APQC’s Levels of Knowledge

Management Maturity™

Knowledge Management Capability

Assessment Tool™ Benchmarking Report

September 2020
AnyOrg Incorporated
<<date>>
<<Company Name>>

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Confidential

 Sample Report

Table of Contents

Thank you for participating in this valuable benchmarking research. For information
on benchmarking your organization's performance in other critical process groups
across your organization, visit http://www.apqc.org.

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope and Participant Demographics
Assessment Tool Results
Detailed Responses
About APQC

Instructions
To move through this report, please click on the table of contents items above or
click on the tabs at the bottom of the page.

For Additional Assistance

Please feel free to email us at [email protected] with any questions or concerns.

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

Executive Summary

Best Practices, Business Drivers, and Gap Analysis

Effective Knowledge Management (KM) depends upon a coherent, integrated approach that includes
strategy, cultural elements (people), knowledge flow processes, and supporting content and
technology. Lacking capability in one or more of the areas not only results in a lower overall maturity
in APQC’s Levels of Knowledge Management MaturityTM scale, wide differences in capability within
the four (4) key areas may also result in a lower level of maturity than expected. That’s because of the
leverage that each area provides to the organization’s KM capability. For example, increasing
technology enablement capability may provide significant increases in access to expertise, resulting in
increased knowledge flow; or similarly increasing process capability may provide ease of replication of
best practices throughout the organization.

Driving the need for increased KM maturity often comes from a variety of reasons, but many times
they include: loss of expert knowledge due to attrition, increased complexity of the organization’s
business (both due to increased content as well as geography), innovation needs, and competitive
pressures. The need for an organization to “know what it knows” has become an imperative and not
simply a “nice to have” capability.

It is important to consider multiple categories of measures when evaluating your organization’s KM

capability and maturity. For that reason, the APQC Knowledge Management Capability Assessment
ToolTM is further broken down into twelve (12) discrete, actionable categories that provide an
organization opportunities to both focus its KM efforts as well as to prioritize how those actions will
increase overall KM capability effectively. The following chart highlights key performance indicators
relating to KM capability in the 12 categories for your organization compared to all participants.

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

Results Summary

This results summary provides a quick view of your maturity levels and progress toward higher levels for each of the assessment domains. It also overlays the results of all participants for comparison. If you have completed a previous
KM CAT submission, your previous results will be shown below the current results.

Current Results - August 2020

Knowledge Change Knowledge Flow KM Tools & Content Information

Objectives Business Case Budget Resources Governance Communication Measurement
Management Maturity Management Process Approaches Management Technology

Level 5 Innovate

Level 4 Optimize

Level 3 Standardize

Level 2 Develop

Level 1 Initiate

Your Organization All Participants

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4 of 12 Confidential

 4
5

0
1
2
3

0
2
3
4
5

1
Strategy - Objectives

0 0

0
People - Resources

0
Strategy - Business Case

0 0

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Strategy - Budget

0 0

0
Comparison

People - Governance and People - Resources

0 0
Leadership

0
People - Governance and

0 0
Leadership

People - Change Management

0 0

0
People - Change Management

0
People - Communication

0 0

People
Process - Knowledge Flow

0 0
Process

0
Process - KM Approaches and
KMCAT: At a Glance

People - Communication

0 0
Tools

0
Process - Measurement

0 0
Content and Information

0
Technology - Content

0 0
Management Process
your organization. To update your data submission, please contact APQC.

People - Overall

0
Content and Information
Technology - Information

0 0
Technology
All Participants

All Participants
Your Organization

Your Organization

0
2
3
4
0
2
3
4
5

1
5
1

Strategy - Objectives

0
Process - Knowledge Flow
Strategy - Business Case
Process

0
Strategy - Budget

People - Resources

0
Process - KM Approaches and People - Governance and
Tools Leadership

0
People - Change Management

People - Communication

5 of 12
Process - Knowledge Flow
Process

Process - Measurement
Process

0
Special Note: Any charts below lacking a bar or value for "Your Site" indicates inadequate data was provided to calculate, report, or chart this metric for

Process - KM Approaches and

Tools

Process - Measurement
Sample Report

KMCAT: At a Glance (Peer Groups)

0
Content and Information
Process - Overall Technology - Content
Management Process
0 Content and Information
Technology - Information
00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000

Technology
Region
Industry

Revenue
Participants

All Participants
Top Performers -
Top Performers -
Top Performers -
Your Organization

Your Organization
Top Performer - All

3
4
5

0
1
2
0
1
4
5

2
3

Strategy - Objectives
Content and Information
0

Technology - Content
Management Process
0
0

Strategy - Business
Case
0

Content and Information

Technology - Information
Technology
0
0

Strategy - Budget
Strategy

0
0

Content and Information

Content and Information Technology

Technology - Overall Strategy - Overall

0

0
All Participants

All Participants
Your Organization

Your Organization

Confidential
 Sample Report

Survey Scope and Participant Demographics

Process Classification Framework

The foundation of the APQC's Open Standards Benchmarking research is the Process Classification Framework, or PCF (www.apqc.org/pcf). APQC
and its members developed the PCF, which is updated by a global advisory council of industry leaders. As a common language, the PCF allows
organizations to see and discuss their activities from an industry-neutral viewpoint. Regardless of size, industry or geography, organizations can
use the PCF to benchmark and improve processes.

The PCF organizes operating and management processes into 13 enterprise-level categories, including process groups and more than 1,500
processes and associated activities. Organizations can then talk specifically about the exact same activity and know what is included in that
activity. This benchmarking report focuses on PCF processes 13.5.1: Develop KM strategy and 13.5.2 Assess KM capabilities.

The following processes and activities are included in the scope of this survey.
Hierarchy
PCF ID ID Name
11073 13.5 Develop and manage enterprise-wide knowledge management (KM) capability
11095 13.5.1 Develop KM strategy
11100 13.5.1.1 Develop governance model
11101 13.5.1.2 Establish central KM core group
11102 13.5.1.3 Define roles and accountability of core group versus operating units
11103 13.5.1.4 Develop funding models
11104 13.5.1.5 Identify links to key initiatives
11105 13.5.1.6 Develop core KM methodologies
11106 13.5.1.7 Assess IT needs and engage IT function
11107 13.5.1.8 Develop training and communication plans
11108 13.5.1.9 Develop change management approaches
11109 13.5.1.10 Develop strategic measures and indicators
11096 13.5.2 Assess KM capabilities
11110 13.5.2.1 Assess maturity of existing KM initiatives
11111 13.5.2.2 Evaluate existing KM approaches
11112 13.5.2.3 Identify gaps and needs
11113 13.5.2.4 Enhance/Modify existing KM approaches
11114 13.5.2.5 Develop new KM approaches
11115 13.5.2.6 Implement new KM approaches

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 6 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

Survey Scope and Participant Demographics

Participant Demographics as of January 2020

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 7 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

Survey Scope and Participant Demographics

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 8 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

Objectives Assessment Questions Your Answers All Particants

Level 1
1 Has a business need for KM been identified?
No 0%
Identified 12%
Identified and documented X 58%
Identified, documented, and communicated across stakeholders 30%
2 Have employees communicated an interest in managing knowledge in the organization?
No 2%
Ad hoc 28%
Groups of employees and management have explored how to apply KM to their units 32%
Discussions are occuring among key stakeholders X 38%
Level 2
1 Is valuable domain knowledge identified and documented?
No 17%
Ad hoc, in discussions and/or meetings 19%
Within teams or departments 28%
Within one or more specific functions or business units X 27%
Formally, performed on a regular basis 9%
2 Are KM approaches tested to ensure they enable knowledge flow?
No 22%
Ad hoc 25%
Frequently 22%
Consistently X 19%
Consistently using a standard approach 12%
3 Is value creation recognized as a major objective of KM?
No 12%
Potential sponsors and early adopters X 38%
By specific functions or business units 28%
Consistently across the organization 22%
Level 3
1 Are core knowledge assets identified, captured and standardized for reuse?
No 15%
Locally, within teams or departments 31%
Within one or more specific disciplines or business units X 24%
Standard process used consistently across the organization 19%
Standard process used consistently with measureable outcomes 11%
2 Is valuable discipline or business unit knowledge reused?
No 26%
Locally, within teams or departments X
Within one or more specific disciplines or business units
Routinely done across the organization
3 Are the KM strategy and road map documented?
No 23%
Defined with limited documentation X 20%
Completely documented 31%
Completely documented & approved by KM executive sponsor 26%
4 Are the KM vision and mission aligned to creation of business value?
No 16%
KM vision and mission exist but not aligned 26%
Implicitly aligned X 34%
Explicitly aligned to business value 24%
Level 4
1 Are knowledge assets leveraged for competitive advantage?
No 26%
Ad hoc X 36%
Consistently 18%
Consistently with a replicable approach 13%
Consistently with a replicable approach and measurable impact 7%

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 9 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

2 Is the KM infrastructure (i.e., people, process, and technology) responsive to increased

demand and evolving business needs?
No 17%
Ad hoc 28%
Around major change events or significant changes to strategy X 29%
On a defined schedule 16%
On a defined schedule and around major change events or significant changes to strategy 10%
3 Are KM competencies (skills and expertise of KM practitioners) enhanced to meet increased
demand and evolving business needs?
No 12%
Reactively in response to business needs X 49%
Proactively and aligned to KM strategic plans 24%
Proactively, aligned to KM strategic plans and performance expectations 15%
4
Is KM aligned with the enterprise business framework (e.g., vision, mission, and strategies)?
No X 41%
Implicitly aligned 31%
Explicitly aligned 19%
Explicitly aligned with measurable outcomes 7%
Level 5
1 Is KM aligned with enterprise innovation efforts?
No 22%
Implicitly aligned X 42%
Explicitly aligned to organization's innovation initiatives 27%
Explicitly aligned and helps identify and select enterprise innovation efforts 9%
2 Is KM integrated with an enterprise excellence framework (i.e., quality, continuous
improvement programs)?
No X 31%
Ad hoc 24%
Work collaboratively with other groups 21%
Standard approach 13%
Standard integrated approach across the improvement lifecycle 11%

This view will be provided for all 12 assessment domains in the full report.

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 10 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

About APQC

Founded in 1977, APQC is a member-based nonprofit serving approximately 500 organizations worldwide in all industries. An internationally
recognized resource for process and performance improvement, APQC helps organizations adapt to rapidly changing environments, build new and
better ways to work, and succeed in a competitive marketplace. APQC focuses on benchmarking and metrics, best practices, knowledge
management, performance improvement, and professional development.

APQC claims a distinguished list of achievements including organizing the first White House Conference on Productivity, spearheading the creation
and design of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1987, and jointly administering the award for its first three years.

In 1992, the evolution of best practices and benchmarking as tools for breakthrough improvement led APQC to form the International
Benchmarking Clearinghouse, a comprehensive service designed to promote, facilitate, and improve the process of learning from best practices. As
an innovative thought leader, APQC, its members, and partners helped launch knowledge management (KM) as a key business practice in 1995.

Most recently, APQC introduced Open Standards Benchmarking, which seeks to standardize the processes and measures that global organizations
use to benchmark and improve performance. With over 5,000 participants from around the world representing a variety of industries, APQC's Open
Standards Benchmarking has become the world's premier database for benchmarks and best practices. A sample list of Open Standards
Benchmarking participants can be found online at http://www.apqc.org/participants.

Today, APQC works with organizations across all industries to find practical, cost-effective solutions to drive quality and process improvement.
More information about APQC and its best practices and benchmarking products and services can be found online at www.apqc.org.

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 11 of 12 Confidential

 Sample Report

About APQC

How to Use the Open Standards Benchmarking Report

To help your organization gain the greatest value from its custom Open Standards Benchmarking report, APQC has outlined some simple and
effective ways to leverage the findings.

Reviewing Your Open Standards Benchmarking Report

When you receive your benchmarking report, set aside a block of time to read through it in its entirety. Note any questions you would like to pose
to the APQC research team for clarification or additional information. You can contact the Open Standards Benchmarking help desk by phone at 800-
776-9676 or +1-713-681-4020 and by e-mail at [email protected].

Stakeholder Review Session

Conducting a review session with key stakeholders is an excellent way to develop and gain support for improvement initiatives. Some of the most
common ways that organizations leverage Open Standards Benchmarking reports in their stakeholder review sessions are:
• to set goals as part of the annual budgeting and planning process;
• to identify and prioritize improvement projects;
• to compare performance and business practices across multiple internal units;
• to learn about and adapt best practices from top performers;
• to incorporate metrics into businesses cases to support restructuring, merger, or outsourcing evaluations;
• to provide performance data for common frameworks or methodologies such as Six Sigma; and
• to establish a baseline prior to a technology implementation.

Here’s how three past participants leveraged the information in their reports:

• A building products manufacturer held a two-day event with leaders from various functional areas to discuss the data. The company coupled the
Open Standards Benchmarking report with customer feedback to plan improvements. Over the course of two days, the company spent 20 hours
reviewing findings and developing a list of 20 improvement projects.

• International Truck & Engine used several reports to facilitate its annual planning process. A team reviewed the data, flagged improvement areas,
and set goals for the next year. The organization identified between five and 10 action items for each Open Standards Benchmarking report it
completed.

• Working with a consulting firm, Thomas Steel Strip used the Open Standards Benchmarking report as a foundation for its process improvement
plan. The team created a matrix of its key measures, customized some calculations, and conducted work sessions to identify improvements. As a
result of the follow-on activities, the supply chain area reduced finished goods inventory by almost 50 percent and increased inventory turns,
allowing for lower inventory levels and faster delivery.

Here’s what participants had to say about their Open Standards Benchmarking reports:

• “I reviewed six or seven key points [from the report] internally with a group. The company comparisons were very relevant. We identified about
25 percent of the [company comparison] information for further internal discussion.”
• “We’ve added the findings to our benchmarking measurement program that we use for program review, course correction, and feedback
throughout the organization.”

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 12 of 12 Confidential