewed had difficulty in understanding what was meant by
values system or culture in Question 1.1.B. However, there was not a significantly larger
proportion indicating not applicable or dont know in response to this question compared
with others, so for respondents in the pilot survey this apparently did not cause problems or
no more problems than occurred with the other questions.
The question whether partnerships or strategic alliances were used to acquire knowledge
(1.1. D) was generally regarded as difficult. The respondents interviewed requested examples
or a clearer formulation of the question. But with regard to this question, too, there is no
indication in the pilot survey that respondents found it harder than others.
Recommendations:
The formulation of Question 1.4 A Your organization has a written knowledge
management policy or strategy for acquiring and sharing knowledge should be
clarified for instance by using examples or by asking about polic ies and strategies.
In the Danish questionnaire a question was added about the preparation of
intellectual capital reports. This additional question remains relevant for Denmark.
Question 1.4.B Your organization has a values system or culture intended to promote
knowledge sharing could usefully be supplemented with examples.
Question 1.4.C Your organization uses partnerships or strategic alliances to acquire
knowledge could usefully be supplemented with examples.
Leadership
The majority of respondents indicate that the activities in question are the responsibility of the
managers and executives (72.1%), but nonmanagement workers are also emphasised by
many (57.4%).
Most surprising, perhaps, is that almost one fifth give the response not applicable to the
question whether activities relating to knowledge management practices are the responsibility
of managers and executives, and still more (29%) give this response with regard to nonmanagement workers.
14.8% state that their organization has a knowledge officer, while 62.3% state not applicable
on this point.
Only a few have plans to implement internal management practices relating to knowledge
acquisition within the next 24 months.
A quarter used knowledge management practices as explicit criteria for assessing worker
performance. More than half answered no to this of whom the majority (49.2%) considered
it not applicable.
Page 24
15-04-2002

A large proportion of respondents requested a clear no option in response to this. This is
because their organizations had for example decided that these practices were not the
responsibility of nonmanagement workers, but they nevertheless recognised that they could
be relevant. For these respondents it seemed unnatural to answer no, not applicable to this,
even though they did not have plans to introduce such activities.
There was some misunderstanding over the title Knowledge Management officer or Knowledge
Management unit.
The question whether knowledge management practices were used as a specific criterion for
assessing worker performance (1.2.D) proved difficult for the majority of the respondents
interviewed. Some replied that the answer depended on which group of employees you had in
mind. Many expressed the view that Knowledge Management was a natural criterion for
assessing managers (since it was part of their ordinary management responsibilities).
Recommendations:
This sub-question should be reconsidered in its entirety.
Question 1.5 D concerning the assessment of worker performance should be made
more searching, for example by asking about specific groups of workers or the
management.
Question 1.5 D could also be reformulated by using the phrase: one element in the
assessment of worker performance
Incentives
23% reward the positive effects of knowledge sharing with monetary incentives, while 28%
reward it with non- monetary incentives.
Approximately 60% of respondents consider these two forms of reward to be not applicable,
and only a few are considering introducing them.
All the respondents interviewed found it difficult to answer the question concerning incentives.
In an attempt to solve this problem the Danish questionnaire made it clear that it was the
positive effect of knowledge sharing that was being rewarded.
Recommendations:
This sub-question should be reconsidered in its entirety
With regard to the question concerning non-monetary incentives (1.6 B) it might be
interesting to find out in more detail what this incentive structure looked like.
It would also be interesting to investgate the effect of rewarding the positive results
of knowledge sharing.
Knowledge capture and acquisition

The most widely-practised form of knowledge capture and acquisition involves capturing and
using knowledge obtained from other private companies (82%), dedication of time to obtaining
and communicating knowledge (respectively 73.8 and 62.3%), and encouraging workers to
participate in project teams with external experts (54.1%). The majority have implemented
these practices since before 1999.
Page 25
15-04-2002
Half the respondents use knowledge obtained from public research institutions, which is on the
face of it surprising, but we do not know what kind of knowledge is being referred to. 41%
consider this option not applicable.
Again it is surprising how many state that they do not consider the activities in question
applicable. In addition to the use of knowledge from public research institutions, 45.9%
consider it inapplicable to dedicate budgets to obtaining knowledge, and 57.4% consider it
inapplicable to dedicate budgets to communicating such knowledge. By contrast only a fifth
consider it inapplicable to dedicate time respectively to obtaining (16.4) and to communicating
(24.6%) knowledge.
Results of interviews
Certain respondents requested the option to state that they used internal sources for capturing
and acquiring knowledge. These internal sources have been included in the group of questions
concerning training and mentoring, but in a form where the respondent is asked what is
encouraged, not what is actually done.
These questions (especially 1.4 C, concerning the dedication of resources to obtaining and
communicating knowledge) contains too many elements, which meant that respondents found
it difficult to answer. In the Danish questionnaire it was therefore divided up to good effect.
Recommendations:
Question 1.4 C should be divided up, since it contains too many elements. This was
done in the Danish questionnaire and has yielded interesting differences.
It would be relevant to investigate what kinds of knowledge were obtained from
public research institutions for example, one could imagine that this applied more to
product-related knowledge.
The list of sources from which knowledge is obtained should be reconsidered.
Training and Mentoring
In general there is more support for informal than for formal training where Knowledge
Management is concerned.
The most widely-used practices are: encouraging experienced workers to transfer their
knowledge to new or less experienced workers (83.6%); encouraging workers to continue their
education (73.8%), and giving informal training related to knowledge management (59%).
Formal mentoring and formal training in knowledge management is regarded as not applicable
by respectively 57.4% and 42.6%. 15% of respondents however have plans to introduce
formal training within the next 24 months.
Many of the respondents interviewed found it difficult to see any real difference between
Question E, which refers to encouraging workers to continue their education by reimbursing
their tuition fees, and Question F which refers to off-site training, since the basic difference lies
in who is paying for the training. The pilot survey also shows almost identical responses to
these two questions, which suggests that respondents in the survey also considered them to
mean roughly the same.
Recommendatons
Question 1.5E concerning reimbursement of expenses to take job-related courses and
Question 15F concerning the offer of off-site training should be put together in one
question.
Page 26
15-04-2002
Communications
The most widespread practice in the area of communications is the use of IT, e.g. in the form
of an intranet, followed by the physical arrangement of the workplace to promote
communications, the promotion of corporate memory, and the updating of databases recording
good work practices etc.
Many respondents indicated the practices listed under this heading in general to be not
applicable. Thus 57.4% indicated that using virtual teams to facilitate collaborative work by
physically separated teams was not applicable, and 30% gave this response to the practice of
updating databases of good work practices. A quarter considered the use of written
documentation to record lessons learned (i.e. the promotion of corporate memory), and the
physical arrangement of the workplace, to be not applicable, while a fifth indicated that the use
of IT was not applicable.
Some respondents had difficulty in understanding the question about corporate memory, and
the difference between this practice and that of updating databases. There was also some
doubt about the difference between updating databases and preparing written documentation.
In the present formulation of Question 1.6C: In your firm or organization workers share
knowledge or information by facilitating collaborative work by projects teams that are
physically separated (virtual teams), the key phrase is facilitating collaborative work. This
is not consistent with the form of the other questions, which all concern means rather than
aims. The question is therefore turned around in the Danish version, so that the phrase virtual
groups (the means) comes first. The purpose of this should be clarified.
Recommendations:
The inclusion of a question concerning the use of IT e.g. in the form of an intranet
should considered. This was tested out in the Danish questionnaire.
The inclusion of a question concerning the physical arrangement of the workplace should
also be considered. This was tested out in the Danish questionnaire.
It would be useful to clarify the difference between the question concerning databases
(1.5 A) and the question concerning written documentation. (1.5 B)
Are there any Knowledge Management practices that your firm or organization uses
that we have not included in this survey? (Question 2)
62% of respondents answered no to this question, thereby indicating that the content of
Question 1 is sufficiently exhaustive. A quarter practise other activities and mentioned the
following:
Participation in national and international knowledge sharing groups
Advisory Boards, internal meetings to exchange knowledge, knowledge database
(intranet-based)
Procedure for acquiring interdisciplinary knowledge in order to get a holistic overview of
a given task, as well as insight into when a task should be passed onto, or involve,
experts from other fields.
From parent company
Trade journals
Extensive extranet
Internal workshops in connection with staff meetings
Internet, purchased information
Experience sharing group, trade council, local management forum, other types of
companies, auditors
Page 27
15-04-2002
Systematic neighbour training, systematic introductory programs, inter-disciplinary

training group
All employees are responsible for the acquisition and sharing of knowledge. In order to
ensure that this is optimised we have an inter-disciplinary control group for knowledge
sharing, which is responsible for the continuing development and maintenance of the
physical settings for knowledge sharing.
Interdisciplinary project groups
Guide for working procedures and ethics

All the respondents interviewed expressed the feeling that they used Knowledge Management
practices that were not included in the questionnaire, though none could bring particular ones
to mind. This response is to be expected in view of the breadth of the field.
Why do you use those Knowledge Management activities you indicated in Question
1? (Question 3)
In this question respondents are asked to give their reasons for implementing knowledge
management practices.
In general respondents accorded significance to all the reasons mentioned, and the majority
said they were important or critical. The reason that was given greatest weight was to
improve the competitive advantage, which 83.3% marked as being important or critical. This
was followed by helping to integrate knowledge (71.7%) and training workers to meet the
strategic objectives of the organization (60.4%)
The reasons which most respondents characterised as somewhat important or not at all
important were improving the ability to take out patents (90%); improving knowledgesharing with partners in strategic alliances (77.4%); easing collaborative work despite
physical separation (71.7%); improving knowledge-sharing with suppliers (69.8%); and
systematic identification and/or protection of strategic knowledge (58.5%).
See Chart 8.
The interviews revealed a tendency for the respondents to be rather uncritical in marking the
answer critical. In an attempt to overcome this, the scale was reversed in the Danish
questionnaire, so that the answer not at all important was put furthest to the left. It is
difficult to assess what effect this had, but at any rate there is a reasonable spread of answers
in the pilot survey.
The tendency for respondents to cross off those columns that contain positive answers may
also be due to the fact that the questions are formulated positively, which makes it difficult to
say that a given reason is of little or no significance. In other words, the respondents perceive
all the reasons given as significant. Possible ways to remedy this are either to formulate the
questions more neutrally or to provide for a form of prioritising among the reasons indicated.
Page 28
15-04-2002
Recommendations
Question 3B about helping to integrate knowledge should be formulated more directly.
Consideration should be given to formulating the questions more neutrally to get a more
realistic spread in the answers.
In the Danish questionnaire the scale was changed round, so that the answer critical
came furthest to the right. The aim was to counterbalance the tendency to cross the
most positive responses most frequently.
Four additional questions were tested out in the Danish questionnaire:
To improve knowledge sharing with suppliers.
To identify the unspoken knowledge of employees
To profile the organization as an up-to-date organization
To improve the ability to take out patents and possibility of doing so
The questions concerning profiling and unspoken knowledge have proved relevant in the
Danish survey.
Question 3A about competitive advantage and 3G about strategic objectives logically
belong together, and should therefore follow on from one another.
Question 3F about protecting from loss of knowledge due to departure of staff, and
Question 3I about worker retention logically belong together, and should therefore follow
on from one another.
Please indicate the achieved results of the knowledge management practices in use
in your organisation? (Question 4)
In this question respondents were asked how effective their activities had been in terms of a
series of results.
The result which these activities had been most effective in achieving was to improve the skills
and knowledge of workers. Here, 69.8% of respondents answered effective or very effective.
Next comes increased adaptation of products or services to client requirements (62.3);
increased knowledge-sharing horizontally (60.3), and helped us add new products and
services(54.7).
The practices indicated were considered not at all effective in preventing duplication of
research and development or increasing the number of markets (geographically).
During the interviews several respondents requested not applicable as a possible option. One
might suppose that respondents who did not consider the question applicable would choose not
to answer it, but this was not the case with these interviewees. A not applicable column has
therefore been added to the Danish questionnaire.
Many respondents had difficulty in understanding the relation between the question and the
possible answers. For this reason, the tense in these questions was changed in the Danish
questionnaire from the past to the pluperfect. In the later interviews this appeared to have
clarified the question. There were also a number of respondents who thought only in terms of
measurable results. This was helped by phrasing the question as follows: what results do you
feel you have achieved?
Certain respondents emphasised other consequences (negative results) of working with
Knowledge Management practices, namely that these had led to an overload of information.
Page 29
15-04-2002
Recommendations:
It should be made clear that it is not necessarily measurable results that are being asked
about. This can be done by asking what results do you feel you have achieved by using these
practices?
All the respondents interviewed missed having the option not applicable. This has been
added in the Danish questionnaire.
Option 4N concerning the improved involvement of workers and 4D concerning improved
skills and knowledge of workers belong naturally together and should therefore be set
alongside each other.
A new option, 4O, has been added: Has led to new relations with suppliers.This belongs
naturally with 4F, concerning customer relations, so these two questions should be placed
together.
A new option, 4P, has been added: Has led to new partnerships (cooperators). This
belongs naturally with Question 4F concerning customer relations, and should be placed
alongside it.
Who is in charge of the Knowledge Management practices in your firm or

organization? (Question 5)
Most of the respondents indicate that the prime responsibility for these practices lies with the
Executive Management team. Only 2-4% indicate any of the other options.
There are strong indications that the available answers are not sufficiently comprehensive,
since rather few choose to put a cross by the HR Department, the IT Department, the
Knowledge Management Unit and so on. The open answers suggest that responsibility is
spread very broadly.
Results from the interviews
Most of the respondents interviewed found it difficult to answer this question merely by putting
a cross. One argued that the various functions are taken care of by different departments. We
sought to meet this objection by emphasising that we were asking who had the PRIME
responsibility. However, only 2 of the 61 respondents put a cross in more than one place.
Even after our attempts to make the question more concrete, several respondents thought
more about who implemented these practices, rather than who had responsibility for them.
Recommendations
The possible answers should be reconsidered, since the placing of responsibility
apparently differs widely, and the options available at present are not sufficiently
comprehensive .
One possibility would be to make some more open categories, such as: top management,
middle management, project managers, employees, personnel department etc.
In addition one could start from the assumption that responsibility is shared and, rather
than asking who has the main responsibility, ask the respondent to number the different
categories in order of importance e.g. 1 for the most important, 2 for the next most, etc.
Another possibility is simply to allow respondents to put more than one cross.
If, on the other hand, it is only the prime responsibility that is being asked about, this
should be made clearer, for example by stressing this in the question, as we did in the
Danish version.
Page 30
15-04-2002
Do you measure the effectiveness of the knowledge management practices?

(Question 6)
The great majority of respondents do not measure the effectiveness of these activities. Only
22% answer the question in the affirmative and, in the open question, mention the following
very different methods:
Through guides and instructions
Some activities are included in the companys Balanced Scorecard and satisfaction
barometer
Employees satisfaction surveys, customer satisfaction surveys
Weekly follow-up meetings
Through budgets
Through specific sales results and marketing activities
Target fulfilment qualitative/quantitative (reported in our Intellectual Capital Report)
Through various measures, such as employee satisfaction, customer satisfaction,
supplier satisfaction, no. of inter-disciplinary improvement groups per year, the
development of competencies among employees, no. of days spent on
education/supplementary training.
It needs to be launched
The more knowledge we have about new raw products for new ideas recipes the
better the information the customer gets and the more we sell. So we have learned
from experience who supplies the best knowledge for the various areas.
Through continuous control
Through systematic use of the EFQM concept.
Many of the respondents interviewed felt that it was difficult to answer this question since
certain activities are measured ad hoc and others on a recurrent basis.
Recommendations
The question could be made more precise, partly by asking both about ad hoc and
systematic measuring, partly by giving examples of the kinds of measures that could be
applied.
It would be interesting in this connection to ask what indicators are used to measure
knowledge. This would be of particular interest in Denmark since we are pioneers in
reporting intellectual capital.
Which source(s) triggered your firm or organization to put into effect the knowledge
management practices currently used? (Question 7)
Results of pilot survey
In this question respondents are asked to indicate all the sources that have served to inspire
their organization to implement practices related to knowledge acquisition and sharing.
There are some indications that respondents have been inspired more by internal than by
external sources to implement knowledge-related practices.
The most commonly mentioned internal sources are management (83%), nonmanagement
workers (47.2%), owners and shareholders (22.6%) and the Board (18.9%). The last two
options are included only in the Danish questionnaire.
The most commonly mentioned external sources are competitors (41.5%) and customers or
clients (39.6%), but the results indicate a multitude of sources, since suppliers, alliance
partners, trade associations, universities, consultants and regulatory agencies are also cited as
relevant.
Page 31
15-04-2002
In the Da nish questionnaire the options advisory board and unions were also tested out, but
none of the respondents crossed these answers.
No contribution on this point.
Recommendations
Consideration should be given to including the Board and owners and shareholders
under internal sources
The survey group suggested the following additional question: Which role-models have
you used in Knowledge Management? This was not included in the pilot survey on the
grounds that it was already so extensive, but it could be considered for the final survey.
Do you have dedicated budgets or spendings for the activities? (Question 8)
Result of the pilot survey
58% of respondents dedicate financial resources to these activities, and half of these expect to
devote increased resources to them in the future. None of them anticipates that the budget for
these activities will be reduced within the next 24 months.
42% dedicate non-monetary resources to these activities, and only a quarter of these
anticipate that they will devote monetary resources to them within the next 24 months. 20%
do not know whether they will dedicate such resources.
The wording Does your firm or organization have dedicated budgets or spendings worried
several of the respondents. They argued that the resources used on activities related to
knowledge acquisition and sharing are integrated in many different places in the budget and
cannot therefore be considered specific.
Recommendations
The answer Stay the same should moved so that it is placed between Increase and
Decrease. ( In the OECD questionnaire the order is Increase , Decrease, Stay the
same.)
Did your firm or organization experience significant resistance to implementing any
of the knowledge management practices? (Question 9)
Only 9% of respondents had experienced resistance to implementing these activities, and in all
cases this resistance came from nonmanagement workers.
None of the respondents interviewed had experienced resistance to implementation. Surprise
was expressed, however, at the fact that distribution, purchasing and communications staff
had been placed in the same category, and that administration/accounting and HR had been
put together in the same category.
A more nuanced picture might be given if, instead of asking whether there had been any
resistance or not, respondents were asked about the degree of resistance.
Recommendations
The answers should be changed to a scale ranging from full backing to opposition.
If it is important to ask about significant resistance, this should emphasised as it was in
the Danish pilot survey.
Page 32
15-04-2002
What would motivate your firm or organization to implement or to increase

Knowledge Management practices? (Question 10)
The most frequently mentioned motivating factors are improved competitiveness (88.5%),
attracting workers (54.1%) and improving (corporate) image (45.9%). All these factors were
absent from the OECD questionnaire and added in the Danish version. The most important
factors among the OECD variables are avoiding loss of key personnel, capturing workers
undocumented knowledge and loss of market share.
Only a few respondents checked other, which suggests that the list of factors is
comprehensive.
It is evidently unclear to the respondents that they are being asked in this question what
would actually motivate them in their present situation to implement more Knowledge
Management practices. Several of the respondents indicated instead what could be interesting
arguments for introducing more Knowledge Management, and their answers therefore concern
the management problems which they believe Knowledge Management could solve. There is
thus a strong correlation between the answers here and those to Question 4, about the results
achieved by these activities.
Recommendations
The questions should include more proactive factors such as improving corporate image,
improving competitiveness, strengthening the ability to attract and retain workers.
Background variables
How many are employed in your firm or organization?
61% of the respondents are from firms with fewer than 50 employees, 31% are from mediumsized firms with up to 250 employees, while 8% are from firms with more than 250
employees.
25% of respondents have colleagues outside Denmark.
What is the turnover of your firm or organization?
The survey is marked by the number of small firms. A large proportion (25%) did not answer
this question.
What is the trade of your firm or organization?
24% have chosen to answer other, rather than to choose one of the trades mentioned. A
more detailed investigation showed that the majority are service organizations.
The majority of the other firms are in manufacturing (20%) or commerce (21%).
Where is your firm or organization based?
The majority of respondents come from firms in Zealand (54%). 33% are from Jutland, while
the rest (13%) come from Fyn.
Where are the owners of your firm or organization based?
Only 20% of respondents come from firms whose owners are located abroad, but there is a
tendency for these firms to have a higher level of activity than the others.
Page 33
15-04-2002
How long did it take you to fill in this questionnaire?

In the OECD questionnaire respondents are asked in Question 12 how long it took them to fill
in the questionnaire. In the Danish version this question has been replaced by a series of
background variables, see above.
In the interviews the interviewers timed how long it took the respondents to fill in the
questionnaire. The respondents took between 20 and 28 minutes.
Comments
Not many respondents used the opportunity to comment on the questionnaire, but the
comments made confirm many of the above-mentioned conclusions and suggestions for
changes.
The comments are:
No is missing when one would like to answer no but still relevant
Our knowledge sharing takes place through environmental certification
It is difficult to answer your questions clearly
It has been difficult to fill in this questionnaire since knowledge-sharing activities in our
firm are very diverse and not separately systematised in fact very attitude-based.
The following question could also have been useful: In which functions is KM used?
What tools are employed?
The answers to Questions 1.1-1.2 are not sufficiently nuanced. There can be other
reasons for saying no than that the question is not applicable, e.g. lack of financial
resources.
Who filled in this questionnaire?
It was difficult to decide whom the questionnaire should be sent to, and several of the
respondents interviewed said that they would prefer to pass the questionnaire on to someone
else in the firm. With a view to finding out who had in fact filled in the questionnaire, a final
box was added at the end: Filled in by name and position. The questionnaire was sent to
the administrative director, but no indications were given as to who should fill it in.
The majority of the questionnaires were filled in by the administrative director. In others, the
following titles were mentioned, but there is no particular pattern.
Directors secretary/assistant
Sales Manager
Finance Manager
Head of Production
Head of Planning and Communications
Change Manager
HR Manager
Regional Manager
Principal
Deputy Inspector
Project Manager
Page 34
15-04-2002
Miscellaneous
Recommendations for increasing the response rate:
It was suggested that we get in direct personal contact with the firms by phone before
the questionnaires were sent out, and in that way involve the respondents in advance.
It has also been suggested that we give respondents several benefits in order to raise
their motivation to use time and mental effort on filling in the questionnaire. Such
benefits could be the offer of networking cooperation or access to relevant links (e.g.
from the OECDs or the former Ministry of Business Affairs home page.)
Recommendations for dealing with the abstract nature of the concept:
Consideration could be given to omitting the concept Knowledge Management and hence
the definition, and instead formulating the questions more clearly and concretely.
One could for example make the questions more concrete by using examples.
Or one could start with a concrete question such as. If an employee wishes to leave,
what do you do in your organization?, What knowledge is it important to share in your
organization? and How do you do this? or if a worker is sitting on some invaluable
knowledge, how do you make sure it gets transferred?
An alternative would be to write an accompanying letter with a case study that sets out
the problem. The drawback with an accompanying letter is that it is likely not to be read,
so the introductory comments should be as brief as possible.
If the intention is to treat Knowledge Management as a part of ordinary management,
considertation should be given to omitting the skip option and asking all respondents to
fill in the whole questionnaire.
Further discussion of the target group could make the questionnaire more concrete. For
example, the kind of knowledge that is important differs from firm to firm.
It might be interesting to send the questionnaire out to different levels within each firm.
This would require several types of questionnaire.
If a definition is used in the questionnaire, one might consider using it on every page as
a running headline.
Proposal for an additional question:
Several members of the survey group wanted to include an additional question: Might
your firm be interested in participating in research or in experience groups in this field?
Page 35
15-04-2002
Appendix 2: Correspondence table between the OECD questionnaire

and the Danish questionnaire
The differences between the Danish questionnaire and the OECD questionnaire are set out
below.
Numbering of questions in OECD version
Corresponding numbers in Danish version
1.1 Policies and strategies
1.4 Policies and strategies
NOT INCLUDED IN OECD VERSION
1.4 E Preparation of intellectual capital reports
1.2 Leadership
1.5 Leadership
1.3 Incentives
1.6 Incentives
1.4 Knowledge capture and acquisition
1.1 Knowledge capture and acquisition
1.4 C Dedication of resources to obtaining and 1.1 C Dedication of time to obtaining knowledge
communicating knowledge
1.1 D Dedication of time to communicating knowledge obtained
1.1 E Dedication of budget to obtaining knowledge
1.1 F Dedicating of budget to communicating knowledge
1.4 D Encouraging participation in project
teams with external experts
1.1 G Encouraging partcipation in project teams with external

experts
1.5 Training and mentoring
1.2 Training and mentoring
1.6 Communications
1.3 Communications
1.3 D Physical arrangement of the workplace
1.3 E Use of IT
3 M Promoting knowledge sharing with suppliers
3 N Identifying tacit/unspoken knowledge of workers
3 O Profiling the organization as an up-to-date organization
3 P Improving ability and opportunity to take out patents
4 O Has led to new supplier relations
4 P Has led to new partnerships
7 D The Board
7 E Owners and shareholders
7 F Advisory Board
7 G Trade Associations
7 D Strategic alliance partners
7 H Strategic alliance partners
7 E Competitors
7 I Competitors
7 F Suppliers
7 J Suppliers
7 G Trade associations etc.
7 K Trade associations etc.
7H University and further education
7 L University and further education
7 I Consultants
7 M Consultants
7 J Regulatory agencies
7 N Regulatory agencies
7 K Customers or clients
7 O Customers or clients
7 L Others
7 P Others
10 A Desire to improve image
10 B Desire to facilitate globalization
10 C Desire to improve competitiveness
10 D Desire to attract workers
11 Number of employees
11.a Number of employees
11.b Turnover
12 Time it took to fill in questionnaire
NOT INCLUDED IN DANISH VERSION
12.a Trade
12.b Where firm is based
12.c Where owners are based
15 Name, title and year hired of person who filled in the

questionnaire
Page 36
15-04-2002
Appendix 3: Definitions of Knowledge Management

The following definitions were tested out in Canada in spring 2001:
Knowledge Management covers any intentional and systematic process or practice of creating,
acquiring, capturing, sharing and using productive knowledge, wherever it resides to enhance
learning and performance in organizations. (H. Scarborough, J. Swan and J. Preston).
In a simple form, Knowledge Management means the process of collecting, organizing,
classifying and dissemination of information throughout an organization. In a wider sense it
can be understood as the philosophy and technique of recogniz ing, increasing and exploiting
the organizations intangible assets. (H. Scheutze).
Knowledge Management is the purposeful sharing, using and reusing of knowledge in an
organization to enable further knowledge creation and the introduction of new or significantly
improved products or processes. (F. Gault).
Knowledge Management addresses the broad process of locating, organizing, transferring, and
more efficiently using the information and expertise within an organization. (Dataware
technologies).
Knowledge Management is the acquisition and use of resources to create an environment in
which information is accessible to individuals and in which individuals acquire, share and use
that information to develop their own knowledge and are encouraged and enabled to apply
their own knowledge for the benefit of the organization(s). (S. Brelade and C. Harman).
Knowledge Management is the active creation, transfer, application and re-use of (tacit)
individual knowledge and of codified (explicit) collective knowledge, supported by new work
approaches, relationships and technologies, to increase the speed of innovation, decisionmaking and responsiveness to top business priorities. (Treasury Board Secretariat).
Knowledge Management is the practice of adding actionable value to information by capturing,
filtering, synthesizing, summarizing, retrieving and disseminating tangible and intangible
knowledge. (Management Review).
At the OECD meeting in Paris in July 2001 the following definitions were discussed:
KM covers any organizational process or practice of creating, acquiring, capturing, sharing and
using knowledge
The comment was made that acquire and capture are synonymous and that transmission
should be added. This led to the definition:KM involves any organizational activity related to
the creation, transmission, capturing, sharing and the use of knowledge
Others suggested: KM covers any organizational process or practice which aims at linking
together the creation, capture and use of knowledge
Page 37
15-04-2002
Appendix 4: Sequence Chart of the pilot study
Design of
questionnaire
June
2001juni
Translation Interviews
and adaptation
juli
aug.
sept.
Reporting:
- Interim report to the former
Ministry of Business Affairs.
Analysis
Gathering of
17/12 2001
of data
data for pilot
from pilot - Report to OECD: January 2002
survey
- final report to former (Ministry of
survey
Business Affairs: 14 days after
fourth OECD meeting March
okt.
nov.
dec.
jan.
feb.
marts
2002
Third OECD
meeting *
First survey group
meeting
Fourth OECD
meeting
Second survey
group meeting
*The first OECD meeting was held in February 2001. The Centre for
Management has participated in the project since June 2001.
Page 38
Pilot reports
from
Canada,
Germany,
Denmark
circulated
15-04-2002

OECD Knowledge Management Project: Report - Danish Pilot-Survey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OECD Knowledge Management Project: Report - Danish Pilot-Survey

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

OECD Knowledge Management Project: Report - Danish Pilot-Survey

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OECD Knowledge Management

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

OECD SURVEY OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................................2

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

OECD Survey of Knowledge Management

This section briefly introduces the background to the project.

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

1.3 The partners

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

1.5 Who is included in the survey?

2. Methodology of the Pilot Study

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Kbmandsstandens CD-direct (The Business Worlds CD-Directory)

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Table 2.1: Distribution in the pilot survey by number of employees

Distribution in the chosen

Distribution among the

3. The questionnaire in general

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

3.3 The structure of the questionnaire

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

See the Correspondence table in Appendix 2

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

The dedication of resources to knowledge capture and acquisition

Budget for obtaining

Time for communicating

Since there is a considerable difference between organizations willingness to devote time on

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

promote the transfer or sharing of knowledge with suppliers (3M)

The significance of reasons for implementing Knowledge Management

To profile the organization To improve ability to take

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Results of using Knowledge Management practices

Increase in new products or services

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Sources of Knowledge Management practices

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

4. Tendencies in the data

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey

Improved skills and knowledge of workers

Increased our adaptation of products or

Increased our knowledge-sharing

Helped us to add new products or services

Improved client or customer relations

Improved worker efficiency and/or

Increased our knowledge-sharing

Improved our corporate memory

Improved involvement of workers in

Led to new supplier relations (only in

Led to new partnerships (only in Danish

Increased flexibility in production and

Improved our ability to capture knowledge

Increased our ability to capture knowledge

Increased our number of markets (more

Prevented unintended duplication of

Report Danish Pilot-survey for OECD Knowledge Management Survey