Guide on KM Audit for LGRCs by Euly Enrique

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs Copyright ÂŠ 2011 Local Government Academy (LGA) Department of the Interior and Local Government All rights reserved. Portions of this Guide may be used for training and other educational purposes. When using such for publications and learning materials, please acknowledge your the Local Government Academy as reference. ISBN: Printed and bounded in Manila, Philippines. Published by:

Local Government Academy Department of the Interior and Local Government 8/F Agustin I. Bldg., F. Ortigas, Jr. Road, (Formerly Emerald Ave.,) Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605 Philippines Tel Nos. (632) 634-8430 / 634-8436 www.lga.gov.ph

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR

LGRCs

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction

II. KM Audit: An Overview

What is a KM Audit?

A KM Audit Tasks:

What a KM Audit is not

Benefits of KM Audit

When to do a KM Audit

III. How to do a KM Audit A. KM Audit Designing and Planning

2 2

- Organizational KM Capability Assessment

- Knowledge Mapping

- Social Network Analysis

B. COMPONENTS

C. Methodology

- Analytical Framework

- Systems Theory

- Tacit and Explicit Knowledge

- Key Principles and Good Practices

- KM Maturity Model

- Stages of KM Maturity for Knowledge-Centric Organizations

d. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK IV. KM Audit Guide and Tools A. Organizational KM Capability Assessment Tool

7 7 7

APO KM Framework

KM Capability Assessment Steps

Expected Outputs

1. The KM Assessment Survey Questionnaire Process Flow

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

9 12

2. Group Significant Findings Matrix

3. KM Maturity Level

Significance of the Findings

B. Knowledge Mapping

Key principles of Knowledge Mapping

What is Knowledge?

Knowledge Mapping: Where to Focus?

Knowledge Mapping Steps

Knowledge Mapping Matrix Elements

Guide Questions for Analysis and Discussion:

Significance of the Findings

C. Social Network Analysis

Key Elements

Tools

Expected Output

Steps

Guide Questions

Significance of the Findings

D. Knowledge Capital Planning

Theoretical Background

Elements of the Knowledge Capital Plan

Steps

V. Audit Report Preparation

Guiding Points:

Report Format

Annexes References

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

I. Introduction This document describes the concepts, methods and tools for conducting Knowledge Management (KM) audits for the local governance sector both within the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) level and its clients and the various stakeholders through and by the Local Governance Resource Centers. The purpose of this Guide is to provide the Local Government Operations Officers with the competencies to conduct KM Audit for Local Governance. While review of literature would show that there are many methods and tools available in doing KM Audit, only those that are deemed useful to the LGRC have been selected. Thus, this Guide does not preclude additional KM Audit tools in the future.

II. KM Audit: An Overview What is a KM Audit? A KM Audit is a qualitative but sound and evidence-based evaluation of the organization, community, or network’s “KM” health, helping determine the “readiness” or “fitness” to “do KM”. A KM Audit identifies the strengths and assets, weaknesses and barriers and can show what changes are needed in organizational and personal behavior, processes and enabling technologies, leadership, and management. It is the basis for KM strategies, programming and planning. It also has implications for setting of policy and procedures in organizations. KM Audit may be applied to a single, specific organization, a community, local government units, or to a network. Most often KM Audit is directed to a specific organization. Through the Local Governance Resource Center under the auspices of DILG, KM Audit is directed into the Local Governance sector. It looks into a group of local governance stakeholders per region but primarily takes account of the DILG as a national instrumentality that provides conceptual leadership to strengthen local government capability for effective delivery of basic services to the citizenry.

A KM Audit Tasks: -

What are the organization/community/network’s knowledge needs? What knowledge assets or resources does it have and where are they? What gaps exist in its knowledge? How does knowledge flow around the organization? What blockages are there to that flow, e.g. to what extent do people, processes and technology currently support or hamper the effective flow of knowledge?

What a KM Audit is not A KM Audit is not like a traditional audit: It is not a check of performance against a standard, as in financial auditing or quality management or ISO audits; It doesn’t use “hard”, quantitative measures against set standards; and, A KM Audit is not the same as a ‘knowledge audit’. Knowledge audit focuses on knowledge assets, skills, or competencies only, and not other organizational enablers and factors.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Benefits of KM Audit According to UK National Health Service – a leading KM practitioner, a KM Audit’s benefits include: •

Helping clearly identify what knowledge is needed to support overall organization/community/network goals and, individual and team activities.

•

Giving tangible evidence of the extent to which knowledge is being effectively managed and indicates where improvements are needed.

•

Providing an evidence-based account of the knowledge that exists, and how that knowledge moves around in, and is used.

•

Presenting a map of what knowledge exists, and where it exists, revealing both gaps and duplication.

•

Identifying pockets of knowledge that are not currently being used to good advantage and therefore offer untapped potential.

•

Providing a map of knowledge and communication flows and networks, revealing both examples of good practice and blockages and barriers to good practice.

Presenting an inventory of knowledge assets, allowing them to become more visible and therefore more measurable and accountable, and giving a clearer understanding of the contribution of knowledge to organization/ community/network performance.

When to do a KM Audit Since a KM Audit is an assessment of KM capability or ‘health’, it should be done before embarking on any KM programs, projects, initiatives, and activities. But, not before securing buy-in from management / leadership to proceed with the KM Audit as the first step in stock-taking and eventual planning and programming. The KM Audit is also an input and can be a prerequisite to developing or enhancing KM frameworks and strategies. Finally, KM Audits should be done regularly (eg.: annually) and used as benchmark for future KM Audits. This will help assess the effectiveness of interventions and activities designed in response to earlier findings and recommendations.

III. How to do a KM Audit? The following describes the components of the KM Audit and the methodology used to capture data and generate findings.

A. KM Audit Designing and Planning KM for Local Governance Audit process has a pre-defined KM Audit Tools to be used. Thus, selection of audit method is not included in this designing and planning period. The main elements to be considered in designing and planning are:

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

1. Contextualization. Generate adequate relevant background information of the organization, community or network where KM Audit will be conducted. Be familiar with the mandate, vision, goals, key result areas, structure, etc. 2. Identify/design set of KM Audit goals, objectives, activities, methodologies, resource requirements and schedule (i.e.: individual survey, FGD, workshop, etc.) appropriate to the organization community/ network. 3. Develop criteria on the selection of KM Audit respondents and FGD/workshop participants. 4. Identify team composition and agree on team member’s assignment/role. 5. Coordinate with the organization or focal person on the schedule and resource requirements. 6. Ensure that KM Audit presentation materials, tools, forms and templates are available.

B. Components The core components of a KM Audit are described below but are treated in detail in the “KM Audit Guides and Tools”.

Organizational KM Capability Assessment The organizational KM Capability Assessment determines the readiness of the organization, community, or network to “do KM” based on various factors and enablers, including: • organizational process; • people and culture; • technology; • leadership and management; • knowledge processes; • learning and innovation; and, • outcomes. The Organizational KM Capability Assessment is conducted through a survey. The related Guide describes how survey results are tallied, processed, analyzed, and reported.

Knowledge Mapping Knowledge mapping identifies the knowledge supply and needs of an organization, community, or network. It determines knowledge gaps and assesses the ability to efficiently reuse and disseminate knowledge. Knowledge Mapping asks the following questions: • What are our knowledge needs and assets? • Where are they located? • Are they being leveraged effectively? • How efficiently can they be reused? • What are our knowledge gaps? The Knowledge Map can also serve as a living tool or product of the organization/ network to help locate knowledge resources and expertise as well as plan for the build up of the knowledge base. Knowledge Mapping is best done as a workshop or focus group discussion with key informants composed of representatives of stakeholders. The Knowledge Mapping Guide describes how to conduct the Knowledge Mapping exercise, and analyze and generate findings from the outputs. GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Social Network Analysis A Social network Analysis (SNA) aims to determine the communication and knowledge flows within an organization, community, or network. It uncovers many informal but real paths of information that supports actual work and activities beyond formal lines of authority and institutional arrangements. It helps provide insights that inform initiatives to enhance communication, knowledge sharing, human resource planning and development, team building, decision-making, learning, and innovation.

The SNA aims to answer the following questions: • Is the network strong and well-connected? • How efficiently does knowledge flow from those who know to those who need to know? • How can more people benefit from the knowledge of others? The SNA uses a survey questionnaire to gather data. The SNA - Guide describes how survey results are tallied, processed, and analyzed to generate relevant network metrics which indicate the health and capability of the network for knowledge sharing.

C. Methodology The following summarizes the objectives met by each of the KM Audit components and describes the key participants and expected output for each.

OBJECTIVE

METHOLOGY and TOOLS

RESPONDENTS/ INFORMANTS

Determine KM capability in Org. KM terms of how organizational Assessment enablers support or hinder KM Survey

Key representatives

Identify knowledge needs, supply, and gaps;

Knowledge Mapping Workshop/Focus Group Discussion

Key representatives

Social Network Analysis (SNA) Survey

All members/ stakeholders

Assess quality and reusability of knowledge supply Evaluate network relationships, communication/ information flows

of all stakeholders

OUTPUT Summary Report on findings and conclusions Knowledge Mapping Matrix

SNA Matrix and Network Diagram

D. Analytical Framework The method and framework for processing, analyzing, and evaluating inputs and data gathered are described in detail in each component as well as in the development of the overall report (described in KM Audit Report – Guide and Template). The framework is based on widely-accepted theory, concepts, good practices, and benchmarks.

Systems Theory The KM Audit approach described in this Guide recognizes KM as a system and uses a systems framework for analysis.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Systems theory is a trans-disciplinary approach that abstracts and considers a system as a set of independent and interacting parts (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory). In KM these inter-related parts are generally recognized to include people and culture, process, technology, leadership, and management.

Tacit and Explicit Knowledge This framework recognizes that there are two forms of knowledge – tacit and explicit. Explicit knowledge is valued for lending itself to dissemination; however, explicit knowledge can quickly become obsolete and will not always be in a format that is easily reusable to other users. Tacit knowledge is valued for being rich in context, nuanced and detailed information; however, it can be hard to extract, codify, and share. Often experts have a hard time sharing their knowledge because of linguistic barriers or they can no longer appreciate the feeling of a person learning a new subject matter. Both forms of knowledge are assessed and accordingly evaluated for their pros and cons.

Key Principles and Good Practices Some of the key principles and good practices that should be evaluated across all three KM Audit components are the following: •

Scores and ratings generated by any of the KM Audit report can’t be assessed as a stand alone rating; there is no strict definition for “high” or “low” scores. There is no pass or fail mark. They should be used instead as benchmark for future monitoring, comparison, and evaluation, or to compare against benchmark organizations locally or internationally.

•

We are all knowledge workers. We need data, information, or knowledge produce new data, information, or knowledge. In turn, our knowledge outputs are relevant inputs to someone else’s work or decisionmaking process. Hence there should be a complete and unbroken “knowledge value chain” where knowledge is continuously created, shared, reused, repurposed, and improved for the benefit of the next user. This is thus a virtuous, instead of a broken, knowledge lifecycle.

•

Since knowledge is known to gain in value the more it is used and reused, knowledge flow should be as efficient and direct as possible between those who know and those who need to know.

•

Tacit forms of knowledge are usually very rich and valuable sources of information. If most knowledge is tacit, there should be approaches to codify these into documents or multimedia, or design activities in which tacit knowledge is shared directly with those who might benefit from it (e.g., meetings, seminars, workshops, training). Important knowledge needs identified as tacit but shown to be residing in only one or a few subject matter experts underline the importance of establishing social network relationships with them.

•

In general it is less efficient to share information that only exists as hardcopies. Sharing of hardcopy information usually only happens for organizations with existing relationships. In other words, hardcopy documents are usually not shared outright outside of a pre-selected group of recipients. Electronic data or files are easier for the owner to disseminate and share, and easier for the user to access, reuse, repurpose, and repackage. If the knowledge base is mostly explicit and hardcopy, there should be an initiative to source the electronic files or convert them into electronic documents (e.g., scanned). Sharing of knowledge can dramatically increase in reach, scope, and impact if information is available electronically, easily passed on through existing network connections beyond the immediate reach of the owner of that knowledge.

•

The accessibility and quality of knowledge is obviously a key factor in the demand for and reuse of knowledge. Where necessary, there should be initiatives to improve accessibility and quality of knowledge.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

KM Maturity Model This framework recognizes that there are various stages to developing KM capability in organizations. This framework is based on APQC’s Knowledge Management Maturity model (See: http://www.apqc.org/knowledgebase/documents/apqcs-levels-knowledge-management-maturity). APQC’s Levels of Knowledge Management Maturity provide a road map for moving from immature, inconsistent knowledge management activities to mature, disciplined approaches aligned to strategic business imperatives. As pointed out in APO’s KM Tools and Techniques, most KM Maturity models copy the spirit of the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) of Software Engineering Institute (SEI) with five levels of maturity—initial, repeated, defined, managed, and optimizing. The maturity model elements are summarized as follows: LEVEL 1. Initiate or Initial 2. Develop or Repeated

DESCRIPTION Between no awareness to growing awareness. Processes are not consciously controlled. Whatever considered as successful knowledge-related activities are seen as a strike of luck and not as the result of goal setting and planning. Importance and need for KM is recognized. There are some localized and repeatable practices. Organizational processes are partly described as KM tasks and pilot projects on KM typically exist.

3. Standardize Common processes and approaches are being institutionalized. There are stable and practice activities that effectively support the KM of individual parts or Defined of the organization. These activities are integrated in the day-to-day work processes and the corresponding technical systems are maintained. 4. Optimize or Managed

KM is widely practiced, measured, and adaptive. Indicators relating to the efficiency of the KM activities are regularly measured. The activities are secured in the long term by organization-wide roles and compatible sociotechnical KM systems.

5. Innovate or Optimizing

KM and organizational learning is embedded in policies and procedures. KM programs are continuously improved. The measuring instruments combine with other instruments for strategic control. There are no challenges left that cannot be resolved with the established KM tools.

Adapting the same spirit, the Local Government Academy (See: Communities that Learn! A Local Governance Knowledge Management (LGKM) Framework) describes stages of KM maturity in the context of a knowledgecentric organization. Accordingly, organizations that are serious and committed to knowledge management in both public and private sectors can be described as being, at one time or another, at a certain stage of KM maturity towards becoming truly a knowledge-centric organization (KCO). From the perspective of an effective LGKM, DILG can be seen as working towards becoming a KCO. Likewise, the community of local governance prime movers and stakeholders is also framed as a KCO, wherein the ultimate objective is a learning community epitomizing local governance excellence.

Stages of KM Maturity for Knowledge-Centric Organizations 1. Build awareness on KM with key stakeholders to gather support and resources, develop vision/mission and initial plans. 2. Prepare organization by assessing the current situation and identifying KM value proposition and strategies, developing detailed plans, and designating important key roles such as sponsors, champions, KM Coordinators. 3. Explore, experiment and build a KCO wherein KM programs, projects and activities are piloted and implemented. 4. Sustain and expand KCO by enhancing, increasing scope, scaling up initial programs and activities and initiating new activities.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

5. Institutionalize and connect communities that embed KM and organizational learning in the policy, processes, tools and culture of the organization. People freely and voluntarily share knowledge with each other and are conscious of their own specific knowledge needs and systems as an informal group.

IV. KM Audit Guide and Tools A. Organizational KM Capability Assessment Tool The general purpose of this tool is to determine the readiness of the organization, community, or network to “do KM” based on the categories adopted from Asian Productivity Organization (APO) KM Framework. Level of KM readiness is described in accordance to the described maturity stage. Specifically, this tool aims to: • Determine if KM is already being practiced in the “local governance sector”1 and to what degree it is being applied • Determine if the particular entity or stakeholder has the right conditions for building and sustaining systematic KM processes • Identify the particular local governance entity or stakeholder’s strengths and opportunities for improvement in managing knowledge

APO KM Framework

Source: Asian Productivity Organization, 2009

This includes DILG, its various department sub- units, regional and field offices and multi-stakeholders to which KM for Local Governance Audit is being directed in relation to enhancing LGRC as an effective mechanism to local governance capacity development 1

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

8 At the core of the Framework are the organizational vision and mission. These provides the organizational context of the organization’s mandate and strategic directions, which are the fundamental elements by which one can gauge the level of KM capabilities that need to be developed. The Framework has seven elements. The assessment questions are based on these elements, which are as follows: 1. KM Leadership 2. Organizational Processes 3. People 4. Technology 5. Knowledge Processes 6. Learning Innovation 7. KM Outcomes The first four: leadership, organizational process, people and technology are the accelerators. The fifth element, knowledge processes, provides the basis by which an assessment of existing KM practices is based upon. There are five core knowledge processes in this Framework: • Identify • Create • Store • Share • Apply The KM outcomes measure the effectiveness of the knowledge processes supported by the accelerators, vision, and mission. The element, learning and innovation, are expected to be demonstrated on the outcomes. Learning and innovation build individual, team, organizational and societal capabilities, and ultimately lead to improvements in the outcome areas such as quality of products and services, productivity, profitability, and growth.

KM Capability Assessment Steps 1. Administer/Conduct KM assessment using the Survey Questionnaire 2. Identify knowledge strengths and opportunities for improvement using the Group Significant Findings Matrix 3. Determine KM maturity level using the Scoring Sheet and KM Readiness Check

Expected Outputs • Group Scores for each category with radar chart • Group Significant Finding: Strength and Opportunities for Improvement • KM Readiness or Maturity Level

1. The KM Assessment Survey Questionnaire Seven Audit Criteria Categories: Cat 1. KM Leadership - This category evaluates the organization’s leadership capability to respond to the challenges of a knowledge-based economy. The KM leadership is assessed in terms of KM policies and strategies that are in-place in the organization. The leadership is also assessed in terms of their effort to initiate, guide, and sustain KM practices in the organization.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Cat 2. Processes - The process category assesses how knowledge is used in managing, implementing, and improving the organization’s key work processes. It also assesses the extent to which the organization continually evaluates and improves its work processes to achieve better performance. Cat 3. People - In the people category, the organization’s ability to create and sustain an organizational knowledge-driven and learning culture is assessed. The organization’s effort to encourage knowledge sharing and collaboration is evaluated. The development of knowledge workers is also assessed. Cat 4. Technology - The technology category reviews the organization’s ability to develop and deliver knowledgebased solutions such as collaborative tools and content management systems. The reliability and accessibility of these tools are also assessed. Cat 5. Knowledge Processes - The organization’s ability to identify, create, store, share and apply knowledge systematically is evaluated. Sharing of best practices and lessons learned to minimize re-inventing of the wheel and work duplications are also assessed. Cat 6. Learning and Innovation - This category determines the organization’s ability to encourage, support and strengthen learning and innovation via systematic knowledge processes. Management’s effort to inculcate values of learning and innovation and provide incentives for knowledge sharing is also assessed. Cat 7. KM Outcomes - The KM Outcomes category measures the organization’s ability to enhance value to customers through new and improved products and services. The organization’s ability to increase productivity, quality, profitability, and sustain growth through the effective use of resources and as a result of learning and innovation is evaluated.

Audit Items and Rating System • Total of 42 questions covering the seven audit categories with a maximum score of 210 points • Each category has a maximum score of 30 points. Each of the questions can be rated based on the following scale: Doing Very Good –(5); Doing Good –(4); Doing Adequately –(3); Doing Poorly –(2); and, Doing Very Poorly or None At All –(1).

Process Flow 1.

Administering the assessment questionnaire 1.1 Each individual shall be made to answer the assessment questionnaire. (See Annex1 for the Assessment Questionnaire) 1.2. Tabulate individual rating for each category and reflect it in Column 1 of the Individual Scoring Sheet

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

INDIVIDUAL SCORING SHEET

CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(1)

(2)

CATEGORY SCORES

MAXIMUM POINTS

(ASSESSMENT RATING TOTALS) KM LEADERSHIP SCORE

Questions 1 through 6 PROCESSES SCORE

Questions 7 through 12 PEOPLE SCORE

Questions 13 through 18 TECHNOLOGY SCORE

Questions 19 through 24 KNOWLEDGE PROCESS SCORE

Questions 25 through 30 LEARNING & INNOVATION SCORE

Questions 31 through 36 KM OUTCOMES SCORE

Questions 37 through 42

TOTAL SCORE

210

2. The average individual score/rating for each category is then tabulated into this scoring sheet and presented in the form of a radar chart (Fig 1). See Annex 2 for the scoring sheet in Excel easy preparation of the radar chart.

SUMMARY TABLE INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET (1) CAT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(2)

CATEGORY SCORES

MAXIMUM

(ASSESSMENT RATING TOTALS)

POINTS

KM LEADERSHIP SCORE

(3) RANK (1-7) where: 1 = highest, 7 = lowest)

Questions 1 through 6 PROCESSES SCORE

Questions 7 through 12 PEOPLE SCORE

Questions 13 through 18 TECHNOLOGY SCORE

Questions 19 through 24 KNOWLEDGE PROCESS SCORE

Questions 25 through 30 LEARNING & INNOVATION SCORE

Questions 31 through 36 KM OUTCOMES SCORE

Questions 37 through 42

TOTAL SCORE

210

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

3. Whenever participants to the KM assessment have been grouped (as in the case of a multi-sectoral representation in LGRC KM assessment, or highly hetero-geneous central sub units in the DILG local governance sector), a group rating/score should be tabulated. This means that individual ratings will be tabulated and averaged into group scores. Each group shall have a group scoring sheet.

Figure 1. Radar Chart of KM Assessment

GROUP SCORING SHEET

CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(1)

(2)

CATEGORY SCORES

MAXIMUM

(ASSESSMENT RATING TOTALS)

POINTS

KM LEADERSHIP SCORE

Questions 1 through 6 PROCESSES SCORE

Questions 7 through 12 PEOPLE SCORE

Questions 13 through 18 TECHNOLOGY SCORE

Questions 19 through 24 KNOWLEDGE PROCESS SCORE

Questions 25 through 30 LEARNING & INNOVATION SCORE

Questions 31 through 36 KM OUTCOMES SCORE

Questions 37 through 42 TOTAL SCORE

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

30 30 30 30 30 30 30 210

12 4. Average group scores/ratings per category are tabulated using Summary Table of Group Scores and likewise presented in the form of radar chart (as in Fig.1)

SUMMARY TABLE GROUP SCORES CATEGORY

TOTAL SCORE

SCORES

210

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Total Score Average Score (Total Score /4) Rank

2. Group Significant Findings Matrix Based on the assessment results, identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. While the scores show categories that are healthy and those that require improvements, the opportunities for improvement presented in a matrix (Fig 2) highlight the areas that KM initiatives should focus into. Figure 2: KM Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

3. KM Maturity Level Determine KM maturity level using the Scoring Sheet and KM Readiness Check. Compare the total score of the assessment against the KM Maturity model as shown in Figure 3. This will show the KM maturity level of the organization.

Figure 3: KM Maturity Levels

Significance of the Findings The results of the assessment provide an understanding of the level of KM readiness, as described hereto in the KM Readiness Check Matrix, in an organization. This ranges from the “reaction” level at its lowest and up to the “maturity” level at its highest. The conditions describing each of these levels are related to:  The presence, absence, or weakness thereof of the four KM accelerators, learning and innovation, and KM outcomes in the organization,  The effectiveness and efficiency of the knowledge processes that transforms data, information and knowledge into learning and innovations and the desired KM outcomes as enabled by the KM accelerators

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

14 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT (KM) READINESS CHECK

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT READINESS CHECK

B. Knowledge Mapping The main purpose of Knowledge Mapping is to identify the knowledge supply and needs of an organization, community, or network. It provides the opportunity to understand the knowledge pathway: where knolwedge are located, their type and format, how they are accessed/shared/disseminated, and their quality and readiness for reuse. The KMap can serve as a living tool or product of the organization/network to help locate knowledge resources and expertise as well as plan for the build up of the knowledge base. This guide describes how to conduct, analyze, and process the outputs of the Knowledge Mapping exercise as part of the KM Audit. Ideally, organizations should not design a KM approach without first mapping their knowledge.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Key principles of Knowledge Mapping  Recognise and locate knowledge in a wide variety of forms: tacit, explicit, formal, informal, codified, personalized, internal, external, and permanent  Knowledge is found in processes, relationships, policies, people, documents, conversations, links and context, and even with partners  It should be up-to-date and accurate (Adapted from: Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/9077)

What is Knowledge? Knowledge:  Is information that is processed with experience and assumptions and applied for effective action  Is a synthesis of data and information with experiences and assumptions, etc.  Is a dynamic entity. Once it is explicated it becomes static -- a piece of information. “One knowledge is another’s information  Is subjective, precisely because of the need to process and synthesize it in our heads  Includes both the experience and understanding of the people in the organization and the information artifacts, such as documents and reports, available within the organization and in the world outside Knowledge Type:  Know-what,  Know-where,  Know-how,  Know-why,  Know who

Knowledge Mapping: Where to Focus? 2 1. Strategic: a. Enterprise-level  Strategic business, technical, market knowledge  Determine the organization’s “bench strength”  Identify areas to focus KM efforts b. Cross-functional between divisions/business groups  Operational assessment of working knowledge 2. Tactical: a. Working group/process  Tactical and operational knowledge applied to process excellence, innovation and customer relationship

Source: Knowledge Mapping 101, USAID Knowledge for Development Seminar, Sept. 22. 2003

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

In LGRC, the scope of KM Audit includes DILG and local governance multi- stakeholders. Thus, knowledge mapping is also done in two levels: 1) DILG and the 2) local governance multi-stakeholders who maybe are theDepartment’s clients and/or partners.

DILG Knowledge Mapping DILG’s strategic vision, being the primary catalyst for excellence in local governance, and its core functions provides guidance on where to focus knowledge mapping. DILG core functions as stated in the DILG Rationalization Plan are:  Formulate and implement policies and standards on local governance, peace and order and public safety  Formulate and implement policies, standards, and guidelines on local development planning in coordination with national agencies.  Monitor and evaluate local government performance.  Formulate and implement appropriate mechanisms for improving the capacity of communities for participatory governance.  Determine and prioritize the application of national government fund transfers as effective instruments for national-local program complementation and economic development.  Provide assistance to LGUs in building their capacities for sound management of the local development process and good local governance. It is also useful for the KM Audit Team to be kept abreast on the current thrusts, key result and outcome areas of the Department. For example, the current DILG Local Governance Sector Outcome Areas include:  Empowered and accountable LGUs  Disaster resilient local governments  Safe and conflict free communities  Competitive and business friendly local governments  Strengthening the internal governance

Local Governance Multi-stakeholders Knowledge Mapping As KM for Local Governance is directed towards improved local governance performance, knowledge mapping previously conducted among the pilot LGRCs used the LGPMS performance areas and development outcomes namely: Performance Area: 1. Administrative Governance 2. Social Governance 3. Economic Governance 4. Environmental Governance 5. Valuing Fundamentals of Good Governance: Transparency, Participation and Financial Accountability Development Sector: 1. Social Development 2. Economic Development 3. Environmental Development GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Knowledge Mapping Steps 1. Identify the target informants from functional or sectoral groups. Ensure that there is adequate representation of all the functional groups or multi-sectoral groups 2. If there is healthy diversity in terms of stakeholder representation, conduct Knowledge Mapping separately by sector or functional role. 3. Familiarize self with the elements of the Knowledge Mapping Matrix and with the Guide Questions for Knowledge Mapping Analysis. 4. Facilitate a focused group discussion (FGD) or workshop to undertake knowledge mapping analysis. 5. Identify knowledge supply and demand/needs of an organization, community, or network. Map out where knowledge is located, their type and format, how they are accessed/shared/disseminated, and their quality and readiness for reuse. For this, use the Knowledge Mapping matrix to record responses. (See Annex 2: Knowledge Mapping Matrix in Excel File). Encode answers in the computer/laptop in real time. Simultaneously project the encoded responses for the respondents view. 6. Guide the analysis and discussion with the use of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Guide Questions for Analysis and Discussionâ&#x20AC;?. 7. After the FGD or workshop, provide the participants with the snapshot of commonalities, patterns and trends of knowledge flow. Should there be a series of FGD or workshop on Knowledge mapping, prepare a synthesized knowledge mapping matrix and analysis.

Knowledge Mapping Matrix Elements: 1. Knowledge/ Information/ Data Needed to Support Sectoral Goals/ Objectives and Performance. These knowledge may not be necessarily available, found, accessed or procured but are very much needed 2. Who has it? 3. Who needs it? 4. Who receives or has access to it? 5. Is it tacit or explicit? 6. If tacit, how is it usually shared? 7. If explicit, how is it usually shared? 8. Is it easily accessed or received in a timely manner? 9. Is it current, up-to-date, valid or relevant at the time it is needed to be used? 10. Is it easily reusable? 11. Is it complete? 12. Remarks and Comments on knowledge quality, knowledge sharing, ease of access, barriers and issues that exist, etc.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Guide Questions for Analysis and Discussion: Q1:

What are the most commonly cited knowledge areas or needs? These represent the core knowledge base that should be managed and developed by the community and which will deliver quick wins and impact efficiency and productivity the most. Note that other knowledge areas can be important indicators of important knowledge gaps and sub-networks (communities of practice).

Q2:

Where are knowledge commonly stored? Who owns most knowledge? Are these concentrated in a few individuals/organizations/groups or dispersed among many? Determine the implications in terms of knowledge accessibility, retention, dissemination, and reuse.

Q3:

and

Q4:

Is there a gap between who needs knowledge and who actually receives or has access to it? What are these knowledge gaps and how big are they? Who are those who donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t receive or have access to knowledge they need? How important is it that they receive or have access to the knowledge they need?

Q5:

Are most knowledge of explicit or tacit type? Note that explicit knowledge are more easily and widely disseminated/accessed but the most valuable knowledge are usually in tacit form. KM aims to transform individual tacit knowledge into explicit community knowledge.

Q6.1: What are the most common ways by which tacit knowledge is shared? Do you think this is an efficient and effective way to transfer knowledge, lessons learned, and best practices? Can you think of more efficient ways to capture and share tacit knowledge? Q6.2: What are the most common ways by which explicit knowledge is shared? Do you think this is an efficient and effective way to share explicit knowledge? Can you think of more efficient ways to share, disseminate, or provide access to explicit knowledge? Q7:

Is knowledge received in a timely manner (when they need it)? Are users able to access knowledge when they need it? What are the implications to efficiency and productivity of users of that knowledge?

Q8:

Is knowledge received or accessed of a sufficiently good quality (by being relevant, up-to-date, current, or valid) to be of use?

Q9:

Is knowledge received or accessed in a form that allows ease of use/reuse, reproduction, transmission, repurposing, or repackaging?

Q10:

Is it complete? Does it include sufficient detail, context, or other information that can make it more or immediately useful and relevant?

Significance of the Findings The Knowledge Mapping identifies the core and contextual knowledge inside the organization, community, network or sector. These are data, information and knowledge that support business process, function, mandate and value proposition. The assessment would show how the critical information and knowledge flows and to what extent such knowledge has been leveraged through its availability to those who need it and its re-usability. It determines whether a person who needs it has the right knowledge at the right time to make knowledgebased decisions to achieve organizational goals. The completed K Map can be an instrument to locate knowledge resources and expertise as well as plan for the build up of the knowledge base. It also provides opportunities for knowledge exchange. Knowledge Mapping analysis determines where improvement efforts should focus on. Likewise, having analyzed the K Map one should be able to identify the strengths, opportunities, barriers and constraints to fulfil strategic goals and objectives.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

C. Social Network Analysis The Social Network Analysis (SNA) aims to:  Determine the communication and knowledge flows within an organization, community, or network,  Uncover many informal but real paths of information that supports actual work and activities beyond formal lines of authority and institutional arrangements,  Identify the formal and informal networks and level of connectedness of relationships within the organization, among the stakeholders, across groups and related systems;  Help provide insights that inform initiatives to enhance communication, knowledge sharing, human resource planning and development, team building, decision-making, learning, and innovation.  Identify basic network properties, positions of network members, characteristics of relations, cohesive sub-groups, and bottlenecks of knowledge flows.  Analyze and then depict several patterns of social behavior which are very much related to tacit knowledge management This Guide describes the steps and tools used for gathering-data of social networks. It also provides an analytical framework for inferring observations and conclusions from the data/network diagram and drawing conclusions about the network’s characteristics.

Key Elements A network is generally defined as a specific type of relation linking a defined set of persons, groups, organizations, objects or events. It is also a set of bilateral ties (or relationships), all of the same type, among a set of actors/ players. A tie is an instance of a specific social relationship. A social network is a set of actors (or nodes) that may have relationships (or ties) with one another (Hanneman, 2001). Information and knowledge is embedded in the whole local governance cycle. These are required and shared by the prime movers and stakeholders to communicate, collaborate, transact and make informed decisions and policies. It must also be recognized that adoption or adaptation of the new ideas or practice flows through a pathway that becomes a network of interpersonal contacts. In order to improve the flow of knowledge that influences such innovations, it is very important to understand the pathways that are influenced by the relationships among people, norms, values, and shared meaning in an organization.

Tools The SNA can be measured using two (2) important tools: 1. SNA Survey 2. SNA Matrix

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

SNA Survey This provides a detailed list of the name of the individual and/or organization. It has two (2) parts: Demographics and the Network Data.  Demographics – provides information about the tool respondents, the designation and organization it represents. It may also include other information necessary in the conduct of SNA and the whole KM Audit such as gender, age, etc.  Network Data – provides list of actors and stakeholders identified on the SNA Matrix. This also defines the level and forms of communication and types of knowledge the organization have with the listed stakeholders. Specifically, it describes – from who you or your organization regularly acquires or receives knowledge (including data, information, ideas, advice, techniques, best practices, processes/how-to’s and lessons learned relevant to the network or sector’s objectives). This part may also include individuals, groups, institutions that are not on the SNA matrix list, but you regularly acquire/receive knowledge. Below is an example of a SNA Survey Form:

LGRC KM Audit - Social Network Analysis Survey Greetings! We are currently conducting a Social Network Analysis (SNA) survey as part of the on-going LGRC KM Audit. The SNA is an important tool for assessing the communications and knowledge sharing network among regional actors and stakeholders. It helps inform initiatives to enhance communication, knowledge sharing, capacity development, team building, cooperation, collaboration, learning, and innovation. This questionnaire will only take a few minutes to complete. Rest assured that all information will be confidential and used for the purposes of this SNA only. Thank you for your cooperation.

Demographics Name of respondent:

: _______________________________

Organization you represent (if applicable):

: _______________________________

Position in organization (if applicable): II.

: _______________________________

Network Data

Below is a list of actors and stakeholders identified in the SNA matrix. Put a check (√) mark beside the name of the person/organization from whom you or your organization regularly acquires or receives knowledge (incl. data, information, ideas, advise, techniques, best practices/how-to’s, and lessons learned relevant to the network or sector’s objective). You can include names of other individuals/organizations not on the list that you regularly acquire/receive knowledge from. Name of individual/organization

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Name of individual/organization

SNA Matrix This tool provides a detail description of the primary sources of knowledge, percentage of connectedness, number of reciprocated connections and percentage of connections reciprocated. It also shows number of stakeholders involved in the ‘knowledge management process’ and the level of connectedness of each stakeholder to another. This tool is generally represented in numerical form where quantity of connectedness will be identified and reflected in the matrix. It aims to visually map out the network. Below is an example of SNA Matrix

Stakeholders (Respondents/ Recipients of Knowledge)

Primary Sources of Knowledge A

Total

0 Total

• No. of total possible connectedness • No. of connections/connectedness • No. of reciprocated connections • Percentage (%) of connections reciprocated

Expected Output Social Network Analysis (SNA) that maps out the formal and informal communication and knowledge transmitted within the organization, among stakeholders, across groups and related systems. It identifies the relationships among stakeholders as depicted through the edges and arrows. This includes a sociogram that illustrates the network and visually depicts the position of an individual within the network to further understand the analysis.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Steps 1. Identify and list down all the relevant local governance actors and stakeholders. They are the respondents for SNA data gathering. These may include:  National government agencies and their local representative offices/ officials  Local government offices/officials  Business/industry organizations  Civil society/non-government organizations  People’s organizations  Academic and research institutions  Donor/international/development organizations, etc. 2. Distribute the survey form to the respondents. The team shall ask the respondents to tick off their answers to the question: “From whom do you or your organization regularly seek or receive knowledge (incl. data, information, know-how, ideas, advise, lessons, etc.)?” The respondents may also add networks that are not included in the list. 3. Consolidate the data gathered from the SNA Survey tool and plot this to the SNA Matrix a. List stakeholders. From the results of the SNA survey, list each stakeholders identified by the respondents (including those added by the latter) on a separate row and column. Be specific as possible. Do not merge stakeholders together as one group or (sub) sector. List them exactly as stated from the survey. b. After listing the stakeholders, mark the column/s that indicates a ‘connection’ with a certain stakeholder by writing ‘1’. (For example: DILG Provincial Office shares knowledge products with NEDA Regional Office, UP Visayas and Brgy. Sumilang, but NOT with CODE-NGO and Dr. Valez. On the DILG – Provincial Office column, put ‘1’ in front of NEDA, UP Visayas and Brgy. Sumilang). Use the same process to other stakeholders. Add the number of connections for each stakeholder and write the sum at the ‘total’ column. 4. Based on the SNA Matrix, create a social network diagram on a large sheet of paper or on a computer drawing program e.g. MS Draw, Powerpoint. The diagram will show the visual analysis of the relationships in the organization and the inter-linkages of the stakeholders. a. Draw a small circle and label it to represent each of the stakeholders identified. Each circle is called a ‘node’ in the network. Note that each stakeholder should be drawn as a unique node. b. Then, draw arrows to connect a stakeholder or node to another node that indicated a connection. Refer carefully to your SNA matrix to do this. Make sure that the arrow points to the receiver of information. Arrows may point both ways of the nodes if both receive information from each other. The network diagram can also be generated directly from the matrix with use of the appropriate electronic program. (See Annex 6) 5. Conduct a focus group discussion (FGD) among the SNA team, (or it may involve some key respondents comingfrom the identified stakeholders) to review and analyze the network diagram and matrix. Make notes of your findings and discussions. Highlight the challenges and opportunities highlighted in the discussion.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

24 6. To conclude, compare the results of the SNA to the results of Knowledge mapping. Revisit question #1 and #2 while looking at the entire list of producers/owners and intended users of knowledge in the Knowledge Map. Consider that all actors and stakeholders in the network somehow create (although they may not necessarily share) opinions, decisions, ideas, information, and knowledge. In most cases these are useful to one, several, or most stakeholders in the network. Summarize the “knowledge sharing value-chain” – indicating how pieces of data, information, and knowledge are created by one stakeholder and then shared, used, reused, repackaged, repurposed by another, and then re-shared with others, and so on and so forth.

Below is an example of a completed SNA Matrix Stakeholders (Respondents/ Recipients of Knowledge)

Primary Sources of Knowledge DILG – Provincial Office

DILG – Provincial Office NEDA Regional Office

UP – Visayas

NEDA Regional Office

UP – Visayas

CODE-NGO Brgy. Sumilang

1 1

Dr. Valdez (UN) Total

CODENGO

Brgy. Sumilang

Dr. Valdez (UN)

Total 3

4 4

Guide Questions 1. How many possible connections are there? You may use this formula. [Formula: n = N* (N-1) where N represents the total # of nodes (allowing reciprocal connections)] It’s normal for a network with a high number of possible connections to achieve efficient communications and information flow because there is a greater number of nodes another needs to connect to and there is greater possibility that nodes are further apart, separated. 2. How well connected are the networks? [Formula: No. of connections / N] In general, a score of 30% or less indicate a dispersed and loosely connected network, contributing to inefficient information flow and therefore impacts productivity and efficiency. This can also imply mistakes being repeated, duplication of work, and lack of collaboration Scores of 60% or higher is good, driving the potential for active knowledge sharing. The organization should benchmark against itself, comparing scores from previous years with the current and succeeding surveys. 3. What percentage of existing connections is reciprocated? A reciprocated connection is where two nodes give and receive information from and to each other (arrow points both ways/bidirectional). A rating of 60% or more indicates high percentage of reciprocated connections. This shows strong ties and a healthy, symbiotic and mutually beneficial knowledge sharing relationship between connected networks. A rating of 30% or less indicates low percentage of reciprocated connections. This shows that that there is

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

possible mismatch of needs, requirements, expectations, or hierarchical relationships that caused inefficient flow of information 4. Are there nodes that serve as the only connector between other groups or nodes? What would happen if they leave the network? What strategies should be developed to ensure that connections are not cut totally? Nodes that serve as the only connection between two other nodes serve an important function as dedicated dissemination channel for information to other nodes. They are critical to the ‘health’ and sustainability of the network since their absence will isolate other nodes from the rest of the network 5. Are there isolated stakeholders? Having no or only one (1) connection? Who are they and what will happen if they continue to remain disconnected? Isolated nodes have no way of receiving or accessing information from others. If they produce important information, other nodes will not benefit from it. 6. How many connections are needed to connect the furthest or most isolated nodes to any of the nodes? This indicates how inefficient it is for the furthest nodes to share information with each other. If it happens, such information might be diluted and not in a format that can be easily reusable. 7. Are there certain groups more closely connected than others (i.e. cliques)? Who are they and why do you think they are closely connected? Is this good or bad? How are these cliques connected with other cliques, if at all? Cliques imply healthy knowledge sharing between the nodes in the clique, and can indicate the seed or core for a potential community of practice. They can also indicate, however, a dysfunction in gatekeeping knowledge within a specific group 8. Which stakeholders have the most connections (arrows that point either way)? Why – what role do they play? What is the impact of this to the organization or other stakeholders? What is the effect of their high degree of ‘connectedness’? How can this be leveraged? How can this be sustained or improved? Nodes that have a high number of connections to and from other nodes play a key role as broker, processor/ developer or disseminator of information. 9. Who do you think should be better connected to the network? Why? What is the result of them not being connected? Who else would benefit? Identify stakeholders that aren’t so well-connected and need to be better connected with the other stakeholders because the information they have or develop is relevant to others. You can initially determine these stakeholders based on the list knowledge sources/owners in the Knowledge Map, especially if they are cited often 10. Who are the most common sources of information? These are the nodes that have most arrows pointing from them to others. To whom should they also be directly connected? Nodes with many arrows pointing out to other nodes imply that they generate and/or disseminate a lot information to a broad group of stakeholders. They can be key actors and brokers for knowledge sharing and influences. Validate this by comparing with the Knowledge Mapping Matrix’s list of knowledge sources/ owners, especially if they are cited a lot.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

26 11. Who are the most common recipients of information? These are nodes that have most arrows pointing to them. Why are they receiving more that giving information? What are the implications if they receive more that give information? Nodes with many arrows pointing to them imply that they acquire or receive a lot information from a broad group of stakeholders. The key question is whether the information is disseminated in its original or repackaged form to others. A key principle is that all knowledge output is an input to other people’s knowledge work. Determine if some stakeholders are receiving more information than they are sharing. Think about how such stakeholders can be enjoined to share more. Validate this with the Knowledge Map by identifying knowledge products that said stakeholders can produce to fill knowledge gaps. 12. Would you say that all those who need knowledge get or have access to it when they need it (i.e, they have a connection to the producers/owners of knowledge)? Do the owners/producers of that knowledge have access to the knowledge they need to produce the knowledge required by others? These questions shall be asked at the concluding part, in which, KM mapping and SNA results are being compared.

Significance of the Findings Findings will help identify the basic network properties, positions of network members, characteristics of relations, sub groups, communication, linkage gaps, knowledge flows bottleneck and opportunities for an improved organizational and local governance sector’s performance. Specifically, SNA results can pinpoint knowledge and information flow efficiency (or inefficiency), quality of collaboration among stakeholders, knowledge sharing capability, effective dissemination channels and knowledge access. All these have impacts to organizational or sectoral performance. Therefore, it is crucial to analyze SNA findings within the context, mandate, strategic direction, if possible, to the value proposition of the organization and local governance sector.

Results and findings can be used to • Enhance knowledge flows and access across individuals, groups, networks • Strengthen communication channels and strategies • Facilitate strategic development of organizational knowledge • Facilitate transfer and sustainable conservation of knowledge in the organization • Development of the communities of practice • Find ways of leveraging high degree of connectedness among knowledge brokers, developers and disseminators of information • Understand what are the strengths and weaknesses for possible knowledge and communication intervention strategies

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

D. Knowledge Capital Planning Theoretical Background A widely used definition describes knowledge capital as the knowledge, information, and experience that can be put to use to create wealth (Steward, 1997)3. It can also be viewed as the know-how that results from the experience, information and learning of the employees within an organization. It may consist of technical information or accumulated experience or skill. There is broad consensus, however, that knowledge capital can be depicted as three overlapping circles: 1) human capital, 2) organizational capital, and 3) customer or relational capital (c.f. Lynn, 1998:16). The human capital refers to competence that includes know-how, capabilities, skills and expertise. Organizational capital are those intangible assets or accumulated capital found within the organization. Examples of such assets may include processes, ways of working, best-practices, organizational culture, organizational structure, and information systems. The relational capital are those that are found externally as it focuses more on customer capital such as customer satisfaction, loyalty, level of back orders or demand, etc

Elements of the Knowledge Capital Plan Knowledge gap Specific knowledge product

The knowledge topic/area identified as a gap during Knowledge Mapping and SNA The final knowledge product/activity envisioned to fill the knowledge gap

Method of capture/ development

Type of action required to capture (eg, research) or develop (eg, ppt devt) knowledge product

Sources of information

Sources (eg, person, office, documents, reports) and resources (eg, website) which provide useful input to the knowledge product/activity

By when

Deadline for delivering the final knowledge product/activity

(Timeline) By who

Person/team assigned to deliver the knowledge product/activity

(Person) Indicates status of action (ie, completed/done or delayed, etc.) vs. deadline

Status

Example of the Knowledge Capital Plan Template ACTION NEEDED TO ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE KNOWLEDGE GAP

SPECIFIC KNOWLEDGE PRODUCT

Method of Capture and/ or Devt

Sources of Information

By When

By Who

STATUS

as of ___________

Creating Knowledge Capital: Competence, Commitment and Control David Lawson Liberty University. Page 3 GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Steps 1. Familiarize self with Knowledge Capital Plan template and its elements 2. In filling up, column for Knowledge Gaps, review results and findings of the KM Assessment, Knowledge Mapping and SNA. Organizational-related knowledge capital gaps are likely to be found in the KM Assessment. Knowledge gaps in relation to competency and external relations can be identified from the KM mapping and SNA findings. 3. In filling up column for Specific Knowledge Product, revisit strengths, opportunities for improvement and recommendations discussed in the three KM Audit Tools results 4. Develop a consensus among participants/respondents in filling up â&#x20AC;&#x153;Action Needed to Acquire Knowledgeâ&#x20AC;?. Be guided by the information in the Knowledge Mapping Matrix.

V. Audit Report Preparation Using above-mentioned methods and appropriate analytical tools, all inputs and data will be processed, analyzed, and synthesized by the KM Audit Team in order to come up with findings and conclusions in the form a KM Audit Report (see KM Audit Report Template).

Guiding Points: 1. Contextualization: - Deeply internalize KM key concepts. It will provide a concrete backdrop when discussing KM issues, concerns, gaps, strengths and opportunities per KM Audit tool. - Analyze the situation from the perspective of the organization, its nature, mandate, functions, strategic directions and value proposition that can be achieved by leveraging KM initiatives. 2. Strategic Thinking: - Knowing and understanding organizational direction and its value proposition; - Understanding strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats from the perspective of the organizational environment and direction; - Options and strategies are based on sound analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats as determined from the results of each KM Audit tool 3. Logical Thinking: Clarity of the cause and effect relationship between and among KM issues, gaps and barriers as well as well as the means and end relationship in the recommended actions and options. 4. Systems thinking: - Examine and understand how KM knowledge processes relate to each other, what factors influence knowledge processes and knowledge workers, and how all of these interrelate - Using the relationship of KM accelerators, knowledge processes, learning and innovation and KM outcome as a framework, correlate findings of each KM audit tool

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Report Format Below is the KM Audit Report Template.

[Name of the Organization] KM Audit Report for [period] [Date] [Prepared by]

Background [Provide brief description of the organization but highlight its mandate/business/ functions, strategic goals and key result areas particularly in relation to local governance, Describe background and context of the KM Audit – why it was conducted, who thought of having it done, and who supported it. If this is the first KM audit, provide a description of the general KM initiative/program. If this is not the first KM audit, summarize the highlights or key findings from the previous audit.]

Methodology [Describe the methodology employed for this KM Audit, including the scope, sampling method (if any), any particular analytical framework used, tools and techniques, and specific activities to gather, process, and analyze data.] The KM Audit was conducted from [period] using the following methods: • Organizational assessment survey to measure strengths and weaknesses of KM enablers like people, process, technology, management, etc. • Knowledge Mapping to describe the organization's knowledge needs, where and how these are accessed, and their quality for reuse; and • Social network analysis to determine how network attributes help or hinder communication and knowledge sharing • Knowledge Capital planning to describe the knowledge gaps and the knowledge product/activity envisioned and its status to fill the knowledge gap.

Results and Findings Following are the highlights of results and findings of the various Audit components. Recommendations to address issues, areas for improvement, or future work are also provided for each component. Comparison of specific findings to previous KM audit findings (if previously conducted) can be done.

Organizational KM Assessment Survey [Summarize findings of survey for each criteria/category and overall. Look at possible patterns based on demographics, organizational units, work experience, and position levels. Describe the presence, absence, or weakness thereof of the four KM accelerators, learning and innovation, and KM outcomes in the organization. Highlight the status of the knowledge processes that transforms data, information and knowledge into learning and innovations and the desired KM outcomes as enabled by the KM accelerators] [Attach Organizational KM Assessment results summary as Annex A] GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Knowledge Mapping [Summarize findings using the Knowledge Mapping guide as tool for analysis. Identify common responses, patterns, and trends in each question (column) and determine possible reasons for these findings. Describe in general the state of knowledge supply and demand, accessibility, quality, and reusability, as well as opportunities, barriers and constraints. Recommend strategies to ensure greater dissemination, access to, quality, and reusability of knowledge assets and to where improvement efforts should focus on.. ] [Attach the Knowledge Mapping outputs as Annex B]

Social Network Analysis [Summarize findings using the Social Network Analysis guide as tool for discovery and analysis. Describe in general the state of the network itself as well as communication and knowledge flow in the network. Determine possible reasons for these findings. Identify peculiar features of the network and its actors, as well as opportunities and constraints. Correlate results of Knowledge Mapping with the Social Network Analysis. For e.g., are there stakeholders identified as producers/owners of a lot of needed knowledge that were identified as isolated or poorly connected in the network (which might limit access to that knowledge)? Are there heavily connected nodes/stakeholders that were not identified in the Knowledge Map (who may be performing equally important roles of connectors, gatekeepers, or brokers instead of knowledge producers). Identify implications of possible loss of certain nodes and connections, and ways to enhance communication and knowledge flow within the network [Attach Social Network Analysis outputs as Annex C].

Knowledge Capital Planning [Summarize knowledge gaps and its nature as well as the modalities of developing knowledge bases in the form of knowledge products and activities. Relate such knowledge gaps and building of knowledge capital to the organizational/sectoral value proposition or strategic direction]

Conclusion [Describe the highlights or key findings from the three audit activities, pointing out strengths and opportunities as well as weaknesses and threats. Summarize cross-cutting issues, challenges, and gaps. Reiterate important recommendations and agreed strategies, plans, and action points.]

Annexes A – Organizational KM Assessment survey results summary B – Knowledge Mapping outputs C – Social Network Analysis outputs D – Social Knowledge Capital Plan

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

ANNEXES

Annex 1 - KM Assessment Questionnaire Annex 2 - Scoring Sheet Annex 3 - Knowledge Mapping Matrix Annex 4 - Social Network Analysis Survey Annex 5 - Social Network Analysis Matrix Annex 6 - Steps in generating the SNA Sociogram Annex 7 - Knowledge Capital Plan Template

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Annex 1 – KM Assessment Questionnaire Questionnaire INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete this form by indicating in the rating column a score from 1 to 5 according to the definitions below. 1

Doing Very Poorly or Doing None at All

Doing Poorly

3 Doing Adequately

Doing

Good

Very Good

CRITERIA CATEGORY 1. KM LEADERSHIP 1.

The organization has shared Knowledge, Vision, and Strategy strongly linked to the organization’s vision, mission, and goals.

Organizational arrangements have been undertaken to formalize KM initiatives (i.e., a central coordinating unit for knowledge/information management, Chief Knowledge/Information Officer, ICT team, quality improvement teams/Communities of Practice, knowledge networks).

Financial resources are allocated for KM initiatives.

The organization has a policy for safeguarding knowledge and protecting intellectual property rights (e.g., proper attribution for sources of innovative ideas and good practices)

Managers role-model the values of knowledge sharing and collaborative working. They spend more time disseminating information to their staff and facilitating the horizontal flow of information between their staff and with staff of other departments/divisions/units.

Management promotes, recognizes, and rewards performance improvement, organizational and employee learning, sharing of knowledge, and knowledge creation and innovation.

RATING

SUBTOTAL CAT 1. KM LEADERSHIP CRITERIA CATEGORY 2. PROCESS 7.

The organization determines its core competencies (strategically important capabilities that provide a competitive advantage) and aligns it to their mission and strategic goals.

The organization designs its work systems and key processes to create value to clients and achieve performance excellence.

Processes are designed to incorporate new technology and knowledge shared in the organization.

10.

The organization has an organized system for ensuring continuous operations during crisis situations or unforeseen events.

11.

The organization implements and manages its key work processes to ensure that targets/objectives are met and results and impact are sustained.

12.

The organization continually evaluates and improves its work processes to achieve better performance; reduce duplication and recurrence of mistakes; improve products and/or services; and to be updated with the latest trends, developments, and directions.

RATING

SUBTOTAL CAT 2. PROCESS CRITERIA CATEGORY 3. PEOPLE 13.

RATING

The organization’s education, training, and career development program builds employee knowledge, skills, and capabilities; supports achievement of overall objectives; and contributes to high performance.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

33 14.

The organization has a systematic induction process for new staff that includes familiarity with KM and its benefits, the KM system, and KM tools.

15.

The organization has formal mentoring, coaching, and tutoring processes.

16.

The organization has a database of staff competencies.

17.

Teams/groups naturally self-organize in order to discuss and respond to workplace problems and concerns.

18.

The organization encourages stakeholders to share and exchange knowledge widely and effectively with other organization stakeholders. Users of knowledge are able to provide feedback to stakeholders who created and shared such knowledge (both explicit and tacit). SUBTOTAL CAT 3. PEOPLE

CRITERIA CATEGORY 4. TECHNOLOGY 19.

Management has established an IT infrastructure (i.e., Internet, intranet, and website) and has developed capabilities to facilitate effective KM. There are available tools and channels for wide and effective dissemination of knowledge.

20.

The IT infrastructure is aligned to the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s KM strategy.

21.

Everyone has access to a computer.

22.

Everyone has access to the Internet/intranet and an email address.

23.

Information delivered in the website/intranet is updated on a regular basis.

24.

Intranet (or a similar network) is used as a major source of organization-wide communication to support knowledge transfer or information sharing. There is a common telecommunication platform to communicate and exchange information between stakeholders.

RATING

SUBTOTAL CAT 4. TECHNOLOGY

CRITERIA CATEGORY 5. KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES 25.

The organization has systematic processes for identifying, creating, storing, sharing, and applying knowledge.

26.

The organization maintains a knowledge inventory that identifies and locates knowledge assets or resources throughout the organization.

27.

Knowledge accrued from completed tasks or projects is documented and shared.

28.

Critical knowledge from employees leaving the organization is retained.

29.

The organization shares best practices and lessons learned across the organization so that there is no constant re-inventing of the wheel, repeat of mistakes, or work duplications.

30.

Benchmarking activities are conducted inside and outside the organization, the results of which are used to improve organizational performance and create new knowledge.

RATING

SUBTOTAL CAT 5. KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES CRITERIA CATEGORY 6. LEARNING AND INNOVATION 31.

The organization articulates and continually reinforces the values of learning and innovation. There are organizational initiatives/ government programs that support and adds value to learning and innovations.

32.

The organization recognizes mistakes as learning opportunities, so long as they are not performed repeatedly. Staff/Teams are not punished for committing mistakes but they pro-actively document lessons learned.

33.

Cross-functional teams (e.g., work improvement teams, cross-functional teams, communities of practice, quality/learning circles) are organized to tackle problems, find solutions, and learn from each other.

34.

People feel empowered and that their ideas and contributions are generally valued by the organization.

35.

Management is willing to try new tools and methods.

36.

Individuals are given incentives to work together and share information. SUBTOTAL CAT 6. LEARNING AND INNOVATION

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

RATING

34 CRITERIA CATEGORY 7. KM OUTCOMES 37.

The organization has a history (and maintains measures) of successfully implementing KM and other change initiatives.

38.

Measures are in place for assessing the impact of knowledge contributions and initiatives.

39.

The organization has enhanced productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness; improved decision-making; and increased speed of innovation.

40.

The organization has increased its effectiveness as a result of productivity, quality, and client satisfaction improvements.

41.

The organization has improved the quality of its products and/or services as a result of applying knowledge to improve processes or client satisfaction.

42.

The organization sustains high levels of performance through organizational learning and continuous improvement.

RATING

SUBTOTAL CAT 7. KM OUTCOMES

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Annex 2 – Scoring Sheet • In Column (1), write your subtotal score per each category. • Compare each subtotal score with the maximum points for each category found in Column (2). • At the bottom row of Column (1), tally your total score and compare against the total maximum points indicated at the bottom row of Column (2). • In Column (3), rank the categories from "1 to 7" with "1" as the highest and "7" as the lowest. • Compare your total score with the levels of KM Readiness Check.

CAT

(1)

(2)

(3)

CATEGORY SCORES (ASSESSMENT RATING TOTALS)

MAX POINTS

RANK (1 – 7) where 1 = highest, 7 = lowest

1.0

KM LEADERSHIP (Questions 1 through 6)

2.0

PROCESS (Questions 7 through 12)

3.0

PEOPLE (Questions 13 through 18)

4.0

TECHNOLOGY (Questions 19 through 24)

5.0

KNOWLEDGE PROCESSES (Questions 25 through 30)

6.0

LEARNING & INNOVATION (Questions 31 through 36)

7.0

KM OUTCOMES (Questions 37 through 42)

30 TOTAL

210

Tally Sheet of KM Assessment Result refer to Excel File (KM_ASSESSMENT_tally_sheet.xls)

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Annex 3 – Knowledge Mapping Matrix

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Annex 4 - SNA Survey Social Network Analysis Survey Greetings! We are currently conducting a Social Network Analysis (SNA) survey as part of the on-going LGRC KM Audit. The SNA is an important tool for assessing the communications and knowledge sharing network among regional actors and stakeholders. It helps inform initiatives to enhance communication, knowledge sharing, capacity development, team building, cooperation, collaboration, learning, and innovation. This questionnaire will only take a few minutes to complete. Rest assured that all information will be confidential and used for the purposes of this SNA only. Thank you for your cooperation! Demographic Name of respondent: ________________________________ Organization you represent (if applicable) _____________________________________ Position in organization (if applicable) : _______________________________ Network Data Below is a list of actors and stakeholders identified earlier. Put a check (√) mark beside the the name of the person/organization from whom you or your organization regularly acquires or receives knowledge (incl. data, information, ideas, advise, techniques, best practices/how-to’s, and lessons learned relevant to the network or sector’s objective). You can add names of other individuals/organizations not on the list that you regularly acquire/receive knowledge from.

Name of individual/organization

√

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Name of individual/organization

√

Annex 5 – SNA Matrix

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Annex 6 – Graphing Social Network Analysis Result in NetDraw STEPS : 1. Using the encoded matrix, fill the BLANK CELLS with zero (0). There must be NO BLANK CELLS. A cell must contain either a 1 or a 0. 2. REMOVE ANY CELL FILL COLOR AND CELL BORDERS. 3. REMOVE THE TOTAL and any other data after the last respondent’s column. 4. REMOVE THE TOTAL and any other data after the last respondent’s row. 5. REMOVE any other columns before the column where the respondents are listed in rows. 6. REMOVE any other data before the row where the respondents are listed in columns. 7. Make sure that the order of the respondent in each row is the same as the order in each column. Autofit column width. Autofit row height. MAKE SURE THAT ALL CHARACTERS ARE VISIBLE AND NO CHARACTERS ARE HIDDEN IN EACH CELL. NO SPACES, PUNCTUATIONS AND SPECIAL CHARACTERS IN RESPONDENTS NAME. UP TO 20 CHARACTERS ONLY. 8. Type these CHARACTERS above the row where the respondents are listed in columns. Each line must have a corresponding row. (“dl” is the data format. “n” is the number of respondents. “labels embedded” so that the respondent’s name will be included in the diagram. DO NOT FORGET THE COLON (:) AFTER THE WORD data. CHECK THE SPELLING AND SPACING. It is NOT CASE SENSITIVE. dl n=5 labels embedded format = fullmatrix data 9. Your table should look like this: dl n=5 labels embedded format=fullmatrix data: PNP PNP DILG COA DOH DBM

0 1 0 0 0

DILG 1 0 0 1 1

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

COA 1 1 0 1 1

DOH 0 1 0 0 0

DBM 1 1 1 1 0

40 10. Save the Excel format as text file (.txt) instead of the usual .xls format. Select Save As. Choose Other Formats.

11. Choose the folder where you want to save the file. Type the file name. Choose Text (MS-DOS) (*txt) in the Save as type.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

12. Open the NetDraw program. Then Click file, choose Open, choose Ucinet DL text file (the data format), choose Network (1-mode). 1-mode means that each column headings and row headings of the table will be treated as one node. 2-mode means that each heading will be treated as two different nodes.

13. Now you can adjust the layout of the diagram. Try clicking each button and see what happens. Just play around with it. In other words explore, you can always reopen the .txt file if something goes wrong. Hope this guide will help a lot. 14. If you got questions read the A Brief Guide to Using NetDraw.

A Brief Guide to Using NetDraw NetDraw is a program for drawing social networks. Overview of Features Multiple Relations. You can read in multiple relations on the same nodes, and switch between them (or combine them) easily. Valued Relations. If you read in valued data, you can sequentially “step” through different levels of dichotomization, effectively selecting only strong ties, only weak ties, etc. In addition, you have the option of letting the thickness of lines correspond to strength of ties. Node Attributes. The program makes it convenient to read in multiple node attributes for use in setting colors and sizes of nodes (as well as rims, labels, etc.). In addition, the program makes it easy to turn on and off groups of nodes defined by a variable, such as males or members of a given organization. If the attributes are read in using the VNA data format (see below), they can be textual in addition to numeric. This means that instead of coding location as numeric codes 1, 2, 3, etc, you can simply write Boston, New York, Tokyo … Analysis. A limited set of analytical procedures are included, such as the identification of isolates, components, k-cores, cut-points and bi-components (blocks). 2-Mode Data. NetDraw can read 2-mode data, such as the Davis, Gardner and Gardner data and automatically create a bipartite representation of it.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

42 Data Formats. The program reads Ucinet datasets (the ##h and ##d files), Ucinet DL text files, Pajek files (net, clu and vec), and the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own VNA text file format, which allows the user to combine node attributes with tie information. Saving Data. Using the VNA file format, the program can save a network along with its spatial configuration, node colors, shapes, etc. so that the next time you open the file, the network looks exactly like it looked before. The program can also save data as Pajek net and clu files, and Ucinet datasets (both networks and attributes). Saving Pictures. Network diagrams can be saved as bitmaps (.bmp), jpegs (.jpg), windows metafiles (.wmf) and enhanced metafiles (.emf). In addition, the program exports to Pajek and Mage. Printing. There is a Print button. This is very good for creating publication-quality diagrams because the results utilize the full resolution of the printer. (When you save an image like a bitmap to disk and insert into a document and then print that, the image resolution is no better than your screenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.) Appearance Options. A full range of options is implemented, including the ability to change sizes and colors of nodes, node-rims, labels, lines and background. Different node shapes are not yet implemented. You can also rotate, flip, shift, resize and zoom configurations. Layout. Two basic kinds of layouts are implemented at present: a circle and an MDS/ spring embedding based on geodesic distance. The MDS includes options for exaggerating clustering, biasing toward equal-length edges, and turning on/off node-repulsion.

Getting Started Suppose you have a network currently stored as a Ucinet dataset. To draw it in network, just press the Open File button on the toolbar and select the file. The rest is automatic. Here is an example of drawing a file called campnet: BILL DON HARRY

MICHAEL HOLLY

GERY

LEE

PAT

STEVE

JENNIE

PAM BRAZEY

RUSS BERT

JOHN

PAULINE

ANN CAROL

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Now suppose you have some information about each person that you would like to use to in the display. You might enter the information in a text file called CampAttribs.txt (e.g., enter it in Excel and Save As text file) in the following format: *node data id

gender

HOLLY

role

betweenness

female

participant

78.33333588

BRAZEY

female

participant

CAROL

female

participant

1.333333373

PAM

female

participant

32.5

PAT

female

participant

39.5

JENNIE

female

participant

6.333333492

PAULINE

female

participant

12.5

ANN

female

participant

0.5

MICHAEL

male

participant

58.83333206

BILL

male

participant

LEE

male

participant

DON

male

participant

16.33333397

JOHN

male

participant

HARRY

male

participant

2.333333254

GERY

male

instructor

54.66666794

STEVE

male

instructor

16.83333397

BERT

male

instructor

13.66666698

RUSS

male

instructor

47.33333206

Note that the values do not need to be numeric. They should be separated from each other by a comma, space or tab (and values that contain spaces should be enclosed in quotes as in â&#x20AC;&#x153;Bill Smithâ&#x20AC;?).

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

44 To read this file, go to File|Open|VNA|Attributes and select the file. This will read the file and open the Node Selector window, which looks like this:

Using this window you can select an attribute (ID is selected by default), and then use that click on and off nodes with specific properties, such as females or instructors. Now suppose you want to change the colors of nodes to reflect a node attribute, such as wanting to paint men blue and women red. Go to Properties|Nodes|Colors|By Attribute. A dialogue box will open which lets you choose the attribute (gender) and then choose the color of each gender. The dialogue box looks like this:

You might also want to change the shape of the nodes to reflect the role that person plays in the group (as indicated by the Role variable). To do this, go to -Properties|Nodes|Shape|by attribute, which opens a dialogue box very similar to the color box, except instead of colors, there are shapes. Something similar can be done with the size of nodes. After setting each gender to the desired color, each role to desired shape, and making the size of the nodes proportional to their betweenness centrality, the network diagram looks like this:

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

45 BILL DON HARRY

MICHAEL

HOLLY

PAT GERY LEE

PAM

JENNIE

STEVE

RUSS

BRAZEY

JOHN

PAULINE

BERT

CAROL

ANN

VNA Data Format The VNA data format allows the user to store not only network data but also attributes of the nodes, along with information about how to display them (color, size, etc.). A key feature of VNA attribute data is that textual data is permitted. In other words, instead of using numeric codes, the gender variable can have values like “male” and “female”.

Here is a short example of a vna file: *node data ID name gender age j101 joe male 56 w067 wendy female 23 b303 bill male 48 *tie data from to friends advice j101 w067 1 3 w067 j101 0 1 j101 b303 1 2 w067 b303 0 6

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

46 VNA files are ordinary text files. They consist of sections called “star sections”. Not every file has to have every possible star section, and sections can be in any order. At the moment, there are 3 possible star sections (soon to be 6). They are: * node data * node properties * tie data A description of each follows. At the end of this document is a complete VNA file. Node Data Section The Node Data section contains variables that describe the actors in a network. Here is an example: *node data id

gender

role

betweenness

HOLLY female participant 78.33333588 BRAZEY

female

participant

CAROL female participant 1.333333373 PAM female participant 32.5 PAT female participant 39.5 JENNIE

female

participant

6.333333492

PAULINE female participant 12.5 ANN female participant 0.5 MICHAEL male participant 58.83333206 BILL

male

participant 0

LEE male participant 5 DON male participant 16.33333397 JOHN

male

participant 0

HARRY male participant 2.333333254 GERY

male

instructor 54.66666794

STEVE male instructor 16.83333397 BERT

male

instructor 13.66666698

RUSS

male

instructor 47.33333206

The first line (“*node data”) identifies the section as containing node data. The line following “*node data” is a list of variable names. The first variable is assumed to be a unique identifier. It can be numeric or text, as long as each node has a distinct value. If any value (for any variable) contains spaces or other extraneous punctuation, it should be enclosed in full quotes, as in:

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

“John Barrymore” Following the line of variable names is the actual data corresponding to those variables. All following lines are assumed to be node data until a new star command is read or the end of the file is reached.

Node Properties Section The node properties section is very similar to the node data section, except that the variables all refer to display characteristics of the nodes, such as size, color, and shape. Here is an example: *Node properties ID x y color shape size “HOLLY” 1094 415 255 1 10 “BRAZEY” 84 742 255 1 10 “CAROL” 1224 996 255 1 10 “PAM” 1249 722 255 1 10 “PAT” 1291 551 255 1 10 “JENNIE” 1518 686 255 1 10 “PAULINE” 1051 928 255 1 10 “ANN” 1330 876 255 1 10 “MICHAEL” 791 365 255 1 10 “BILL” 785 52 255 1 10 «LEE» 80 619 255 1 10 «DON» 994 195 255 1 10 «JOHN» 776 894 255 1 10 «HARRY» 945 214 255 1 10 «GERY» 600 578 255 1 10 «STEVE» 338 636 255 1 10 «BERT» 282 897 255 1 10 «RUSS» 543 814 255 1 10

As before, the first line (“*node properties”) identifies the section as containing node properties. The line following “*node properties” is a list of variable names. Aside from the first variable, which must be ID, all the other variables can be in any order, and none of them have to be there at all. But if they are present, they must be named exactly as shown in the example. Variable “X” is the horizontal coordinate of a node. Variable “Y” is the vertical coordinate (the 0,0 point is the top left corner of the drawing area). Variable “Color” is the color of the node (in hexadecimal). Variable “Shape” is the shape of the node (circle, square, up-triangle, etc.). Variable “Size” is the size of the nodes in points. Finally, (not shown in the example), the variable “Shortlabel” gives the label for each node (if not given, the program uses the ID code). Following the line of variable names is the actual data corresponding to those variables.

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Tie Data The Tie Data section contains dyadic data – the presence/absence or strength of tie among pairs of nodes on one or more relations. Here is an example: *Tie data from to talk strength HOLLY PAM 1 1 HOLLY PAT 1 3 HOLLY DON 1 2 BRAZEY LEE 1 1 BRAZEY STEVE 1 2 BRAZEY BERT 1 3 CAROL PAM 1 1 CAROL PAT 1 2 CAROL PAULINE 1 3 PAM JENNIE 1 3 PAM PAULINE 1 1 …

The second line contains the list of dyadic variables (relations), except that the first two variables are necessarily called “from” and “to” and identify the nodes that are tied. In this example, there are two relations (called “talk” and “strength”). Following the variable names are the actual ties. A data line such as “Holly Pam 1 1” indicates that Holly talks to Pam and their relationship has strength 1. Values of zero are assumed to indicate the absence of a tie on a given relation. Putting it all together Not all possible sections need to be in a given file – just one will do. Here is an example of a file with all sections: *Node data ID,

gender,

role,

betweenness

HOLLY

female

participant

78.33333588

BRAZEY

female

participant

CAROL female participant 1.333333373 PAM

female

participant

32.5

PAT

female

participant

39.5

JENNIE

female

participant

6.333333492

PAULINE

female

participant

12.5

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

ANN

female

participant

0.5

MICHAEL

male

participant

58.83333206

BILL

male

participant

LEE male participant 5 DON

male

participant

16.33333397

JOHN

male

participant

HARRY

male

participant

2.333333254

GERY

male

instructor

54.66666794

STEVE male instructor 16.83333397 BERT

male

instructor

13.66666698

RUSS

male

instructor

47.33333206

*Node properties ID x y color shape size shortlabel HOLLY 1160 271 255 1 10 HOLLY BRAZEY 1214 577 255 1 10 BRAZEY CAROL 671 612 255 1 10 CAROL PAM 985 127 255 1 10 PAM PAT 802 402 255 1 10 PAT JENNIE 729 187 255 1 10 JENNIE PAULINE 69 590 255 1 10 PAULINE ANN 877 818 255 1 10 ANN MICHAEL 182 224 255 1 10 MICHAEL BILL 380 137 255 1 10 BILL LEE 617 44 255 1 10 LEE DON 281 656 255 1 10 DON JOHN 617 839 255 1 10 JOHN HARRY 382 410 255 1 10 HARRY GERY 1051 706 255 1 10 GERY STEVE 64 394 255 1 10 STEVE BERT 348 812 255 1 10 BERT RUSS 1176 426 255 1 10 RUSS *Tie data from to friends strength HOLLY PAM 1 1 GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

PAT HOLLY 1 2 PAULINE PAT 1 2 JOHN RUSS 1 3 HARRY HOLLY 1 2 HARRY MICHAEL 1 1 BERT RUSS 1 3 RUSS GERY 1 1 RUSS STEVE 1 3 RUSS BERT 1 2 HOLLY BRAZEY 0 7 HOLLY CAROL 0 17 BRAZEY PAULINE 0 7 BRAZEY ANN 0 6 BRAZEY MICHAEL 0 15 PAM MICHAEL 0 9 PAM BILL 0 16 PAM LEE 0 13 JENNIE BRAZEY 0 8 PAULINE JENNIE 0 5 PAULINE ANN 0 4 ANN PAT 0 7 ANN MICHAEL 0 9 BILL LEE 0 10 DON ANN 0 12

DL Data Format The DL protocol is a flexible language for describing data and itself encompasses a number of different formats. Three of these formats – nodelist, edgelist and fullmatrix – are described here. A sample nodelist file called borg4cent.txt is provided with the program. Nodelist Format This is usually the most efficient format. Just create a text file using any word processor (make sure to remember to save as text). Enter the data in the following format: dl n = 50 format = nodelist data: GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

1782 3 19 21 49 6 26 … The “DL” at the top is required and identifies the type of file. The “n=50” tells program to expect up to 50 distinct nodes. The “format = nodelist” tells the program to expect the node list format (as opposed to edge list and full matrix). The word “data:” (don’t forget the colon) marks the end of information about the data and the beginning of the data itself. The first line of the data (“1 7 8 2”) says that person 1 has ties to three people, who are 7, 8 and 2. The ordering of the people is arbitrary and makes no difference. The second line, “3 19 21 49 6” says that person 3 has ties to four people, who are 19, 21, 49 and 6. Important note: each value is separated by a space (or tab). Each value is a “sequential” ID number. By “sequential” I mean that the numbers run from 1 to n. You can’t have arbitrary ID numbers like “1001” or non-numeric IDs like “BOS007” or “Steve” unless you add the words “Labels embedded” some time before the “data:” statement, as follows: dl n = 50 labels embedded format = nodelist data: binlad geobus tonblai kenski bilste jeabar stebor judcla jandoe kenski jandoe …

These names or labels must be less than 20 characters long and should not contain spaces or punctuation (as in “osama bin laden”) unless they are enclosed in full quotes. A sample data file called borg4cent.txt using nodelist format is provided with the program. Edgelist Format This format requires more typing but is convenient when entering data as one encounters it, such as when pulling links between people from newspaper articles. Again, create a text file using any word processor (make sure to remember to save as text). Enter the data in the following format: dl n = 50 format = edgelist data: 17 18 12 3 19 …

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

52 Note that “nodelist” has been replaced by “edgelist” in the format statement. Then, after “data:”, the data are in pairs, separated by spaces or tabs. The first line (“1 7”) says that persons 1 and 7 have a tie. The second line says that persons 1 and 8 have a tie. The ordering of nodes within in a pair, and of pairs within the file, is immaterial. As with the nodelist format, you can also use non-sequential, non-numeric IDs as long as you add the words “Labels embedded” some time before the “data:” statement, as follows: dl n = 50 labels embedded format = edgelist data: binlad geobus binlad tonblai binlad kenski bilste jeabar … FullMatrix Format This format works well for small datasets that contain a lot of ties. Again, create a text file using any word processor or with Excel (making sure to remember to save as text). Enter the data in the following format: dl n=5 format = fullmatrix data: 00100 00011 10010 01100 01000 Here, the format statement reads “format=fullmatrix”. Then, after “data:”, the data are in the form of a personby-person table. Since n=5, there are 5 rows and 5 columns. The first row has values 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, indicating that person one has ties only with the third person. In contrast, the second row of the table shows that person 2 has ties with person 4 and person 5. Note that this format does not have id codes at all: people are identified by their position in the table. The third row corresponds to the third person. The fourth column corresponds to the fourth person, and so on. However, non-numeric labels can be added with “labels embedded” statement as follows: dl n=5 labels embedded format = fullmatrix data: Bill Jan Jim Sue Zoe Bill 0 0 1 0 0 Jan 0 0 0 1 1 Jim 1 0 0 1 0 Sue 0 1 1 0 0 Zoe 0 1 0 0 0 Typing the data is the hardest part. Once you do that, the rest is easy. GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

Annex 7- Knowledge Capital Plan Template Knowledge Capital Plan Matrix

Legend: Knowledge gap – the knowledge topic/area identified as a gap during Knowledge Mapping Specific knowledge product – the final knowledge product/activity envisioned to fill the knowledge gap Method of capture/devt – type of action required to capture (eg, research) or develop (eg, ppt devt) knowledge product Sources of info – sources (eg, person, office, documents, reports) and resources (eg, website) which provide useful input to the knowledge product/activity By when – deadline for delivering the final knowledge product/activity By who – person/team assigned to deliver the knowledge product/activity Status – Indicates status of action (ie, completed/done or delayed, etc.) vs. deadline

GUIDE TO KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AUDIT FOR LGRCs

References Asian Productivity Organization, 2009. Knowledge Management: Facilitators' Guide. Tokyo. Borgatti, S.P., 2002. NetDraw Software for Network Visualization. Analytic Technologies: Lexington, KY LGA and LGSP, 2006. Communities that Learn! A Local Governance Knowledge Management Framework. Manila, Philippines USAID, 2003, 'Knowledge Mapping 101', in USAID Knowledge for Development Seminar, 22 September 2003.