See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/220826038

How can we Assess Knowledge Management? Constructing a Holistic

Assessment Framework of KM.

Conference Paper · January 2005

Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS
6 1,738

3 authors, including:

Ying-Hsun Hung Seng-cho Timothy Chou

Hwa Hsia Institute of Technology National Taiwan University
22 PUBLICATIONS   269 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   736 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Data Science View project

Social Event Radar View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ying-Hsun Hung on 07 March 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 How can we assess Knowledge Management?
Constructing a Holistic Assessment Framework of KM
Ying-Hsun Hung 1,2; Seng-Cho T. Chou 2 ; Yu-Shu Chen 3
Department of Information Management, National Taiwan University2
Department of Management Information System, Hwa-Hsia Institute of Technology1
Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University3
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Abstract Knowledge management has emerged as an issue

managers have to deal with. However, practitioners are
This is an era in which knowledge plays a dominant often puzzled about where they stand on the roadmap of
role in our daily business lives. Intellectual capital has the KM journey, how well they are doing, and what they
gradually taken the place of traditional tangible capital should do next. To help answer these and other related
in many business organizations. However, practitioners questions, we believe a maturity model would be an asset.
are often puzzled about where they stand, how well they
are doing, and what they should do next. This paper The Knowledge Management Maturity Model
proposes two knowledge management maturity models as (KMMM) proposed in this study helps to answer the
a means to help answer these and related questions. questions raised above. It assesses what KM capabilities
an organization possesses, which maturity level the
The proposed model has two different representations: organization is at with respect to each of the KM
staged representation and continuous representation .We capabilities, and what improvements the organization
constructed a scale comprising 12 perspectives and should be considering. In addition, it is the aim of this
scores from the Likert scale of 100 items to assess the study to use this model to assess the differences of KM
applicability of the continuous model. We call this the practices among organizations and serve as the basis for
Knowledge Management Readiness Model (KMRM). In sector analysis and comparison.
the staged representation of the proposed model (KMPM),
which is a framework of KMMM, we developed a survey 2. Literature Reviews
to assess an organization’s KMMM level by surveying the
degree of fulfillment of specific and generic activities. 2.1 Five Maturity Levels of Knowledge Management
Maturity Model (KMMM)
Keywords: knowledge management maturity model,
maturity model, knowledge management maturity model, Most KMM models (Ehms and Langen 2002; Klimko
Knowledge Management Readiness Model 2001; Kochikar 2000; KPMG 2003) inherit the spirit of
the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)
(CMMI Product Team 2002) of SEI with its five levels of
1. Introduction maturity -- initial, repeated, defined, managed, and
optimizing. Capability, another important attribute of
A recent KPMG survey (KPMG 2003) showed that
CMM, can be translated into the enabling factors or
78% of respondents believe they are currently missing out
infrastructure of KM. While most KMM models treat KM
on business opportunities by failing to successfully
as a holistic activity, we view it as a process and expand it
exploit available knowledge. Knowledge management
into four main KM sub-processes, namely knowledge
(KM) is being applied in all business and functional areas,
creation, knowledge storage, knowledge sharing, and
with a focus on service delivery (53%), marketing and
knowledge application. The added dimension allows us to
sales (53%), operations (51%), human resources (43%),
gain better insight into how KM practices are supported at
R&D (43%), strategy (36%), distribution channels (32%),
each maturity level and reflects our emphasis on the need
and procurement (26%). Internal communities of practice
for continuous process improvement.
(45%), competence centres (41%), information centres
(41%), and document databases (41%) have been started
in the last two years. The focus will shift from internal to 2.2 Knowledge Management Processes
external knowledge sharing and customer and supplier
communities in the coming years. Alavi et al. (2001) developed a systematic framework
that is used to further analyze and discuss the potential

1
role of information technologies in organizational Technology
knowledge management. This framework is grounded in
the sociology of knowledge and is based on the view of
Structure Knowledge
organizations as social collectives and "knowledge Infrastructure
systems." According to this framework, organizations as Capability
knowledge systems consist of four sets of socially enacted Culture
"knowledge processes": (1) creation, (2) storage/retrieval,
(3) transfer, and (4) application.
Organizational
Acquisition Effectiveness
This view of organizations as knowledge systems
represents both cognitive and social nature of
organizational knowledge and its embodiment in the Conversion
Knowledge
individual's cognition and practices, as well as the Process
Capability
organizational practices and culture. Application

2.3 Knowledge Management Capabilities Protection

Gold et al. (2001) examined the issue of effective

knowledge management from the perspective of
organizational capabilities. It is suggested, as shown in Figure 1. Knowledge Management Capabilities,
Fig. 1, that a knowledge infrastructure consisting of Gold et al. (2001)
technology, structure, and culture along with a knowledge
process architecture of acquisition, conversion, 3.1 KMM Pyramid Model- The Staged Representation
application, and protection are essential organizational
capabilities for effective knowledge management. There are three components in KMM Pyramid Model,
namely, maturity levels, knowledge management
processes, and knowledge management capabilities or
3. Our Proposed Models enabling infrastructures, representing a three dimensional
model. The maturity levels are based on the capability
There are three components in the proposed model: maturity model of SEI. Specifically, we follow Ehms’s
maturity levels, knowledge management processes, and (2002) maturity definitions with five levels, i.e., initial,
knowledge management capabilities or enabling repeated, defined, managed, and optimizing. We further
infrastructures. The maturity levels are based on the look into generic and specific needs at each level.
capability maturity model Integration (CMMI) of SEI.
This model divides the knowledge management process From the capability perspective, we focus on three
into four main sub-processes: knowledge creation, key enabling infrastructures, i.e., technical, structural, and
knowledge storage, knowledge sharing, and knowledge cultural, after the study by Gold et al. (2001). The
application, emphasizing the need for continuous process structural infrastructure makes reference to the presence
improvement. Furthermore, knowledge management of norms and trust mechanisms. The cultural dimension is
enablers are integrated into KMMM to describe how it built upon a sharing context. The technological dimension
supports the practices at each maturity level. addresses the technology-enabled infrastructures that
exist within the firm. These three knowledge management
Our proposed models have two different enablers play a critical role in supporting knowledge
representations: staged representation, which is named management activities at each maturity level.
as the Knowledge Management Pyramid Model (KMPM)
and continuous representation, which we call the KM activities and practices are assessed from a
Knowledge Management Readiness Model (KMRM). In process perspective, giving an important third dimension
the staged representation model, which is a framework of to our model. Among the many proposed multi-stage KM
KMMM, we have developed a survey that assesses an process models, we adopted that of Alavi et al.(2001)
organization’s KMMM level by surveying the degree of with four key sub-processes, namely, knowledge creation,
fulfillment of specific and generic activities. Meanwhile, knowledge storage, knowledge sharing, and knowledge
in the continuous representation model, we have application. These four sub-processes are common to
constructed a scale to assess 12 perspectives and scores most KM process models in the literature and
from the Likert scale of 100 items. comprehensively cover the daily KM activities in a
business setting.

2
 Optimizing
Maturity
Levels

Managed

Defined Structure
Perspectives
(infrastructure)
Technology
Repeated

Culture
Initial
Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
Creation Storage Sharing Application Figure 3. The KMRM Representation
Process Areas (Process Capability) The scoring of KMRM Continuous Representation is
represented by a set of points in three dimensions.
1. The process dimension represents “What” knowledge
Figure 2 . The KMM Pyramid Model management processes an organization has adopted.
The Process Area axis describes the processes.
This three-dimension KMM model can be unfolded 2. The capability (score) dimension describes “How
and re-oriented into a KMM modeling template. This well” knowledge management processes actually
template is meant to be a survey vehicle for assessing the perform.
KM maturity of an organization. In this study, we focus 3. The infrastructure dimension describes “What”
on an organization’s KM capabilities as revealed by its knowledge management infrastructure components an
KM activities done against the objectives set at each organization has incorporated.
maturity level. An organization is determined to reach a
certain maturity level when its KM practices meet both The applicability of the continuous model is assessed
the generic and specific objectives set at that level. Parts through a scale of 12 perspectives and scores based on the
of the KMM Pyramid Model template are shown in Likert scale of 0 to 5 points for 100 items. Empirical data
Appendix B. was collected from the Top 500 companies in Taiwan.
Parts of the KMRM scale are shown in Appendix A.
3.2 Holistic Measurement Framework of KMRM –
The Continuous Representation

We constructed a continuous model called the

Knowledge Management Readiness Model (KMRM),
which is illustrated in Fig. 3.l

Figure 4. Radar map from KMRM

3
3.3 How do we assess maturity levels in the KMM
Pyramid Model (KMPM) 3.4 The strengths of KMPM and KMRM

The holistic measurement framework of KMMPM By introducing the Knowledge Management

comprises knowledge management process and Readiness Model (KMRM), it enables comparisons
knowledge management enablers, and knowledge across and among organizations on process areas by
management maturity model. In the element-relationship process areas basis or infrastructures by infrastructures
diagram of KMMM, we can measure the maturity level of basis. It is flexible in its application so we can choose
knowledge management practices in relation to which areas to assess or emphasize.
organizations. Therefore, Organizations can survey the
fulfillment of knowledge management sub-processes in By adopting the Knowledge Management Pyramid
the specific business practices to discriminate and assess Model (KMPM), it permits comparisons across and
the maturity level of knowledge management sub- among organizations by the use of maturity levels. It also
processes, so as to get a clear understanding of weaker provides practitioners a holistic appraisal to examine a
key areas within knowledge management process and proven sequence of improvements, beginning with basic
assist to rearrange the priorities of KM investments. knowledge management practices and progressing
through a predefined and proven path of successive levels,
each serving as a foundation for the next.
Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge Knowledge
Creation Storage Sharing Application 4. Conclusion

Maturity We have constructed a KMMM Pyramid model from

Specific level the perspective of knowledge management processes, and
Objectives Generic integrated knowledge management enablers into the
objectives model. The Staged representation can be used to evaluate
how well organizations perform in knowledge
management, and provide maturity paths that
organizations can follow. The applicability of this model
was evaluated through case studies. Continuous
Specific Generic
practices and practices
Representation is represented by a set of points in three
activities and activities dimensions. The applicability of this representation is
assessed through a scale of 12 perspectives. These two
Figure 5 . Element-Relationship Diagram in KMMM representations provide different assessment approaches
to help in determining how well organizations perform in
According to holistic measurement framework of terms of knowledge management, and provide maturity
KMMM, we develop a surveying table to take down the paths that organizations can follow.
actual state of practiced activities of knowledge
management .This surveying table is drawn from three 5. References
dimension: knowledge management process and
knowledge management enablers, and knowledge [1] Alavi, M., and Leidner, D.E. “Review: Knowledge
management maturity model and represent the current Management and Knowledge Management Systems:
state of specific practices and activities, generic practices Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues,” MIS
and activities. Parts of the surveying table are shown in Quarterly (25:1), 2001,pp. 107-136.
Appendix B.
[2] CMMI Product Team. “Capability Maturity Model
By mapping generic objectives and specific objectives Integration (CMMISM), Version 1.1,” 2002.
of each maturity level with the current state of specific
practices and activities, generic practices and activities, [3] Ehms, K., and Langen, M. “Holistic Development of
we determine and assess the level of KMMM of KM with KMMM,” Siemens AG / Corporate Technology
organization by surveying the fulfillment degree of Knowledge Management , and Business Transformation ,
specific and generic practiced activities. The applicability 2002.
of this Staged model is evaluated through a case study of
KM practices in the banking industry in Taiwan. Three [4] Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., and Segars, A. H.
large local banks were selected, and in-depth interviews “Knowledge Management: An Organizational
with their senior management were conducted.

4
Capabilities Perspective,” Journal of Management [6] Kochikar. “The Knowledge Management Maturity
Information Systems (18: 1), 2001, pp. 185-214. Model – A Staged Framework for Leveraging
Knowledge,” The KM World 2000 conference, Infosys,
[5] Klimko, G. “Knowledge Management and Maturity September 2000.
Models: Building Common Understanding,” ECKM,
2001, pp. 269-278. [7] KPMG. “KPMG's Knowledge Management Survey
2002/2003,” 2003

5
 Appendix A

Knowledge Creation Processes in your Organization (Best Practice) Leader

1. Technological Capabilities

Very Good

Very Good
Excellent

Excellent
Good

Good
None

None
Poor

Poor
Fair

Fair
Please rate the effectiveness of the technologies listed below

Brainstorming Systems (software+ hardware) 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Data Mining; Text Retrieval ; Knowledge discovery tools 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Learning tools；GUI-aided designs 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Simulation models ; Thinking support systems 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Concept mapping systems ; Instance inferencing systems 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Collaborative filtering systems ; Virtual Reality 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Enterprise Information Portals ; Knowledge Management Systems 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Artificial Intelligence; Business Intelligence 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Groupware，Decision Support Systems 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

2. Structural Capabilities

Very Good

Very Good
Excellent

Excellent
Good

Good
None

None
Poor

Poor
Fair

Fair
Please rate the effectiveness of the following mechanisms

Informal mechanisms, E-communities of practice 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Formal knowledge network mechanisms, Internet, Intranet ,Extranet 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Formal knowledge creation mechanisms and R & D department 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Dedicated KM groups, dedicated project groups 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Knowledge identification , knowledge inventory /auditing mechanisms 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Quantitative measurement system for K.C. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Incentive mechanisms to encourage innovation 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
A dedicated quantitative measurement section to assess performance 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

3. Cultural Capabilities
Not effective

Not effective
effective

effective
None

None
Very

Very
How effective are the following cultural characteristics within your
organization?

Awareness of the importance of knowledge management 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

Encouragement of innovation , creativity is valued . 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Adventurous - people are willing to attempt novel approaches 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Inventive and innovative culture 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Diversified cultural context and international outlook 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
People are encouraged to ask questions and express opinions. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Most people are enthusiastic and spontaneous. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Proactive attitudes. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Positive working atmosphere – staff feel valued 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5

6
 Appendix B
The KMMM Surveying table

level objectives practiced activities of knowledge management

Creation storage sharing Application
Level 1 --- ---
Level 2 Generic Aware of the importance of knowledge management
defining knowledge management
discovering problems and potential values of knowledge management
Specific Achievements of KM activities in specific scopes
encourage employees’ creativity
knowledge documentization
informal knowledge sharing activities and application
Technology Internet, Intranet, Extranet
learning tools； bbs； bbs； interface design
GUI-aided designs； text editors； videoconference； software；
Typical brainstorming data base groupware；
Enablers software； chatroom；
virtual reality email；Communities
of practice
Structure Communities of practice
Level 3 Generic Organizational KM support
dedicated KM groups
invested resources
Specific Formalized and integrated sub-processes of knowledge management
strategic and formalized mechanisms of knowledge creation
knowledge extraction and integration
formalized channels of knowledge sharing & training
contexts of knowledge applications
Technology Enterprise information portal, Knowledge management system
Data mining； Knowledge Search engine； Expert system；
Text retrieval / base ； Knowledge work scheduling；
mining； Data taxonomy； OLAP；
Knowledge warehousing； Knowledge map； DSS；
discovering tools； Documentation Intelligent agent； Intelligent agent
instance inferencing system； content-oriented
system； instance search；
simulation models； inferencing E-learning；
collaborative filters system； experts yellow page
system； FAQ；
artificial workflow
Typical
intelligence； systems；
Enablers
business intelligence Expert Systems
Structure Dedicated KM group, a dedicated project group, a flat organizational structure
R & D department； Information on job experts functional department
management training；apprentice
department system；workshop
Level 4 Quantitative control and assessment of knowledge management processes
stabilize the achievements of knowledge management sub-processes
Enablers Structure Auditing department
Level 5 continuely improving knowledge management processes
ensure improving knowledge management processes continuely

Enablers structure R & D group, decision making group

View publication stats