Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water

Transcription

Organizational Development
for Knowledge Management
at Water Utilities
Subject Area: Management and Customer Relations
at Water Utilities
©2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
About the Water Research Foundation
The Water Research Foundation (formerly Awwa Research Foundation or AwwaRF) is a member-supported,
international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health
agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.
The Foundation’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this
mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources, treatment,
distribution, and health effects. Funding for research is provided primarily by subscription payments from
close to 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad. Additional
funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and international organizations and the
U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based
knowledge to be developed and disseminated.
From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundation’s staff directs and supports the efforts of
more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These volunteers
represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research
studies that benefit the entire drinking water community.
The results of research are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Web site,
Webcasts, conferences, and periodicals.
For its subscribers, the Foundation serves as a cooperative program in which water suppliers unite to pool
their resources. By applying Foundation research findings, these water suppliers can save substantial costs
and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since its inception, the Foundation
has supplied the water community with more than $460 million in applied research value.
More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available on the Web at
www.WaterResearchFoundation.org.
at Water Utilities
Prepared by:
David H. Bennet and Alex Bennet
Mountain Quest Institute, RR 2, Box 109, Marlinton, WV 24954
Jointly sponsored by:
Water Research Foundation
6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Published by:
DISCLAIMER
This study was jointly funded by the Water Research Foundation (Foundation) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Cooperative Agreement No. X-83294801. The
Foundation and USEPA assume no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in
this publication or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of
trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of
the Foundation or USEPA. This report is presented solely for informational purposes.
Copyright © 2011
by Water Research Foundation
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced
or otherwise utilized without permission.
ISBN 978-1-60573-102-5
Printed in the U.S.A.
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES�� ix
LIST OF FIGURES�� xi
FOREWORD�� xiii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS�� xv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY�� xxiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION�� 1
Knowledge: What Is It and Why Is It Important?�� 1
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge�� 1
Surface, Shallow, and Deep Knowledge�� 1
Types or Areas of Knowledge�� 3
Managing Knowledge�� 3
Project 4003 Research Focus�� 5
Knowledge Mobilization�� 6
CHAPTER 2: ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES AND
INITIATIVES: BENEFITS AND COSTS�� 9
Drinking Water Utilties Implementing KM Strategies�� 9
Specific Strategies and Initiatives Under Way�� 9
External Organizations Implementing KM Strategies and Initiatives�� 10
Case Examples�� 10
Case Studies�� 14
Summary�� 20
CHAPTER 3: ROLES OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT�� 21
Planning for KM Strategies and Initiatives�� 21
Overcoming Resistance to KM Strategies and Initiatives�� 22
Leadership Support and Visibility�� 22
Leaders and Managers as Change Agents�� 23
Trust�� 24
Implementing Organizational Structures That Support KM Strategies and Initiatives�� 25
Policies and Directives�� 25
Recognition and Rewards Program�� 26
Empowerment�� 27
v
vi | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
CHAPTER 4: CHARACTERISTICS THAT SUPPORT KNOWLEDGE SHARING
AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS�� 29
Characteristics of a Utility’s Organizational Structure That Support Successful
Knowledge Sharing and Learning Organizations�� 29
Teams and Communities�� 31
Workforce Planning�� 31
Culture�� 32
Training and Education�� 32
Recognition and Rewards�� 32
Guiding Principles for Structuring the Utility�� 32
Staff Roles and Responsibilities That Support Successful Knowledge Sharing
and Learning Organizations�� 33
Continuous Learning�� 33
Knowledge Moments�� 33
Networking�� 34
CHAPTER 5: CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN DRINKING WATER UTILITIES�� 35
Critical Success Factors in Successful Implementation of KM in Water Utilitites�� 35
Leadership and Management Support�� 35
Lead by Example�� 35
Communicate, Communicate, Communicate�� 36
Employee Buy-In�� 36
Bring Employees Into the Project�� 36
Resource Support�� 37
Good Communications�� 37
A Team-Based Approach�� 37
Allowing Time for Change to Occur�� 37
Technology Support�� 38
Developing Trust�� 38
Valuing Employees�� 38
Provide Training and Development�� 38
Barriers To Successful Implementation of KM in Drinking Water Utilities�� 38
Financial Resources�� 39
Time�� 39
Resistance to Change�� 40
Lack of Manpower�� 40
Politics�� 40
Leadership and Management�� 40
Public Perception�� 41
Getting Buy-in for the Project�� 41
Resistance to Technology�� 41
Regulations and Laws�� 41
Utility Culture�� 41
What Does Success Look Like?�� 42
Contents | vii
CHAPTER 6: THE EFFECTS OF ALIGNMENT AND MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN
KM AND CORE PLANNING PROCESSES�� 43
Utility Core Planning Processes�� 43
Aligning a KM Initiative With a Utility’s Core Planning Processes�� 45
Step 1�� 45
Step 2�� 45
Step 3�� 46
Step 4�� 46
How Misalignment or an Underdeveloped Core Process Impacts the Successful
Deployment of a KM Strategy and Its Resulting Initiatives�� 47
CHAPTER 7: AN ASSESSMENT TOOL�� 49
Introduction to the Instrument�� 49
Individual Assessment Interpretations�� 50
The Assessment Instrument as a Tool�� 50
CHAPTER 8: THE KM TOOLKIT�� 51
The Toolkit Process�� 51
Introduction�� 51
Assessing Readiness�� 53
The Planning Phase�� 53
The Preparing Phase�� 56
The Executing Phase�� 61
The Sustaining Phase�� 66
The Tools�� 70
The Ideas�� 70
Other Resources�� 70
Project Studies�� 70
White Papers�� 84
Case Examples�� 84
Case Studies�� 84
Resource Documents�� 84
Bibliography, Suggested Reading, and Glossary�� 85
Final Thoughts�� 85
REFERENCES�� 87
ABBREVIATIONS�� 95
APPENDICES (AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM PACKAGED WITH PRINTED REPORT AND
WATERRF WEBSITE)
APPENDIX A: SURVEY RESULTS........................................................................................ A-1
APPENDIX B: PROJECT STUDIES....................................................................................... B-1
viii | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
APPENDIX C: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT TOOLS................................... C-1
APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT QUESTIONS AND
INTERPRETATIONS.......................................................................................................... D-1
APPENDIX E: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT INTRO AND
PROCESS PHASES............................................................................................................. E-1
APPENDIX F: BUSINESS CASE FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT............................ F-1
APPENDIX G: REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE FOR DRINKING WATER UTILITIES..... G-1
APPENDIX H: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT IDEAS................................... H-1
APPENDIX I: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT INDEXES.................................. I-1
KM TOOLKIT (AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM PACKAGED WITH PRINTED REPORT AND
WATERRF WEBSITE)
TABLES
2.1
Drinking water utility project studies in the KM Toolkit�� 11
2.2
Case example of strategies and initiatives, and benefits�� 15
6.1
Core planning processes support of the utility’s mission�� 44
6.2
Information systems in drinking water utilities�� 44
8.1
Tools (initiatives) in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit�� 71
8.2
Ideas in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit�� 81
ix
FIGURES
1.1
Characterization of organizational knowledge needs......................................................... 2
1.2
Number of one-on-one telephone conversations on KM with drinking water utility
personnel per state............................................................................................................... 7
2.1
Breakout of survey responses regarding the number of KM strategies and initiatives
in drinking water utilities in terms of those underway, in the Planning stage, or those
which have sparked interest.............................................................................................. 10
5.1
Critical factors that support successful implementation of new initiatives...................... 36
5.2
Barriers in the utility to implementing new initiatives..................................................... 39
5.3
Areas of descriptions of a successful initiative................................................................. 42
6.1
Relationship of IT, IM, and KM....................................................................................... 48
8.1
Phases of the KM Toolkit process..................................................................................... 52
xi
FOREWORD
The Water Research Foundation (Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation that is dedicated
to the implementation of a research effort to help utilities respond to regulatory requirements
and traditional high-priority concerns of the industry. The research agenda is developed through
a process of consultation with subscribers and drinking water professionals. Under the umbrella
of a Strategic Research Plan, the Research Advisory Council prioritizes the suggested projects
based upon current and future needs, applicability, and past work; the recommendations are forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final selection. The Foundation also sponsors research projects
through the unsolicited proposal process; the Collaborative Research, Research Applications, and
Tailored Collaboration programs; and various joint research efforts with organizations such as the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Association of
California Water Agencies.
This publication is a result of one of these sponsored studies, and it is hoped that its findings will be applied in communities throughout the world. The following report serves not only as
a means of communicating the results of the water industry’s centralized research program but also
as a tool to enlist the further support of the nonmember utilities and individuals.
Projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the Foundation’s
staff and large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. The Foundation
serves a planning and management function and awards contracts to other institutions such as water
utilities, universities, and engineering firms. The funding for this research effort comes primarily
from the Subscription Program, through which water utilities subscribe to the research program
and make an annual payment proportionate to the volume of water they deliver and consultants and
manufacturers subscribe based on their annual billings. The program offers a cost-effective and
fair method for funding research in the public interest.
A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the Foundation’s research agenda:
resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis, toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist water
suppliers to provide the highest possible quality of water economically and reliably. The true benefits are realized when the results are implemented at the utility level. The Foundation’s trustees
are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end.
Roy L. Wolfe, Ph.D.
Chair, Board of Trustees Water Research Foundation
Robert C. Renner, P.E.
Executive Director
Water Research Foundation
xiii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research project team wishes to thank and acknowledge the significant contributions of
the utility Participants; Project Advisory Committee members Brownlee Bowmer, (Austin Water
Utility), Linda Godfrey, (Consultant), Clyde Holsapple, (Professor, School of Management at the
University of Kentucky), Beverly Ingram, (Chicago Department of Water Management), and Water
Research Foundation project manager Susan Turnquist, without whose involvement this project
would not have been possible. The drinking water Utilities who participated in this project are:
Anne Arundel County, Department of Public Works, Maryland
Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, New Mexico
Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Virginia
Alpena Water & Wastewater Utility, Michigan
Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, Alaska
Aquarion Water Company, Massachusetts
Asotin County Public Utility District, Washington
Azusa Light & Water, California
Audubon Water Company, Maine
Augusta County Service Authority, Virginia
Aurora Water, Colorado
Blacksburg Christiansburg VPI Water Authority, Virginia
Beatrice Board of Public Works, Nebraska
Beaufort Jasper Water & Sewer, South Carolina
Benbrook Water Authority, Texas
Berkeley County Water & Sanitation Authority, South Carolina
Berwick Water Department, Maine
Bradford City Water Authority, Pennsylvania
Brick Township Municipal Utilities Authority, New Jersey
Bryan Municipal Utilities, Ohio
Camrosa Water District, California
Canyon Regional Water Authority, Texas
Caribou Utilities District, Maine
Castaic Lake Water Agency, California
Celina Utilities, Ohio
Central Coast Water Authority, California
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Utah
Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities, Wyoming
Citrus Heights Water District, California
City of Akron, Ohio
City of Albany, Oregon
City of Amarillo, Texas
City of American Canyon, California
City of Arlington, Utility Division, Washington
City of Austin, Water Utility, Texas
City of Batavia, Illinois
xv
xvi | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
City of Beaumont, Water Utilities Department, Texas
City of Boca Raton, Florida
City of Bremerton, Washington
City of Brentwood, California
City of Brookfield, Wisconsin
City of Brownsville, Utilities Department, Tennessee
City of Cannon Beach, Oregon
City of Carrollton, Texas
City of Cleveland, Water Department, Ohio
City of Clovis, California
City of Corona, California
City of Cottage Grove, Oregon
City of Danville, Department of Utilities, Virginia
City of Decatur, Texas
City of Delmar, California
City of Detroit Lakes, Minnesota
City of Eastpointe, Michigan
City of Englewood, Colorado
City of Fairborn, Division of Water & Sewer, Ohio
City of Flagstaff, Department of Utilities, Arizona
City of Flint, Michigan
City of Fridley, Minnesota
City of Garden Grove, California
City of Georgetown, Texas
City of Goshen, Indiana
City of Grand Forks, Department of Public Utilities, Virginia
City of Hollywood, Public Utilities, Florida
City of Issaquah, Public Works, Washington
City of Jackson, Michigan
City of Lake Crystal, Minnesota
City of Lawton, Water Treatment Plant, Oklahoma
City of Lebanon, Tennessee
City of Libby, Montana
City of Lompoc, California
City of Minot, North Dakota
City of Moline, Water Division, Illinois
City of Mount Vernon, Ohio
City of Oak Harbor, Washington
City of Odessa, Texas
City of Oneida, New York
City of Perham, North Dakota
City of Platteville, Water & Sewer Department, Wisconsin
City of Portsmouth, Department of Public Utilities, Virginia
City of Rapid City, Water Division, Michigan
City of Redmond, Washington
City of Rifle, Utility Department, Colorado
Acknowledgments | xvii
City of Roseville, Water Utility Department, California
City of San Diego, Water Department, California
City of San Marcos, Texas
City of Santa Barbara, California
City of Santa Cruz, Water Department, California
City of Union, Department of Utilities, South Carolina
City of University Park, Texas
City of Vineland, Water Utility Department, New Jersey
City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
City of West University Place, Texas
City of Wheaton, Illinois
City of Winston-Salem, Department of Utilities, North Carolina
City of Wyoming, Department of Public Works, Michigan
Coastside County Water District, California
Columbus Water Works, Georgia
Contra Costa Water District, California
Crescenta Valley Water Department, California
Dalton Utilities, Georgia
DC Water and Sewer Authority, Washington, DC
Douglasville - Douglas County Water & Sewer Authority, Georgia
East Grand Forks, Water & Light Department, Minnesota
El Dorado Irrigation District, California
Elmira Water Board, New York
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, California
Englewood Water District, Florida
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Colorado
Evergreen Metro District, Colorado
Falmouth Water Department, Massachusetts
Georgetown County, Water and Sewer District, South Carolina
Gloucester Water Treatment Plant, Virginia
Goleta Water District, California
Guadalupe - Blanco River Authority, Nevada
Harwich Water Department, Massachusetts
Helix Water District, California
James City Service Authority, Virginia
Kansas City Water Services Department, Missouri
Lakehaven Utility District, Washington
Left Hand Water District, Colorado
Lehigh County Authority, Pennsylvania
Littleton Electric Light & Water Departments, Massachusetts
Loudoun County Sanitation Authority, Virginia
Louisville Water Company, Kentucky
Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas
Marina Coast Water District, California
Marion Municipal Utilities, Indiana
Marshfield Utilities, Wisconsin
xviii | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
Massapequa Water District, New York
MassDevelopment, Utilities Department, Massachusetts
Matanuska, Susitna Borough, Alaska
Menasha Electric & Water Utilities, Wisconsin
Merchantville - Pennsauken Water Commission, New Jersey
Milwaukee Water Works, Wisconsin
Minneapolis Water Works, Minnesota
Monroe County Water Authority, New York
Montezuma Water Company, Colorado
Morristown Water System, Tennessee
Mount Werner Water & Sanitation District, Colorado
Municipal Authority of the Borough of West View, Pennsylvania
North East Texas Municipal Water District, Texas
New Holstein Utilities, Wisconsin
Newport News Waterworks, Virginia
Niagara Falls Water Board, New York
North Raynham Water District, Massachusetts
North Marin Water District, California
Oakdale Irrigation District, California
Ogden City Public Utilities, Utah
Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System, Florida
Olivenhain Municipal Water District, California
Orange Water & Sewer Authority, North Carolina
Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida
Owensboro Municipal Utilities, Kentucky
Paducah Water, Kentucky
Palm Beach County Water Utilities, Florida
Paradise Irrigation District, California
Pemberton Township Water Department, New Jersey
Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, Pennsylvania
Placer County Water Agency, California
Portland Water Bureau, Oregon
Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado
Rice Lake Utilities, Wisconsin
Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District, California
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, Virginia
Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District, North Carolina
San Diego County Water Authority, California
Santa Clara Valley Water District, California
Seattle Public Utilities, Washington
Shoreline Water District, Washington
Silverdale Water District, Washington
Startex-Jackson-Wellford-Duncan Water District, South Carolina
Smyrna, Town of, Tennessee
Soos Creek Water & Sewer District, Washington
Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, New Jersey
Acknowledgments | xix
Stagecoach General Improvement District, Nevada
Stevens Point Water & Wastewater, Wisconsin
Stockton East Water District, California
Suffolk County Water Authority, New York
Tampa Bay Water, Florida
Taylorsville- Bennion Improvement District, Utah
Thomasville, City of, North Carolina
Town of Framingham, Water Department, Massachusetts
Town of Pembroke Water Works, New Hampshire
Town of Smyrna, Tennessee
Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Nevada
Tualatin Valley Water District, Oregon
Upper Sandusky Water Treatment Plant, Ohio
Village of Chagrin Falls, Ohio
Village of Clinton, Michigan
Village of Forsyth, Illinois
Village of Webster, New York
Washington Aqueduct, Washington, DC
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Maryland
Washoe County, Department of Water Resources, Nevada
Water Authority of Western Nassau County, New York
Waterford Township, Department of Public Works, Michigan
Waterloo Water Works, Iowa
West Des Moines Water Works, Iowa
Wisconsin Rapids Water Works & Lighting Commission, Wisconsin
Wyandotte Municipal Services, Water Department, Michigan
Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority, Michigan
Mountain Quest Researchers:
David Bennet, Principal, Mountain Quest Institute, Frost, West Virginia
Alex Bennet, Co-Principal, Mountain Quest Institute, Frost, West Virginia
Project Study Contributors:
Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Alexandria, Virginia
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, Charlotte, North Carolina
City of Akron, Public Utilities Bureau, Akron, Ohio
City of Cleveland, Water Department, Cleveland, Ohio
City of Fairborn, Fairborn, Ohio
City of Grand Forks, Department of Public Utilities, Grand Forks, North Dakota
City of Moline, Water Division, Moline, Illinois
City of Phoenix, Water Services Department, Phoenix, Arizona
City of Salt Lake City, Department of Public Utilities, Salt Lake City, Utah
Colorado Springs Utility, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Columbus Water Works, Columbus, Georgia
xx | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
Evergreen Metro District, Evergreen, Colorado
Greenville Water System, Greenville, South Carolina
Loudon County Sanitation Authority, Ashburn, Virginia
Louisville Water Company, Louisville, Kentucky
Orlando Utilities Commission, Orlando, Florida
Rice Lake Utilities, Rice Lake, Wisconsin
Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington
Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey
Tampa Bay Water, Tampa, Florida
Tualatin Valley Water District, Beaverton, Oregon
Waterford Township, Department of Public Works, Waterford, Michigan
Workshop Participants:
Borough of Catasauqua, Catasauqua, Pennsylvania: Gene Goldfeder
City of Cleveland, Division of Water, Cleveland, Ohio: Arnetta Anderson, Javier Badillo,
Hollis Crump, Sharonda Denson, Helene Downing, Gregg Faust, Saundra Foster,
Payton Hall, Dennis Horgan, Pat Hunnicutt, Keshia Johnson, Chris Koscan, Karen
Lisowski, Chris Nielson, Alex Margevicius, Liz Maldonado, Paula Morrision,
Richard Papp, Rolfe Porter, Kim Savage, Joe Sika, Angela Smith
Easton Suburban Water Authority, Easton, Pennsylvania: Erin Schulberger, Roy White
Hellertown Borough Authority, Hellertown, Pennsylvania: Glenn Higbie
Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Liesel Adam, Aurel Arndt, Linda
Eberhardt, Brad Landon, Frank Leist, Emily Smith, Doug Young
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Dave
Malloy
Phoenix Water Services Department, Phoenix, Arizona: Madeline Goddard, Cheryl
Guzman, Laura Kaino, Paul Kinshella, Mike Laurer, Tammy Perkins, Jane Smith
Salisbury Township, Allentown, Pennsylvania: John Andreas
Salt Lake City, Department of Public Utilities, Salt Lake City, Utah: Robert Bahr, Rick
Bright, Ryan Broadhead, Jason Brown, Charles Call, Dale Christensen, Sybilla
Dalton, Giles Demke, Peggy Garcia, Karryn Greenleaf, Linda Jennings, Arlene
Larsen, Jim Lewis, Jeff Niermeyer, Florence Reynolds, Jeff Ruiz, Robert Sperling,
Kurt Spjute, Mark Stanley, Justin Stoker, Shellie Turnbow, Tom Ward, Jim Williams
South Whitehall Township, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Tom Uff
Leadership Management Interviews:
American Water Works Association, Washington, DC: Alan Roberson
Austin Water Utility, Austin, Texas: Jane Burazer, George Calhoune, David Jaurez
City of Cleveland, Division of Water, Cleveland, Ohio: Chris Nielson, Rolfe Porter, Angela
Smith
City of Greensboro, Water Resources Department, Greensboro, North Carolina: Allan
Williams
Fairfax Water, Fairfax, Virginia: Chuck Murrey
Greenville Water System, Greenville, South Carolina: Lyndon Stovall
George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia: Mark Houck
Acknowledgments | xxi
Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Liesel Adam, Aurel Arndt, Frank
Leist
Phoenix Water Services Department, Phoenix, Arizona: Madeline Goddard, Mike Laurer,
Hector Ortez, Tammy Perkins, Greg Ramon
Salt Lake City, Department of Public Utilities, Salt Lake City, Utah: Rick Bright, Giles
Demke, Peggy Garcia, Jeff Niermeyer
Washington Aqueduct, Washington, DC: Thomas Jacobus
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Division, Winston-Salem, North Carolina: David
Saunders
Beta-Testing Participants:
Austin Water Utility, Austin, Texas: Rajendra Bhattarai
City of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois: Beverly Ingram
Crescenta Valley Water District, La Crescenta, California: Dennis Erdman
Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Liesel Adam
Salt Lake City, Department of Utilities, Utah: Linda Jennings
Tampa Bay Water, Tampa Bay, Florida: Ed Davis, Jon Kennedy
Washington Aqueduct, Washington, DC: Patricia Gamby
Mountain Quest Institute Development Team:
Dawn Buchanan, Research Assistant
Andrew Dean, Programmer & Computer Specialist
Erica Engquist, Graphic Artist & Format Tech
Susie Weber, Administrative Assistant
Anja Baudler, Administrative Assistant
Barbara Bennet, Editor
Mohit Sambhu, Assessment Design
Cindy Taylor, Office Assistant
The following organizations and individuals are also acknowledged as key partners in
this research. Through the sharing of their expertise and resources they are providing thought
leadership on best practices for Knowledge Management: American Productivity and Quality
Center (APQC), Water Research Foundation (WaterRF), Department of Navy (DON), Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Learn@Well
(Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries), Lehigh County Authority, Allentown,
Pennsylvania, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), TECHi2, Susan Turnquist,
Rajiv Sabherwal, Laurence Prusak, Jaap Pels, Frank Odhiambo, Brian Newman, Geoffrey
Malafsky, Liam Fahery, David Bennet, Alex Bennet and Irma Becerra-Fernandez.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The decisions that are made every day by every single person in your utility determine the
performance of the utility that day! Knowledge is about making good decisions and taking the best
actions in a given situation. While the environment can create forces that may significantly challenge a utility’s capacity to respond, the response is heavily dependent upon each worker taking
the best action, doing the right thing to further the utility’s objectives. This is true for the governing board members all the way across the organization to the newest employee, whatever their job
description. How well do they understand their job? Can they trace their work responsibilities to
the purpose and vision of the utility? Do they know the effect of their actions on the rest of the utility? In brief, do they have the knowledge to make the best decisions and take the best actions for
their division, department and utility? We can now see the connection from knowledge to action
to results to performance.
Thus knowledge can be best understood as the capability (potential or actual) to take
effective action. When you understand a situation well enough that you can take an action that
results in the expected outcome, you have knowledge of the situation. Knowledge is not the same
as information. Information can be stored in manuals and information technology systems. When
that information is used effectively it is knowledge, what can be called Knowledge (Informing).
However, the effective use of information as knowledge can only occur when it is associated with
other information that represents a situation or event. This process of associating information in
such a way that it creates understanding, insight, meaning and the ability to take the right action is
called Knowledge (Proceeding), that which is the basis for decision-making.
MANAGING KNOWLEDGE
Managing knowledge in an organization means ensuring that decision-makers at all levels have the ability and the information they need to make the best decisions and take the most
effective actions. What works, and what doesn’t? Where can employees find and get the right
knowledge? How does knowledge get to the right individual? How do employees become aware
of the right knowledge, understand it, feel good about it, and become willing to use it in their
work? The answers to these questions directly relate to the utility’s business proposition and its
success. Knowledge Management (KM) is the name used to represent the processes and practices
of workers as they apply and share their knowledge in the workplace. It also represents the ideas,
principles and practices that leaders/managers take to ensure all employees have and use the best
knowledge possible in their day-to-day work decisions and actions.
One way to consider Knowledge Management is as the systematic process of creating,
maintaining and nurturing an organization to make the best use of knowledge to achieve: (a) efficiency of operations; (b) effectiveness of operations; (c) quality of products; and (d) sustainable
high performance. Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things; quality
is providing the best products desired; and sustainability is creating a utility that can withstand
the surprises and shocks that occur over time in the environment. Simply put, efficiency reduces
cost, effectiveness produces the right products and services, quality keeps customers happy, and
sustainability keeps the utility and its performance around for a long time. At any given time different utilities will put different emphasis on these measures. However, they are all dependent on
xxiii
xxiv | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
the actions of every employee every day. Thus the ultimate source of overall performance lies in
the employees and the knowledge they possess and apply.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The formal title of this project is “Organizational Development Needed to Implement a
Knowledge Management Strategy at Water Utilities.” The overarching project objectives were:
1. Identify the benefits and costs of implementing a knowledge management (KM)
initiative;
2. Investigate and identify organizational characteristics and processes (e.g., culture,
core planning processes, communications, rewards, etc.) critical to the success of
implementing a KM initiative;
3. Develop an assessment tool for drinking water utilities to identify their organization’s
readiness to plan and implement a KM strategy; and
4. Develop a tool kit for establishing or enhancing organizational readiness to support a
KM strategy and initiatives.
Results of this project provide a systematic process for drinking water utilities, as business organizations, to facilitate the effective implementation of a KM strategy.
The material in these chapters is based on an extensive base of research materials and
the experience and previous research of the Principal and Co-Principal Investigators. The 4003
research approach included a survey process, literature review, site visits, leadership and management interviews, workshops, focus groups, and development of project studies, case examples and
case studies focused on KM implementation.
The Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) approach accompanying Project 4003 implementation included a combination of events, publications, Internet exchanges and development of
meta-tools (the Readiness Assessment Instrument and KM Toolkit) that will enable drinking water
utilities to plan and implement the organizational change needed to support implementation of
knowledge management strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities. In terms of drinking
water utilities, KMb is the effective creation, movement and tailoring of specific knowledge from
its source (research or specialized expertise) to its application (practitioner, utility worker) such
that consequent actions are effective and sustainable.
To raise awareness of KM in the drinking water utility industry, over 1,224 drinking water
utilities across the nation were contacted via the survey process (hard mail with a cover letter
defining KM and its significance to drinking water utilities) and follow-up telephone interactions.
During this process, 1001 individuals were engaged in one-on-one telephone conversations of
5–10 minutes in length concerning knowledge and Knowledge Management related to drinking
water utilities. From this process, 33 project studies were developed representing 22 drinking
water utilities. Simultaneously, a Blog was set up and a series of papers and other resource materials provided via that vehicle. In the course of this two-year project, 67 drinking water utility
managers/leaders submitted their survey responses via the Blog page, and 6,498 pages of resource
materials were downloaded during the course of 1,453 visits to the Blog.
In this same time period, the Principal Investigator and Co-principal Investigator facilitated workshops and combination focus groups involving 66 representatives from ten geographically-dispersed drinking water utilities. In conjunction with these workshops, focus groups and
Executive Summary | xxv
site visits, the Principal Investigator interviewed 25 leaders/managers representing 12 drinking
water utilities. The diversity of approaches used to gather information, geographical distribution of
responders and the number of utilities participating contribute to the comprehensiveness and validity of results. The drinking water utilities participating in this research project are acknowledged
at the front of this report.
THE RESEARCH RESULTS
During the research process it was pleasantly noted that almost every interaction met with
interest and cooperation. It appears that Knowledge Management is gradually making itself known
within the drinking water utility industry. KM strategies and initiatives are underway in a number
of utilities. As a result of the Project 4003 survey process, 207 separate drinking water utilities
provided information about their organizations and KM and KM-related strategies and projects
underway. As indicated by this data, Knowledge Sharing, Team Decision-Making, and Knowledge
Retention represent the largest number of KM strategies underway in these drinking water utilities. There are also a number of utilities doing Knowledge Base Development. Responders also
provided information indicating KM strategies and initiatives they were planning to implement and interested in implementing. The largest focus in the “planning” stage is on Knowledge
Retention, followed closely by Knowledge Base Development and Expert Locator. The largest
focus of expressed “interested in” is on Communities of Practice and Expert Locator, followed by
Knowledge Base Development and Knowledge Retention.
What this data says is that more than 50 percent of the drinking water utilities responding
to this survey question are “doing”—and therefore aware of the value of—Knowledge Sharing and
Team Decision-Making, with still other utilities are moving down this path. The recent and current emphasis in the industry on Knowledge Retention is reflected in the high number of responses
in all three areas (“doing,” “planning” and “interested in”). Further, the value of developing a
Knowledge Base is solidly represented in all three areas, indicating a steady movement in this
direction. Action Learning has solid representation in the “doing” and “interested in” areas, with a
relatively low number of responders in the “planning” phase.
The low number of responders doing Communities of Practice and Expert Locator contrasted to the larger number of interested responders in these areas indicates a growing awareness
of these two KM initiatives and their potential value to drinking water utilities.
Thirty-three project studies were collected from 22 utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Florida,
Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South
Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. While these project studies include a wide
range of initiatives underway, they are all connected to knowledge and the increasing recognition of the importance of knowledge in drinking water utilities. For example, initiatives not only
include development of a KM plan, knowledge sharing, retaining retiree knowledge and organizational learning, but also include: developing and updating manuals, professional and leadership
development, public relations, work performance improvement, succession and talent resource
planning, workforce planning, quality based documentation, training, communications, developing document repositories, process and operational improvements, and the use of social network
analysis. In addition, 22 case examples and 5 case studies were identified to provide real-life
implementation examples of strategies and initiatives applied in the public, private and not-forprofit sectors.
xxvi | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
The sections below directly respond to core areas of this research project. They are: leadership and management; organization structure in support of knowledge management; and critical
success factors, barriers, alignment and underdevelopment.
Leadership and Management
Leadership and Management have significant roles in Planning, Overcoming Resistance,
and Implementing Organizational Structures in support of KM. A manager is considered the individual who has accountability, responsibility and authority to oversee or direct people to accomplish tasks or objectives. A leader is an individual who has the accountability, responsibility and
authority to create, maintain and nurture an organization in a manner such that it achieves sustainable high performance. In the Planning stage the role of Leadership includes gaining and maintaining Governance group support, ensuring a credible business case understood by stakeholders, and
ensuring adequate financial resources.
Overcoming resistance is a challenge to both leadership and management. Resistance can
come from a number of sources within the utility: from individual senior leaders, from department
and division managers, from unions, from the governance body and from all levels of the workforce. Any potentially significant organizational change creates uncertainty, concern and often
fear, all of which may result in workforce resistance. Leadership can help reduce resistance to KM
strategies and initiatives by clearly and consistently demonstrating active interest and participation
and their backing of the proposed changes.
A core role of leadership is to ensure that employees have a consistent understanding of
the vision, mission and purpose of the utility. By connecting the KM strategy or initiative directly
to the vision and mission of the utility through anticipated improved performance, the leader may
reduce, or at least minimize resistance from the employees. Further, by ensuring that key employees involved in the KM strategy are aware of its importance and contribution to the utility and by
rewarding those employees who contribute significantly to implementation of the KM strategy,
leaders can communicate to the entire workforce the relevance and importance of the strategy and
thereby reduce overall workforce resistance.
Organizational Structure in Support of KM
Good organizational structures provide an environment within which both employees and
managers can work together for the long-term benefit of the utility. Project 4003 survey results
reflect a higher than average response when responders were asked how well their organizational
structure supports sharing of information and knowledge. This pattern continued when responders
were asked about the amount of knowledge sharing among managers and the level of trust among
employees. However, when they were asked to assess the flexibility of organizational policies,
the mean for the 206 responses was below the average mean for the survey, indicating that it is
considered lower than average. The ability of the human resource department to support learning
and knowledge sharing also had a mean well below the average, showing that the perception of
responders was that the organizational structure supports the sharing of information and knowledge better than the human resource department.
There are a number of factors that play a significant role in the structure that supports
successful knowledge sharing and learning organizations. These are authority, responsibility and
accountability; roles and responsibilities; technology; time and space; and policies and rules.
Executive Summary | xxvii
Technology plays a strong role in support of knowledge sharing by providing information
resources, network and communication technologies; knowledge, virtual learning, and community
collaboration systems; and team collaboration artifacts such as electronic whiteboards, displays,
and software packages. Responders to the Project 4003 survey valued the level of information
system integration (information consistent and accessible) in drinking water utilities at a mean of
3.08. This represents the lowest mean in the survey, considerably below the average of overall survey response. The mean for responses regarding the quality of information contained in IT systems
was also below the survey average, although better than system integration.
The following guiding principles for structuring a utility for knowledge sharing and organizational learning are suggested. These are not the result of a single response but reflect areas of
concern expressed by multiple responders. These areas have been grouped and explicated based
on the extensive experience of the co-investigators.
The structure needs to be compatible with the culture and both should be ecologically
matched to the environment and the utility’s purpose, strategy, and vision. Cultures are heavily
influenced by the interplay of structure, vision, and external environment. For example, a learning
culture would not be compatible with a bureaucracy.
The structure design supports the workforce in their daily decision-making and actions. In
other words, the structure contains the informal network as much as possible and it supports the
knowledge needs of workers, managers, and leaders.
The structure supports the long-term needs of the workforce, including learning, professional development, and career management. The technology roles and responsibilities, facilities,
and policies all need to function effectively to satisfy both short-term and long-term utility needs.
Short-term needs such as flexibility, adaptability, surge requirements, cycling, technology opportunities, coherence of activities, operational procedures, and stakeholder demands often place different demands on the structure than long-term activities such as learning, adaptability, strategy,
knowledge management, core competencies, career management, stakeholder satisfaction, and
public image.
The structure supports leader and manager needs for loose-tight control of resources. For
example, the utility needs only loose control over self-organization, empowerment and internal
communication, but may need tight control over financial transactions, career assignments, safetyrelated decision-making and strategic direction.
Critical Success Factors, Barriers, Alignment, and Underdevelopment
Critical success factors identified through Project 4003 research relative to implementation of KM strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities were identified as: leadership by
example, good communications, employee buy-in, bringing employees into the project, resource
support, a team-based approach, allowing time for change to occur, technology support, developing trust, valuing employees and providing training and development.
Barriers to successful implementation of KM strategies and initiatives in drinking water
utilities were identified as: financial resources, time, resistance to change, lack of manpower, politics, leadership and management, public perception, getting buy-in for the project, resistance to
technology, regulations and laws, and culture.
When responders to the Project 4003 survey were asked how they would describe a successful initiative, the largest numbers of these responses were focused on results. Representative of
generic responses are: effort shows results, original objective realized, overall system improvement
xxviii | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
and users happy with final outcome. Specific responses included: increase customer service while
improving business practices, improves work flows and is user friendly, provides better information faster, provides the benefits that were targeted and then becomes a part of the daily routine for
most employees. Other “increases” were: increased productivity, increased competitiveness, and
increased customer satisfaction. One learner responded: Paying an employee to maintain a license
higher than required.
All utilities have core planning processes that are essential to effective planning and performance. These plans are critical to effective and efficient utility operations because they set up
procedures and processes that when implemented create the activities and relationships that drive
utility performance. In the Project 4003 survey, responders were largely senior leaders and managers. Yet out of the 207 surveys returned, the responses to each of the six core planning processes
ranged from 177 to 202. Thus for each of the core processes there were 5–30 responders who chose
not to enter a value for that core process, indicting either no judgment or an unfamiliarity with the
core processes they were asked to assess. In the order of those processes more readily assessed,
the planning processes are: Capital improvement planning, operational planning, human resource
development, strategic business planning, information technology master planning and life cycle
planning. This would indicate, for example, a higher level of familiarity and opinion on capital
improvement planning than life cycle planning. Yet capital improvement planning is directly correlated to life cycle planning. In an uncertain and changing economic and political environment—
where new requirements and issues emerge without adequate resources to quickly and effectively
respond to those requirements and issues—long-term planning must often take a second seat to
short-term needs. While this juxtaposing occurs in a large number of organizations, the aging
infrastructure faced by a large number of drinking water utilities is rapidly bringing long-term into
the sphere of short-term urgency. In other words, funding needs that could previously be delayed
can no longer be delayed.
Further, the data indicates that information technology master planning has the second
lowest response rating with a narrow standard deviation. This indicates close agreement by the
responders. These indicators can now be combined with the responses to the question: “The following statements relate to the information systems in your organization” to build a deeper understanding of the perception of the role of information technology (and by extension information
technology master planning) and the mission of the utility. ITD is the acronym for Information
Technology Department.
• 88.6% of 193 responders agree that systems are mission critical to the organization.
• 62.6% of 190 responders agree that ITD is heavily involved with and understands the
business mission.
• 54% of 189 responders agree that ITD is a solution provider for business problems.
• 45.9% of 185 responders agree that ITD is not helpful in solving business problems.
The last two bullets represent the same question looked at from two different directions. While
there is a larger perception (62.6%) that ITD is involved with and understands the business mission, there is a lower perception (54%) of its effectiveness in handling business problems. From
this response, it is clear that while the value of information technology is recognized as mission
critical (88.6%), there is still some work to do in order for information technology to strongly support the business mission. Considering all these responses collectively, it appears that either
Executive Summary | xxix
1. information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently
developed or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water
utilities, or
2. leaders and managers who responded to this survey instrument (representing 207
drinking water utilities nation-wide) are not aware of or do not understand the role
that information technology is playing in their utilities.
In either case, it is clear that Knowledge Management can contribute to helping drinking water
utilities engage the full potential of current and future information technology investments in terms
of their contribution to business problems and the business mission. Thus one potential finding
of this research is that information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently developed or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water
utilities.
THE TOOLS
Two specific tools resulted from this research project. The first is an assessment tool used to
evaluate a utility’s readiness to implement KM. The second is a toolkit for planning and implementing the organizational changes needed for a successful KM strategy or initiative in utilities. While
these tools respond to issues, concerns and opportunities that surfaced during the 4003 research
project, the content of these tools contains information from researched and proven knowledge
management strategies, initiatives and approaches in both the public and private sectors. This
material has been tailored for drinking water utility use.
The Assessment Instrument is designed to aid drinking water utility leaders and managers
in determining the readiness of their utility to implement KM strategies. It takes 10-15 minutes to
fill out, and is designed to help answer the question: Is my utility ready to implement a knowledge
management strategy? For a utility to be ready to successfully implement a KM strategy it should
have certain characteristics and capabilities. Reflecting those characteristics and capabilities specific to drinking water utilities, the questions in this tool were developed from a number of research
sources, including 25 interviews with senior utility leaders, four workshops with groups of utility leaders and managers, the results of the Project 4003 survey of 207 individuals from drinking
water utilities, and the results of a literature search as well as the experience of the researchers.
There are 40 questions in the assessment instrument that are divided into five areas, each
area pertaining to a specific aspect of the utility. These areas are: General, Leadership, Management,
Culture and Alignment. Because each utility is unique and possesses a wide variety of characteristics—complete with its own history—this instrument should be used in concert with informed
reflective thought prior to making a readiness decision. What this assessment will do is provide key
questions and aspects of the utility to stimulate your thinking before implementing a KM strategy.
From the answers to the assessment questions and reflection on what you know about your utility,
you will be able to make an informed judgment on whether to proceed with implementation of
your KM strategy or take some preparatory steps prior to implementation of a KM strategy.
The KM Toolkit is a virtual resource for planning and implementing the organizational
change needed to support implementation of a KM strategy in drinking water utilities. At its core
is an Introduction and a five-phase process: Assessing Readiness, Planning, Preparing, Executing
and Sustaining. The Assessment Instrument discussed above is in support of the first phase of the
process. Planning addresses ensuring leadership commitment, developing the strategy, writing
xxx | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
the plan, selecting the team and thinking system. Preparing addresses setting objectives, connecting the dots, building the foundation, growing a knowledge network and becoming a change
agent. Executing addresses leading and managing, the four organizational processes (creativity,
problem-solving, decision-making and implementation), knowledge capture, knowledge harvesting, and knowledge mobilization. Sustaining addresses nurturing organizational health, embedding, sharing, evaluating and measuring, and learning.
While the virtual toolkit is a stand-alone product, it also includes down-loadable resource
documents to support second-order learning. These include 55 Tools, 15 areas of Ideas and extensive resource documents covering the breadth of Knowledge Management contributed by leaders in the field. There are also 33 project studies (drawn from drinking water utilities), 22 case
examples (representing government, non-profit and for-profit organizations internationally), and
5 case studies.
These resources can serve as rich guides to a drinking water utility’s KM journey. Because
each utility is different and has its own unique situation and context to achieve success, it is
essential that leaders understand their organization, its goals and direction, its strengths and weaknesses and its structure and culture. With this understanding they can then select specific areas
for change and identify knowledge management initiatives that can facilitate improvements. Or,
they may decide to implement a Knowledge Management strategy to transform their utility into
a knowledge-centric organization that utilizes information, knowledge, and collaboration to the
maximum extent. Ultimately, it is informed, intelligent thinking, caring and mission-aligned individuals making the best decisions that will take your utility into the future. This approach is the
first step toward building the utility of the future.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
KNOWLEDGE: WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT?
The decisions that are made every day by every single person in your utility determine the
performance of the utility that day! Knowledge is about making good decisions and taking the best
actions in a given situation. While the environment can create forces that may significantly challenge a utility’s capacity to respond, the utility’s response is heavily dependent upon each worker
taking the best action, doing the right thing to further the utility’s objectives. This is true for the
governing board members all the way across the organization to the newest employee, whatever
their job description. How well do they understand their job? Can they trace their work responsibilities to the purpose and vision of the utility? Do they know the effect of their actions on the rest
of the utility? In brief, do they have the knowledge to make the best decisions and take the best
actions for their division, department and utility? We can now see the connection from knowledge
to action to results to sustainable performance.
Thus knowledge can be best understood as the capability (potential or actual) to take effective action. When you understand a situation well enough so that you can take an action that results
in the expected outcome, then you have knowledge of the situation. Knowledge is not the same as
information. Information can be stored in manuals and information technology systems. When that
information is used effectively it is knowledge, what can be called Knowledge (Informing).
However, the effective use of information as knowledge can only occur when it is associated with
other information that represents a situation or event. This process of associating information in
such a way that it creates understanding, insight, meaning and the ability to take the right action is
called Knowledge (Proceeding).
Explicit and Tacit Knowledge
There are other ways to think about knowledge that can be useful to individuals and organizations. For example, explicit knowledge is that which can be easily recalled from memory that
can be described accurately in words or visual representations such that another person can comprehend it. Tacit knowledge is the term used to describe knowledge that cannot be pulled up in
words, a knowing of what decision to make or how to do something that cannot be clearly voiced
in a manner such that another person can extract or re-create that knowledge. Note that the concepts of explicit and tacit focus on the ability of an individual to express and explain that
knowledge.
Surface, Shallow, and Deep Knowledge
Another useful way to think about knowledge is in terms of surface knowledge, shallow
knowledge and deep knowledge. Surface knowledge answers the questions of what, when, where
and who. It involves visible choices that require minimum understanding. Examples would be following personnel procedures as spelled out in a manual, or filling out a short-form tax return.
1
2 | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities
Source: Bennet, David and Bennet, Alex. 2008. The depth of Knowledge: Surface, shallow or deep? In Jour. VINE:
The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 38, No. 4. Used with permission.
Figure 1.1 Characterization of organizational knowledge needs. Routine decisions made in
organizations are at the surface level.
Much of everyday life such as light conversations and descriptions can be considered surface
thinking and learning that creates surface knowledge. Facts, data, concepts and information memorized for quizzes and tests (without a deeper understanding of purpose and underlying meaning)
would fall into this category.
Shallow knowledge is surface knowledge with some level of meaning, with that meaning
typically related to an individual or organization and implying some level of action. To make
meaning requires context. Because social interactions such as conversations and dialogue help
convey context, surface knowledge emerges and expands as employees interact in the course of
everyday practices and processes. For example, utilities who embrace the use of teams and communities facilitate the mobilization of knowledge and creation of new ideas as employees interact
in these groups.
For deep knowledge individuals need to develop understanding and meaning, integrate it,
and be able to shift their frame of reference as the context and situation shift. This requires a large
amount of Knowledge (Proceeding) to know when and how to take effective action. The source of
deep knowledge lies in an individual’s creativity, intuition, forecasting experience, pattern recognition, and use of theories. In other words, this is the area of the expert whose unconscious has
learned to detect patterns and evaluate their importance in anticipating the behavior of situations
that are too complex for the conscious mind to understand. The development of deep knowledge
requires intense and persistent interest and dedication to a specific area of learning, knowledge and
action.
Routine decisions made in organizations occur at the surface level. Decisions requiring
deep knowledge are much fewer, and tend to be more critical. See Figure 1.1. Understanding
knowledge in terms of surface, shallow and deep can help decision-makers recognize the scope
and depth of knowledge available to maximize problem solving, decision-making and action in
simple, complicated and complex situations. Further, thinking about knowledge in terms of these
Chapter 1: Introduction | 3
three levels can help tailor knowledge capture and learning experiences to improve knowledge
sharing and retention. For example, surface knowledge involves facts, data, concepts and other
information that can be memorized and applied, captured and stored in technology systems for
processing and reference. For shallow knowledge the focus is on social interactions such as conversations, dialogues, debates and the flow of ideas that emerges in communities and teams. At the
deep level, the focus on learning from effortful practice and lived experience would suggest the
need for an organizational learning strategy which might include mentoring, apprenticeships and
leadership development programs.
Types or Areas of Knowledge
Another way to think about knowledge is in terms of types (or areas) of knowledge grouped
by similarities and differences, specifically in terms of what knowledge is needed to do a particular
type of work or take a particular action. This is useful when considering the knowledge needs for
specific jobs, and identifying knowledge gaps in a utility. The type of knowledge used to monitor
water quality is quite different than the type of knowledge used to develop a five-year strategic
plan.
The ways of thinking about knowledge introduced above are discussed in depth in the MQI
research paper “The Depth of Knowledge: Surface, Shallow or Deep?” included in the Resource
section of the toolkit.
MANAGING KNOWLEDGE
Managing knowledge in an organization means ensuring that decision-makers at all levels
have the ability and the information they need to make the best decisions and take the most effective actions. What works, and what doesn’t? Where can employees find and get the right knowledge? How does knowledge get to the right individual? How do employees become aware of the
right knowledge, understand it, feel good about it, and become willing to use it in their work? The
answers to these questions directly relate to the utility’s business proposition and its success.
Knowledge Management is the name used to represent the processes and practices of workers as
they apply and share their knowledge in the workplace. It also represents the ideas, principles and
practices that leaders/managers take to ensure all employees have and use the best knowledge possible in their day-to-day work decisions and actions.
While a formal definition must resonate with the needs of each specific utility, Knowledge
Management can be considered a business strategy to improve organizational performance through
the creation, sharing, leveraging and application of the organization’s knowledge in its day-to-day
operations. At the leadership level, the challenge is to ensure employees have the right knowledge
needed for the present and future demands placed on their utility. To maintain utility performance,
leaders must build and support a culture, structure, and management style that helps employees
create, share, leverage and apply their knowledge.
Another way to consider Knowledge Management is as the systematic process of creating,
maintaining and nurturing an organization to make the best use of knowledge to achieve: (a) efficiency of operations; (b) effectiveness of operations; (c) quality of products; and (d) sustainable
high performance. Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things; quality is
providing the best products desired; and sustainability is creating a utility that can withstand the
surprises and shocks that occur over time in the environment.* Simply put, efficiency reduces cost,
effectiveness produces the right products and services, quality keeps customers happy, and sustainability keeps the utility and its performance around for a long time. At any given time different
utilities will put different emphasis on these measures. However, they are all dependent on the
actions of every employee every day.
Thus the real source of overall performance lies in the employees and the knowledge they
possess and apply. In most utilities there may be someone who knows just how to handle any given
situation, but does the person with the problem know who that is? As times change, knowledge is
lost when the past actions no longer work; much is also lost when time is spent trying to find the
right knowledge to handle a situation. In essence, organizations often do not know what they
know!
Another force pressing utilities toward becoming knowledge organizations is the loss of
senior, experienced people at all levels. Unfortunately, it is often only when the organization loses
knowledge that it becomes aware of the importance of knowledge. Further, the realization of the
enormous economic value of people has sparked an intense competition for people, especially
workers who want to learn, grow and make decisions as they gain experience. The younger workers are attracted to knowledge oriented organizations where they are empowered—and held
responsible.
As the utility’s environment grows more dynamic, uncertain and complex, knowledge
becomes of greater importance to overall performance and sustainability. The critical nature of
water with its associated quality and health requirements, when combined with the complexity of
the overall utility system make water utilities highly knowledge intensive.
*Efficiency can be improved by reducing mistakes, optimizing processes, broadening worker responsibilities,
and reducing time spent searching for documents, information or expertise. Effectiveness improves when
employees know their job, can learn fast enough to keep up with changing work needs, and know who to
tell, or ask, relative to the impact of their actions. When employees become aware of where, and why, the
utility is heading in a given direction, why changes are needed and what their role is, they can take better
actions to support those goals. Quality of products is not free and it doesn’t come from technology alone, it
also takes knowledgeable workers who observe carefully, understanding deviations and how to create and
maintain quality. Sustainability is more complicated and requires continuous employee and organizational
learning, resilience and adaptability, and preparing for contingencies. It is likely that every utility is already
using some Knowledge Management now such as teams to resolve internal issues and networks to facilitate
communication.
To be optimally effective means to look at the entire utility from a knowledge perspective, making KM
a central part of overall leadership, management and day-to-day decision-making. It also means treating
people as a major asset rather than as an expense; it means investing in them, demanding more of them, and
at the same time supporting their professional growth. In the old days of stability and long range planning,
senior leaders could make responsible decisions that would determine the organization’s future. Not so
anymore. It now takes many people in the organization to understand what is going on and to handle the
uncertainty and surprises that come along. This is why the human element, and the knowledge possessed
by the workforce, is playing an increasingly important role in determining the organization’s future health.
It can be said that Knowledge Management is a journey, not a destination.
PROJECT 4003 RESEARCH FOCUS
The formal title of this project is “Organizational Development Needed to Implement a
Knowledge Management Strategy at Water utilities.” The overarching project objectives were:
(1) identify the benefits and costs of implementing a knowledge management (KM) initiative;
(2) investigate and identify organizational characteristics and processes (e.g., culture, core planning processes, communications, rewards, etc.) critical to the success of implementing a KM initiative; (3) develop an assessment tool for drinking water utilities to identify their organization’s
readiness to plan and implement a KM strategy; and (4) develop a tool kit for establishing or
enhancing organizational readiness to support a KM strategy and initiatives. Results of this project
provide a systematic process for drinking water utilities, as business organizations, to facilitate the
effective implementation of a KM strategy.
The remaining chapters in this final report are grouped in the following way:
• Organizations Implementing KM Strategies and Initiatives: Benefits and Costs
(Chapter 2).
• The Roles of Leadership and Management in Planning for, Overcoming Resistance to,
and Successfully Implementing Organizational Structures that Support KM Strategies
and Initiatives (written from the viewpoint of leadership and management) (Chapter 3).
• Characteristics of Organizational Structure, Culture, and Staff Roles and
Responsibilities that Support Successful Knowledge Sharing and Learning
Organizations (written from the viewpoint of knowledge sharing and learning organizations) (Chapter 4).
• Critical Success Factors and Barriers to Successful Implementation of Knowledge
Management in Drinking Water utilities (Chapter 5).
• The Effects of Alignment and Misalignment between a utility’s Core Planning
Processes and Deployment of a Knowledge Management Strategy or Initiative
(Chapter 6).
• An Assessment Tool to Identify Risks, Barriers and Opportunities in Drinking Water
utilities Relevant to Implementation of a KM Strategy (Chapter 7).
• A Toolkit for Planning and Implementing Organizational Change Needed to Support
Implementation of a KM Strategy in Drinking Water utilities.
The material in these chapters is based on an extensive base of research materials and the
experience and previous research of the Principal and Co-Principal Investigators. The 4003
research approach included a survey process, literature review, site visits, leadership and management interviews, workshops, focus groups, and development of project studies, case examples and
case studies focused on KM implementation. See the Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) 4003
Survey Results in Appendix A.
As included above, two specific tools resulted from this research. The first is an assessment
tool used to evaluate a utility’s readiness to implement KM. The second is a toolkit for planning
and implementing the organizational changes needed for a successful KM strategy or initiative in
utilities. While the virtual toolkit is a stand-alone product, it also includes down-loadable resource
documents to support second-order learning. These include tools, ideas and extensive resource
documents contributed by leaders in the field of Knowledge Management.
While these resources can serve as rich guides to a drinking water utility’s KM journey,
because each utility is different and has its own unique situation and context to achieve success it
is essential that leaders understand their organization, its goals and direction, its strengths and
weaknesses, and its structure and culture. With this understanding they can then select specific
areas for change and identify knowledge management initiatives that can facilitate improvements.
Or, they may decide to implement a Knowledge Management strategy to transform their utility
into a knowledge centric organization that utilizes information, knowledge, and collaboration to
the maximum extent. Ultimately, it is informed, intelligent thinking, caring and mission-aligned
individuals making the best decisions that will take your utility into the future. This approach is the
first step toward building the utility of the future.
KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION
Knowledge mobilization (KMb) is the process of creating value or a value stream through
the creation, assimilation, leveraging, sharing and application of knowledge. In terms of drinking
water utilities, KMb is the effective creation, movement and tailoring of specific knowledge from
its source (research or specialized expertise) to its application (practitioner, utility worker) such
that consequent actions are effective and sustainable. KMb is focused on new knowledge that has
emerged (and is emerging) through research and in other parts of the utility (or in other organizations with similar issues), with implementation driven by the content of that new knowledge and
identification of stakeholder groups that “need” to apply that knowledge. The specific knowledge
involved in WaterRF Project 4003 is knowledge about Knowledge Management and its application to drinking water utilities.
KMb introduces a difference in perspective, with KM being a strategy or initiative that is
intended to improve organizations through the effective creation, sharing, leveraging and application of knowledge, and KMb being a process for moving specific knowledge to action to value in
a specific situation or location. The KMb approach taken depends on the timing, application, situation and needs of the utility and stakeholders it touches.
Knowledge has the ability to mobilize people, that is, by combining shared understanding
and a worthwhile goal, people can self-mobilize to make decisions and take action. Researchers
and decision-makers are jointly responsible for the uptake of research knowledge and a close interaction is required between idea generation and idea use, between innovation and the use of innovations, between developing solutions, broadcasting solutions, and implementing solutions. This is
an open feedback loop of continuous questioning and testing that requires openness and critical
thinking by all parties. In other words, even though the KMb process starts with specific, bounded
knowledge that needs to be shared across a specific functional area—or perhaps across a specific
utility—because knowledge is context sensitive and situation dependent, there may be a need for
the knowledge to be tailored to the place or situation where it is to be used.
The KMb approach accompanying Project 4003 implementation included a combination of
events, publications, Internet exchanges and development of meta-tools (the Readiness Assessment
Instrument and KM Toolkit) that will enable drinking water utilities to plan and implement the
organizational change needed to support implementation of knowledge management strategies and
initiatives in drinking water utilities.
To raise awareness of KM in the drinking water utility industry, over 1224 drinking water
defining KM and its significance to drinking water utilities) and follow-up telephone interactions.
WA
46
MT
5
NH
2 VT 7 ME
13
ND
3
OR
15
MN
35
WS
26
SD
7
ID
3
WY
6
UT
10
CA
130
AZ
21
MI
33
PA
34
IA
18
NE
6
NV
14
IL
36
CO
29
KS
6
OK
7
NM
4
IN
20
OH
36
WV
1
KY
19
MO
15
VA
30
M
A
45
CT 16
RI 4
NJ 19
DC
DE 3
MD
13
NC
24
TN 19
SC
14
AR
13
MS
2
TX
51
NY
33
AL
18
GA
18
LA
6
FL
56
AK
7
HI
3
Source: Project 4003 Knowledge Mobilization process.
Figure 1.2 Number of one-on-one telephone conversations on KM with drinking water utility
personnel per state
During this process, 1001 individuals were engaged in one-on-one telephone conversations of
5–10 minutes in length concerning knowledge and Knowledge Management related to drinking
water utilities. Figure 1.2 shows the number of these conversations per state. From this process, 33
project studies were developed representing 22 drinking water utilities (see Chapter 2 and
Appendix B for further detail).
During these conversations, Knowledge Management was defined in terms of the pre-determined elevator speech, the 4003 research project was detailed, and participation in the survey process was requested. Periodically, 3, 4 or 5 individuals in a single utility were engaged before
individuals were located who identified themselves as the leads for implementation of Knowledge
Management. As a result of these conversations, an additional 552 surveys were mailed and 25
were emailed. Since the intent of these multiple mailings was to seed the concepts of Knowledge
Management, a second set of follow-on telephone calls were initiated where a KM lead had been
identified. Even where individuals expressed the opinion that they did not feel capable of providing
this information, a friendly but short conversation pursued to help promote future interest in KM.
Simultaneously, a Blog was set up and a series of papers and other resource materials provided via that vehicle. These included: The Business Case for KM, Issues Faced by Drinking
Water utilities, Regulatory Perspective for Water utilities, and other KM resources. While the Blog
process itself was quieter than anticipated throughout this two-year project, 67 drinking water utility managers/leaders submitted their survey responses via the Blog page, and 6,498 pages of
resource materials were downloaded during the course of 1,453 visits.
In this same time period, the Principal Investigator and Co-principal Investigator facilitated
workshops and combination focus groups each one-two days in length involving 66 representatives from ten geographically-dispersed drinking water utilities. In conjunction with these workshops, focus groups and site visits, the Principal Investigator interviewed 25 leaders/managers
representing 12 drinking water utilities. The drinking water utilities participating in this research
project are acknowledged at the front of this report.
During the process of initiating the 1001 telephone conversation with drinking water utility
personnel on knowledge and Knowledge Management, it was pleasantly noted that almost every
call was met with interest and cooperation. It appears that Knowledge Management is gradually
making itself known within the drinking water utility industry. When coupled with the recent
WaterRF KM research projects, KM presentations at utility conferences and workshops, and the
number of utility KM project studies gathered through this research (and others that surfaced near
the end of this project not included in the KM Toolkit), it would appear that a growing number of
drinking water utilities are taking advantage of KM to better prepare for the uncertain future ahead.
As these organizations become more experienced with the application and benefits of KM they
may become knowledge-centric, learning organizations who through knowledge mobilization,
technological sophistication and collaborative leadership prepare themselves for the challenges
ahead.
CHAPTER 2
ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES AND
INITIATIVES: BENEFITS AND COSTS
DRINKING WATER UTILTIES IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES
Knowledge Management (KM) strategies and initiatives are underway in a large number of
drinking water utilities. During the WaterRF 4003 survey process, 207 separate drinking water
utilities provided information about their organizations and the KM and KM-related strategies and
projects underway. Many of these responders also provided information indicating KM strategies
and initiatives they were planning to implement and interested in implementing.
Figure 2.1 shows the survey responses to the following KM strategies and initiatives:
Action Learning, Communities of Practice, Expert Locator (Yellow Pages), Knowledge Base
Development, Knowledge Retention, Knowledge Sharing, and Team Based Decision-Making.
Five additional write-ins included: strategic planning, succession planning and development of
Operations & Maintenance manuals to capture institutional knowledge for training.
As indicated by this data, Knowledge Sharing, Team Decision-Making, and Knowledge
Retention represent the largest number of KM strategies underway in these drinking water utilities.
There are also a large number of utilities doing Knowledge Base Development. In contrast, the
largest focus in the planning stage is on Knowledge Retention, followed closely by Knowledge
Base Development and Expert Locator. The largest focus of expressed interest is on Communities
of Practice and Expert Locator, followed by Knowledge Base Development and Knowledge
Retention. See Appendix C for specific details.
to this survey question are doing—and therefore they are aware of the value of—Knowledge
Sharing and Team Decision-Making, with still other utilities following down this path. The recent
and current emphasis in the industry on Knowledge Retention is reflected in the high number of
responses in all three areas (doing, planning and interested in). Further, the value of developing a
Knowledge Base is solidly represented in all three areas, indicating a steady movement in this
direction. Action Learning has solid representation in the doing and interested in areas, with a relatively low number of responders in the planning phase.
The low number of responders doing Communities of Practice and Expert Locator contrasted to the larger number of interested responders in these areas indicates a growing awareness
of these two KM initiatives and their potential value to drinking water utilities.
SPECIFIC STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES UNDER WAY
Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. While these project studies include a wide
range of initiatives underway, they are all connected to knowledge and the increasing recognition
of the importance of knowledge in drinking water utilities. For example, initiatives not only include
development of a KM plan, knowledge sharing, retaining retiree knowledge and organizational
learning, but also include: developing and updating manuals, professional and leadership
9
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Interested In
Planning
Doing
Source: Project 4003 survey process.
Figure 2.1 Breakout of survey responses regarding the number of KM strategies and
initiatives in drinking water utilities in terms of those underway, in the Planning stage, or
those which have sparked interest
development, public relations, work performance improvement, succession and talent resource
planning, workforce planning, quality based documentation, training, communications, developing document repositories, process and operational improvements, and the use of social network
analysis. Table 2.1 provides the subject, estimated cost and benefits of each of these projects. It
also includes the name of the implementing utility and the size of that utility.
When the estimated cost column states “No cost identified,” the providing utility bundled
costs with the day-to-day work of the utility. In other words, this aspect of KM was recognized as
the way work needed to be done and no additional specific costs were identified for implementation. Additional details for these studies are included as Appendix B. Each utility has also identified a point of contact for additional information.
EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES AND
INITIATIVES
Case Examples
Twenty-one case examples were identified to provide real-life implementation examples of
strategies and initiatives applied in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. Many of the initiatives implemented in these case examples demonstrate initiatives included in the Tools section of
the KM Toolkit (see Chapter 8 and Appendix C). While costing data is not available for these
examples, the benefits as described by the subject organizations are included in Table 2.2. More
detail for each case example is included in the Resources section of the KM Toolkit under Case
Examples.
Chapter 2: Organizations Implementing KM Strategies and Initiatives: Benefits and Costs | 11
Table 2.1
Drinking water utility project studies in the KM Toolkit
# Subject
1 Organizational
Efficiency
Through Team
Work
2 Development of
Operations and
Maintenance
Manuals
Utility
Alexandria
Sanitation
Authority
3 Professional
Development
Initiative—2007
City of
Moline Water
Division
4 Public Relations
Initiative—2007
City of
Moline Water
Division
City of
Moline Water
Division
City of
Fairborn, OH
5 Work
Performance
Improvement
Principles—2007
6 Succession
Columbus
Planning
Water Works
7 Employee
Leadership &
Development
Columbus
Water Works
8 Adopting the
Loudon
SOP and Training County
Sessions
Sanitation
Authority
9 Contracted
a Complete
Workforce
Planning Project
10 Quality Based
Documentation
Tualatin
Valley Water
District
Colorado
Springs
utility
Size Estimated cost
118 No additional costs
were identified
24 $40,000 is budgeted
for first manual. It is
assumed there will
be similar costs for
the other areas.
32 No cost identified
32 No costs noted
Benefits
Increase in worker flexibility and worker
competencies which were written down
allowing development of SOPs.
Will capture the knowledge of senior
employees, assist employees in the event of
emergency operations, and provide valuable
operations and training tools for the future.
Increased knowledge and skills will support
continuing efforts to provide high quality
economical water and service to our
customers, enhance safety & efficiency of the
workplace & keep pace with technological &
regulatory advances in the water industry.
Improved customer service, awareness and
satisfaction.
Improved individual and organizational work
performance and a better work environment.
Better prepared employees; managers
are more aware of the need to transfer
knowledge; employees are more motivated
and excited about personal development
opportunities.
Better trained supervisors who recognize
their strengths & weaknesses and know the
value of transferring knowledge to fellow
employees.
185 $150,000 to develop We are seeing a more knowledgeable
SOPs $5,000–
staff, are better able to perform work and
$10,000 per training demonstrate to our staff that we adhere to our
session; staff
values & builds trust.
costs are approx.
2–4 months salary
and benefits.
110 $189,000
Through this exercise they have identified all
of the critical knowledge of the District.
QBD has freed up organizational resources
for innovation and creativity. It has reduced
or eliminated redundancies and the need to
“reinvent the wheel.” It has filled process
gaps and reduced risks on the job.
(continued)
Table 2.1 (Continued)
# Subject
Utility
11 Knowledge
Management
through Training
Greenville
Not $25,000
Water System identified
12 Using Contract
Employees to
Supplement
& Prepare for
Retirements
13 Increasing the
Number of SOPs
City of Grand
Forks Public
Water utility
28.5 No additional costs
City of
Akron Public
utilities
Bureau
City of
Akron Public
utilities
Bureau
City of
Akron Public
utilities
Bureau
Waterford
Township
Department
of Public
Works
Orlando
utilities
Commission
14 Converting from
Paper utility to a
Geodatabase
15 Increasing the
Number of
Interns Hired
16 Career Ladder
Program
17 Rally a Team
of Exceptional
Employees
18 Hired a
Private Firm
to Determine
the utility’s
Communication/
Knowledge
Sharing Needs
19 Computerization
of all Customer
Service Records
20 On the Job
Training
Size Estimated cost
Benefits
The on-site training in England gave the
employees insight into a new concept of
knowledge management and putting it to
practical use simply and easily.
The utility is able to recruit outside of the
system for a very talented candidate and put
him or her into the utility’s system.
Improved training programs and the utility
can tweak SOP’s after a year or two.
310 $300,000–$500,000 Better data for asset management and can
make better decisions. This process allows
the utility to better integrate asset information
with other applications.
310 $3,000–$5,000 per The ability to hire a new young employee
utility intern
with six to nine months of experience.
53 $40,000 a year
Allows the employee to advance with the
correct licensing based on their knowledge.
Reducing or mitigating utility risk by
identifying key positions. The utility is not
running the risk of the employee leaving
without gathering critical institutional
knowledge and documenting it.
Employees have the opportunity to realize
they were not just a part of their individual
departments; they are a team. The staff—
including management has learned to
communicate better.
Rice Lake
utilities
11 Several thousands
of dollars.
Evergreen
Metro
District
Southeast
Morris
County
Municipal
utilities
Authority
28 At completion
$500,000
The utility can easily look into the future and
see the long-term possibilities when the plan
is completed.
Employees are able to learn while employed
in an entry level position and are given the
opportunity for career advancement.
(continued)
# Subject
Utility
21 Retiree Program
City of
Phoenix
Water
Services
Department
22 Develop
Organizational
Learning System
Seattle Public 1300 No cost identified
utilities
23 Louisville
Water Company
207 System
Certification
Process:
Knowledge
Management
24 LWC System
Certification
Review Process
Louisville
Water
Company
Louisville
Water
Company
25 LWC Process
& Operational
Improvements
26 LWC Talent
Resource
Planning/
Succession
Management
27 LWC Individual
Development
Plans (IDP’s)
28 Implementation
of OPCON–
Knowledge
Keeper Software
Louisville
Water
Company
Louisville
Water
Company
29 Directions
Program
Size Estimated cost
1400 $200
Louisville
Water
Company
City of
1150 Monthly
Cleveland
software program
Department
subscription fee
of utilities,
Division of
Water
Seattle Public 1300 $175,000
utilities
Benefits
Employees get an opportunity to receive
hands-on, one-on-one training from
experienced retires; the facility does not
have to allocate remaining experienced staff
to provide this training. The use of retirees
allows the Department to pass on critical
knowledge and skills without adding to the
workloads of the remaining supervisors and
subject matter experts.
This initiative draws out natural leaders, early
adopters and enthusiastic learners. It fosters
and supports more learning in the department,
providing the opportunity for developing
back-up expertise across functional areas.
This System Certification Process enables
the institution to better plan in the areas of
succession management, knowledge sharing
and retention, and cross-train.
This system certification process allows LWC
to bring consistency in the documentation
of work processes, standard operating
procedures, operating plans, relationship
charts and flowcharts.
See summary of 2007 success, an attachment
to this project study
The implementation of this process improves
knowledge of bench strength and gaps,
training needs to be addressed and candid
conversations with employees on their career
development and growth within the company.
Employees achieve their learning objectives
and are better prepared to perform their
current jobs or to take on new responsibilities.
The organization uses this software program
as a means to support training, succession
planning, continuous improvement and
organizational sustainability.
Mentoring has been consistently the highest
rated activity in the Directions Program.
This training has been found to be useful to
individuals.
(continued)
# Subject
Utility
Size Estimated cost
Benefits
30 Cross-utility
Partnership for
Safe Drinking
Water
Salt Lake
City
Department
of Public
utilities
31 Social Network
Analysis
CharlotteMecklenburg
utilities
800 Less than $5,000
32 Real Estate
Manager
Tampa Bay
Water
135 Approx. $50,000
33 Sharepoint for
Sharing Plant
Operations
City of
Cleveland,
Department
of utilities,
Division of
Water
1150 Program was
bundled in
Microsoft package
Through this program water consumers are
assured that their water provider is committed
to providing the best quality water possible
and that each treatment facility has gone
through a rigorous effort to optimize water
treatment processes.
The SNA tool helps the organizations to
identify how information is processed
and stored. It also enables the utilities to
successfully revitalize and expand their water
reuse program.
This application provides Operations/
Maintenance feedback on use of our property
to guide future acquisitions (i.e., existing
easement widths for comparative facilities)
and better enforce our existing land rights
(against encroachment) as well as perform our
real estate obligations (mowing, maintenance
of appearance, etc.) more efficiently.
One of the benefits that have been seen by the
usage of this program is the calendar that lets
the user know when chemical deliveries are
and who is working. In addition this program
provides easy access to the Documents such
as; Standard Operator Procedures, work aides
and safety issues. This program allows for the
utility to have the critical information needed
at their fingertips
Case Studies
In addition, five case studies are provided as part of the KM Toolkit. These are: The
Department of the Navy; Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing
Countries); NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (one on Web-Based
Collaborative Decision Support and one on KM at NASA-Kennedy Space Center); and Singapore
Water Strategies.
The Department of the Navy: The DON Moves Into the Knowledge World
The Department of the Navy (DON) became aware of the need to implement knowledge
management strategies to optimize strategic and tactical decision making, resulting in more effective and efficient mission performance. The DON’s vision for the future was to obtain Knowledge
Superiority, a sustainable competitive advantage over potential enemies, by sharing knowledge
through an interactive network system. The institution considers knowledge management as a
process for optimizing the effective application of intellectual individual, team-based and corporate capital to achieve organizational objectives. Thus, they developed a knowledge management
Table 2.2
Case example of strategies and initiatives, and benefits
# Organization
1 ReVisions (Small
behavior health care
organization of about
50 employees)
Representative Initiatives
Knowledge audit
Interviews
Knowledge map
2 Mitre Corporation
Knowledge audit
3 Hill and Knowlton
Knowledge sharing system
4 Chrysler Corporation
Benefits Identified by Organization
Able to design a more effective system to meet
the needs of its employees
Sources of expertise located and mapped
Information and knowledge gaps identified
Uncovered efficiency and effectiveness issues
and provided information and knowledge
needed to mitigate those issues
Reduction in number of administrative
personnel needed to process requests from
KM system
Improved staff productivity
Increase in the knowledge base
Sharing of expertise
Identification of knowledge gaps
[Identifies barriers to successful
implementation]
Cycle time has been reduced by half
Communities of practice
Social networking
“Engineering Book of Knowledge”
5 Natural Resources
Describe, measure and manage
Better decisions and actions including the
Canada (Leading
knowledge services
ability to:
government
Knowledge sharing
Better respond to natural resources knowledge
organization for shaping Knowledge flow
markets
Evaluate and improve system performance
the contributions of
Diagnose and fix system problems
natural resources
Establish priorities for system outputs and
to the Canadian
outcomes
economy, society and
Identify the risks of and opportunities for
environment)
system development options
Allocate resource to adapt programs to better
serve customers and other Canadians
6 Shell Exploration &
Staff competence maps to locate
KM a critical enabler for all activities of the
Production (SHELL
expertise
organization
HP)
After action reviews
Peer assists
Discipline portals
Workplace learning
Formalizing the role of technical
experts
Simplified coaching and mentoring
7 The U.S. Army
After action review
Mission critical continuous learning cycle
Culture of learning
(continued)
# Organization
8 National Water
Resources Institute
(NWRI) Nigeria
KM workshop
KM plans
Knowledge sharing
9 The Socio Economic
Unit Foundation(SEUF)
India (Professional
non-governmental
organization working
with communities
in India to promote
sustainable socio
economic development)
10 Institute of Water and
Sanitation Development
(IWSD) Zimbabwe
KM workshop
KM plan
Case studies
Regular process reporting
Diary writing
Knowledge organized in utilizable forms
Knowledge sharing became central
Documentation and dissemination of knowledge
was underway to the various stakeholders
ALSO, structural changes:
Institutionalized services to key stakeholders
Developed strategies to reactivate
and strengthen documentation and
disseminations services
Expanded outreach training system to other
sectors
Reorganized their consultancy unit
Sharing of information and knowledge
transiting SEUF from an implementer to a
resource organization
Improvement in knowledge creation and flow
Consultancy became a major activity
11 TREND Ghana
12 AMRED Kenya
13 Federal Aviation
Administration
14 Defense Information
Agency
KM workshop
KM plans
Knowledge sharing
Expertise locator
KM workshop
KM plan
Development of knowledge
products
Quarterly sharing event
KM workshop
KM champions
KM scan
(Social network analysis)
Developing a Knowledge Services
Network (KSN)
Pilot project
Embedded facilitators
Knowledge-Based Organization
Knowledge Lab
Social network analysis
Critical discourse
Collaboration for success
Mentoring
Storytelling
Other pilot programs
Mitigation of knowledge loss
New innovative ideas
KM an aspect of all TREND activities
approached from angles of information
and communication technology, human
resource management, office and workplace
institution and organization set-up
Key tool for internal communication
Managers have adjusted their management
styles
KM part of everyday work
Transforming into a learning and sharing
organization
Virtual work environment
Business functions extended to anytime and
anywhere
Adoption rate reduced from months to weeks
Offers executives and project managers
benefits of new and best practices for their
organizations
(continued)
# Organization
15 U.S. Army Team
Command, Control,
Communications,
Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance
Reconnaissance
(TEAM C4ISR)
16 Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT)
Common approach for capture of
tacit knowledge
Locate an expert/Ask the expert
Communities of Practice
Knowledge harvesting
Key learnings document
“Knowledge capture is essential to our mission”
Knowledge sharing
Lessons learned repository
Taxonomy development
Knowledge mapping process
Best practices manuals
Succession planning
17 U.S. AID
Knowledge sharing
After action reviews
Communities
Knowledge coordinators
Knowledge-Centric Organization
Communication software
Success stories
Customer relationship management
Case studies
Wikis
Blogs
Strong networks supporting knowledge
redundancy and communities of practice
Integration of lessons learned across agency
Consistent collection, indexing, and access of
lessons learned
Identification of core competencies needed for
the future
Full and effective utilization of division
resources
Improved communication
Inspectors able to spend more time in the field
while simultaneously producing statewide
consistent records
Facilitated the statewide adoption of project
management tools and practices
Documented who, what, when, where and
why of required Federal Highway Agency
processes
Effective during tsunami reconstruction, flood
response, and hurricane responses
Innovation in developing solutions
18 USDA/Foreign
Agricultural Service
19 Office of Personnel
Management (OPM)
eTraining
eLearning environment
20 IBM
Social computing
Blogging
Social web applications
Social networking
Data available sooner and easier to maintain
and share
Simplified and improved user support
Significantly improved security, performance
and efficiency
Up-to-date contact information
More tangible knowledge built on potentially
“real-time” market intelligence
Easy generation and distribution of success
stories
Reduction of manual methods of information
entry and communication
Communications managed strategically
Improved measuring capabilities
Expanded access to free and for-fee courseware,
electronic books and virtual tutoring
Expanded area of outreach and awareness
Empowered employees as global professionals,
innovators and citizens
Increased creativity and innovation
(continued)
# Organization
21 National Aeronautics
Knowledge sharing
and Space
Collaborative decision support
Administration (NASA)
model
22 U.S. Forest Service
Lessons learned
Organizational learning
Benchmarking
Systematic problem solving
Mission critical
More effective communications at all levels
Improved decision support
Increased knowledge and insights
Helps people think more clearly about how to
perform their work
Helps contain unexpected events, conditions
and circumstances
Ensures safer and more effective day-to-day
outcomes that have the potential to escalate
beyond control
Source: Project 4003 Research.
implementation framework built around five balanced concepts: technology, content, process, culture and learning.
Another core element was the development of a Knowledge Management Community of
Practice (CoP) which now includes more than 50 participating organizations and gets its support
through the web and actively exchanges ideas and best practices virtually.
The overarching message of this case study is that: “There is something here of value.
Knowledge management offers an opportunity for us to do what we do better.” The outcomes of
this approach were described in terms of:
• An integrated, results-oriented Navy and Marine Corps team characterized by strategic leadership, ubiquitous communication, and invisible technology;
• An effective, flexible, and sustainable Department of the Navy enterprise-wide information and technology environment that enables our people to make and implement
efficient and agile business decision; and
• A Knowledge-Centric culture where trust and respect facilitate information sharing
and organizational learning.
Specific initiatives and their benefits are also discussed in this case study.
Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries): Design and
Practical Experiences With the Learn@WELL Knowledge Management Module
This case study introduces knowledge management and describes how it is being implemented to partners in Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries)
through the Learn@WELL knowledge management distance-learning module. This module is a
value chain model and is also known as knowledge lifecycle, which is driven by the operational
goals flowing from an organization’s mission and vision. These goals can be accomplished by
creating, sharing, applying and evaluating knowledge.
Learn@WELL intended to strengthen its network system by implementing the knowledge
management module in small steps through the application of different tools, such as communities
of practice, personal mapping, a knowledge management scan and developing a knowledge management plan by internal and external information sharing.
One of the benefits accrued is the strengthening of networks through capacity building
resulting in the provision of improved services. Further, their KM approach has facilitated identification of processes that need improvement to achieve organizational goals. Important signs of
progress are identified as: an awareness that KM is more than knowledge sharing, that KM differs
from IM, that KM may entail IT and, most important, that KM starts in the personal realm.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): A Case Study of Web-Based
Collaborative Decision Support at NASA
NASA is a knowledge intensive organization, dedicated to the mission of human space
flight, space science, Earth observation and aeronautics research. In this article the design, progression, implementation, application, value and future vision of Postdoc, a web-based collaborative
knowledge management platform system developed by NASA and written in the language Perl, is
described. It is currently also being used by other parts of the Federal Government including the
Department of Defense and The Naval Research Laboratory. The platform enables NASA and
various other organizations to share mission-critical information in real time based on inputs from
virtually networked national and international expert teams in multiple domains and thus produce
efficient decisions. It is also an effective means for organizing, storing and retrieving data and
information of all types.
Postdoc has demonstrated the ability to serve as the foundation to build NASA’s collaborative information management capability by strengthening functionalities for knowledge sharing,
and serving as the infrastructure for integration of other virtual collaborative interfaces. It allows
users to tailor their documentation systems to their processes and work habits within their time
constraints.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): Knowledge Management at NASA-Kennedy Space Center
Kennedy Space Center (KSC) implemented technical and socio-structural knowledge management initiatives by instituting a knowledge management working group which consisted of
contacts and consultant experts across the Center, reporting to the Human Resource Development
board. They focused on gaining an understanding of the needs of the organization for competency
management and on tacit knowledge capture and dissemination.
The knowledge management working group also developed “Expert Seeker” a Centerwide expertise locator system which can be accessed via/through NASA’s intranet. KSC’s vision
for the future of Knowledge Management is to share and retain organizational knowledge through
technology, such as web-based chats between individuals within or outside the agency, in an
increasingly demanding environment.
Assessing the impact of Expert Seeker, a member of the KSC Knowledge Management
Working Group said, “This tool will allow the organization to share resources, do away with functional silos, and allow employees to cross organizational lines.”
Singapore Water Strategies: A Case Study on Integrating Technological Innovation and Community Engagement
Singapore’s Water Agency Public Utilities Board has become a world leader in terms of
water supply and wastewater management. They oversee four national taps: local catchment water,
imported water, NEWater (water reclamation) and desalinated water. NEWater is an example of
Singapore’s continuous investment in research and technology. It is mainly used for wafer manufacturing industries and air-conditioning cooling towers in commercial buildings, however, there
is an ongoing effort to educate the population of Singapore to accept NEWater as safe for drinking.
It has created a highly successful program to make all citizens aware and appreciative of the
importance of drinking water, its availability, processing and quality.
The ultimate goal of Singapore’s approach is to achieve self-sufficiency in water. By 2011,
together with water from its reservoirs, desalination, and recycling plant, Singapore expects to no
longer be considered water-stressed.
SUMMARY
It is clear from the benefits and costs collected for project studies internal to the drinking
water utility industry, and the external case examples and studies and the indicated benefits, that
there is a wide diversity of benefits and costs highly dependent on context and situation. The
Readiness Assessment Instrument and KM Toolkit developed during the 4003 Project research
study is provided to enable leaders, managers and knowledge workers to make an informed decision regarding implementation of KM strategies and initiatives in their utility.
CHAPTER 3
ROLES OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT
This chapter discusses the roles of leadership and management in planning for, overcoming
resistance to, and successfully implementing organizational structures that support KM strategies
and initiatives. Organizational structures consist of policies, procedures, rewards and development
processes. The distinction between KM strategies and KM initiatives is significant in that KM
strategies imply that the effort will encompass the entire utility while KM initiatives address specific subsets of a utility such as a department or a division. KM initiatives are typically easier to
implement because they encompass a smaller group of individuals, usually of a common culture
who are used to sharing information and knowledge. KM strategies generally include several KM
initiatives. Senior leadership (taken to mean the general manager) could have a significant role in
a KM strategy, whereas a KM initiative may emphasize the role of the senior manager in charge of
the department or division.
Leadership roles are described in each of the following categories: Planning, Overcoming
Resistance, and Implementing Organizational Structures.
PLANNING FOR KM STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES
In planning for KM strategies, senior leadership and his/her direct reports, play a significant role in a number of areas. These areas include:
• Gaining and maintaining governance group support. This is critical to program success. These individuals may be interested in observing and following the progress of
the KM strategy and must be kept current.
• Ensuring a credible business case. Another role of senior leadership is to ensure that a
credible business case has been made for the KM strategy and in some cases key individuals in the utilities external environment are aware of the strategy and the contribution it will make to the utilities future.
• Ensuring adequate financial resources. Another role of senior leadership during the
planning stage would be to ensure adequate financial resources are made available to
ensure successful implementation of the KM strategy.
The personal interests of senior leadership (the general manager and all direct reports) will
substantially contribute to the Planning stage of the KM strategy. Since the entire utility will likely
be affected by the KM strategy, the senior leadership’s involvement early in the planning stage will
ensure that they have the opportunity to contribute their experience, bring up their concerns,
develop a good understanding of the purpose and intent of the KM strategy and give them a sense
of ownership that will carry over to the implementation phase.
Early in the Planning phase, the senior leader could bring his/her senior management staff
together to ensure that they understand the purpose and organizational benefit of the KM strategy
and that the management staff will provide personal and visible support to the KM team. When
senior leaders take an active interest in the KM strategy, the managers who report to them will
most likely cooperate and support the KM implementation team.
21
OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO KM STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES
Resistance can come from a number of sources within the utility: from individual senior
leaders, from department and division managers, from unions, from the governance body and from
all levels of the workforce. Any potentially significant organizational change creates uncertainty,
concern and often fear, all of which may result in workforce resistance. Overcoming such resistance is a challenge to both leadership and management.
A core role of leadership is to ensure employees have a consistent understanding of the
vision, mission and purpose of the utility. By connecting the KM strategy or initiative directly to
the vision and mission of the utility through the anticipated improved performance, the leader may
reduce, or at least minimize resistance from the employees. Further, by ensuring that key employees involved in the KM strategy are aware of its importance and contribution to the utility and by
rewarding those employees who contribute substantially to implementation of the KM strategy,
leaders can communicate to the entire workforce the relevance and importance of the strategy and
thereby reduce overall workforce resistance.
Leadership Support and Visibility
Leadership can help reduce resistance to KM strategies and initiatives by clearly demonstrating interest and their backing of the proposed changes. Talking with employees and explaining
the purpose and benefit of KM strategies and initiatives demonstrates leadership commitment to
project success and lets the workforce know that the strategies and initiatives are not short-lived,
but are serious programs to enhance the utilities performance. Recognizing that people do not
change easily or quickly, implementation of KM strategies and initiatives requires continued leadership interest, oversight, presence, and sometimes active involvement, coupled with the repeated
message that KM is essential to the future of the utility.
Potential approaches to ensuring that leaders of large and some small utilities achieve visibility are included in the Ideas section of the KM Toolkit and include:
• Develop a short video, beginning with a two-minute opening by the senior leader of
the organization, and featuring project leaders talking about their early successes.
Have the senior leader hand-write notes to accompany copies of the video to managers throughout the organization, asking them to ensure that every employee has the
opportunity to see and discuss the video with their supervisors.
• Develop pass-it-down training, beginning at the very top of the organization. The
concept of pass-it-down training is that leaders at all levels have the opportunity to
impress on workers and teams the importance and significance of Knowledge
Management and the specific initiative or strategy that is being implemented. This
process has the added benefit of ensuring that organizational leadership fully understands the new initiative or strategy and how it will operate. Teaching and facilitation
are forms of learning and leading.
• Hold a Town Hall, featuring senior leadership, virtually supported (television, video)
to facilitate geographically dispersed organizations and stakeholders, with live connectivity via telephone and computers. Much like a telethon, this event will offer the
opportunity for workers at all levels to interact with senior leadership, voicing their
concerns and ideas and receiving an immediate response, even if that response is: “We
Chapter 3: Roles of Leadership and Management | 23
need to think more about that.” This process, called Event Intermediation, ensures a
point in time where all senior leaders, managers and employees understand the importance of the KM initiative or strategy and have an awareness of their areas of responsibility to help ensure success. Event Intermediation is included as a Tool in the KM
Toolkit.
• Capture quotes from leaders, managers and champions and embed these in presentations, both internal and external, at every level of the organization.
• Hold a Knowledge Fair where every functional and organizational area is featured
showing how they are contributing to achieving the KM vision. Have senior leadership open the fair, and include enjoyable, memorable events centered around the way
the organization needs to work, with members of the organization participating in the
presentation. (Remember, emotion aids memory.) Create a groundswell of sharing
and understanding by opening the fair to employees and the larger stakeholder group.
• Develop a virtual CD or portal-based reference tool about the knowledge fair, town
hall, or other large group event capturing people talking about their projects and contributions and leaders talking about their organizational, all focused on their contribution to achieving a knowledge centric organization. Make this easily available to
employees and stakeholders.
Leaders and Managers as Change Agents
Every leader and manager working to improve the way their utility achieves its mission
takes on the role of a change agent. Because knowledge—and by extension KM—is at the core of
every individual’s contribution to the mission of the utility, implementation of a KM strategy or
initiative is no exception. Further, an organization cannot change in a vacuum. This means that as
changes occur within a utility, other parts of the utility and its stakeholders need to be changing as
well. This also means that as the environment changes, the state-of-the-art changes, or another utility discovers a better way of doing things. Leadership must be willing to consider, evaluate and, as
appropriate, embrace these changes.
While leadership visibility is critical, more is required of a change agent. Beyond being
aware of the desired changes, employees have to understand them, believe they are necessary for
the health of the utility, feel good about them, take ownership of them, feel empowered to do them
and recognize the impact of doing them.
In the Project 4003 survey, 163 responders (78.8%) of 207 responders said yes, their
employees were learning fast enough to keep up with the changes needed by their utility. Five
other responders said both yes and no, indicating that the answer was dependent on the experience
and desires of the employee, and the time/resources allowed. In the space offered for comments,
79 responders added comments. The largest portion of these comments (30.3%) focused on training. Half of these praised their organization’s training program; the other half called out specific
training needs. The next largest portion were comments about the difficulty of change (19%).
Other areas of comment were technology (ranging from “not keeping pace” to “new technology is
slow to take hold within department” to “technological advance is too fast for some baby boomers”); knowledge retention (“new hires are slow in retaining information and practices shared with
them by more senior members”); and communication (“need to disseminate information” to
“roundtable discussions, conferences, quarterly discussions in-house between employees and
management”).
Similarly, the mean for the level of employee learning was 3.60 with a low standard deviation. However, only 139 of the 207 responders participated in assessing this question, the lowest
response for any question. This could indicate either a lack of knowledge or a hesitance to make a
judgment in this area. Either response from a leader/manager indicates the need to pay more attention to this area.
In utilities that have historically created silos in which managers govern their own areas
with minimum cooperation and/or communication between departments, the role of senior leadership becomes one of breaking down the silos and getting managers to cooperate and collaborate to
ensure uniform and maximum effectiveness of the KM strategies. Where managers are reluctant to
allow their workers to participate in support of KM strategies or initiatives, the leadership role
becomes one of stepping in and communicating to managers the priority and importance of the
KM strategy relative to long-term utility performance. Many KM strategies require knowledge
sharing among multiple parts of the utility. This can only happen if the utility’s managers support
their workers in collaborating and working together to share knowledge to ensure effective
performance.
Managers can reduce resistance to KM strategies or initiatives by discussing them with
their employees during staff meetings and taking other opportunities to communicate the importance, purpose and expected payoff. By creating conversations and dialogues with their employees, managers have an opportunity to communicate the value of the strategies and initiatives while
at the same time explaining their long-term contribution to the health of the utility. To the degree
that the employees understand the values of the strategies and initiatives and their own roles in the
implementation process, they will be more cooperative and are more likely to contribute to
the overall success of the KM effort. The more that employees understand, accept and believe in
the value of KM, the less resistive they will be and the more they will participate in and contribute
to KM efforts.
Trust
If there is a low level of trust between managers and the workforce or if the employees have
seen previous “programs” start and then die a slow death, both leaders and managers face a challenging situation. One approach is to have both leaders and managers create teams among their
employees with specific action items in support of the KM strategy or initiatives. By participating
in these teams and encouraging open communication and collaboration on the importance of the
success of the KM strategy or initiative, the managers and leaders can open the door to effective
dialogue and an improved understanding and communication that can reduce resistance to change
and enhance the success of the KM strategy or initiative.
• Develop a leadership-supported “My Story” program (the sharing of stories by utility members on who they are and what they offer the team), and an “Encouragement
List” (three positive things about each member of the utility that affirm that individual’s worth as a knowledge source and contribution to the utility). These are used to
introduce individuals during meetings, provide examples where appropriate, and
design knowledge sharing events such as lunchtime exchanges.
• Develop and facilitate a “Care to Share” Blog on anything utility members care to
share with each other about hobbies, interests, trips, photos, etc.
• Support social networking. Social capital is developed through trust, dialogue, collaboration and reciprocity. The way in which social networks are created reveals the
ways in which social capital is realized, such as friendship (one to few) or virtual communities (one to many). Trust is built over time from personal experience (I know
you), shared experience (we both worked on the same project), transfer of trust
(I know someone who knows you) and shared values (we operate by the same rules).
These social networks can be a primary way of doing business, especially if senior
leadership and management set the example and the tone.
Consistency of the behaviors of leadership and management is important in building trust,
as is making sure that there is follow-through between what an individual says they will do and
what they do. As noted above, trust is built over time, between two individuals who are always
honest with each other, are supportive of others and follow-through on their promises. Trust takes
considerable time to create and can be broken in a single incident, misunderstanding or by a simple
mistake. For person “A” to share their knowledge with person “B,” person A must believe that B
will not misuse that knowledge, will not use that knowledge against “A” and, if A needs some
knowledge that B has, B will reciprocate the knowledge sharing.
The good news from the Project 4003 survey response is that the mean for the level of trust
among employees on a five-point Likert scale was 3.69 with a median of 4. This is one of the
higher means in the survey. In other words, while there is a disparity in responses ranging from
very poor to very well, the leaders and managers felt more positive about the level of trust among
employees than other areas assessed such as level of process discipline (3.24 mean) and the level
of information system integration (information is consistent and accessible) (3.08 mean).
IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES THAT SUPPORT KM
STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES
As introduced in Chapter 4, in the Project 4003 survey process, leaders and managers were
asked: How well does your organizational structure support the sharing of information and knowledge? Two hundred three responders to this question covered the sphere from very poorly to very
well with a median value of 3 (okay) and a mean of 3.59.
Policies and Directives
Leadership roles relative to implementing organizational structures that support KM strategies and initiatives begin with ensuring that before initiating a KM strategy or initiative the current
policies are not contradictory or adverse to the fundamental tenets of Knowledge Management that
is, the creation, sharing, leveraging and application of knowledge. Where conflict arises between
policies, or where historical policies are detrimental to KM strategies or initiatives, leadership
needs to have these policies reviewed and updated or make a conscious choice to allow KM strategies or initiatives to work around these policies as needed.
In the Project 4003 survey response, when asked to assess the flexibility of organizational
policies, the mean for 206 responses was 3.26. The mean of the means—which provides the average response for this survey—is 3.44. This indicates that the flexibility of organizational policies
is considered lower than average.
From another perspective, leadership could consider creating new policies which would
enhance widespread knowledge sharing, communication and the creation of new ideas within and
across the utility. For example, creating physical spaces where employees could hear ideas and
solve problems together in an informal, comfortable environment is likely to considerably enhance
the sharing of information and knowledge. Encouraging dialogue during briefings or staff meetings and requiring employees who attend conferences to brief all interested coworkers upon their
return are easily implemented policies that provide a large payoff.
Another example is developing proactive but practical succession planning policies and
procedures that result in smooth transitions and minimum loss of expertise when experienced
employees retire or leave the utility.
Leaders and managers can also provide resources such as training and technology that help
employees transfer and share information throughout their organization. During briefings and staff
meetings, they can also discuss the importance of creating a knowledge centric utility in which
knowledge forms an important and central feature in their overall operation and performance. (See
the Planning phase of the KM Toolkit for examples of implementing KM strategies.)
Recognition and Rewards Program
Just as there is inevitable resistance to change in every utility, there are also dedicated
employees who have already identified the need for KM and are either in the process of implementing KM initiatives or seriously considering implementation. While they may not recognize
that these initiatives fall under the rubric of KM, nonetheless they will have already recognized the
value of knowledge and how it can improve their scope of work. It is these forward-thinking individuals who need to be recognized and rewarded, and their successes shared across the utility.
Ideas for recognition and rewards programs in the KM Toolkit include:
• Knowledge in Action Award. An annual award given out to those individuals who
have leveraged the utility knowledge infrastructure, knowledge assets, expertise
directory or best practices to deliver meaningful value to their project or business unit.
Nominations for these awards can be submitted by anyone in the utility who can tell
a story about how utility knowledge has been leveraged, either about themselves or
others. Provides opportunity to simultaneously acknowledge sources of leveraged
knowledge.
• Not Invented Here Award. Create a new award that promotes desired behaviors. For
example, Texas Instruments created the NIHBIDIA Award (Not Invented Here But I
Did It Anyway). These are awarded annually by senior leadership.
• Peer Recognition. Meaningful recognition can come from peers as well as leadership. utility employees at all levels should be encouraged to acknowledge individual
and organizational contributions on a personal level. If knowledge culled from the
knowledgebase is useful to an employee’s work, that employee should reach out to the
contributor and personally acknowledge the contribution. This doesn’t need to be formal. A simple phone call or email expressing appreciation works.
• Peer Nomination for Awards. Peer nomination for rewards can be especially valued.
An example is a team of individuals contributing lessons learned on a particular project to the utility knowledgebase. A second team utilizes these lessons on a similar
project, resulting in improved decision-making capability and improved results. The
second team then nominates the first team for some kind of reward and recognition
based on these results.
• Recognition by the Project Leader. The project leader should continuously promote
and publicize individual and group or team contributions to organizational goals.
Contributors can be recognized in newsletters, on web sites, at staff meeting, during
special luncheons, and so forth.
• Recognition by Senior Leadership. Another mechanism for project leaders to recognize contributors is to inform senior leadership of success stories. This information
should be accompanied by a request for a personal note of appreciation from senior
leadership to the individuals or groups/teams commending their work and acknowledging how their contribution has made a difference to the mission of the utility.
• Utility Shared Knowledge Award. Develop an incentive program for the quarterly
and yearly awarding of incentive awards (certificates, coins, small statues) for the
shared knowledge voted by organizational members to be the most helpful to the
organization.
Empowerment
Empowered employees make empowered decisions in their day-to-day work. Knowledge
that is essential to the success of the utility resides in people at all levels. Further, since knowledge
needs shift and change in response to new demands and ideas from the environment, no single
individual or group of individuals can have all the knowledge necessary to run a utility. For leaders
and the utility to take advantage of worker’s knowledge and experience for organizational improvement, the context, direction and authority to make local decisions should be at the point of action
where the best knowledge resides.
If the utility’s workforce has not been empowered in the past, and hence may not understand what knowledge sharing means among employees, it falls on the leaders and managers to
begin a process of working with their employees and sharing their knowledge of the relevant
aspects of the utility. Knowledge represents the initial step toward creating an empowered workforce that can develop and implement the knowledge needed to ensure effective actions are taken
on a daily basis throughout the utility. Overcoming the resistance of an un-empowered workforce
cannot happen quickly or easily. Leadership and management must be patient, consistent, and
dedicated to working with employees to change the culture from one that is un-empowered to one
that is empowered.
As shown above, there are many actions that leadership and management can take to support the planning for, overcoming resistance to and successfully implementing organizational
structure that support KM strategies and initiatives. Many more ideas are included in the KM
Toolkit. Good organizational structures provide an environment within which both employees and
managers can work together for the long-term benefit of the utility.
CHAPTER 4
CHARACTERISTICS THAT SUPPORT KNOWLEDGE SHARING
AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS
This chapter discusses the characteristics of organizational structure and staff roles and
responsibilities that support successful knowledge sharing and learning organizations.
Question 8 of the Project 4003 survey asked: How well does your organizational structure
support sharing of information and knowledge? On a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 1 representing
“very poorly” and 5 representing “very well,” the mean of the 203 responses to this question was
3.59 and the median was 4. This was among the higher scoring answers to the questions involving
characteristics of the utilities. For example, the amount of knowledge sharing among managers has
a mean of 3.70, the level of trust among employees has a mean of 3.69, and the level of employee
learning has a mean of 3.59. All the rest of the questions relating to utility characteristics are lower
than 3.59, some considerably lower. The level of communication between departments has a mean
of 3.46.
In contrast, the ability of the human resource department to support learning and knowledge sharing has a mean of 3.22, well below the mean of the means (the average mean for survey
response) of 3.44. This shows the perception that the organizational structure supports the sharing
of information and knowledge better than the human resource department.
In answer to the question, Are your employees learning fast enough to keep up with the
changes needed by your organization? 159 responders said yes and 48 responders said no. This
would indicate that roughly three out of four utilities felt that their employees are learning fast
enough to keep up with the changes. The starting point for further discussion is the first part of the
questions implied by the title of this chapter.
CHARACTERISTICS OF A UTILITY’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
THAT SUPPORT SUCCESSFUL KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND LEARNING
ORGANIZATIONS
There are a number of factors that play a significant role in the structure that supports successful knowledge sharing and learning organizations. The first factor is authority, responsibility
and accountability. For example, in teams all team members carry equal responsibility for results,
although the team leader has more responsibility for the team’s performance than team members.
Decisions are made by the team, not by the team leader acting alone. Leaders and their teams can
be held accountable for long-term results, and for creating a local culture and atmosphere in which
the workforce can be empowered, collaborative, and self-organizing.
The second factor is roles and responsibilities. In a knowledge organization leaders take on
new roles and responsibilities. It is their role as gardener (not decision-maker) to give up some
degree of authority while retaining responsibility, admitting that they may not know more than
their knowledge workers about any given problem, and trusting in their people to think and do the
right things. Leaders are available for advice; for integrating the efforts of their knowledge workers when needed; for nurturing an atmosphere of trust, collaboration, confidence, and integrity; for
listening and being a sounding board; and for overriding their knowledge workers only when they
believe that a fatal mistake is about to be made. Leaders are accountable for getting results and
supporting their knowledge workers.
29
The third factor is technology. Technology plays a strong role in support of knowledge
sharing by providing information resources, network and communication technologies; knowledge, virtual learning, and community collaboration systems; and team collaboration artifacts such
as electronic whiteboards, displays, and software packages. Video conferencing and the use of an
Intranet and the Internet greatly affect how information and knowledge are created and shared.
Coupled with good information management, technology helps create and support the flow of
information (and knowledge) across the utility.
On Likert scale from 1 (very poorly) to 5 (very well), 205 responders to the Project 4003
survey valued the level of information system integration (information consistent and accessible)
at a mean of 3.08. This represents the lowest mean in the survey, and is considerably below the
mean of the means (the average of the overall survey response) of 3.44. Further, the mean was 3.35
for the quality of information contained in IT systems. See the discussion of the relationship
between information technology, information management and KM at the end of Chapter 6.
As technology changes the way that work gets done, it influences the culture. While ideally
technology in the future would be invisible, currently it is this interrelationship between workers,
software, and hardware that changes work processes and thereby knowledge worker behavior.
The fourth factor is time and space. Time can be an ally or an enemy, depending on the
utility’s understanding of it and the resources available to respond to emergent opportunities and
threats. One aspect of time is as a boundary condition for focused sharing and interactions. For
example, in Relationship Network Management employees manage their interactions to sustain
trust and respect in their relations, thereby ensuring future access to their network, a necessity for
quick response. Ideas flow across organizations in a nonlinear fashion, and the path cannot always
be traced by cause-and-effect relationships. Space represents part of the context within which
knowledge is shared. For example, spatial surroundings play a large role in the efficiency and
effectiveness of teams as they meet to create ideas or solve problems.
The fifth factor is policies and rules. While some rules may be required, free knowledge
flows and creativity respond better to directives in the form of guidance. Some generic ideas that
foster the nature and spirit of knowledge sharing are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Everyone has access to anyone in the utility.
No one can say “no” to a new idea except a senior leader.
All prioritized e-mails and phone calls are answered within 24 hours.
If time is short and no one is available, make the decision and explain later.
Use a team and personal network for all difficult decision.
Everyone knows the size of their action space (boundaries of their influence); everyone tries to earn a larger space.
At staff meetings, leaders take the time to ensure employees understand the line-ofsight question, the direction and values of the utility. (Line-of-sight refers to the clear
connection between what an employee does every day and how it contributes to the
mission and purpose of the utility.)
Context and potential consequences are always addressed before any significant action
is taken.
Real-time lessons learned and after action reports are prepared and disseminated.
Employees have assignment and careers, not jobs, and, where possible, are regularly
reassigned. Thus, they work for the utility, not a given individual.
All employees have a responsibility to monitor the external environment for threats
and opportunities and to report them ASAP to the appropriate, accessible person.
Chapter 4: Characteristics That Support Knowledge Sharing and Learning Organizations | 31
• Career development is the joint responsibility of the utility and every employee.
• A teams’ responsibility transfers directly to every team member.
• Trust and integrity are not useful characteristics, they are conditions of employment.
Teams and Communities
The knowledge network is the weaving together of people, whether through teams, communities of practice, one-on-one relationships or through virtual social networking. For example,
IBM has embraced the blogosphere, encouraging employees to participate in blogging, social web
applications (such as wikis) and networking, all emerging as important areas for engagement and
learning.
Task teams at various levels of the utility’s structure are a natural way that work gets done.
The structure of an organization encourages individuals with similar skills or similar focus areas to
work closely together. There are ten items that determine the capability of a team to do its job.
These key success factors are: team leadership, shared vision/approach, team collaboration, empowerment, technology support, team learning, enterprise partnering, feedback, team co-location and
team size.
Communities of Practice are made up of people who actually work (practice) in a specific
domain of knowledge. CoPs bring people together who face many of the same issues and opportunities. These communities are particularly effective in large organizations (where people do not
regularly interact) and across organizations (where the sharing of ideas and lessons learned can
prove extremely valuable). Communities can also be effectively employed for cross-utility collaboration. While the focus of CoPs is on value added, mutual exchange and continuous learning,
participants often brainstorm and seek solutions to specific issues and problems forwarded by
community members. Thus, participation and reliance on CoPs increases over time. This powerful
form of community can prove a continuing source of ideas and energy for long-term KM
implementation.
Communities of Interest (CoI) are groups of people who have a common interest in an area
of knowledge. They are a community of learners who exchange ideas, develop relationships and
work towards furthering their knowledge and the application of the area of interest. A CoI can be
used in support of a CoP.
Workforce Planning
Because knowledge resides in people, workforce planning becomes paramount to utility
sustainability. For example, a Workforce Strategic Plan could include developing strategies and
specific plans for hiring, training, and professional development, with the goal to promote integrative competencies such as Information Literacy, Communications Skills, Facilitation and Systems
Thinking alongside functional competencies. A second example would be to conduct a gap analysis of the skill sets of the current utility and the desired utility, addressing the competencies necessary to achieve projected missions and strategies and initiatives to help attract new personnel and
sustain the capabilities to accomplish its mission. Future skills would also be embedded in
on-going short and long-term education, training and learning initiatives. A third example would
be to develop a career path guide to provide individual guidance to employees in meeting the continuing challenges of technological change. Knowledge Retention and Succession Planning are
integrally connected to Workforce Planning.
Culture
Culture is the way work gets done. Major characteristics of the culture would be flow, collaboration, creativity, empowerment, communication and networking, adaptability, an action orientation and leadership serving as role models.
A major detriment of effective communication and knowledge sharing is the degree of trust
throughout the workforce, trust of the utility as a whole and of its leadership and management.
Trust is a cumulative belief that another individual (or the organization) will live up to employee
expectations. In order for an individual to share their knowledge with another individual they must
believe that this knowledge will not be misused or used against them, and that this sharing will be
reciprocated. Distrust is as much a communications issue as an attitudinal problem. When people
do not have good communication they cannot clearly signal their intentions or expectations. Rather
than treating communication as a transfer of information, it is better to ensure that communication
is the sharing of understanding.
Training and Education
While some functional training can be mandated, it is not enough for employees to stay
viable in a rapidly changing environment. Since training and education dollars are limited, one
approach is to issue continuous learning guidance for the entire workforce, placing increased
responsibility on employees to remain current and expand by taking advantage of new ways of
learning. Distributed learning technologies, experiential learning, and other nontraditional
approaches to education and training are rapidly supplementing the traditional classroom student/
instructor approach. With these new approaches, knowledge workers have the ability to take
responsibility for, and direct their own learning and development in a variety of ways and on a
continual basis throughout their careers. The guidance sets the expectation that all knowledge
workers participate in a set figure (such as 40 hours) of continuous learning activities (using organizational toolkits, attending conference, etc.) each year in addition to the minimum competencies
established in their career field and required for specific workforce assignments.
Recognition and Rewards
A solid recognition and rewards program combines senior leadership recognition, staff
management recognition and peer recognition. Ideas for recognition and rewards are discussed in
Chapter 7 and included in the Resources section of the KM Toolkit.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR STRUCTURING THE UTILITY
The following guiding principles are proposed for structuring a utility for knowledge sharing and organizational learning.
The structure needs to be compatible with the culture and both should be ecologically
matched to the environment and the utility’s purpose, strategy, and vision. Cultures are heavily
influenced by the interplay of structure, vision, and external environment. For example, a learning
culture is often difficult to create in a bureaucratic-type organization.
Chapter 4: Characteristics That Support Knowledge Sharing and Learning Organizations | 33
The structure design supports the workforce in their daily decision-making and actions. In
other words, the structure contains the informal network as much as possible and it supports the
knowledge needs of workers, managers, and leaders.
The structure supports the long-term needs of the workforce, including learning professional development, and career management. The technology roles and responsibilities, facilities, and policies all need to function effectively to satisfy both short-term and long-tem utility
needs. Short-term needs such as flexibility, adaptability, surge requirements, cycling, technology
opportunities, coherence of activities, operational procedures, and stakeholder demands often
place different demands on the structure than long-term activities such as learning, adaptability,
strategy, knowledge management, core competencies, career management, stakeholder satisfaction, and public image.
The structure supports leader and manager needs for loose-tight control of resources. For
example, the utility needs only loose control over self-organization, empowerment and internal
communication, but may need tight control over financial transactions, career assignments, safetyrelated decision-making and strategic direction. In the Project 4003 survey response to level of
management control, the mean was 3.57 with a median of 4.
STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT SUPPORT SUCCESSFUL
KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS
Continuous Learning
Individuals in staff roles have high visibility. Not only can they set expectations and validate those expectations by personal example, but they are also in a position to encourage and provide opportunities for learning. In addition, while employees cannot be ordered to learn, the
environment can be set to facilitate individual learning. For example, staff management can make
continuous learning a bullet in every individual’s performance appraisal. Each employee would
then develop their personal continuous learning plan in concert with their manager and team leaders, self-certifying completion of this plan during performance appraisals.
Staff managers/supervisors can also facilitate and support rotational assignments, allowing
individuals to build viable networks based on relationships across the organization (and beyond
the organization in their field of expertise wherever possible).
Knowledge Moments
A core staff role and responsibility is the nurturing of knowledge moments. Knowledge
moments are the daily experiences and interactions cross the utility and among individuals within
the utility and its larger stakeholder community as people read, write, converse and think during
their workday—and often in reflection and mental chatter outside of the workday. Knowledge
moments happen at the intersection of people, places, processes and purpose, with every knowledge moment offering a learning experience to those involved. Because knowledge is defined as
the capacity to take effective action, knowledge moments refer to exchanges that provide the
potential for, or lead to, effective action. Similar to the butterfly concept in chaos theory, there is
the potential for success or failure based on knowledge moments which cannot always be specifically identified or tied directly to that success or failure.
Since a sustainable utility is co-evolving with its environment, the quantity and quality of
both planned and spontaneous exchanges among people within the utility’s stakeholder community affects both the quality of the utility’s work products and the stakeholder’s perceived quality
of the utility’s work products. Questions for staff members to ask are: How can the utility increase
the quantity and quality of knowledge moments for its employees? How can the utility increase the
quantity and quality of knowledge moments with the larger stakeholder community?
Knowledge moments can be facilitated by spaces, processes and events. For example,
development of Ba spaces in the utility can facilitate knowledge moments. Ba spaces are areas
where people can informally congregate, similar to the historical water cooler example. They build
the level of trust among employees, the level of knowledge sharing, and the level of employee
learning. Shell HP developed an Ask, Learn, Share Model to facilitate knowledge moments. Ask
before any business activity: What do we already know? Learn during any business activity.
Share after any business activity. Events would include informal knowledge sharing that takes the
form of lunches or fireside chats or formal events such as a round table, symposium, town hall or
knowledge fair. Another example of nurturing knowledge moments would be development of a
coaching or mentoring program that paired senior leaders and managers with newer employees.
Networking
Networking is becoming the life blood of many organizations. The informal networks, the
practical decision and actions, and the common sense in doing a job end up driving the day-to-day
operation in most utilities. Staff managers can develop their own networks to confer with colleagues and keep better informed about their utility or with regard to their specialty of expertise.
They can also encourage and assist employees to recognize the value of, and create their own personal networks to improve their knowledge and performance.
Although there is room for growth, knowledge sharing does occur among drinking water
utility managers. Recall that in the Project 4003 survey response, on a Likert scale from 1 (very
poor) to 5 (very well), the mean of 207 responders was 3.68 when asked to assess the amount of
knowledge sharing among managers. Similarly, the mean for the level of trust among employees
was 3.69. However, for the level of communication between departments the mean was 3.46, indicating a wider knowledge sharing gap between departments than between managers, or between
employees.
Another role of staff managers is the assignment of individuals to teams. For teams to work
effectively they require a higher-level champion and, most importantly, the freedom to selforganize and decide how to do their work. Staff managers are facilitators for successful teams.
They sign the clear, one-page, written charter that provides resources, authority, timeliness, and
objectives that are critical to team success and support the scheduling of team interactions. They
are the first line-of-report for team findings.
Teams also need space and technology to make them efficient. All of these cost time and
money. Thus team success depends as much on staff management support and structural systems
as it does on its members.
Communities of practice (discussed above) and interest are built on the tradition of professionals joining together to share skills and resources and are vibrant learning centers and rich
marketplaces for knowledge sharing. While communities may be either formal or informal, management approval and technology infrastructure support are required. Staff managers can also
serve as champions for communities of practice in their areas of expertise.
CHAPTER 5
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL
IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN DRINKING WATER UTILITIES
This chapter addresses critical success factors (CSFs) and barriers to the successful implementation of knowledge management in drinking water utilities. The results described below were
pulled from surveys, focus groups, personal interviews with senior leaders and managers of drinking water utilities, and the literature on organizational development, culture, and knowledge
management.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN
WATER UTILITITES
Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the critical factors in your organization that support successful implementation of new initiatives? There were 290 responses from
207 responders. Figure 5.1 shows the general areas of responses. The largest number of these
responses (17.9%) were focused on support: from leadership, management, staff, directors, the
water board, the commission, the city council, the city manager, the community, and support from
employees and other departments. Several of these coupled commitment with support.
The results displayed in Figure 5.1 were combined with the results from the leadership and
management interviews, workshops and focus groups. The barriers most often cited are described
below.
Leadership and Management Support
Leadership and management support of the KM project is critical to motivating staff personnel and letting the employees know that the project has the full backing of senior leadership and
management. Leadership and management support not only applies to the planning phase and
beginning of the KM project, but support must be consistent throughout project implementation.
Ideally, the governing board will also have given its support, particularly if the project is a KM
strategy impacting the entire utility. Management commitment throughout the project ensures that
the project is recognized as a significant effort to improve the utility’s performance.
Lead by Example
Leading by example can substantially enhance the effectiveness of the KM project. As
leaders and managers create the KM initiative and develop the project for implementation, their
actions, communications and behavior should reflect and be consistent with the intentions of the
KM project. For example, if employees see leaders and senior managers sharing information and
knowledge and openly asking questions and considering new ideas and ways of improving the
utility’s performance, they are less likely to resist changes and more likely to adopt similar
behavior.
35
Support
Leadership
Buy-In
Employees
Money
Communication
Other
Teams
Time
Technology
Planning
Change
Training
Resources
Results
Laws and Regulations
Implementation
0
20
40
60
Source: Project 4003 survey response.
Figure 5.1 Critical factors that support successful implementation of new initiatives
Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
Communicating to the workforce the reasons why change is necessary is one way of breaking down barriers to a KM project. If the workforce understands the nature and value of the project
in terms of its impact on improving organizational performance and helping them with their own
day-to-day decisions and actions, they will be more cooperative and supportive of the project.
Employee Buy-In
Employee buy-in plays a major role in influencing the success of a KM project. The project
must be planned taking into account employee skill levels, their capability to work together, and
the amount of trust they have with each other as well as with management, and their willingness to
change, learn and adapt new practices, including ways of implementing their own work responsibilities. Employees who are empowered and willing to try new ideas are typically very supportive
of KM projects. For a KM strategy that touches all levels of employees and employees from all
aspects or departments of the organization, ensuring participation in some way in the implementation of the KM strategy is one means of obtaining employee buy-in.
Bring Employees Into the Project
By keeping employees aware of intent, progress and direction of the KM project, employees will have opportunities to get their questions answered and become actively involved in supporting pertinent aspects of the project. These actions gain employee awareness, understanding
Chapter 5: Critical Success Factors and Barriers to Successful Implementation of KM | 37
and acceptance of the project, thereby gaining their cooperation and reducing their resistance to the
project implementation.
Resource Support
The financial resources must be available to implement new KM initiatives. Examples of
financial needs could include new technology, travel for individuals implementing the project, or
bringing outside experts in as advisers. Where capital projects are concerned, the utility’s
Commission would likely have to approve the financial investment. To ensure the cost-effectiveness of a KM initiative, a business case that addresses return on investments, sources of funding
and a well-defined purpose should be developed and approved by the supervisor or manager, the
governor’s body or senior leadership of the utility.
Good Communications
Good communications is essential to project success. The sharing of information between
executive and operational branches and the encouragement of open conversations, questions and
suggestions allows employee participation and engages cooperation and collaboration. As elements of the project are implemented and necessary redirection occurs, good communications
keeps all employees fully aware of progress and minimizes the danger of surprises or misunderstandings. New initiatives and desired results need to be clearly stated and understood by employees, if they are not, the employees may well resist changes.
A Team-Based Approach
A team-based approach encourages local groups and teams to take on responsibilities and
provides the opportunity for open and honest communication among small groups. Teams involved
in implementing new initiatives develop ownership, a broad perspective of the utility and an understanding of the expected performance to be achieved by the KM project. At the same time, teams
also result in effective decisions because they create a broader (systems) perspective on the utility
and its needs. As teams develop ownership of a project due to their responsibilities in its implementation, they also communicate to many employees on an individual basis the reasons why the
project is important. The project then becomes not one of management decree, but one of widespread acceptance and implementation.
Allowing Time for Change to Occur
Organizations do not change quickly. Typically, it may take from two to five years for a
significant change to occur in the organizational culture or ways of doing business. Thus any major
KM effort may take time and patience to achieve successful implementation of a new organizational structure. A second aspect of time is to ensure that utility employees are provided the time
to implement the KM strategy or initiative. Another consideration is the need to take time to work
with the governance body and with the senior leadership and management team of the utility to
ensure their understanding and backing of the KM strategy or initiative. In addition, key individuals within the utility who are involved in implementing the KM project must be allowed to take the
necessary time for its implementation.
Technology Support
Many KM strategies or initiatives require the use of technology to efficiently provide the
information needed for effective Knowledge Management. Examples would be yellow pages,
expert locators, internal communications networks and groupware in support of teams. Whatever
technology is used needs to be user friendly, flexible, cost-effective and capable of being upgraded
to beat anticipated utility needs in the future. Without the available technology, some KM projects
would have great difficulty in enhancing utility performance.
Developing Trust
This refers to developing trust vertically and horizontally throughout the utility, having an
open mind and participating in a dialogue with others. It means a willingness to share one’s knowledge. The creation of new ideas is enhanced where trust exists between individuals or among
groups. Further, trust can be developed by creating teams and interactive workgroups and providing development programs to ensure employees are competent and capable of doing their jobs
without direct oversight.
Valuing Employees
Valuing employees includes ensuring that employees feel valued and recognize that they
are contributing to the overall performance of the organization. This provides a sense of ownership
to the employee, which in turn heightens their interest in the overall utility performance and makes
them much more willing to participate in KM projects. When employees feel secure with their own
performance and about their relationship with the utility, they are much more willing to work with
an organizational change effort.
Provide Training and Development
Providing necessary training and development, particularly where technology or special
skills are needed in the implementation of the KM project, is essential to the successful implementation of new practices and procedures. If the technology is to be used effectively by utility employees, it must be carefully brought into the culture and practices of the utility. Even when technology
is working perfectly and is easy to use, employees may not be willing to use it unless they are made
fully aware of its advantages and the benefits provided to their own work as well as overall utility
performance.
BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN DRINKING WATER
UTILITIES
Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the barriers in your organization to
implementing new initiatives? There were 263 responses from 207 responders. In a next question,
survey participants were asked: What are the barriers outside your organization to implementing
new initiatives? There were 208 responses from 207 responders. Figure 5.2 shows the general
areas of responses. The largest number of these total responses (22.3%) were focused on money;
for example, limited resources, budget constraints, pressure to reduce costs, unfunded mandates.
Outside Agencies
Economy
Vision
Resources/Water
Public Perception
Rates
Problem Solving
Rewards
New Hires
Initiative
Training
Communication
Size
Workload
Planning
Silos
Knowledge
General
Culture
Regs & Laws
Technology
Buy-In
Leadership & Management
Politics
Manpower
Change
Time
Money
Inside Barriers
Outside Barriers
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure 5.2 Barriers in the utility to implementing new initiatives
While money is more vocally expressed as an inside constraint, the words and descriptions are
similar for both sets of data.
As can be seen in Figure 5.2, politics, time and regulations & laws follow as a group. Next
is change, leadership & management, manpower and public perception, followed closely by rates.
The barriers most often cited are described below.
Financial Resources
Financial resources often represent a significant barrier to KM projects. Obtaining board
approval to spend appropriate funds for projects that would improve utility performance can sometimes be quite difficult. Further, with growing infrastructure needs in a down-turned economy
coupled with the public perception that water is a right not a product to be purchased, it is difficult
to move beyond imposed financial restraints. Yet drinking water is a critical resource that is becoming increasingly scarce.
Time
Time may represent a significant barrier to implementing KM programs in the sense that
employees simply may not have the available time for the implementation process. As one respondent noted, “Everyone is so busy doing their job that carving out time for this activity can be
difficult.” Another individual noted that, “Most staff are very busy and the related time constraints
can limit the ability for employees to embrace and/or properly evaluate new initiatives.”
This was reflected in the Project 4003 survey results. On a Likert scale where 1 is very low
and 5 is very high, the statement “Number of new ideas implemented annually” evoked a 3.22
mean from 207 responders. This is considerably below the mean of means (the average for this
survey response) of 3.44. In contrast, the question “How well does your organization accept and
implement new initiatives?” had a mean of 3.49 from 198 responders.
Resistance to Change
Employee resistant to change can present a challenge to the implementation of new projects such as KM strategies or initiatives. Some employees are stuck in their old ways and have
difficulty learning new practices or ways of interacting with other employees. This frequently
shows up as a lack of enthusiasm in changing the way things are done in a given situation or
utility.
As one responder noted, “A high percentage of employees with greater than 15 years experience find it hard to change their old ways of thinking.” Other aspects of resistance would include
concern or fear over new technologies, protecting one’s turf, conservative personalities and a
strong belief that the old way of doing business is still sufficient.
Lack of Manpower
It may be difficult for a utility to identify the people who could be put on new initiatives for
implementation without serious impact on the normal operation of the utility. This may be particular true for small utilities which are already stretched thin. Another aspect is the inability of management to staff individual assignments at the necessary levels to ensure effective KM
implementation.
Politics
Another barrier to implementing KM initiatives may be political opposition from the utility’s governance group or, in some cases, the utility’s customer base. Resistance can also come
from labor unions, bureaucratic inertia or even senior managers concerned with maintaining their
silos or personal control. utilities embedding stovepipes or silos may run into resistance from manager’s intent on protecting their turf. Stovepipes are where each department operates independently with little cooperation among departments.
In situations where leadership has a track record of creating new management initiatives
that turn out to be the “flavor of the month,” a mindset has been accepted by employees that every
new initiative will turn out this way. As this pattern continues, employees become very reluctant to
support any new initiative. Where senior managers and leaders do not have a common vision for
the utility—reflected through different perspectives and ineffective communication throughout the
organization—employees again feel like the initiative is bogus and will never amount to much.
Where there is a lack of trust between managers and employees, resistance to anything new and
different often occurs. Further, when management does not have a broad visionary view of what
the utility needs and is perceived by employees as benefiting one division versus the overarching
utility, employee response to the new project will be less than supportive.
Public Perception
If the public customers or governance body do not understand the nature, purpose and
value of knowledge and Knowledge Management to the performance and sustainability of the utility, they may misinterpret the project and consider it a waste of time and money. To minimize the
potential effect of such external misunderstanding, utility leaders and managers need to carefully
monitor employee and stakeholder reactions and make sure that all interested parties understand
the purpose and payoff of the KM strategy.
Getting Buy-in for the Project
For a KM project to be successful it must have a certain level of cooperation from many
different individuals within the utility. Where employees are complacent, cannot have ownership,
are concerned about potential accountability, it may be very challenging to overcome such resistance. In some organizations principal resistance comes from first line managers or supervisors
who feel a potential loss of control even though they maintain responsibility and accountability.
Resistance to Technology
Technology may represent a significant barrier to new projects in that it takes financial
resources, may increase the complexity of the current systems through growth, and may concern
many employees who lack the technical expertise and understanding of what the new technology
may bring. Some employees may perceive new technology as another means of exercising control
over them.
Regulations and Laws
Union contracts, city policies, regulations and the lack of flexibility in some laws and regulations may be seen via employees as additional restrictions and constraints on their freedom to get
the job done. Further, these regulations and laws may be perceived as making it difficult to create
and implement new KM strategies or initiatives.
Utility Culture
The culture of the utility, having been created over decades, may resist new initiatives that
substantially change the relationships between managers and supervisors and employees, and even
among employees themselves. Culture is frequently referred to as “the way the work gets done.”
When initiatives are proposed that may considerably change how that work gets done, they can
cause serious concerns, and perhaps even opposition to new ideas. Employees often develop a
focused mindset and limited perspective of their organization, their work environment and their
place within that environment to the extent that any potential shifting or changing causes them to
have serious concerns. These concerns can easily create opposition to new projects, especially
Figure 5.3 Areas of descriptions of a successful initiative
when those projects impact them individually and very personally in terms of how they think,
behave and relate to their fellow employees.
WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?
Finally, Project 4003 survey participants were asked: How would you describe a successful
initiative in your organization? There were 290 responses from 207 responders. The largest number of these responses (15.2%) were focused on results. Representative of generic responses are:
efforts show results, original objective realized, overall system improvement and users happy with
final outcome. Specific responses included: increase customer service while improving business
practices, improves work flows and is user friendly, provides better information faster, provides
the benefits that were targeted and then becomes a part of the daily routine for most employees.
Other “increases” were: increased productivity, increased competitiveness, and increased customer
satisfaction. One learner responded: Paying an employee to maintain a license higher than required.
See Figure 5.3.
CHAPTER 6
THE EFFECTS OF ALIGNMENT AND MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN
KM AND CORE PLANNING PROCESSES
This chapter investigates the effects of alignment and misalignment between a utility’s core
planning processes and deployment of a KM strategy or initiative. It will also address the possible
impact of an underdeveloped process on KM strategies and initiatives.
UTILITY CORE PLANNING PROCESSES
All utilities have core planning processes that are essential to effective planning and performance. Examples of utility planning processes would include strategic business planning, operational planning, capital improvement planning, human resource development, life cycle planning
and information technology master planning. These plans are critical to effective and efficient utility operations because they set up procedures and processes that when implemented create the
activities and relationships that drive utility performance.
In the 4003 survey process, drinking water utilities were asked: How well do the following
core processes support your organization’s mission? A five-point Likert scale was used with the
variables defined as (1) very poorly, (2) poorly, (3) okay, (4) well, and (5) very well. The results
are provided in Table 6.1.
There are a number of observations that can be made regarding this response.
First, note that there is a range from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) in response to each core
planning process and its support of the utility’s mission. Thus the standard deviations are quite
high for each set of responses.
Second, note that the median is 4 (high) for strategic business planning, operational planning, and capital improvement planning, indicating that the majority of responses are 4 (high) or 5
(very high). These three processes are historically those that fall under the direct purview of leaders and managers.
Third, note that out of the 207 survey responders, the number of responses to each of the
six core planning processes ranges from 177 to 202. The instructions on the survey read: “This
survey looks at your organization as a whole ... should be filled out by a senior manager.” Thus for
each of the core processes there were 5–30 responders who chose not to enter a value for that core
process, indicating either no judgment or an unfamiliarity with the core processes they were asked
to assess. In the order of those processes more readily assessed, the planning processes are: Capital
improvement planning, operational planning, human resource development, strategic business
planning, information technology master planning and life cycle planning. This would indicate, for
example, a higher level of familiarity and opinion on capital improvement planning than life cycle
planning. Yet capital improvement planning is directly correlated to life cycle planning. In an
uncertain and changing economic and political environment—where new requirements and issues
emerge without adequate resources to quickly and effectively respond to those requirements and
issues—long-term planning must often take a second seat to short-term needs. While this juxtaposing occurs in a large number of organizations, the aging infrastructure faced by a large number of
drinking water utilities is rapidly bringing long-term into the sphere of short-term urgency. In other
words, funding needs that could previously be delayed can no longer be delayed.
43
Table 6.1
Core planning processes support of the utility’s mission
6 Items
Q6A
Q6B
Q6C
Q6D
Q6E
Q6F
Strategic business planning
Operational planning
Capital improvement planning
Human resource development
Life cycle planning
Information technology master planning
N
187
199
202
196
177
185
Mean
3.60
3.79
3.94
3.18
3.09
3.19
Min
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max
5
5
5
5
5
5
SD
.851
.740
.818
.800
.861
.975
Median
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Table 6.2
Information systems in drinking water utilities
Statement
(A) Systems are considered mission critical to the organization
(B) The Information Technology Department (ITD) is heavily involved
with and understands the business mission
(C) ITD is viewed as a solution provider for business problems
(D) ITD is viewed as the technical help desk, and not helpful in solving
business problems
N
193
190*
Yes
171
119
No
22
69
N/A
14
17
189*
185*
102
85
86
100
18
22
*Two responses for B above were “both yes and no,” one response for C was “sometimes,” and one response for D
was “neither.”
The data for Q6F in Table 6.1 indicates that information technology master planning has
the second lowest response rate, the second lowest mean (by .01), the lowest standard deviation
and the median falls in the 3.0 range (medium). These indicators can now be combined with the
responses to question 10: “The following statements relate to the information systems in your
organization” to build a deeper understanding of the perception of the role of information technology (and by extension information technology master planning) and the mission of the utility. See
Table 6.2.
Note that while the data presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 is from the same group of utility
leaders/managers, only 185 responders provided an opinion on the strength of information technology master planning and the organization’s mission. In contrast, the statements labeled A, B
and C in Table 6.2 drew a larger number of responses. Here are some key percentages:
• 88.6% of 193 responders agree that systems are mission critical to the organization.
• 62.6% of 190 responders agree that ITD is heavily involved with and understands the
business mission.
• 54% of 189 responders agree that ITD is a solution provider for business problems.
• 45.9% of 185 responders agree that ITD is not helpful in solving business problems.
The last two bullets above represent the same question looked at from two different directions. While there is a larger perception (62.6%) that ITD is involved with and understands the
Chapter 6: The Effects of Alignment and Misalignment Between KM and Core Planning Processes | 45
business mission, there is a lower perception (54%) of its effectiveness in handling business problems. From this response, it is clear that while the value of information technology is recognized
as mission critical (88.6%), there is still some work to do in order for information technology to
strongly support the business mission. When these indicators are considered with the patterns created from responses to the data presented in Table 6.2, there are two potential findings. Either
(1) information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently developed or
effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water utilities, or (2) leaders and
managers who responded to this survey instrument (representing 207 drinking water utilities
nation-wide) are not aware of or do not understand the role that information technology is playing
in their utilities. In either case, it is clear that Knowledge Management can contribute to helping
drinking water utilities engage the full potential of current and future information technology
investments in terms of their contribution to business problems and the business mission.
While the option of writing in additional planning processes considered as core was provided in the survey, no additional processes were called out by responders.
ALIGNING A KM INITIATIVE WITH A UTILITY’S CORE PLANNING PROCESSES
We first consider the situation where the utilities core planning process is well designed and
implemented and a KM initiative should be aligned with the core planning process.
If a utility’s core planning process is working well, the question becomes: How can a KM
initiative best support the core planning process? Planning processes by their very nature, layout
and anticipated sequence of actions must consider the relationships necessary for effective implementation to ensure the utility’s effective performance. These actions, activities and relationships
impact a large number of stakeholders within the utility and perhaps even customers. While implementation of the core planning processes is intended to support utility objectives, the efficiency
and effectiveness of the utility from a Knowledge Management perspective may not have been
considered. When this occurs, a KM initiative—if properly designed to support core planning and
implementation processes—may significantly improve utility performance. The following steps
briefly outline a sequence of activities to consider when designing a KM initiative in support of the
development and implementation of a core planning process.
Step 1
Ensure that the planning process and its anticipated implementation is of high quality
through best practice analysis, benchmarking or past assessments of the process outcome. Look
carefully for those aspects of the process that are most sensitive to the availability and quality of
information and knowledge and the potential for knowledge loss through retirements etc. In addition, look at the first and second order effects of the process activities on the surrounding stakeholders to see if relationships are effective and accurate and timely information and knowledge is
shared with these stakeholders.
Step 2
Identify aspects of the core planning process that require additional knowledge, information and experience for successful implementation. This may include areas where the process
impacts stakeholders and governance bodies, as well as critical areas of the utility’s performance
capability.
Step 3
From one and two above identify the technology, information, knowledge and relationships needed by individuals who are implementing the process or are affected by the process
implementation. These first three steps form the basis for designing the KM initiative needed by
the planning process and its implementation.
Step 4
Depending on the specific nature of the core planning process, the development of a KM
initiative should consider the following possibilities:
• Consider any training needed by all parties affected by the process.
• Suggest activities and mechanisms that will support and enhance knowledge sharing
as required.
• Consider the core process design from an information perspective and suggest KM
tools that would improve the availability, selection and accuracy of required
information.
• Ensure that the technology and the core process relationships will result in lessons
learned as the process unfolds.
• Consider spaces where individuals can meet and share knowledge as they implement
the core planning process. This will encourage knowledge sharing and a collaboration
approach to joint activities that will leverage knowledge effectiveness.
• Where appropriate, identify a process manager who can oversee its effective implementation and ensure that teamwork and the coordination of effort is developed among
participants in the process and stakeholders impacted by the process.
• If possible, develop assessment criteria that can monitor the progress and the effectiveness of the core process to enable changes and adjustments as the process unfolds.
This will allow the process to adjust to the changing needs of the utility without imposing an evaluation of individual participants.
In summary, a KM initiative is aligned with a planning process and its implementation if it
supports every knowledge aspect of the process and thereby ensures that the most effective decisions and actions are taken and that maximum learning occurs. Depending on the specific planning
process involved, a KM initiative may include competency assessments (360 evaluations), leadership development and opportunities, special training in specific areas, briefings that provide a
systems perspective of the overall process and its relationship with the rest of the utility personnel
and a careful assessment of the effectiveness of all aspects of the process in supporting the mission
and vision of the utility.
Chapter 6: The Effects of Alignment and Misalignment Between KM and Core Planning Processes | 47
HOW MISALIGNMENT OR AN UNDERDEVELOPED CORE PROCESS IMPACTS
THE SUCCESSFUL DEPLOYMENT OF A KM STRATEGY AND ITS RESULTING
INITIATIVES
Core processes of drinking water utilities are usually aligned with the overall operation of
the utility. When this occurs, a knowledge management strategy or initiative should be designed
and implemented in a manner that maximizes the effectiveness of the core process and also
improves the creation, sharing, leveraging and application of knowledge throughout the utility, or
in the case of an initiative throughout a subset of the utility.
If the drinking water utility’s core process is underdeveloped, action can be taken to bring
the process up to expectations prior to designing a KM project that supports the process. During
this pre-implementation phase it may be necessary to consider both the core process and the KM
strategy or initiative desired and make trade-offs between the two to ensure optimizing their combination for the benefit of the utility.
When a drinking water utility’s core process is misaligned with its needs and operational
effectiveness, the process should then be reviewed and upgraded to ensure consistency in the
alignment with the utility’s needs. After this has been implemented, the knowledge management
strategy or initiative can then be designed to optimize knowledge effectiveness.
One exception to the above paragraph arises when the drinking water utility has little or no
influence over the core process. An example could be the Human Resource Development process,
which is sometimes part of the city management organization where the process serves not only
the utility, but also the parks, police, and fire department. Under these conditions, the utility may
have little or no influence over the policies and practices of this particular core process. When this
occurs, the KM strategy or initiative must be designed carefully so that it does not interfere with
the core planning processes while, at the same time, maximizing its own goals and objectives relative to overall utility performance. This may require specific tools (see the toolkit) that can enhance
the utility’s performance without impacting the human resource process. For example mentoring
programs, teambuilding, creating spaces for conversations and dialogue, sending individuals to
specific learning courses, and procuring technology which can store, select and make information
available to workers throughout the utility, may support the utility’s KM needs, while at the same
time being consistent with the HR processes and practices.
As indicated by the data presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, one potential finding is that information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently developed or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water utilities. There is a close
relationship between information technology (IT), information management (IM) and Knowledge
Management.
Information management deals with the classification, storage, and availability of information. Recall that information consists of data, facts and descriptions that can be written down,
stored and transferred through technology or human interaction. In contrast, Knowledge
Management is concerned primarily with knowledge—the understanding, insight, and interpretations developed and used to solve problems, make decisions and anticipate the results of our
actions. Since knowledge exists only in the minds of humans, Knowledge Management is primarily concerned with people and their ability to take effective action. To do this, of course, they need
information as well as knowledge. (Recall the discussion of Knowledge (Informing) in Chapter 1.)
Technology deals with data and information; humans deal with data, information and knowledge.
Enabler
Enabler
Human Capital
Enabler
Successes
Lessons Learned
Social Capital
Relationships
Corporate Capital
Data
Info
Mapping
The Essence of
Knowledge Management
The Essence of
Information Management
Technology
Innovation
Capability
Capacity
Incentives
Education
Training
Connectivity
IPTs
Software
Hardware
The Essence of
Information Technology
Infrastructure
Physical
Assets
Source: Department of the Navy, 1999.
Figure 6.1 Relationship of IT, IM, and KM
Figure 6.1 is a graphic produced by the Department of the Navy which is a four-tiered
depiction of the roles and connectivity of infrastructure, IT, IM and KM in a knowledge-centric
organization. The intent of the graphic was to remind knowledge workers with the Department that
the role of IT is in support of the infrastructure; that IT in and of itself exists to facilitate the management of information; and that the management of information is in support of decision-makers,
that is, people. KM is not effective without IM, which must be supported by good IT, which is
embedded in the infrastructure. This is a picture of a healthy partnership of IT, IM and KM aligned
in support of the organization mission. A DON case study is included in the KM Toolkit.
A rough estimate of the amount of knowledge management that involves information technology is about 20 percent. This focus is based on the amount of knowledge users can create from
the information that is stored, transferred, organized, and mined by information technology. This
percent is, of course, a judgment. While the major source of knowledge creation, sharing, leveraging and application lies in the human mind—and depends on the willingness and capability of
individual workers to share their experience and knowledge—information technology is an enabler.
IT and information management are used to support the decision-makers who must create knowledge from the information stored in and accessed from technology systems. Thus good IT and
information management are critical in today’s virtual, fast-paced environment.
CHAPTER 7
AN ASSESSMENT TOOL
INTRODUCTION TO THE INSTRUMENT
The Assessment Instrument is designed to aid drinking water utility leaders and managers
in determining the readiness of their utility to implement KM strategies. It takes 10–15 minutes to
fill out, and is designed to help answer the question: Is my utility ready to implement a knowledge
management strategy? A knowledge management (KM) strategy is a program to implement KM
throughout the entire utility as compared to implementing a KM initiative that would impact a
department, division or some subset of the utility.
For a utility to be ready to successfully implement a KM strategy it should have certain
characteristics and capabilities. Reflecting those characteristics and capabilities specific to drinking water utilities, the questions in this tool were developed from a number of research sources.
These include 23 interviews with senior utility leaders, four workshops with groups of utility leaders and managers, the results of the Project 4003 survey of 207 individuals from drinking water
utilities, and the results of a literature search as well as the experience of the researchers.
There are 40 questions in the assessment instrument that are divided into five areas, each
area pertaining to a specific aspect of the utility. These areas are: General, Leadership, Management,
Culture and Alignment. A list of the assessment questions is provided in Appendix D. Each statement or question asks for a response based upon a five-point Likert scale in one of the following
ways:
1..........very low;
2.........low;
3.........medium;
4.........high; and
5..........very high.
High scores indicate the utility’s readiness to implement a knowledge management strategy. Low
scores may or may not impact the utility’s readiness dependent upon the specific nature of the
question as well as the specific KM strategy to be implemented. Low scores may also be used to
identify areas in which the utility may want to improve via its knowledge management strategy or
perhaps prior to commencing a full KM strategy implementation.
It is assumed that a specific KM strategy has been selected or is being contemplated.
Because each utility is unique and possesses a wide variety of characteristics—complete with its
own history—this instrument should be used in concert with informed reflective thought prior to
making a readiness decision. What this assessment will do is provide key questions and aspects of
the utility to stimulate your thinking before implementing a KM strategy. From the answers to the
assessment questions and reflection on what you know about your utility, you will be able to make
an informed judgment on whether to proceed with implementation of your KM strategy, or take
some preparatory steps prior to implementation of a KM strategy.
49
INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT INTERPRETATIONS
It is suggested that several managers in the utility take the Assessment Instrument, then use
a team dialogue approach to arrive at a common understanding of your utility’s readiness to implement a KM strategy.
When the Assessment Instrument has been completed by each individual, an assessment
scoring sheet will appear. The total score provided at the top is intended as a general guideline. It
is one indicator, but not sufficient, to determine the utility’s readiness to implement a KM strategy.
Other factors that may play a significant role in determining readiness include the specific KM
strategy being considered; the history, culture, size, vision and current situation of the utility; the
external environment (customers, government regulations, local community, Unions, political
issues) within which the utility operates; and the nature and number of the items scored at level 1
or 2.
Just below a discussion of your overall score appears a bar chart that maps out the items
scored at each of the five levels of the Likert scale. This represents the items at levels 1, 2 and 3
that may require additional reflection, and the items at levels 4 and 5 that may assist in your implementation strategy. Finally, the assessment scoring sheet will provide ideas and suggested areas for
reflective thought related to each of the 1, 2 or 3 levels selected.
For additional information on the assessment scoring and evaluation, the generic template
used to support the assessment scoring sheet in the toolkit is included in Appendix D.
THE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT AS A TOOL
While the Assessment Instrument is developed to assist in determining a utility’s readiness
to implement a KM strategy, the final determination of readiness lies with the utility’s leadership.
They are the experts who know the intended KM strategy, the management and leadership styles,
the history and organizational structure of the utility, the utility’s ability to learn and change, and
the environment within which the utility operates.
CHAPTER 8
THE KM TOOLKIT
The KM Toolkit is a virtual resource for planning and implementing the organizational
change needed to support implementation of a KM strategy in drinking water utilities. A brief
overview of the KM Toolkit content is below. Note that in the virtual KM Toolkit terms and tools
include additional explanation and examples. This detailed information, and the supporting
resources that are shown below in each phase of the toolkit process, are provided in the virtual KM
Toolkit.
THE TOOLKIT PROCESS
Following an introduction focused on knowledge, Knowledge Management (KM) and the
business case for KM in drinking water utilities, the Toolkit Process has five phases: Assessing
Readiness, Planning, Preparing, Executing and Sustaining. Figure 8.1 provides the main topics
addressed in each phase of the toolkit. The Introduction and phases of the process as appearing in
the Toolkit are Appendix E.
Introduction
Knowledge and Knowledge Management
The discussion of knowledge and Knowledge Management in the KM Toolkit reflects the
information forwarded in Chapter 1 of this report. Further, KM is introduced from the viewpoint
of information (connecting information and people), the decision-maker (facilitating understanding) and the organization (nurturing a knowledge sharing culture). Examples of KM initiatives
(tools) are linked to each of these areas.
The Need for KM in the Drinking Water Utilities
A short description of KM is provided at the beginning of this section in order to help utility employees describe to others why KM is important in drinking water utilities. Specifically, this
is the reference to KM as a set of ideas, principles and practices that make knowledge available to
decision-makers at every level of the organization, and help encourage workers to learn, then take
the initiative and guide their actions to meet utility goals and objectives. At a top-level need is
introduced in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. Efficiency can be improved by
reducing mistakes, optimizing processes, broadening worker responsibilities, and reducing time
spent searching for documents, information or expertise. Effectiveness improves when employees
know their job, can learn fast enough to keep up with changing work needs, and know who to tell,
or ask, relative to the impact of their actions. To be optimally effective means to look at the entire
utility from a knowledge perspective, making KM a central part of overall leadership, management
and day-to-day decision-making. (A paper on the “Business Case for KM” which is included in the
Toolkit is Appendix F.)
51
Assessing
Readiness
Planning
• Introduction
to the
Instrument
• Ensuring
Leadership
Commitment
• The
Readiness
Assessment
Instrument
• Developing
the Strategy
• Individual
Assessment
Interpretations
• Writing the
Plan
• Selecting the
Team
• Thinking
Systems
Preparing
Executing
Sustaining
• Setting
Objectives
• Leading and
Managing
• Connecting
the Dots
• The Four
Organization
Processes
• Nurturing
Organization
Health
• Building the
Foundation
• Growing
Knowledge
Network
• Becoming a
change
agent
• Knowledge
Capture
• Knowledge
Harvesting
• Embedding
• Sharing
• Evaluating
and
Measuring
• Learning
• Knowledge
Mobilization
Source: Project 4003 KM Toolkit.
Figure 8.1 Phases of the KM Toolkit process
As finding or sustaining high-quality water resources becomes increasingly difficult and
drinking water is recognized world-wide as a scarce resource, emerging research in water treatment and wastewater and solid waste treatment will offer new opportunities. New processes and
procedures will focus on improved efficiency and effectiveness in terms of the services and products provided, customer perceptions and needs, and environmental requirements. (A paper on
“Regulatory Perspectives for Drinking Water Utilities” which is included in the Toolkit is
Appendix G.)
Toolkit Resources and Related WaterRF Research
The large number of resources available in the Toolkit and their contributors are introducing and linked from this section. Specifically, these resources take the form of white papers, published articles, research studies, case studies, case examples, project studies (internal drinking
water utility examples), tools, and idea sheets. Several generic resources are introduced:
(1) “Knowledge and Information Management in the Water and Sanitation Sector: A Hard Nut to
Crack” published by the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre in June 2006 (used with
permission) and (2) Public Sector Information Technology and Knowledge Management” written
by Susan Turnquist, Project Manager, WaterRF (used with permission).
Chapter 8: The KM Toolkit | 53
Further, the WaterRF research studies related to Knowledge Management are introduced
and direct links (for more information) made to the WaterRF home page.
Resources Linked From the Introduction
Resources linked in support of this discussion are:
• Tools: Community of Interest, Community of Practice, Event Intermediation,
Taxonomy
• Ideas: Communications Publications, Recognition and Rewards
• Strategy: Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO)
• Depth Resources: The Current State of KM (MQI paper), The Depth of Knowledge
(MQI paper), Information Literacy (MQI paper), Relationship Network Management
(MQI paper)
• White Papers: The Business Case for KM, Regulatory Perspectives for the Water
utilities
• Project Studies 11 and 23.
Assessing Readiness
Details of the section on Assessing Readiness and the linked Readiness Assessment
Instrument are included in Chapter 7.
The Planning Phase
The planning phase offers the opportunity to focus on a course of action to move forward
prior to taking any action. As this phase begins, several leaders within the organization have recognized the value of and need for implementation of a knowledge management initiative or
strategy.
Ensuring Leadership Commitment
Leadership must be actively involved for any KM strategy to be successful. When a
respected senior leader clearly demonstrates commitment to a vision through words and consistent
and continuous personal actions, members of the senior leader’s relationship network, peers and
subordinates, quickly follow suit. As leaders begin to communicate, collaborate and reward successes, those successes spread across the organization.
Recognizing that people do not change easily or quickly, implementation requires continued leadership interest, oversight, presence, and sometimes active involvement, coupled with the
repeated message that KM is necessary. Many KM initiatives require a change in culture—a change
that employees must actively support.
Developing the Strategy
With the feedback from the Readiness Assessment Instrument, the utility’s strengths and
potential gaps in terms of readiness to implement a KM strategy or initiative have been identified.
Six overarching KM strategies are introduced:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO)
Increasing Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge
Developing Knowledge Leaders
Implementing eLearning
Knowledge Retention
Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing Culture
A descriptive write-up is provided regarding each of these strategies as an idea generator to introduce and explore some possibility that may be relevant to a utility. Each of these write-ups includes
related tools and case examples and project studies where they are applicable.
Several approaches to implementing KM initiatives are presented: (1) implement a pilot
project; (2) start with quick wins and low-hanging fruit (short bursts); or (3) full-scale implementation. An advantage of holding a pilot project is its potential contribution to learning; the disadvantage is that often what is learned is not easily transferable, and the learning process must be repeated
when larger implementation occurs. An advantage of the short bursts approach is that when benefits are seen, it is easier to build support to implement in a larger fashion; a disadvantage is that
larger underlying problems are not being addressed. An advantage of full-scale implementation is
the demonstrated commitment to this course of action, which helps ensure success; a disadvantage
would be if this was premature and the organization was not yet prepared to move down this road.
Writing the Plan
The first step of the planning process is a feasibility review. Ensure that the following five
statements are true:
• The strategic goal, mission and purpose of the utility are clear and understood by
people within the utility.
• The planned project is aligned or consistent with the core utility processes such as
strategic business planning, the operational planning process, capital improvement
planning, and information technology master planning.
• The planned project is consistent with the organization’s strategic focus.
• Resources (time, people, funding) are available to take the project to completion.
• The project is important to the utility and, if at all possible, will be completed.
• The project is economically feasible.
• The project will provide clear improvements, benefits and outcomes.
• Enough data and information are available to make a sound decision.
The number of elements required for planning a project is highly dependent on the complexity of
the initiative or strategy. For example, defining scope, identifying tools, developing schedule, budgeting, manpower, risk planning, etc.—all the elements that go into planning any other successful
project—will depend heavily upon the content and context of the initiative or strategy, as well as
the specific utility.
A written plan should be developed which outlines the various stages and activities of the
project. Planners usually start with a vision of the desired project outcomes and determine, at a
high level, the characteristics and macro elements of the project required to achieve these outcomes. For example, if the desired initiative is knowledge retention, then macro elements of the
project might involve: (1) a fast-track KM approach for those who are leaving in 30 days, (2) a
series of tools and activities for those who are retiring in six months; and (3) a strategic approach
to ensure that knowledge is continuously flowing up and down, and across the organization, and
that there are mandated pre-retirement actions.
These major elements are broken down into smaller pieces which lend themselves to scheduling and costing and specific activities. This is the process of decomposition. The plan identifies
all the things that must be accomplished during the life of the project. For example, in the above
example, (1) would undoubtedly include an exit interview, (2) might include a knowledge audit
and development of a KM desk guide for every position, while (3) would include development of
communities of practice, use of shared space and the nurturing of storytelling.
The way a KM plan is implemented is as important as what is being implemented. One of
the reasons is that it is focused on knowledge, and knowledge is very personal—it resides within
people. Thus, while information technology and information management are necessary, they are
not sufficient for success. The KM Plan is focused on people: helping people create, share, leverage and apply their information and knowledge in support of utility objectives.
Selecting the Team
The effectiveness of any KM strategy or initiative is highly dependent on the energy, dedication, collaboration and coherence of the efforts of all major stakeholders that play a role in its
implementation. Thus it is important for the implementation team to not only have the right mix of
people in terms of expertise, capability and organizational connectivity, but to equally consider
attitudes, networking skills and commitment to success. At the core of all successful change strategies are integrators, those trusted individuals who connect people, information and knowledge.
Team members should be from different parts of the utility, have backgrounds representing
the areas of the utility that the initiative will impact, and understand and feel good about the purpose and implementation of the task. The team should be heavily involved with developing the
strategy and implementing the plan. This allows them to have ownership of the initiative and to
develop a common perspective and understanding of their objectives, issues and contributions to
the utility’s performance. If the KM program is relatively large, their task could be written in a
one-page agreement, signed by senior leadership and by every team member. This agreement
would state the objectives, resources and authorities of the team.
Thinking Systems
Every organization—and every individual within that organization—is a complex adaptive system co-evolving with its environment. What we struggle to achieve is to become intelligent complex adaptive systems, organizations where the decisions that are made every day at
every level help the organization achieve its mission. A top-level systems perspective encourages
individual managers and teams to develop and implement balanced decisions that optimize the
entire system instead of one part of the system.
Systems thinking provides an approach for managing complicated situations by helping
decision-makers recognize and understand cause-and-effect relationships among organizational
parameters. For example, identifying the boundaries of a problem or issue helps focus corrective
actions, while understanding the connections among parts of the system might tell you that multiple actions are required to correct a situation.
In terms of implementing a KM initiative or strategy, by understanding the interrelationships of, for example, a technology system storing guidance documents (information) and an
expert who has a reputation for trouble-shooting (knowledge), both can be used to achieve optimum performance. For periodic issues handled in a repeatable manner, the technology system can
support a training requirement to spread this ability across the utility. However, when situations
arise that have different parameters than previously experienced, it’s time to consult an expert with
the appropriate knowledge. By developing an expertise locator, even the largest organizations can
have quick access to the knowledge that is needed.
Taking a systems perspective also means deciding on what is going to be measured and
how it is going to be measured prior to project start-up.
Resources Linked From the Planning Phase
• Tools: Community of Practice, KM Desk Guide, KM Plan, Knowledge Audit,
Interviewing, Shared Space, Storytelling
• Ideas: Leadership Commitment, Recognition and Rewards
• Strategies: Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO), Increasing
Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge, Developing Knowledge Leaders,
Implementing eLearning, Knowledge Retention and Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing
Culture
• Depth Resources: Developing a Model for Team Learning and Success (MQI monogram), The DON Metrics Guide, A New Change Model (MQI paper), Turnquist paper
KM and IM in the Water Sector (Turnquist paper), Thinking About Systems and
Complexity (MQI paper)
• White Papers: The Business Case for KM in the Industry, 4003 Research Report #2
(opportunities and initiatives for success), 4003 Research Report #3 barriers), 4003
Research Report #4 (critical success factors)
• Project Studies 24
• Case Examples 8, 13
• Case Studies: KM at NASA-Kennedy Space Center, DON Case Study, Learn@
WELL, Singapore Case Study
The Preparing Phase
After completion of the planning stage of a KM strategy or initiative, attention should be
focused on preparing the utility and the project team and individuals for implementation. A plan
cannot succeed just because someone orders it to be done. Careful consideration needs to be given
to the current state of the utility, its culture, workload, competencies and outside demands on its
time. Also, it is useful to get some key workers involved so that the purpose, nature and value of
the project is made visible in a way that gives the utility time to digest and understand its goals and
impacts.
Setting Objectives
The project requirements must be made explicit for all personnel involved in the project.
Project objectives are often defined in terms of being SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable,
Realistic (and Relevant) and Time-based. While this approach works well for complicated systems such as building information systems or developing KM Desk Guides, parts of SMART may
have to be dropped or modified in a KM project where the desired outcome is an emergent phenomenon of a complex system (a community or team).
Closely linked to setting objectives are setting targets and developing milestones. Set targets which create direction and opportunities for high performance. These targets are sometimes
referred to as “stretch” goals. They are challenging but not so challenging that they are viewed as
non-achievable. Develop milestones to evaluate performance by comparing planned results at a
point in time to actual results. Milestones are usually significant events in the project, such as
completion of on-time deliverables or successful completion of phases of the project. Milestone
deviations should be monitored and carefully managed throughout the life of the project. There is
little point of being informed of a major cost overrun at the end of a project, or of ignoring a counter intuitive result that creates unintended and harmful consequences to the project outcome. While
knowledge projects are usually aimed at long-term results and may be difficult to evaluate in the
short-term, activity toward the anticipated outcome and emergent indicators can be reviewed and
assessed.
Connecting the Dots
Any forward movement requires both a starting point and a direction in which to move. A
good way to understand the knowledge currently available in the utility is through conducting a
knowledge audit and creating a knowledge map. A knowledge audit moves beyond identifying and
mapping knowledge sources to evaluating the state of an organization’s technology, how well the
organization’s processes support knowledge sharing, and the work styles and culture of the people
within the organization. What is learned from the knowledge audit can now be compared to what
knowledge is needed in order to identify knowledge gaps. These gaps could be related to current
knowledge, or potential gaps as identified employees move toward retirement or as demands of the
environment change.
But having the required information available is not enough. People have to know about it
in order to use it. The flow of data, information and knowledge across the utility enables effective
decision-making and facilitates the connections and continuity that maintain utility unity and
coherence. A method for assessing the effective flow of information through communication and
collaboration is social network analysis. Interviews and surveys are used to ask such questions as:
From whom do you seek work-related information? Is this person accessible to you? Does this
person respond in time to help resolve your problem? To whom do you give work-related information? From the answers to these and similar questions a map is created that connects people who
receive information with people who provide the information. This process allows the utility to
assess its ability to create and share knowledge through connections, and identifies areas to improve
these abilities. For example, the map resulting from social network analysis identifies those who
are central to the knowledge sharing process. Then the following questions are asked: Should this
individual be rewarded for the important role they are playing or is this individual hoarding information and bottlenecking knowledge sharing and creation? What happens if this individual leaves?
As an example of the knowledge audit approach through one-on-one interviewing, the
Lehigh County Authority conducted an audit of staff-level managers. The audit allowed them to
determine critical knowledge areas and current knowledge and skill sets, and then identify current
and future gaps. They also identified the consequences of failure, that is, their inability to complete
any of the individual areas of responsibility identified due to lack of knowledge.
Another process of connecting the dots is that of identifying strategies and initiatives
underway or recently completed that are similar to the KM strategies and initiatives proposed.
Because knowledge is at the core of what individuals and utilities do—and because there are many
committed people that are already moving in similar directions (no matter what they call it)—the
utility can gain greater advantage by the linking and melding of similar strategies and initiatives.
Leveraging is a goal of knowledge management. The similarities and differences of these strategies and initiatives—and how they complement each other—should be identified and broadly
shared to ensure full leveraging of all activities underway.
Building the Foundation
The document repository is the place where much of the information available to the utility
decision-makers resides. Because the flow of information throughout the utility is the life blood of
the organization, it is critical to ensure an integrated, connected, well-organized, and easily searchable information system that supports access to information when it is needed. The KnowledgeBase
roadmap provides a framework for building the knowledge base in a specific area of knowledge
(for a specific community). The knowledge taxonomy, a structured set of names and descriptions
agreed-upon by the utility, is necessary to organize information and knowledge in a consistent way.
The knowledge taxonomy is built on the knowledge ontology, a conceptual framework that
expresses a classification scheme. Together, development of a taxonomy and ontology help ensure
a common language and understanding across the utility while also supporting ease of access to
needed information.
As a utility recognizes the value of its knowledge in responding to an uncertain future, the
organization’s culture becomes a core area of focus. Culture—how the work gets done—is the
source of energy, or apathy, and a major determinant of performance. Culture is a set of norms in
the workplace that often include unstated assumptions about people, relationships and knowledge.
These assumptions develop over time from internal and external events and all of the interactions
among the workforce.
Because KM is about people, it cannot be done to people, but rather with them and in support of them as they support the mission of the utility. For example, individuals cannot be ordered
to share knowledge; however, an environment that supports knowledge sharing can be nurtured. A
knowledge sharing culture might emerge from (1) the clear linking between sharing knowledge
and accomplishing the mission of the utility, (2) the expectation of knowledge sharing, and example set by senior leadership, (3) the underlying recognition that knowledge sharing is the right
thing to do and will benefit them and their utility, (4) alignment of utility rewards and recognition
programs with knowledge sharing, and (5) an organizational structure that facilitates knowledge
sharing. As the number of individuals practicing a principle grows, the more that principle will
become a part of the organization’s workplace culture.
A major determinant of effective communication and sharing is the degree of trust throughout the workforce, trust of the utility as a whole and of its leadership and management. Trust is a
cumulative belief that another individual (or the organization) will live up to our expectations. In
order for an individual to share their knowledge with another individual, they must believe that this
knowledge will not be misused or used against them, and that this sharing will be reciprocated.
Distrust is as much a communications issue as an attitudinal problem. When people do not have
good communication they cannot clearly signal their intentions or expectations. Rather than treating communication as a transfer of information, it is better to ensure that communication is the
sharing of understanding. Virtual signaling has been found to be of critical importance in email and
other virtual forums where body language cannot play the large role it does in face-to-face
interactions.
Growing a Knowledge Network
The knowledge network is the weaving together of people, whether through teams, communities of practice, one-on-one relationships or through virtual social networking. Blogging and
social web applications such as wikis are emerging as important areas for engagement and
learning.
Task teams at various levels of the utility’s structure are a natural way that work gets done.
The very structure of an organization encourages individuals with similar skills or similar focus
areas to work closely together. When necessary, an integrated product team crosses functional area
lines to ensure a project is successfully implemented from cradle to grave. There are ten items that
determine the capability of a team to do its job. These key success factors are: team leadership,
shared vision/approach, team collaboration, empowerment, technology support, team learning,
enterprise partnering, feedback, team collocation and team size.
Although the team leader has more responsibility for team performance than the team
members, all team members carry equal responsibility for results. Decisions are made by the team,
not by the team leader acting alone. A team’s accountability is primarily for effectiveness (getting
the desired results), and secondarily for efficiency (doing things at the least cost), although, as
always, funds are limited and efficiency is important. However, when working in a complex environment, doing the right things often means losing some efficiency. For example, such things as
learning, networking, keeping information systems up-to-date on what is learned, sharing knowledge with others (such as participating in communities), trying new ways of supporting customers,
and spending time thinking about a complex situation to ensure the best decisions may all be considered inefficient in a bureaucratic organization. Yet without these activities, the utility will not be
able to function, let alone excel, in a changing and uncertain environment. Efficiency and effectiveness are independent only in a stable environment, where the products, services and customer
desires do not change considerably and there are no surprises.
Communities of practice (CoPs) are comprised of people who actually work (practice) in a
specific area of knowledge. CoPs bring people together who face many of the same issues and
opportunities. These communities are particularly effective in large organizations (where people
do not regularly interact) and across organizations (where the sharing of ideas and lessons learned
can prove extremely valuable). Communities can also be effectively employed for cross-utility
collaboration. While the focus of communities is on value added, mutual exchange and continuous
learning, participants often brainstorm and seek solutions to specific issues and problems forwarded by community members. Thus, participation and reliance on CoPs increases over time.
This powerful form of community can prove a continuing source of ideas and energy for long-term
KM implementation.
Every decision an individual makes is a result of life experiences and conversations and the
learning that results from those experiences and conversations. Thus the networks we belong to
help define who we are, contributing to our self-confidence, purpose and identity. They also provide a source for getting one or more opinions in a trusted environment, whether this is achieved
through consulting a boss or employee, or a trusted and knowledgeable member of a team or community. The active relationship networks that crisscross organizations increase awareness, provide
redundancies, and affect organizational responsiveness in terms of agility and flexibility. An organization can react faster when information around key areas of concern is flowing freely. An active
relationship network also provides a monitoring and scanning system for problems and opportunities. It is easy to see how important everyday conversations can become to both individuals and
their organizations. The good news is that each individual manages their own relationship network
of people. If an individual’s networking is effective—based on interdependency, trust, a common
framework, openness, the flow of information and knowledge, and equitability—that individual’s
decisions will be more effective.
Becoming a Change Agent
Everyone working in their utility to improve the way it achieves its mission can be considered a change agent. Since knowledge—and by extension KM—is at the core of every individual’s
contribution to the mission of the utility, implementation of a KM strategy or initiative is no exception. Further, an organization cannot change in a vacuum. This means that as changes occur within
a utility, other parts of the utility and its stakeholders need to be changing as well. This also means
that as the environment changes, the state-of-the-art changes, or another utility discovers a better
way of doing things, your utility must be willing to consider, evaluate and, as appropriate, embrace
these changes.
While the easiest approach might be to order change to occur, this does not work in a complex organization such as a utility. In order for organizations to change, people must change. When
people change they move through the following cognitive processes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Awareness (aware of the needed action)
Understanding (understand its meaning and the expected result)
Believing (believe that the action is real and will work)
Feeling good (feel good about taking the action)
Ownership (feel a personal responsibility for taking action)
Empowerment (feel they have the right, knowledge and freedom to take action)
Impact (know that taking this action will make a difference)
While this sounds difficult (and often it is), it can also occur within an instant. For example, if you
are a trouble-shooter in a drinking water utility and a water main breaks in front of you, there is no
doubt you move through this process and take some action within seconds, even if that action is to
hit an emergency button call for assistance. Thus the intent of a KM strategy or initiative is to
embed that same response in terms of knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and knowledge
retention.
An important part of the change approach in KM is to overcome barriers before they
become barriers. One approach is to use a team or community to identify potential barriers, then
brainstorm ways to remove these barriers or negate their impact on the success of the KM strategy
or initiative being planned. Equally important is to identify and recognize what is working well.
Built on the precept that what we focus on becomes our reality, an Appreciative Inquiry approach
helps empower the workforce and facilitate receptivity to new ideas.
Resources Linked From the Planning Phase
• Tools: Appreciative Inquiry, Blog, Brainstorming, Brain Writing, Collaborative
Problem Solving, Community of Interest, Community of Practice, Document
Repository, Event Intermediation, Interviewing, KM Desk Guide, Knowledge Audit,
Knowledge Base Roadmap, Knowledge Map, Knowledge Ontology, Knowledge
Taxonomy, Lessons Learned, Relationship Building, Shared Space, Social Network
Analysis, Storytelling, Wiki, The World Cafe
• Ideas: Community Outreach, Cross-utility Collaboration, Media Productions,
Stakeholder Engagement, Technology Related Tools
• Strategies: Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO), Increasing
Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge, Developing Knowledge Leaders,
Implementing eLearning, Knowledge Retention and Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing
Culture
• Depth Resources: Building and Sustaining CoPs (APQC study), The Change Agent’s
Strategy (MQI paper), Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture (APQC study), DON
tool ABC’s for CoP Quick Start (DON Tool), The Eleven Deadliest Sins of KM
(Fahen-Prusak paper), From Stories to Strategy (MQI paper), Guide to Virtual CoPs
(FAA pamphlet), Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, A Model for Team
Learning and Success (MQI monogram), A New Change Model (MQIpaper),
Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies (TECHi2 paper),
Relationship Network Management (MQIpaper), Systems and Complexity Thinking
(MQI paper), Virtual Collaboration (APQC study)
• White Papers: 4003 White Paper #3 (barriers)
• Project Studies 1, 5, 9, 23
• Case Examples 1, 2, 10, 16, 18, 20, 22
• Case Studies: The DON Case Study, Learn@WELL Case Study, Singapore Case
Study
The Executing Phase
Start-up of the KM project usually means the beginning of execution or implementation of
the project plan. If the planning has been thorough, the project team is in place and networks have
been identified or established. Start-up is the time to set in motion project activities such as allocating resources, contract administration, distributing information and communicating the project
plan to stakeholders and the project team, which must be managed, motivated, informed, encouraged, empowered and supported. After start-up, the project moves into an expansion and growth
phase where the processes and approaches needed to sustain the project are established, and implementation gets under way.
Leading and Managing
With the emergence of knowledge leadership over the past several decades, new relationships between leaders, followers, and knowledge have also emerged. In the past knowledge was
held tightly at the higher levels of an organization and used to maintain control. Today knowledge
that is essential to the success of the utility resides in people at all levels. Further, because knowledge needs shift and change in response to new demands and ideas from the environment, no single individual or group of individuals can have all the knowledge necessary to run a utility. In this
new world, there is some shift in authority from upper and middle management and leadership to
the workforce, which essentially means that management and leadership give employees more
freedom while still maintaining responsibility—something that is difficult for some line managers
and supervisors to do! Yet, for leaders and the utility to take advantage of worker’s knowledge and
experience for organizational improvement, the context, direction and authority to make local
decisions should be at the point of action where the best knowledge resides.
Thus the role of leaders is much that of a gardener. Leaders are available for advice; for
integrating the efforts of knowledge workers; for nurturing an atmosphere of trust, collaboration,
confidence and integrity; for listening and being a sounding board; and for overriding knowledge
workers (only) when they believe that a fatal mistake is about to be made. Mistakes will happen.
They are a necessary part of living in a turbulent environment, and having the freedom to make
mistakes is the price for creativity, agility, learning, and optimum complexity. What is critical is
that knowledge workers learn from all mistakes. Leaders recognize that there are some areas and
times, when workers must follow exact procedures and deviating from the rules cannot be allowed.
A clear example is safety procedures or high risk areas. Thus modern leaders have to work with
their utilities under both conditions, perhaps at the same time, encouraging new ideas and exploration to improve efficiency or effectiveness in one area of operations while ensuring rigid discipline
and training in another.
In addition to providing resources and guidance to their team, a primary job of the project
(team) leader is to monitor and assess project progress. Information on progress must be evaluated,
comprehended and acted upon. Variations should be investigated, and adjustments made when
necessary, while keeping the entire project team informed. While an in-depth treatment of project
management actions is beyond the scope of this project, included here is a quick synopsis of management actions during the expansion and growth phase and sustainability phase.
• Check the progress of activities against the plan and make adjustments where necessary, ensuring that all stakeholders are informed of any changes and, where possible,
included in the decision-making process.
• Review performance regularly and at the pre-planned review points, and confirm the
validity and relevance of the remainder of the plan.
• Adjust the plan if necessary in light of performance, changing circumstances, and new
information, but remaining on track and within the original terms of reference.
• Use transparent, pre-agreed assessment measures when judging performance.
• Identify, agree and delegate new actions as appropriate.
• Inform team members and those in authority about developments, clearly, concisely
and in writing.
• Plan and execute team review meetings.
• Stick to established monitoring systems.
• Probe the apparent situations to get at the real facts and figures.
• Analyze causes and learn from mistakes.
• Identify reliable advisors and experts on the team and use them.
• Keep talking to people, and make time available to all.
• Share everything possible with all team members.
The Four Organizational Processes
In every organization there are four processes that are used continuously, although often
they are used unconsciously, invisible or merged together depending on the problem and experience of the individuals involved. Together, these four processes—creativity, problem-solving,
decision-making and implementation—constitute a procedure for ensuring that all aspects of a
situation are taken into account. Knowledge is at the heart of all four of these processes, and
undoubtedly all four will play a role in planning and preparing for, executing and sustaining KM
strategies and initiatives.
Creativity is both an art and a science. The creative process typically has four stages.
• Stage one is the problem, situation, or opportunity identification where a thorough
discussion of the issues and objectives occurs among interested/responsible organizational employees to ensure common understanding of the desired effort.
• Stage two is gathering relevant information needed to focus potential new ideas and
to provide stimulation for idea generation.
• Stage three is the actual generation of ideas via brainstorming or some other
technique.
• Stage four is the discussion; evaluation and prioritization of ideas to determine which
ones are the best.
Each of these stages is built upon the collaboration and interactions among individuals and the
exchange of ideas. Further, creativity is part of the learning process. Each assumption leads to an
entirely different set of ideas that are acceptable for consideration. A useful technique to aid thinking out of the box is to first surface the basic assumptions of individuals and teams that may underlie an initial response, and then change that set of assumptions and follow the consequences. This
frees up the mind to generate more and different ideas.
Problem-solving is one of the most important processes in the organization. Taking inputs
from the creative process as needed, the problem-solving process provides the links between ideas,
problems, and decisions. The output of the problem-solving team or community is a solution set of
alternatives that provide ways to achieve a desired situation or problem solution. There is no one
process for solving problems, and rarely is there a single solution. When people, organizations, and
complex relationships exist, it is often impossible to identify causes. Before a team can solve a
problem, it must first agree on exactly what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Since for the
most complex problems there is rarely enough right information or time to provide a definitive,
clean solution, finding solutions to complex problems becomes a creative act.
Decision-making refers to the selection of one or more alternatives generated by the
problem-solving process. Some key points to note concerning decisions are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
No decision is a decision.
All complex decisions involve values and judgments.
No one can predict the future.
Every decision is a guess about the future.
The quality of a decision cannot be measured by its outcome.
There are many ways to make decisions and just as many processes. But no matter what process is
used, there are some questions that should be considered before starting to make a decision. First,
who should make the decision? Then, if it is determined that a team should make the decision, how
will the outcome be measured? What is the type and degree of team interaction needed during team
decision-making discussions? Will the decision require creative thinking or analysis and logic? Do
all team members need to be present? Should outside experts participate in the process? Is facilitation needed? Finally, what is the sequence of thinking that the team will go through to arrive at a
decision? As the environment becomes more complex, decision-makers at the point of action
(residing at all levels throughout the organization) must increasingly rely on their intuition and
judgment.
Implementation is the act of taking good decisions and turning them into actions and
changes that solve problems, satisfy customers, take advantage of new opportunities, and enhance
the image and value of the utility. Implementation is the most situation-dependent of the major
processes. The details of the actions required to achieve the desired results cannot be generalized.
However, there are a few points to remember. When individuals who have responsibility for implementation are aligned with the decision, implementation becomes much more effective. Ultimately,
implementation is built on relationships and an understanding of the objectives and the environment. Efficiency and clarity of communication, coupled with openness and a sincere concern to
share understanding and get participation, will help ensure success. The paragraphs that are covered in this section on execution are specifically concerned with the implementation of KM strategies and initiatives.
Knowledge Capture
What we refer to as knowledge capture is actually the capturing of information that can
then be used by decision-makers to create knowledge. Information can be captured in many ways.
For example, every time utility workers develop white papers, research papers and reports, they
are capturing their knowledge in the form of information which others can read and hopefully
understand. A large part of how well this information is understood is based on context and a common language. These documents are then stored in information systems (with contact information
for the originators), and connected to similar and complementary information that can help build
a deeper understanding of when and how to use this information in future situations.
An approach to capturing lessons learned is after action reviews, real-time communication
vehicles that share understanding across the implementation team while also serving as lessons
learned for those who later read them, and assessment instruments for those who later analyze
them. After action reviews are held immediately after an event has occurred while the details are
fresh in the minds of participants. The actual outcome of the event is compared with the intended
outcome to discover what went right and why, and what went wrong and why in a candid, open
discussion. There must be sufficient detail and clarity to ensure everyone understands what did and
did not occur (and why) so that lessons can be understood and applied to future actions. Many
organizations also hold pre-event and during-event reviews. The pre-action review brings an
implementation team together to focus on the direction ahead, how progress will be assessed, and
sharing lessons learned from previous projects or related events. The during-action review provides the opportunity to assess progress and adjust actions underway accordingly.
The learning history is a structured process for gathering information related to a project,
mission or initiative. It is a retrospective history of significant events in an organization’s recent
past described in the words of people who took part in those events. Researched through a series
of debriefings or reflective interviews, the learning history uses feedback from employees at all
levels to help an organizational evaluate its progress and provide information for future
decisions.
The KM desk guide is a document residing on the desk (or virtually within the system supporting that desk) that contains the specific information needed to successfully accomplish the job
of the individual who works from that desk. Each desk guide is updated annually, as changes
occur, or as an individual is preparing to leave a position to ensure ease of job transition. The KM
desk guide also serves as a resource for temporary employees and development of an expertise
locator.
Knowledge Harvesting
Best practices and lessons learned have no intrinsic value. Their benefits come from ensuring that they are effectively transferred and applied. The harvesting of information by decisionmakers that can create the knowledge needed to make the best decisions is achieved through good
information systems, the flow of information and knowledge across the utility, and the decisionmaker’s competency. Good information systems means systems and processes that ensure the
value, relevancy, currency and credibility of information and the ability to access what is needed.
The flow of information and knowledge across an organization is enabled by the interactions
among people, whether that is through formal work structures, teams and communities, through
information relationship networks, or through casual conversations and discussions, all creating
knowledge moments.
Resources Linked From the Executing Phase
• Tools: After Action Reviews, Brainstorming, Brain Writing, Causal Loop Diagram,
Collaborative Problem Solving, Community of Practice, Concept Mapping, Dialogue,
Expertise Locator, Facilitation, Force Field Analysis, Interviewing, Interviewing
Profiling Tool, Knowledge Base Development, KM Desk Guide, Knowledge
Moments, Knowledge Taxonomy, Ladder of Inference, Leave a Legacy, Lessons
Learned, Peer View Process, Prioritization Matrix, Shared Space, Sleep On It,
Storytelling, The World Café (See the Tools section under Resources in the Toolkit.)
• Ideas: Group Learning, Knowledge sharing, Technology-Related Tools
• Depth Resources: Collaborative Leadership (MQI paper), The Depth of Knowledge
(MQI paper), Influence of Knowledge on Leadership (MQI research paper),
Information Literacy (MQI paper), Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, A
Model for Team Learning and Success (MQI monogram), Relationship Network
Management, Retaining Valuable Knowledge (APQC study), A Systems Approach to
Capturing Knowledge (MQI chart), Thinking Systems and Complexity (MQI paper)
• White Papers: Knowledge Mobilization
• Project Studies 1,2, 7, 8
• Case Examples 15, 21
• Case Studies: DON Case Study, NASA-Kennedy Space Center KM Case Study,
NASA Web-Based Collaborative Decision Support
The Sustaining Phase
The strategy or initiative is underway. While measures have been determined early in the
Planning stage, now is where they will tell the story. Thus a discussion of measures is included in
this section. A classic and continuing challenge to management is to follow through on a strategy,
program or project. Too often they start with a big bang and gradually fade into the distance as
other demands (and perhaps opposition) slow down momentum. From experiences like these,
many workers take a cautious or even cynical view of new efforts to “improve” the utility. This
makes it even more important that any new program or strategy is designed to be sustainable for
as long as it contributes to the health and performance of the utility. To be sustainable, a program
has to validate its contribution to utility performance. But that is not enough. The program needs
to be able to adapt to the needs of the organization and have other characteristics addressed below.
A major contribution offered by Knowledge Management is its ability to help the entire utility
adapt and maintain high performance by supporting several of the below listed organizational
characteristics.
Nurturing Organizational Health
Organizational health is the capacity to maintain high performance in a changing, uncertain, complex and anxiety-producing environment. An organization is considered healthy when it
has the internal capacity and capability to deal with this new reality over time. Because organizational performance is the sum of every decision and action every day in the organization, the
healthier the organization, the higher the quality of decision-making and consequent actions. Eight
factors that considerably influence the capacity of an organization to sustain high performance in
this environment are provided below with descriptions.
• Continuous learning (workers and organizations always gaining knowledge and
adapting behavior)
• Quick response (the organization is capable of reacting/responding quickly when
needed.)
• Robustness (the capacity to operate in a broad range of environments)
• Resiliency (the ability to recover readily, to resume its original performance)
• Flexibility (capable of being changed, or flexed, susceptible to influence or persuasion, tractable)
• Adaptability (the ability to change to fit a specific need or situation; an alteration or
adjustment in structure or habits)
• Stakeholder satisfaction (providing value that satisfies stakeholders—customers,
governance boards, regulatory agencies, local communities and employees)
• Alignment (the capacity of an organization to simultaneously maintain organizational
cohesion and worker empowerment).
In a 2005 study involving participants from 24 Federal government organizations, two
hundred senior executives surveyed felt that stakeholder satisfaction, resilience and robustness
were strengths of their organizations. On the other hand, alignment, adaptability, quick response
and flexibility were seen as organizational capabilities that were below average. This meant that
their organizations were controlling without good cohesion, structurally difficult to change, perhaps slow to respond and not very flexible—characteristics typical of a bureaucracy. Rightfully so,
there was significant concern expressed regarding their ability to deal with an environment that is
rapidly becoming more dynamic, uncertain and complex. Drinking water utilities are facing these
same issues.
When a utility recognizes the value knowledge and knowledge sharing contribute to organizational sustainability—a focus on the value of people and their interactions—they are building
the foundation for sustainability. When aligned and focused on stakeholder satisfaction, this means
that the best knowledge is available to decision-makers at all levels of the organization every day.
Embedding
All the steps taken in the start-up and the growth and expansion phase to ensure project
expectations are being fulfilled and are firmly in place during the sustainability phase. The implementation team understands expectations and is a cohesive connected body, empowered and making decisions at the point of action. The ultimate goal is for the implementation team to move into
a supporting role as the strategy or initiative becomes embedded in the everyday life of the
utility.
Stories and storytelling are a powerful tool for sustaining change. The construction of fictional examples (or of true experiences) to illustrate a point can be used to effectively transfer
knowledge. When well-constructed, stories can convey a high level of complex meaning and values. A variety of story forms exist naturally throughout every organization, including scenarios—
the articulation of possible future states, constructed within the imaginative limits of the author,
and anecdotes—brief sequences captured in the field or arising from brainstorming sessions. While
scenarios provide awareness of alternatives, they can also be used as planning tools for possible
future situations. Anecdotes can be used to reinforce positive behavior; leaders can seek out and
disseminate true anecdotes that embody the values desired in the organization. Healthy organizations are filled with anecdotes.
Open communications across a utility play a large role in facilitating knowledge sharing.
For examples see ideas for building shared understanding. In addition to interactions through
teams, communities and meetings, best practices and lessons learned can be communicated across
the utility in regular communications publications, some of which could be made available to
stakeholders. Specific ways to engage stakeholders include community meeting, focus groups and
town halls.
Sharing
Knowledge sharing is not merely a transfer of information; it is bringing people together to
interact and exchange different experiences and share understanding. Any time two or more utility
employees engage dialogue this is occurring. Through dialogue an individual’s context can be
conveyed, allowing each participant to gain the explicit knowledge shared by the other and to create new knowledge through a mutual learning process. For example, mentoring—a relationship
between an experienced utility and a younger professional—can facilitate the sharing of shallow
and deep knowledge.
Knowledge is one of those rare things you can give away and still have. In the past, knowledge was used in organizations to control others and maintain power. Today, knowledge hoarders
have limited value to their organizations and often create cultural barriers to learning. Wherever
possible, it is best to develop and share as much knowledge as possible so that others can act independently and develop their own internally and situation-driven behavior. Through reciprocal
sharing, innovation springs into being.
While a necessary first step, simply having access to knowledge does not constitute sharing. For example, many organizations make information available through technology systems,
but fail to incorporate knowledge maps or guides for users so they can find what they need and put
it to use. Yet, as The World Bank discovered, knowledge sharing has become a strategic necessity
to survival. A growing number of organizations are recognizing the need for collaboration across
organizational boundaries.
Ideally, knowledge sharing emerges as part of the culture. Some examples that facilitate
knowledge sharing are: the support and use of teams and communities as part of the everyday work
process, the example of openness and integrity set by senior leadership; and an awards program
that rewards knowledge sharing.
Evaluating and Measuring
While there is a need to measure expenses, schedule, scope, and quality, there are also subjective measures for things like your team’s relationship with stakeholders, knowledge sharing,
innovative ideas emerging, etc. Any measure is appropriate if it helps ensure the project is on track
with its strategic intent. When picking metrics, ensure that you are measuring for the future.
Because what gets measured is what gets attention, it is important to think forward to the desired
end state and identify performance measures that move beyond specific goals to serving as part of
the implementation change strategy. The knowledge centric organization model designed by the
Department of the Navy uses three types of metrics to assess different levels of KM impact, namely
outcome (enterprise or overall value), output (project or task), and system (technology tool).
The perspectives of the customer, department, organization, and individual are critical to
the project’s success and, as appropriate, need to be incorporated into its evolution. The implication
for KM metrics is that it is important to identify who is likely to use the performance measurement
information. Potential users include strategic decision makers, special project decision makers,
funding and approval stakeholders, government agencies involved in approval or regulation, or
customers. Measures should be in terms that are familiar to the stakeholder, there may be several
different metrics that need to be captured for an initiative. There is no one “right” set of measures
for KM, and most initiatives will require a combination of measurement types and classes to reflect
the overall mission and strategy of the utility and effectively communicate with key individuals.
Learning
If there was one core competency of an organization—and the people within the organization—that could be culled out from others to ensure success, it is learning. Learning is the process
that creates new meaning from experience and new capabilities for action. Strangely enough,
while learning is critical to the life of individuals and the utility, few people have ever focused on
learning how to learn.
Knowledge is the result of learning. To become a knowledge utility means to become a
learning utility. To put learning in perspective, consider several closely related concepts: training,
education, and what might be called acquiring deep knowledge. All of these are forms of learning,
each emphasizing a different goal with varying processes used for each. Training deals with developing skills and abilities that do not require abstract concepts or a great deal of experience. Training
usually has a narrow focus, and results that achieve a specific capability. Education is usually
thought of as a process of learning about things that provide the learner with a broad, balanced
perspective on the world and the ability to understand and deal with many areas of life. Deep learning refers to the acquisition and understanding of highly abstract and complex concepts, systems
and information. For example, a deep knowledge of calculus would be the ability to solve calculus
problems which would include understanding the foundations of the theory, its limitations, and
domain of application. Deep knowledge is created by study, reflection, assimilation, practice,
problem-solving, and “living with the subject.”
People learn best by doing. Action learning is a task-oriented group process that is useful
for approaching narrowly focused issues. Individual learning can be facilitated through the use of
new technologies include podcasts, Wikipedia, and a school in Second Life (see Appendix H,
under Individual Learning.) Group learning approaches include retreats, brown bag lunches,
speaker series and workshops.
Continuous learning (the creation of new ideas) and the ability to effectively (and often
quickly) act on those ideas are paramount in any organization involved in knowledge work.
Continuous learning is a daily routine for knowledge workers as new challenges require new ideas,
solutions and approaches.
Resources Linked From the Sustaining Phase
• Tools: Action Learning, After Action Reviews, Mentoring, Learning How to Learn,
Storytelling
• Ideas: Communications Publications, Community Outreach, Group Learning,
Individual Learning, Knowledge Sharing, Cross-utility Collaboration, Media
Productions, Recognition and Rewards, Stakeholder Engagement
• Depth Resources: Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture (APQC report), DON
Metrics Guide, Learning and Knowledge Management (MQI paper), Regulatory
Perspectives for Drinking Water utilities (MQI report)
• White Papers: The Business Case for KM,
• Project Studies 3, 4, 24
• Case Examples 5, 6, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19
• Case Studies: DON Case Study
THE TOOLS
Tools are practices and processes to support implementation of KM in drinking water utilities. Each tool can be considered separately as an initiative, or a set of tools can be used in support
of a KM strategy. These tools can also support other utility strategies.
While many of the tools have been linked directly from the phases of the KM Toolkit, others are cross-linked from the strategies, ideas pages, and other tools. There are 55 tools, most of
which could be considered as KM initiatives. Table 8.1 lists each tool, a description of the tool,
what it supports and what it is connected to in the virtual KM Toolkit. For ease of use, each tool is
also rated in terms of level of effort, size of utility, and scope of work.
The level of effort is the relative amount of investment in terms of time, people, and funds
needed to implement an initiative. Level of effort is indicated as low, medium or high. The size of
utility appropriate for each tool is indicated as small, medium, large or scalable. Small is 0–50
people, medium is 50–300 people, and large is greater than 300 employees. The term “scalable”
indicates that the tool can be effectively used in all sizes of utilities. The scope of work indicates
the range of situations, issues, problems that this tool (initiative) can address. This is expressed in
terms of narrow, medium and wide. Two additional indicators that periodically appear in relationship to specific tools are “C2” and “NA.” C2 means that the initiative is very context and content
sensitive, and is difficult to categorize. NA represents “not applicable.”
The detailed Tools that are part of the KM Toolkit are in Appendix C.
THE IDEAS
Ideas pages are resource lists that include a variety of concepts and approaches that can
support the application of KM practices in drinking water utilities. Each concept or approach
includes a short description. In the virtual toolkit, Ideas pages also include links to Tools, Project
Studies, Case Examples and Case Studies as appropriate. The Ideas pages were developed to build
the catalogue of choices and stimulate the imagination.
Table 8.2 lists the areas in which the Ideas are organized and a descriptor of the ideas in
each area.
The KM Toolkit Ideas pages are in Appendix H.
OTHER RESOURCES
In addition to the Tools and Ideas introduced above, the KM Toolkit includes Project
Studies, White Papers, Case Examples, Case Studies and other Resource Documents. KM Toolkit
indexes are listed in Appendix I.
Project Studies
Project Studies are short studies contributed by drinking water utilities nationwide specifically for Project 4003. These Project Studies are examples of KM initiatives that are either in the
process of implementation or have been applied. (See Chapter 2 and Appendix B.)
Table 8.1
Tools (initiatives) in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit
Tool
Action
learning
Affinity
diagram
After action
review
Appreciative
inquiry
Ba spaces
Description
A process involving
a small group of
people learning
as they solve real
problems.
Supports
• Problem solving
• Individual and
group learning
• Team collaboration
Sends to
• After Action Review
• Collaborative Problem
Solving Forum
• Group Learning
• Individual Learning
• Learning History
Case Examples #6,7
A process for
• Group Learning
• Knowledge Audit
categorizing utility
• Knowledge Audit
• Knowledge Base Roadmap
knowledge needs in
• Knowledge Mapping,
a diagram format to
• Knowledge Ontology
exhibit differences
• Knowledge Taxonomy
and relationships.
Case Examples #16,19, MQI
paper Systems Thinking
A group process
• Knowledge sharing • Action Learning
for assessing the
• Learning
• Group Learning
effectiveness of
• Assessment
• Key Learning Document
events or the way
• Knowledge
• Knowledge Sharing
situations were
retention
handled.
• Innovation
• Lessons Learned
• Peer View
• Process
• Sample Report
Project Study #23, Case
Examples #6,7,17
An approach
• Organizational
• Action Learning
to accelerating
learning
• Best practices
receptivity to new
• Culture change
• Recognition and Rewards
ideas, behavior
• Relationship Building
change, and the
• Success Stories
adoption of best
Project Study #5, MQI paper
practices.
on Relationship Network
Management
Collaborative
• Knowledge
• Dialogue
spaces designed into
retention
• Knowledge Moments
the workplace to
• Knowledge sharing • Knowledge Sharing
facilitate knowledge • Learning
• Shared Space
moments.
• Team building
• Case Examples #10,12,21,
MQI paper on Relationship
Network Management
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Low/scalable/wide
Low/scalable/narrow
Med/scalable/wide
Med/scalable/wide
Low/scalable/wide
(continued)
Tool
Description
Supports
Benchmarking
A process for
• Organizational
identifying good
Learning
practice in external • Process
organizations,
Improvement
learning from them, • Culture Change
and adapting to your
utility.
Sends to
• Action Learning
• Appreciative Inquiry
• Best Practices
• Case Study
• Interviewing
• Group Learning
• Lessons Learned
• Resources
• Success Stories
Project Studies #3,11, Case
Examples #22, APQC
benchmarking studies, MQI
paper CONTEXT
Best practices A systematic process • Organizational
for transferring best
learning
Solving Forum
practices between
• Utility operations
• Community of Interest
groups within the
• Utility performance • Community of Practice
utility or across
and sustainability
• Facilitation
utilities.
• Interview Process
• Lessons Learned
• Resources Success Stories
• Technology Related Tools
Project Study #21,25, Case
Example #16, APQC Best
Practice Studies in Resources
Blog
A conversational
• Knowledge sharing • Building Trust
web site maintained • Learning
• Dialogue
by an individual.
• Team building
• Shared Space
• Relationship
building
• Wiki
Case Examples #18,20
BrainA process for
• Innovation
• Brain Writing
storming
enhancing the
• Consensus building • Collaborative Problem
creation and flow of • Problem solving
Solving Forum
new ideas.
• Teambuilding
• Concept Mapping
• Relationship
building
• Sleep On It
Examples #4,15
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Med/scalable/C2 C2
= context/content
dependent
C2/C2/C2 C2 =
context/content
dependent
Low/scalable/wide
Low/scalable/C2 C2
= context/content
dependent
(continued)
Tool
Description
Brain writing A process to help
groups collaborate
when dealing with
sensitive idea or
issue.
Case study
An approach
to learning and
decision-making
grounded by real-life
situations.
Causal loop
A process for
diagram
representing the
cause and effect
relationships among
variables.
Supports
Sends to
•
•
•
•
• Brainstorming
Solving Forum
Collaboration
Problem solving
Conflict resolution
Group learning
• Knowledge sharing • Benchmarking
• Learning
• Storytelling
assessment
Case Examples #9,16,
• Problem solving
• Knowledge sharing
Solving Forum
• Learning
• Concept Mapping
• Force Field Analysis
Case Examples # 4,5, DON
Case Study
Collaborative An approach for
• Collaboration
• Action Learning
problem
creating and sharing • Problem solving
• Best Practices
solving forum knowledge about
• Process
• Brainstorming
practices.
improvement
• Causal Loop Diagram
• Workforce learning • Group learning
• Facilitation
• Force Field Analysis
• Ladder of Inference
• Prioritization Matrix
• Sleep on It
• Storyboard
Case Examples #5,22
CommunA method for linking • Knowledge sharing • Collaborative Problem
ication plan
messages to target
• Learning
Solving Forum
audiences and
• Assessment
• Communications
indicating the timely
Publications
communication
of important
information.
• Leadership Commitment
• Visibility
• Media Productions
• Social Network Analysis
Examples #16,18,21
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Low/scalable/narrow
Med/scalable/C2 C2
= context/content
dependent
Med/scalable/narrow
Med/scalable/wide
Low/scalable/C2 C2
= context/content
dependent
(continued)
Tool
Description
Supports
Sends to
Community
of practice
A group of
individuals who
work in a common
area of knowledge.
• Learning
• Knowledge
retention
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Community
of interest
A group of
individuals who
communicate with
each other within
a common area of
knowledge.
A technique for
mapping the
relationships among
different concepts.
A small group of
people seeking
a common
understanding
through a specific
process called
dialogue.
Concept
mapping
Dialogue
Document
repositories
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Best Practices
Med/large/wide
Building Trust
Community of Interest
Cross-utility
Collaboration
Expertise Locator
Knowledge Base Roadmap
Lessons Learned
Reference Materials for
Knowledge Sharing
Examples #4,6,15,16,17,18,
DON Case Study, Learn @
WELL Case Study, APQC
Building and Sustaining CoPs,
APQC Virtual Collaboration,
DON ABC’s for CoP Quick
Start, FAA Guide to Virtual
CoPs
• Knowledge sharing • Best Practices
Med/large/wide
• Learning
• Community of Practice
• Cross Training
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Knowledge
APQC Virtual Collaboration,
retention
Case Examples #4,6,
Singapore Case Study
• Knowledge sharing • Brainstorming
Low/scalable/narrow
• Idea generation
• Causal Loops
• Learning
Case Examples #5,16
• Knowledge creation
• Individual and
organizational
learning
• Group collaboration
• Creating shared/
common
understanding
A technology for
• Expertise location
storing, tracking, and • Knowledge sharing
managing formatted
information objects.
• Blog
Solving Forum
• World Café
Case Examples #11,13,21
Low/scalable/wide
• Knowledge Audit
High/scalable/wide
TECHi2 Paper on Taxonomy
and Ontology, Project Studies
#2,10,13,14,19,24,28.32, Case
Examples #2, 16
(continued)
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Tool
Description
Supports
Sends to
Engaging
golden
expertise
A program or
series of actions for
engaging employees
who have retires
or external experts
who are no longer
fully engaged in the
workplace.
An event for which
the planning process
and actual event are
strategically used to
bring about largescale change across a
utility and its larger
stakeholder group.
A system for
connecting
knowledge seekers
with knowledge
holders to facilitate
knowledge
exchange.
A process of leading
and collaboratively
working with a
group of individuals
to achieve a specific
objective by
maximizing group
synergy.
A mechanism
for assessing and
dealing with the
various forces that
aid or hinder the
implementation of a
program or project.
A one-on-one
process for
gathering first-hand
information.
• Knowledge
retention
• utility performance
• Organizational
learning
• Employee
development
• Leave a Legacy
MQI Graphic Systems
Approach, Project Study #12,
Med/scalable/wide
• Change
management
• Knowledge flows
• Customer relations
• Community Outreach
DON Case Study, Singapore
Case Study, MQI paper on
Systems and Complexity
Med-high/
med-large/wide
Event
intermediation
Expertise
locator
Facilitation
Force field
analysis
Interviewing
• Knowledge sharing • Document Repository
Med/scalable/wide
• Decision-making
• Engaging Golden Expertise
Examples #6,10,15,16, Case
Stud; NASA Kennedy Space
Center
•
•
•
•
Knowledge sharing • Dialogue
Problem-solving
Case Examples #9,13
Brainstorming
Leadership
development
Brainstorming
Brain Writing
Causal Loop Diagram
Concept Mapping
Low/scalable/med
• Problem solving
• Decision support
• Collaboration and
knowledge sharing
•
•
•
•
• Knowledge
retention
• Information
gathering
• Interviewing Profiling Tool Med/scalable/C2 C2
• Key Learning’s Document = context/content
• KM Desk Guide
dependent
• KM Plan
(continued)
Low/scalable/narrow
Tool
Description
Supports
Interviewing
profiling tool
Provides pertinent
questions to
interview key
personnel.
Key leanings
document
Short summaries of
specific actions and
results in context.
Knowledge
audit
An inquiry into
what knowledge an
organization has,
who has it and how
it flows throughout
the organization.
• Knowledge
• Dialogue
retention
• Interviewing
• Knowledge sharing • Knowledge Desk Guide
Case Examples #6,15
• Knowledge
• Dialogue
retention
• Interviewing
• Knowledge sharing • Knowledge Desk Guide
Case Examples#6,15
• Organizational
• Communities of practice
assessment
Interviewing Profiling Tool
• Strategic planning • Knowledge Blueprint
• Succession
• Knowledge Mapping
planning
• Decision-making
• Knowledge sharing Examples #1,2,
• Knowledge
retention
• Organizational
learning
• Knowledge sharing • Best Practices
• Communities of
• Document Repository
practice
• Knowledge Audit
• Knowledge reuse
• Knowledge Blueprint
• Knowledge
retention
• Lessons Learned
• Picture Map
• Shared Space
• Storyboard
Case Example #2
• Knowledge
• Knowledge Audit
acquisition
• Knowledge sharing Case Examples #1,16
• Learning
Knowledge
A framework
base roadmap for building a
knowledge base in
a specific area of
knowledge.
Knowledge
blueprint
Knowledge
management
desk guide
A template for
recording KSI
(knowledge, skill,
information)
requirements.
An information
• Knowledge
resource specifically
retention
tied to job activity.
• New hires
• Job transition
• Resource
management
Sends to
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Med/scalable/C2 C2
= context/content
dependent
Med/scalable/C2 C2
= context/content
dependent
High/scalable/wide
High/med-large/
wide
Med/scalable/wide
•
•
•
•
•
Interviewing Profiling Tool Med/scalable/wide
KM Plan
Leave a Legacy
Learning History
Sample Desk Guide
Templates (1) and (2)
(continued)
Tool
Description
Knowledge
management
plan
A plan to implement
a knowledge
management
initiative or strategy
within a Drinking
Water utility.
KM plan
sample plan
Knowledge
mapping
Knowledge
moments
Knowledge
ontology
Supports
Sends to
• Knowledge sharing • Additional Assessment
• Knowledge creation
Tools
• Succession
• Benchmarking
planning
• Creating a
• Leadership Commitment
knowledge centric • Visibility
organization
• Sample KM Plan
Examples #5,8,9,10,11,12,18,
DON Metrics Guide, Learn@
WELL Case Study, Singapore
Case Study
(See KM Plan)
• (See KM Plan)
• KM Desk Guide
• Leave a Legacy
A process for
• Knowledge audit
• Benchmarking
indentifying
• Knowledge flows
• Expertise Locator
and illustrating
• Strategic planning • Knowledge Audit
the location of
• Succession
• Sample Questions
knowledge within an
Planning
organization.
• Decision-making
Learn@WELL, Case Study,
A new frame
• Knowledge sharing • Appreciative Inquiry
of reference for
• Organizational
• Ba Space
creating and
learning
• Community Outreach
supporting situations
• Group Learning
that connect people
and their knowledge.
• Peer View Process
• Shared Spaces
• The World Café
Case Example #6, Singapore
Case Study, MQI paper on
Systems and Complexity
The conceptual
• Knowledge sharing • Document Repository
framework
• Search and retrieval • Folksonomies
that expresses
a classification
• Knowledge Base
scheme.
Development
• Taxonomy
Case Example #14, TECHi2
paper on Ontologies and
Taxonomies
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Med/scalble/wide
(See KM plan)
Med/scalable/wide
Low/scalable/wide
Med/scalable/
narrow*foundational
for knowledge
taxonomy
(continued)
Tool
Description
Supports
Knowledge
taxonomy
A structured set
of names and
descriptions used to
organize information
and knowledge in a
consistent way.
An approach
for checking the
assumptions related
to our mental
processes.
A structured process
for gathering
information related
to a strategy, project
or initiative.
• Knowledge sharing • Folksonomies
• Search and retrieval • Knowledge Mapping
• Decision-making
• Ontology
TECHi2 paper on Ontologies
and Taxonomies
• Decision-making
• Learning
Solving Forum
• Knowledge sharing • Facilitation
Case Examples #9,21
High/scalable/wide
• Knowledge
retention
• Assessment
• Organizational
learning
Med/scalable/C2 C2
= context/content
dependent
Ladder of
inference
Learning
history
Sends to
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
• Interviewing
• Interviewing Profiling Tool
• Key Learning’s Document
• KM Desk Guide
• Leave a Legacy
Case Examples #3,6
Learning how A process for
• Individual learning • Dialogue
to learn
investigating your
• Decision-maker
• Group Learning
own capabilities
efficiency and
of learning and
effectiveness
• Key Learning’s Document
optimizing the
• Group learning
• Storytelling
situations in which
• Organizational
you best learn.
learning
paper Surface, Shallow and
Deep Knowledge
Leave a
A process to capture • Knowledge capture • Engaging Golden Expertise
legacy
tacit knowledge.
• Knowledge sharing • KM Desk Guide
• Knowledge
• KM Plan
retention
Lessons
A systematic
• Organizational
learned
collection, capturing,
learning
• Communications
and mobilizing
• Knowledge
• Publications
approach for
retention
• Communities of Interest
ensuring the
• Decision-making
• Communities of Practice
organization learns
• Group Learning
from its successes
and mistakes.
• Sample Lessons Learned
Report
• Success Stories
Case Examples #7,12,16,4003
paper on Knowledge
Mobilization
Low/scalable/wide
Med/scalable/wide
Med/scalable/wide
Large/scalable/wide
(continued)
Tool
Description
Supports
Sends to
Mentoring
A learning
relationship between
an experienced
employee and a
newer, high-potential
employee.
• Individual learning
• Succession
planning
• Knowledge
retention
Peer view
process
A process for
building familiarity
with (and trust of)
the expertise of
others.
• Building trust
Picture map
A map for clarifying • Knowledge sharing
a process.
• Learning
Prioritization
matrix
A process for setting
priorities for tasks or
issues.
Processes
for building
relationships within
utilities at all levels
and areas throughout
the organization.
• Dialogue
Examples #2,6, MQI paper
Management
• Dialogue
Examples #6,12
• Storyboard
• Storytelling
Example #19
• Group Learning
Case Example #21
• Ba Spaces
• Building Trust
• Dialogue
• Shared Spaces
MQI Paper Relationship
Network Management, Project
Study #29, Case Example #9,
• Ba Spaces
• Facilitation
MQI paper on Relationship
Network Management, Case
Examples #3,20,22, Learn@
WELL Case Study
Relationship
building
•
•
•
•
•
Knowledge sharing
Learning
Decision-making
Individual learning
Knowledge sharing
Shared spaces A concept
that promotes
• Creativity
environments for
• Problem solving
nurturing knowledge
sharing.
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Med/scalable/wide
Med/scalable/wide
Low/scalable/narrow
Low/scalable/narrow
Low/scalable/wide
Med/med-large/wide
(continued)
Tool
Description
Supports
Sleep on it
An approach for
improving problem
solving and
innovation.
A process for
mapping the
relationships among
people, teams, or
across organizations.
• Individual learning
• Problem solving
Social
network
analysis
Storyboards
Storytelling
Success
stories
Sends to
• Brainstorming
Solving Forum
• Knowledge sharing • Knowledge Sharing
• Organizational
learning
• Shared Space
• Improved
communications
APQC’s study on Virtual
• Information flows
Collaboration, MQI’s paper
Management
An approach
• Learning
• Group Learning
to sequentially
• Knowledge sharing • Picture Map
visualizing an event, • Knowledge
• Storytelling
process or series of
retention
activities before they
Examples #6,9
occur.
A tried and
• Knowledge sharing • Collaborative Problem
true process
• Culture change
Solving Forum
for effectively
• Individual and
• Communities of Practice
transferring
organizational
knowledge.
learning
• Lessons Learned
• Picture map
• Shared Space
• Storyboard
• Success Stories
MQI paper CONTEXT, MQI
paper Storytelling, MQI paper
From Stories to Strategies,
Examples #12,14
A strong
• Knowledge sharing • Appreciative Inquiry
methodology of
• Learning
• Best Practices
communicating best • Team building
• Communications Plan
practices across
• Communications
utility stakeholders.
Publications
• Storytelling
Example #18
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Low/NA/narrow
Low/scalable/narrow
Low/scalable/narrow
Med/scalable/wide
Med/scalable/wide
(continued)
Supports
Sends to
Level of effort/
size of utility/
scope of work
Tool
Description
The world
café
A process for
• Collaboration
building knowledge • Idea generation
about a focused need • Problem solving
or opportunity.
Med/med-large/C2
C2 = context/content
dependent
Wiki
A web site or group
of web pages used
for collaboration.
Med/med-large/wide
• Dialogue
paper on Relationship
Network Management
• Knowledge sharing • Blog
• Collaboration
• Group and
Case Example #20
individual learning
Definitions:
• Level of effort [low, med, high] = Relative amount of investment (time, people, funds) needed to implement this
initiative.
• Size of utility [small, med, large, scalable] = small is 0–50, med is 50–300, large is greater than 300 employees.
Scalable means that the tool can be used with all sizes of utilities.
• Scope of work [narrow, med, wide] = Range of situations, issues, problems that this initiative can address.
• C2 means that the initiative is very context and content sensitive and is difficult to categorize.
• NA is not applicable.
Table 8.2
Ideas in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit
Idea area
Additional assessment tools
Building trust
Descriptors of ideas
Action Assessment and Learning
Benchmarking
Case Studies
Cost Benefit Analysis
Inquiry Groups
Inventories
Surveys
“My Story” Program
“Care to Share” Blog
Social Networking
Consistency of Behavior
(continued)
Communications publications
Community outreach
Cross-utility collaboration
Group learning
Individual learning
Knowledge sharing
Background Papers
Book Review
Issues Brief
Brochures
Editorial
Fact Sheet
Flyers
Guidelines
Information Packets
Interpretative Materials
Manuals
One-Pager
Policy Updates
Posters
Presentations
Press Releases
Public Service Announcements
Contest
Demonstration
Exhibit
Festival
Tours
Inter-utility Communities of Practice
Conference
Regional Network
Retreat
Seminars
Speaker Series
Stand-Down
Workshops
Professional Development Day
Podcast
Second Life
Wikipedia
Book Learning—The Active Way
Ask, Learn, Share Model
Best Practices Celebration and Sharing Day
Case Study
Informal Events
Professional Associations
Round Table
Social Networking
Symposium
(continued)
Leadership commitment visibility
Media productions
Recognition and rewards
Reference materials for building shared
understanding
Stakeholder engagement
Technology related tools
Short Video
Pass-It-Down Training
Town Hall
Use Quotes
Knowledge Fair
Virtual CD
Documentary
DVD
Graphics
Movies
Radio Program
Story Pitches
Television Shows
Theatre
Training Videos
Knowledge in Action Award
Not Invented Here Award
Peer Recognition
Peer Nomination for Awards
Recognition by the Project Leader
Recognition by Senior Leadership
Utility Shared Knowledge Award
Acronym List
Bibliography
Glossary
Lexicon
Resource Catalog
Thesaurus
Community Meeting
Focus Group
Forum
Stakeholder Resource Kit
Symposium
Town Hall
Collaborative Decision Support Systems
Folksonomy
Multiple Search Technologies
Social Bookmarking
You Tube
Video Teleconferencing
White Papers
White Papers are research documents that address specific issues in drinking water utilities
related to KM and knowledge mobilization. Developed from the results of the Project 4003 extensive data collection process, 4003 White Papers describe: The Role of Human Resources (#1),
Opportunities and Initiatives (#2), Barriers to KM Initiatives (#3), and Critical Success Factors of
KM Initiatives(#4). These have been used in support of Chapter 5 in this report, are part of the data
in the survey results at Appendix A, and are available in the virtual KM Toolkit.
White Papers also include the KM Strategies and Detail Papers on context, integrative
product teams, management actions and optimum complexity, as well as longer papers on:
•
•
•
•
•
The WaterRF 4003 Knowledge Mobilization Program
The Business Case for KM in the Drinking Water Industry
The Current State of KM
Issues Faced by Drinking Water utilities
Regulatory Perspectives for the Water utilities
White Papers are available in the Resources section of the KM Toolkit.
Case Examples
Case Examples are KM strategies and initiatives occurring in organizations external to the
U.S. drinking water utility sector. These provide real-life implementation examples of strategies
and initiatives applied in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. (See Chapter 2 and the KM
Toolkit.)
Case Studies
Case Studies include several organizations well-known for their successful implementation
of KM; specifically, the U.S. Department of the Navy (DON) and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA). Both of these organizations are MAKE (Most Admired Knowledge
Enterprise) award winners. This section also includes a Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental
Health in Developing Countries) study and a case study on Integrating Technological Innovation
and Community Engagement in Singapore. Collectively, these studies describe technical and
socio-structural knowledge strategies and initiatives that enhance organizational learning and
knowledge sharing. (See Chapter 2 and the KM Toolkit.)
Resource Documents
Resource Documents are extensive reference materials that can help a utility implement
KM strategies and initiatives and enhance organizational learning. These include APQC (American
Productivity & Quality Center) benchmarking and best practices studies, MQI (Mountain Quest
Institute) research papers and publications, and resources contributed by IRC International Water
and Sanitation Centre, FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), TECHi2 and the U.S. Department
of Navy. Also included in a Workforce Plan developed by the Lehigh County Authority and several
papers contributed by other KM thought leaders.
Bibliography, Suggested Reading, and Glossary
The KM Toolkit also includes a Bibliography, Suggested Reading and a Glossary. The
Bibliography is a systematic list of books and other works such as articles used to prepare the toolkit. Suggested Reading is a short list of books and articles suggested for reading to further understand KM. The Glossary provides detailed definitions for knowledge and terms related to knowledge
for those who wish to reflect deeply on these terms. Note that each tool is defined and described
individually under Tools.
FINAL THOUGHTS
In summary, the KM Toolkit has been developed to aid drinking water utility leaders and
managers who desire to implement KM strategies in their utilities. In addition to the Assessment
Instrument, and detailed procedures for Planning→Preparing→Executing→Sustaining a KM
strategy is provided, together with tools, many additional Ideas, and examples of drinking water
utility projects and external case studies.
Implementing a KM strategy is different than most other organizational projects because it
includes employees, their culture, perspectives, behaviors, how they relate to each other and their
utility, the structure of the utility, and management and leadership styles and responsibilities. In
addition to the complexity of these aspects of a KM strategy, KM often represents a sea-change in
the self-image and operation of the utility.
Perhaps the single largest difference between a KM strategy project and other projects is
that KM cannot be forced on an organization by historic leadership and management control. KM
projects succeed when employees and managers create an environment within the utility in which
knowledge creation, sharing, leveraging and application occurs naturally.
REFERENCES
Al-Ali, Nermien. 2003. Comprehensive Intellectual Capital Management: Step-by-Step. John
Wiley and Sons.
Albert, Steven, and Bradley, Keith. 1997. Managing Knowledge: Experts, Agencies and
Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Albrecht, Karl. 2006. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success. Jossey-Bass.
Allee, Verna. 1997. The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence.
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Amidon, D. 1997. Innovation Strategy for the Knowledge Economy. Boston:
AMSA and AMWA (Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies). 2004. The Changing Workforce…Crisis and Opportunity.
AMSA and AMWA.
APQC (American Productivity Quality Center). Retaining Valuable Knowledge: Proactive
Strategies to Deal With a Shifting Workforce. APQC.
APQC (American Productivity Quality Center), Carlin, Stephanie, and Womack, Alexandria.
1999. Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture. Edited by Susan Elliott. APQC.
APQC (American Productivity Quality Center). 2001. Building and Sustaining Communities of
Practice: Continuing Success in Knowledge Management. Edited by Paige Leavitt. APQC.
APQC (American Productivity Quality Center), Lemons, Darcy, O’Kane, Mike, Lopez, Kimberley,
and Hubert, Cindy. 2004. Virtual Collaboration: Enabling Project Teams and Communities.
Edited by Paige Leavitt. APQC.
Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational
Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baker, Wayne. 2000. Achieving Success Through Social Capital: Tapping the Hidden Resources in
Your Personal and Business Networks. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barquin, Ramon C., Bennet, Alex, and Remez, Shereen G. 2001. Building Knowledge Management
Environments for Electronic Government. Vienna, Va.: ManagementConcepts.
Bennet, Alex. 2006. Hierarchy as a Learning Platform. VINE, 36(3).
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2004. Organizational Survival in the New World: The Intelligent
Complex Adaptive System. Boston: Elsevier.
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2006. Learning as Associative Patterning. VINE, 36(4).
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2007. Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences and
Humanities: Moving From Research to Action. Frost, W.V.: MQI Press.
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. A New Change Model: Factors for Initiating and
Implementing Personal Action Learning. VINE, 38(4).
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. eLearning as Energetic Learning. VINE, 38(2).
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. Exploring Concepts, Interpretations and Meaning. Icfai
University Press.
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. The Decision-Making Process for Complex Situations in
a Complex Environment. In Handbook on Decision Support Systems. New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. The Fallacy of Knowledge Reuse: Building Sustainable
Knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management (Knowledge Cities).
87
Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. The Learning Organization: Moving From Knowledge to
Wisdom, From Ordinary Consciousness to Extraordinary Consciousness. VINE, 38(1).
Bennet, David. 1998. IPT Learning Campus: Gaining Acquisition Results Through IPTs [Online].
Alexandria, Va.: Dynamic Systems. Available: <[email protected]>.
Bennet, David. 2006. Expanding the Knowledge Paradigm. VINE, 36(2).
Bennet, David, and Bennet, Alex. 2008. Engaging Tacit Knowledge in Support of Organizational
Learning. VINE, 38(1).
Bennet, David, and Bennet, Alex. 2008. The Depth of Knowledge: Surface, Shallow or Deep?
VINE, 38(4).
Berkman, E. 2000. Don’t Lose Your Mind, Share [Online]. CIO Magazine. Available: <http://
www.cio.com/archive/100100_mindshar.html>.
Bohm, D. 1994. Thought as a System. New York: Routledge.
Brown, J.S., Denning, S., Groh, K., and Prusak, L. 2005. Storytelling in Organizations: Why
Storytelling Is Transforming 21st Century Organizations and Management. Boston:
Brown, Juanita, Isaacs, David, and the World Café Community. 2005. The World Café: Shaping
Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Buckman, Robert H. 2004. Building a Knowledge-Driven Organization. McGraw-Hill.
Bukowitz, W., and Williams, R. 1999. The Knowledge Management Fieldbook. London: Prentice
Hall.
Burden, Paul. 2000. Knowledge Management: The Bibliography. Assist Monograph Series.
Burstein, F., and Holsapple, C.W. 2007. The Handbook on Decision Support Systems.
Springer-Verlag.
Buzan, T. 1995. The MindMap Book. 2nd ed. London: BBC Books.
Cassady, M. 1990. Storytelling Step by Step. San Jose, Calif.: Resource Publications.
Cavaleri, Steven, Seivert, Sharon, and Lee, Lee W. 2005. Knowledge Leadership: The Art and
Science of the Knowledge-Based Organization. KMCI Press.
Cohen, Don, and Prusak, Laurence. 2001. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes
Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Collison, C., and Parcell, G. 2001. Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management From
Leading and Learning Organizations. Capstone Publishing (Wiley).
Conway, Susan, and Sligar, Char. 2002. Knowledge Management: Unlocking Knowledge Assets.
Solutions From Microsoft. Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Press.
Cope, Mick. 2000. Know Your Value? Value What You Know. Prentice Hall.
Cortada, J. 1998. Rise of the Knowledge Worker. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cortada, James W., and Woods, John A. 1999. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999–2000.
Cortada, James W., and Woods, John A. 2000. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000–2001.
Cross, R., and Israelit, S. 2000. Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective,
and Organizational Learning Process. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cross, R., and Prusack, L. 2002. The People That Make Organizations Stop—Or Go. Harvard
Business Review, 80(6):104–112.
Cross, R., Nohria, N., and Parker, A. 2002. Six Myths About Informal Networks—And How to
Overcome Them. Sloan Management Review, 43(3):67–76.
References | 89
Cross, R.S., Borgatti, S., and Parker, A. 2002. Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social
Network Analysis to Support Human Networks. California Management Review,
44(2):25–46.
Cross, Rob, and Parker, Andrew. 2004. The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding
How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Crotty, Pat, and AWWA (American Water Works Association). 2004. Selection and Definition of
Performance Indicators for Water and Wastewater Utilities. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF and
AWWA.
Davenport, Thomas O. 1999. Human Capital: What It Is and Why People Invest It. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Davenport, Thomas, and Prusak, Laurence. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Davenport, Thomas, Prusak, Laurence, and Wilson, H. James. 2003. What’s the Big Idea? Creating
and Capitalizing on the Best Management Thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Davis, B.G. 1993. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeLong, David. 2004. Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Denning, S. 2001. The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era
Organizations. Woburn, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Department of Navy. 1999. Relationship of IT, IM and KM. Presentation by Alex Bennet, Deputy
CIO and Chief Knowledge Officer of U.S. Department of Navy.
Devlin, Keith. 1999. Infosense: Turning Information Into Knowledge. New York: W.H. Freeman
and Company.
Dixon, Nancy M. 2000. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They
Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Douglas, Lloyd C. 1935. Green Light. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Dvir, R. 2006. Knowledge City: Seen as a Collage of Human Knowledge Moments. In Knowledge
Cities: Approaches, Experiences, and Perspectives. Edited by F.J. Carillo. Oxford:
Butterworth‑Heinemann Elsevier.
Edvinsson, Leif, and Malone, Michael S. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s
True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots. HarperBusiness.
Fahey, Liam, and Prusack, Laurence. 1998. The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management.
California Management Review, 40(3).
Federal Aviation Administration. Knowledge Communities: A Guide to Virtual Communities of
Practice.
Funes, Mariana, and Johnson, Nancy. 1998. Honing Your Knowledge Skills.
Gilley, Jerry W., and Maycunich, Ann. 2000. Organizational Learning, Performance and Change:
An Introduction to Strategic Human Resource Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus
Publishing.
Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company.
Hammond, S.A., and Hall, J. 1996. [Online]. Available: <http://www.thinbook.com>. [cited
September 2006]
Harkins, Phil, Carter, Louis, L., and Timmins, Amy J. 2000. Linkage, Inc.’s Best Practices in
Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning Handbook. Lexington, Mass.:
Linkage.
Harrington-Mackin, D. 1994. The Team Building Tool Kit: Tips, Tactics, and Rules for Effective
Workplace Teams. New York: AMACOM.
Harvard Business Review. 1987–1998. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Hilgard, E.R., and Bower, G.H. 1966. Theories of Learning. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts.
Holsapple, C.W. 2003. Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters.
Springer-Verlag.
Holsapple, C.W. 2003. Handbook on Knowledge Management 2: Knowledge Directions.
Springer-Verlag.
Horibe, Frances. 1999. Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and Attitudes to Unlock the
Intellectual Capital in Your Organization. John Wiley and Sons.
Housel, Thomas, and Bell, Arthur H. 2001. Measuring and Managing Knowledge. McGraw-Hill.
IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 2006. Knowledge and Information Management in
the Water and Sanitation Sector: A Hard Nut to Crack. Edited by Bill McCann.
Isaacs, W. 1999. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to
Communicating in Business and in Life. New York: Doubleday.
Knowles, Malcolm S. 1990. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, Texas: Gulf
Publishing Company.
Koenig, Michael E.D., and Srikantaiah, T. Kanti. 2004. Knowledge Management Lessons Learned:
What Works and What Doesn’t. American Society for Information Science and Technology.
Kofman, Fred, and Senge, Peter, Kanter, Rosabeth, and Handy, Charles. 1995. Learning
Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace. Edited by Sarita Chawla
and John Renesch. Portland, Ore.: Productivity Press.
Kolb, D. 1984. Experiencial Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Prentice Hall.
Lank, Elizabeth. 2006. Collaborative Advantage: How Organizations Win by Working Together.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Learn@Well (Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries). Design and Practical
Experiences With the Learn@WELL Knowledge Management Module.
Lehigh County Authority. 2007. Workforce Plan.
Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of
Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Lesser, Eric. 2000. Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications. Boston:
Lesser, Eric, and Prusak, Laurence. 2004. Creating Value With Knowledge: Insights From the IBM
Institute for Business Value. Oxford University Press.
Lesser, Eric L., Fontaine, Michael A., and Slusher, Jason A. 2000. Knowledge and Communities.
Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper.
Liebowitz, Jay. 1999. Knowledge Management Handbook. CRC Press.
Liebowitz, Jay. 2004. Addressing the Human Capital Crisis in the Federal Government: A
Knowledge Management Perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann.
References | 91
Malafsky, Geoffrey P. 2003. Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets. In
Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters. Edited by C.W. Holsapple.
Lexington, Ky.: Springer-Verlag.
Malafsky, Geoffrey P., and Newman, Brian D. Organizing Knowledge With Ontologies and
Taxonomies. Fairfax, Va.: TECHi2.
Marquardt, M.J. 1999 Acting Learning in Action: Transforming Problems and People for WorldClass Organizational Learning. Palo Alto, Calif.: Davies-Black Publishing.
McMaster, Michael D. 1996. The Intelligence Advantage Organizing for Complexity.
Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morey, Daryl, Maybury, Mark, and Thuraisingham, Bhavani. 2000. Knowledge Management:
Classic and Contemporary Works. The MIT Press.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Becerra-Fernandez, Irma, and Sabherwal,
Rajiv. 2005. Knowledge Management at NASA-Kennedy Space Center. International
Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1/2).
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Becerra-Fernandez, Irma, Del Alto,
Martha, and Stewart, Helen. 2006. A Case Study of Web-Based Collaborative Decision
Support at NASA. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2(3):49–63.
Nilson, Carolyn. 1993. Team Games for Trainers. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Takeuchi, Hirotaka. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese
Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Novak, J.D. 1991. Clarify With Concept Maps: A Tool for Students and Teachers Alike. The
Science Teacher, 58(7):45–49.
Oce Business Services. Document Process Management: The Case for an Integrated Lifecycle
Approach. White Paper [Online]. Available: <http://www.oceusa.com/obs>.
O’Dell, Carla, Grayson Jr., C. Jackson, and Essaides, Nilly. 1998. If Only We Knew What We
Know. New York: Free Press.
Pels, Jaap, and Odhiambo, Frank. 2005. Design of and Practical Experiences With the Learn@
Well Knowledge Management Module. KM4D Journal, 1(2):4–18.
Pollock, Neal. 2002. Knowledge Management and Information Technology (Know-IT
Encyclopedia). Fort Belvoir, Va.: DAU Press.
Porter, Dan, Bennet, Alex, Turner, Ron, and Wennergren, Dave. 2002. The Power of Team: The
Making of a CIO. Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer (DON CIO).
Prusak, Laurence. 1997. Knowledge in Organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Quality Leadership Center, Inc. 1996. BPR Online Learning Center [Online]. Available: <http://
www.prosci.com/benchmarking.htm>.
Radhakrishna, R.B. 2002. Writing Success Stories for Program Enhancement and Accountability
[Online]. Available: <http://www.joe.org/joe/2002April/tt2.html>. [cited August 2008]
Ruggles, R. 1997. Knowledge Management Tools. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ruggles, Rudy, and Holtshouse, Dan. 1999. The Knowledge Advantage. Capstone US.
Rumizen, M., and Woods, John A. 2002. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Knowledge Management.
CWL Publishing Enterprises.
Schrage, M. 1990. Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration. New York: Random
House.
Schrage, M. 2000. Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Schwartz, David G., Divitini, Monica, and Brasethvik, Terje. 2000. Internet-Based Organizational
Memory and Knowledge Management. Idea Group Publishing.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., and Smith, B. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook:
Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New
York: Doubleday.
Skyrme, David J. 1999. Knowledge Networking: Creating the Collaborative Enterprise.
Smigiel, David M., Sulewski, John G., and Moss, Michael A. 2005. A Knowledge Management
Approach to Drinking Water Utility Business. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF.
Srivastva, S., and Cooperrider, D.L. 1990. Appreciative Management and Leadership. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stankosky, Michael. 2005. Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in
University Research. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Sutton, M.J.D. 1996. Document Management for the Enterprise: Principles, Techniques, and
Applications. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Sveiby, Karl Erick. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring KnowledgeBased Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Tellis, W. 1997. Application of a Case Study Methodology [Online]. The Qualitative Report, 3(3),
September. Available: <http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html>.
Thurbin, Patrick. 1995. Leveraging Knowledge: The 17 Day Program for a Learning Organization.
London: Pitman Publishing.
Tiwana, Amrit. 2000. The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Practical Techniques for Building a
Knowledge Management System. Prentice Hall PTR.
Tobin, Daniel R. 1998. The Knowledge-Enabled Organization: Moving From “Training” to
“Learning” to Meet Business Goals. AMACOM.
Turner, Colin. 2000. The Information E-conomy: Business Strategies for Competing in the Digital
Age. Kogan Page Limited.
Turnquist, Susan. 2005. Public Sector Information Technology and Knowledge Management.
Unpublished. University of Colorado–Denver.
United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. 2006. Water—A Shared Responsibility. The
United Nations World Water Development Report 2. United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and Berghahn Books.
Vicente, Kim. 2004. The Human Factor. New York: Routledge.
Visscher, Jan Teun, Pels, Jaap, Markowski, Viktor, and Graaf, Sascha de. 2006. Knowledge and
Information Management in the Water and Sanitation Sector: A Hard Nut to Crack. IRC
International Water and Sanitation Centre.
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., and Nonaka, I. 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the
Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. Oxford University Press.
Von Oech, R. 1998. A Kick in the Seat of the Pants: Using Your Explorer, Artist, Judge, and
Warrior To Be More Creative. New York: Harper Perennial.
Waitley, D. 1995. Empires of the Mind: Lessons to Lead and Succeed in a Knowledge-Based
World. New York: Quill.
References | 93
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Wenger, E., and Snyder, W. 2000. Learning in Communities. LineZine [Online]. Available: <http://
www.linezine.com/1/features/ewwsle.html>.
Westerhoff, Gary P., Gale, Diana, Gilbert, Jerome B., Haskins, Scott A., and Reiter, Paul D. 2003.
The Evolving Water Utility: Pathways to Higher Performance. Edited by Nancy Zeilig.
Denver, Colo.: AWWA.
Wiig, Karl. 1993. Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking About Thinking—How People
and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge. Arlington, Texas: Schema
Press.
Wiig, Karl. 1994. Knowledge Management: The Central Management Focus for Intelligent-Acting
Organizations. Arlington, Texas: Schema Press.
Wiig, Karl. 1995. Knowledge Management Methods: Practical Approaches to Managing
Knowledge. Arlington, Texas: Schema Press.
Wiig, Karl. 2004. People Focused Knowledge Management: How Effective Decision-Making
Leads to Corporate Success. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Wills, Gordon. 1998. The Knowledge Game: The Revolution in Learning and Communication in
the Workplace. Cassell.
Zack, M. 1999. Knowledge and Strategy. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
ABBREVIATIONS
AAL
AAR
APQC
AwwaRF
action learning while assessing
after-action review
American Productivity Quality Center
Awwa Research Foundation (now Water Research Foundation)
C2
CALL
Co.
CoI
CoP
CSF
context/content dependent
Center for Army Lessons Learned
county
Community of Practice
critical success factor
DIA
DON
Defense Information Agency
Department of Navy
FAA
FAS
Federal Aviation Administration
Foreign Agriculture Services
HR
HRO
Human Resources
high reliability organizing
IBM
IDP
IM
IRC
IT
ITD
IWSD
International Business Machines
individual development plan
information management
International Water and Sanitation Centre
information technology
Information Technology Division
Institute of Water and Sanitation Development
KCO
KM
KMb
KMO
KSC
KSI
KSN
Knowledge Centric Organization
knowledge management
knowledge mobilization
Knowledge Management Officer
Kennedy Space Center
Knowledge, Skill and Information
Knowledge Services Network
LLC
LOCC
LWC
Lessons Learned Center
Library of Congress Classification
Louisville Water Company
95
MAKE
MQI
Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises
Mountain Quest Institute
NA
NASA
NIHBIDIA
NRCan
NWRI
not applicable
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
not invented here but I did it anyway
Natural Resources Canada
National Water Resources Institute (Nigeria)
OPCON
OPM
Operation Control
Office of Personnel Management
PUB
Public Utilities Board
QBD
quality by design
RTM
requirements traceability matrix
SEUF
SHELL HP
SMART
SOP
SSIC
The Socio Economic Unit Foundation (India)
Shell Exploration and Production
specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-based
standard operating procedure
Standard Subject Identification Code
TEAM C4ISR
TREND
U.S Army Team Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance
Training, Research and Networking for Development
U.S.
USDA
United States
United States Department of Agriculture
VDOT
Virginia Department of Transportation
WaterRF
Water Research Foundation (formerly Awwa Research Foundation)
Appendix A
WaterRF 4003 Survey Results
A-1
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The formal title of WaterRF 4003 is “Organizational Development Needed to Implement
a Knowledge Management Strategy at Water Utilities.” The overarching project objectives
were:
(1) Identify the benefits and costs of implementing a knowledge management (KM)
initiative;
(2) Investigate and identify organizational characteristics and processes (e.g., culture, core
planning processes, communications, rewards, etc.) critical to the success of
implementing a KM initiative;
(3) Develop an assessment tool for drinking water utilities to identify their organization’s
readiness to plan and implement a KM strategy; and
(4) Develop a tool kit for establishing or enhancing organizational readiness to support a KM
strategy and initiatives.
The 4003 research approach included a survey process, literature review, site visits,
leadership and management interviews, workshops, focus groups, and development of project
studies, case examples and case studies focused on KM implementation. Two specific tools
resulted from this research. The first is a Readiness Assessment Instrument used to evaluate a
Utility’s readiness to implement KM. The second is the KM Toolkit for planning and
implementing the organizational changes needed for a successful KM strategy or initiative in
utilities. While the virtual toolkit serves as a stand-alone product focused on implementation of
KM strategies and initiatives, it also includes down-loadable resource documents to support
second-order learning, for example, Tool, Ideas and extensive resource documents contributed
by leaders in the field of Knowledge Management.
THE KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION APPROACH
Knowledge mobilization (KMb) is the process of creating value or a value stream
through the creation, assimilation, leveraging, sharing and application of knowledge. In terms of
drinking water utilities, KMb is the effective creation, movement and tailoring of specific
knowledge from its source (research or specialized expertise) to its application (practitioner,
utility worker) such that consequent actions are effective and sustainable. KMb is focused on
new knowledge that has emerged (and is emerging) through research and in other parts of the
Utility (or in other organizations with similar issues), with implementation driven by the content
of that new knowledge and identification of stakeholder groups that “need” to apply that
knowledge. The specific knowledge involved in WaterRF Project 4003 that is being mobilized
is knowledge about Knowledge Management and its application to drinking water utilities.
KMb introduces a difference in perspective, with KM being a strategy or initiative that is
intended to improve organizations through the effective creation, sharing, leveraging and
application of knowledge, and KMb being a process for moving specific knowledge to action to
A-2
value in a specific situation or location. The KMb approach taken depends on the timing,
application, situation and needs of the Utility and stakeholders it touches.
The KMb approach accompanying Project 4003 implementation included a combination
of events, publications, Internet exchanges and development of meta-tools (the Readiness
Assessment Instrument and KM Toolkit) that will enable drinking water utilities to plan and
implement the organizational change needed to support implementation of knowledge
management strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities.
To raise awareness of KM in the drinking water utility industry, over 1224 drinking water
defining KM and its significance to drinking water utilities) and follow-up telephone
interactions. During this process, 1001 individuals were engaged in one-on-one telephone
conversations of 5-10 minutes in length concerning knowledge and Knowledge Management
related to drinking water utilities. Figure A.1 shows the number of these conversations per state.
From this process, 33 project studies were developed representing 22 drinking water utilities.
These are available in the KM Toolkit.
During these conversations, Knowledge Management was defined in terms of the predetermined elevator speech, the 4003 research project was detailed, and participation in the
survey process was requested. Periodically, 3, 4 or 5 individuals in a single Utility were engaged
WA
46
MT
5
OR
15
2
ND
3
MN
35
SD
7
ID
3
WY
6
UT
10
CA
130
AZ
21
CO
29
NY
33
MI
33
IA
18
NE
6
NV
14
WS
26
PA
34
IL
36
KS
6
OK
7
NM
4
MO
15
IN
20
OH
36
WV
1
V
A
KY
NH
7 ME
13
M
A
45
CT
16
NJ 19
D
DE 3
MD
13
NC
24
TN 19
AR
13
SC
14
MS
2
AL
18
GA
18
LA
6
TX
51
FL
56
AK
7
HI
3
Figure A.1 Number of one-on-one telephone conversations on KM with drinking water
Utility personnel per state
A-3
before individuals were located who identified themselves as the leads for implementation of
Knowledge Management. As a result of these conversations, an additional 552 surveys were
mailed and 25 were emailed. Since the intent of these multiple mailings was to seed the concepts
of Knowledge Management, a second set of follow-on telephone calls were initiated where a KM
lead had been identified. Even where individuals expressed the opinion that they did not feel
capable of providing this information, a friendly but short conversation pursued to help promote
future interest in KM. The survey
Simultaneously, a Blog was set up and a series of papers and other resource materials
provided via that vehicle. These included: The Business Case for KM, Issues Faced by
Drinking Water Utilities, Regulatory Perspective for Water Utilities, and other KM resources.
While the Blog process itself was quieter than anticipated throughout this two-year project, 67
drinking water utility managers/leaders submitted their survey responses via the Blog page, and
6,498 pages of resource materials were downloaded during the course of 1,453 visits.
In this same time period, the Principal Investigator and Co-principal Investigator
facilitated workshops and combination focus groups each one-two days in length involving 66
representatives from ten geographically-dispersed drinking water utilities. In conjunction with
these workshops, focus groups and site visits, the Principal Investigator interviewed 25
leaders/managers representing 12 drinking water utilities. The drinking water utilities
participating in this research project are acknowledged in the formal report and in the KM
Toolkit.
During the process of initiating the 1001 telephone conversation with drinking water
Utility personnel on knowledge and Knowledge Management, it was pleasantly noted that almost
every call was met with interest and cooperation. It appears that Knowledge Management is
gradually making itself known within the drinking water utility industry. When coupled with the
recent WaterRF KM research projects, KM presentations at Utility conferences and workshops,
and the number of Utility KM project studies gathered through this research (and others that
surfaced near the end of this project not included in the KM Toolkit), it would appear that a
growing number of drinking water utilities are taking advantage of KM to better prepare for the
uncertain future ahead. As these organizations become more experienced with the application
and benefits of KM they may become knowledge-centric, learning organizations who through
knowledge mobilization, technological sophistication and collaborative leadership prepare
themselves for the challenges ahead.
A-4
PART 2
THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The questionnaire has 15 questions, although Q1, Q2, Q6 and Q10 have multiple parts.
Six of the questions (Q1, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8 and Q9) are built on five-point Likert scale. For the
multiple parts of Q1 the scale is as follows: 1 (very low), 2 (low), 3 (medium), 4 (high) and 5
(very high). Response is forced. A single question is asked—How would you characterize your
organization?—and followed by a list of 12 expressions as follows:












Level of trust among employees
Level of employee learning
Level of employee empowerment
Level of management control
Use of teams within the organization
Amount of knowledge sharing among managers
Number of new ideas implemented annually
Level of communication between departments
Flexibility of organizational policies
Level of process discipline
Quality of information contained in IT systems
Level of information system integration (information is consistent and accessible)
For Q5 through Q9, the five-point Likert scale is as follows: 1 (very poorly), 2 (poorly),
3 (okay), 4 (well) and 5 (very well). The alternative of “don’t know” is offered. The questions
are as follows:
Q5 How well does your organization accept and implement new initiatives?
Q6 How well do the following core processes support your organization’s mission?
Life cycle planning
Q7 How well do employees share information and knowledge?
Q8 How well does your organizational structure support sharing of information and
knowledge?
Q9 How well does your human resource department support learning and knowledge
sharing?
Q2 asked the survey participant to place a D (doing), N (planning to do) or I (interested in
doing) next to each of seven KM initiatives. These were: Communities of Practice, Knowledge
Base Development, Yellow Page Library/Expert Locator, Team-Based Decision-making, Action
Learning, Knowledge Sharing, and Knowledge Retention of Individuals Who Are Retiring. A
blank space labeled “Other” was at the bottom of the list.
A-5
Q3 and Q7 were dichotomous, requesting yes or no. Q3 asking “Are your employees
learning fast enough to keep up with changes needed by your organization?” asked for an
explanation of response. Q10 made four statements regarding technology systems and the
Information Technology Depart in particular and asked for a yes or no agreement.
Q4, Q11, Q12, Q13 and Q14 were open-ended questions as follows:
Q4 Briefly list the opportunities and initiatives that would make your organization more
successful.
Q11 What are the barriers in your organization to implementing new initiatives?
Q12 What are the barriers outside your organization to implementing new initiatives?
Q13 What are the critical factors in your organization that support successful
implementation of new initiative?
Q14 How would you describe a successful initiative in your organization?
Q15 was also an open-ended question for those drinking water utilities who had
implemented KM strategies or initiatives. Specifically it asked: If your utility has implemented
or is implementing a knowledge management strategy or initiative, please fill in the reverse page
(km Strategies or Initiatives) for each strategy and initiative (successful or unsuccessful) that you
are willing to share. The reverse page is as follows:
Is your utility implementing (Y/N) or has your utility implemented (Y/N) KM strategies
or initiatives?
If you answer yes above, please provide the following for each strategy or initiative:
(A) What are/were the critical success factors (how was success measured)?
(B) What problems or issues made implementation difficult? If the strategy or initiative
failed, what were the barriers that could not be overcome?
(C) What are/were the financial costs involved in implementing this strategy or
initiatives?
(D) From what you are learning/have learned, what might you do differently?
(E) How is/was this strategy or initiative aligned with utility business processes (strategic
business planning, operational planning, capital improvement planning, human
resource development, life cycle planning, information technology master planning)?
(F) What benefits is the utility seeing from implementation of this strategy or initiative?
If this strategy or initiative failed, would you be willing to try it again with additional
knowledge management expertise?
A-6
PART 3
DEMOGRAPHICS
There were 207 survey respondents representing the following states (with multiple
responses in parenthesis) : Alaska (3), Arizona (1), California (34), Colorado (9), D.C. (2),
Florida (8), Georgia (3), Illinois (4), Indiana (2), Iowa (2), Kentucky (3), Maine (3), Maryland
(2), Massachusetts (8), Michigan (10), Minnesota (5), Missouri (1), Montana (1), Nebraska (1),
Nevada (4), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (6), New Mexico (1), New York (8), North
Carolina (4), North Dakota (3), Ohio (8), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (5), Pennsylvania (4), South
Carolina (5), Tennessee (4), Texas (16), Utah (3), Virginia (10), Washington (11), Wisconsin (9)
and Wyoming (1).
The majority of responders (193, or 93%) work in public utilities. Five work in private
utilities and 6 fall in the other category, that is, Special District, Agency of State, Municipal
Owned (2), Not for State Authority, and State Formed Public Entity.
Figure A.2 shows the distribution of responders in terms of size of utilities that they
represent.
Figure A.2 Responder distribution in terms of size of utility.
The note on the front of the survey stated: This survey looks at your organization as a
whole ... should be filled out by a senior manager. This largely occurred. See Figure A.3 below.
25
8
Director/General Manager
91
34
Asst. Director
Manager
Superintendent
Supervisor
Other
42
7
Figure A.3 Roles/positions of Project 4003 survey responders
A-7
The “Other” category included individuals with the following positions: IT Project Coordinator,
U.S. Program Policy Coordinator, Utilities Administration, CEO, Vice President, Deputy
Operating Officer, Assistant Commissioner, CFO/Operations, Public Works Foreman, Vice
President of Customer Relations, Employee and Financial Service, Operator.
A-8
PART 4
DATA REDUCTION
At the end of the data collection process all survey responses—and the periodic reports
based on those responses—have now been combined. While responses from each question will
be presented in Part 4, the organization of this part is by question. Part 5 will take a systems
approach to the data.
Question 1: How would you characterize your organization?
A Likert scale was used with the variable defined as: 1 (very low); 2 (low); 3 (medium);
4 (high); and 5 (very high). The 12 items to be scaled are shown in the following table:
Table A.1 below provides the valid number of responses (N), the mean, minimum (Min),
maximum (Max), and standard deviation (SD) for 1 (A) through 1 (L).
N
12 Items
Q1A
Q1B
Q1C
Q1D
Q1E
Q1F
Q1G
Q1H
Q1I
Q1J
Q1K
Q1L
Mean
Level of trust among employees
207
3.69
Level of employee learning
139
3.60
Level of employee empowerment
207
3.52
Level of management control
206
3.57
Use of teams within the organization
207
3.47
Amount of knowledge sharing among managers
207
3.68
Number of new ideas implemented annually
207
3.22
Level of communication between departments
206
3.46
Flexibility of organizational policies
206
3.26
Level of process discipline
203
3.24
Quality of information contained in IT systems
206
3.35
Level of information system integration
205
3.08
(information is consistent and accessible)
Table A.1: Response to Question 1
Min
Max
SD
Median
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
.710
.723
.708
.733
.851
.904
.835
.812
.773
.824
.822
.880
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
It is notable that (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), and (l) span the full range of possible
response, from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high).
The distribution of responses is shown below.
Q1-A
Q1-B
107
120
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
72
80
60
40
20
22
1
5
0
very low
low
medium
high
59
14
0
very low
very high
62
5
low
medium
high
A-9
very high
Q1-C
120
100
Q1-D
82
60
40
1
12
11
20
20
1
7
0
0
very low
low
medium
high
very low
very high
low
90
100
80
27
37
40
19
20
1
0
19
2
0
very low
low
medium
high
very high
very low
low
Q1-G
120
100
100
very high
81
91
60
54
36
40
15
20
1
16
14
4
0
very low
low
medium
high
very high
very low
low
Q1-I
120
medium
high
very high
Q1-J
120
100
100
80
96
100
71
80
60
63
60
25
30
40
7
3
20
0
11
3
0
very low
low
medium
high
very high
very low
low
Q1-K
100
78
80
medium
high
very high
Q1-L
88
94
100
80
60
53
60
40
20
high
80
0
40
20
medium
Q1-H
101
80
60
40
20
very high
58
60
60
40
high
91
100
70
80
medium
Q1-F
Q1-E
20
87
80
80
60
40
20
91
100
101
42
40
28
9
3
20
9
7
0
0
very low
low
medium
high
very low
very high
low
medium
high
very high
A-10
Question 2: Which (if any) of the below is your organization currently doing, planning to
do, or interested in?
Respondents were asked to place a D (Doing), N (Planning to Do) or I (Interested in
doing) next to each of seven items (see below). The 207 responses received this reporting period
showed the following results:
D
N
25
17
Knowledge Base Development
53
27
Yellow Page Library/Expert Locator
6
25
Team-Based Decision-making
109
20
Action Learning
60
9
Knowledge Sharing
117
18
Knowledge Retention of Individuals
84
33
Who are Retiring
I
58
49
54
26
39
26
46
Responses
100
129
85
155
108
162
163
In the “other” category included at the end of the list there was five entries: “Strategic
planning”, “Succession Planning” and O&M manuals capture institutional knowledge for
training.
Question 3: Are your employees learning fast enough to keep up with changes needed by
your organization?
Of the 207 responders, 163 (78.7%) said yes and 38 (18.4%) said no. Five responders
answered both yes and no. Comments made by these responders are as follows. Note that the
size of utility follows the comment.




Not in all areas- due to lack of resources, some learning retention efforts are lagging.
Examples are: GIS mapping; field verification; assembly and access to record
documents; specifications; basis of design documents. However as time/resources allow,
progress is being made in each area. 130
Depends on the Dept. Some train continuously, some very little. 200
Depends on Employee. Depends on how “need” is defined. 150
In some cases yes, in some no, depends on experience and desire of individual. 379
In addition, one participant responded: N/A (Not applicable).
Additional comments have been organized in the following generic areas (largest to
smallest group): training, change, technology, time, teamwork, knowledge retention,
communication and other.
Training
 Even though we are small, employees attend
training seminars, contact others in their
field, read, in-house meetings
 We try to keep up through education.
 High level of participation in continuing
education programs and current technology



Certification of staff is an issue.
Training and development are focused on
core competencies
Certification requirements/ programs
A-11



















Employees have to be certified in water and
wastewater and training to renew or expand
certification
All employees are certified water operators
and attend a minimum of annual training
Employees gaining certification and crosstraining
Being certified they all need continuing
education credits. We encourage training
Generally as licenses are upgraded
Yearly budget covers cost of training and
education
More and better training tools needed for
staff.
City administration does not provide level of
support for employee development, “On the
job training” is the norm- so it is difficult for
employees to keep up with changes.
City and utility do not allow sufficient
training money in the operating budget.
Constant training
Our dept is constantly monitoring regulatory
and /or legislative requirements and
provides training in advance of effective
dates. We also monitor new technology and
provide timely training in new technology/
systems/ processes as required in a timely
manner.
In house training is helping educate the
employees
As changes are made training sessions are
implemented
There is not enough time to pause and train
the organization on all the changes that are
needed.
Primary concern is how quickly we can train
new operators on all the procedures they
need to know and use.
Management’s responsibility—has not
provided any fundamental supervisory
training in over 12 years, for example.
Lack of training opportunities in area.
There is currently so much turnover in
employees due to draw from the public
sector that we cannot adequately train.












Time


I would say \’yes and no.’\ In certain
pockets of the department a tremendous
amount of learning is taking place. In other
places, change is adapted to more slowly. In
general, I would say that there is not enough
true \’learning’\ taking place. We are very
focused on outcomes and decisions and do a
good job; but we could spend more time on
reflection and inquiry as well.
Attempting to change mindset of employees
based on ~25 yrs of dictatorship.
Many stuck with 80’s policies/ procedures
Hard to implement things like asset
management or empower folks; hard to
change existing, comfortable behaviors.
But still change resistant.
Change comes very slowly. Too much legal
involvement.
Pace is too rapid.
Rapid changes in system capacity as well as
regulations make keeping up a challenge.
Too much too quick
Rapid workforce changes and restructuring
difficult to keep up with.
Only one person retiring in next 10 years, so
everyone is young and very willing to learn
new info
However, potential changes forthcoming
that could put us behind the curve
Change, regulatory, and workload
Process takes approximately 3 years from
concept, approval to implementation.
Employees are integral to process.
In general, yes. But this is a challenge due
to time and money constraints.
Team work
 Because of our small size and our lack of
specialization and the close collaborative
way in which we make decisions, it’s almost
inappropriate to apply these group
techniques. Not impossible, but almost
joke: we teach each other stuff. We work
together if it takes more than one person.
We have required educational credits. We
ask each other questions. We bring up
whatever’s on our minds. It works well- but
the simple addition of more personnel would
make the system stop working. So- all in all,
we know little about solving the challenges
you mention, because their largely absent.
 In certain areas where team based/skill
based compensation is utilized.
Change
 There are pockets of resistance to change
but overall most employees are committed
to “keeping up” especially when they
understand the need and are involved in new
solutions.
 Filter plant personnel abreast of
developments other departments less so.
A-12

Technology
 Implemented SAP in 2007- focus has been
on learning the SAP, enhancing process
oriented workflows and utilizing the system
to maximum capacity.
 New technology is slow to take holder
within departments.
 Technological advancement is too fast for
some baby boomers with little computer
experience.
 Maintenance section is not keeping pace
with electronic based equipment and
controls.
 We seem to keep ahead of requirements
from regulators.
 Keeping up in most instances.
 In a perfect world, our efforts would result
in keeping pace at all levels; where we don’t
“keep up” is in the area of
succession/transfer of information.









General









Knowledge Retention
 The key is retention of these individuals.
 Younger, new hires are slow in retaining
information and practices shared with them
by more senior members in our water
service environment.
Communication
 Roundtable discussions, conferences,
quarterly discussions in-house between
employees and management.
Other


We are committed as an org to R&D and
participate broadly in group and individual
capacities with EPA, FDEP and peer
agencies.

Middle management has a strong sense of
“ownership” and staying current is self
motivated.
Active participation by workers in Awwa
certification programs at all levels in org.
CCWD emphasizes need to disseminate
information. Vehicles include town hall
meetings, team meetings, intranet,
newsletters, etc.
Employees do many jobs.
Hire people with skill sets in areas of
management
The overall quality of operators on the
western slope of Colorado is below average.
Many fail basic state license exam.
Business structures and processes that
support continuous improvement are not
what they should be.
Age related reluctance
We are in fireman mode
But could always improve.
We are doing well, but it could be better.
Barely
Just barely
Some better than others.
Not in all cases
Some are, but several aren’t.
Some are but some aren’t/ or can’t
Some progress –difficult question to answer
yes or no. some function yes, some no.
Retirements are happening faster than the
process of capturing institutional
knowledge. We are catching up utilizing
technology such as GIS, CMMS, & SOP’s.
Generally
A-13
Question 4: Briefly list the opportunities and initiatives that would make your
organization more successful.
Of the 207 survey participants, 157 contributed to the comments below. The general
areas of grouping (largest to smallest number) are: results, implemented, cost-effective, planned,
goals, employee buy-in, supported, accepted, ideas, timely, teams, benefits, identify problem,
understood/communicated, analyze, measurable, meets needs, leadership and other.
Money
















Revenue stream increases.
More dollars for infrastructure
Funding
Large capital investments
Gain more ability to integrate with city-wide
financials
Consolidated grant info, who to see when
applying for grants
Skill bases pay.
More realistic pay scale
Clear accountability of work group cost
relationship to total cost of service
Incentive pay
Bonuses for employees
More money for GIS implementation
More money
Money to implement any initiatives










Communication
 More sharing with other city departments
 Communication between departments
 Improved coordination between our
engineering dept and operations dept.
 Forums where operators, supervisors,
customer service can discuss field and
advancements in technology
 Additional peer level meeting between staff
from different depts. And different agencies
 Better communication among the
construction crew employees with the
employee groups
 Information sharing
 Networking with others
 More interaction among ‘line staff’ and
management
 Improving communication regarding our
strategic plan, (the mission, vision and
values contained there in) and the
accomplishments we are making.
 More sharing of information from bottom to
top and vice versa
 Sharing of bigger picture objectives within
the organization help to increase
communication on all levels
More all employee meetings
More communication with other water
treatment plants and systems
More public outreach
Adequate staff recreation; public
information meetings using line employees.
Very open communication
Increased communication methods need to
be developed- one that is easy to implement
as well as effective in roll out
More open communication and knowledge
sharing practices
Broad bases communication plan with
stakeholders
Willingness to share information
Sharing long term strategies
Use of common terminology
We are a small municipality so we normally
have to work together on a daily basis
Planning
 We are just starting a conscious process to
develop a \’organizational learning system’\
to foster and support more learning in the
dept. We are also looking for ways to
increase accountability in decision making
and to push decision- making down into the
organization
 Stronger planning processes that are well
integrated into decision making
 Managers plan for future
 Better planning
 Process planning
 True succession and work force planning
 Succession planning
 Better succession planning transfer
knowledge from retiring employees to their
replacements
 Strategic focus
 Better strategic planning process and
implementation discipline
 Strategic thinking/management—3 year into
5 year plan
 KM strategic planning
 Long term goals
A-14











Short term objectives
Infrastructure—30 year infrastructure plan
10 year fiscal plan
HR—5 year plan underway
Acquisition—3 year plan underway
Culture—3 year into 10 year plan
Project development
Capital planning

More global view of overall mission
Willingness to change for the better
Age related reluctance issues need to instill
in older employees the value of attitude and
enthusiasm
Proactive vs. reactive
Team work
 I have encouraged team based decision
making which keeps employees involved
and informed. They in turn have responded
with more flexibility in job duties and
activities
 Collaborative problem solving; formal group
of people dedicated to understanding and
documenting business process- understand
our data flows and how they intersect with
business processes.
 All of it was created with employee work
teams. We are considering a brand/rebrand
effort. Employees and staff to develop the
brand and live it will improve our credibility
and performance.
 Better development of team- based
initiatives, commitment to vision of need
and benefit.
 Increased team building and positive attitude
enhancement.
 More focus on employee motivation, and
team approach.
 Cross utilization of personnel information
exchange among managers team based units.
Emphasis on safety and preventative
maintenance.
 Team building within the management team
and with the labor union
 More cross-functional teams
 Team based decision making is something
that would save time, eliminate
misunderstandings and create better
employee buy-in
 More team mentality
Leadership/management
 Managing Board of Directors
 More trust with elected leaders
 A unified commission that understands roles
and does not attempt to micromanage
 Improve leadership qualities at all levels
 Have council & Mayor get along so that our
needed equipment gets purchased
 Leadership development
 Better crisis management
 Data management
 Make joint leadership decisions
 Additional organization development
personnel
 Adherence to a process for decision making
 More flexibility in the implementation of
new initiatives
 Get organization working back at one
location. This would allow water supervisors
to utilize support staff.
 Upper management & Board were more
flexible
 Forward thinking
 Initiatives need to be taken by leadership
and employees
 Management encouragement
 Empowerment
 Duties of water & distribution
superintendents should be split between two
managers
 Very capable department manager
 Better management and control of field
activities
 Have a key leadership
 Management that is accessible to all
appropriate parties
Training
 Offer more training in the area of customer
service.
 Encourage employees to seek more formal
education in their respective fields.
 Implement some standardized training in
each department for basic knowledge base
required for each job.
 Invest time and money in outside training
and education sources. Instituted cross
training program between various
responsibility areas.
Change
 We are a component unit of the city must be
mindful of political and public perceptions
when attempting to implement changes.
 For some- change is always a difficult
process; however, most management level
personnel are willing to learn and change.
 Better performance measures
A-15


































Relevant and affordable training
Computer classes, and cross training.
More cross training (2)
Cross training of employees. Improved
training.
Planned regular professional development
cross training.
Greater cross-training and sharing of
resources
Management training
More and better training (2)
EID training academy
In house training goals and standards
Standardized training, especially for new
hires and new supervisors.
Training (3)
Succession training
Training opportunities
In-house training program to enhance and
improve skill in current employees
More online videos
CEU training
Professional development
Treatment & distribution certification for all
operators
Mentoring in an unofficial capacity
In-house training for CEU’s and water
distribution/ treatment certification
Education of public and employees
Management training
Employee education and re-training
Professional development
Additional opportunities/initiatives would
include: OP certification, interpersonal
skills, and technical training
More cross-training, especially
administrative
Maintenance and I&C training and
certification similar to operators.
Mechanical training at hi/vo-tech schools
especially urban areas
Leadership training for the future leaders of
the organization
Training sessions in areas closer to home.
Cost to send employees to east slope of
Colorado and time makes difficult
Some form of sabbatical/ work exchange
Use of process mapping documents to
support training







Staffing (aging workforce)
Higher skill based employees upon initial
higher
More turnover or ability to hire new
employees
Better prepared to hire additional employees
when we lose one to retirement
Need better skills in new hires
Apprenticeship program—early involvement
(high school) of workforce
Recruitment of certified operators
Higher level of knowledge
Knowledge retention from retirees
Technology
 GIS integration with rest of city and/or
county
 Having our business systems
(billing/customer info) fully integrated into
GIS. Expanded use of GIS info. At all levels
of organization.
 Maintenance management system. GIS
implementation.
 We have all the initiatives underway that our
utility business needs right now, and several
more to roll out if we had staff time to do
them- GPS, GIS, automated meter readingboth electrical and water, full replacement of
utility billing, C/S, financials, inventory, and
work management
 Streamline software applications to
eliminate duplicate multiple keystrokes.
 Borrow electric business and regulatory
models for use in the water utilities business.
 Better documentation- SOP’s
 Integrated work management/work order
system that interfaces with
finance/accounting/customer service
systems.
 More computerization and improved
technological processes.
 Better electronic data storage and sharing.
 Better documentation management
 Upgrade meter reading, AMR system and
customer service
 Completion of data sets to support physical
facility management, adequate resources use
CMMS system for analysis.
 Development of intranet dashboards, etc.
 SCADA- more information, better control of
less day to day costs.
 Better IT/ asset management systems
 Need for an executive development program
New and Retiring Employees
 Greater pool of applicants for new positions
 Better retention and hiring process
A-16
































Policies and procedures
 Gradual implementation of new/modern
procedures
 Clear guidelines, regulations, and policies
 Policies
 Less regulation
 Florida specific operator training manuals.
Everyone uses California manuals.
 Greater use of SOP’s—need to develop
them and then use them
 Using more “best practices” or standards vs.
our own “home grown” way of doing things
 Less regulation continuously passed by state
to cities
 Central resource for policies and procedures
 Aging infrastructure
 Too departmental or too task specific
 Get rid of Civil Service
 Full implementation of asset management
 Committed security
 Increased focus on customer service by both
our business and field operations
 Knowledge of and use of industry BMP’s
Department aide information technology
solutions.
More consistent use of technology
We have adopted the Malcolm Baldridge
National Quality Program as our overall
framework. We use the Carver Policy
Governance model to establish district- wide
objectives
Enhancing/ using SAP to continue
improving efficiency
Asset management Mobile Technology
CIS
GIS
CMMS
Utility billing and financial accounting
software
AMR meter reading
SCADA improvements
Leveraging technology to free up operators
for more maintenance
SCADA integration
Billing/ customer service/ maintenance work
order integration with accounting software
Software integration
Update software and hardware computer
systems
Update SCADA systems
Centralized and easy to access info
Asset management
Installation of distribution system early
warning systems
Modernization of customer service function
(remote meter reads, new billing system)
Programs and processes that support
customer centered decision making
Online bill pay
Paperless facility Attribute Data Base
Integrate structured operational and business
processes based on best of class procedures
IT adopting 5 year ERP/ EAM path
Buy-in of new technology implementation
(learning) by operations level personnel
IT integration of systems
Better integration of IT systems
Asset & maintenance management software
implementation
GIS mapping. Automated customer service
and complaint tracking. More AMR
(automated meter reading)
Central repository for knowledge capture
Employees
 Better employee buy-in
 Involvement at every level of staff
 Good number of above average employees
 Awards/ rewards program
 Employee recognition programs
 Good work ethic
 Individual opportunities
 Faster rate of advancement
 APWA self assessment and accreditation
 Slower customer service growth or faster
employee growth
 Strong analytical and problem solving skills
combined with a larger view of the range of
possible solutions
 More employee involvement in decision
making process
 Self represented employee group with no
unions.
Misc
 Establishing core values
 Better alignment of mission & vision
 More hours in the day
 Time
 Creating a strategic HR function within the
organization
 We have two current initiatives that we
believe will help/ public relations
 Annual incentive for OEPA licensure
A-17


Stay on pace with rate making projects and
applications
Examples
 Expansion of water treatment capacity
Conversion from gaseous chlorine
disinfection to use of alternative energies
Question 5: How well does your organization accept and implement new initiatives?
Similar to question 1, a five-point Likert scale was used with the variables defined as: 1
(very poorly); 2 (poorly); 3 (okay); 4 (well); and 5 (very well). The option of “don’t know” was
also available. This same format was used with questions 6 through 9 below.
There were 198 responses with a mean of 3.49, a standard deviation of .731, a minimum
of 1, a maximum of 5, and a median value of 3.25. The distribution is shown below.
Q5
100
87
85
80
60
40
20
13
12
1
0
very low
low
m edium
high
very high
Question 6: How well do the following core processes support your organization’s mission?
The five-point Likert scale described in Question 5 was used. The specific core
processes chosen were: (A) strategic business planning, (B) operational planning, (C) capital
improvement planning, (D) human resource development, (E) life cycle planning, and (F)
information technology master planning. An “Other” category was also provided for write-ins.
Table A.3 below provides the number of responses (N), the mean, minimum (Min), maximum
(Max), and standard deviation (SD) for 1 (A) through 1 (L).
Q6A
Q6B
Q6C
Q6D
Q6E
Q6F
6 Items
N
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Median
Life cycle planning
187
199
202
196
177
185
3.60
3.79
3.94
3.18
3.09
3.19
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
.851
.740
.818
.800
.861
.975
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
A-18
The distribution curves of Q6A through Q6F are shown below.
Q6B
Q6A
80
69
75
110
120
100
60
80
40
15
20
55
60
40
27
20
1
0
28
2
4
0
very low
low
medium
high
very high
very low
low
100
80
80
60
51
43
47
60
40
28
40
1
8
20
0
11
3
0
very low
low
medium
high
very high
very low
low
100
medium
80
60
46
38
40
very high
75
80
81
60
high
Q6F
Q6E
20
very high
107
120
99
100
20
high
Q6D
Q6C
120
medium
40
20
8
4
49
37
0
18
6
0
very low
low
medium
high
very high
very low
low
medium
high
A-19
very high
Question 7: How well do employees share information and knowledge?
The five-point Likert scale described in Question 5 was used. There were 203 responses
with a mean of 3.51, a standard deviation of .706, a minimum of 1, a maximum of 5, and a
median value of 3.00. The distribution curve is shown below.
Q7
100
92
86
80
60
40
13
20
12
0
0
very low
low
m edium
high
very high
Question 8: How well does your organizational structure support sharing of information
and knowledge?
Q8
120
99
100
69
80
60
40
20
19
14
2
0
very low
low
m edium
high
very high
A-20
Question 9: How well does your human resource department support learning and
knowledge sharing?
Q9
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
71
57
31
16
8
very low
low
m edium
high
very high
Question 10: The following statements relate to the information systems in your
organization:
The four statements below were provided with the option to choose “Yes” or “No” beside
each statement. N refers to the number of responses; N/A refers to a write-in response of not
applicable.
Statement
(B) The Information Technology Department (ITD) is heavily
Involved with and understands the business mission
(D) ITD is viewed as the technical help desk, and not helpful in
Solving business problems
N
193
190*
Yes
171
119
No
22
69
N/A
14
17
189*
185*
102
85
86
100
18
22
*Two responses for B above was “both yes and no” and one response for C was “sometimes” and one response for
D was “neither”.
Q11 What are the barriers in your organization to implementing new initiatives?
There were 185 responders who contributed 263 thoughts. In order of the number of
contributions in each area, the general grouping areas are: money, time, change, manpower,
politics, leadership and management, regulations and laws, technology, culture, buy-in,
A-21
knowledge, silos, planning, workload, size, communication, training, initiative, new hires
rewards, problem-solving.
Money

























Politics










Time


Money (25)
Financial (2)
Funding (13)
Budget (3)
Centralized budget system
Lack of resources (funding)
Funding new young employees
Being part of a financially strapped
government
Government budgets
Low to poor budget problems
Budget constraints
Budget support from council
Capital investment
Funding from other city departments
Budget availability; can’t have every new
toy
Dollars
Cost (13)
Costs of systems
Very small system, very few barriers, cost is
a major issue.
Cost of living in work area
Obtaining Board approval to spend
appropriate funds for these valve added
initiatives.
We are good at documenting needs of
utilities with studies and plans and
schedules, but rarely have the funds
necessary for implementation.
Limited resources
Mission funding
Pressure to reduce costs/ not increase rates
can stifle “out of box” thinking














Buy In








Politics (2)
Political (2)
Governance (2)
Political involvement in operational matters
Lack of support from other county govt.
dept. with less goals and objectives
Inertia (bureaucracy)
Higher management support
Union structure
Union contract
Labor relations- Union leadership
Labor union

Time (25)
Balancing time associated with operational
problems and business situations
Having time available to do the
implementation
Managements time is dedicated to other
ongoing projects
Time spent on development of new
initiatives
Time constraints
Need to focus on regulating compliance,
doesn’t give us flexibility or time for new
initiatives.
Getting employees to think of them.
Everyone is so busy doing their job that
carving out time for this activity can be
difficult.
Time involved in purchasing, contracts, and
employee training.
Time to educate
Time management, especially for training
new employees
Mostly time constraints
System growth and increasing workloads
lead to decreased time availability for “new”
ideas
Most staff are very busy and the related time
constraints can limit the ability for
employees to embrace and /or properly
evaluate new initiatives
Time to use functional teams to get buy-in
and understanding to create tipping point
Time (many initiatives underway
simultaneously)
Complacency among the employees
High implementation and maintenance effort
Ownership
Accountability
Buy in (2)
Employee buy in
Buy in at lower levels
Lack of feeling part of the solution on part
of some.
Organizational buy in
Change
 Resistance to change (7)
A-22

























Long term managers and supervisors not
interested in change
Resistance to change at some levels
Employees “stuck in their ways”, we’ve
never done it like that before
Change is hard to do
Lack of enthusiasm in changing the way we
do things on a proactive basis
After a while as a manager stop beating my
head against a wall trying to change
attitudes
A willingness to change
Employees do not like change
We are all humans and we naturally resist
change
The normal “it’s not the way we have done
it before” reaction. But that is getting better
as the long serving employees retire and
fresh thinking enters the workplace
Some old habits are still affecting the
operations
Exposure to new ways of doing business
high percentage of employees with greater
than 15 years experience hard to change old
way of thinking
Nature of many people do not want to
change
Resistance to new technologies
Knowledge of new systems and processes,
ability to change.
Change is difficult to implement with
seasoned employees.
Protection of turf
Stodginess
Habit of older employees
Unidirectional thinking
Conservative personalities
Lots of folks who have been here a long
time.
People who are stuck in believing the old
way of doing business is still sufficient.






Lack of a common vision at the senior
manager level that results in ineffective
communication to the organization
increase level of risk taking. We have
traditionally been a “risk avoidance”
company. This is changing with new
CEO/President
Getting management to understand what we
are doing.
Status quo. Younger middle management
less committed.
Lack of a visionary view that assesses utility
wide needs vs. divisional needs.
Champions to lead the them
Lack of trust between managers and
employees.
Manpower
 Lack of ability to hire externally
 Level of staffing
 People as in numbers
 People to put on new initiatives for
implementation
 Lack of resources- staffing (3)
 We only have 10 employees so I don’t have
too much trouble breaking down any
barriers
 Personnel available
 Available staffing
 Human resources
 Manpower (4)
 Having the staff necessary to accomplish the
initiative without taking away from another
critical areas
 Vacancies level
 Staff (2)
 Need more personnel
 Lack of in- house staff
 Inability to staff at necessary levels
 Not creating and involving the appropriate
members on the stakeholder team.
 At times available resources, to include
manpower.
Leadership and management
 Leadership
 Leadership issues
 Leadership in coordinating all IT uses in
different departments
 Historic track record of new management
initiatives turning out to be “flavors of the
month”
 Lack of performance management
 Upper management
 New management practices
Knowledge
 Skill base of ‘line’ employees
 Lack of basis of knowledge to expand what
is needed in need to know area.- what I
really need is a college graduate with a
wealth of basic knowledge instead of having
to deal with the “anybody off the can do this
job” attitude of the old boys. Granted
mechanical skills are there with the old boys
but the thirst for knowledge in not.
A-23





Education level of many employees is low
(high school degree or less)
Some lack of knowledge/ understanding
Lack of outside knowledge
Staff/skill deficiencies

Planning
 Lack of scenario planning
 Lack of long term focus
 Planning
 Number of projects planned
Technology
 A formality has been added to ensure IT
system resources and this can be perceived
by the business as a hindrance to achieving
deadlines
 IT holding back or not keeping up with new
systems…support wise
 Pace too slow to upgrade to newer
technology
 Compatible data transfers from different
organization functions
 Complexity of current systems
 Lack of measurement tools and processes
 The ITD for county is overworked; have to
use the plant instrument tech for most
SCADA problems including PC repair
 We are one of several city departments and
IT is very concerned with standardized
business solutions and systems
 Most IT and many other functions are
contracted by outside providers
 Lack of technical expertise and
understanding on the part of some.
Initiative
 Depends on initiative most are carried out
easily
 Difficulty to measure outcome; success and
failure
Problem solving
 Have good solid base to start from and then
have good problem solving techniques
Training
 Training of employee
 Lack of training and education in the basics
involved in each dept.- in the past, virtually
all training was informed and on-the-job.
Many employees did not get the exposure
needed to develop skills.
Rewards
 New ideas not appropriately rewarded
Workload
 Consistent work load
 Current workload
 Heavy workload
 The current CIP # of projects has not
allowed for a respite to gather knowledge/
store/ and access it from previous projects.
Size


Lack of flexibility in laws/ regulations
affecting part time/flex time staffing options.
Internal procurement procedures
Silos




Silos that block open communications
Stove pipe organization
Silo’s, silo’s, silo’s
Silos of expertise and OPS isolated.
Communication
 Poor communication between departments
 Physical separation of our employees leads
to barriers of communication. We are spread
over 3 offices, approx. 35 miles apart.
Small utility (2)
The size and complexity of the organization:
1,300 employees and 4 distinct lines of
business (water, drainage, wastewater, and
solid waste)
New hires
 Finding qualified candidates for new
positions.
Regulations and laws
 Union contracts
 Limited by Nevada Revised Statutes and
other ordinances
 City policies
 Regulations and Union contracts
 Typical Union issues
 Being part of a public work dept (must
follow rules)
Culture






Culture
Often more “feel good” than practical
Thick headedness
Attitude
Age related
Employee mindset
A-24



General
 We really do not have any barriers, with our
Water Services Manager supports all new
initiatives.
 SGID has always been on the leading edge
of new initiatives
Very few barriers
Not a lot of barriers
None that I know of we have good control
of our processes
Q12 What are the barriers outside your organization to implementing new initiatives?
Of the 207 survey participants, 168 responders provided 208 responses. One of those
answers was “few,” one of those answers was “none,” and one wrote “n/a”. Other responders
wrote:





Very few barriers if any
I don’t think this is a major problem
We have good external support
None that I know of we have good control processes
I don’t see any
In order of largest to smallest number, the general groupings are:
Money

























Money (5)
Money, doing more with less
Dollars
Limited funding (2)
Funding (4)
Funding limitations
Unfunded mandates
Super funding from state and federal sources
Limited revenue source
Fiscal constraints
State budget cuts
Penny pinchers not allowing us the
equipment
Financial constraints
Financially strapped local govt.
Budget
Cost (3)
Cost of living in the DC Metro area
Bottom line cost of doing business by our
member agencies
Cost of technology
Culture which is cost conscious
High cost of living
Cost of infrastructure renewal

















Politics
 Political pressures
 Politics (5)
Political (5)
City politics
Political climate, not business friendly at
state or local level.
Old local politics
Government
Inflexibility and “old think” by governing
body (county council)
Political short sightedness
Political boundary
Board has been a serious impediment to
progress
Political obstacles
Lack of support from other county govt
departments with less goal and objectives
County councils/ political process of support
Status quo of the govt structure
Council approval
Municipal Government mentality
Parochial attitudes of local municipal
officials
Member governments that we serve with
whole save water
Special interest groups (in some cases)
Local and federal legislature
Elected officials; other departments; lack of
knowledge of total water operation by
others.
A-25





Technology
 Available technology not currently available
to meet goals/ objectives of executive
management.
 The knowledge in the IT department is held
by one individual, the manager. When this
person is not available it causes a huge
problem.
Mayor/ council with limited vision or
understanding.
Council commitment
Too many unnecessary bureaucratic road
blocks
Unions, bureaucratic city processes
Political pressure to avoid any additional
staff.
New hires
 Lack of skilled or journey level work force
in this area
 Staffing
 Competition for hard to fill jobs from
competing utilities.
 Pool of potential applicants.
Regulations and laws
 Regulatory actions
 Regulators (2)
 Regulations (4)
 Regulatory agencies- civil service
 State law (2)
 Regulatory constraints
 Responses from regulatory agencies
 Civil service Union contracts
 Regulatory agency interference
 New laws passed by the legislature who do
not understand public utilities but think they
do
 Being part of public works dept (must
follow rules)
 Regulatory framework becomes more
complex
 Regulatory agencies
 Regulatory bureaucracy (state and fed
limits)
 Complying with state and federal
regulations
 State regulations and ordinances
 Regulatory guidelines
 Regulatory regulations
 Increasing regulatory parameters
 There aren’t many. Sometimes regulations
affect the speed at which we can implement
things.
 State regulatory agency bureaucracy
 Governmental regulations
 Water management regulations in conflict.
 Regulation agency timelines
 Existing laws.
 Civil service law in New York State is very
restrictive with respect to job description
and hiring practices.
 State laws which restrict flexibility in
staffing options.
 Regulatory requirements
 More regulation and reporting requirements
Rates












Rate increases (2)
rates
Strong push not to change rates even if
better for the long run.
Elevated rates
Rate increases (keep them reasonable)
Concern over higher rates.
Public resistance to any increases in utility
rates.
Customers wanting money to be low on
bills.
Customer unwillingness to support
initiatives through higher rates.
Obtaining funding support for water rates
and special property taxes from the public
and water retailers.
Rates/budget pressures from our customers
impacts resources that could help us develop
knowledge data.
Few- are looked upon within community
and region as a leader in initiatives and as
long as customer service remains high and
rates remain competitive- barriers are rarely
encountered.
Public perception
 Customer acceptance of changes
 Public
 Public support for new programs, don’t care
attitude
 Strong influence by minority public group
that dampens creativity and flexibility in the
operation of the organization
 Public perception (3)
 Public not understanding benefits of
innovative initiatives
A-26














Public opinion of “waste”
Public health concerns
Customer satisfaction
Public perception
Public perceptive
Perception of rate payers
Public awareness and understanding
Public or customer resistance, primarily
because of lack of understanding.
Complex customer relationships
Skeptical public
Public acceptance
Desire to implement total water
management with cities understanding by
customers of complexity and costs.
Perception of public money being misused



Economy
 Economic fears of what the future may hold.
 Have to plan long term but the economy
may not support initiatives
 Growth driving utilities and other
infrastructure rather than have growth and
infrastructure development occur in a
coordinated manner
 High poverty level
 Loss of industry and increased utility bills
 Economy
Resources/ water
 Resources are limited
 Limited training resources
 Available resources to implement projects
 Starting to see some lack of knowledge/
resources on an employee front
 Resources
 Water source and availability/ treat ability.
 Turf issues with other agencies
 We are looking at additional water resources
(some are in neighboring state)regional/state politics and turf protection
(adjacent systems aggressively pursuing
customers).
Time



Vision

Micromanagement without appreciation of
business problems.
Lack of an approved sphere of influence.
Understanding of what we are trying to do
and interests vested in the status quo.
There are no barriers outside our
organization. (some employees may have a
lack of trust when new initiatives are
proposed)
Outside agencies
 Other agencies that lack vision
 Working with other agencies
 Support from outside sources (legal,
vendors, etc.)
 Close tie between general city operations
and utility ops.
 Centralized city functions.
Communication
 Understanding the initiatives
 Greeting good contractors
 Communication and help from other
departments
 Communication
Time (4)
Finding the time and identifying the
necessary resources
Long commutes so no extra “time” given
after work
Education/training
 Education
 Training harder to get locally and travel to
lower 48 is expensive
 Weeding through seminar/training literature
for relevant, useful training. Often, quality
of training is dependent on the instructor, so
we have had training of inconsistent quality
 Education of political authority
 Convincing and educating our volunteer
Board representatives to the long range
advantages associated with these initiatives.
Vision
Leadership
 Nonperforming consultants
 Lack of leadership
 County supervisors
 Support of county administrationsupervisors and manager
 Consultant engineering
 Authority
 Lack of flexibility in centralized city HR
department
 IT, HR
Change
 Resistance to change
A-27








How people become entrenched in doing
things “the same way”.
Environment
 Environmental constraints on a significant
barrier
 Physical constraints/ loss of population
 Geo-political environment
Other







We are a public entity
Usually done by a group of knowledgeable
people
Paperwork
Planning

Bidding implementation
Accessibility due to geographical location
Weather
Too many outside initiatives
Limited interest from “peer” organizations
Regional partnerships need to be expanded
Fractured service arrangements throughout
region
Inter-jurisdictional agreements
Cooperation with other organizations
We are being helped by implementing of a
county wide GIS program
Reduced staffing available for any in-house
initiatives
Q13 What are the critical factors in your organization that support successful
implementation of new initiatives?
Of the 207 survey participants, 183 provided 290 responses. These fall in the general
areas of (largest number to smallest number): support, leadership, buy-in, employees, money,
communication, teams, time, technology, planning, change, training, resources, results, laws and
regulations, implementation and other.
Money























Money (5)
Save money
Financial support
Finance
Finances
Financing
Paying for
Funding(4)
budget
Strong finances to fund
Return on investments
Grants
Have the resources financial and human to
implement new initiatives
Cost factor
Low cost
Well defined purpose, supported with cost
or operational benefits
Cost to benefit studies
Costs
Cost effective
Source of funding
Capital investments
Utility commission that is willing to invest
money in needed capital projects
Support



















Keep costs low, anything to save future
dollars
Management support (9)
Management support/ input
Strong supportive management team
Dept head and management support
Trust competence; management support
Management support and leadership is
critical to motivating staff
Upper management supports new ideas
when money, time and personnel can
feasibly be allocated
Support from senior management
Upper management alignment
Upper management support
Management commitment
Supportive Board
A Board of water commissioners with an
open mind
Water Board/ council
Convincing elected officials
Supportive utilities commission
Board of Directors
Board of Commissioner sign-on
Top down support of implementation
A-28


























Buy-in
















Department director support
Dedicated board and supervisors
Board approval
Board of Trustees that believe in
advancement and the ideas put forth by staff
Progressive and practical Board of
Commissioners
Strong Board support
Support from Board
Board of Directors elected
Supportive Board of Directors
City council approval
City manager and City council support
Strong support from Mayor
Support of Mayor and public works Director
Political and community support
Support for the Board and GM
Support from City Council and down
through the organization
Commission and leadership support
Staff support/ input
Employee support
Diversity and commitment of staff
Employees all support quality and quantity
improvement programs
When you can get management/ council &
public support
Community support
Need support from other departments
Support from bargaining units and upper
management
Openness to employee development







initiative(s), and having all levels of
employees involved with the
implementation and review of the
effectiveness of the new initiative(s)
Employees buy-in—if they see it as valuable
to them, they will be more helpful in
implementation
Buy-in by all involved
Enjoy ownership/ empowerment
First, assuring buy-in; and second assuring
long-term commitment
Acceptance by employees and upper
management
Middle management acceptance of
initiatives and means to support initiative
Leadership buy-in
Leadership
 Leadership (5)
 Solid leadership
 Leadership philosophy
 Strong leadership at the dept Director level
 Relatively new management leaders willing
to try new things
 Leadership; community trust and support
 Experienced leadership
 Management that listens to and foster the
growth of new ideas and initiatives
 New and enthusiastic upper management
 Management leadership
 Forward thinking younger middle
management
 Leadership from the top
 Management staff
 Management staff is change oriented
 Management thinking outside the box
 Supervisory acceptance
 Disciplined and technically proficient front
line supervisors
 Distribution supervisor help
 Quality and experience leadership in
management and historical performance of
the organization
 Management’s ability to implement new
ideas
 Slowly building a core of management and
supervisors with vision for new initiative
 New leadership in place and reviewing
organization structure and function
 Motivated managers
 Strategic management system
 Strategic systems mgmt. office
 Visionary, charismatic leader
 Key leaders
Buy-in
Employee and administrative buy-in
Employee involvement
Employee buy-in (6)
Employee cooperation
All parties in favor
Staff buy-in (2)
Top down buy-in of objectives
Empowerment of employees (2)
Management buy-in (4)
Management buy-in or driving change
Employee willingness to try new ideas
Buy-in from political powers
Buy-in from utility commission and
employees
Employee buy-in both management and
Union
Buy-in by employees, 1st through
involvement with the development of the
A-29



Training
 Line employees understanding what and
how the technology works
 Training
 Everyone understanding proper training is
essential tools
 Availability of training
 The need to better train staff
Willing leaders
Management that is interested in process
improvement and change
Management commitment
Communication
 Good communication (3)
 Good staff communication
 Good communication/ justification
 Communication; willingness to openly
discuss; respect
 Communication (9)
 Board that is not stuck in the mud or the
past; task forces and ability to have open and
honest communications with out the threat
of repercussion
 Knowledgeable City council
 Commissioners being informed about
initiatives and willing to try
 Sharing of information between executive
and operational branches
 Open collaborative communication
 Good lines of communication
 Communication- personal, written, and
electronic
 Good information
 Understanding goals
 Communication structure
 Need for all information of different
departments to be available to all
Team














Time





Time (5)
Timely response from Township
Professionals
Providing time
Creation of sense of urgency
Time to study proposed changes
Planning
 Planning (2)
 Solid analysis and good strategy
 Planning between managers
 Strategic planning
 Long term planning on acquiring strategic
water resources
Technology
 Technology SOP’s trainers
 Technical knowledge
 Ease of use
 New technology
 IT dept
 Top-down management embraces new
technologies and /or processes or procedures
 Introduction to new / modern procedures
 tools
Team- based approach
Progressive and active management team
Openness of top leadership team
Motivated team oriented approach
We work as team when implementing new
initiatives
Team leadership/ champion
Team development
High performing work teams
Inclusivity (teams)
Team work and collaborative culture
Teamwork at all levels
Team building
Management team input
Planned regular professional development;
cross training and cross utilization of
personnel information exchange among
managers team based units; emphasis on
safety and preventative maintenance.
Changes
 Change leadership team
 Openness to change of EE’s
 Desire to improve; move from fire fighting
and reactionary maintenance to a proactive/
preventative maintenance
 New initiatives and desired results—must be
clearly stated to employees—if not—they
will resist changes
 Work within silos—this way new ideas get
introduced, but they are not well defined
from an enterprise view.
Resources
 Resources (2)
 Sufficient resources
 Sustainable resources
A-30
Employees
 Employee skill levels
 Motivated staff
 Customer service attitude
 High skill level
 Great staff
 People (3)
 Retirees
 Age of employees in the field
 Strong work ethic
 Large work force
 Cooperative spirit
 The recognition that we need to work
efficiently to best serve our internal and
external customers
 Operators motivation
 Very dedicated and enthusiastic staff
 Outstanding employees
 Hard working, creative, dedicated people
 Excellent talent
 Progressive thinkers
 Past experience
 Desire to lead industry, empowerment
 Personal pride
 Courteous and respectful of each other
 Trust (2)
 Employee skills and abilities
 Risk takers
 Smart, dedicated staff
 Dedicated, knowledgeable, and hard
working people that want to do their job
right
 Employees want to make the best decisions
possible
 Available manpower
Results
 Short-term results
 Lead to longer term successes
 Recognition of successes
Other



















Laws and regulations
 New laws
 Recognition by regulators as necessary
expenditures
 Regulatory driven






Implementation
 Strategic implementation
 Follow through
Unknown
Perseverance
Good knowledge of action taken
Proper equipment
System is capable of new initiative
Measuring performance to better manage for
results
Have the correct information- have
alternatives available- complete
understanding of initiatives by all involved.
Exposure to new and better implemented
ideas from other suppliers
Proper rates
Large enough to have achieved economies
of scale rate structure- low in comparison to
surrounding utilities.
Small size
Input
Consistency and competence
Staying competitive with privatizers
Setting goals even though county govt.
doesn’t
Well structured/ well defined program
Prop 218 faces vote on Clean Water &
passage by voters of existing fees
It is a combination of keeping up with the
industry trends and reacting to a specific
incident
Study; explain; have buy-in; implement;
resolve problem (troubleshooting)
Process
Vision
The mission to produce an effective and cost
efficient utility
Need or urgency
Outside help
Efficiency and improvements
A-31
Q14 How would you describe a successful initiative in your organization?
Of the 207 survey participants, 175 provided 290 responses. These responses included:
two “n/a,” one “unknown,” one “not sure,” and one “I don’t understand the question—sorry.” In
order of largest to smallest number, the general categories of response are: results, implemented,
cost effective, planned, goals, employee buy-in, supported, accepted, ideas, timely, teams,
benefits, identify problem, understood/communicated, analyze, measurable, meets needs,
leadership and other.
Identify problem
 Management and employees identifying a
problem, developing solution (options)
 When an issue is identified
 Well defined purpose
 Proposed by everyone
 A new process is introduced
 Visional
 Research
Accepted
 approved by the Board (2)
 accepted by the Agency’s customers, Board
of Directors, staff and the management team
 approved by employees
 Board agree to amending the policy of the
District
 Embraced by entire organization
 Acceptance by all included
 More than one section of the department is
involved
 A collaborative process
 Approval by all involved
 One that has general acceptance
 Accepted
 Easy acceptance
 Acceptance
 Agreement
 Gets approved
 Consensus driven
Leadership
 Field of dreams approach- you must pilot
 Need initiative manager (driving force)
 Championed by executive and senior staff
Cost effective
 Money dedicated
 Within budget (3)
 Budget
 New way to generate revenue
 Money is budgeted
 Properly funded
 Money
 Funding (3)
 Saves money (2)
 Under budget
 Financially supported
 An adequate resources to implement and
maintain the initiatives
 One that gets adequately funded
 Within budget
 Keep cost low
 Cost effective (2)
 One that improves work processes in a cost
efficient manner.
 For an initiative to be successful, it typically
comes with little or no actual costs, such as
team-based decision making.
 Cost or operational benefits
 Reduces cost or maintains cost while
improving service
 To do more at lower cost
Employee buy-in
 organization buy-in
 employee buy-in (2)
 getting employees to get on board and take
the bull by the horns and be proactive in
infrastructure maintenance
 employees have ownership
 Buy-in throughout the employee population
 Buy-in from all levels of the organization
 Buy in from all parties
 Board buy-in
 Input from all levels of management and
labor
 Wide involvement
 Employee involvement
 Endorsement by staff
 Reviewed by staff
 Reviewed and evolved by the employees
 An initiative that has employee involvement
 Receives input from operating personnel
 Employee buy-in with smooth
implementation
A-32






Owned enthusiastically by grass root
employees and staff
Some type of initiative that people are eager
to try and experience results
Discussed at manager and local level
One that involves a broad range of people,
and is created with enthusiasm and
intelligence, lasts as long as needed.




Supported
 staff supports (2)
 support of elected officials
 supported at all levels (2)
 supports organizations mission statement
 institutionalized in the organization
 pushed from top down
 Support by Union/ Management
 Strongly supported by the City council
 Management support
 Supported
 One which has top- down support
 Has to start from top- so all initiatives are
allowed in departments by departmental
heads but major one have to start at top.
 Management and Board support
 Supported from those above and below
 Support from other departments involved in
the initiative
 One that is implemented with support of the
organization
 With the full support of the organization/
stakeholders; receives continued
commitment from all who are part of it, and
realizes a benefit.
 Successful initiatives can start at the top,
middle, or bottom, but the hallmark of a
success is when all levels respond to an
issue in the same way.
 Bringing it to the water and light
Commission for their review and support
and then getting it done.
 Supported by leadership
Improves job satisfaction
Work required by all three work groups and
Board with the implementation of a 4X10
week for energy and conservative purposes
Employee participation
Employees are involved from the ground
level
Fully engaged staff—teams involved
Employees share in reward either through
financial incentives or eased workloads/
automated processes
Implemented
 Implement(2)
 implement tasks
 implemented (4)
 implemental
 initiation
 implemented by staff
 implementation (4)
 cross sectional group of competent and
cooperative employees for the
implementation team
 easily implemented
 executed
 successfully managed
 Up and running
 One that reaches a point where a final
decision is made to implement of not
implement
 Implemented by all parties involved
 Effective implementation
 Once it has been implemented for at least a
year
 Implementation of long range planning
efforts.
 Process is moved from test to fully
implemented
 Initiative developed and implemented
 Successfully implemented in a reasonable
time
Timely










Training
 Excellent training
 Training is implemented
 Provides training needed
Teams/ employees
 Successful initiative requires team work
 A team effort that starts with an idea and is
worked on
 Team communication
 Enhance satisfaction of our employees
Timely (6)
Done on time
Save manual time
efficiency
Efficiency improvement
Efficient (2)
Time
Completed on time
Accomplished within a specific time frame
On schedule
A-33



Time specific and did not develop scope
creep
Completed on time



Planned
 Well thought out
 Develop strategies to overcome gaps
 Develop tasks to implement strategies
 Planned (4)
 plan
 Well planned (3)
 Well planned and presented
 Well planned in advance
 planning
 Properly planned project from start to finish
 Planned and scheduled
 Planned change at the department level that
proceeds through upper management
 Strategic work plan
 Work group to develop plan
 Test plan
 Educate employees and management on
plan
 One that is well thought out and planned,
because of an upcoming need.
 Group planning sessions
Goals



















One which can actually be accomplished
and meets original goals
One that gets fully implemented and
achieves goals
One that accomplished something
One that accomplishes goals and objectives
that were set for the initiative to achieve.
Meets needs
 A successful initiative in DC, Washington is
one that meets the needs of both customers
and employees.
 Adapting and improving policy in response
to customer needs.
 To look into new ideas- future growthexpands departments to meet the needs of
the public.
Results
 Increase customer service while improving
business practices
 Improves work flows and is user friendly
 Measure and analyze results
 Provides the benefits that were targeted and
then becomes a part of the daily routine for
most employees
 Provides better information faster
 Benefits customers
 If it got done 100%
 Reduces- OT, complaints, man hours/
project
 New law
 Completed with all employees satisfied with
results
 Feed back and improve on a continuous
basis
 Users are happy with final outcome
 Water protection
 Efforts show results
 Original objective realized
 Overall system improvement
 Completed with few problems
 Review and adjust
 Paying an employee to maintain a license
higher than required
 One that provides the result intended
 Increased productivity
 One that produced an outcome/result
positively affecting our customers
 Increased competitiveness
 Results in increased skill levels of team
 Ensuring that the initiative meets the criteria
for success (established prior to
implementation)
Accomplishes the task at hand with the least
amount of negative impact
Completion of objectives
Achieves the goals desired with minimum ill
side effects
Identifies needs and meets those needs
Identify gaps to achieving the goal
Define initiative goal
Accomplished
Management and employees understanding
same goal
Met all requirements
Created more efficiency/ effectiveness to the
mission objectives
Goal oriented
One that better helps us meet our mission
One that met its performance objectives
without mid-course correction
Meet intended goals/ objectives
Meets mission goals
Achieves the goal established
Meeting or exceeding desired goals
All employees meet established goals
One with goals for timelines of
implementation
A-34




















Measurable
 One that was measurable
 Measurable results
 Tested
Analyze
 Analyze present situation
 Well crafted
 The result of solid problem analysis
(including problem definition), good range
of alternatives considered and appropriate
evaluation criteria used in the decision
making.
 Thoughtfully conceived
 well engineered
Other
 Developed using key staff
 One in which everyone felt that an issue was
addressed to some satisfaction
 To have a positive outlook and good feeling
on what’s taken place
 If Board would be more forward thinking
and less willing to maintain the status quo
 One that uses an innovative approach to
common everyday problems. Being able to
solve or deal with a common problem in a
very uncommon way
 One that engenders workforce productivity,
loyalty, and retention and improves
recruitment and hiring.
 Most new initiatives are coming from
outside agencies
 Involves thinking “out of the box” by
employees at all levels
Specifics
 Our $36 million AMR project is a good
example. This initiative includes a very
effective steering committee.
 Redefining well head protection area
 SAP system implementation
 When we have morning meetings we ask
our employees what are they doing today
and they respond with their daily tasks.
 Our maintenance operations have improved
by taking more of an integrated team
approach than a shop-centric approach by
trade.
 Upgrade of SCADA in 2006- moved
companies and software, only accomplished
with help of new instrument tech.
 Development and implementation of a new
customer service information and billing
system w/IVR- work order capabilitydeveloped in-house.
One that happened seamlessly, without drop
in employee morale
Outcome positive and tangible
Perceived benefits realized
Initiate “changes” as trial basis. Then make
permanent after a break-in period
Try something small and illustrate positive
results
One that improves the quality of our service
to our customers
Follow up on details
Indicate positive movement
Outcome, results and adaptation
One that goes through a successful analysis
Project is evaluated and deemed successful
Poof of concepts as there is no visionary
capability in the SR. positions; no risk takers
Feedback from outside entities, employers,
customers and Board representatives are all
indicators to success of an initiative action.
Enhances service
Increases customer satisfaction
Changed work practices
Efficient, energy efficient
It leads to a change in outcome, such as
improved performance (capital or
operating); better service delivery to our
customers, or work process improvements of
efficiencies.
Benefits our customers, community, and/ or
employees
To the level of quality expected by the
sponsor and has impact it was intended to
have (or better)
Benefits
 Benefits organization
 Trained and operated personnel
 An opportunity is identified to improve
quality or service and implemented to that
end
 Improves some process or outcome
 An initiative that provides improved
productivity
 Improves customer service
 Enhances the satisfaction of our customers
Understood/communicated
 Understood
 One that everybody understands
 Makes sense to the community
 Board and community are kept informed
 Communicated
 Communication
A-35









Q15
The migration of long-tenured employees
from doing tasks the “old way” to doing
tasks utilizing available technology.
Our current master plan was a very
successful collaboration of all staff and good
consultants
Development of better maintenance
management systems
Get funding to a new regional wastewater
plant by using “Water is Life” campaign
ideas
Drinking water treatment plant efficiency
enhancement project…water and power
efficiency gaining; required partnership with
retail contractors
2007, large gate valve survey program
ensure valves were operable for a recent
emergency.
Implemented new customer service billing
system for 210,000 electric customers/
125,000 water connections.
Automatic meter reading implementation;
integrated water management plan
Basic training in our distribution system
maintenance dept., a few years ago, we
started budgeting to send two people per

year to a licensing course. Slow progress
with 15 or 16 people in the dept. This year
we brought the instructor on site, are in
process of training everyone.
We have successfully gone to a 4x10 work
week, with Fridays off and have rotated
crews in on the Fridays to have coverage. It
gives the employees 3 out of 4 Fridays off;
has given our organization 50 hours of
coverage for a 40 hour work week, and has
saved our utilities between 15% and 20% in
energy costs including fuel for department
vehicles, heating/air conditioning of
buildings, and similar savings for personnel
vehicles used in commuting
An overview of Project Studies collected is included in Part 5.
A-36
PART 5
RESULTS
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
In the Project 4003 survey participants were asked: How well does your organizational
structure support sharing of information and knowledge? On a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 1
representing “very poorly” and 5 representing “very well,” the mean of the 203 responses to this
question was 3.59 and the median was 4. This was among the higher scoring answers to the
questions involving characteristics of the utilities. For example, the amount of knowledge
sharing among managers has a mean of 3.70, the level of trust among employees has a mean of
3.69, and the level of employee learning has a mean of 3.59. All the rest of the questions relating
to Utility characteristics are lower than 3.59, some considerably lower. The level of
communication between departments has a mean of 3.46.
In contrast, the ability of the human resource department to support learning and
knowledge sharing has a mean of 3.22, well below the mean of the means (the average mean for
survey response) of 3.44. This shows the perception that the organizational structure supports
the sharing of information and knowledge better than the human resource department.
KNOWLEDGE SHARING
The good news from the Project 4003 survey response is that the mean for the level of
trust among employees on a five-point Likert scale was 3.69 with a median of 4. This is one of
the higher means in the survey. In other words, while there is a disparity in responses ranging
from very poor to very well, the leaders and managers felt more positive about the level of trust
among employees than other areas assessed such as level of process discipline (3.24 mean) and
the level of information system integration(information is consistent and accessible) (3.08 mean).
In the Project 4003 survey response, when asked to assess the flexibility of organizational
policies, the mean for 206 responses was 3.26. The mean of the means—which provides the
average response for this survey—is 3.44. This means that the flexibility of organizational
policies is considered lower than average.
On Likert scale from 1 (very poorly) to 5 (very well), 205 responders to the Project 4003
survey valued the level of information system integration (information consistent and accessible)
at a mean of 3.08. This represents the lowest mean in the survey, and is considerably below the
mean of the means of 3.44. Further, the mean was 3.35 for the quality of information contained
in IT systems. See the discussion of the relationship between information technology,
information management and KM at the end of Chapter 6.
Although there is room for growth, knowledge sharing does occur among drinking water
Utility managers. Recall that in the Project 4003 survey response, on a Likert scale the mean of
207 responders was 3.68 when asked to assess the amount of knowledge sharing among
managers. However, for the level of communication between departments the mean was 3.46,
indicating a wider knowledge sharing gap between departments than between managers, or
between employees.
Appendix A
37
CORE PLANNING PROCESSES
In the 4003 survey process, drinking water utilities were asked: How well do the
following core processes support your organization’s mission? The results are provided in Table
A.5 below.
Table A.5
Core planning processes support of the Utility’s mission.
Q6A
Q6B
Q6C
Q6D
Q6E
Q6F
6 Items
N
Mean
Min
Max
SD
Median
Life cycle planning
187
199
202
196
177
185
3.60
3.79
3.94
3.18
3.09
3.19
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
.851
.740
.818
.800
.861
.975
4.00
4.00
4.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Source: Project 4003 survey process
There are a number of observations that can be made regarding this response.
First, note that there is a range from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) in response to each core
planning process and its support of the Utility’s mission. Thus the standard deviations are quite
broad for each set of responses.
Second, note that the median is 4 (high) for strategic business planning, operational
planning, and capital improvement planning, indicating that the majority of responses are 4
(high) or 5 (very high). These three processes are historically those that fall under the direct
purview of leaders and managers.
Third, note that out of the 207 survey responders, the number of responses to each of the
six core planning processes ranges from 177 to 202. The instructions on the survey read: “This
survey looks at your organization as a whole ... should be filled out by a senior manager.” Thus
for each of the core processes there were 5-30 responders who chose not to enter a value for that
core process, indicating either no judgment or an unfamiliarity with the core processes they were
asked to assess. In the order of those processes more readily assessed, the planning processes
are: Capital improvement planning, operational planning, human resource development,
strategic business planning, information technology master planning and life cycle planning.
This would indicate, for example, a higher level of familiarity and opinion on capital
improvement planning than life cycle planning. Yet capital improvement planning is directly
correlated to life cycle planning. In an uncertain and changing economic and political
environment—where new requirements and issues emerge without adequate resources to quickly
and effectively respond to those requirements and issues—long-term planning must often take a
second seat to short-term needs. While this juxtaposing occurs in a large number of
organizations, the aging infrastructure faced by a large number of drinking water utilities is
rapidly bringing long-term into the sphere of short-term urgency. In other words, funding needs
that could previously be delayed can no longer be delayed.
The data for Q6F in Table A.5 indicates that information technology master planning has
the second lowest response rate, the second lowest mean (by .01), the broadest standard
Appendix A
38
deviation and the median falls in the 3.0 range (medium). These indicators can now be
combined with the responses to question 10: “The following statements relate to the information
systems in your organization” to build a deeper understanding of the perception of the role of
information technology (and by extension information technology master planning) and the
mission of the Utility. See Table A.6 below.
Table A.6
Information systems in drinking water utilities.
Statement
(B) The Information Technology Department (ITD) is heavily
involved with and understands the business mission
(D) ITD is viewed as the technical help desk, and not helpful in
solving business problems
N
Yes
No
N/A
193
190*
171
119
22
69
14
17
189*
185*
102
85
86
100
18
22
*Two responses for B above were “both yes and no”, one response for C was “sometimes”, and one response for D
was “neither”.
Note that while the data presented in Tables A.5 and A.6 is from the same group of Utility
leaders/managers, only 185 responders provided an opinion on the strength of information
technology master planning and the organization’s mission. In contrast, the statements labeled
A, B and C in Table A.6 drew a larger number of responses. Here are some key percentages:




88.6% of 193 responders agree that systems are mission critical to the organization.
62.6% of 190 responders agree that ITD is heavily involved with and understands the
business mission.
54% of 189 responders agree that ITD is a solution provider for business problems.
45.9% of 185 responders agree that ITD is not helpful in solving business problems.
The last two bullets above represent the same question looked at from two different directions.
While there is a larger perception (62.6%) that ITD is involved with and understands the
business mission, there is a lower perception (54%) of its effectiveness in handling business
problems. From this response, it is clear that while the value of information technology is
recognized as mission critical (88.6%), there is still some work to do in order for information
technology to strongly support the business mission. When these indicators are considered with
the patterns created from responses to the data presented in Table A.6, there are two potential
findings. Either (1) information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been
sufficiently developed or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking
water utilities, or (2) leaders and managers who responded to this survey instrument
(representing 207 drinking water utilities nation-wide) are not aware of or do not understand the
role that information technology is playing in their utilities. In either case, it is clear that
Knowledge Management can contribute to helping drinking water utilities engage the full
Appendix A
39
potential of current and future information technology investments in terms of their contribution
to business problems and the business mission.
While the option of writing in additional planning processes considered as core was
provided in the survey, no additional processes were chosen by responders.
As indicated by the data presented in Tables A.5 and A.6 above, one potential finding is
that information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently developed
or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water utilities. There is a
close relationship between information technology (IT), information management (IM) and
Knowledge Management.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN
WATER UTILITITES
Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the critical factors in your
organization that support successful implementation of new initiatives? There were 290
responses from 207 responders. Figure A.4 shows the general areas of responses. The largest
number of these responses (17.9%) were focused on support: from leadership, management,
staff, directors, the water board, the commission, the city council, the city manager, the
community, and support from employees and other departments. Several of these coupled
commitment with support.
Support
Leadership
Buy-In
Employees
Money
Communication
Other
Teams
Time
Technology
Planning
Change
Training
Resources
Results
Laws and Regulations
Implementation
0
20
40
60
Source: Project 4003 survey response
Figure A.4 Critical factors that support successful implementation of new initiatives
Appendix A
40
The results displayed in Figure A.4 were combined with the results from the leadership
and management interviews, workshops and focus groups. The barriers most often cited are
described below.
Leadership and Management Support
Leadership and management support of the KM project is critical to motivating staff
personnel and letting the employees know that the project has the full backing of senior
leadership and management. Leadership and management support not only applies to the
planning phase and beginning of the KM project, but support must be consistent throughout
project implementation. Ideally, the governing board will also have given its support,
particularly if the project is a KM strategy impacting the entire utility. Management
commitment throughout the project ensures that the project is recognized as a significant effort to
improve the Utility’s performance.
Lead by Example
Leading by example can significantly enhance the effectiveness of the KM project. As
leaders and managers create the KM initiative and develop the project for implementation, their
actions, communications and behavior should reflect and be consistent with the intentions of the
KM project. For example, if employees see leaders and senior managers sharing information and
knowledge and openly asking questions and considering new ideas and ways of improving the
Utility’s performance, they are less likely to resist changes and more likely to adopt similar
behavior.
Communicate, Communicate, Communicate
Communicating to the workforce the reasons why change is necessary is one way of
breaking down barriers to a KM project. If the workforce understands the nature and value of
the project in terms of its impact on improving organizational performance and helping them
with their own day-to-day decisions and actions, they will be more cooperative and supportive of
the project.
Employee Buy-In
Employee buy-in plays a major role in influencing the success of a KM project. The
project must be planned taking into account employee skill levels, their capability to work
together, the amount of trust they have with each other as well as with management, and their
willingness to change, learn and adapt new practices, including ways of implementing their own
work responsibilities. Employees who are empowered and willing to try new ideas are typically
very supportive of KM projects. For a KM strategy that touches all levels of employees and
employees from all aspects or departments of the organization, ensuring participation in some
way in the implementation of the KM strategy is one means of obtaining employee buy-in.
Appendix A
41
Bring Employees into the Project
By keeping employees aware of intent, progress and direction of the KM project,
employees will have opportunities to get their questions answered and become actively involved
in supporting pertinent aspects of the project. These actions gain employee awareness,
understanding and acceptance of the project, thereby gaining their cooperation and reducing their
resistance to the project implementation.
Resource Support
The financial resources must be available to implement new KM initiatives. Examples of
financial needs could include new technology, travel for individuals implementing the project, or
bringing outside experts in as advisers. Where capital projects are concerned, the Utility’s
Commission would likely have to approve the financial investment. To ensure the costeffectiveness of a KM initiative, a business case that addresses return on investments, sources of
funding and a well-defined purpose should be developed and approved by you, the governor's
body or senior leadership of the Utility.
Good Communications
Good communications is essential to project success. The sharing of information
between executive and operational branches and the encouragement of open conversations,
questions and suggestions allows employee participation and engages cooperation and
collaboration. As elements of the project are implemented and necessary redirection occurs,
good communications keeps all employees fully aware of progress and minimizes the danger of
surprises or misunderstandings. New initiatives and desired results need to be clearly stated and
understood by employees, if they are not, the employees may well resist changes.
A Team-Based Approach
A team-based approach encourages local groups and teams to take on responsibilities and
provides the opportunity for open and honest communication among small groups. Teams
involved in implementing new initiatives develop ownership, a broad perspective of the Utility
and an understanding of the expected performance to be achieved by the KM project. At the
same time, teams also result in effective decisions since they create a broader (systems)
perspective on the Utility and its needs. As teams develop ownership of a project due to their
responsibilities in its implementation, they also communicate to many employees on an
individual basis the reasons why the project is important. The project then becomes not one of
management decree, but one of widespread acceptance and implementation.
Allowing Time for Change to Occur
Organizations do not change quickly. Typically, it may take from two to five years for a
significant change to occur in the organizational culture or ways of doing business. Thus any
major KM effort may take time and patience to achieve successful implementation of a new
organizational structure. A second aspect of time is to ensure that Utility employees are
Appendix A
42
provided the time to implement the KM strategy or initiative. Another consideration is the need
to take time to work with the governance body and with the senior leadership and management
team of the Utility to ensure their understanding and backing of the KM strategy or initiative. In
addition, key individuals within the Utility who are involved in implementing the KM project
must be allowed to take the necessary time for its implementation.
.
Technology Support
Many KM strategies or initiatives require the use of technology to efficiently provide the
information needed for effective Knowledge Management. Examples would be yellow pages,
expert locators, internal communications networks and groupware in support of teams.
Whatever technology is used needs to be user friendly, flexible, cost-effective and capable of
being upgraded to beat anticipated Utility needs in the future. Without the available technology,
some KM projects would have great difficulty in enhancing Utility performance.
Developing Trust
This refers to developing trust vertically and horizontally throughout the utility, having
an open mind and participating in a dialogue with others. It means a willingness to share one's
knowledge. The creation of new ideas is enhanced where trust exists between individuals or
among groups. Further, trust can be developed by creating teams and interactive workgroups
and providing development programs to ensure employees are competent and capable of doing
their jobs without direct oversight.
Valuing Employees
Valuing employees includes ensuring that employees feel valued and recognize that they
are contributing to the overall performance of the organization. This provides a sense of
ownership to the employee, which in turn heightens their interest in the overall Utility
performance and makes them much more willing to participate in KM projects. When
employees feel secure with their own performance and about their relationship with the Utility,
they are much more willing to work with an organizational change effort.
Provide Training and Development
Providing necessary training and development, particularly where technology or special
skills are needed in the limitation of the KM project, is essential to the successful implementation
of new practices and procedures. If the technology is to be used effectively by Utility
employees, it must be carefully brought into the culture and practices of the Utility. Even when
technology is working perfectly and is easy to use, employees may not be willing to use it unless
they are made fully aware of its advantages and the benefits provided to their own work as well
as overall Utility performance.
Appendix A
43
SUCCESS FROM ANOTHER VIEWPOINT
Project 4003 survey participants were asked: How would you describe a successful
initiative in your organization? There were 290 responses from 207 responders. The largest
number of these responses (15.2%) were focused on results. Representative of generic responses
are: efforts show results, original objective realized, overall system improvement and users
happy with final outcome. Specific responses included: increase customer service while
improving business practices, improves work flows and is user friendly, provides better
information faster, provides the benefits that were targeted and then become a part of the daily
routine for most employees. Other “increases” were: increased productivity, increased
competitiveness, and increased customer satisfaction. One learner responded: Paying an
employee to maintain a license higher than required.
Figure A.5 below shows the other descriptive areas used to describe a successful KM
initiativee in a drinking water Utility.
Figure A.5 Descriptive areas of successful KM initiatives
BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN WATER UTILITIES
Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the barriers in your organization
to implementing new initiatives? There were 263 responses from 207 responders. In the next
question, survey participants were asked: What are the barriers outside your organization to
implementing new initiatives? There were 208 responses from 207 responders. Figure A.6
shows the general areas of responses. The largest number of these total responses (22.3%) were
focused on money; for example, limited resources, budget constraints, pressure to reduce costs,
Appendix A
44
unfunded mandates. While money is more vocally expressed as an inside constraint, the words
and descriptions are similar for both sets of data.
As can be seen in Figure A.6, politics, time and regulations & laws follow as a group.
Next is change, leadership & management, manpower and public perception, followed closely by
rates.
The barriers most often cited are described below.
Outside Agencies
Economy
Vision
Resources/Water
Public Perception
Rates
Problem Solving
Rewards
New Hires
Initiative
Training
Communication
Size
Workload
Planning
Silos
Knowledge
General
Culture
Regs & Laws
Technology
Buy‐In
Leadership & Management
Politics
Manpower
Change
Time
Money
INSIDE BARRIERS
OUTSIDE BARRIERS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Figure A.6 Barriers in the Utility to implementing new initiatives
Financial Resources
Financial resources often represent a significant barrier to KM projects. Obtaining board
approval to spend appropriate funds for projects that would improve Utility performance can
sometimes be quite difficult. Further, with growing infrastructure needs in a down-turned
economy coupled with the public perception that water is a right not a product to be purchased, it
is difficult to move beyond imposed financial restraints. Yet drinking water is a critical resource
that is becoming increasingly scarce.
Time
Time may represent a significant barrier to implementing KM programs in the sense that
employees simply may not have the available time for the implementation process. As one
respondent noted, "Everyone is so busy doing their job that carving out time for this activity can
be difficult." Another individual noted that, "Most staff are very busy and the related time
Appendix A
45
constraints can limit the ability for employees to embrace and/or properly evaluate new
initiatives."
This was reflected in the Project 4003 survey results. On a Likert scale where 1 is very
low and 5 is very high, the statement “Number of new ideas implemented annually” evoked a
3.22 mean from 207 responders. This is significantly below the mean of means (the average for
this survey response) of 3.44. In contrast, the question “How well does your organization accept
and implement new initiatives?” had a mean of 3.49 from 198 responders.
Resistance to Change
Employee resistant to change can present a challenge to the implementation of new
projects such as KM strategies or initiatives. Some employees are stuck in their old ways and
have difficulty learning new practices or ways of interacting with other employees. This
frequently shows up as a lack of enthusiasm in changing the way things are done in a given
situation or Utility.
As one responder noted, "A high percentage of employees with greater than 15 years
experience find it hard to change their old ways of thinking." Other aspects of resistance would
include concern or fear over new technologies, protecting one's turf, conservative personalities
and a strong belief that the old way of doing business is still sufficient.
Lack of Manpower
It may be difficult for a Utility to identify the people who could be put on new initiatives
for implementation without serious impact on the normal operation of the Utility. This may be
particular true for small utilities which are already stretched thin. Another aspect is the inability
of management to staff individual assignments at the necessary levels to ensure effective KM
implementation.
Politics
Another barrier to implementing KM initiatives may be political opposition from the
Utility's governance group or, in some cases, the Utility’s customer base. Resistance can also
come from labor unions, bureaucratic inertia or even senior managers concerned with
maintaining their silos or personal control. Utilities embedding stovepipes or silos may run into
resistance from managers intent on protecting their turf.
In situations where leadership has a track record of creating new management initiatives
that turn out to be the “flavor of the month” a mindset has been accepted by employees that
every new initiative will turn out this way. As this pattern continues, employees become very
reluctant to support any new initiative. Where senior managers and leaders do not have a
common vision for the Utility--reflected through different perspectives and ineffective
communication throughout the organization—employees again feel like the initiative is bogus
and will never amount to much. Where there is lack of trust between managers and employees,
resistance to anything new and different often occurs. Further, when management does not have
Appendix A
46
a broad visionary view of what the Utility needs and is perceived by employees as benefiting one
division versus the overarching Utility, employee response to the new project will be less than
supportive.
Public Perception
If the public customers or governance body do not understand the nature, purpose and
value of knowledge and Knowledge Management to the performance and sustainability of the
Utility, they may misinterpret the project and consider it a waste of time and money. To
minimize the potential effect of such external misunderstanding, Utility leaders and managers
need to carefully monitor employee and stakeholder reactions and make sure that all interested
parties understand the purpose and payoff of the KM strategy.
Getting Buy-in for the Project
For a KM project to be successful it must have a certain level of cooperation from many
different individuals within the Utility. Where employees are complacent, cannot have
ownership, are concerned about potential accountability, it may be very challenging to overcome
such resistance. In some organizations to principal resistance comes from first line managers or
supervisors and feel a potential loss of control even though they maintain responsibility and
accountability.
Resistance to Technology
Technology may represent a significant barrier to new projects in that it takes financial
resources, may increase the complexity of the current systems through growth, and may concern
many employees who lack the technical expertise and understanding of what the new technology
may bring. Some employees may perceive new technology as another means of exercising
control over them.
Regulations and Laws
Union contracts, city policies, regulations and the lack of flexibility in some laws and
regulations may be seen via employees as additional restrictions and constraints on their freedom
to get the job done. Further, these regulations and laws may be perceived as making it difficult
to create and implement new KM strategies or initiatives.
Utility Culture
The culture of the Utility, having been created over decades, may resist new initiatives
that significantly change the relationships between managers and supervisors and employees, and
even among employees themselves. Culture is frequently referred to as "the way the work gets
done." When initiatives are proposed that may significantly change how that work gets done,
they can cause serious concerns, and perhaps even opposition to new ideas. Employees often
develop a focused mindset and limited perspective of their organization, their work environment
and their place within that environment to the extent that any potential shifting or changing
Appendix A
47
causes them to have serious concerns. These concerns can easily create opposition to new
projects, especially when those projects impact them individually and very personally in terms of
how they think, behave and relate to their fellow employees
KM STRATEGIES AND INIATIVES IN DRINKING WATER UTILITIES
Knowledge Management (KM) strategies and initiatives are underway in a large number of
drinking water utilities. During the WaterRF 4003 survey process, 207 separate drinking water
utilities provided information about their organizations and the KM and KM-related strategies
and projects underway. Many of these responders also provided information indicating KM
strategies and initiatives they were planning to implement and interested in implementing.
Figure A.7 below shows the survey responses to the following KM strategies and
initiatives: Action Learning, Communities of Practice, Expert Locator (Yellow Pages),
Knowledge Base Development, Knowledge Retention, Knowledge Sharing, and Team Based
Decision-Making. Five additional write-ins included: strategic planning, succession planning
and development of Operations & Maintenance manuals to capture institutional knowledge for
training.
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Interested In
Planning
Doing
Figure A.7 Breakout of survey responses regarding the number of KM strategies and
initiatives in drinking water utilities in terms of those underway, in the Planning stage, or
those which have sparked interest.
As indicated by this data, Knowledge Sharing, Team Decision-Making, and Knowledge
Retention represent the largest number of KM strategies underway in these drinking water
utilities. There are also a large number of utilities doing Knowledge Base Development. In
contrast, the largest focus in the planning stage is on Knowledge Retention, followed closely by
Knowledge Base Development and Expert Locator. The largest focus of expressed interest is on
Communities of Practice and Expert Locator, followed by Knowledge Base Development and
Knowledge Retention.
Appendix A
48
to this survey question are doing—and therefore they are aware of the value of—Knowledge
Sharing and Team Decision-Making, with still other utilities following down this path. The
recent and current emphasis in the industry on Knowledge Retention is reflected in the high
number of responses in all three areas (doing, planning and interested in). Further, the value of
developing a Knowledge Base is solidly represented in all three areas, indicating a steady
movement in this direction. Action Learning has solid representation in the doing and interested
in areas, with a relatively low number of responders in the planning phase.
The low number of responders doing Communities of Practice and Expert Locator
contrasted to the larger number of interested responders in these areas indicates a growing
awareness of these two KM initiatives and their potential value to drinking water utilities.
SPECIFIC STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES UNDERWAY
Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. While these project studies include a
wide range of initiatives underway, they are all connected to knowledge and the increasing
recognition of the importance of knowledge in drinking water utilities. For example, initiatives
not only include development of a KM plan, knowledge sharing, retaining retiree knowledge and
organizational learning, but also include: developing and updating manuals, professional and
leadership development, public relations, work performance improvement, succession and talent
resource planning, workforce planning, quality based documentation, training, communications,
developing document repositories, process and operational improvements, and the use of social
network analysis. Table A.7 provides the subject, estimated cost and benefits of each of these
projects. It also includes the name of the implementing Utility and the size of that Utility.
Table A.7
Drinking water Utility project studies in the KM Toolkit
#
1
2
Subject
Organizational
Efficiency
Through Team
Work
Development of
Operations and
Maintenance
Manuals
Appendix A
Utility
Alexandria
Sanitation
Authority
City of
Fairborn,
OH
Size
118
Estimated Cost
No additional costs
were identified
Benefits
Increase in worker flexibility and worker
competencies which were written down
allowing development of SOP’s.
24
$40,000 is
budgeted for first
manual. It is
assumed there will
be similar costs for
the other areas.
Will capture the knowledge of senior
employees, assist employees in the event of
emergency operations, and provide valuable
operations and training tools for the future.
49
#
3
Subject
Professional
Development
Initiative - 2007
Utility
City of
Moline
Water
Division
4
Public Relations
Initiative - 2007
5
Work
Performance
Improvement
Principles - 2007
Succession
Planning
City of
Moline
Water
Division
City of
Moline
Water
Division
Columbus
Water
Works
6
Size
32
Estimated Cost
No cost identified
32
No cost identified
32
No costs noted
Improved individual and organizational
work performance and a better work
environment.
241
No cost identified
Better prepared employees; managers are
more aware of the need to transfer
knowledge; employees are more motivated
and excited about personal development
opportunities.
Better trained supervisors who recognize
their strengths & weaknesses and know the
value of transferring knowledge to fellow
employees.
We are seeing a more knowledgeable staff,
are better able to perform work and
demonstrate to our staff that we adhere to
our values & builds trust.
7
Employee
Leadership &
Development
Columbus
Water
Works
241
No cost identified
8
Adopting the
SOP and
Training
Sessions
Loudon
County
Sanitation
Authority
185
9
Contracted a
Complete
Workforce
Planning Project
Quality Based
Documentation
Tualatin
Valley
Water
District
Colorado
Springs
Utility
110
$150,000 to
develop SOP’s
$5,000-$10,000 per
training session;
staff costs are
approx. 2-4 months
salary and benefits.
$189,000
11
Knowledge
Management
through Training
Greenville
Water
System
12
Using Contract
Employees to
Supplement &
Prepare for
Retirements
City of
Grand Forks
Public
Water
Utility
10
Appendix A
2000
No cost identified
Not
ident
ified
$25,000
28.5
No additional costs
Benefits
Increased knowledge and skills will support
continuing efforts to provide high quality
economical water and service to our
customers, enhance safety & efficiency of
the workplace & keep pace with
technological & regulatory advances in the
water industry.
Improved customer service, awareness and
satisfaction.
Through this exercise they have identified
all of the critical knowledge of the District.
QBD has freed up organizational resources
for innovation and creativity. It has reduced
or eliminated redundancies and the need to
“reinvent the wheel”. It has filled process
gaps and reduced risks on the job.
The on-site training in England gave the
employees insight into a new concept of
knowledge management and putting it to
The Utility is able to recruit outside of the
system for a very talented candidate and put
him or her into the Utility's system.
50
#
13
Subject
Increasing the
Number of
SOP’s
14
Converting from
Paper Utility to a
Geodatabase
15
Increasing the
Number of
Interns Hired
16
Career Ladder
Program
17
Rally a Team of
Exceptional
Employees
18
Hired a Private
Firm to
Determine the
Utility’s
Communication/
Knowledge
Sharing Needs
Computerization
of all Customer
Service Records
On the Job
Training
19
20
21
Retiree Program
Appendix A
Utility
City of
Akron
Public
Utilities
Bureau
City of
Akron
Public
Utilities
Bureau
City of
Akron
Public
Utilities
Bureau
Waterford
Township
Department
of Public
Works
Orlando
Utilities
Commission
Size
310
Estimated Cost
No cost identified
Benefits
Improved training programs and the Utility
can tweak SOP’s after a year or two.
310
$300,000$500,000
Better data for asset management and can
make better decisions. This process allows
the Utility to better integrate asset
information with other applications.
310
$3,000- $5,000 per
Utility intern
The ability to hire a new young employee
with six to nine months of experience.
$40,000 a year
Allows the employee to advance with the
correct licensing based on their knowledge.
1158
No cost identified
Rice Lake
Utilities
11
Several thousands
of dollars.
Reducing or mitigating Utility risk by
identifying key positions. The Utility is not
running the risk of the employee leaving
without gathering critical institutional
knowledge and documenting it.
Employees have the opportunity to realize
they were not just a part of their individual
departments; they are a team. The staff—
including management has learned to
communicate better.
Evergreen
Metro
District
Southeast
Morris
County
Municipal
Utilities
Authority
City of
Phoenix
Water
Services
Department
28
At completion
$500,000
49
No cost identified
53
1400
$200
The Utility can easily look into the future
and see the long-term possibilities when the
plan is completed.
Employees are able to learn while employed
in an entry level position and are given the
opportunity for career advancement.
Employees get an opportunity to receive
hands-on, one-on-one training from
experienced retires; the facility does not
have to allocate remaining experienced staff
to provide this training. The use of retirees
allows the Department to pass on critical
knowledge and skills without adding to the
workloads of the remaining supervisors and
subject matter experts.
51
#
22
Subject
Develop
Organizational
Learning System
Utility
Seattle
Public
Utilities
Size
1300
Estimated Cost
No cost identified
23
Louisville Water
Company 207
System
Certification
Process:
Knowledge
Management
LWC System
Certification
Review Process
Louisville
Water
Company
450
No cost identified
Louisville
Water
Company
450
No cost identified
LWC Process &
Operational
Improvements
LWC Talent
Resource
Planning/Success
ion Management
Louisville
Water
Company
Louisville
Water
Company
450
No cost identified
450
No cost identified
27
LWC Individual
Development
Plans (IDP's)
Louisville
Water
Company
450
No cost identified
28
Implementation
of OPCON –
Knowledge
Keeper Software
1150
Monthly software
program
subscription fee
29
Directions
Program
City of
Cleveland
Department
of Utilities,
Division of
Water
Seattle
Public
Utilities
1300
$175,000
30
Cross-Utility
Partnership for
Safe Drinking
Water
Salt Lake
City
Department
of Public
Utilities
381
24
25
26
Appendix A
No cost identified
Benefits
This initiative draws out natural leaders,
early adopters and enthusiastic learners. It
fosters and supports more learning in the
department, providing the opportunity for
developing back-up expertise across
functional areas.
This System Certification Process enables
the institution to better plan in the areas of
succession management, knowledge sharing
and retention, and cross-train.
This system certification process allows
LWC to bring consistency in the
documentation of work processes, standard
operating procedures, operating plans,
relationship charts and flowcharts.
See summary of 2007 success, an
attachment to this project study
The implementation of this process
improves knowledge of bench strength and
gaps, training needs to be addressed and
candid conversations with employees on
their career development and growth within
the company.
Employees achieve their learning objectives
and are better prepared to perform their
current jobs or to take on new
responsibilities.
The organization uses this software program
as a means to support training, succession
planning, continuous improvement and
organizational sustainability.
Mentoring has been consistently the highest
rated activity in the Directions Program.
This training has been found to be useful to
individuals.
Through this program water consumers are
assured that their water provider is
committed to providing the best quality
water possible and that each treatment
facility has gone through a rigorous effort to
optimize water treatment processes.
52
#
31
Subject
Social Network
Analysis
Utility
Size
800
Estimated Cost
Less than $5,000
32
Real Estate
Manager
Tampa Bay
Water
135
Approx. $50,000
33
Sharepoint for
Sharing Plant
Operations
City of
Cleveland,
Department
of Utilities,
Division of
Water
1150
CharlotteMecklenburg
Utilities
Program was
bundled in
Microsoft package
Benefits
The SNA tool helps the organizations to
identify how information is processed and
stored. It also enables the Utilities to
successfully revitalize and expand their
water reuse program.
This application provides
Operations/Maintenance feedback on use of
our property to guide future acquisitions
(i.e., existing easement widths for
comparative facilities) and better enforce
our existing land rights (against
encroachment) as well as perform our real
estate obligations (mowing, maintenance of
appearance, etc.) more efficiently.
One of the benefits that have been seen by
the usage of this program is the calendar
that lets the user know when chemical
deliveries are and who is working. In
addition this program provides easy access
to the Documents such as; Standard
Operator Procedures, work aides and safety
issues. This program allows for the Utility
to have the critical information needed at
their fingertips
Appendix A
53
Appendix B
WaterRF 4003 Project Studies
Project Study # 1
Organizational Efficiency through Team Work
Project Description: This authority-wide effort ran from 1999 through 2006, resulting in a move
from almost complete manual labor to the use of complex technology and automation. The
effort was strongly supported by the Utility’s Board of Directors, and employees were involved
from the onset of the project.
At the core of the effort was workforce restructuring. Two core divisions—each with two
distinct “teams” formed of generalists and specialists—was created: Clean rivers (with
responsibility for the liquid treatment processes) and Green Fields (with responsibility for the
solids treatment processes). Because of the mixture of generalists and specialists, each team
is self-sufficient on 80-85 percent of their day-to-day tasks. Additionally, a central maintenance
team was created (Technical Services) for those items covering more than one team. Further,
in 2007, as a result of the retirement of the Personnel Director, the utility was able to combine
business service functions (fiscal and personnel) under one umbrella division, enhancing the
ability to cross-train functionally. The results of this restructuring were: (1) A 7 percent
reduction in budget; (2) perfect compliance with permit liquid and solids effluence limits; and (3)
Class A certification of biosolids by the state and EPA.
The actions supporting this effort included the use of teams to enable team building
skills, communication, developing new job descriptions and capturing field and employee
knowledge in a written, usable format to create a complete training program for both generalists
and specialists. A program was developed that allowed for flexibility in an employee’s choice of
future career growth, choosing to be either a generalist (with pay commensurate with the
amount of skills gained in various areas) or a specialist (focusing training on one particular skill
set). This approach decreased the number of operators per shift by 50 percent. Employee
efforts were recognized by an 11 percent increase in the salary structure.
Size of Utility: 118 employees
Critical Success Factors: ASA is in the process of defining these factors.
Cost: No additional costs were identified.
Alignment: This approach was aligned with human resource planning and strategic planning.
This merging of business service functions was a long-term goal previously unfulfilled.
Benefits: In addition to overarching organizational benefits described above, there was an
increase in worker flexibility and worker competencies which were written down allowing
development of Standard Operating Procedures.
Compiled April 2007
_____________________________
POC:
Karen Pallansch
Alexandria Sanitation Authority
Project Study # 2
Development of Operations and Maintenance Manuals
Project Description: The goal was to develop operations and maintenance manuals for each of
three areas: water distribution, water treatment and sewage collection.
Critical Success Factors: Ending up with documents that capture current knowledge which will
be used on a regular basis and can be updated as needed.
Barriers: Cost. Initial attempt was made to do this in-house, but there were time and writing
expertise issues. The utility could only afford to do one area (water treatment) in 2007.
Cost: $40,000 is budgeted for the first manual. It is assumed there will be similar costs for the
other two areas.
Alignment: These manuals will help provide tools for succession planning as well as good
reference documents for operations personnel.
Benefits: Will help capture the knowledge of senior employees, assist employees in the event
of emergency operations, and provide valuable operations and training tools for the future.
Compiled April 2007
_________________________________
POC:
Karen Hawkins
City of Fairborn, Ohio
Project Study # 3
Professional Development Initiative—2007
Project Description: The goal of this initiative is to promote further development of the technical
knowledge and skills of Water Division employees. Each Section Manager is responsible to
identify, attend and/or conduct appropriate developmental activities for themselves and
employees in their section, with the General Manager providing general oversight and guidance.
A number of formal and informal developmental activities will be used to develop
employee knowledge and skills, in support of this initiative. These activities include: attending
conferences, teleconferences and workshops; viewing DVDs, video tapes, power points and
other AV materials; reading guidance manuals, books, research papers, articles and other
printed materials; attending safety training; participating in tailgate and brainstorming sessions;
and attending MSO sponsored training.
Critical Success Factors: (1) Managers scheduling formal and informal developmental activities
on a routine basis for their employees. (2) Developmental activities focusing on specific
concerns and goals of each respective session.
Cost: Funds have been budgeted in each section of the Water Division’s 2007 for expenditures
associated with formal professional development activities and purchase of needed materials.
Benefits: Increased knowledge and skills will support continuing efforts to provide high quality
economical water and service to customers, enhance the safety and efficiency of the workplace
and help keep pace with technological and regulatory advances in the water industry.
Compiled April 2007
____________________
POC:
Greg Swanson
City of Moline Water Division
Project Study # 4
Public Relations Initiative—2007
Project Description: The goal of this initiative is to promote positive relations between the Water
Division and their internal and external customers. The intent is to build knowledge about and
appreciation of Moline’s public water supply and its employees. Formal and informal public
relations activities are planned, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Conducting plant tours for schools,
Civic organizations and other interested groups;
Periodic press releases and media interactions to educate the public;
Orchestrating an essay and art contest;
Making available an annual water quality report; and
Organizing in-house work sessions for improving communication skills.
Critical Success Factors: Section Managers promoting further development of good public
relations techniques among the employees in their section.
Cost: No costs identified
Benefits: Improved customer service, awareness and satisfaction.
Compiled April 2007
_________________________
POC:
Greg Swanson
Project Study # 5
Work Performance Improvement Principles—2007
Project Description: In 2005 the Water Division developed work performance improvement
principles and techniques through a brainstorming session. Participants shared techniques they
had found to be effective in their own work experience. The principles were adopted by the
organization were in the areas of effective communications, safety, courtesy and respect, high
quality, and accountability. The exact principles and actions submitted by the City of Moline
Water Division are listed below. During the brainstorming, techniques to accomplish each
principle were also discussed.
•
•
•
•
•
We should make every effort to communicate with others in a clear, concise, direct,
honest and attentive manner.
We should create a healthy, safe, and injury-free work environment.
We should extend to others the same courtesy and respect that we would like to
receive ourselves.
We should each strive to be a professional and productive team player with good
interpersonal skills.
We should understand the goals and mission of the organization. We should also
understand what our individual role and responsibilities are within the organizations and
we should accept and act on those responsibilities in an efficient manner.
Challenge: Putting these principles and techniques into practice during daily work activities.
Critical Success Factors: Individuals can make positive permanent changes in their work
performance by selecting a specific improvement area(s) and consciously applying
improvement techniques for a period of time. Such an approach will ultimately allow these
efforts to be transformed into good habits in a systematic manner. As the number of individuals
practicing a given performance improvement principle grows, the more that principle will
become a part of the organization’s workplace culture.
Cost: No costs noted.
Benefits: Improved individual and organizational work performance and a better work
environment.
Compiled April 2007
_________________________
POC:
Greg Swanson
Project Study # 6
Succession Planning
Project Description: Program implemented in October 2005 and is programmed to run through
2008. Started with a pilot program of seventeen individuals; the criterion used to select these
individuals included current position and experience, job performance, education, community
involvement and potential future leadership opportunities.
Critical Success Factors: A critical success is the attendance of the employees at Water Board
Meetings, Columbus Consolidated Government meetings, and Muscogee County School
District meetings. In addition they are required to have at least 15 hours of volunteer or
community participation. Other critical success components are: performance in current
position; participate in extracurricular education and training opportunities; maintain active
membership in an approved community/ leadership organization; leadership experience and
opportunities; and be active participant in the review of the succession plan progress.
Cost: Leadership and training requirements that consists of the University fees and the
individual’s commitment of time and travel.
Alignment: It involves providing training, competency assessments (360 evaluations),
leadership opportunities and mentoring.
Benefits: Better prepared employees; managers are more aware of the need to transfer
knowledge; employees are more motivated and excited about personal development
opportunities. Participation in the succession planning program does not “guarantee” a
promotion or a different job in the future rather it is an opportunity to develop key job related
skills, competencies and technical knowledge which will offer present and future value to CWW
and for individual participants.
Compiled October 2007
_____________________________
POC:
Gwendolyn Hargrove Ruff
Columbus Water Works
Project Study # 7
Employee Leadership and Development
Project Description: The Employee Leadership and Development Program will identify
approximately 20 mid- to upper- level supervisors who will participate in an 18-month
supervisory training program. The program consists of a minimum of 9 full-day classes
designed to correlate with the identified competencies. Participants will be advised of their
responsibility to actively participate in the program as part of their Individual Development Plan
as established by their immediate supervisor. Leaders must master a number of competencies
to effectively conduct their job. The first responsibility of the supervisor is to recognize his/her
strengths and weaknesses, and work to build those areas where deficiencies lie.
Critical Success Factors: A critical success factor is recognizing supervisory competencies.
Examples of these are: strategic skills, energy and drive, operating skills, courage (conflict
resolution; making tough calls that will affect people’s lives), organizational positioning skills,
and personal and interpersonal skills. Establishing benchmarks that focus on what can be
learned from experience by: providing information of potential career blocks—certain flaws or
behaviors that may lead to derailment and linking lessons and experiences together to guide
further development.
Costs: University fees for training courses and the individuals commitment of time and travel.
Alignment: Specifically aligned with strategic planning.
Benefits: Better trained supervisors who recognize their strengths and weaknesses and know
the value of transferring knowledge to fellow employees. . It provides the practicing leader with
a benchmark on how he or she is doing when compared with a similar norm group. Through
benchmark analysis this program will determine how successful executives develop and why
they sometimes fail to develop.
__________________________
POC:
Gwendolyn Hargrove Ruff
Columbus Water Works
Project Study # 8
Adopting the SOP and Training Sessions
Project Description: The adoption of the SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) for paper—
based knowledge management including more training sessions.
Critical Success Factors: For training sessions, success has not been measured. For paper—
based knowledge management, success is the adoption of the SOP.
Cost: One department is implementing standing operation procedures for operating each of its
small community water and wastewater facilities. So far it has a cost about $150,000 to develop
SOPs (7-10 pages each) for about 20 facilities. Regarding training sessions run about $5,000
to $10,000 per session, not including employee time. Regarding staff, early costs are approx. 24 months salary and benefits.
Alignment: Doing this helps assure that we can meet our mission and conforms to one of our
values (employees are our most important resource).
Benefits: We are seeing a more knowledgeable staff (from training sessions), are better able to
perform work (capturing more knowledge from retiring employees or employees who change job
functions), and demonstrates to our staff that we adhere to our values and builds trust.
_____________________________
POC:
Todd Danielson
Loudon County Sanitation Authority
Project Study # 9
Contracted a Complete Workforce Planning Project
Project Description: Contracted a complete workforce planning project that includes knowledge
management. The project will take approx. one and a half years to complete.
Critical Success Factors: Since the project is still in the process and they do not yet have
measurements, but will be determining how they measure success soon.
Cost: The project will cost $189,000.
Alignment: When planning a business process, we include the stakeholders to ensure that we
are not overlooking critical knowledge. This is part of our organization structure.
Benefits: Through this exercise they have identified all of the critical knowledge of the District
and have discovered that the majority of it is well documented. Identified gaps are being
addressed.
Attachment provided: Presentation in Power Point titled Tualatin Valley Water District,
Workforce Planning Project
_____________________
POC:
Debbie Erickson
Tualatin Valley Water District
57,000
Service
Connections
11,264
CWS
Customers
754 Miles of
Pipe/24
Reservoirs
45 sq. mi.
110
employees
Our Mission Drives Our Performance
Mission Statement
To provide our community quality
water and customer service
Strong Elected Official and
Top Management Support
• During the 2006-07 goal planning process, General
Manager proposed the District undertake a workforce
planning study.
• Board agreed and it became a task for the following
year.
Board Goals & TVWD Demographics Drove
• 36% of our workforce is 50 or older.
• Average age of our employees is 44.
• Board Goal is to have employees trained and
qualified to compete for job openings.
• Average tenure of employees is 10 years.
20
New Hires
15
10
Retirements
5
TVWD Employee Turnover
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0
Quit
We have positioned the District to meet the
mission of Customer Service and retain
employees
•
•
•
•
•
Hire the right people
Compensate well
Foster accountability
Show employees we care about them
Implement work force planning project
Beginning the Workforce Planning Project
• TVWD Management Team served as internal task force and
met regularly with consultant setting workforce rules.
• Management Team and came up with a communication plan
for all employees.
• Employees need to feel safe participating in the project.
• Employees need to feel safe if they do not participate in the
project.
Message to Employees
The future of the District holds an aging and shrinking
workforce. Most of the Management Team will be
retired when most of this comes about. We could
say: “not my job, I won’t be here anyway”.
The prudent thing to do is to prepare our District for the
future and with this Workforce Planning Project we
are able to provide continuity of leadership for their
future.
We presented the entire Workforce Planning Project to
all employees and made it available to everyone.
Workforce Planning Project Objectives
• Standardize tools and methods we use to evaluate
candidates for workforce development.
• Understand future staffing expectations and develop a
plan to meet them.
• Develop and implement processes to capture
institutional knowledge.
Beginning the Process
Determined who is eligible to retire now and who is
eligible in the next five years.
Produced work catalogs of each job description.
• These catalogs identified how difficult and how
critical the work is.
• Identified what jobs have critical knowledge that
needs to be captured.
• Identified what is documented and where this
information resides.
Prioritizing the Workforce
Tier 1
25% or more of work is both high risk and high difficulty
(regardless of retirement eligibility), or
Position is eligible for retirement within one year and 25%
or more of work is either high risk or high difficulty
Tier 2
25% or more of work is both high risk or high difficulty
(regardless of retirement eligibility)
Position is eligible for retirement within five years and 25%
or more of work is either high risk or high difficulty
Tier 3
All other positions
Self Nomination
• We asked employees to self nominate if they were
interested in the project.
• We had 100 employees and 30 signed up to
participate.
• Nomination and acceptance did not mean that an
employee was the heir apparent to the job.
Process to Identify Workforce Development
Participants
• Identified the talent, skills, knowledge that defined
the job.
• Identified the participants talents.
• Matched the talents with the TVWD leadership jobs.
• Designed the individual development plan for the
selected individuals.
Project Phases
• Each participant was assigned to a phase of the
project based on their match and job interest.
• Factors that are not considered: age, gender or their
proximity to retirement.
• Phase I is considered the fast track for training and
mentoring.
• If there are budget restraints or the manager can only
allow one person to cross train, etc. phase I
candidates will take precedence.
• A candidate will only be ruled out if they do not have
satisfactory performance in their current job.
Self-Nominate
Create Individual
Development Plans
Ongoing Process by
TVWD Staff
StrengthsFinder
Identify Workforce
Development
Candidates
Leadership
Assessment
Interest Interview
TVWD Expected Outcomes
1.
Raise awareness of the need for job preparedness.
2.
Employees take the initiative themselves to prepare for advancement.
3.
Employees are engaged in targeted training of their own initiative.
4.
Employees know the training required for a position.
5.
Employees know we care about them as well as the District’s future.
6.
All institutional knowledge is documented.
7.
There are clear back ups for key roles providing depth and flexibility to
cover the work.
8.
We possess a “deep” candidate pool for job openings.
Workforce Planning Outcomes
• Institutional knowledge is captured.
• Plan is in place to develop and retain employees.
• Maintain continuity of leadership.
• Successfully maintain a viable organization.
Project Study # 10
Quality Based Documentation
Project Description: Colorado Springs Utility (CSU) was faced with a situation where there was
no single, structured approach to capture documentation. Departing employees were taking
tacit knowledge with them. New employees were not sure what they needed to know, or where
to get information. The opportunity was to capture institutional knowledge leveraging various IT
systems including GIS, work management and a formal Document Repository known as QBD
(Quality Based Documentation.) These approaches to formalizing knowledge would ease the
transition in training for new employees, and help streamline and standardize the organization.
CSU began with defining the resource requirements needed in order to develop a place
for “one-stop shopping” within the utility. Initially, the effort to produce standard documentation
was seen by employees as “not part of my job”, and an “unfunded mandate.” As a result, the
organization decided to go where energy and interest existed, instead of trying to immediately
implement a comprehensive program. CSU started with a pilot phase. Eventually, the
documentation process became the norm, and was expanded to other parts of the organization.
CSU uses a distributed method to select process owners; tying the subject matter expert to the
process ensured better quality. Documents must be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis,
and version control is in place.
Critical Success factors: CSU found that the pilot and subsequent expanded effort required top
level support but did not require a formal mandate in the organization. If there was not support
from certain members, those members were not included in the effort. CSU found that tenacity
was a key to success, as well as establishing ground rules to provide a stable foundation. QBD
is tied to individual performance objectives to highlight the importance of this activity. The
overall “Quality Plan” is part of CSU’s administrative regulations to allow for”enforcement” if
needed. CSU has developed in-house experts in areas such as flow charting and process
writing to provide assistance.
CSU began its effort in 1999. In the first year, 3 documents were produced. Currently,
there are over 3,000. The amount of documentation produced and used is tracked as a
measure of success. Oversight of the process is provided by the Quality Manager.
Cost: CSU utilized in-house Lotus Notes developers to create the database in which the
process documents are developed, approved and used. CSU needed to increase data storage
capacity, so purchase of disc drives would be a cost.
Alignment: All key business processes reside in the document control system. CSU has
included the PPM (Personnel Policies Manual) in this system, along with the strategic planning
process, capitalization policy, and performance management process. This approach allows for
one-stop-shopping for employees looking for information about the company and the work they
do. A recent initiative to develop a Utilities Master Plan is being formatted to go into the
document control system once completed the end of this year.
Benefits: The results provide a level of confidence in CSU processes to the City Auditor. Since
the current processes have been defined, CSU now has a baseline of information for effective
process improvement, which has been extremely useful for ongoing continuous improvement
efforts.
Significantly, having QBD has freed up organizational resources (time and energy) for
innovation and creativity. It has reduced or eliminated redundancies and the need to “reinvent
the wheel.” It has filled process gaps and reduced risks on the job.
Attachments provided: (1) Parent Document, (2) T101- Standard Template, (3) F01Standard Template Checklist, (4) I03- Level 2 Document Process, (5) I05- Editing Process
Tools, (6) C01- Flowcharts.
Compiled 2008
__________________________
POC:
Leah Ash
Colorado Springs Utilities
CONTENTS
1.0
PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. B-23
2.0
SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................................... B-23
3.0
TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... B-23
4.0
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................... B-24
5.0
RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................................................ B-24
5.1.
Continuous Improvement ..................................................................................................................... B-24
5.2.
Division Officers, General Managers, Managers, and Supervisors ...................................................... B-25
5.3.
Process Owners .................................................................................................................................... B-25
5.4.
Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................. B-25
5.5.
Approvers ............................................................................................................................................. B-25
5.6.
All Colorado Springs Utilities Employees............................................................................................ B-25
5.7.
Divisions ............................................................................................................................................... B-26
6.0
PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................. B-26
6.1.
Creating Documents ............................................................................................................................. B-26
6.2.
Review Cycle........................................................................................................................................ B-28
6.3.
Approval Cycle ..................................................................................................................................... B-28
6.4.
Issuing Documents ............................................................................................................................... B-29
6.5.
Notification ........................................................................................................................................... B-29
6.6.
Using Documents ................................................................................................................................. B-29
6.7.
Creating Links to QBD Documents ...................................................................................................... B-30
6.8.
Changing Documents ........................................................................................................................... B-30
6.9.
Editing Process Tools ........................................................................................................................... B-31
6.10.
Periodic Evaluation of Documents .................................................................................................. B-31
6.11.
Archiving Documents ...................................................................................................................... B-31
6.12.
Making Documents Obsolete ........................................................................................................... B-31
6.13.
Other Types of Documentation ........................................................................................................ B-31
7.0
PROCESS METRICS / SERVICE LEVELS ............................................................................................ B-32
8.0
EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS .................................................................................................................... B-33
9.0
RECORDS MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................... B-33
10.0
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................. B-33
11.0
ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... B-33
1.0
PURPOSE
The purpose of a document control system is to ensure that accurate and current process documents are
available to all employees and that outdated information is removed from general access.
The purpose of this document is to describe the processes used to create, review, approve, issue, notify, use,
change and obsolete process documents.
SCOPE
This process applies to all level 1, 2, and 3 documents, which describe processes essential to the effective
functioning of Colorado Springs Utilities. It describes the role of Continuous Improvement, Management,
Process Owners, Reviewers, Approvers, and all Colorado Springs Utilities Employees.
TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Approval Date – the date the signed process document was moved to the Approved Process Documents Database.
Approved Process Document – the electronic version of a document that resides in the Approved Process
Documents Database. Approved Process Documents have been reviewed for adequacy and signed by Approvers
and become Colorado Springs Utilities policy upon final approval. The term “Approved Process Document” refers
to the parent document and its attachments.
Approved Process Documents Database – a Lotus Notes Database centrally located and accessible by all
employees. This database contains all Approved Process Documents, including parent documents and attachments.
Work should be performed as defined in Approved Process Documents.
Approvers – individuals identified by the Process Owner that must sign the document before it can be moved to the
Approved Process Documents Database and subsequently used to perform work.
Attachment – additions such as agendas, charts, drawings, forms, graphics, information/instructions, measurements,
policies, questionnaires, slides, or templates, which enhance the functionality or usability of the parent document.
CI – Continuous Improvement
Controlled Document – a hard copy of a quality document that has been issued and recorded for future retrieval
when changes occur.
Document Change Notice (DCN) – a Lotus Notes Database form used to record the history of document changes.
This form is attached to the parent document within the database and can be viewed in the Approved Process
Documents Database directly below the document it references.
Draft Process Documents Database – a Lotus Notes Database centrally located and accessible by all employees.
This database contains documentation that is in the process of being developed, reviewed, and/or approved. Work
should not be performed using a Draft Process Document.
ELMS – Enterprise Learning Management System
Evaluation Date – the date automatically assigned by the Notes system for three years from the last version of
process document.
External Document – documents, such as those created by regulatory agencies, which exist outside of Colorado
Springs Utilities that impact Springs Utilities operations or work methods.
Issue – to move a signed document from the Draft Process Documents Database to the Approved Process
Documents Database (see section 6.4). When a document has been issued it is considered “Approved” and can be
distributed and used to perform the task described, as a training aid, etc.
Level 1 – a type of document, which answers the question “Why?” Level 1 documents are typically philosophical
and strategic in nature.
Level 2 – a type of document that answers the questions “What?”, “Who?”, “Where?”, and “When?” Level 2
documents are more specific than Level 1 documents and less detailed than Level 3 documents. See Attachment
I03-00002 for instructions on how to write Level 2 documents.
Level 3 – a type of document that answers the question “How?” Level 3 documents are the most detailed form of
process document.
Master Document List – a list of approved process documents that contains the document number, approval date,
title, version, and process owner. The list is located in the Approved Process Documents Database.
Notification field – a location in the Draft Documents binder and the Process Tools binder used to list persons or
groups to be notified when a process is moved to the Approved Database (new or revised) or when a Process Tool
has been changed.
Obsolete Document – indicates a document version that has been replaced by newer information or a process that is
no longer valid. Obsolete documents are stored in an archive database and should not be used to perform work.
Parent Document – Level 1, 2, or 3 documents, which describe the process.
Process Owner – a subject matter expert (SME) who assures the integrity of the process document. See Process
Owner responsibilities in Section 5.3 for a more complete description.
Process Tool – an attachment that has no process-type information, see specific criteria in I05-00002.
Process Tools Database – the repository for Process Tools.
QBD – Quality by Design; the term used to identify the quality system for Colorado Springs Utilities and the
elements of the quality system. For example, process documents are maintained in the QBD Process Documents
Database.
QBD Activity Report – a report that lists current activity of the Approved Process Documents Database.
Documents are sorted by New, Revised, and Obsolete Process Documents. This report is updated daily and is
available as a sort in the Approved Process Documents Database.
Reviewers – individuals who have been identified by the Process Owner because they have valuable input to
contribute during the document review cycle. Reviewers may be Subject Matter Experts, customers, stakeholders,
etc. of the process.
Stand Alone Document – a document, such as Utilities Rules and Regulations, created by Colorado Springs
Utilities, but controlled through a method other than as specified in this process.
SECC – System Energy Control Center
Unapproved Document – an electronic or paper copy of a document from the Draft Process Documents
Database or an Approved Process Document located anywhere other than the Approved Process
Documents Database that does not match the version listed in the Master Document List.
URC – Utilities Resource Center
USU – University of Springs Utilities
Version – a term used to describe modifications of the same document. The version number appears in the header
directly under the document title. Attachment versions are indicated by the month and year in parentheses following
the attachment designator and parent document number; e.g., F01-00002 (01/2002).
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
All Colorado Springs Utilities safety and health policy and procedure requirements shall be integrated into
any referenced operational procedures in this document. All safety related policies and procedures
contained in this document must comply with the Safety and Health Program Manual.
RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1.
Continuous Improvement
•
Ownership, continuous improvement, and maintenance of this process,
•
Assuring document numbers are issued to Process Owners,
•
Reviewing documents, working with Process Owners to correct problems, and moving them
to the Approved Process Documents Database,
•
Moving obsolete documents to the designated archive location,
•
Publishing reports of Approved, Revised, and Obsolete document activity,
•
Providing support to USU for Process Document training,
•
Assisting Process Owners as required,
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
1.5.
1.6.
•
Ensuring the content of process documents is consistent with documents from other divisions,
departments, sections, units, or teams,
•
Maintenance and continuous improvement of the QBD Document Databases.
Division Officers, General Managers, Managers, and Supervisors
•
Supporting documentation efforts and use of the document control system,
•
Assuring assignment of Process Owners within their divisions, departments, sections, units, or
teams,
•
Informing employees of changes to process documents as appropriate.
Process Owners
•
Documenting the process using approved templates,
•
Understanding the document control system defined by this process,
•
Assuring the integrity of the document’s content and changing it when appropriate,
•
Seeking the necessary approvals,
•
Serving as the point of contact for any proposed changes, including researching the impact of
proposed changes,
•
Using the Standard Template Checklist, Attachment F01-00002, before submitting a process
document for review or approval to assure compliance to this process,
•
Determining stakeholders and users of an initial issue or version change and utilizing the
notification field as the communication method,
•
Updating Process Tools as necessary.
Reviewers
•
Understanding the document control system defined by this document,
•
Evaluating the content of each document submitted for review for format, completeness,
accuracy, and impact on other divisions, departments, sections, units, or teams,
•
Indicating when review of the document is complete,
•
Sharing opportunities for improvements to the Process Owner.
Approvers
•
Understanding the document control system defined by this document,
•
Evaluating the content of each document submitted for approval for format, completeness,
accuracy, and impact on other divisions, departments, sections, units, or teams,
•
Signing approval of the document in a timely manner,
•
Understanding that, as an approver, you agree the process is performed as explained in the
document,
•
Notifying employees and/or co-workers of an initial issue or version change as appropriate,
•
Ensuring that any necessary training or communication related to the initial issue or version
change of a document is accomplished.
All Colorado Springs Utilities Employees
•
Performing work as defined in approved process documents,
•
Assuring approved process documents being used match the version found in the Approved
Process Documents Database,
•
Regularly reviewing the QBD Activity Report for process documents that may impact them in
their roles,
•
Referring to the relevant approved process document when a question arises,
1.7.
•
Printing paper copies only when electronic copies are not practical,
•
Destroying paper copies when the version of a process document changes,
•
Proposing process improvement opportunities and document changes to Process Owners.
Divisions
•
Describing the control methodology for stand-alone documents that are generated and
maintained by the Division. (Refer to 6.13.1 for a complete explanation of stand-alone
documents.)
PROCESS
The purpose of a document control system is to ensure that accurate and current process documents are
available to all employees and that outdated information is removed from general access. Guidelines and
rules must be established to assure successful deployment of a document control system. The following
describes the major process steps critical to the overall document control process.
1.8.
Creating Documents
Once it is determined that a process needs to be documented, the next step is to create the document. It is
important to identify a single Process Owner (see responsibilities in Section 5.3) for each document to be
written. Detailed instructions can be found in the Process Owner Manual, Attachment I01-00002 of this
document. Training on how to write process documents is available in a computer-based or individual
setting. The computer-based training, How to Write a QBD Process Document, is found on the Intranet
(University/Training, log in to ELMS, search for QBD). To schedule Individual document training call
Continuous Improvement at 8-4357, option 4.
New documents are created in the Draft Process Documents Database by selecting the “New Document”
button in the Draft Process Documents Database. There are several template options from which to choose.
Current templates are listed in Section 11.0 and are available as attachments to this document. It is
recommended that the Process Owner use Standard Template T01-00002 whenever possible. This
promotes consistency of format and ease of use.
There are also a number of templates designed specifically for certain types of documents.
•
Templates T02-00002 and T07-00002 provide a format for documenting training.
•
T03-00002 is used to develop Management Plans.
There are three attachment templates that are used with Management Plans.
•
•
•
T03a is the template for Scorecards
T03b is the template for Initiatives Definitions
T03c is the template for creating a Strategy Map
•
A Lab Template, T04-00002, is used by the environmental and quality labs.
•
T05-00002 is similar to T01-00002, but focuses on site security plans.
•
Documents created using T06-00002 are company regulations or policies.
•
Template T08-00002 is used to describe and document the support model for enterprise-wide IT
systems.
•
T09-00002 is used to document the interface design between two systems, such as how transactions
progress from the Customer Information System (CIS) to and from the Financial/Human Analytic
System (FHAS).
•
The Risk Management Plan for the organization is documented on template T10-00002.
•
The former Environmental Procedures and Guidance Manual has been transferred to QBD documents
using T12-00002.
•
T13-00002 is used in conjunction with T09-00002. This template is used as a parent document to
provide a framework for the interface design details described in T09-00002.
•
Water Risk Management Plan (RMP) documents are created on T14-00002.
•
T15-00002 is used as a high-level introductory parent document for Customer Care Policies.
•
T18-00002 is used to define an IT system in terms of its architecture, policies, and processes.
If a template that meets your needs cannot be found please contact Continuous Improvement (8-4357,
option 4).
Templates may be modified or added to this process document without processing a version change of the
parent document. The version of the template is noted in the footer of each.
1.8.1.
Titling Documents
The document title should be a brief description of the document’s purpose or process being
performed. For Title guidelines refer to the Process Owner Manual, I01-00002.
1.8.2.
Document Classification
When a new document is created it is assigned a unique number. This unique number remains
with the document throughout its life although the process may move to another division,
department, or section.
Other key information regarding the document is recorded in the QBD Databases. This
information is used to differentiate and sort the documents according to Division, Department,
Section, Location, or Function.
The only required field is Division. All other fields are optional with the exception of the 5 digit
unique number. Use Department, Section, Location, and Function codes only if it will assist users
in easily sorting through the database to locate a particular document. Drop down menus are
loaded into the Draft Process Documents Database to provide a view of available options for each
field.
Location codes should be used on a limited basis. Location is used only when the process
document pertains to one physical location. An example is a security plan for a specific facility or
site.
Determination of document level is based on the definitions in Section 3.0 and made by
Continuous Improvement at the time the unique document number is requested based on the
description of the process provided by the Process Owner.
1.8.3.
Numbering Attachments
The overall effectiveness of documents can be improved if associated forms, charts, graphics, etc.
can be included. Attachments are usually left in their original application, such as Word, Excel or
PowerPoint. They are assigned an attachment designator followed by a sequential number and
then the unique number of the Parent Document. For example, the first form for this document is
numbered F01-00002, the second form, F02-00002, etc. The attachment version is designated by
a month and year placed within parentheses. An example is (01/2003). Both the attachment
number and the version must be indicated in the attachment’s footer.
If the attachment is more than one page, the page number should also be placed in the footer.
The attachment designators available are as follows:
A = Agenda (used to provide format for meeting agendas)
C = Chart (a flowchart or reference table that does not require information to be entered into it)
D = Drawing (used for CAD drawings, schematics, etc.)
E = Exercise (used for training exercises and in-class practice; not scored or measured)
F = Form (used when information of a restricted size is to be filled into pre-designated fields; can
be filled out on paper or electronically)
G = Graphic (used for graphics or pictures, such as examples of completed forms, templates,
reports, or screen prints)
I = Information/Instructions (used for instructions, user’s guides, manuals, scripts, etc.)
M = Measurement (used for evaluating or measuring understanding of course material of the
participant/student)
P = Policy (used to define an organizational principle, rule, or established course of action to be
followed regarding Colorado Springs Utilities)
Q = Questionnaire (used for information gathering tools such as surveys)
Record = used when a record of a process is maintained in the document binder. (Legal Hold)
S = Slide (used to identify a PowerPoint slide file)
T = Template (used when a standard format is desired, but a specific field size is not practical)
1.9.
Review Cycle
After a document has been created, it is useful to send it out for review. The review cycle is not required.
At times it may be helpful to proceed directly to the Approval cycle for routine version changes of a current
approved document or when the document has been reviewed by another method. The extensive review
process is primarily intended for the initial release of new documents or for total rewrites of existing
documents.
Paper Review Cycle
The review cycle can be conducted by distributing paper copies of the Parent Document and all of its
attachments to the Reviewers. Using the electronic method is preferred for tracking purposes. When that is
not feasible, this method also works well. Reviewers should include individuals or representatives from
groups asked to perform processes called out in the document. It is sometimes useful to also include prior
Process Owners in the review process to capture historical knowledge. Each Reviewer marks up and
returns feedback to the Process Owner.
If the Process Owner reviews the changes and does not agree with the change recommendations, he/she
explains to the person recommending the changes the reasons why they are not feasible.
If the Process Owner agrees with the change recommendations, he/she incorporates the changes into the
document.
Electronic Review Cycle
The Process Owner routes the process document using the Electronic Review Cycle.
The Process Owner selects the “Review” option and selects individuals from the Notes directory by
clicking on the twisty next to the “Reviewers” prompt in the Draft Process Documents Database.
Reviewers should include individuals or representatives from groups asked to perform processes called out
in the document. It is sometimes useful to also include prior Process Owners in the review process to
capture historical knowledge.
Document Reviewers are automatically sent an e-mail message by the system, informing them that a
document is awaiting review and feedback. The Document Reviewer provides feedback via the Draft
Process Documents Database. Instructions on how to track edits/comments can be found in the Process
Owner Manual, I01-00002.
If the Process Owner reviews the changes and does not agree with the change recommendations, he/she
explains to the person recommending the changes the reasons why they are not feasible.
The Process Owner incorporates changes as deemed appropriate and proceeds to the Approval Cycle. If
major changes have been recommended, the Process Owner may also elect to clear the Review Cycle and
Section 6.2 may be repeated until the document has been fully defined and discussed.
1.10.
Approval Cycle
Submitting a document for approval can only be conducted using an Electronic Approval Cycle.
After the document has been reviewed and updated, the Process Owner requests signature approval by
selecting the “Approval” route and listing the Document Approvers. Approvers should include the
appropriate Manager/Supervisor of the process as well as individuals or representatives from groups who
perform a responsibility called out in the document.
At this time the Process Owner should consider who will need to be notified that the document has been
approved. This list should include users of the process, key stakeholders, and potentially affected interests.
The names and/or distribution lists can be added in the field labeled “Notification of Process Change.”
When the document is submitted for signatures, Continuous Improvement will review the document for
format and consistency. The Process Owner may be contacted for clarification or changes that need to be
made. This may delay the approval process depending on the amount of work required to bring the
document to acceptable standards. When the document review is complete, Continuous Improvement will
send the document to the Approvers for signature.
An e-mail message is automatically sent to the Document Approvers who then have 30 calendar days to
respond. Upon receiving the e-mail message indicating that a document is ready for approval, the
Approver clicks the Document Link icon in the mail message to access the document. To approve the
document the Approver clicks on the “Sign Document” button. The database records the Approver’s name
and the date of the signature.
If an Approver does not respond within the 30-day period, Continuous Improvement may contact the
Process Owner and/or outstanding Approver(s) to decide how to proceed. The system does not
automatically default an Approver’s signature. After all signatures have been obtained, an e-mail is sent to
the Process Owner and Continuous Improvement.
The Process Owner incorporates changes as deemed appropriate. If the Process Owner does not agree with
the change recommendations, he/she explains to the person recommending the changes the reasons why
they are not feasible. It is the Process Owner’s responsibility to accept or reject tracked changes and then
notify Continuous Improvement that the document is ready to be moved. Once the CI Department receives
this communication from the Process Owner, the document is issued to the Approved Process Documents
Database.
1.11.
Issuing Documents
Once the document has been approved, the Continuous Improvement Department moves the document to
the Approved Process Documents Database and stamps each page of the document with an “APPROVED”
watermark. Attachments that meet the criteria for Process Tools will be placed in the Process Tools
Database.
The Approved Process Documents Database is accessible by all Colorado Springs Utilities employees
through their Lotus Notes account and is “read only”. If you do not have access to Lotus Notes or the QBD
Process Documents Databases, call the URC at 8-4357.
1.12.
Notification
When a document is issued an e-mail notification is sent to the Process Owner, all Approvers, and all
persons/groups listed in the notification field. It is the responsibility of the Process Owner and/or
appropriate management to ensure all stakeholders and users are aware of the new approved process
document.
Additional notification is available in QBD Activity reports. These reports list all the documents that have
been approved and issued or made obsolete.
1.13.
Using Documents
Any Colorado Springs Utilities employee can view documents residing in the Approved Process
Documents Database. There are a select few documents that have been marked as “Private” and cannot be
universally viewed. If you have documents of this nature, contact Continuous Improvement to mark them
as such.
Work is performed in the manner and order documented. If any employee identifies an opportunity to
improve a process, they should contact the Process Owner and follow the change process in Section 6.8.
There is also a button at the top of each approved document binder labeled “Process Improvement Opp.”.
By selecting this button, an e-mail is automatically created addressed to the Process Owner. Any employee
may use this functionality to send suggestions for process improvements to the Process Owner.
The process for searching the Approved Process Documents Database to find the appropriate document is
detailed in attachment I02-00002 Search Instructions.
Use of electronic copies is encouraged, but not always feasible. Making paper copies for use in such
situations is allowed, but the Master Document List should be checked frequently to assure that version
changes have not occurred, making the paper copies obsolete. For attachments, such as forms, version
changes are identified in the footer by month/year. When a version changes, all paper copies of the prior
version must be collected and destroyed to assure that all employees are performing work based on the
most recent version of the process document.
1.14.
Creating Links to QBD Documents
At Colorado Springs Utilities, many processes are dependent on or are referenced in other processes. It
may be helpful to create links from the Intranet or within documents that will take the user to another
specific document or Process Tool.
For instructions on creating links, refer to attachment I04-00002, Linking to QBD Documents.
1.15.
Changing Documents
The initial issue of a document establishes a baseline for a process. However, as continuous improvement
opportunities are identified or processes are changed, it is necessary to change documents and/or Process
Tools (Refer to 6.9). The Document Control system utilizes a numeric version system. As documents are
changed they are updated from version 01 to 02 to 03, etc. The Process Owner is the focal point for all
changes. The basic steps for a version change are:
•
Process Owner is made aware of process changes or improvement opportunities that lead to
changes in the current approved document.
•
Individuals who are recommending changes contact the Process Owner to share their
recommendations. The changes can be shared verbally, through a marked up hard copy, or
through a redlined soft copy. If not sure who owns the document, check the Master
Document List in the Approved Process Documents Database.
•
If the Process Owner reviews the changes and does not agree with the change
recommendations, he/she explains to the originator the reasons why the changes are not
feasible.
•
If the Process Owner agrees with the change recommendations, he/she moves a copy of the
current document version from the Approved Process Documents Database into the Draft
Process Documents Database and incorporates the changes. This is done by opening the
document to be moved and clicking on the “Copy to Draft Db” button at the top of the page.
•
The Process Owner updates the document and records each major change in a Document
Change Notice (DCN). A DCN is created by clicking on the “DCN” button at the top of the
window and then selecting “Add DCN”. There should be only one DCN for each version
change.
•
The Process Owner follows the instructions in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 to route the revised
document for approval. As stated before, the review cycle is optional.
•
If the change affects an attachment used to record process outcomes, the Process Owner
making the change decides whether to remove all previous versions from use and replace
them with the new version or deplete current available stock first.
1.15.1.
Potential Impact of Changes
The Process Owner may need to contact potentially affected interests in order to determine what
effects the proposed change may have upon other systems or process documents. Some potential
impacts include operations, regulations, contract requirements, cost, materials, and the customer.
Continuous Improvement can assist in this effort, especially in evaluating the impact on other
quality system requirements.
1.15.2.
Minor Changes
Minor changes in editorial style, typographical errors, layout, and/or any change that has no
detrimental effect on the quality of the product or service can be accumulated over time. The
changes should be collected and incorporated during the next change or at the next scheduled
evaluation date. (Refer to 6.10)
1.15.3.
Multiple Documents Affected
If a change affects multiple process documents, a change process and document approval is
required for each affected process document.
1.15.4.
Changing Process Owners
Changing Process Owners does not require changing document version through a formal change
process. If a Process Owner is rotated, changes their work role, or leaves the company, the
outgoing Process Owner or his/her supervisor/manager should notify the CI Department of the
new Process Owner’s name. The CI Department makes the change in the Approved Process
Documents Database. An electronic record is made at the time of the Process Owner change as an
audit trail of the transaction.
1.16.
Editing Process Tools
Attachments that do not contain any process-oriented information will be placed in the Process Tools
Database. Forms, templates, contact lists, and checklists are ideal candidates. Edits to such attachments,
referred to as Process Tools, may be made in the Process Tools Database without going through the formal
change process outlined in section 6.8. It is the responsibility of the Process Owner to update Process
Tools as necessary.
There is a notification field in the Process Tools binder that should be used to notify all users and
potentially affected interests about changes made in a Process Tool. For detail instructions see attachment
I05-00002, Editing Process Tools.
1.17.
Periodic Evaluation of Documents
Documents are scheduled for evaluation every three years after the last approval date. The next suggested
evaluation date is noted as “Review Due:” in the approved document binder and is found next to the
“Approval Date.” Lotus Notes will e-mail the Process Owner when the evaluation period is approaching.
This periodic evaluation is conducted to assure that the process document is accurate, comprehensive, and
still viable. The version number of the document is increased after the evaluation is complete. See Section
6.8 for processing changes; detailed instruction are found in the Process Owner Manual, attachment I0100002. If no change is necessary, the document version is still increased by one number in order to provide
an audit trail of the review activity.
1.18.
Archiving Documents
When a new version of a document is issued, the Lotus Notes database automatically moves a copy of the
new version to an Archive Database. This database is maintained and accessible by Continuous
Improvement. All related DCNs are also maintained with their respective documents. Anyone requiring an
archived version of a document should contact Continuous Improvement.
1.19.
Making Documents Obsolete
Sometimes business requirements change making process documents invalid. To remove documents from
the Approved Process Documents Database, the Process Owner copies the document to the Draft Process
Documents Database as described in Section 6.8.
In the DCN, the version change should be noted as from the current version to OB (for Obsolete). The
description in the DCN describes the reasons for making the document obsolete. Approval signatures are
obtained by using the Approval Cycle. Once all signatures are obtained, Continuous Improvement moves
the document to the Approved Process Documents Database and then it is deleted. A copy is retained in
the Archive Database. Anyone requiring an archived version of a document should contact Continuous
Improvement.
1.20.
Other Types of Documentation
1.20.1.
Stand Alone Documentation
Stand-alone documentation refers to authoritative documentation already in existence before the
Document Control process was implemented. Areas generating and maintaining these documents
are responsible for describing the document control methodology. This type of document is
usually noted in the Reference Document section of the document templates. The following list is
a representative sample of stand-alone documents.
•
Utilities Administrative Regulations
•
Utilities Rules and Regulations (Tariffs)
1.20.2.
External Documents
External documents are regulatory or agency documents created outside of Colorado Springs
Utilities that impact the company’s operations or work methods. This type of document is usually
noted in the Reference Documents section of the document templates.
PROCESS METRICS / SERVICE LEVELS
Not applicable
EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS
QBD Approved Process Documents Database
QBD Archive Process Documents Database
QBD Draft Process Documents Database
QBD Process Tools Database
RECORDS MANAGEMENT
Record
Number
Record Title
Record Owner
Retention
Location
Type of
Record
Retention Time
QBD Approved Process
Documents Database
Lotus Notes
Administration
SECC
Electronic
Superseded
QBD Archive Documents
Database
Lotus Notes
Administration
SECC
Electronic
Permanent
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
Source/Standard
Document #
Title/Description
QBD
00001
Business Quality System
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
Number
Title
C01-00002
Document Control Process Flowcharts
F01-00002
Standard Template Checklist
I01-00002
Process Owner Manual
I02-00002
Search Instructions
I03-00002
Level 2 Document Process
I04-00002
Linking to QBD Documents
I05-00002
Editing Process Tools
T01-00002
Standard Template
T02-00002
Course Management Plan Template
T03-00002
Management Plan Template
T03a-00002
Scorecard Template (for Management Plans)
T03b-00002
Initiatives Definition Template (for Management Plans)
QBD
Status
A
2.0
Attachment
Number
Title
T03c-00002
Strategy Map Template (for Management Plans)
T04-00002
Lab Template
T05-00002
Security Plan Template
T06-00002
Regulation Template
T07-00002
Program Management Plan Template
T08-00002
IT Support Model Template
T09-00002
IT Interface Design Template
T10-00002
Risk Management Template
T12-00002
Environmental Procedures & Guidance Manual
T13-00002
Interface Parent
T14-00002
Water RMP
T15-00002
Customer Care Policies
T18-00002
IT System Definition Template
PURPOSE
The purpose section is to outline the intention of the document in a summarized manner. It is highly
recommended that you begin your purpose statement with the phrase, "The purpose of this document is
to…." See the example below:
“The purpose of this document is to describe the process the company uses to develop the strategic plan.”
* Be sure to type the document name in the HEADER where it states “INSERT DOCUMENT TITLE
HERE” and replace XXXXX with the document number.
3.0
SCOPE
The scope section outlines areas that are affected by the document. This is where you would describe who
is affected and what is covered by this document. See example below:
“This process affects all employees and organizations throughout Colorado Springs Utilities.”
4.0
TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
This section contains an alphabetized list of acronyms or infrequently used terms that may confuse the user
or distort the meaning of the document.
See examples below:
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
QBD
Quality by Design
QBD Approved Process Documents Database is a Lotus Notes Database centrally located and accessible
by all Colorado Springs Utilities employees. This database contains all approved process documents,
including parent documents and associated attachments.
5.0
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
This section is where you explain applicable safety requirements pertaining to the process. Specific safety
instructions/guidelines should be referenced in the Reference Documents section of this document. Safety
equipment should be listed in the Equipment and Tools section of this document.
If specific safety instructions/guidelines are unavailable, the following generic statement may be used:
All Colorado Springs Utilities safety and health policy and procedure requirements shall be integrated into
any referenced operational procedures in this document. All safety related policies and procedures
contained in this document must comply with the Safety and Health Program Manual.
6.0
RESPONSIBILITIES
This section outlines the responsibilities of the person(s) or group(s) that must implement or control the
process being described. Include the title of each employee or group responsibility that is mentioned within
this document. It is often easier for Process Owners to fill out this section after the process section 6.0 has
been written and all roles have been identified. See example below:
“The Strategic Planning Manager is responsible for:
7.0
•
Facilitating the development of the Strategic Plan.
•
Conducting quarterly reviews of progress to plan.
•
Serving as subject matter experts on the Strategic Planning process.”
PROCESS
This section is where you explain the major areas of the process steps or the details of steps to be
performed. Creating a high level flowchart of the process can be helpful in determining sub headings. For
example:
7.1.
Obtaining Inputs from External Sources
7.2.
Updating Ends and Limitations
7.3.
Establishing CEO Goals
If the document has attachments, be sure to refer to them by number and name. For example “A process
flow chart is contained in attachment C01-Strategic Planning Process.”
If you are not using Microsoft XP you may need to edit the total page count on your document. After you
have completed the final draft of your document, double-click on the footer and delete the current total
page number then manually type in the actual total number of pages in the lower RIGHT hand corner. Do
not change the template number in the lower LEFT hand corner of the footer as it is important for change
tracking purposes.
NOTE: To create a numbered list of the primary steps, or major processes, use the style called "QBD
Indent 2”. This style is formatted to begin a list using the numbering scheme 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, etc. For a list of
detailed steps use the style called "QBD Indent 3" (for example - 6.1.1., 6.1.2., and so on). For bulleted lists
use the appropriate QBD bullet style – “QBD Bullet 2” or “QBD Bullet 3”.
8.0
PROCESS METRICS / SERVICE LEVELS
Every process must be measured in order to determine its effectiveness. These metrics are often called
service levels. Process metrics provide feedback that can be acted upon to avoid poor output of a product
or service. Examples of process metrics are performance to schedule, results of audits, and tracking
expenditures.
The three types of process metrics are 1) Supplier Metrics, 2) Process Metrics, or 3) Customer Metrics.
•
Supplier metrics establish targets for the quality of work performed before this process. Materials,
information, completed forms, and phone conversations are examples of supplier inputs. Supplier
measures predict the likelihood of success based on the input parameters. In other words, it is difficult
to produce a quality product or service if the input is defective from the start of the process.
•
Process metrics apply to specific characteristics, features, or attributes of the process itself. These
metrics are used to monitor the performance of the process as it is being performed.
•
Customer metrics apply to how the customer uses the product or service. Examples of customer
metrics are results surveys, repeat customers, and referrals.
Use the following table to describe metrics that indicate the effectiveness of this process. Be sure to make
a separate copy of the table and fill out the required information for each metric.
Metric
Definition of Metric
Source of Metric
Calculation of Metric
Metric - The title of the metric
Definition of Metric - A detailed explanation of what is being measured
Source of Metric - Information regarding where the data is obtained, i.e. surveys, reports, logs, etc.
Calculation of Metric - Information on how the metric is calculated
9.0
EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS
This section provides a list of equipment and/or tools needed to accomplish tasks described in this
document. If safety equipment, special hardware/software or certifications or licensing are required,
indicate it here. See example below:
10.0
•
Microsoft PowerPoint Application Software
•
Lotus Notes discussion database
RECORDS MANAGEMENT
This section lists any outputs of this process (such as filled-in forms, completed checklists, etc.) that require
retention for future reference or legal requirements. Include only records that are specifically generated by
following this process document. Use the following MSWord table to list all records. Additional rows can
be added by positioning the cursor after the last character in the field furthest to the right and hitting the
Tab key.
When filling in the “Type of Record” section, please classify the record as Microform, Electronic, or Paper.
If the output of your process is a report or information backup, use the term “Report” or “Backup” for
Record Number.
See example below:
Record Number
Record Title
Record Owner
Record Location
T01-00004
Client/Analyst
Agreement
Monthly Training
Report
Quality Manager
Central QBD Files
Training Manager
Central Training
Database
Report
11.0
Type of
Record
Paper
Retention
Time
5 years
Electronic
2 years
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
This section lists any documents to which a person might need to refer in order to complete this particular
process. Do not include the document’s revision, unless it is relevant. See examples below:
Source/Standard
Document #
Title/Description
QBD
Status
QBD
00001
Colorado Springs Utilities Quality Business System
A
Utilities Rules and
Regulations
44-00
Release of Information
Source/Standard
Document #
Standards, codebooks, manuals, user guides, related QBD processes
if this a QBD document, please include only the unique ID number
Title/Description
in some documents, this may be a Chapter or sub-heading. If linking to a
website, place the web address here.
QBD Status
12.0
A = Approved, D = Draft
ATTACHMENTS
This section lists all attachments that are associated with this parent document, which assist the user in
performing the process. Examples of attachments are agendas (A), charts (C), drawings (D), exercises (E),
forms (F), graphics (G), information/instructions (I), marketing media (M), questionnaire (Q), slides (S), or
templates (T).
Include the complete attachment number (attachment designator, sequential number, and unique ID
number) and title. See examples below:
Attachment
Number
Title
I01-00032
Score Card Write-up
I02-00032
Strategic Planning Calendar
Instructions: The purpose of this checklist is to provide guidelines for Process Owners and Process Owner Assistants to use
prior to submitting documents for review and/or approval. If there any questions please refer to the Document Control process,
#00002. For additional assistance call the Continuous Improvement Department help line at extension 8-4357 and press #4.
PARENT DOCUMENT Document Title/Unique Number:
The Title of the document is:
OVERALL
£
Descriptive and matches title on QBD
Document Binder screen
£
All CAPITALS
£
14-pt font
£
Centered in header
£
Unique ID # is below Title and matches number in the Profile section.
£
The Page Count matches the actual number of pages of the document.
£
If a Table of Contents is used, all page numbers match actual locations within the
document.
£
Document is formatted and organized to be easily understood by the user (good use of
numbering, bullets, sub-headings).
£
Template has not been altered or changed (no headings added or deleted).
£
Checked spelling and grammar.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
£
Statements are brief and to-the-point and reflect content of the process that follows.
TERMS/ABBREVIATIONS
£
All acronyms, abbreviations, and unfamiliar terms are listed and defined.
SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
£
Applicable safety requirements are explained.
RESPONSIBILITIES
£
Included all persons involved in completing the process.
£
Included key stakeholders critical to successful process implementation.
£
Summarized responsibilities of the involved individuals or groups referred to.
£
The process steps are clear and understandable.
£
Flow charts are complete and logical.
£
The process is written from the perspective of a trainee/new employee.
PROCESS METRICS /
SERVICE LEVELS
£
All process metrics for the process are listed in the table.
EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS
£
Listed all equipment and/or tools needed to accomplish the tasks that are listed.
RECORDS MANAGEMENT
£
Contacted QBD Records Management for records retention information.
£
All records created in the process (for example logs, reports, completed forms) are
listed in the table. See the example below.
PROCESS
REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
ATTACHMENTS
£
All necessary reference documents are listed in the table. See the example below.
£
All the reference documents can be verified using the information given.
£
All attachments are listed in the table identified by the attachment type designator,
document unique number and attachment title. See the example below.
£
There is a 1-to-1 match with attachments in the QBD Document Binder.
ATTACHMENTS
£
There is a Title in the attachment that clearly describes the attachment.
£
Proper attachment designators are used.
A = Agenda (used to provide format for meeting agendas)
C = Chart (a flowchart, troubleshooting diagram, or reference table, flip-chart, wall chart, etc., that does not require
information to be entered into it).
D = Drawing (used for CAD drawings, schematics, etc.)
E = Exercise (for USU-developed training exercises, please use the “M” prefix instead of the “E”)
F = Form (used when information of a restricted size is to be filled into pre-designated fields, can be filled out on
paper or electronically)
G = Graphic (used for graphics or pictures, such as examples of completed forms, templates, or reports, or screen
prints)
I = Information/Instructions (used for instructions, user’s guides, manuals, scripts, handouts, classroom
instructor/student guides, job aids, frequently-asked questions (FAQs) and other performance-support tools)
M = Measurement (Used for evaluating or measuring student/participant understanding of course materials or other
training events; includes, but not limited to: exercises, quizzes, skill-checks, role-plays, scored or unscored
written assessments, oral exams, field evaluations, apprenticeship qualifications [“quals”], etc.)
P = Policy (used to define an organizational principle, rule, or established course of action to be followed regarding
Colorado Springs Utilities)
Q = Questionnaire (used for information gathering tools such as surveys)
R = Record (used when a record of a process is maintained in the document binder)
S = Slide (used to identify a PowerPoint slide file or an overhead-projector transparency)
T = Template (used when a standard format is desired, but a specific field size is not practical)
The footer is formatted correctly:
Attachment number (mm/yyyy)
Page x of y
Ex. F01-00002 (12/2003)
Page 1 of 3
(Note: (mm/yyyy) = release or revision date of the attachment.)
£
£
If using a scanned image, the image is pasted into Word and has the proper header and footer information.
QBD DOCUMENT BINDER SCREEN
FIELDS COMPLETED
SEARCH FIELDS
DOCUMENT TITLE
SIGNATURE COVERAGE
£
Owner
£
Division
£
Department
£
Section
£
Location
£
Description. This section contains a brief description of the process document. May be
similar to the Purpose section in the document.
£
Keywords. This section contains keywords that a user may use to search for the process.
Different words and phrases are separated by a comma.
£
Describes the process.
£
Not all in Capitals.
£
Same as Parent Document.
£
Owner and Approver are not the same person.
£
All individuals or representatives of groups listed in the Responsibilities section of the
Parent Document are listed as Approvers.
£
Appropriate supervisor/manager is listed as an approver.
£
Entered individuals or distribution list in Notification field
ATTACHMENTS
£
There is a 1-to-1 match with attachments listed in the Parent Document in Section 11.0.
£
Naming format – the filename of the attachment becomes the name on the icon.
Attachment # - Title/Short description (abbreviate where possible)
Ex. F01 – Doc Review Checklist
£
A DCN (Document Change Notice) has been completed for the revised document.
£
The revised document has been converted to the most recent version of the template.
£
The changes made are clear and easy to understand.
REVISED DOCUMENTS
REVISED DOCUMENTS
NOTE: This is not a quality record and retention is not required. Always refer to the current revision of the
Document Control process #00002 and its Attachments when questions arise.
Creating and Issuing Process Documents
Begin
Sign Document
Edit As
Appropriate
(Process Owner)
Create A New Document
On Draft Process
Documents Database
(Process Owner)
(Approvers)
No
Select Correct Template
& Obtain Document #
From Continuous
Improvement
Department
Approve
Document?
Create Document By
Following Document
Template
(Process Owner)
30 Days
Later?
No
Yes
No
Attachments
Required ?
Yes
Yes
Create Attachments &
Add To Draft Process
Documents Database
Send Document
For Approval
(Continuous
Improvement)
Check Document For
Format & Content
(Continuous
Improvement)
(Process Owner)
Optional: Identify
Reviewers
& Send Out For
Review
Receive Reviewer
Feedback & Edit
Process Document
(Process Owner)
Identify Approvers and
Others To Notify
& Send Out For Approval
(Process Owner)
Clear Review Cycle
(Process Owner)
Receive
Approver
Feedback &
Edit
A N
Move Document To
Approved
Process Documents
Database
Publish Regular
Reports
Of Document Activity
(Notes QBD Agent)
Notify Area Personnel
& Ensure Appropriate
Action Is Taken
(Manager/Supervisor)
End
C01-00002 (07/2007)
Page 1 of 2
Changing Existing Documents
Begin
Sign Document
Determine A Change Is
Necessary Or Receive
Proposed Change From
A Requestor
(Approvers)
(Process Owner)
Consider Effects Of
Proposed Change
- Operations
- Quality System
- Regulatory or
30 Days
Later?
Contractual Impact
(Process Owner)
- Cost
Yes
Continue With
Change?
No
Notify Requestor w/
Reason Change Will
Not Be Implemented
(Process Owner)
Receive Approver
Feedback & Edit
As Necessary
(Process Owner)
End
Move Document
To Approved Process
Documents Database
(Continuous Improvement)
Yes
Copy Current Version
From Approved Process
Documents Database
To Draft Process
Documents Database
(Process Owner )
Publish Regular Reports
Of Document Activity
Make Changes, Create DCN,
Identify Approvers, & Send
Out For Approval
(Process Owner)
Edit As Deemed
Appropriate
(Process Owner)
No
Check Document For
Format & Content And
Send Out For Approval
Notify Area Personnel
& Ensure Appropriate
Action Is Taken
(Manager/Supervisor)
Approve
Changes
?
End
Yes
C01-00002 (07/2007)
Page 2 of 2
No
Project Study # 11
Knowledge Management through Training
Project Description: The organization sent eight people to England for a week, three days of
that week were spent doing on sight training at a plant similar to theirs. The training was put on
by operators in Great Britain. They spent the remaining eight days shadowing the British
operators, going where they went, and doing what they did.
Size of Utility: Not identified
Critical Success Factors: Success is the knowledge acquired to run a state of the art water
treatment plant efficiently and effectively.
Costs: $25,000
Alignment: Specifically aligned with operational training.
Benefits: They came back so pumped up and confident with their newly found knowledge that
they sat down with the contractor, senior staff, and the engineer and said look guys you have a
plan to start a new plant up in a three week window, we can do it in three days. This goal was
accomplished and they were able to instill that enthusiasm into the people that did not go to
England. This is an example of taking the concept of knowledge management and putting it to
________________________________
POC:
Lyndon B. Stovall
Greenville Water System
Project Study # 12
Using contract employees to supplement and prepare retirements
Project Description: This program called Project Grant Program allows the utility to hire full-time
contract employees in order to supplement fluctuating knowledge and operational needs. This
initial program was established following a catastrophic flood which required the city to hire
temporary employees. The utility now uses the program for attrition planning with contract
employees receiving full benefits. They are on a one-year contract from January to December.
When a contract terminates, it can be renewed for another year. When the utility interviews a
potential new hire, the contract clearly states the hourly rate, the benefits are defined, and
employees are held to all internal policies. This program has allowed the water utility to recruit
from outside the city’s civil service system; which, in turn, then provides an in-house hiring pool
that has needed training programs to ensure current knowledge and direction. This program
has been in effect for three years and has been successful.
Size of Utility: 28.5 employees
Critical Success Factors: A critical success factor is to choose a good candidate that has some
experience. For example, one employee that was hired actually came with some treatment
certification and surface water experience, bringing needed knowledge into the organization.
While this person could have been hired externally, the city’s civil service system gives
preferential treatment to internal candidates, or those from other city departments, before hiring
an external candidate with related work experience or operator certification.
Cost: There is no additional cost to this approach other than that of hiring in the normal fashion.
In-house training is supplied to all new hires. Because the organization wants qualified people
to apply, it offers the same benefit package to contract employees and permanent employees,
i.e., the contract employee is hired at a salary equal to the entry level schedule, and they will
earn vacation and have the option of receiving insurance.
Benefits: The utility is able to recruit outside of the system for a very talented candidate and put
him or her into the utility’s system. For example, the utility had a lead operator leave and
already had an internal candidate in training as this employee’s assistant. This assistant was
able to easily move up into the lead operator position.
Compiled April 2008
____________________________________
POC:
Hazel Sletten
City of Grand Forks Public Water Utility
Project Study # 13
Increasing the number of Standard Operating Procedures
Project Description: Implementing standard operating procedures (SOPs) in the system as a
training tool.
Critical Success Factors: Adequate technology and skill sets of staff.
Costs: Most of the cost is staff time, utilizing existing resources and reprioritizing work to allow
enough time to write and implement standard operating procedures. Typically in operations
employee strength is their operational skills, not in their technical writing ability. They have to
be interviewed or videotaped in order to provide a starting point for a specific standard operating
procedure.
Alignment: This project study is aligned with succession planning, because of the high rate of
retirement that is expected over the next five to ten years. It is a way to capture institutional
knowledge in a form that can be passed on to new employees. It also ties into technology
planning by documenting the SOP and standardizing the data that is related to a specific
operation and having the technology in place for implementation. Further, it is aligned with the
utility’s strategic plan by trying to create a workplace that attracts and retains employees.
Benefits: The utility is seeing improved training programs. In addition, when the organization
reviews the completed SOP’s after a year or two, the utility is able to tweak them instead of
having to recall the entire procedure from employee memory.
Compiled April 2008
_____________________________
POC:
Cheryl Nero or Dave Matthews
City of Akron Public Utilities Bureau
Project Study # 14
Converting from paper utility to a Geodatabase
Project Description: The Utility has moved from a paper based utility to the process of capturing
all asset data into one database.
Critical Success Factors: The skill sets of the existing employees did not match the skill sets
needed for higher technology use. Therefore the employees had to be trained on the use of the
new Geodatabase.
Cost: $300,000 to $500,000 over a three-year period for technology, training, and overtime for
310 employees.
Alignment: Specifically aligned with the technology plan due to having better integration with
the work order management system, customer information system, billing systems and
document management system. Also, from a knowledge retention viewpoint, all the information
is now easily captured within an electronic database rather than having to rely on hard copies.
Benefits: The organization has better data for asset management, and therefore can make
better asset management decisions, and is able to answer inquiries on asset information. This
process enables the utility to better integrate asset information with other applications.
Compiled April 2008
________________________
POC:
Project Study # 15
Increasing the number of interns hired
Project Description: The utility started a program with the local school system to bring high
school seniors in for internships. The students are in vocational training for half a day and in
school for the other half. If the students perform the job correctly and efficiently, the utility will
hire them at an entry level position. This program provides a way to increase the skills and
aptitudes of entry-level employees while leveraging existing training programs that are in the
school system. It also includes mentoring at the operations level to produce entry level workers
that have both skills and aptitude and a working knowledge of operations.
Critical Success Factors: These factors include a skilled mentor, quality high school level
vocational training, a good work ethic on the students’ part. Students must be able to provide
their own transportation.
Cost: There are some costs in providing tools and training, generally around $3,000 to $5,000
per utility intern.
.
Alignment: Aligned with the utility’s succession plan by first, bringing in new employees with
higher skill sets, aptitudes and training to perform the job; and second, minimizing the amount of
time it takes to learn institutional knowledge.
Benefits: A benefit to the utility is the ability to hire a new young employee within six to nine
months of experience; and have a young, strong body able to do what is considered manual
labor.
Compiled April 2008
________________________
POC:
Project Study # 16
Career Ladder Program
Project Description: The Career Ladder Program is a program in which employees take their
certification tests and, if they pass, get automatic raises until they reach the highest level of
license available, at which point they make 10 percent less than the Foreman.
Critical Success factors: The utility is creating a competitive environment that offers the
opportunity for people to move through the system with knowledge as the competitive factor.
Cost: $40,000 a year to implement the Career Ladder Program, including costs of employee
raises and continuing education.
Alignment: Aligned with human resources.
Benefits: In a Union-employed shop, the only way to advance is for someone positioned in a
higher pay slot to move or retire. This can cause a serious motivation problem. The Career
Ladder Program allows the employee to advance with the correct licensing based on their
knowledge. Since employees are receiving licensing and advanced licensing through this
program, the utility is building a competent and reliable workforce. For example, if a supervisor
is unable to be present, the utility has three or four other employees who are equally licensed
who can take care of problems. The Career Ladder Program motivates an employee to stay in
the job since they are the determining factor of their salary level, and the utility is continuously
improving their workforce and thus their capability.
Compiled April 2008
______________________________
POC:
Terry Biederman
Waterford Township Department of Public Works
Project Study # 17
Rallying a Team of Exceptional Employees
Project Description: Rallying a team of exceptional employees is one of this utility’s five
strategic goals. The organization is trying to identify all the positions and people that are going
to retire or potentially leave through longevity with the company who have acquired knowledge
and skill sets essential to the success of the utility. By doing this, the organization is also
identifying the areas across the business unit that need back-filling or teaming-up to enable the
transfer of knowledge from near-term retirees to newer employees. This is accomplished
through many venues. For example, the organization may decide to add new staff to work
alongside the retiree, gaining as much knowledge about the position as possible.
Size of Utility: 1,158 employees
Critical Success Factors: Having human resources engaged to help the utility identify these
key positions that are subject to retirement. A second critical success factor is working with
financial services to create the budget for a parallel learning effort and then, in the future
possibly using an automated process to capture business knowledge.
Costs: There is a budget variance that will exist when you add additional people to the
department budget. Technically, you have two people in the same role for some amount of
time. While this may not appear efficient, it is critical to the continuing effectiveness of the utility.
Alignment: This was initiated out of the organization’s strategic planning; it also involves life
cycle management and IT planning.
Benefits: Reducing or mitigating utility risk by identifying key positions. The utility is not running
the risk of the employee leaving without gathering critical institutional knowledge and
documenting it.
Compiled April 2008
___________________________________
POC:
Greg Rodeghier
Orlando Utilities Commission
Project Study # 18
Hired a private firm to determine the utility’s communication/ knowledge
sharing needs
Project Description: Hired a private firm to explore communication gaps among the entire staff,
including vertical and horizontal communication. This aggressive program required each
employee to attend a weekly session of 3-4 hours for eight weeks. During this session, the
communication needs of the organization were determined through dialogue and role-playing.
Better communications practices were addressed at the individual and group levels.
Critical Success factors: Prior to the sessions, individuals from the company (from four
separate departments) discussed sensitive issues from differing viewpoints. Then, the results of
these interviews were collectively presented to management for discussion, mitigation and
action.
Cost: Several thousands of dollars. A representative of the organization said, “It was money
well spent.”
Alignment: The utility has set a global goal of open and clear communications. The fact that
everyone understood the goal gave them the opportunity to hopefully strive to maintain and
acquire the skills necessary to accomplish the goal. Group buy-in helped accomplish this goal.
Benefits: One of the benefits is that all employees have the opportunity to realize they were not
just part of their individual departments; they are a team. The staff—including management—
has learned to communicate better. We now hold weekly staff meetings in the departments,
and management meets with the whole group quarterly. Public relations and communications
have improved immensely. In addition, the utility is seeing more personal development and
confidence in the employees.
Compiled April 2008
________________________________
POC:
Wally Thom
Rice Lake Utilities
Project Study # 19
Computerization of all customer service records
Project Description: Implementing a computerization of all customer service records tied to the
organizational GIS data base that will link both pieces of information, thereby facilitating
knowledge flows.
Critical Success factors: A success factor would be the amount of information available on a
field laptop that would allow the field person or office staff to answer questions or solve
problems with detailed file access at their fingertips. Another factor would be the amount of staff
time that can be dedicated to the project.
Cost: This is a multi-year project. At completion the estimated cost is $500,000.
Alignment: This project is aligned with strategic business planning, operational planning, human
resource development, life cycle planning, and information technology master planning. In the
future it will allow the utility to simplify its five-year capital improvement and replacement plan.
Benefits: Whenever a piece of the plan has been implemented, benefits show up immediately.
The utility can easily look into the future and see the long-term possibilities when the plan is
completed.
Compiled April 2008
____________________________________
POC: Gerald Schulte
Evergreen Metro Distict
Project Study # 20
On the Job Training
Project Description: The utility will send an employee to a credited school for an introductory
course for water operators. Employees attend school one night a week for eight months,
hopefully successfully completing and passing the course.
Critical Success factors: The employee is required to receive this education and pass the
course before taking their licensing exam to become a certified operator.
Cost: The utility reimburses the employee for tuition and books.
Alignment: This initiative is aligned with life cycle planning and human resource development.
Benefits: Employees are able to learn while employed in an entry level position and are given
the opportunity for career advancement. With this program, the organization can hire someone
who has potential but may not have the knowledge or training for the position. Further, this
person has a chance to advance their education and gain a certification.
Compiled April 2008
___________________________________
POC:
Paul Kozakiewicz
Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority
Project Study # 21
Retiree Program
Project Description: The City of Phoenix Water Services Department is experiencing a
knowledge drain due to retirements. We have approximately 1,400 employees, of
which 300 are eligible to retire in the next five years, and 400 employees who have five
years or less of service with the Department.
Often, critical staff are promoted or retire and there is no one readily available to
perform their daily job duties. Our goal was to establish a retiree program that allows
for the use of soon to be retired and retired employees in a training capacity to pass on
their knowledge and abilities to their replacement. With a retiree program, we hoped to
achieve a knowledge transfer from experienced employees to less knowledgeable
employees, and a faster development (shorter learning curve) or time to competency of
new employees. The City of Phoenix allows for the contractual hiring of former
employees as independent vendors to provide specific duties including training. Some
of the department’s contracted retirees who are working on special projects have a fixed
work schedule. The retirees provide training work on an as-needed basis. They are
contacted directly by our supervisors to provide employee training in the areas of
instrumentation, electrical, and plant operations.
Critical Success Factors: To establish this retiree program the knowledge retention pilot
committee, which consisted of employees, supervisors and Human Resources Staff all
internal to the Water Services Department, held a series of meetings to: get the buy-in
from our Executives and Middle Managers that this program would be beneficial to the
staff and the Department; identify critical knowledge that was lost through retirements
and/or lacking in new employees and supervisors; and identify retirees with this critical
knowledge that were interested in training new employees. We then obtained approval
to hire specific retirees back under a training contract.
Cost: Because this program was implemented as part of a much larger training
program, several vendors including retirees were hired under training contracts, the
costs to implement this were minimal and were limited to staff time to identify the
training needs, negotiate the cost of services, obtain necessary approvals and
coordinate the training. These activities occurred over one or two hours a week over a
two month period. The only direct costs would have been the newspaper advertisement
for the services, $200.00.
Alignment: This initiative is aligned with human resources development as part of our
Operations & Maintenance Technician training program.
Benefits: Our retiree training program has been in place for several years and has been
extremely successful and beneficial to the Department. Not only do new employees get
an opportunity to receive hands-on, one-on-one training from experienced retires, the
facility does not have to allocate remaining experienced staff to provide this training.
They are available to complete the daily work requirements while the retiree provides
the training. Because the use of retirees allows our Department to pass on critical
knowledge and skills without adding to the workloads of the remaining supervisors and
subject matter experts, we will continue to hire retirees back under contract to provide
specific technical training.
Compiled September 2007
_____________________________
POC:
Lisa Nevitt
City of Phoenix Water Services Department
Project Study # 22
Develop Organizational Learning System
Project Description: Developing an organizational learning system, that enables information to
be disseminated throughout the organization. This approach provides more focus on interactive
topic areas such as: asset management; safety and emergency preparedness; race and social
justice. There are nine principles used to help guide the organizational learning system: (1)
design and deliver the training in a way that the learning is accessible for all audiences; (2) all
employees receive a consistent high level overview; (3) the training/communications should
have a common look and feel; (4) SPU values will be clearly integrated into the learning system
program; (5) the leadership team is a partner in communicating the key messages and learning
objectives; (6) the learning outcomes should be integrated into and reinforced throughout the
organization; (7) learning system programs will be interactive, two way learning opportunities;
(8) draw out natural leaders, early adopters, and enthusiastic learners, and place them in a
central role in the learning system; (9) learning system programs will measure their
effectiveness in meeting learning objectives.
Critical Success factors: The willingness of the people in the organization to learn, and
leadership teams commitment and communication of the learning objectives.
Cost: Minimal costs—executive level leaders focusing time and energy around system. There
are teams for each category, and all work is done internally.
Alignment: This initiative is aligned with strategic business planning by helping to reach the
goals of the organization through learning.
Benefits: An approach to decision making that involves data-driven decisions, established
customer service levels, full life cycle costs that are increasingly being adopted in the utility
sector. This initiative draws out natural leaders, early adopters, and enthusiastic learners. It
fosters and supports more learning in the department, providing the opportunity for developing
back-up expertise across functional areas.
Compiled April 2008
___________________________
POC:
Nancy Ahern
Seattle Public Utilities
Project Study # 23
Louisville Water Company 2007 System Certification Process: Knowledge
Management
Project Description: In 2006, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System developed a
process for identifying, storing and indexing critical operational knowledge. In 2007, each
business system was responsible for collecting the information described below in the bullet
items. In 2008, each business system is responsible for developing and implementing a
documented Knowledge Management action plan based upon the data collected in 2007. This
plan will be reviewed as part of a process that we call System Certification Reviews. In order to
assist our managers with this process, OE developed a questionnaire that could be used by the
employees to collect the information needed for the action plan. Business Systems also had the
flexibility of designing their own questionnaire. The objectives of this process are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Identify LWC employees who possess critical operational knowledge that needs to be
retained.
Identify the critical operational knowledge.
Determine if the critical operational knowledge can be obtained from other resources.
Determine the potential business consequences that might occur if the critical
operational knowledge is not captured.
Determine the best format to capture, store, index and make available the critical
operational knowledge to other employees.
Develop a documented action plan and implement same to accomplish the above.
Challenge: The initial challenge was the willingness of employees to complete the
questionnaire. However, what we discovered was that employees were more than willing to do
this because of the importance of the work that they are performing. They quickly realized the
importance of sharing this information with others and enjoyed being seen as the “expert” in
their particular fields.
Critical Success Factors: The success of this project is based on the completion of the
Knowledge Management action plans and implementation of those plans. All LWC business
systems are documenting their plans, collecting critical operational knowledge, and sharing this
data on the LWC intranet with the exception of operations requiring confidentiality and /or
security issues. We have seen an increase in the documentation and storing of Work
Instructions, Process Flowcharts, and digital photos capturing work processes, etc. We have
also seen an increase in participants in cross-training, cross-functional teams, and participants
in LWC’s Mentoring program.
Cost: No cost noted.
Benefits: Better planning in the areas of succession management, knowledge sharing and
retention, and cross-training.
Attachments provided: (1) LWC Knowledge Management Process (Public Version)
Compiled May 2008
________________________
POC:
Carl Blanton
2007 System Certification Review Process:
Version 1.0: December 2006
Presented by: Carl Blanton
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
In order for Louisville Water Company (LWC) to meet its strategic objectives, we
must depend on our ability to identify and retain critical operations knowledge.
When workers retire or leave LWC, their critical operations knowledge goes with
them. Therefore, the objectives of this process are:
1. Identify LWC employees who possess critical operations knowledge that
needs to be retained.
2. Identify the critical operations knowledge.
3. Determine if the critical operations knowledge can be obtained from other
resources (internal and/or external).
4. Determine the potential business consequences that might occur if the
critical operations knowledge is not captured.
5. Determine the best format to capture, store, index and make available the
critical operations knowledge to other employees.
6. Develop an action plan to accomplish the above.
1.0
General Types of Knowledge
There are two general types of knowledge: E xplicit and Implicit or Tacit
Knowledge.
Ø
Explicit Knowledge encompasses the things we know that can be written
down, shared with others and p ut into a d atabase such as SOP’s, work
procedures, work instructions, training manuals, etc. L WC does a v ery
good job in capturing this type of knowledge and making it available to its
employees.
Ø
Implicit or Tacit Knowledge encompasses know-how, rules of thumb,
experiences, insights, and intuition. This type of knowledge is sometimes
difficult to capture because it resides in a person’s head, and not on paper.
Companies in general do a l ess effective job in capturing this type of
knowledge, and yet it is just as important to retain as Explicit Knowledge.
In order to begin this process, Organizational Effectiveness (OE), has prepared an
outline and questionnaire to assist managers in identifying, capturing and
retaining the specific system and process knowledge that is critical to our
operational success. Beginning in 2007, LWC System Certification Reviews will
include an assessment of progress made by the business system on capturing
and managing operational knowledge in their respective functions. Specifically,
OE will be looking at what has already been accomplished, and what kind of
action objectives remain to be completed throughout the remainder of the year
and perhaps into 2008. We acknowledge that systems that are evaluated in the
latter part of 2007 should be farther along on this process than those evaluated in
the early months of 2007.
What you may discover upon
going through this process is that your system is doing a solid job in capturing
and retaining critical operations knowledge. If that’s the case, then document the
procedures that you have in place and continue your success. O n the other
hand, what you may discover is that some critical operations knowledge has
been captured and retained, while other operational knowledge has not. In those
situations, most likely the knowledge is “in the head” of one of your key
employees, and there is the potential of losing that knowledge if and when the
employee chooses to retire from or leave LWC. If that’s the case, then continue
to follow through the steps provided in this document and create your action plan
to address the issue.
Do not make this process more difficult than it needs to be.
OE employees are available to answer questions and assist all managers through
this process. I n addition, this outline and questionnaire provided to you is not
“carved in stone.” We welcome ideas and suggestions for “Knowledge
Management Best Practices” to share with others throughout the year.
We
encourage you to design your own tools and resources that best fit your
business system. What works best for one system may not work well for another
system. Thi s outline and questionnaire are simply designed to help you get
started on this journey.
Finally, the process of Knowledge Management is not a “one-time deal.” T he
ultimate goal is for each system to have an ongoing process in place to
consistently identify, capture and store critical operational knowledge and make
it available to our future employees who will serve our internal and external
customers for decades to come.
LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS
STEP ONE: IDENTIFICATION OF KEY PERSONNEL
A. Identify employees within your system who you anticipate may be retiring within the next three years
(2007-2010).
Name
Job Title
Anticipated
Retirement
Date
B. Identify employees within your system who have the most tenure/seniority (the longer an employee’s
tenure/seniority, the greater likelihood that individual possesses knowledge critical to a company’s
operations).
Name
Job Title
Tenure in
Years
C. Identify employees within your system/process who are performing “critical knowledge at-risk”
positions (i.e. employees, who upon leaving LWC, could severely affect operations).
Name
Job Title
Process
ST TWO: IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO BE RETAINED
STEP TWO: IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO BE
RETAINED
When identifying critical operational knowledge to be retained from the employee,
focus on the following three types of knowledge applicable to all utilities:
Ø Technical Knowledge* encompasses individual capabilities. It is what
individuals know or know how to do, and it is typically demonstrated as a
skill. Some examples include the ability to operate a particular pump; the
ability to use software programs and systems such as Oracle, FINS, MDS,
PeopleSoft HRMS; or an understanding of chemical reactions.
Ø Social Knowledge* involves relationships and working cultures. I t is an
individual’s ability to interact with other people and to fit into the social
networks of organizations. E xamples include an ability to communicate
effectively with local politicians and to function well within a utility’s unique
working culture.
Ø Structural Knowledge* is embedded in an organization’s systems,
processes, policies and procedures. It tends to be explicit or rules-based.
Examples include knowledge of how to follow the utility’s procurement
process, to purchase a piece of equipment, and to navigate a permit
process.
*(Source: Knowledge Retention: A guide for Utilities. J ournal AWWA,
September 2006. Author: Mark Frigo)
To assist you in this process, you may want to ask each employee identified as “key
personnel” to complete the enclosed questionnaire. You may also want to create your
own questionnaire that is unique to your system and processes.
STEP THREE: DETERMINE IF THE CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CAN BE
OBTAINED FROM OTHER RESOURCES
Questions to consider include:
Ø Has the knowledge been passed on t o another employee through crosstraining or job shadowing?
Ø Has the knowledge been captured through some other means such as a
training manual, documented standard operating procedures (SOP’s),
documented work instructions, video instructions, picture maps, LWC
Service Rules & Regulations, LWC Intranet, PowerPoint presentations,
etc.?
Ø Can the knowledge be obtained on an interim basis when needed through
other resources such as the external job market, external contractors, LWC
retirees, LWC employees in other systems/processes, etc.?)
STEP FOUR: DETERMINE THE BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES OF NOT CAPTURING THE
KNOWLEDGE
In order to decide and prioritize which critical operational knowledge is the most
important to capture and retain, use the following questions to determine the
potential business consequences:
Business Consequences: Importance
Ø Would not knowing this knowledge result in major or minor losses for
LWC? If yes, please explain.
Ø Would this knowledge affect system or process reliability from the
viewpoint of the customer? If yes, please explain.
Ø Would the loss of this knowledge affect one location or multiple locations?
If yes, please identify the locations and how they would be affected.
Business Consequences: Immediacy
Ø How long will it take to transfer or reacquire this knowledge to deal with
certain problems?
Business Consequences: Recovery
Ø Is it feasible to recover this knowledge?
Ø What is the estimated cost and feasibility to recover this knowledge?
Business Consequences: Knowledge Transfer
Ø How difficult will it be to capture and transfer this knowledge to others?
Ø What is the most preferred method to capture and transfer this knowledge?
(See Step Five for examples of how knowledge can be captured and
transferred to others.)
STEP FIVE: DETERMINE THE BEST FORMAT TO CAPTURE, STORE, INDEX AND MAKE
AVAILABLE THIS CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO OTHER EMPLOYEES.
There are several Knowledge Transfer/Sharing Techniques that can be used to
capture and retain critical operational knowledge and make it available to others.
The most common techniques are those that you may already be familiar with
such as:
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Ø
Cross-Training
Job Shadowing
Standard Operating Procedures (Work Instructions)
LWC Service Rules and Regulations
LWC Company Policies and Procedures
Training Manuals
Troubleshooting Guides
Video/DVD Instructions
Computer-based Training
Simulators
Blueprints
Databases such as G.I.S.
PowerPoint Presentations/Instructions
Process Flowcharts
Software Program Tutorials
Some additional Knowledge Transfer/Sharing Techniques for you to consider are:
Ø Communities of Practice – These are groups of practitioners who share a common
interest in a specific area of competence and are willing to share their experiences.
They are sometimes known by other names such as learning communities or learning
networks.
Ø After Action Review - This is a process developed by the U.S. Army to help teams learn
quickly from their successes and failures and share their learning with other teams. It
involves conducting a structured and facilitated discussion after a task or project has
been completed to review what should have happened, what actually happened, and
why it happened. This allows participants to learn how to sustain strengths and
improve on weaknesses in subsequent tasks or projects.
Ø Expertise Directory/Skills Directory – This is a staff directory in the form of a database
that includes details of people’s skills, knowledge, experience, and expertise so that
users can search for people with specific know-how. It is sometimes referred to as a
Corporate Yellow Pages. Each person’s own page may include:
•
•
Basic contact information
Areas of expertise. (People can rate themselves as having extensive
expertise, some working knowledge, or just learning.)
•
Work history
•
Key internal and external contacts
•
Interests
Ø Knowledge Harvesting – This is a technique that allows tacit knowledge or know-how of
experts and top performers in an organization to be captured and documented. This
know-how can then be made available to others in various forms such as t raining
programs, manuals, best practices, and other forms of knowledge repositories.
Ø Mentoring - A one-to-one learning relationship in which a senior member of an
organization is assigned to support the development of a newer or more junior
member by sharing his or her knowledge, experience, and wisdom with them.
Ø Peer Assist - This is where an individual or team calls a meeting or a workshop in order to tap the
knowledge and experience of others before embarking on a project or activity.
Ø Picture Map – A combination of pictures and a map to explain how a process operates or flows
within a company. To view the example below, go to .louisvillewater.com, click on FunZone,
Teachers’ Tools, and Follow the Flow.
Storyboards – A series of illustrations or images displayed in sequence for the
purpose of pre-visualizing a v ideo sequence. A storyboard provides a visual
layout of events as they are to be seen through the camera lens.
Ø Storytelling - The use of stories in organizations as a way of sharing knowledge and facilitating
learning. Stories can be used to describe complicated issues, explain events, communicate lessons
learned, or bring about cultural change.
2.0
ADDITIONAL TIPS FOR KNOWLEDGE SHARING/TRANSFER
TECHNIQUES:
When determining the best format to capture, store, and index critical knowledge to share
with future employees, the following tips may be helpful:
Ø Avoid the use of dry, colorless, lifeless documents. The goal is to produce publications that will be
read, not stuffed into a file drawer.
Ø Less is more – the goal is to deliver enough, but not too much. P eople with
experience can wade through a m ountain of material, but they usually lack the
patience and time to do so.
Ø People remember...
10% of what they hear
15% of what they see
20% of what they hear and see
40% of what they discuss
80% of what they experience and practice
90% of what they teach to others
Ø When using video to capture and store knowledge, always prepare a scr ipt and
storyboard in advance before shooting footage in the field. This will save you much
time in terms of preparation, equipment selection, obstacles to overcome, etc.
STEP SIX: DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN TO CAPTURE, STORE, INDEX AND SHARE KEY
CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE
The action plan needs to be specific and workable for your specific system and
processes. W hatever format you choose to use, the action plan should include
the following:
Ø Specific action objectives
Ø Anticipated outcomes
Ø Person(s) responsible for carrying out the action objectives
Ø Timeline and deadline date
Ø Resources needed
Be sure to schedule periodic updates to monitor the continued progress of your action plan.
For System Certification review purposes, please maintain your action plan and all
supporting documentation in a format and location that best meets your needs. Options you
may want to consider include your web site on the LWC Intranet; a separate section in your
certification binder tabbed Knowledge Management; or a shared drive within your system.
Involve your Natural Work Teams and/or System Advisory Council in this process.
LWC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: I n order for LWC to capture, store, and retain operational
knowledge that is critical for the success of the company, Organizational
Effectiveness (OE) has requested managers to identify employees who meet any
of the following criteria:
A. Employees who anticipate retiring from LWC within the next three years.
B. Employees with the most tenure (seniority) with LWC. ( The longer an
employee’s tenure/seniority, the greater likelihood that employee
possesses knowledge critical to a company’s operations).
C. Employee’s currently employed in “critical knowledge at-risk” positions
(i.e. those individuals, who upon l eaving LWC could severely affect
operations).
You have been identified as an employee who meets one or more of the criteria listed
above.
Please answer each of the following questions in as much detail as possible and
return this questionnaire to your Process Owner. If you need clarification on any
question, please consult with your Process Owner or Business System Owner.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Name:
Job Title:
Process:
Phone Extension or Cell Phone Number:
Definition: Technical Knowledge encompasses individual capabilities. It is what individuals know or know
how to do, and it is typically demonstrated as a skill. Examples include the ability to operate a particular
pump, the ability to use spreadsheet software, and an understanding of chemical reactions.
1. What kind of technical knowledge should LWC retain from you in order to perform your tasks?
Technical Knowledge to be retained:
Definition: Social Knowledge involves relationships and working cultures. It is an individual’s ability to
interact with other people and to fit into the social networks of organizations. Examples include an ability to
communicate effectively with local politicians and to function well within a utility’s unique working culture.
2. What kind of social knowledge should LWC retain from you in order to continue the working
relationships needed to perform your tasks?
Social Knowledge to be retained:
Definition: Structural Knowledge is embedded in an organization’s systems, processes, policies and
procedures. It tends to be explicit or rules-based. Examples include knowledge of how to follow LWC’s
procurement process, to purchase a piece of equipment, and to navigate a permit process.
3. What kind of structural knowledge should LWC retain from you in order to continue to perform
your tasks?
Structural Knowledge to be retained: Structural Knowledge to be retained:
4. What other kind of critical knowledge do you fear will be lost when you choose to leave LWC?
Response:
5. What facts and information pertaining to your job are important to know?
Facts:
Information:
6. What are the key lessons learned from your job?
Response:
Project Study # 24
LWC System Certification Review Process
Project Description: In 1995, Louisville Water Company (LWC) created its systems-based
management approach. LWC created five (5) business cores consisting of 12 business
systems and approximately 34 processes. Business System Owners (BSO’s) are equivalent to
“Directors” and Process Owners (PO’s) are equivalent to “Supervisors”. The Executive
Leadership Team (ELT) developed challenging criteria to determine if business systems were
achieving the goals and objectives necessary to establish LWC as a Total Quality Organization.
Each business system goes through a review process every two years known as System
Certification Review. The review is performed by the Organizational Effectiveness Business
System which issues a detailed report of findings, successes, challenges, etc. to the ELT for
review and approval. (Note: The Organizational Effectiveness Business System is also
required to meet the same criteria/standards as the remaining 11 business systems. However,
the certification review for OE is conducted by the Director of Internal Audit). The certification
review objectives are:
1. Determine that required documentation exists, is controlled, and validated.
2. Assess system’s progress toward commitment to quality principles.
3. Assess the system’s evaluation of business risk.
4. Determine the effectiveness of process improvements.
5. Determine the system’s commitment to partnership among employees.
6. Assess the system’s level of customer focus.
7. Determine the system’s progress toward empowerment.
8. Assess the system’s commitment to quality of work life.
9. Evaluate system’s plans and documented business results.
10. Assess the system’s progress toward knowledge management.
Challenge: Reviewing and updating each business system’s documentation to remain current
at all times.
Critical Success Factors: While all business systems are required to share and maintain their
system and process documentation on LWC’s Intranet site in a consistent and standard format,
each system is encouraged to include additional information that may be applicable to other
systems. In addition to reviewing the documentation, the OE System interviews all managers
and a random number of employees to determine if the system is truly operating as a Total
Quality Organization. The review team members observe employees in their Natural Work
Team meetings and System Advisory Council meetings. We review progress made toward
improving customer satisfaction with both internal and external customers. We identify and
share “Best Practices” with other systems, and also review how managers are recognizing
employees for outstanding performance and how well managers are conducting their quarterly
performance management reviews. We also review how well each system is executing its
System Operating Plan.
Cost: No cost noted
Benefits: Systems that are fully functioning as Total Quality Organizations are recognized by
the Executive Leadership Team. Systems that may be lacking in some areas are provided with
coaching and assistance necessary to achieve compliance with the criteria/standards. The
certification process has allowed LWC to bring consistency in the documentation of work
processes, standard operating procedures, operating plans, relationship charts, flowcharts, etc.
Attachments provided: 2008—2009 System Certification Working Checklist FINAL; 2008—
2009 Management Interview Questions; 2008—2009 Non-Management Interview
Questions.
Compiled May 2008
_______________________
POC:
Carl Blanton
SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (SOE)
2008 - 2009 System Certification Working Checklist
Business System:
Entrance Conference Date:
Exit Conference Date:
Date of Final Report:
Date of ELT Review for Approval:
Certification Purpose:
To determine that Business Systems are complying with the Next Level Plan 2005 and Beyond
certification elements.
Certification Review Objectives:
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Determine that required documentation exists, is controlled, and validated.
Assess system’s progress toward commitment to quality principles.
Assess the system’s evaluation of business risk.
Determine the effectiveness of process improvements.
Determine the system’s commitment to partnership among employees.
Assess the system’s level of customer focus.
Determine the system’s progress toward empowerment.
Assess the system’s commitment to quality of work life.
Evaluate system’s plans and documented business results.
Assess the system’s progress toward knowledge management.
Certification Review Process Steps:
st
1. BSOs of systems to be reviewed are contacted in the 1 quarter to identify timeframes to avoid
based on their specific business needs.
st
2. BSOs are informed of their “certification start date” for the year by the end of the 1 quarter in
order to prepare in advance.
3. BSOs receive a 30-working day reminder prior to the review.
4. An Entrance Conference is held with the BSO on t he “certification start date” to review the
process steps and begin the examination of the system documentation (via intranet). Documents
not posted on the intranet due to confidentiality can be supplied to the review team in a binder for
review. The review team will protect the confidentiality of these documents and return them to
the BSO as quickly as possible. ( Note: BSOs are invited to include their POs in the Entrance
Conference).
5. SOE reviews the system/process documentation.
6. SOE conducts personal interviews with BSO, POs and a r andom number of employees
representing NWTs.
7. SOE will attend at least one NWT meeting and one SAC meeting if possible.
8. SOE prepares the first draft of the certification report.
9. SOE conducts an Exit Conference with the BSO to review the draft report and seek clarification
and/or corrections on any issues.
10. SOE prepares the final report and distributes same to the CBSO and BSO of the system being
reviewed.
11. SOE requests “management responses” to any recommendations be forwarded to SOE within
two weeks.
12. CBSO schedules certification discussion on ELT agenda.
13. ELT reaches decision on certification status.
CHECKLIST – WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR?
Systems-based Management Structure
1. System Organizational Chart
Yes/No
Comments
Does the chart include names and job titles?
Has the chart been reviewed in the last 12 months?
2. System Synopsis Sheet
Has the sheet been reviewed in the last 12 months?
Is there a reference to a “customer satisfaction
indicator” as
one of the “outcome measures?”
Did employees provide input on this document?
3. System Relationship Chart
Does the chart match the System Synopsis Sheet in
terms
of “suppliers, customers, inputs and outputs?”
4. Process Synopsis Sheet
Has the sheet been reviewed in the last 12 months?
Is there a reference to a “customer satisfaction
indicator” as
one of the “outcome measures?”
5. Process Relationship Chart
Does the chart match the Process Synopsis Sheet in
terms of “suppliers, customers, inputs and outputs?”
6. Process NWT Charter
Has the charter been reviewed in the last 12 months?
Have all the sections of the Charter been completed?
7. Process Flow Charts – Macro / Micro
Have the charts been reviewed in the last 12 months?
8. Standard Operating Procedures (as applicable)
Are the SOPs documented on the Work Instructions
template?
Have the SOPs been reviewed in the last 12 months?
Are the SOP’s clear and easy to understand?
9. Process / Operational Improvements
Have employees submitted Process / Operational
Improvements in the last two years? How many?
10. NWT Meeting Minutes
Are NWT meetings held on a regular basis?
Is the leader’s role alternated among members of the
NWT?
Are meeting minutes documented and made available
to team members and other employees?
Are topics such as process improvements, quality of
work life,
KPI’s, safety issues, etc. discussed in the meetings?
11. Previous Re-Certification Report & Management
Response
Is the previous report and management response
included
on the website?
12. LWC Intranet
Is the system/process documentation posted on the
LWC
Intranet?
How is the intranet being used as a “communications
tool” for the system?
Partnership Among Employees
1. System Partnership Agreement
Yes/No
Comments
Yes/No
Comments
Has the document been reviewed in the last 12 months?
Has the document been signed by all parties to the
agreement?
Is there a reference to the Labor-Mgt. Partnership
agreement?
2. System Advisory Council Charter
Has the charter been reviewed in the last 12 months?
Is the leader’s role alternated among members of the
SAC?
Have all sections of the charter been completed (i.e.
deliverables & expectations, scope, etc.?”
3. System Advisory Council Meeting Minutes
Are meeting minutes documented and distributed (or
posted) to SAC members and other employees?
Does the SAC discuss and address system issues such
as Operating Plans, System Certification, process
improvements, QWL issues, etc.?
4. Organizational Effectiveness Index Survey (if
applicable)
Is the OEI System Summary included with the
documentation?
What plans and/or actions are in place to improve the
index score?
Quality of Work Life
1. System Training Needs Assessment/Training Plan
Have the training needs been identified and documented
on
a training plan or Individual Development Plan in the last
12 months?
Did employees provide input on their training needs?
Have discussions occurred between the employee and
manager
on specific “learning objectives” to achieve before
attending training
seminars?
2. Quality of Work Life (QWL)
Is QWL a “ standing item” on N WT and S AC meeting
agendas?
Are there other avenues available for employees to raise
&
address QWL issues?
3. Recognition of Employees
How are employees recognized for outstanding
performance?
Accountability Through Empowerment
1. Empowerment & Accountability
Yes/No
Has does the system/process empower its employees?
How are employees held accountable for performance?
2. Performance Partnerships (Non-Union)
Were employees involved in setting their performance
goals?
Do their performance goals meet the SMART criteria?
Are employees
performance
empowered
to
share
their
own
feedback in their quarterly reviews?
3. Individual Development Plans
Are employees encouraged to prepare Individual
Development Plans for their personal growth and
development?
Comments
Planning & Results
1. System Operating Plan
Yes/No
Comments
Yes/No
Comments
Yes/No
Comments
Are System Operating Plans for the current and prior
year
included on the intranet?
Do the plans include references and initiatives about
quality
elements and customer satisfaction?
Do objectives link directly and/or support the LWC
Strategic Plan?
Is progress being made toward the goals on the plan?
2. Process/NWT Operating Plans
Do plans exist for the current year?
Is progress being made toward the goals on the plan?
Are process measurements in place where applicable?
Does the system/process have “activity” and
“performance” based measures?
Customer Focus/Satisfaction
1. External Customer Satisfaction Index (if applicable)
Is improvement of the CSI part of the System Operating
Plan?
2. Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey
Does the System Operating Plan include an objective to
improve internal and/or external customer satisfaction?
3. External/Internal Customer Feedback
How is customer satisfaction data being collected and
reviewed
(i.e. focus groups, surveys, customer interviews, etc.)?
Risk Management
1. Risk Assessment Sheet/Plan
Have the sheets been reviewed in the last 12 months?
Have the SAC and/or NWT’s reviewed the risk
assessments
to verify their current validity?
Have new risks been identified?
Are the top risks being addressed in the System
Operating Plan?
Are employees aware of the top risks and controls in
their process?
Were any cross-functional risks identified, and if so, are
controls in
place to address those risks?
1. Knowledge Management Research
Yes/No
Has the system identified the critical operational
knowledge that
needs to be captured and retained for employees to
access?
2. Knowledge Management Action Plan
Is there a documented Knowledge Management Action
Plan in
place with action items and deadline dates?
How much progress has been completed on the action
plan?
Comments
Best Practices, Resources, Recommendations, Questions & Special
Notes
1. Best Practices (list below)
4. Questions
2. Resources (list below)
5. Special Notes
3. Recommendations (list below)
Natural Work Team Observation Checklist
Team
Name
Observer
Name
Meeting
Date
Team Meeting Logistics
On time: Meeting starts on time and members are present.
Minutes: Minutes are documented and approved.
Agenda: Agenda includes sections for topics, outcomes, time allocation, & person
responsible
Agenda Items: Process/Operational Improvements, QWL, & Open Communication are
agenda items.
Prepared: Members are prepared for the meeting and responsible for commitments.
Roles: Roles are defined and individuals are aware of their responsibility.
Rotation: Leadership role and other roles rotate among members.
Regular Meetings: Meetings are held at a regular time and place.
Purpose: A clear understanding of the purpose for the meeting.
Goals: Clear goals with measures that are reviewed and discussed.
Team Dynamics
Balanced Participation: All members are engaged in the discussion and add to the
conversation without domination.
Contributions: Differences of opinion are freely expressed and valued by others.
Listening: Ideas and input are listened to by the team without interruption.
Trust: Interactions are open and honest and members support and respect each other.
Goals: Members appear to be headed in the same direction and on the same page.
Tension: Differences and conflicts are resolved openly and constructively.
Responsibility: The team takes responsibility for its successes/failures and does not blame
others.
Leadership Qualities
Vision: Leader articulates big picture and communicates importance of goals and team to
LWC.
Expectations: Expectations for the team are clarified and explained when necessary.
Delegation: Leader delegates responsibility and leadership to individuals in their area of
expertise.
Trust: Leader is open and honest, has no hidden agendas, and discusses key issues with
the team.
Feedback: Leader provides regular feedback about progress made by the team.
Management: Leader manages team dynamics respectfully.
Support: The leader removes barriers and provides support and resources for the
members.
Recognition: Praise is given in the meeting for successes.
Comments:
2008-2009 System Certifications
Interview Questions/Discussion Points (Management)
Section 1 – Systems Based Management
1. What changes have occurred in your process / business system since the last certification?
2. What is it that keeps you awake at night in relation to your job at LWC?
3. What is your vision for your system/process for the next 2 to 3 years?
Section 2 – Partnership Among Employees
4. Which systems or processes does your system depend on most to perform your tasks?
5. What efforts are being made by your employees to help improve communications and
cooperation with the systems and processes that you just identified?
6. Give me your personal assessment on how well your NWT and SAC teams are functioning?
Section 3 – Quality of Work Life
7. What type of “quality of work life” issues are you hearing from your employees and are you
able to resolve them?
8. Do you discuss “learning objectives” with your employees before they attend a particular
training course? Do you meet with them after they complete the training course in order to
determine if the learning objectives have been met?
9. What kind of action plan do you have in place to ensure that your employees’ training
needs are being met?
Section 4 – Empowerment
10. Can you provide me with some examples of how you empower your employees?
11. Please explain how you conduct a Performance Partnership quarterly review with your
employees.
Section 5 – Planning and Results
12. What kind of “workforce planning” are you doing to address any vacancies that you
anticipate in the near future through retirements, turnover, etc.?
13. What are some of the key challenges facing your process / system, and how are you
planning to address them?
14. How are you using measurement data to improve your work processes?
Section 6 – Customer Focus
15. What efforts are you making to focus on internal and/or external customer satisfaction?
Section 7 – Risk Management
16. What are the most critical risks facing your process / system and what kind of action plan(s)
do you have in place to mitigate the risk?
17. Are there any risks that are shared between your system and other systems/processes? If
so, what are you and the other system/process managers doing together to address these
risks?
Section 8 – Knowledge Management
18. Do you have your Knowledge Management action plan prepared?
19. Tell me about the process you used to collect the data needed for your KM action plan.
2008-2009 System Certifications
Interview Questions/Discussion Points (Non-Management)
Section 1 – Systems based Management
1. Did you have any involvement in putting together the documents required for certification
(i.e., Work Instructions, System/Process Organizational Chart, Synopsis Sheet, Relationship
Chart, Flow Charts, Process Improvements, etc.)
2. Are you able to access these documents on the intranet?
Section 2 – Partnership Among Employees
3. Which systems or processes do you depend on the most to get your job done?
4. What efforts are you and your co-workers making to improve communications and
cooperation with the systems/processes you just identified?
5. How often does your Process NWT and System SAC team meet?
6. What kind of topics do you cover in your NWT meetings? SAC meetings?
Section 3 – Quality of Work Life
7. How does your process/system address Quality of Work Life issues?
8. What kind of training or personal development activities are you participating in?
Section 4 – Empowerment
(Note: Ask the employee to bring a copy of their 2008 performance goals to the interview meeting.)
9. Can you give me some examples of how you are empowered to do your job?
a. NON-UNION ONLY – Describe how your PO/BSO conducts his/her Performance
Partnership reviews with you. Did you have a role in setting your performance goals?
Did you talk about key competencies?
b. Look at the employee’s performance goals to see if they meet the SMART criteria. If
not, please provide them with some coaching on how to draft a SMART goal.
Section 5 – Planning and Results
10. Does your manager encourage you and others to submit Process and Operational
Improvements?
11. Have you personally submitted any within the last 12 months?
12. What kind of measurements does your Process Owner track and share with you in
meetings?
13. Are there any measurements that you think should be tracked in your process?
Section 6 – Customer Focus
14. How are you collecting feedback from your internal and/or external customers on the
services that you provide to them?
15. How is the feedback used to improve customer service and satisfaction?
Section 7 – Risk Management
16. What do you consider to be the top risks for your particular job?
15. How would you address the risk?
Section 8 – Knowledge Management
16. How is knowledge shared within your process/system?
Other:
Is there anything else pertaining to system certification that you would like to share with us?
Project Study # 25
LWC Process & Operational Improvements
Project Description: In January 2005, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System rolled
out new procedures for submitting Process and Operational Improvements. Under the new
procedures, LWC employees who submit documented improvements must identify: (1) past
practice, (2) difficulty with the past practice, (3) description of the new practice, and (4)
description of the outcome or results of the new practice. Operational Improvements have an
additional requirement of a graph showing performance improvement over a period of time or
against a goal or target. Managers review the improvements before they are submitted to OE
where they are also reviewed before being counted in the yearly total. Process and
Operational Improvements can be submitted by individuals or teams.
Challenge:
Originally, LWC only collected Operational Improvements, which placed the
focus exclusively on “big-ticket” items that resulted in significant dollar savings to the company.
However, we wanted employees to focus on continuous improvement in all areas (big and
small) that may result in reducing unnecessary steps within a task, improving customer
satisfaction, or reducing the amount of time it takes to complete a process. Therefore, the
addition of Process Improvements was introduced to employees.
Critical Success Factors:
In 2005, LWC employees submitted a total of 103 Process
Improvements and 15 Operational Improvements. In 2006, that number grew to 158 Process
Improvements and 28 Operational Improvements. In 2007, 163 Process Improvements and 23
Operational Improvements were submitted. We are currently running ahead of last year’s YTD
total and anticipate breaking the record again in 2008.
Cost: No costs noted. However, there have been significant dollar savings as a result of this
practice (see attached summary of 2007 success)
Benefits: See attached summary of 2007 success.
Attachments provided: (6) 2005 Operational & Process Improvements Summary; 2006
Operational & Process Improvements Summary Listing; 2007 Operational & Process
Improvements Summary Listing; LWC Process Improvement Form; LWC Operational
Improvement Form; Newsleaks Article on 2007 Process & Operational Improvements.
Compiled May 2008
_______________________
POC:
Carl Blanton
2005 Process / Operational Improvements
CURRENT YTD TOTAL – 118
(103 Process Improvements & 15 Operational Improvements)
FACILITY DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE BUSINESS SYSTEM
7 Process Improvements
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Lawn Maintenance for LWC Grounds
Corporate HQ Interior Fountain Timers
In-house Repairs for Security Access Control & Gate Systems
Removal of Scrubs and Trees at BE Payne Lagoons
Contract Document Distribution to Plan Rooms & Suppliers
Process Fleet Allocation Sheet
Establish Standard Division Document
ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS BUSINESS SYSTEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
ELT Forums/Visits
LWC Orientation Information
Quality Tools Intranet Folder
Competency Linkage to LWC Training Programs
New Hire & Transferred Employee Orientation Process
I.T. Request Form and Welcome Letter
DOW Training CEU’s
Performance Management Matrix
ICS Administration Improvements
DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS BUSINESS SYSTEM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Project Tracking
Prefab Steel Forms to Pour Concrete Tops & Bottoms
Excavation Protocol
Inventory of Polyethylene (HDPE) Emergency Repair Materials
Equipment Theft Prevention
Pipe Tongs for Transport & Installation of New Water Pipe
C2 Digital Camera Process & Procedure
Excavated Main & Materials Staging Area
Flushing Examples & Standard Notifications
National Standard Thread Flushing Cap Procedure
Allmond Printing Center Upgrade
1 Operational Improvement
1. Development of the Magnetic Pickup Tool
CUSTOMER SERVICE & PUBLIC INFORMATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
SFO/Unauthorized Use of Water Responsibility Form
IVR High Call Volume Message
Marketing Teacher Workshops
New & Improved Tapper
Size on Size Service Procedure
Set Meter/Discontinue SO
Public Fire Hydrant Tracker Spreadsheet
Updated Bullitt County Fire Hydrant Service Order Request Form
Education Brochure
Fed/EX/UPS Shipping Center Labels & Packaging
Third Street Copy Paper Delivery
Formation of Applicant Pool
QA Coaching Report
14. Formation of H2O Natural Work Team
2 Operational Improvements
1.
Bottle Delivery for Smile Kentucky
2. Revised Service Rules & Regulations [Cross-Functional Team]
METERING SERVICES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Metered Water Ratio
Streamlined Meter Shop Inventory
Tool Money Distribution
New Unit Cost Measures
Creation of Productivity Reports
Stabilization of Meter Inventory
Billing for Damages to Meter Vaults
1.
2.
Duty Exchange Program
Reduction of Service Order Creation
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Application 1 – Inspectors
Corporate Data Backup Improvement
Backup-To-Disk Implementation
Application 2 – Backflow
Communication 1
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Spam Blocking
Time Server
Temperature Alert
Third Street NAS
KT NAS
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Permit Data Base Improvements
Inspector Forms – Material Out of Balance Report
Budget Presentation
Improved Budget Forecasting
Improved Forecasting for Long-Range Consumption
Mandatory Direct Deposit
Elevated Area Surcharge for Water Rates Analyzed
Report for Actual Costs for a Project for a Specific Year
Balancing Information Sent From Projects to the General Ledger
W-9 Form through Email
Attendance at B&A Committee Meetings
Bid Folder Checkout
Bids Received Affidavit
Outsourcing of Business Card Ordering
Cell Phone Reporting
Decentralizing of Copier Reporting
Good Faith Effort Documents Revision
Procurement’s Legal Ad Corner
Prequalification Application Revised and Available in Word and PDF Format
Prequalification Label Enhancements
Quote Form
Subcontractor Utilization Payment Report
Discoverer Report of Top 25 Suppliers
24. Approval Confirmation Slip
PIPELINE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
BC Office Backup Cashier
BC Office Trouble Alert Notification
BCEP Frequently Asked Questions Customer Service Brochure
Reimbursement for Defective Materials [Cross-Functional]
Addition of Active Projects to GIS SPIN Browser
Bi-Lingual Project Notification Envelopes
Boil Water Advisory Notification for Inspectors
Project Documentation Status Board
Color Prints – Inspector & Contractor
1.
2.
Dechlorination Venturi Apparatus
Service Installation Data Sheet/Lead Service Info
BUSINESS RISK
1.
Fire Hydrant Recoveries Process
2. Defective Materials Process
HUMAN RESOURCES & LABOR RELATIONS
1 Process Improvement
1. HR Attendance Report
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
1.
2.
3.
Pipe Evaluation Model Update
Open Meter Vaults – Safety Hazard
Creating Cycle Boundary Maps
1 Operational Improvement
1. Storage Tank Alternatives
WATER QUALITY & PRODUCTION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Cost Cutting Strategy – Utility Accounts for System
Managing Water Quality & Production Intranet Website
Operating Water Production Facilities & Equipment Documentation Improvement
Filter Monitoring Program
Lime Trough Cleaning at Payne Plant
Quality Environmental, Health and Safety Inspection
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
HACH 1720D Filter Turbidimeters
Improvements in Plant Process – Hydraulic Limitations on South Filters
Improvement in Plant Process – Ferric Chloride
Improvements in Distribution Water Quality
Improvement in Distribution Water Quality Sampling
Improvements in New Construction Water Quality Sampling
Improvements in Suspicious Water Sampling - Communications & Analysis
Facility Design, Construction & Maintenance
13 Process Improvements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Conceptual Design Template for CFR [Community Facility Review]
Routine Files – Specifications
Dumpster’s Signage
Trailer Ramp Lifter
Third Street – Exhaust Fan Scheduled Operation
Consolidation of Tank Data
Contractor Performance Evaluation Form
Managing Escrow Accounts
Induction Loops for Gates
Third Street HVAC Controls – Remote Access
Project File Format
Pre-Bid Meeting Agenda
Contract Language (NTE vs. Lump Sum)
1 Operational Improvement:
1.
Standardization of Bottled Water to Jefferson County Public School System
Supporting Organizational Effectiveness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
OEI Survey Improvements
System Certification Review of SAC & NWT’s
LWC Executive Management Competencies & Definitions
Leadership Competency Development Process
LWC Leadership Competency Profile and 360 Feedback Process
Meeting Minutes Template
Recognition Process Guide
Safety Recognition Program
Managing Distribution Operations
1.
2.
3.
4.
Operations and Engineering Intranet Web Site
Compact Digital Video Camera
LWC Repair Procedures for HDPE Pipe Materials
Monthly Housekeeping Audits
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Distribution Truck Cycle Count
Computer-Based Training for Vehicular Accidents
Fire Hydrant Program Reorganization
Crew Manuals
Improved Tracking of Uniform Purchases
Coordination of Garage Parking
Emergency Turners Manual
Hydrant Bury Depth Schematic
Hydraulic Calculation Form
Fire Hydrant Photo Journal
Large Vault Lid Improvement
Heavy Equipment Training Procedures for Backhoes & Excavators
Crew Leaders Assisting With Construction Estimates
E-Requisition and Return Process for Inventory
Bilingual BWA Improvement
Planning Work Space Shared Drive Improvement
Distribution System Materials Training
Main Break Planning Response & Notification
Point Renewal Proximity Scheduling
9 Operational Improvements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Pre-fabricated Rebar Anchors
Stoll Construction and Paving LWC Invoice
Segregation of Scrap Metal
Fire Hydrant Servicing Productivity
Contractual Services Invoice Verification
Cross Business Fire Hydrant Team
Coordination of Capital Project Charges
Digital Camera Process for Field and First Response Personnel
Ownership of Construction Equipment
Providing Customer & Public Information
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Process for Discontinue/Kill Service Orders
Tracker File Folder
ADJDO Utility Contract
Assigning Attachment Number / Updating Attach Database
Tax ID/Soc. Sec.
Master Meter Customer Forms/Process
Cell Phone #
Non-billed Public Fire Hydrant Application
Bill Message Request
FDM Path in E-CIS
High Bill Protocol Letter
Bill Statement Update
Activity Code Revision
LWC Small Scale Filter Design
Postcard Evaluation
Balancing Method for NSA Checks Received
Electronic Survey
Daily Deposit Reporting
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
[email protected] Email Address
Cashiers Shared Computer Drive
Coordinator in Cash Remittance Area
Third Party Bill Payer with Checks
Computer in Daily Balancing Area
Bellarmine Education Program
Mail Room Back-up
1.
2.
Electronic Remittance
Currency Counting
Metering Services
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Revision of Meter Vault Lid Specifications
UPS Security Access
Field Staff AMR (Radio Read Training)
Office Staff Cross-Training
Security of Tools and Equipment
Tracking Overtime to Fill Odd Shifts
New Door Tags
Indemnification Form
Retro-Fit Bill Message
Redistribution of Districts
¾” Meter Set on Bypass
Large Meter Renovate Service Orders
Dust Suppression on Quickie Saws
Cross-training Crew Leaders
Towing Fee
Fire Service Meter Conversion
Automated MIU/Meter Creation in FDM
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Vacuum Excavation Savings
10” vs. 12” Material Savings for New Services
Miscellaneous Fee Charge
Profiling
Damaged Facility Reimbursements
Support Incident Resolution
Supplying I.T. Resources
1 Process Improvement:
1.
Customer Payment Extensions
(Note: I.T. employees played an active role on several other process/operational improvements submitted by other
systems.)
Supplying Financial Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Prequalification Reference Request
KEND Added to Contract Files
Tracking of Bids to B&A
Project Labor Balancing with the General Ledger
Detail Capital Project Status Report
Bid Opening Schedule
Verification of Advertisement to Courier Journal
Enhancements to Subcontractor Utilization Payment Reporting
File Centralization of Change Orders & Change Action Forms
Cingular Cell Phone Usage Report
Supplier Site in I-Procurement
Active Contracts – Contract Management Process
Prequalification Financial Alert / Performance Status Flowchart Update
Creation of Process Flow Chart – Request for Proposals for Competitive Negotiations or Professional
Services
Prequalification Removal Form
Daily Cash Remittance Reporting & Reconciliation
FA (Fixed Assets) Retirement
Final Checks
Holiday Reporting
Mass Additions Validation
Misc. 95 Report
Timecards
Union Dues Report
Required Invoice Language in Bids for All MDO Projects
Update of Prequalification Re-Evaluation to Only Run Dun & Bradstreet Report Every 6 years Instead of 2
years
Facility Maps for Capital Projects (Assets)
CPAC & President Approval Notification Email
Elevated Service Area Asset Allocation for Water Rates
Calculation of Monthly Fleet Entry
Holiday Week Payroll Processing
Pipeline Design & Construction
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Meter Exchange During Capital Main Service Replacement Projects
Weekly Cost Report for Capital Projects
Additional Task Numbers for Capital Construction Crew Projects
Decision Matrix – Lead Service Renewals
Designate Required Signatures on Change Action
Assignment of Tapping Fee Contract Numbers
LOJIC Application to Indicate CSO Locations
MRRP Planning Scope and Cost Estimating
Bacti Sample Isolation Bag
Inspector Form Oracle Application
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Archiving Project Folders (Combining Inspector File and Project Management File)
Preconstruction Checklist for Developer Installed Projects
Annual Flushing Meter Maintenance
Paper Work Completion Process for Developer Installed Projects
Combined KDOT Encroachment & Service Permit
Monuments for Locating Transmission Mains
1.
2.
3.
Service Sleeve Installation Pilot Program
Materials Requisitions & Returns
Defective/Damaged Materials Returns
Managing Business Risk
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
After Hours Drug Testing Procedures
Tracking of New Lawsuits
Reporting Incidents at Corporate Headquarters
Tracking of Replacement of Access Cards
Cost Allocation for Worker’s Compensation Claims
1.
Auto Liability Claims Cost Allocation Revision
Supplying Human Resources & Labor Relations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Job Opening Notification Form
Benefits Billing
Leave Accrual Process
FMLA Tracking Sheet
CIGNA Premium Report for Short-Term & Long-Term Disability
Checklist for Retirement, Leave of Absence, Termination and Offer of Employment
Employee Self Service & Self Service Stations
Union Pay and Step Increasing Processing
Three-Tier Retiree Contribution Schedule
Missed Time Incident Report
HR Attendance Report
Pay Change Process
1.
2.
3.
Benefits Change Process
Online Recruiting (External Applicants)
Online Open Enrollment
Infrastructure Planning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fixed Base RTK-GPS Phone Tethering
Operations and Engineering Intranet Web Site
Post Processing GIS Field Collected Data
Automated GIS Data Transfer & Export Process
Revise Easement Plat Drafting Standards
1. Mobile GIS - Tadpole
Managing Water Quality & Production
1.
2.
3.
Continued Improvement in Water Quality
Managing Water Quality & Production Intranet Website
Maintaining Tank Aviation Obstruction Lighting
1.
Improvements in Customer Water Quality Complaints
2. Improvements in Main Break Sampling
FINAL TOTALS
Facility Design, Construction & Maintenance
1.
Unfinished Area Floor Improvement (1st Qtr 07) (Submitted first by PCPI; shared with Facilities
Management)
2.
3.
New Light Pole at Hwy 44 Fill Station (3rd Qtr 07)
Capital Projects: Internet Access to Existing Condition Photographs (3rd Qtr 07)
4.
Addition of Fixed Ladder to Allow Easier Access to Lower Elevation Lab Roof (4th Qtr 07)
Improve Security at Crescent Hill Chlorine Building Access Gates (4th Qtr 07)
Installed Roll Bar on Lawn Mower (4th Qtr 07)
Project Status Report Form Modifications (4th Qtr 07)
Improve Agenda Item Follow-Up for NWT Meetings (4th Qtr 07)
Typical Guideline for Project Manager Assistance to Right-of-Way Specialist for Property Acquisition for
Tank, Pump Station or Other Facilities (4th Qtr 07)
10. Small Contract Review and Routing Memo (4th Qtr 07)
11. Customer Survey Form Improvement (4th Qtr 07)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
1.
Streamlined Pure Tap Bottling Production (4th Qtr 07)
Supporting Organizational Effectiveness
1.
2.
Performance Evaluation and Performance Planning Quick Reference Guides - Managers & Employee
Versions (1st Qtr 07)
Guidelines for use of Training Room A (1st Qtr 07)
3.
System Certification ELT Bin List Notice (2nd Qtr 07)
4.
Focus Group Scope Document and Protocol Worksheet (3rd Qtr 07)
5.
Sample Year-End Performance Partnership Reviews (4th Qtr 07)
Managing Distribution Operations
1.
2.
Trench Shield Catalog & Safe Handling Instructions (1st Qtr 07)
Trench Shoring for Water Main Tees & Crosses (1st Qtr 07)
3.
Two Person Service Maintenance (2nd Qtr 07)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Keytube Maintenance Prioritization (4th Qtr 07)
B62B Fire Hydrant Renovation Project (4th Qtr 07)
Low Flow Hydrant Management Process Developed (4th Qtr 07)
SCADA Software on MDO Engineer Computer (4th Qtr 07)
Allmond MDO Photo Library (4th Qtr 07)
Morning Report Water Temperature Improvement (4th Qtr 07)
Spoils Agreement (4th Qtr 07)
Fire Hydrant Replacement Prioritization (4th Qtr 07)
BC Facility In-Service Memo to Allmond MDO (4th Qtr 07)
1.
2.
Safe Working Distances/Pressurized Valves & Components (1st Qtr 07)
Barricade Rehabilitation (1st Qtr 07)
3.
MDO Truck Inventory Controls (2nd Qtr 07)
4.
5.
Backhoe & Hydraulic Excavator Training Program (3rd Qtr 07)
Improved Pre-fabricated Concrete Forms (3rd Qtr 07)
6.
7.
8.
9.
Rental Protection Insurance for Rental Equipment (4th Qtr 07)
Managing Distribution Operations Budget Process (4th Qtr 07)
Managing Distribution Operations Warehouse Improvements (4th Qtr 07)
Overtime Reports Automated (4th Qtr 07)
Providing Customer & Public Information
2.
3.
Unfinished Area Floor Improvement (1st Qtr 07) (Submitted first by PCPI; shared with Facilities
Management)
Germ Models for Clean Hands Up1 (1st Qtr 07)
Education Lab Coat (1st Qtr 07)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Pure Tap Bottle Flier (2nd Qtr 07)
Monthly Side-by-Side Schedule (2nd Qtr 07)
Monthly Floor Walk (2nd Qtr 07)
Whole Team Natural Work Team – Team Meeting (Reinstated)
Pure Tap Bottle Flier (2nd Qtr 07)
Call Center Shared Drive Pure Tap Bottle Flier (2nd Qtr 07)
New Metric Weighting System (2nd Qtr 07)
Misapplied Payment Notification Letter (2nd Qtr 07)
Third Party Payment Account # Update (2nd Qtr 07)
Updated Change Order Form (2nd Qtr 07)
Water Bottle Tracking (2nd Qtr 07)
Cashier Test (2nd Qtr 07)
Apportionment Warrant Search Query (Query Name: AWFIND) (2nd Qtr 07)
Customer Payment Extensions (2nd Qtr 07)
Pool ID (2nd Qtr 07)
Quality Assurance Program (2nd Qtr 07)
EFT Forms and Voided Checks (2nd Qtr 07)
21.
22.
23.
24.
Irrigation Retro-fit letters to Customers Through ECIS (3rd Qtr 07)
FH Attachment Number Accountability (3rd Qtr 07)
SOPP Edit for Commercial Property (3rd Qtr 07)
LWC Small Scale Filter Design (3rd Qtr 07)
1.
25. ADJIR – Adjustment Information Received (4th Qtr. 07)
26. Adjustment Status (4th Qtr. 07)
27. Improvement of New Service Application Form (4th Qtr. 07)
1.
Remote Capture Check Processing (2nd Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Susan Camp; Shared with Financial
Resources)
2.
LWC Customer Billhead Scanning (3rd Qtr 07)
Metering Services
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Magnetic Key Vault Lid Removal (2nd Qtr 07)
Delinquent Fire Service Accounts (2nd Qtr 07)
Disconnect Work File / Field Notices (2nd Qtr 07)
Bankruptcy Streamlining (2nd Qtr 07)
Retro-fit Advertisement in CCR (2nd Qtr 07)
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Old Accounts to Collection Agency (Submitted first by Metering Services; Shared with IT) (4th Qtr 07)
COLMS – Collections Miscellaneous (4th Qtr 07)
New Collection Group (LARGE)/DSCN (4th Qtr 07)
Radio Dispatch Support (4th Qtr 07)
SFOTN Improvements/Revitalization (4th Qtr 07)
SFO Hotline – (502) 569-3600 x SFOS (4th Qtr 07)
SFO Edits (4th Qtr 07)
AMR Drive Route Mapping (4th Qtr 07)
Daily Read Schedule Report (4th Qtr 07)
Meter Dial Reference Materials (4th Qtr 07)
Rainsuit Improvements (4th Qtr 07)
AMR Antenna Fix (4th Qtr 07)
Camera Purchase (Repair Leaders) (4th Qtr 07)
Cross-Training Effort (4th Qtr 07)
Duty Exchange Service Order Dispatching (4th Qtr 07)
Forklift Qualification (4th Qtr 07)
Meter Inventory Tracker (4th Qtr 07)
Posting Productivity Data (4th Qtr 07)
Pressure Testing Equipment (4th Qtr 07)
Use of Planner Eraser Board (4th Qtr 07)
RDAMR and RFFIX Field Documentation (4th Qtr 07)
Tool Box Spare Keys (4th Qtr 07)
Meter Shop Garage Inventory Organization (4th Qtr 07)
Transfer of AMR MIU Number Information from C2 Personnel to Metering Services Personnel
(Submitted first by Metering Services; Shared with Distribution Operations) (4th Qtr 07)
Updating ECIS When a Defective Dial is Exchanged in the Meter Shop With a New Dial Reading Zero (4th
Qtr 07)
Groove Lock Pliers (4th Qtr 07)
Reading of UPS Meters (4th Qtr 07)
Jeep Inventory (4th Qtr 07)
30.
31.
32.
33.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Meter Shop – Capitalize Labor Used Building Meter Batteries (Submitted first by Metering Services;
Shared with Financial Resources) (4th Qtr 07)
AMR MIU Warranty (4th Qtr 07)
Meter Pit Extension Rings (4th Qtr 07)
Large Meter UME Replacement (4th Qtr)
Supplying I.T. Resources
1.
Federal Taxes on Bonus Checks (3rd Qtr.07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with Financial Resources)
2.
3.
4.
General Billing Edit (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT)
Close Gap in OFFNP Service Order Dates and Readings (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT)
Preventing Payroll Problems Because of Tablespace (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with
Financial Resources)
Balancing Yearly CERS Against Gross Wages (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with
Financial Resources)
Costing Codes Transfer to PeopleSoft (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with Financial
Resources)
Creating Production Emergency Payrolls and Test Payrolls in PeopleSoft (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by
IT; Shared with Financial Resources)
Meter reading Database & Improved Reporting/Data Integrity (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT)
5.
6.
7.
8.
1.
Meter Read Upload and Table Population (3rd Qtr 07)
Supplying Financial Resources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Outstanding Paychecks (4th Qtr 07)
Self-Service on Terminated Employees (4th Qtr 07)
Meal Money Check Issuance (4th Qtr 07)
Data Collection of Subcontractor Utilization Dollars (4th Qtr 07)
Modified GFE Language & Forms For Master Agreements (4th Qtr 07)
Include LWC Guard in Distribution List for Bid Opening Schedule (4th Qtr 07)
Intranet Redesign (4th Qtr 07)
Procurement Card Communication Tool (4th Qtr 07)
Proposal Submittal Review (4th Qtr 07)
Expansion of Contract Rangers (4th Qtr 07)
Preventing Payroll Problems Because of Tablespace (4th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by IT; Count only in
SFR total)
Pay Discrepancy Costing (4th Qtr 07)
KIA Grant Pay Request Invoice (4th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Pipeline Design; Count only in SFR
total)
W2 Reprints (4th Qtr 07)
Streamline Developer Installed Accounts Payable (4th Qtr 07)
Creating Production Emergency Payrolls and Test Payrolls in PeopleSoft (4th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by
IT; Count for SFR total only)
Tuition Reimbursement off of Final Checks (4th Qtr 07)
Balancing Yearly CERS Against Gross Wages (Submitted first by IT; Count in SFR total only) (4th Qtr
07)
Costing Codes Transfer to PeopleSoft (Submitted first by IT; Count in SFR total only) (4th Qtr 07)
Federal Taxes on Bonus Checks (Submitted first by IT; Count in SFR total only) (4th Qtr 07)
Kentucky and Indiana State Withholding Forms on Intranet (Submitted first Financial Resources) (4th Qtr
07)
Prequalification of Fire Hydrants) (Submitted first by Financial Resources) (4th Qtr 07)
Procurement Card Email Notification (4th Qtr 07)
Add Information on the GFE Program to Prequalification Re-Evaluation and New Evaluation Letters (4th
Qtr 07)
Blackberry Cell Phone Devices (4th Qtr 07)
Pagers (Reconciliation of Active vs. Unused Pagers) (4th Qtr 07)
SPLASH Instructions (4th Qtr 07)
W9 Forms (4th Qtr 07)
Revised Procurement Strategy For New Services Bid (Submitted first by Financial Resources; Shared
with Distribution Operations) (4th Qtr 07)
30. New Multifunction Machines That Copy, Print and Scan (4th Qtr 07)
31. Purchase Order Supplier Items (4th Qtr 07)
32. GFE Requirements Documentation Review (4th Qtr 07)
26.
27.
28.
29.
1.
Remote Capture Check Processing (4th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Susan Camp; Count in SFR total
only)
Pipeline Design & Construction
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Process for LWC Customers to Get Service Lines Back Flushed After Planned Water Shut-offs (3rd Qtr 07)
Requirement for Curb Installation Prior to Placing the Main in Service (3rd Qtr 07)
Re-winterizing Fire Hydrants Used by Inspection Personnel During Water Main Construction Phases (3rd
Qtr 07)
Bullitt County Customer Communications (Toll Free Number) (3rd Qtr 07)
Program for Calculating the Tapping Fee With Grant Funding (3rd Qtr 07)
Transfer of the BCEP 2/3’s Petition Service Application Fee (3rd Qtr 07)
Project Manager’s Meeting For New Development Extensions Project (3rd Qtr 07)
Placement and removal of “NO PARKING” Signs Issued by Louisville Metro Public Works (LWPC)
through Parking Authority of River City (PARC) for Capital Projects (4th Qtr. 07)
Project Notification for GIS Mapping (4th Qtr. 07)
Follow-Up for Relocation Inquiries that Require Additional Action (4th Qtr. 07)
Employee PTO Request to Process Owner (PO) (4th Qtr. 07)
Rechargeable Batteries for Inspection Areas (4th Qtr. 07)
KIA Grant Pay Request Invoice (4th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by Pipeline Design & Construction;
Shared with Financial Resources)
BCWIP Grant Log (4th Qtr 07)
Deferral of the BCEP 2/3’s Petition Tapping Fee (4th Qtr 2007)
Project Name Identification for Projects in our Regional Water Service Area (4th Qtr 07)
Creation of Database to Track Quality of Work Life Issues for PD&C System Advisory Council (4th Qtr
07)
1.
Revision to Lead Brochure and Notification Letter (4th Qtr. 07)
Managing Business Risk
1 Process Improvement:
1.
Lobby Security Post Daily Routine Reference List (4th Qtr 07)
Supplying Human Resources & Labor Relations
Employee New Hire/Separation Notification (4th Qtr 07)
Extending PeopleSoft Employee Self-Service (ESS) Security Past Termination Date – Submitted first by
HRLR) (4th Qtr 07)
3. Development of 457 Three Year Catch-up Worksheet (4th Qtr 07)
4. Union Rule 61 (Sick Leave) Process & Report Changes (Submitted first by HR; Shared with IT) (4th Qtr
07)
5. Attendance Bonus PeopleSoft Processing (Submitted first by HR; Shared with IT and Payroll) (4th Qtr
07)
6. Sick Payout PeopleSoft Processing (Submitted first by HR; Shared with IT and Finance) (4th Qtr 07)
7. PeopleSoft Manager Direct Access & Home Page (4th Qtr 07)
8. SHR/LR Benefits Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s and HROE Intranet Home Page (4th Qtr 07)
9. Maintenance Mechanic Advancement Program (4th Qtr 07)
10. Recruitment Process – Skills Testing for CSR Positions (4th Qtr) (Shared with CPI)
11. Recruitment/Interviewing Process – Phone Screens for CSR Positions (4th Qtr 07)
1.
2.
Infrastructure Planning
1.
Capital Projects Authorization Committee (CPAC) Intranet Site (Submitted by cross functional team but
credited to Engineering/Planning) (1st Qtr 07)
2.
3.
4.
Retired Services (4th Qtr 07)
LWC-JCFD Partnership, Private Hydrant Point Layers (4th Qtr 07)
LWC-JCFD Partnership, Preliminary Fire Hydrant Layer (4th Qtr 07)
Managing Water Quality & Production
BPS-PRV-Tank-Master Meter Information Booklet Updates (4th Qtr 07)
Improved Fabrication of the Chlorine Pipe Nipples (4th Qtr 07)
Natural Work Team Restructuring (4th Qtr 07)
Storage Issue in CHFP Chemical Building (4th Qtr 07)
Key Process Indicator Subteam (4th Qtr 07)
Enhancements to the Cross-Connection Control Program (4th Qtr 07)
Training & Tracking of Essential Filter Plant Maintenance Skills (DPT System) (4th Qtr 07)
Better Identification of Unknown Water Samples Using THM as an Indicator (4th Qtr 07)
TCR Sites Geospatial Database Creation (4th Qtr 07)
Curry Crossing and Stoneridge Landing Hydropneumatic Booster Pump Stations Pump and Motor
Reliability Improvements (4th Qtr 07)
11. Complete ReBuilt of Mixing Paddle Operation for North Coag Floc Mixing Basin #2 (4th Qtr. 07)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tank Nitrification Monitoring Modifications (4th Qtr 07)
Optimized Tank Management Activity Improvement (4th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Managing Water
Quality and Production)
Flushing Leader Optimization Strategy Improvements (4th Qtr 07)
Hydrodyne Method for Fluoride for Operations (4th Qtr 07)
Expansion of WQ Analytical Capabilities for Managing Regrowth in Distribution Systems (4th Qtr 07)
LWC Process Improvement
Business System:
Name of Individuals or Team Involved:
Date:
Name of the Improvement:
Past Practice:
Difficulty with the Past Practice:
New Practice:
Outcome: (Quantify the results of the new practice/program, not the activities taken to achieve the results. Briefly describe results).
Insert chart or supporting documentation here (optional)
Operational
Improvement
Business System: <insert here>
Name of Individuals or Team Involved: <insert here>
DATE:
NAME OF IMPROVEMENT: <INSERT HERE>
Past Practice: Provide a short description of the past practice/process used.
Difficulty with the Past Practice: Provide a brief description of what problems or difficulties were caused by the past practice and how the practice
impacted the quality, service or value of the service/product provision.
New Practice: Describe the goal established to correct or overcome the difficulty with the past practice. Note changes implemented and how the new
practice positively impacts quality, service or value. Describe changes in activities, procedures or process.
Outcome: Describe the goal established to correct or overcome the difficulty with the past practice. Note changes implemented and how the new
practice positively impacts quality, service or value. Describe changes in activities, procedures or process.
A graph must be submitted below showing an improvement trend over time between past and the new practice, including performance against the goal or
target.
188 Process/Operational Improvements Submitted in 2007
Carl Blanton, Supporting Organizational Effectiveness
2007 was another successful year for submitting Process and Operational Improvements by LWC employees,
natural work teams, and several cross-functional teams. The seeds for this success were actually planted three years
ago.
In January 2005, Supporting Organizational Effectiveness (SOE) rolled out new procedures for submitting Process
and Operational Improvements. Under the new procedures, employees must identify: (1) past practice, (2) difficulty
with the past practice, (3) description of the new improvement, and (4) description of the outcome or results from
the new improvement. Operational Improvements have an additional requirement of a graph showing performance
improvement over a period of time or against a goal or target. Managers review the improvements before they are
submitted to SOE where they are reviewed a second time before being counted in the yearly totals.
In 2005, the new procedures resulted in LWC employees submitting a total of 103 Process Improvements and 15
Operational Improvements. That number grew in 2006 to 158 Process Improvements and 28 Operational
Improvements. In 2007, we anticipated a decrease in the number of improvements because of the high volume
submitted in 2006. Surprisingly, that was not the case. In 2007, LWC employees submitted 165 Process
Improvements and 23 Operational Improvements.
Here are a few examples of Operational Improvements submitted in 2007:
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Facility Management streamlined their production methods resulting in a savings of approximately $11,500 in
Pure Tap production costs.
Managing Distribution Operations (MDO) implemented a “Barricade Rehabilitation” pilot program resulting
in rehabilitating damaged barricades at $5.00 per barricade versus a replacement cost of $29.47 per barricade.
The cost savings from the pilot program was $1,468.
Employees from MDO/SPLASH NWT designed a new type of aluminum concrete form used for pouring
concrete for large vault lids resulting in an annual savings of $3,924.
MDO, Supplying Financial Resources (SFR), and Internal Audit implemented several initiatives to improve
the Warehouse Inventory Control Process resulting in a reduction of the Net Adjustment from $350,800 in 2006
to $23,004 in 2007.
Providing Customer & Public Information (PCPI) and SFR implemented electronic scanning using a
process known as “remote capture” that resulted in an approximate $16,000 annual increase in interest income.
Metering Maintenance and Warehouse Services Processes implemented the practice of installing “Meter Pit
Extension Rings” to raise vaults to the desired height levels. The results include a reduction in material costs
from $314 to $23.25 per service order including a reduction in labor costs. The estimated savings in the 4th
quarter based on 30 service orders was $13,149.
Managing Water Quality & Research consolidated their multi-department tank data into one comprehensive
database. This information allowed them to combine a Capital Project and O&M initiative involving the
Cardinal Hill 30 MG Reservoir (CHR) into one simultaneous effort. The tank was drained once instead of
twice, and a savings of $12,800 was realized by performing the work with LWC employees instead of
contractual services. An additional savings of $59,500 was realized after it was determined that a chemical
cleaning agent would not be needed on the tank wall and column surface area.
These are just a few of many examples demonstrating how LWC employees are focusing on continuous quality
improvement by combining TQO resources and tools with their individual skills, knowledge and expertise. SOE
wants to thank and congratulate all employees for this success and particularly acknowledge the following systems
for leading the way in 2007.
§
Most Operational Improvements submitted: Managing Distribution Operations (9)
§
Most Process Improvements submitted: Metering Services (33)
§
Most combined Process & Operational Improvements submitted: Metering Services (37)
In addition, we want to acknowledge the efforts of Supplying Financial Resources for submitting a total of 33
Process/Operational Improvements, and Providing Customer and Public Information for their submission of 29
Process/Operational Improvements in 2007.
Thank you for a job well done!
Project Study # 26
LWC Talent Resource Planning/ Succession Management
Project Description: In 2005, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System developed and
implemented the Talent Resource Planning process. A template was created called the Talent
Resource Planning form (TRP) to provide LWC with data to assess our level of bench strength
for all management classifications. Specifically, the TRP provides the following data:
§
§
§
§
§
§
A progress report on the most recent developmental activities completed by the
employee.
Information regarding specific management training needs within the organization.
Strategic and organizational planning through the identification of areas where there is
sufficient bench strength and/or gaps in leadership.
An overall assessment of the knowledge, skills, experience, and potential of LWC’s
management team.
The “readiness state” of potential candidates for future management positions and their
potential back-ups.
Key developmental questions that managers may have regarding their direct reports.
The TRP’s are completed on a two-year alternating cycle. TRP’s for the executive and director
(BSO’s) levels are updated in odd-number years. TRP’s for supervisors (PO’s) and managers
are updated in even-numbered years. If an employee is identified as a potential candidate for
another position, the manager will list that position along with their opinion as to the “readiness
state” of that employee (i.e. Ready Now – RN; Ready in 1 to 2 years – R1; Ready in 3 years –
R3; or Future Talent – FT).
Challenge: The initial challenge is that some managers (BSO’s) wanted their direct reports
(PO’s) to complete the TRP’s on themselves. That’s not the purpose of the process. Some
managers may not be comfortable in telling their direct reports that they may not be viewed as a
potential successor.
Critical Success Factors: Since implementing this process, LWC has current data on the
potential successors for each management position (if any were identified for that position) and
their “readiness state.” We have also been able to use this data to identify critical training needs
and develop new training programs and experiences to address those gaps. For example, we
currently know that our bench strength lies in the area of having solid talent resource pools to fill
positions within our Engineering and Operations Departments. We are lacking bench strength
in our support departments such as finance, I.T. and HR (however, these positions will be easier
to fill from the job market if necessary). Employees benefit from candid discussions with their
managers regarding their strengths and opportunities for development, which can be transferred
to their Individual Development Plans (see next Project Description below). The TRP is also a
tool that is used by HR in making decisions on whether to post management position internally,
or both internally and externally.
Cost: No cost noted.
Benefits: Improved knowledge of bench strength and gaps; training needs to be addressed;
and candid conversations with employees on their career development and growth within the
company.
Attachments provided: Talent Resource Form FINAL
Compiled May 2008
__________________________
POC:
Carl Blanton
Content in their Talent Resource Form:
LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY
Talent Resource Planning
Name:
Job Title:
Date in Position:
Hire Date:
Education:
Certification(s):
Edited Date/Initials:
Developmental Actions Taken Since Last Review:
Key Strengths:
Areas to Develop:
Key Developmental Questions(s):
Employee’s Career Goals:
Candidate for:
1.___________________________________
2.___________________________________
3.___________________________________
Readiness: ______________
Readiness: ______________
Readiness: ______________
Back-up Candidates:
1.___________________________________
2.___________________________________
3.___________________________________
Readiness: ______________
Readiness: ______________
Readiness: ______________
Readiness Choices:
RN
Ready Now
R1
Ready within one to two years
R3
Ready in 3 or more years
FT
Future Talent
Project Study # 27
LWC Individual Development Plans (IDP’s)
Project Description: In late 2004, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System wanted
to place a renewed emphasis on identifying training and development (T&D) needs for
employees and initiating a process to address those needs with “action objectives.” Therefore,
we created the Individual Development Plan (IDP) to be used by managers at the beginning of
each year to assist their employees in identifying their T&D goals (“action objectives”). The
process was mandatory for all managers and strongly encouraged for all non-management
(non-union) employees. The majority of non-union employees now have their own IDP’s.
Managers and employees are encouraged to “think outside of the box” when it comes to
identifying opportunities to gain knowledge and skills in new areas (i.e. training workshops,
participation on cross-functional teams; leading a project; mentoring; shadowing, etc.) Each
employee is responsible for giving an update on the progress he or she has made on their IDP
during their quarterly performance reviews.
Challenge: The biggest challenge was encouraging employees to “think outside of the box”
when identifying training opportunities, particularly in those years involving budget cuts at midyear. However, since most of our training is developed and conducted in-house at a fraction of
the costs that we would incur through outsourcing, this challenge has not been much of a
problem.
Critical Success Factors: Employees who follow through on their IDP’s are better prepared to
perform in their current positions and in most cases have increased their opportunities for
success in newer positions. Managers are strongly encouraged to meet with their employee(s)
before they attend a particular training class, etc. to discuss and reach agreement on the
“learning objectives” to be accomplished. Managers are then encouraged to meet with their
employee(s) after they complete the training experience to discuss if the “learning objectives”
were met, and determine what the employee is going to do differently on the job as a result of
their new skills, knowledge, etc.
Cost: Only costs involved are those to purchase materials for training sessions and to pay
salaries, etc. to training facilitators on staff.
Benefits: Employees achieve their learning objectives and are better prepared to perform their
current jobs or to take on new responsibilities.
Attachments provided: LWC Individual Development Plan
Compiled May 2008
_________________________
POC:
Carl Blanton
WATER COMPANY
2008 INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Name:
Business System:
Areas for Development
Action Required
Technical:
•
•
Functional:
•
•
Leadership:
•
•
Agreement
The Professional Development plan set forth above has been agreed to:
Mid-Year
Review
(Initial)
Start
Date
Year-end Review
Employee: _________________________ Date: _____________
Manager: _________________________ Date: ______________
(Initial)
Achieved
Project Study # 28
Implementation of OPCON—Knowledge Keeper Software
Project Description: Plant operations are utilizing the KnowledgeKeeper, a hosted, on-line
knowledge management software application from OpCon Technologies, Inc. These
procedures were videotaped, and then turned into a searchable format available to plant
operations personnel. The goal of the organization is to have a place where all employees can
access needed knowledge to support training, succession planning, continuous improvement
and organizational sustainability.
Critical Success Factors: Employees must have access to a computer. The organization wants
to explore this programs feasibility for use across the entire organization, not just one part.
Ensure that the process is documented/ mapped, and then determine how it can be transformed
into a platform for organizational learning and sustainability.
Cost: There is a monthly subscription required in order to use this software program.
Alignment: This initiative is aligned with human resources. It is also a part of the division of
water strategic business plan and a part of the City’s operations efficiency task force as it
relates to this particular division. The organization plans to get their technology group involved.
Benefits: The concept was first initiated in plant operations and the lessons the organization is
learning are being embedded for future applications. Since the program is relatively new to the
rest of the organization, other divisions are still in the understanding and buy-in stages. The
organization is seeking to use the software as a means to support training, succession planning,
continuous improvement and organizational sustainability. When fully implemented, the
organization expects improved knowledge accessibility.
Compiled May 2008
______________________________
POC:
Angela Smith
City of Cleveland Department of Utilities, Division of Water
Project Study # 29
The Directions Program
Project Description: Faced with a major reorganization, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) undertook
a formal Mentoring program to build relationships and develop leadership competencies. It was
called the “Directions Program.” The program’s vision was “To build leadership capacity of
individuals within Seattle Public Utilities and create a culture that will help management and
others lead the Utility into the future.” So the program had an important element of tacit
knowledge transfer by building cultural knowledge. Program participants were matched with a
mentor from senior leadership. Mentoring matches were made based on using 360 assessment
data so areas of weakness were matched with areas of strengths.
Critical Success Factors: Mentor matches were given a one-time optional, no-fault divorce in
the event that the parties were not matched well. The first meeting between mentor and mentee
was facilitated by in-house Human Resources staff. A formal agreement was developed
between the mentor and mentee. The program included a closure exercise for the participants
when the mentoring effort had accomplished its objectives. Staff provided regular follow-ups via
phone calls and emails. Recognizing that the original program was labor intensive for the
Human Resources staff, SPU now focuses on training individuals on how to find the help they
need and initiate a mentoring relationship on their own.
Cost: The cost of the program was $175,000.00.
Alignment: The program was aligned with Seattle Public Utilities’ Strategic Business Plan
focused on human resource development and succession planning. It was our effort to increase
our leadership capacity and to create a sustainable vision, mission and values strategy for the
organization.
Benefits: Mentoring has been consistently the highest rated activity in the Directions Program.
This training has been found to be useful to individuals.
Compiled 2005
_____________________________
POC:
Joanne Peterson
Seattle Public Utilities
Project Study # 30
Cross—Utility Partnership for Safe Drinking Water
Project Description In 1995 the Utah’s five largest water organizations joined together to build a
strong technical pool of individuals to optimize all of the surface water treatment plants
processes within their combined jurisdictions. In 1997 representatives from Salt Lake City
Public Utilities, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County Water
Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Weber Basin Water
Conservancy District inked their voluntary commitment with EPA. Also included are two state
agencies, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Drinking Water and
Division of Laboratory Services. The Alliance has diligently moved forward in meeting the
requirements of the Partnership program, completing Phase II and Phase III.
The purpose of this Partnership is to facilitate knowledge sharing across geographically
dispersed Drinking Water Utilities in the state of Utah a specific focus was the surveying
treatment facilities, treatment processes, operations and maintenance procedures, and
management oversight practices. The objective was to identify and prioritize areas that will
enhance individual utility capabilities to prevent the entry of Cryptosporidium, Giardia and other
microbial contaminants into the treated water, and to assist the voluntary implementation of
corrective actions appropriate for the system.
Critical Success factors:
The Partnership implementation plan consists of four phases:
1. Eligibility requirements include compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule
for six months and a commitment to pursue further stages of the program.
2. Collect basic plant information and plant performance data within 180 days of joining
the program.
3. Undertake a self- assessment that is based on the Composite Correction Program.
The self- assessment includes a performance assessment, major unit process
evaluation and identification and correction of performance—limiting factors.
4. Completion of a third party assessment. Upon completion of this phase and review
and approval of the completion report, the water supplier will be presented with a
Partnership for Safe Water “Administrator’s Certificate of Recognition.”
Cost: No cost identified.
Alignment: Consistent with the purpose of the Utility and embedded in all planning processes.
Benefits: Through this program water consumers are assured that their water provider is
commited to providing the best quality water possible and that each treatment facility has gone
through a rigorous effort to optimize water treatment processes.
In recognition for the Alliance’s efforts, the Utah Safe Drinking Water Board presented
the five agencies, the 1997 Achievement Award for “Their Cooperative Efforts to Achieve the
Highest Possible Standards of Water Treatment.”
Compiled 2008
____________________________________
POC:
Florence Reynolds
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities
Project Study # 31
Social Network Analysis
Project Description: We are completing a 6 month project, with a limited number of employees,
across several disciplines. We decided to use Social Network Analysis (SNA) to gain
information. From the Utilities perspectives, the tool seemed appropriate for the assessment of
the quantity and quality of information learned about our project. This tool will help us evaluate
the process, the people and the results in order to help with planning to expand the reuse
program.
We used SNA with the following objectives in mind:
•
•
•
•
•
Help identify key sources of information
Search for problem solvers
Evaluate flow of information gathering and sharing
Institutionalize the storage of project knowledge
Create a model for decision making and knowledge retention for future
projects.
Critical Success Factors: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities chose to revitalize its 10 year old
water reuse program. In doing so, many parts of the puzzle were evaluated, rehabbed, reengineered and adapted. Those activities and processes involved numerous interactions, both
among plant staff, but also with other subject matter experts.
Cost: Staff time only. The cost is estimated to be less than $5,000.00.
Alignment: This project was aligned with and totally compatible with our business plan. The
structure of the project was the variable. We would have gathered this data, made
assessments and identified participant’s roles regardless of this tool; however this methodology
allowed us to plan for and digest the information as well as confirm our earlier findings.
Benefits: SNA helped us to identify how information is processed, who participates and to what
degree in the information sharing, and where the key information or knowledge is stored. It
helped identify one way flows of information.
A beneficial by-product of the tool was the identification of additional subject matter
experts critical to this and future reuse projects. Use of SNA helped us to develop a successful
reuse project by:
•
•
•
Capturing key information from the consultant on the project
Retaining data and information by function in operational manuals and operating
procedures
Identify critical problem solvers and subject matter experts for future project
efforts.
Compiled February 2007
_____________________________
POC:
Maeneen Klein
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities
Project Study # 32
Real Estate Manager
Project Description: A computer program that tracks all Tampa Bay Water property interests
including: fee properties, permanent easements and interlocal easements, interlock
agreements, license agreements and leased property. The Real Estate Manager allows the
user to have all the information they need at their fingertips.
Critical Success Factors: Integration of the GIS and survey data with aerial photos; portability
for the application to be deployed to all user groups at the agency’s three main offices and in the
field.
Cost: Approximately $50,000 to develop this application given that we already had the survey
and GIS work ongoing to meet other needs.
Alignment: Our latest five-year management performance audit recommended increased
deployment of real estate data (real estate information being considered data) to user groups
(which in this case includes designers, operations and maintenance), and development of cross
functional teams.
Benefits: This application provides operations/maintenance feedback on use of our property to
guide future acquisitions (i.e., existing easement widths for comparative facilities) and better
enforce our existing land rights (against encroachment) as well as perform our real estate
obligations (mowing, maintenance of appearance, etc.) more efficiently.
Compiled April 2007
_____________________________
POC:
Jon Kennedy
Tampa Bay Water
Project Study # 33
Sharepoint for Sharing Plant Operations
Project Description: Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server 2007 is a program that provides a website to facilitate collaboration, manage content and workflow, implement business processes,
find organizational resources and supply information that is critical for the organizations goals
and processes. Each unit of The City of Cleveland Department of Utilities Division of water has
its own web-site where they can get information pertaining to their individual departments or
other departments within the Utility. The capabilities of this computer program are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Collaboration- sharing of information
Portals- create a personal site on the program to share information with others
Enterprise Search- the ability to search the organization and outside agencies to find the
experts
Enterprise Content Management- create and manage documents and records
Business Process and Forms- creates electronic forms and workflows
Business Intelligence- allows personnel to efficiently access information, analyze and
view data and publish reports.
As an example, the Plant Operations Department is using this program to enhance knowledge
sharing within their department. Their site includes:
•
•
•
•
•
Home page with links to all plants in their department
General Emergency Announcements
Calendar
The big issue announcements
Current policies
Critical Success Factors:
•
•
•
Participation and commitment by every single employee.
Continuous updating.
Computer access.
Cost: Program was bundled in Microsoft package.
Alignment: Aligned with all planning processes. Included as part of Information technology
planning in terms of Microsoft updates.
Benefits: One of the benefits that have been seen by the usage of this program is the calendar
that lets the user know when chemical deliveries are and who is working. In addition this
program provides easy access to the Documents such as; Standard Operator Procedures, work
aides and safety issues. This program allows for the Utility to have the critical information
needed at their fingertips
Compiled September 2008
_____________________________
POC:
Rolfe Porter
City of Cleveland Department of Utilities, Division of Water
Appendix C
Knowledge Management Toolkit Tools
C-1
Action Learning1
A process involving a small group of people learning as they solve real problems.
Supports: problem solving, individual and group learning, team collaboration
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
People learn by doing. Action Learning is task oriented and can be useful for approaching
narrowly-focused issues. Action learning involves the formation of a small group of people who
share common issues, goals or learning needs. This group, called an action learning set,
works to resolve issues and achieve these goals together, meeting regularly, about once a
month, to reflect on progress, issues and solutions and refine the way forward. The team is able
to brainstorm on alternative approaches or offer advice to an individual on how to proceed in
achieving specific goals. Emphasis is on trying new things and evaluating the results.
A simple methodology for the group is to (1) Identify the task and learning opportunity, (2)
Plan together, (3) Act, (4) Reflect, (5) Share, and (6) Close out.
(1) Identify Task and Learning Opportunity
This begins with determining the objectives of the action learning program and forming the
action learning set. An action learning set is ideally 5-8 people in size to allow for good
discussion within the sessions. Assign somebody to facilitate the group meeting sessions,
asking questions of the participants to draw out the key learning points. Define how often the
group will meet and some ground rules for the meetings. Identify any subject matter experts
who might be able to come and talk to the group. Discuss with the team the development
needs and job challenges that might be addressed by action learning. Not all of the members of
the set will necessarily have the same development need, but these should be similar. It is
important for the group to understand the development needs of the individuals within the group
and any development needs of the group as a whole.
(2) Plan Together
The official start of an action learning program should be in the form of a start-up workshop.
Ideally the workshop should be held off site to allow the participants to spend time away from
the usual distractions of the workplace. Included in the agenda for the workshop should be time
for the following activities:
Develop personal learning plans and a common view of the purpose of the action
learning set
Declare individual objectives for membership in this action learning set and
identifying medium and short-term actions that can be taken to progress towards
those objectives. Ask how the group will know when objectives have been reached
or how progress will be measured.
Identify opportunities to apply new ideas and learning points into the workplace.
1
Adapted from the Department of the Navy cPort Toolkit
C-2
Introduce the practice of reflection. Each member of the set keeps a learning log to
capture key learning and group progress. This log/journal will be used extensively
during the Acting phase.
As the end of each session review what went well and what can be done to improve
the format for future sessions
(3) Act
This is time spent working on a task on the job. The members of the action learning set
spend time experimenting with new approaches and testing new ideas developed during the
action learning set meetings, all with the aim of making progress on a problem, project or issue
of importance to them. Following are the steps to ensure consistent progress during this phase:
Refer back to the action plan developed during the planning workshop.
Before taking action, reflect on what you think the outcome of the action will be. If
possible, record this in the learning log.
Take action. Try out the approach as planned. This is where you do the work you do
every day, but with the benefit of advanced planning and documenting your expectations
before you act.
Look for evidence of how effective you have been. What did you observe?
Write down your observations in the learning log. This is where you create the
opportunities to learn, by reflecting on your observations both by yourself and with the
benefit of the perspective of others at the next set meeting.
(4) Reflect
This occurs during a regular session where members of the action learning set come together
to reflect on the progress they have made on their work issues. It is a time for challenging
assumptions, exploring new ways of perceiving and thinking about problems, and planning what
to do next in the workplace. It is also an opportunity for set members to bring up specific issues
of their work that they would like others to think through with them, as well as offer their thinking
support to explore the issues and problems raised by others. Here are some guidelines:
Plan reflection sessions on a regular basis and as far in advance as possible, ensure
maximum attendance.
Book enough time to allow a thorough exploration of issues of importance. Try 20-30
minutes per person, plus an extra thirty minutes as an estimate when planning reflection
sessions.
Make sure that participants have prepared for the reflection session by updating their
individual learning logs and notifying the facilitator of any key issues they wish to
discuss.
The facilitator should ensure that each individual declares what actions they intend to
take once they leave the reflection session and what outcomes they expect from these
actions.
(5) Share
This is the step where new knowledge, skills and experiences are shared outside of the
action learning set to allow other individuals and teams to benefit from the experiences. One
way this is done is by making what is being learned explicit. Capturing the knowledge that
grows out of the action learning experience contributes to the intellectual capital of the
organization. As new knowledge is added to the organization’s knowledgebase over time, utility
employees will find more and more content that is timely and applicable to their current learning
needs. Here are ways to make that happen:
C-3
Newsgroup and/or threaded discussion features can be included on the utility’s web-site
to allow action learning set members to collaborate on line. This may be open access so
that others can see what is being achieved.
The utility should keep a running list of all action learning sets, with each entry listing
basic information about the members, the set's objectives and the timing of the set's
meetings as well as the contact details of the set facilitator.
Some action learning sets may decide to create a Learning History, a document that
describes the day-to-day work of the team and also attempts to capture how the set's
learning evolved during the project. This can be developed periodically from the
log/journals kept by each individual member of the set.
At the conclusion of the action learning set, the team members, with the help of their
facilitator, can select the information from their experience that others would find
valuable, and post it to the utility’s knowledgebase. Suggested topics would include
objectives, conclusions, recommendations, etc., as well as the learning from experts that
were consulted, and planning documents such as agendas.
(6) Closing Out
The purpose of a closeout event is to ensure that the action learning individuals reflect on the
time spent together (the process) and review the progress made against the original objectives.
The closeout session is facilitated in the same way as the regular reflection sessions, but
includes the administrative tasks associated with disbanding the set. The most important of
these tasks is to decide which resources and learning points are to be shared with the rest of
the organization. Here are some important points.
Plan the event to allow time to reflect on both the task that the set has been working on
between sessions as well as the individual and team learning that has occurred through
the entire process.
In advance of the closeout session, all set members should be asked to prepare their
reflections. The facilitator may choose to issue a structured form or specific questions to
focus this preparation. Suggested questions include: What has become clearer to you
since the start of the action learning program? How has your perspective of the task or
problem changed during the time you have spent as a member of this action learning
set? What were the defining moments of the set, that is, at what points did major
breakthroughs take place? What did you learn from this experience that you can apply
to other parts of your job?
Expected Outcomes:
Higher quality decision-making.
Individuals learn how to learn.
Improved understanding of problem solving and team learning.
Experience in creating, sharing and applying knowledge.
See:
Case Example # 6 (SHELL HP)
Case Example #7 (US Army)
Tools: After Action Review
Collaborative Problem Solving Forum
Learning History
C-4
Ideas: Group Learning
Individual Learning
_____________________
Reference:
Marquardt, M.J. (1999). Acting Learning in Action: Transforming Problems and People for World-Class
Organizational Learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
C-5
Affinity Diagram2
A process for categorizing Utility knowledge needs in a diagram format to exhibit differences
and relationships.
Supports: group learning, knowledge audit
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
The Affinity Diagram can be used to take specific knowledge needs, group them, and create
representative categories called content centers. The Affinity Diagram is a simple tool that
enables the user to enter the knowledge requirements of some process, issue, or situation;
gather similar requirements together into small groups; evaluate those groups; and decide on a
category name for each grouping. The groups you will develop will serve as content centers for
the development of communities of practice as part of the knowledge management system.
Constructing an Affinity Diagram
The most effective group to do an Affinity Diagram is one that has the necessary knowledge
to uncover the various dimensions of the issue, process, etc. This works best when the group or
team is accustomed to working together and there is representation from all departments
involved in this area of knowledge. This enables team members to communicate clearly
because of their relationship and common experiences. Personnel should be included that
have valuable input and who may not have been involved in the past. Also, keep the team fluid;
bringing in resource people as needed. There should be a maximum of five to six members on
the team. Since the team will explore the categorization of drinking water utility knowledge
needs, it should also ensure that the team members are personally aware of user knowledge
requirements.
1. Phrase the issue for discussion:
The issue seems to work best when vaguely stated. For example, ―
What are the main
communities of practice needed to help the Utility become more valuable and effective?‖ To
review, communities of practice are groups of people whose responsibilities require access to
similar information. Once everyone agrees on the question, place it at the top of the diagram.
2. List and Display all your knowledge requirements.
To begin this exercise, refer to your knowledge requirements. All of these should be transcribed
so that the team can see them clearly. Enter all the knowledge requirements onto the small
note cards, one idea per card. Whenever possible the knowledge requirement should have a
noun and a verb (i.e., complete status report). This tends to make the statements clearer to
understand.
2
Adapted from the Department of the Navy Knowledge Centric Organization Toolkit .
C-6
3. Find the First Cut Affinity
Although it is possible for one person to complete an affinity diagram, all of the benefits are lost
that come from the melding of perspectives, opinions and insights. The team approach is highly
recommended. Look for two cards that seem to be related in some way and group them
together. Look for other cards that either are related to each other or to the original two cards
that were set aside. Repeat this process until all the cards are placed in 6-10 groupings. Do
not force-fit single cards into groupings in which they do not belong. These single cards
(―
loners‖) may form their own grouping or never find a ―
home‖. Encourage team members not to
―
contemplate‖ but to ―
react‖ to what they see.
Many managers would like to mentally structure all the cards like an oversized chess game.
The only thing left to do is to move the pieces to their appointed spots. In an Affinity, speed
rather than deliberation is the order of the day. Doing an Affinity should be a high-energy
process, not a contemplative exercise. Disagreements over the placement of cards should be
handled simply and undiplomatically: If you don’t like where the card is, move it! Strong
disagreements can be handled through facilitation and consensus building. (This is where using
yellow ―
post-it‖ pads can come in handy).
It is critical that the team allows new groupings to emerge from the chaos of the cards. For
the process to work best, members should avoid sorting cards into ―
safe‖ known categories.
This pigeonholing will force fit everything into existing logic, preventing breakthrough from
occurring.
4. For each grouping, create summary or header cards using consensus.
Look for a card in each grouping that captures the central idea that ties all the cards together.
This is referred to as a ―
header‖ card. The header card should be typed onto the heading line.
In cases where a central idea does not exist (which happens often), a header must be created.
Gather each grouping together with its header at the top of the column.
The headers should be, above all, concise. They should say in one to three words the
essence of each grouping. Think of it as an idea still. Ingredients are thrown into the hopper
and distilled until the powerful stuff remains. The headers should therefore pack a punch that
would be clear to anyone reading it. Imagine that all of the detailed cards under each header
were removed; all that remained were your headers. Would someone who was not a team
member understand the essence and detail of the groups you formed?
To be effective, the leader must now help clearly identify the common thread that ties all of
the cards together. This is a central concept, like ―
budgeting‖. However, this is not enough. The
leader must also help the team reflect on the color and texture of the common thread identified.
The header can be a breakthrough idea when it reflects the individual content of the cards as
well as the ―
spirit‖ of the grouping. Creating headers is an opportunity to create new twists in
old topics. If the headers sound too familiar, they may deserve another look.
5. Draw a finished affinity diagram.
Draw lines around each grouping, thereby clearly connecting all of the items with the header
card. Related groupings should be placed near each other and connected by lines. Often when
this is done, the user finds that another header card must be created (referred to as a
―
superheader‖) that sums up how these two groupings are related to each other. This would be
placed above these two columns and also connected with lines. The final drawing can be done
right on the original sheets or only when the completed diagram has been transferred to another
sheet of paper. It is usually transferred because an Affinity Diagram is often shared with people
outside the team for comments and changes. Remember that it is a reiterative process that
should be changed until it reflects the actual situation and key factors.
C-7
When finished with these steps, several communities will have been produced. These
communities will be storage areas for the information needed to meet drinking water utility
knowledge requirements. See KnowledgeBase Roadmap.
Expected Outcomes:
A successful diagram provides visible relationships and differences among ideas
generated to address some issue or situation. The visibility aids observers in
interpreting and understanding the meaning of, and patterns among, the ideas
generated.
The process of creating an affinity diagram represents a highly effective learning process
for the group participants.
See:
Case Example #16 (Virginia Department of Transportation)
Case Example #19 (Office of Personnel Management)
Tools: Communities of Practice
KnowledgeBase Roadmap
Knowledge Audit
Knowledge Mapping
Knowledge Ontology
Knowledge Taxonomy
Additional Resource:
MQI paper on Systems and Complexity Thinking
C-8
After Action Review
A group process for assessing the effectiveness of events or the way situations were handled.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, assessment, knowledge retention, innovation
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
While After Action Reviews were initiated by the military a number of years ago, they have
more recently been effectively used in organizations with diverse missions. The concept is that
key questions are asked by engaged stakeholders following every event or situation to assess
the context of the event and capture the learning that has occurred. The After Action Review
Learning and Assessment Document is ―
pushed‖ (via email or a pre-determined reporting
process) to those individuals to whom it has immediate relevance, and stored virtually for future
ease of access to the larger utility team.
After Action Reviews serve as real-time on-going assessment vehicles as well as to build
shared understanding in those who participated. They also serve as lessons learned for those
who later read them and assessment instruments for those who later analyze them, perhaps as
part of a larger pattern of events.
People involved in the action part of the effort are questioned carefully about their feelings,
perceptions, why they did what they did and what they expected the outcome to be. By helping
the individual participants re-live the entire sequence of the effort, they learn to reflect on the
sequence, understand why things happened and as a result they gain a deeper understanding
of the nature and behavior of the activity. See Lessons Learned Sample Report.
An essential feature of the AAR process adopted by the U.S. Army is involvement of all
personnel, soldiers and leaders, immediately after an event, while the details are still fresh in
their minds. They compare the actual outcome of the event with the intended outcome,
discovering what went right and why, and why went wrong and why. The discussion is
completely candid and without consciousness of rank. Thus leaders and soldiers can openly
and honestly discuss what actually transpired in sufficient detail and clarity that not only will
everyone understand what did and did not occur and why, but most important will have a strong
desire to seek the opportunity to practice the task again. To help promote this openness and
honesty, the Army publication on AARs directed that seating be arranged in a horseshoe shape,
so that the greatest number of soldiers have front-row seats. The officers sit behind the
soldiers. Additionally, the AAR leader is often a trained facilitator and not one of the
commanders. In Case Example #6, SHELL HP uses AARs. For a U.S. Army example of
application of the AAR, see Case Example #7. For their impact in USAID, see Case Example
#17.
The Singapore Armed Forces expanded the After Action/Action Learning process to include
three phases: Before Action Learning (BAL), During Action Leaning (DAL) and After Action
Learning (AAL). During the BAL, the group identifies what it thinks will happen and why and
how it will happen. After the action has started, the group stops and evaluates what has
happened, how it differs from what was expected, and then incorporates any needed changes
from the original action plan. After the action is completed, a third learning review occurs to
C-9
assess their overall performance and what lessons have been learned. These results are then
forwarded to a lessons learned center for review, storage and use in training other soldiers.
Expected Outcomes:
The individuals involved learn and remember more if they figure it out themselves rather
than being told what went right and what went wrong.
The shared learning experience promotes the bonding of the group or project team.
Individuals understand the activity and the consequences of their own role in it.
Teams learn how to ask the right questions and the importance of collaboration, trust
and honesty in both communications and actions.
See:
Project Study #23 (Louisville Water Company, KY)
Case Example #6 (Shell HP)
Case Example #17 (USAID)
Tools: Action Learning
Key Learnings Document
Learning History
Lessons Learned
Peer View Process
Knowledge Sharing
C-10
Appreciative Inquiry3
An approach to accelerating receptivity to new ideas, behavior change, and the adoption of
best practices.
Supports: organizational learning, culture change
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
To appreciate is to value, to recognize the best in people and the things around us, while to
inquire is the act of exploration and discovery and asking questions. Appreciative Inquiry (AI),
then, is an approach that discovers and promotes the best in people and those things around
us. Hammond describes appreciative inquiry as a way of thinking, seeing and acting to bring
about purposeful change (Hammond, 1996).
The approach was discovered by Dr. David Cooperrider and his colleagues who were
studying at the Weatherhead Graduate School of Management at Case Western Reserve
University. Traditional organizational interventions identify problems and hunt for solutions; the
appreciative inquiry approach locates and tries to understand that which is working, learning
from it and amplifying it, serving as a complement to other interventions, or, perhaps, offering a
way other interventions can be approached. It is based on the simple premise that
organizations (teams, communities, countries) grow in the direction of what they are repeatedly
asked questions about and therefore focus their attention on (Srivastva and Cooperrider, 1990).
The principles Cooperrider and Srivastva created for appreciative inquiry as explained in
terms of organizations and groups by Hammond and Hall (reference below) are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
In every organization or group, something works.
What we focus on becomes our reality.
Reality is created in the moment and there are multiple realities.
The act of asking questions of an organization or group influences the group in some
way.
People have more confidence and comfort to journey to the future (the unknown) when
they carry forward parts of the past (the known).
If we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past.
It is important to value differences.
The language we use creates our reality.
The appreciative inquiry approach has been successfully used in organizations. As the
focus in organizations moves back to people and the knowledge they create, share and use, the
empowering aspects of the appreciative inquiry approach can build self-confidence in—and
receptivity to—new ideas and accelerate behavioral change.
3
Adapted from Bennet and Bennet (2007)
C-11
Expected Outcomes:
The adoption of best practices.
An empowered workforce receptive to new ideas.
Increased employee self-confidence.
Increasing ability of the organization to facilitate needed change.
See:
Project Study #5 (City of Moline Water Division, IL)
Best Practices
Relationship Building
Success Stories
Ideas: Recognition and Rewards
MQI paper on Relationship Network Management
C-12
Ba Spaces
Collaborative spaces designed into the workplace to facilitate knowledge moments.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, team building, knowledge retention
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
A Ba Space is a space specifically designed to encourage people to have dialogues. They
are warm, comfortable spaces with few distractions. The location is best where people can drop
in and enter into a casual, learning conversation in which both, or all, participants are seeking to
learn and develop a common understanding around a common topic. Or, people come together
to share information and knowledge.
Examples of Ba Spaces would be specially designed sitting areas situated near a common
area such as a coffee mess, but off to the side, or situated in a corner off of a high-traffic area.
Expected Outcomes:
The flow of knowledge across the Utility.
Efficient and effective learning and sharing of knowledge.
Increased number of knowledge moments and innovative ideas.
See:
Case Example #10 (Institute of Water and Sanitation Development, Zimbabwe)
Case Example #12 (AMRED, Kenya)
Case Example #21 (NASA)
Tools: Dialogue
Knowledge Moments
Shared Space
Ideas: Knowledge Sharing
C-13
Benchmarking
A process for identifying good practices in external organizations, learning from them, and
adapting them to your Utility.
Supports: organizational learning, process improvement, culture change
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C
2
C2 = CONTEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT
The first step of the benchmarking process is identifying the organization you want to learn
from. Consider: Who is the best at what? What is the standard in the Industry? Who is
setting or moving beyond that standard? The organizations a Utility would benchmark with
would generally be other utilities, although they may not be specific to the drinking water
industry.
The second step of the benchmarking process is to select a team of individuals who will
participate and build a sound methodology for the benchmarking process. The individuals
selected need to have an understanding of the area of focus, as well as an understanding of
how your organization does the process that is being benchmarked. It is also a good idea to
have some performance measures in hand to assess the potential effectiveness in your
organization of what is being externally benchmarked.
While benchmarking can be accomplished in many ways (via telephone or other virtual
exchange), the face-to-face approach can facilitate relationship building and learning, and offers
the opportunity for a question and answer exchange as thoughts emerge. However, note that
this is not just a site visit, but the collection of information about best practices and building an
understanding of how this best practice has been applied and why it was successful in their
situation (which may or may not correlate to the specific situation in which you will apply it).
The benchmarking process may be approached much like any other Utility project. For
example, develop a benchmarking plan that includes project objectives, scope, approach,
timeline and budget.
The following Code of Conduct that has been scripted by the International Benchmarking
Clearinghouse:
Don’t enter into any discussions that might be construed as illegal, for example,
discussing costs or prices (which might lead to allegations of price fixing). However, the
process of how you arrive at prices might be an acceptable conversation.
Don’t ask questions of another organization that you are not willing to answer yourself to
the same detail. Set the expectations of level of exchange early in the benchmarking
discussions.
Treat the information you receive with the same degree of care you treat information
proprietary to your organization. You may need to enter into a non-disclosure
agreement.
Only use the information you receive for the agreed-upon purpose.
Follow agreed-upon procedures; complying with the wishes and culture of the
organization you are benchmarking.
C-14
Prepare for your meetings and exchanges in order to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness.
Don’t make any commitment you can’t or won’t keep.
Follow the Golden Rule: treat your partner and their information the way you’d like
them to treat you and yours.
The third step of the process involves the meetings and discussions that occur following the
actual benchmarking experience where participant thoughts and the potential for
implementation in your Utility are discussed. Ensure that the CONTEXT of the benchmarked
organization and the CONTEXT of your organization are both understood in terms of their affect
on the process being implemented. Then be careful to stay within the bounds of the
benchmarking agreement. This step is where the process is defined and refined in terms of your
Utility, and the planning and preparation begins as would any implementation of any new
initiative. See Best Practices and Lessons Learned.
In Project Study #11, eight people from the Utility spent eight days in England shadowing
British operators. The Utility team returned with both new found knowledge and enthusiasm to
share what they had learned. In Case Example #22, the US Forest Service considers
benchmarking as one of six tasks critical for organizational learning.
Expected Outcomes:
The adaptation of best practices to your Utility.
Assessment of your organization in terms of Industry standards.
See:
Project Study #11 (Greenville Water System, SC)
Case Example #22 (US Forest Service)
Appreciative Inquiry
Best Practices
Case Study
Interviewing
Lessons Learned
Success Stories
Additional Resources:
Examples of APQC benchmarking studies under Resources
MQI paper CONTEXT
_____________________
References:
Benchmarking for Reengineering Teams at www.prosci.com/benchmarking.htm
C-15
Best Practices
A systematic process for transferring best practices between groups within the Utility or across
Utilities.
Supports: organization learning, Utility operations, Utility performance and sustainability
2
LEVEL OF EFFORT
C
SIZE OF UTILITY
C2
SCOPE OF WORK
C
2
2
C = CONTEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT
A best practice for recording best practices is to provide sufficient information to clearly
express the best practice. Based on information collected during an interview process, the
content of a best practice document will look something like this:
Part 1: In this section, describe the theme and any related practices
of successful organizations.
Part 2: In this section, present the quotes that describe the theme in the right
column. The quotes presented in the learning history are not inclusive of all the
quotes received; rather, the quotes selected are designed to be representative of
the various perspectives of interview candidates and representative of the
information gathered throughout the interview process. The left column of the
document does not list questions asked during the interview, but records
commentary and questions posed to the reader by the author for further
consideration when reading the document. The commentary on the left relates to
the adjacent quote or quotes. The commentary is presented to provide the reader
with ideas for reflection. The reader is encouraged to record their own thoughts
and questions as they read.
Part 3: The final section of the theme is a summary of the key points from the
quotes in Part 2. Questions for further consideration relating to the theme are
presented at the end of this topic.
The format of each section (following the theme title) is depicted below.
Part 1. Overview of the theme.
Part 2. Commentary, conclusions and potential questions to be
asked that relate to the adjacent quotes.
Part 3. Brief summary of quotes, as heard by the learning consultant.
Additional questions for the purpose of providing more clarity to the theme.
If additional materials such as models and business rules were developed, include them, and
consider how graphics could be used to enhance knowledge transfer. The best practice also
needs to include meta-knowledge (information about the knowledge). This would include: the
date prepared, point of contact (include name, organization, and contact information), members
who participated in development of the best practice and contact information, problem
statement, background (note any research that was conducted during the exploration phase and
a summary of significant findings. Include findings from root cause analysis), and alternatives
considered (list significant ideas that were considered and explain reasons for non-selection).
C-16
All of this information provides the context of the best practice, which can make a significant
difference to other individuals or organizations trying to apply it.
Members are encouraged to call either the point of contact (originator of the best practice) or
other members to gain a deeper understanding of the topic.
Like lessons learned, best practices are of little value if they are not shared and used. See
the discussion on applying Lessons Learned.
APQC, a not-for-profit organization that has been promoting the use of best practices for
over 25 years, uses a facilitated best practice transfer approach. This approach includes
identifying best practices, capturing tacit and business process knowledge, reviewing and
validating the practice, assessing the benefits accruing to implementation of this practice,
communicating and sharing the practice (bringing people together), and supporting
implementation by the adopter. Key to their success is bringing people together and staying
involved as the best practice is implemented. APQC has contributed several of their best
practice research studies to this toolkit. See Resources.
The Collaborative Problem Solving Forum is an approach for creating and sharing
knowledge about best practices. In Project Study #25 the Utility has implemented procedures
for teams and individuals to submit Process and Operational Improvements. This continuous
search for best practices has resulted in significant dollar savings.
Effective transfer of best practice results in achieving high performance in a specific practice
with a minimum of time and resources. However, it is not always easy to transfer best practices
because of the subtle and often unrecognized aspects of implementation that even the
successful implementers are not aware of. Also, the context within which the best practice is
executed may affect its outcome in ways not easily recognized. The caution is to transfer best
practices with care and diligence, while understanding them thoroughly and learning carefully as
you begin your own implementation and evaluation of outcomes.
See the short discussion on Best Practices Celebration and Sharing Day in Knowledge
Sharing.
Expected Outcomes:
Efficient creation of good performance results when best practices are effectively
transferred to your organization.
Improved understanding of how to implement (and perhaps modify or upgrade) the
practice to meet special or additional needs within your Utility.
See:
Project Study #21 (City of Phoenix Water Service Department, AZ)
Tools: Collaborative Problem Solving Forum
Facilitation
Interviewing
Learning History
Lessons Learned
Success Stories
Technology Related Tools
See the APQC best practice/benchmarking studies in Resources
C-17
Blog
A conversational web site maintained by an individual.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, team building, relationship building
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
A blog is a contraction of the term ―
web log.‖ It expresses individual opinions in a
conversational format, and can contain commentaries, descriptions, news, poems, art,
photographs, videos and other graphical representations of thoughts. Blogs are generally used
to express opinions. Like verbal conversations, they are linear in nature and organized in a
chronological format.
Question blogs can be used to specifically answer questions. Corporate blogs can be used
for business purposes. Specifically, they can be used internally by a Utility to enhance
communications and help create a knowledge sharing culture. In Case Example #20, IBM
encourages an open exchange through blogging, social web applications and networking.
Among other benefits, blogging can facilitate knowledge sharing, team building, and individual
memory, and, because it’s an avenue for writing about experiences from the personal
perspective, blogs have the therapeutic effect of improving sleep and boosting immune cell
activity.
However, external blogs have brought about some unforeseen consequences. According to
the Wikipedia, potential issues involve: defamation of character, employment, political
sensitivities, and personal safety. Clearly, intelligent blogging is just as essential as intelligent
communicating in other mediums. It is a good idea to follow a set of guidelines similar to that
used by IBM in Case Example #20 referenced above.
Expected Outcomes:
Empowered employees
The creation of new ideas for the organization and for the individual
More positive feelings about the organization and a higher morale of the workforce
See:
Case Example #18 (USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service)
Case Example #20 (IBM)
Tools: Dialogue
Shared Space
Wiki
Ideas: Building Trust
C-18
Brain Writing4
A process to help groups collaborate when dealing with a sensitive idea or issue.
Supports: collaboration, problem solving, conflict resolution, group learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
Brain Writing is a specific process to gather ideas and opinions in a non-threatening manner.
It is particularly effective in achieving collaboration when sensitivities or conflicts are anticipated.
If the intent is to gather ideas and opinions, the group might be as large as 20 people.
However, if the intent is to hone in on specific wording, the effective size for the group would be
4-8 people. The estimated time to complete the process for 4-8 people is 20 minutes. For a
group of up to 20 people, allow 30 minutes to write and another 15-20 minutes to discuss. The
only props needed are blank paper and writing utensils for each participant. Brain Writing
entails a five-step process.
Step One: Pose or frame the question, issue, or problem facing the group. Ask each person
to write on the top of their paper one of the following (depending on the question, issue or
problem just framed):
An answer (if a question is posed).
A resolution (if an issue is presented).
An idea (if a problem is confronted).
Proposed wording (if a statement is being crafted, that is, a mission statement).
Step Two: Ask each person to pass their paper to the person on their left.
Step Three: Ask each person to comment on the paper in front of him or her by either writing
a rewording of the suggestion below what is already written, or commenting on his or her
opinion of the suggestion. When this is complete, again pass the paper to the left.
Step Four: Continue this process until the papers are in the hands of their originator.
Step Five: Discuss the findings. Most often, consensus will have built around a small
number of suggestions, narrowing the discussion field.
A variation on this process is that once ideas have been generated, to post each idea on a
sheet of flip chart paper and spread those around the room. Each participant would then travel
around the room with a marker commenting on as many items as desired, repeating the process
as many times as they choose. During this process suggest that people use a check mark to
indicate agreement. When the activity dies down, review each chart to assess group opinion
and determine if the comments lead to a common conclusion. This technique can also be used
to narrow the field prior to voting.
4
C-19
After completion of the exercise, the facilitator should initiate a discussion of what could be
learned from the results. This should make participants aware of the many possible views of
the question, issue, problem or statement. These could then be explored, with the goal of
getting the participants to realize the true value of keeping an open mind and not closing too
quickly on ―
the answer‖. If time permits, the facilitator could also get the group to discuss how
each individual could deliberately shift the way they see things.
Expected Outcomes:
Good information or answers to the question, issue, problem or statement.
Participants learn the variety of perspectives or frames of reference that can exist for a
single question, issue, etc.
After participating, people tend to be more open minded in the future.
Tools: Brainstorming
____________________________
Reference:
Harrington-Mackin, D. (1994). The Team Building Tool Kit: Tips, Tactics, and Rules for Effective Workplace
Teams. New York, NY: AMACOM.
C-20
Brainstorming
A process for enhancing the creation and flow of new ideas.
Supports: innovation, consensus building, problem solving, teambuilding, relationship
building
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C
2
Brainstorming is a participative process that nurtures creative thinking and innovation by
enhancing the flow of ideas and building consensus and commitment. There are four basic rules
for a truly effective brainstorm session:
1. Quantity versus quality. The more ideas, the greater the likelihood of finding a useful
one.
2. Freewheeling. Open the gate and allow the ideas to flow freely. Build on the ideas of
others, even if they seem wild or outrageous
3. Defer judgment. The surest way to shut down creative thinking is to judge each idea as
it occurs. You are not deciding on ideas at this point, simply thinking imaginatively.
4. Hitchhike. If there is a lull in the flow, try making more out of what has already been
said, changing it a little, adding to it; for example, if a stakeholder meeting was
suggested, add ideas for how to structure the meeting, and Voila, a new idea!
There are many approaches to brainstorming. The one below can be tweaked and
massaged to fit into different situations:
1. Frame a session with a general topic or an idea-seeking question such as, "What are all
the ways…" Then, write the topic question in front of the group where everyone can see
it.
2. Clearly state that the purpose is to generate a storm of ideas and review the
brainstorming rules (above) and any additional ground rules the group wishes to add.
3. Establish a time limit, say 20-30 minutes.
4. Try a round robin approach to encourage participation, allowing members to pass or
"green light" participants to speak out in any order that naturally occurs. The round robin
approach means that you go around the room with each participant volunteering one
idea at a time, repeating as long as there are ideas. When an individual has an idea
spurred by another idea and needs to express the idea before it is forgotten, the
individual who next has the floor or the facilitator can ―
green light‖ that individual to go
ahead and add their idea. When a number of ―
passes‖ are occurring the floor can be
opened up for random contributions.
5. Encourage participants to build on others' ideas.
6. Post all ideas.
C-21
7. Allow no evaluation, criticism, or discussion while ideas are being generated. Watch out
for "stifling phrases." Ideas can be clarified by their originator if others request it.
8. Allow participants time to think. Do not let a lull in the storm stop the session.
9. After all ideas have been generated, reduce the list by questioning, categorizing, and
consolidating.
In Project Study #5, brainstorming was used to develop work performance improvement
principles and techniques.
Remember, the goal is to think creatively and view the problem from many perspectives. To
paraphrase Nobel Prize winning physician, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, discovery is looking at the
same thing everyone else is looking at but thinking of something different. And as another
creative genius, Albert Einstein, expressed, problems cannot be solved at the same level of
conscious awareness at which they were created.
Expected Outcomes:
A large number of ideas that relate to some specific problem or situation.
Broadening participants thinking by exposure to many ways of looking at a problem.
Sets the framework for good communication and dialogue by getting everyone involved
and contributing.
See:
Project Study #5 (City of Moline, IL)
Case Example #4 (Chrysler Corporation)
Case Example #15 (US Army TEAM C4ISR)
Tools: Brain Writing
Concept Mapping
Sleep On It
C-22
Case Study
An approach to learning and decision-making grounded by real-life situations.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, assessment
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C
2
2
C = CONTEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT
A case study is an extension of experience, a story. It is not meant to represent the world,
but to represent the case. Case studies are valuable as examples, a reflection on human
experience in the area of focus. They are used extensively in the study of Law, Medicine and
Business. When a case study serves as an example of a best practice, or something that
worked or is working in that specific situation, there can be implications for trying it in your
organization. Since the focus is on the case, the methods underlying the case are not
necessarily included in detail. The more detail in the case study in terms of situation and
context (including methodologies and the reasons for choosing those methodologies), the better
a decision-maker can judge whether this is something to pursue further.
Case studies provide a systematic way of studying events, collecting data, analyzing
information and reporting the results. They can loosely be thought of as exploratory,
explanatory or descriptive (Tellis, 1997). Exploratory case studies are used as a prelude to
much research done in the social sciences. Since they are exploratory in nature, data collection
and field work may occur prior to definition of what is trying to be discovered. Explanatory
cases are causal studies that involve very complex situations. Descriptive cases are generally
written over time where some observation of changes is captured. It covers the depth and
scope of the case under study.
A case study can be either qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both. And it can be
very short (a few paragraphs) or very long (enough for a book). They serve as good learning
tools when they provide all the relevant data individuals need to discuss and resolve the central
issue. Readers can examine multiple aspects of a problem, or just a circumscribed piece, and
then identify the parameters of the problem and propose a solution. These can be extremely
effective vehicles for leadership and management training.
Writing a case study is not a simple task. The material can be drawn from your own
professional experiences, current events and historical happenings. According to Davis (1993),
an effective case study is one that:
Tells a ―
real‖ and engaging story
Raises a thought-provoking issue
Has elements of conflict
Promotes empathy with the central characters
Lacks an obvious or clear-cut right answer
Encourages individuals to think and take a position
Portrays actors in moments of decision
C-23
Provides plenty of data about character, location, context, actions
Is relatively concise
In Case Example #18, the USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service used case studies in support
of outcomes based assistance.
Expected Outcomes:
Improved understanding of a specific situation or class of problems.
Practice in working with others to explore the case study to develop different
perspectives and interpretations of issues and potential solutions.
Learning from real-life situations.
See:
Case Example #9 (The Socio Economic Unit Foundation, India)
Tools: Benchmarking
Storytelling
____________________________
References:
Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tellis, W. (1997). ―Ap
plication of a Case Study Methodology‖ in The Qualitative Report, Vol. 3, No. 3, September.
Can be downloaded from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html
C-24
Causal Loop Diagram5
A process for representing the cause and effect relationships among variables.
Supports: problem solving, knowledge sharing, learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
Causal loop diagrams are used as a tool to aid in Systems Thinking. They are used to
represent the structure of a system by showing the relationships between its key parts. This
helps in understanding the underlying drive behavior and provides a visual representation with
which to communicate that understanding. The diagram generally consists of one or more
closed loops that represent cause and effect relationships between variables. This document is
designed to give you a high level overview of how to construct a causal loop. In a causal loop
diagram, a link is an arrow between two variables that represents a relationship. There are two
types of links, ―
same‖ and ―
opposite‖. ―
Same‖ links are indicated by an ―
s‖ and represent that a
change in the first variable results in a change in the same direction in the second variable.
―
Opposite‖ links are indicated by an ―
o‖ and represent that a change in the first variable results
in a change in the opposite direction in the second variable.
Guidelines for Drawing Causal Loop Diagrams
GUIDELINE
Selecting Variable Names
1. When choosing a variable
name, use nouns. Avoid
verbs and action phrases
since the action is
conveyed in the arrows.
For example, ―
Costs‖ is
better than ―
Increasing
Costs,‖ since a decrease in
Increasing Costs is
confusing. The sign of the
arrow (―
s‖ for same or ―
o‖
for opposite) indicates
whether Costs increase or
decrease relative to the
other variable. (Note that
often a ―
+‖ is used for ―
s‖
and a ―
-―is used for ―
o‖.
This is another way of
expressing the same
concept.
5
EXAMPLE
Adapted from the Department of the Navy Knowledge Centric Organization Toolkit
C-25
2. Variables should be
something that can be
measured—quantities that
can vary over time. It does
not make sense to say that
―
State of Mind‖ increases
or decreases. A term like
―
Happiness,‖ on the other
hand, can vary.
3. Choosing the ―
positive‖
sense of a variable name
is preferable. An increase
or decrease in ―G
rowth‖ is
clearer than an increase or
decrease in ―Co
ntraction.‖
Loop Construction
4. For every course of action
included in the diagram,
think of the possible
unintended consequences
as well as he expected
outcomes. An increase in
―
Production Pressure‖ may
increase ―
Production
Output,‖ for example, but it
may also increase ―St
ress‖
and decrease ―Q
uality.‖
5. All balancing loops are
goal-seeking processes.
Try to make goals driving
the loop explicit. For
example, Loop B1 may
raise questions as to why
increasing ―
Quality‖ would
lead to a decrease in
―
Actions to Improve
Quality.‖ By explicitly
identifying ―
Desired
Quality‖ as the goal in
Loop B2, we see that the
―
Gap in Quality‖ is really
driving improvement
actions.
C-26
6. Distinguishing between
perceived and actual
states, such as ―
Perceived
Quality‖ vs. ―Ac
tual
Quality,‖ is important.
Perceptions often lag
reality, and mistaking the
perceived status for current
reality can e misleading
and create undesirable
results.
7. If there are multiple
consequences of a
variable, start by lumping
them into one term while
finishing the rest of the
loop. For example,
―
Coping Strategies‖ can
represent many different
ways we respond to stress
(exercise, meditation,
alcohol use, etc.)
8. There are almost always
differing long-term and
short-term consequences
of actions. Draw loops
with increasing radius as
they progress from shortterm behavior of using
alcohol to combat stress.
Loop R1, however, draws
out the long-term
consequences which will
actually increase stress.
The two vertical lines
crossing the line between
―
Alcohol Use‖ and ―
Health‖
indicate a delay.
C-27
9.
If a link between two terms
is not clear to others and
requires a lot of explaining,
the variables probably
need to be redefined or an
intermediate term needs to
be inserted. ―H
igher
demand‖ leading to lower
―
Quality‖ may be less
obvious than when
―
Production Pressure‖ is
inserted in between.
10. A short-cut to determining
whether a loop is balancing
(B) or reinforcing (R) is to
count the number of ―
o’s‖
in the loop. An odd
number of ―
o’s‖ indicates a
balancing loop, an even
number (or none) means it
is a reinforcing loop.
CAUTION: After labeling
the loop, you should
always talk yourself around
the loop and make sure the
story agrees with your R or
B label.
The Department of the Navy (DON) used causal loops as part of their systems approach to
implementing knowledge management. (See the Department of Navy Case Study.) On page
10 of the study, there is a causal loop that links the DON information technology investment to
an increase in the amount of data, information and knowledge available which in turn increases
decision-making complexity. The balancing loops they put in place address knowledge
management implementation at the individual, organizational and enterprise levels.
Expected Outcomes:
Improved problem solving.
A useful technique for simplifying complicated relationships and identifying key variables
within a situation.
Identification of causal relationships and specific changes that may be needed to control
or ―
change‖ the system.
Identification of standard or universal system archetypes that are found in many systems
or situations that may quickly illuminate the sources of behavior of the system.
See:
Case Example #5 (Natural Resources Canada)
Department of the Navy Case Study
Concept Mapping
Force Field Analysis
__________________________
References:
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
C-28
Collaborative Problem Solving Forum6
An approach for creating and sharing knowledge about best practices.
Supports: collaboration, problem solving, process improvement, workforce learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
A forum is a periodic meeting or gathering for purposes of discussion, dialogue or debate. It
is a means of sharing information, knowledge and research while focusing on common interests
and challenges. A well-facilitated forum can be an excellent approach to creating and sharing
knowledge about best practices. These forums can serve a variety of purposes such as solving
relevant, day-to-day problems; building trust among community members by actually learning
from and helping each other; and solving problems in a public forum thereby creating a common
understanding of tools, approaches, and solutions. This is also an effective approach for groups
to develop common standards and guidelines.
A five-step roadmap for problem solving as a means to generate new knowledge is provided
below which can be used by an individual or a group. It is a variation on an approach commonly
used for problem solving. This roadmap works well for best practices that can easily be reused;
for example, methodologies, analytical models, diagnostic approaches, case studies, and
benchmark data. The steps are: (1) Define a problem, (2) Conduct analysis, (3) Generate
ideas, (4) Select a best practice or solution, and (5) Capture the knowledge in explicit form.
(1) Problem Exploration and Definition
Explore the problem and determine if additional information is needed. For example,
members of the group may decide to observe specific practices, or research existing information
on a topic. Methods to collect additional information might include conducting interviews with
impacted individuals or subject matter experts.
Jumping to a conclusion without understanding a problem can save time, but it can also waste
time if you solve the wrong problem. Before jumping to the wrong conclusion, consider the
following:
Examine the problem from all angles. Try to see it from the perspective of different
utility stakeholders.
Separate fact from fiction. Perception is important, but it must be distinguished from
fact.
Identify key players affected by the problem. Who is responsible for solving the
problem, and who has the authority to accept and implement a solution?
Dissect or decompose the situation. Break the problem down into pieces.
Develop a plan for gathering information. Use surveys, interviews, observations,
brainstorm sessions, or benchmark reviews if needed.
6
C-29
Clearly defining a problem using clear, plain language is like having your finger on its pulse.
Defining a problem is often more difficult than solving it. However, the right definition of a
problem will make the solution much easier. A clear definition builds a strong foundation for
subsequent fact finding, communication, and analysis. A good definition distills the situation into
a brief, concise statement; provides key words to get to the bottom of the situation; states what
a problem is rather than what it isn't; and states a problem in terms of needs, not solutions.
(2) Analysis
Typically, what you "see" is only the tip of the iceberg, or the symptoms of a problem rather
than its root cause. It is important to distinguish cause from effect to ensure that you are actually
solving the source of the problem, not just addressing its symptoms. Consider a medical
analogy. You have many symptoms of the common cold, but you may, in fact, have a sinus
infection that can only be cured with an antibiotic. While using over-the-counter cold medicines
to alleviate your symptoms, the original infection continues to become worse. This is just what
can happen in an organization. By addressing only the symptoms, you miss the root cause and
the condition persists and may become worse.
Discovering the root cause of a problem can be tricky. Sound questioning techniques are a
good start. Using your problem definition statement, answer the following questions.
Why does the problem persist?
Where did it start and where did it come from?
What caused it in the first place?
What changed right before it started?
Why doesn't it resolve itself or just go away?
Why do we keep getting pulled back into the situation?
Why won't things improve no matter what we do?
Still not sure? Don't move to the solution phase until you are sure you have found the root
cause. Test your tentative conclusion using the following indicators. Continue analysis until you
can answer yes to each of these indicators.
greement?
You ran into a dead end when you asked, "What caused the proposed root
cause?"
All conversation has come to a positive end.
Everyone involved feels good, is motivated and uplifted emotionally.
All agree it is the root cause that keeps the problem from resolving.
The root cause fully explains why the problem exists from all points of view.
The earliest beginnings of the situation have been explored and are
understood.
The root cause is logical, makes sense, and dispels all confusion.
The root cause is something you can influence, control, and deal with
realistically.
Finding the root cause has returned hope that something constructive can be
done about the situation.
Suddenly workable solutions, not outrageous demands, begin to appear.
A stable, long-term, once-and-for-all resolution of the situation now appears
feasible.
Use of analytic techniques such as diagramming and process modeling can also be applied
during the analysis stage. A few additional techniques for analyzing a problem are Napoleon
(imagine you are someone else to gain new perspective), morphological analysis
(systematically examine each attribute of the problem), create a deadline, or Sleep On It.
C-30
(3) Idea Generation
Once the root cause is identified, it is time to generate possible solutions. This is the time to
be really creative. One useful way to generate a storm of ideas with a group is
Brainstorming. But before generating ideas, try some creativity exercises.
Von Oech's offers some good exercises to get the creative juices flowing. For example, when
generating ideas, avoid mental locks. See Ladder of Inference. The following are common
mental locks and possible techniques to overcome them.
Mental Lock
Consider
There is often more than one right answer.
Excessive logical thinking can short-circuit your creative process. Be curious
and look for surprises.
Challenge the rules. (Dick Nicolosi, Philosopher: "Slaying sacred cows makes
great steaks‖.)
Ask what if questions. Use them as stepping-stones.
Use play to fertilize your thinking. Make a game of it.
Specialization limits you. Develop an explorer's attitude. Leave your own turf.
Foolish thinking can get you out of a rut.
Too much specificity can stifle your imagination.
Don't be afraid to fail. (Grace Hopper, Inventor and Naval Officer: "A ship in
port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for‖.)
Believe in the worth of your ideas.
You don't have time not to.
(4) Solution Selection
The goal at this point is to narrow the list of ideas into feasible, creative, and win-win
alternatives. By using an objective, criterion-based method to select ideas, you will
coincidentally make the decision-making process much easier in that you have defined the
terms for reaching consensus. The process therefore becomes one that is fact-based and less
emotionally charged.
Establishing objective criteria is similar to judging a sporting event. Olympic judges use
consistent, objective criteria to evaluate the performance of athletes to select winners. In
addition to establishing criteria, you may want to prioritize criteria. For example, some criteria
may be mandatory while others are optional. Another technique is to set acceptable ranges. For
example, if an idea meets less than 80 percent of the criteria, it will be removed from the
running. If a clear winner does not emerge, identify the best and worst outcomes for each idea
and/or the pros and cons of each idea. An additional step might be to validate the practice with
stakeholders or peers.
For a final check, ask yourself the following questions:
Is the best practice, or alternative, based upon good, sound reasoning and data?
Were the right people involved in the problem solving process?
Following this roadmap will serve to create new knowledge that can improve not only your own
job but also the overall performance of your utility.
Other tools that can be utilized in the Collaborative Problem Solving Forum include the
causal loop diagram and force field analysis. The Causal Loop Diagram is a process for
representing the cause and effect relationships among variables. Force Field Analysis is a
C-31
mechanism for assessing and dealing with the various forces that aid or hinder the
implementation of a program or project.
In Case Example #22, the US Forest Service considers systematic problem solving as one
of six tasks critical for organizational learning.
Expected Outcomes:
Improved problem resolution.
Team members learning how to solve problems.
Reduced probability of generating poor quality solutions.
See:
Best Practices
Brainstorming
Causal Loop Diagram
Facilitation
Force Field Analysis
Ladder of Inference
Prioritization Matrix
Sleep On It
Storyboard
____________________________
Reference:
Von Oech, R. (1998). A Kick in the Seat of the Pants: Using your Explorer, Artist, Judge, and Warrior to be More
Creative. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
C-32
Communications Plan
A method for linking messages to target audiences and indicating the timely communication of
important information.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, assessment
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C
2
C2 = CONEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT
The Communications Plan breaks down the process of sending a message out to a large
audience by helping an individual or team refine the message and develop the logistics of
delivering that message. The matrix (example below) provides a mechanism for evaluating the
message in terms of the stakeholders, receivers, the method of delivery, the sender, how the
sender is preparing it, reasons behind sending it, and how often it will be sent. This table
provides a comprehensive plan clearly indicating the timely communication of important
information.
The steps are quite simple. First, fill in the message (or messages) to be sent out. If it is
difficult to determine the message, try to evaluate the rationale for sending the message. The
rationale may help identify the desired message. The message should be thought of as the
action step for the rationale. Each message should be listed and then evaluated, based on each
of the following factors: stakeholder, receiver, vehicle, sender, sender preparation, rationale and
frequency, and timing. These steps are further discussed below.
1. Identify the desired message to send.
This could be a particular action that may affect the staff. For example, you may want to make
the staff aware of the purpose of this project. For example, in the ―
Message‖ column write:
―
The purpose of this project is to transform our Utility into a Knowledge-Centric Organization.‖
2. Identify Stakeholder/Receiver.
This individual or group would be the audience to whom your message is being directed.
Develop a detailed profile for each audience – listing number of people, location, easiest
method of contact, etc. Who is it that needs to get this message and how will they interpret it?
3. Determine Vehicle.
The vehicle is the way by which the message is delivered. Examples of channels include:
memos, E-mail, voice mail, videotape, newsletter, meeting, brochure, phone call.
4. Determine Sender.
The sender is the individual or group sending the message. This person is probably an
authority figure within your organization, or perhaps a group or team.
5. Sender Preparation.
This is how the sender will go about preparing the message to be delivered. This may be
designing the newsletter, or planning a meeting.
C-33
6. Consider Rationale.
The rationale consists of why this message is being sent. Why is it important that the
stakeholders receive this message? The reasoning here may be for the group to become
aware, or to use the message to complete some aspect of their job. The rationale is why the
message is being sent.
7. Speculate Frequency/Timing.
The frequency or timing is how often the message will be conveyed and over what period of
time. Certain groups within an organization may need to receive information first. When this
occurs, messages may change to fit the frames of reference of the receivers as the
communication moves down the organization. It is best to communicate early and often, and
maintain communication through all phases of the engagement. Do you plan to have weekly
meetings? Will there be a monthly newsletter? Or is repetition less imperative? Perhaps bimonthly meetings or a bi-annual meeting would be better?
Below is an example of the Communications Plan matrix.
#
Message
1
New safety
procedures
Stakeholder
Receiver
All field
personnel
2
Knowledge
base on-line
Knowledge
communities
Vehicle
Sender
Presentation/
Film
General
Manager
Training,
Feedback,
Real-time use
Development
team
Sender
Preparation
Engineering
Department
Development
team/
contractor
Rationale
To create
awareness
of new
safety
procedures
To educate
knowledge
communities
on usage
and daily
operations
Frequency/
Timing
Once,
followed by
other
messages
reinforcing
safety
Frequent
classes and
updates as
needed
In Case Example #18, communications (events, visits, inquiries, etc.) were managed
strategically. In Project Study #18, the Utility hired a private firm to explore communication
gaps among the entire staff, including vertical and horizontal communication. Social Network
Analysis is a tool used to discover the flow patterns of information and knowledge across an
organization.
Expected Outcomes:
Improved communications throughout the Utility.
Improved morale and, if the communication is clear, open and consistent, trust between
employees and the sender can be developed.
Fewer mistakes or surprises from misinterpretation by receivers.
See:
Project Study #18 (Rice Lake Utilities, WI)
C-34
Tools: KnowledgeBase Roadmap
Ideas: Communications Publications
Knowledge Sharing
Leadership Commitment Visibility
Media Productions
Stakeholder Engagement
C-35
A group of individuals who communicate with each other within a common area of knowledge.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, knowledge retention, cross-training
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
LARGE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
A community of people who are interested in a specific area of knowledge and need to share
information. Comprised of a network of individuals who have a common interest in an area of
knowledge, a CoI communicates virtually to share and learn from each other’s experiences,
insights, best practices and lessons learned. A CoI is primarily a community of learners who
exchange ideas, develop relationships and work towards furthering their knowledge and
perhaps the application of the area of interest.
While communities are supported by technology, their social dynamic plays a much larger
role than technology. They are implemented by making connections, dialoguing and building
relationships based on trust and mutual interests. The focus is on value added, mutual
exchange, sharing, and continuous learning.
A CoI can be used in support of a CoP (community of practice). When this is the case,
individuals outside the work area of the knowledge domain have the opportunity to participate in
and learn about that domain, thus building future capacity and capabilities for a Utility. CoIs can
be particularly effective vehicles for engaging stakeholders.
Since communities of Interest are primarily virtual, they can involve geographically-dispersed
individuals across various functional areas. The APQC benchmarking study on Virtual
Collaborations provides detailed information on preparing for, supporting and measuring a
virtual collaboration strategy.
Expected Outcomes:
Individuals enhance their learning through information dialogues and conversations.
The organization benefits from cross-learning and
See:
Case Example #6 (SHELL HP)
Tools: Best Practices
Lessons Learned
Ideas: Stakeholder Engagement
APQC benchmarking study on Virtual Collaboration
____________________
Reference:
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
C-36
A group of individuals who work in a common area of knowledge.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, knowledge retention
LEVEL OF EFFORT
HIGH
SIZE OF UTILITY
MED-LARGE*
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
*ALSO EFFECTIVE VEHICLE FOR CROSS-UTILITY COLLABORATION
One of the core tools for continuous knowledge sharing across functional areas in an
organization is the community of practice (CoP). Comprised of a network of people who work
(practice) in a common field with similar goals and purpose, a CoP communicates virtually to
share and learn from other experiences, insights, best practices and lessons learned. Since
CoPs are defined by knowledge within a specific domain, they align the organization around
competencies without reverting to functional structures. As community members interact and
new knowledge emerges, the agenda of the CoP evolves.
While communities are supported by technology and are largely virtual, their social dynamic
play a much larger role than technology. They are managed by making connections, dialoguing
and building relationships based on trust and mutual interests. The focus is on value added,
mutual exchange, sharing and continuous learning.
CoP members are often brainstorming and seeking solutions to specific issues and problems
forwarded by community members. When this occurs there is a sense of urgency that
stimulates the exchange and surfaces new ideas. Thus, participation in and reliance on CoPs
increases over time, with CoPs often becoming the primary source of learning and knowledge—
and a continuing source of energy—for community members.
The Federal Aviation Administration Guide to Virtual CoPs is a guide to promote the
understanding of basic concepts relating to the creation of nurturing environments for the
support of knowledge communities. The Department of Navy’s ABC’s for CoP Quick Start
provides a roadmap for community start-up from concept to reality. The steps of the Quick Start
process support the following outcomes:
Community identity, including name, knowledge domain, type of community, and
organizational fit
The CoP's value, including purpose and how the CoP will help with the Utility's mission
and goals, and generally how the CoP will meet member needs.
Initial direction for community type and organization fit
A clear understanding of the community roles and responsibilities
A Core Group planning meeting
An Initial Community Workshop
A foundation for community activities
An approach for establishing a collaborative work environment
Assessment of community progress
Initial input to a Community Experience Locator
C-37
The APCQ best practice report on Building and Sustaining CoPs identifies how communities
of practice fit within a KM strategy, the types of communities and their characteristics;
successful approaches to planning, initiating, and sustaining communities; necessary support
structures and roles for various community types; enablers of successful communities, including
information technology; and how to assess the health and measure the effectiveness of
communities. The APQC benchmarking study on Virtual Collaboration focuses on strategies
and enablers for effective virtual collaboration as well as providing detailed information on
preparing for, supporting and measuring a virtual collaboration strategy.
Expected Outcomes:
Individuals enhance their learning through informal dialogues and conversations.
The Utility benefits from better employee knowledge.
The organization has a process in place for getting other opinions (or expert resources)
to solve timely, critical problems or events.
When the CoP is composed of workers from many utilities it offers a talent resource of
knowledge that could be stronger and broader than an single Utility would possess.
See:
Case Example #15 (U.S. Army TEAM C4ISR)
Case Example #17 (USAID)
Department of the Navy Case Study
Learn@WELL Case Study
Expertise Locator
Lessons Learned
Cross Utility Collaboration
Reference Materials for Knowledge Sharing
APCQ best practice report on Building and Sustaining CoPs
APQC benchmarking study on Virtual Collaboration
Department of Navy’s ABC’s for CoP Quick Start
Federal Aviation Administration Guide to Virtual CoPs
__________________________
Reference:
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
C-38
Concept Mapping
A technique for mapping the relationships among different concepts.
Supports: knowledge sharing, idea generation, learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
Concept mapping was developed by Professor Joseph D. Novak at Cornell University in the
1960’s. It is based on the theory of David Ausubel, who forwarded the idea that new knowledge
was based on prior knowledge. Today, neuroscience findings have affirmed that our minds are
continuously connecting incoming information (through our senses) with information that is
stored in our memories, confirming the importance of concept mapping as a tool.
A concept map is represented as a network, with core ideas connected to related ideas.
These core ideas, or concepts, can be labeled, and the links (which can have arrows one or
both ways, or just be ―
associated‖ by a connecting line) can also be labeled.
Concept maps are used to generate ideas and support creativity; for example, during
brainstorming. They are also used for note taking, to understand complex structures and
communicate complex ideas, for the transfer of information and the creation of knowledge, and
to enhance metacognition (learning to learn, and thinking about knowledge).
Mindmapping is similar to concept mapping. However, the mindmap starts with one concept
as core, while the concept map can have any number of core ideas.
Expected Outcomes:
An increased ability to visualize and comprehend the relationships among multiple ideas
and concepts. This allows employees to create a high level view of the set of concepts
and to relate them to their Utility.
Seeing these relations also helps employees understand how their efforts and products
may relate to other worker’s work, depending upon the specific concepts I the map.
See:
Causal Loops
____________________________
References:
nd
Buzan, T. (1995). The MindMap Book (2 ed). London, UK: BBC Books.
Novak, J.D. (1991). ―Cl
arify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike. The Science Teacher,
58(7), 45-49.
C-39
Dialogue
A small group of people seeking a common understanding through a specific process called
dialogue.
Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, individual and organizational
learning, group collaboration, creating a shared/common understanding
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Dialogue is the capacity of members of a group to suspend assumptions and enter into a
genuine thinking together. Dialogue is a process used by David Bohm in 1992 to create a
situation in which group members participate as coequals in inquiring and learning about some
specific topic. In essence, the group creates a common understanding and shared perception
of a given situation or topic.
Dialogue is frequently viewed as the collaborative sharing and development of
understanding. It can include both inquiry and discussion, but all participants must suspend
judgment and not seek their own outcomes and answers. The process stresses the
examination of underlying assumptions and listening deeply to the self and others to develop a
collective meaning. According to Senge, dialogue involves gathering and unfolding meaning
that comes from many parts, as well as inquiring into assumptions, learning through inquiry and
disclosure, and creating a shared meaning among group members.
Two dialogue tools are: The Left Hand Column (below) and The World Café (listed
separately).
Left-Hand Column
The left-hand column dialogue tool is based on the premise that during conversations there
are actually two conversations taking place. The conversation that is explicit consists of the
words that are actually being spoken throughout the exchange between two or more persons.
The other conversation consists of what the individuals are thinking and feeling but not saying.
The term "left hand column" is derived from an exercise designed to explore what is not being
said but is being thought during the course of a conversation. This "tool" offers a way to actually
study our conversations so that we can re-design them to be more effective in creating desired
results.
People need an introduction to this tool before it can be used effectively as a group. Here is
an exercise to introduce it to a group:
Step 1: Choosing a Problem. Select a difficult problem you've been involved with during the
last month or two. Write a brief paragraph describing the situation. What are you trying to
accomplish? Who or what is blocking you? What might happen? Examples include (1) the rest
of the organization is resisting—or you believe they will resist—a change you want to
implement, or (2) you believe your team is not paying much attention to the most crucial
problem.
C-40
Step 2: The Right-Hand Column (what was said). Now, recall a frustrating conversation you
had over this topic. Take several pieces of paper and draw a line down the center. In the righthand column, write out the conversation that actually occurred, or the conversation you're pretty
sure would occur if you were to raise this issue. The discussion may go on for several pages.
Leave the left-hand column blank until you're finished.
Step 3: The Left-Hand Column (what you were thinking). Now, in the left-hand column, write
out what you were thinking and feeling but not saying.
Step 4: Individual Reflection (using your left-hand column as a resource). While you can
learn a great deal from the act of writing out a case in the format of left and right columns, if you
put it away for a week and then looking at it again, you will most often achieve deeper insights.
Whether immediately after completing the writing, or a week later, ask yourself as you reflect:
What has really led me to think and feel this way?
How might my comments have contributed to the difficulties?
Why didn't I say what was in my left-hand column?
What assumptions am I making about the other person or people?
How can I use my left-hand column as a resource to improve communications?
Step 5: Discuss in pairs or a small group. In pairs or small groups review one or more of the
left-hand columns written in step 3. The conversation should focus on exploring the
assumptions behind both speakers' words, and discussing alternative ways in which the
participant could have conducted the conversation so that he/she would have been more
satisfied with the outcome.
Expected Outcomes:
Better understanding of your own assumptions, beliefs and biases.
Increased understanding and transfer of knowledge.
Creation of new knowledge.
Developing different frames of reference or perspectives on issues.
Learning to keep an open mind.
See:
Case Example #11 (TREND, Ghana)
Case Example #13 (Federal Aviation Administration)
Tools: Blog
The World Café
_________________________
References:
Bennet, D. (1998). IPT Learning Campus: Gaining Acquisition Results through IPTs. Alexandria, VA: Dynamic
Systems Inc. (Available from [email protected])
Bohm, D. (1994) Thought as a System. New York, NY: Routledge.
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in
Business and in Life. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Senge, Peter, et al. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning
Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
C-41
Document Repositories
A technology for storing, tracking and managing formatted information objects.
Supports: expertise location, knowledge sharing
LEVEL OF EFFORT
HIGH
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
The document repository of a Utility holds much of the support information needed by
decision-makers to make effective decisions. While the location of documents in an
organization used to be libraries and file rooms, today they are ubiquitous, accessible and
searchable from every computer hooked to a Utility Intranet. This is where employees will find
the policies, standards and standard operating procedures that drive everyday work. Thus the
focus of document management has moved away from stewardship to a greater concern with
the use of information itself, the processes that inform decision-makers across the Utility. The
flow of information throughout the Utility is the life blood of the organization!
From a technology viewpoint, there are many areas to consider when evaluating differences
among the large number of systems (both open source and proprietary) that are available for
use today. Those areas would include: community knowledge base (supports development of);
ease of deployment (packaging, installation, software and hardware requirements and ability to
support separate repositories if needed); ease of programming in needed changes (adding or
changing digital object types, consistency and style of code); interoperability (including the use
of standard meta-data); open source (future needs); scalablity (not only up, but can the
architecture be separated and used on different machines); security (data encryption, server
security, authentication, and access rights); system administration (customization and
publishing ease); and workflow tools (supports use of different tools and workflow software used
by the Utility). While some Electronic Document Management Systems may not successfully
satisfy all these areas, ensure that the one that is chosen meets the needs of the Utility and
allows the potential for upgrading as the Utility becomes more familiar with the system and
identifies additional requirements.
A key step to developing a document repository is the knowledge audit. Not only does a
knowledge audit help identify what knowledge an organization has, who has it and how it flows
throughout the organization, but it identifies the knowledge that should reside in the document
repository. See Knowledge Audit.
A taxonomy, an agreed-upon vocabulary of topics arranged around specific themes, is
developed to help organize the document repository and support search capabilities. See a
resource paper by TECHi2 on Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies.
The KnowledgeBase Roadmap provides a framework for building the knowledge base in a
specific area of knowledge. This provides another step in the ability to effective access
information that is needed when it is needed.
In the results of the AwwaRF study on ―
Strategies to Help Drinking Water Utilities Ensure
Effective Retention of Knowledge,‖ document repositories were described as representing the
best of the codified knowledge of the Utility (and therefore often the first place people look).
C-42
Specifically, document repositories were called out as a self-service tool in support of
knowledge retention.
Project Study #14 involves the move from a paper based Utility to the process of capturing
all asset data into one database. This involved training 310 employees (costing data included).
In Project Study #19 the Utility is computerizing all customer service records tied to the
organizational GIOS database that will link both pieces of information, thereby facilitating
knowledge flows.
Project Study #28 details the use of KnowledgeKeeper, a knowledge management software
application, involving videotaping procedures that are then turned into a searchable format
available to plant operations personnel. In Project Study #2, the Utility has developed
operations and maintenance manuals for each of three areas: water distribution, water
treatment and sewage collection. In Project Study #13, the Utility has increased the number of
Standard Operating Procedures captured in its information system. In Project Study #10, the
Utility has created a document repository called Quality Based Documentation and today the
documentation process has become the norm for the organization. The Utility has provided a
process graph and the parent document supporting the document control process. In Project
Study #32, the Utility has developed a document repository for capital improvements. Project
Study #24, systems documentation is kept up to date through a System Certification Review
Process. This process is part of a larger commitment to total quality management.
Expected Outcomes:
Rapid and easy access to relevant information needed by the Utility workforce.
An efficient way of storing, updating and keeping track of information that the Utility
considers important for its day-to-day activities.
See:
Project Study #2 (City of Fairborn, OH)
Project Study #10 (Colorado Springs Utility, CO)
Project Study #13 (City of Akron, OH)
Project Study #14 (City of Akron, OH)
Project Study #19 (Evergreen Metro District, CO)
Project Study #28 (City of Cleveland, OH)
Project Study #32 (Tampa Bay Water, FL)
Case Example #2 (Mitre Corporation)
Tools: Knowledge Audit
Knowledge Ontology
Knowledge Taxonomy
Ideas: Technology-Related Tools
Paper by TECHi2 on Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies
_________________________________
Resources:
Oce Business Services White Paper. ―Do
cument Process Management: The Case for an Integrated Lifecycle
Approach.‖ Downloaded from www.oceusa.com/obs.
Sutton, M. J. D. (1996). Document Management for the Enterprise: Principles, Techniques, and Applications. New
York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
C-43
Engaging Golden Expertise
A program or series of actions for engaging employees who have retired or external experts
who are no longer fully engaged in the workplace.
Supports: knowledge retention, Utility performance, organizational learning, employee
development
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Engaging Golden Expertise is an approach to ensuring your Utility has access to needed
expertise no longer available within the Utility. The concept is built on an understanding that the
boundaries of an organization can no longer be clearly defined, but are permeable and porous.
People no longer stay in one job their entire lives, but move around in and out of organizations
and in and out of the government, industry and non-profit sectors. Industry copes with this issue
through joint ventures and partnering agreements. The military has a trained reserve force
available for call up.
A body of knowledge that has been previously much overlooked resides in Third Agers.
Third-agers are individuals who possess a great deal of experience and knowledge, who are
retired but still active physically and mentally, and have a desire to contribute to the Utility.
These can be retirees from a specific Utility, or others who have identified expertise in areas of
interest and need. Since the past several years have seen an increase of third-agers moving
from metropolitan areas into the suburbs and beyond, this may provide an opportunity for small
Utilities serving rural areas to have availability of specialized expertise that can be identified
through community social organizations.
Third Agers can be formally employed for specific term tasks or on advisory boards or task
teams. They can also serve as volunteers for special events.
Retiring Utility employees provide a known source of Third Agers. Hopefully, the Utility has
engaged them in knowledge sharing activities such as mentoring, coaching and communities of
practice prior to leaving. See knowledge retention and the MQI graphic Knowledge Sharing as a
Systems Approach. However, there is still the opportunity to engage individuals postretirement. Some examples are as members of communities of practice, speakers at
knowledge sharing forums, and as members of a reserve force or perhaps on governance
boards. A phased retirement approach is another option, eliminating hours gradually as others
move into their positions. Still another approach is to retain selected employees on the payroll
with reduced hours (say 10 hours a month) as expert resources and trouble-shooters.
In Project Study #12, the Utility established a retiree program allowing for the hiring of
retired employees in a training capacity. In Project Study #17, the Utility’s ―
Rallying a Team of
Exceptional Employees‖ program includes adding new staff alongside retirees to facilitate the
transfer of critical institutional knowledge. In Project Study #21, the Utility has engaged retired
employees in a training capacity. Their approach also allows for the contractual hiring of former
employees as independent vendors of special projects.
Regardless of the approach engaged, Third Agers offer another source to tap for ensuring
the Utility has the knowledge it needs when it needs it.
C-44
Expected Outcomes:
Better decisions because of availability of expertise and advice.
Learning opportunities by employees moving into higher levels positions that were
vacated by retirement, accidents, etc.
Fewer learning mistakes by less experienced employees and an increased respect for
their Utility for doing all that it can to help employees learn and maintain good or high
performance.
See:
Project Study #12 (City of Grand Forks Public Water Utility, ND)
Project Study #17 (Orlando Utilities Commission, FL)
Project Study #21 (The City of Phoenix Water Services Department, AR)
Also: Learning History
Leave a Legacy
Knowledge Sharing
MQI graphic Knowledge Sharing as a Systems Approach
C-45
Event Intermediation
An event for which the planning process and actual event are strategically used to bring about
large-scale change across a Utility and its larger stakeholder group.
Supports: change management, knowledge flows, knowledge sharing, customer relations
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED-HIGH
SIZE OF UTILITY
MED-LARGE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Event intermediation is the use of a planned, collaborative event to move from intention to
reality. An intermediary connects knowledge seekers with knowledge sources by relating,
researching, validating, reshaping, and transferring information. Planned and supported
through groups, teams and communities, event intermediation is a tool for facilitating the
horizontal and vertical sharing of knowledge at a point in time as part of a larger change
strategy. Historically, humans work and strive to create change with only slightly visible results,
then some event occurs which connects all this prior activity, and the understanding of change
pushes everyone to a new strata of recognition, with the entire plain of behavior shifting upward
to a new starting point. A good analogy would be the growth of bamboo. For the first four years
the young bamboo plant is watered with relatively little visible evidence of growth. But during
this time, out of sight, the roots are spreading, interconnecting and growing in strength. Then,
during the fifth year, the bamboo plant streaks upward some 20 or more feet.
Using an Appreciative Inquiry Approach, sources within an organization or within the water
industry are identified where desired actions are successfully occurring, and these are
highlighted, widely shared and rewarded at this event. Although each of these sources may
bring to the event only part of the process needed to accomplish a desired end state,
collectively they provide the evidence that what is being attempted can be done, and they act as
indictors of how to accomplish it. This is similar to the amplification and sense and response
approaches in MQI’s paper on Systems and Complexity Theory.
A larger event approach such as a town hall or knowledge fair provides the venue for event
intermediation (see Stakeholder Engagement). An event of this nature requires wide
participation of stakeholders as both presenters and participants, and coordinated, high-level
planning for what must be thought of as self-organized local events. For example, in a
knowledge fair this might take the form of booths where dozens of participants plan and share
their stories. Simultaneously, there might be more formal presentations balanced against
demonstrations on the hour. In a town hall format, this might mean simultaneous events such
as an expert panel with an audience and live video-feed, a telethon, and a question and answer
session being web-cast, with participants moving from one form of media to the next. Other
formats might be stand-downs or road shows. Stand-down is a term used in military
organizations to refer to a period of time where everyone in the organization ―
stands-down‖ from
their day-to-day job/requirements to focus on a significant need, event or aspect of the
organization.
The event selected could then be followed by development of a toolkit which would include
video interviews capturing the words of experts and high-level policy-makers; presentations,
stories and video clips representing each booth with points of contact; the latest research
C-46
findings; dialogues from a panel discussion; resource documents; pictures of groups of people;
award honorees with descriptions of their work and activity, and so forth.
In their Case Study, the Department of the Navy held a series of knowledge fairs followed up
by toolkits to spread KM best practices across the enterprise.
Expected Outcomes:
Increased knowledge sharing and knowledge reuse.
Utility-wide change based on a large number of people having the opportunity to meet
and share their interests and knowledge and to learn about knowledge initiatives being
implemented by others.
Relationship building across the utility and larger stakeholder group.
Attendees develop a better appreciation of the value of KM.
See:
Department of Navy Case Study
Tools: Appreciative Inquiry
Ideas: Community Outreach
___________________________
References:
Bennet, A. & Bennet, D. (2007). Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Moving from
Research to Action. Frost, WV: MQIPress.
Douglas, Lloyd C. (1935). Green Light. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown
and Company.
C-47
Expertise Locator
A system for connecting knowledge seekers with knowledge holders to facilitate knowledge
exchange.
Supports: knowledge sharing, decision-making
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
With today’s technologies, information can be rapidly transferred from one place to another.
Only how do you know whom to contact to learn more about a specific topic? Who is the
―
expert‖ in your utility? This may be a particularly challenging question in larger utilities.
Many organizations have identified the need to develop systems to help locate expertise
across an organization. The expertise locator can also be called a ―
utility yellow pages‖. The
objective becomes to create a locator system that can be easily and successfully queried from
any part of the organization.
The Expert Seeker developed by NASA goes beyond locating specialists to providing a
unified interface to access NASA competencies, assisting in the organization of cross-functional
teams, offering NASA experts more visibility, and helping to perform gap analysis. See KM at
NASA-Kennedy Space Center.
While there are software programs that can scan the Utility document repository and
automatically generate an Expertise Locator, there are many potential sources of expertise that
may not be captured in that repository. For example, the expertise residing in retired personnel
who may be easily accessible for short engagements. See Engaging Golden Expertise.
Expected Outcomes:
Increased communication.
Less time wasted in locating and obtaining information and knowledge.
See:
Case Example #10 (IWSD Zimbabwe)
Case Example #15 (U.S. Army TEAM C4ISR)
KM at NASA-Kennedy Space Center Case Study
Tools: Document Repository
C-48
Facilitation
A process for leading and collaboratively working with a group of individuals to achieve a
specific objective by maximizing group synergy.
Supports: Knowledge sharing, problem-solving, brainstorming, leadership development
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
MED
Facilitation might be considered an advanced form of collaboration; it is clearly an important
strength of leaders. An effective facilitator is a leader, a follower, a collaborator, and a servant
to the group. Like collaboration, facilitation can be learned only through experience. It is both a
behavior and a mental process, demanding parallel monitoring of several different processes
occurring simultaneously during teamwork sessions. Experience in processing several streams
of data simultaneously helps a leader monitor situations and interactions and adjust their own
behavior and responses accordingly.
To expand on this consider the following story1.
John had been facilitating a group of water utility executives all morning but had not been
able to get them to communicate very well. The executives faced a challenging and complex
issue that was hard to understand, confusing, and had potentially very serious consequences to
their organizations. Everyone took the issue seriously and most of the group had their own quick
solutions, but they all seemed to be talking at cross-purposes. There had been many heated
discussions and arguments with little listening; some personal animosities had burst forth. Even
when they did seem to listen they did not get the deeper meaning behind the words. It was a
classic case of everyone feeling that they knew the right answer. In frustration, John begged
away from lunch and went to his office to think about what he should do. He was a good, proven
facilitator, yet nothing he had done seemed to be working that morning. In desperation, he
picked up an old sheet of questions he had kept from a seminar years ago. It read:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What are ―
you‖ doing to make the problem worse?
Are you enforcing the ground rules?
Did you prepare the group for dialogue and inquiry?
Is the process appropriate for the objective?
Is the problem due to diversity of personalities, language problems because of different
disciplines, levels of seniority, competing objectives, inexperienced participants,
organizational loyalties, personal arrogance, or misguided faith in their own knowledge?
John read over the questions carefully and began to realize that the essence behind all of
the questions was to prepare the individuals in the group so they were open to learning and
knowing. Such preparation would help the executives question their own beliefs and knowledge
and look carefully at other ideas---and how they were delivered and responded to---in order to
see beyond images, hear beyond words, and sense beyond appearances. This was essential to
get to the heart of the matter and create an understanding and consensus for the road ahead.
C-49
Regarding the first question, John realized that he had become involved in several of the
discussions and, although he always tried to be objective, there were probably individuals in the
group who felt he was biased. In thinking about his behavior, he recalled the trick of taking
himself out of himself and looking at himself from the upper corner of the room. When he
reflected on this, he became aware that he had been giving some leaders more attention than
others and that his mannerisms had shown some of his personal bias.
Regarding the second question, several times John had not enforced the ground rules and
allowed some individuals to ramble and talk too long. This had undoubtedly irritated other
participants. He recalled the first rule of management, ―
If you’re not getting what you want the
first thing that has to change is you.‖
Regarding the third question, he realized that although he had originally intended to talk
about the question ―
How do we know what we know?‖ and to do a systems review of the topic,
he had let several of the senior leaders talk him out of it because they thought it would waste
time and they wanted to have more time to resolve the issues. He now realized this had been a
serious mistake on his part.
Thinking about the fourth question, John felt certain that all of these utility leaders were
extremely well-qualified, dedicated, and seriously trying to do their best in coming up with a
good solution. Certainly there were personality differences. The language problem was not too
serious, although he knew it would probably have been better had he helped them develop a
common perception of the problem. Looking at the other possible problems he concluded that
the major issue was that, even though they were well intended, they each had a strong belief in
their own knowledge and were certain that their answer was the right one. They came from
cultures of hierarchy and competitiveness. They had proven themselves through their careers,
had demonstrated good decision-making capabilities, and firmly believed that their solution
would be best for the drinking water industry.
Reviewing the last question he concluded that although the group had shown some signs of
every problem mentioned in the question, none of their behavior was enough to be the cause of
the current problem.
Finally, John thought about how well he had been able to keep up with the four processes
that unfold simultaneously during every teamwork session. He felt good about being able to
follow the flow of content of the group and to understand the significance of some of the ideas.
Monitoring the quality of interpersonal relationships among members and taking early action to
prevent disruptions had been straightforward. The third process, the movement of the group
toward its objective, is what got stymied and he had not handled it well. He also knew that he
had not monitored his own behavior---how he came across to the group---very well. Learning to
track all four of these processes in real time while standing in front of a group of well-educated,
proactive knowledgeable leaders had not been easy for him. But through experience and the
school of hard knocks he had come to feel confident about his abilities as a facilitator.
Reviewing all of these thoughts in his mind, John realized that he had not given enough
attention to preparing the group to question their own knowledge, and thereby be open to other
ideas and perspectives. He knew this was a critical step in guiding the group through the overall
path. Once it is brought to their attention that there is no solid answer to the question, ―
How do I
know what I know?‖ almost everyone is willing to consider other answers and try to keep an
open mind.
Since it was too late to drastically change the planned process, John decided the best action
was to get everyone to step back from the situation and spend time looking at their own beliefs
and assumptions, recognizing and respecting the beliefs of others, and exploring the context
within which the objective was to be accomplished. In addition, he wanted to explore the
possibility there were no right or wrong answers, only possibilities and probabilities. He really
wanted to spend time on complexity thinking to get the group to appreciate the challenges and
possibilities of piercing their unknown world of the future. ―
But there was no time for that,‖ he
C-50
quietly muttered under his breath as he walked back into the lunchroom. When lunch was over,
John began the afternoon session feeling much better about the way ahead. John’s experience,
here described as a formal facilitation responsibility, is very close to what collaborative leaders
do in their interactions with knowledgeable workers. During their conversations, they
continuously monitor and support the content flow, the process and direction of the discussion,
the interpersonal relationships being developed, and their own behavior as seen by others--always done within the framework of honesty, openness, values, and integrity. This is how
collaborative leaders lead, learn, and build their own character.
Expected Outcomes:
Improved communication.
The creation of trust, active listening and collaboration.
New ideas and better ways of looking at problems.
See:
Case Example #13 (Federal Aviation Administration Knowledge Services Network)
Tools: Dialogue
C-51
Force Field Analysis7
A mechanism for assessing and dealing with the various forces that aid or hinder the
implementation of a program or project.
Supports: problem solving, decision support, collaboration and knowledge sharing
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
A Force Field Analysis can be used to identify forces in place that support or work against
the solution of an issue or problem. It illustrates the driving forces that can be reinforced or the
restraining forces that should be eliminated or reduced. Force Field Analysis can also be used
to analyze the positives and negatives of the implementation process. The Force Field Analysis
prepares members of a team or community to analyze and tackle elements of a project that
prohibit them from achieving their goals. It also identifies positive forces that can be
strengthened to propel the project forward.
The process starts with a ―
T ―diagram. Write the current problem and the ideal situation or
solution to the problem at the top of the diagram. Evaluate the forces driving the ideal state and
list those on the left-hand side of the diagram. List the restraining forces, or forces that are
holding the team or Utility from attaining the ideal situation on the right-hand side. When all the
forces have been identified and listed, evaluate the list. Ask which restraining forces might be
reduced or which driving forces may be enhanced to bring one closer to the ideal situation.
Here is an example of using a force field analysis to consider an individual’s fear of public
speaking:
Current Problem:
Fear of public speaking
Ideal State:
To speak confidently, clearly, and concisely in any situation.
+ Driving Forces
Increase self-esteem
Helps career
Communicates
ideas
Contributes to a plan/solution
Encourages others to speak
Helps others to change
Restraining Forces –
Past embarrassments
Afraid to make mistakes
Lack of knowledge on the topic
Afraid people will be indifferent
Afraid people will laugh
May forget what to say
Here’s a quick overview of how to construct a Force Field Analysis diagram:
7
C-52
1. At the top of the T, write the issue or problem to analyze. Underneath it, write a
description of the ideal situation to achieve.
2. Brainstorm the forces that are driving towards the ideal situation. These forces may be
internal or external. List them on the left side.
3. Brainstorm the forces that are restraining movement toward the ideal state. List them on
the right side.
4. Prioritize the driving forces that can be strengthened or identify restraining forces that
would allow the most movement toward the ideal state if they were removed
5. Discuss the driving forces and restraining forces to focus on. Decide how to strengthen
the positive elements and decrease the occurrence and ramifications of the negative
elements.
Expected Outcomes:
More efficient and/or effective solutions to problems because of better understanding of
forces involved and easier to address and take advantage of these forces.
Helps groups analyze, understand, develop and implement effective solutions to
problems.
Improves learning through dialogue and problem solving and gives individuals a
technique to develop a deeper understanding and suggests ways of thinking about a
problem that can lead to insights, creative solutions and the anticipation of desired
outcomes.
Brain Writing
Causal Loop Diagram
Concept Mapping
__________________________
Reference:
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York, NY: Harper.
C-53
Interviewing
A one-on-one process for gathering first-hand information.
Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge retention, information gathering
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C2
The following interview guidelines are a tool for conducting interviews to gather information.
For an idea of potential information to gather during an exit interview see KM Desk Guide. The
ten steps for conducting effective interviews below are divided into three sections: Preparing for
the Interview, During the Interview, and After the Interview.
Preparing for the Interview:
1. Determine the purpose of the interview and the associated types of information that will be
collected.
2. Identify the categories of questions to be asked during the interview, for example,
knowledge requirements, knowledge sharing and interaction, and knowledge exchange.
3. Specify the areas of data and information necessary to meet the objectives of the interview.
Attempt to conduct the interview in the interviewee’s workspace to support access to any
needed info and data located in their office.
You should notify them in advance of the interview of your data and areas of information
you need.
4. State questions utilizing the following techniques:
Ask open-ended questions. For example, "How can this process be improved?"
Ensure clarity of meaning by eliminating ambiguity. For example, "How would you rate
the professionalism of your staff?" Since ―
professionalism‖ can have various meanings
to different people, explain what you mean by professionalism.
Keep questions simple. For example, State ―
agree‖ or ―
disagree‖ with questions like "Our
staff was both fast and friendly", then ask for examples.
Watch out for biased questions, which can be difficult to detect and can hinder obtaining
insight. For example, "Do you wish me to pass on any complements to the Director?"
During the Interview:
5. Introduce yourself, your objective and the agenda of the interview, specifically:
Find out if interviewees have any objectives of their own for the interview.
Ask if they have any general questions pertaining to the project.
Explain how information will be used.
6. Put the interviewee at ease with note-taking by explaining that the notes are to be used as
reference of what is discussed. Try to capture their exact words, particularly if you think they
may be of high importance. Ensure understanding throughout the interview and paraphrase
back to them what you hear them say.
7. Utilize the Funnel Technique to move from general ideas to detail. For example:
C-54
Initially broad: "Tell me about..." "Describe..."
More detail: "Who? What? When? Where? How?"
Very detailed: "Yes" or "No" to verify information
After the Interview
8. Document your findings as soon as possible and follow up with interviewees on areas of
uncertainty.
9. Consider sending interviewees a summary of their comments to confirm what you heard and
how you interpreted their statements.
Interviewing does not always come naturally; it is basically a learned skill. Here are some
useful tips:
People learn best via stories—let them tell their stories. This also helps keep (and
transfer) the context of what they are saying.
Don’t settle for vague answers. For example, if the responder says, ―
You need enough
time for planning‖ ask them ―
How much time?‖
Dig for causes. For example, ask: ―
What was missing that caused this to happen?‖
―
What did you put in place to ensure success?‖ ―
Don’t ask closed questions. Give the responder some space to reflect and answer.
Ask expanding questions. For example, ―
What made that a success?‖ ―
What would be
three pieces of advice for the next person facing this challenge?‖ ―
What makes you say
that?‖ ―
How did you achieve that?‖ ―
Would you do something differently next time?‖
In Case Example #1 (ReVisions), interviews with upper management were used during a
Knowledge Audit to gain a better understanding of the corporate culture. In Case Example #16
(Virginia Department of Transportation), interviews started the knowledge mapping process. An
Interviewing Profiling Tool provides sample questions that might be used in support of a
knowledge audit or knowledge retention effort. In Case Example #15 (US Army TEAM C4ISR),
interviews are used to produce a Key Learnings Document, part of the knowledge capture
process.
Expected Outcomes:
The data, information and understanding needed to meet the reasons for having the
interview.
Interviewees may have a better appreciation for their work and its value to the
organization.
See:
Case Example #1 (ReVisions)
Tools: Interviewing Profiling Tool
KM Desk Guide
Learning History
Sample KM Plan
C-55
Provides pertinent questions to interview key personnel.
Supports: learning, knowledge retention, knowledge sharing
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C2
The purpose of the Profiling Tool is to support the interviewing of key personnel in order to
identify knowledge, skills and information requirements needed by the Utility. It can be used as
a reference or serve as a basic questionnaire that takes the interviewer and interviewee through
a series of questions pertaining to actions accomplished on the job and the information
necessary to complete those actions. For each interview, enter the information gathered into
the Profiling Tool. It serves as a helpful organizational tool for gathering and displaying
important information about the knowledge, skills and information requirements of the key
personnel.
1.0
Output/Example
The output will vary as the information gathered on specific individuals differs.
Name:
Position:
Process:
Critical Actions:
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
_____________________
Preliminary Questions:
What training is vital to doing your job and why? List of all Knowledge required and why
What training do you need to accomplish your job? List of all skills required
What information do you require to do your job? List of all information required
INTERVIEWEE
Outcome Needed
QUESTIONS:
Of all the information
List of important documents that require
available to you, which
immediate access.
documents must you have
immediate access?
Analysis and Follow
Up Questions
C-56
What documents do you
keep on your hard drive?
List of important documents that have local
access.
Which documents are
always back-up?
List of critical documents.
How do you keep track of Description of document maintenance and
them?
back-up procedures.
What are typical
Identify gaps in information availability.
situations in which lack of
information hurts or
hinders your ability to do
your job effectively?
If you need to call
How are the most common gaps filled?
someone for information,
how do you know whom to
call?
What do you do if you
don't know?
How are the typical gaps resolved?
How do you learn about
How do they find out about improvements?
new process initiatives or
innovations?
How do you apply these
process initiatives or
innovations?
What Utility information
from outside your
immediate division or
community do you use
regularly?
What information
originating outside your
Utility do you regularly,
(i.e. Databases, industry
reports, etc.)?
How do they improve?
How frequently do you use Utility information?
How frequently do you use information
originating outside your Utility?
How efficient is the
maintenance process
and what are the
potential hazards?
How can these gaps
(inefficiencies of
information) be
improved?
Why do these work
around situations
exist?
What is the typical
method to resolve
gaps?
What information
(conference, internet,
local email, etc.) has
been made available?
How effective is
implementation and
why?
Does this frequency
relate to its importance
(i.e. Is it listed above)?
Does frequency relate
to importance (is it
listed above)?
Expected Outcome:
A high level of understanding of the interviewee’s knowledge and experiences.
A thorough coverage of the areas of interviewee’s knowledge.
Improved determination of key knowledge areas that must be understood after the
interviewee’s departure.
See:
Tools: Dialogue
Interviewing
KM Desk Guide
Learning History
C-57
Short summaries of specific actions and results in context.
Supports: knowledge retention, knowledge sharing, learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C2
C2 = CONTEXT/CONTENT SENSITIVE
Key learnings are insights kept in context, which may or may not be applicable to another
situation. They are a one to two-line summary sentence focusing on a specific actions and a
resulting benefit. These key learnings are then categorized by major themes and presented in a
question and answer format. For example, for the theme ―
Proven evaluations criteria and
techniques,‖ the question might be ―
What issues should I consider when evaluating past
performance?‖ The key learning would be: ―
Understand the circumstances behind the success
and failures of past performance proposals to avoid eliminating a bidder who may have the best
solution.‖
To prepare the key learnings document, the U.S. Army TEAM C4ISR implemented the
following process. The interviews were transcribed with time codes. Then a group of knowledge
harvesters (a minimum of 2, maximum of 4) joins together in a distillation process, first prereading the transcripts to identify key learnings, pull quotes and major themes. Then the group
comes together to compare notes and debate, using a laptop and projector to edit the
transcripts as the group agrees on key learnings. Group rules of the process included:
There is no true right or wrong.
Discussion is focused on the statements made in the interview, not on the knowledge
harvester’s experience.
Avoid over-interpreting—don’t put words in the mouth of the interviewee.
Using this group process, it takes about 4-6 hours to distill one hour of interview. Finally, the
group produces the Key Learning Document, which is then forwarded to the interviewee to
ensure accuracy. See Case Example #15.
This document can then be used to create video, audio and text clips for the Utility. It can
also be linked to related after actions reviews.
Expected Outcomes:
The capture of tacit knowledge for reuse
Individual and organizational learning
See:
Interviewing
Learning History
Learning How to Learn
C-58
Knowledge Audit8
An inquiry into what knowledge an organization has, who has it and how it flows throughout the
organization.
Supports: organizational assessment, strategic planning, succession planning, decisionmaking, knowledge sharing, knowledge retention, organizational learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
HIGH
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
―
The best audits capture not only what the key knowledge is that advances important goals,
but why people think it’s important, where it resides and who knows the most about it.‖1 A
knowledge audit—designed to meet the needs of a specific organization—moves beyond
knowledge mapping to include evaluating the state of an organization’s technology, how well the
organization’s processes support knowledge sharing, and the work styles and culture of the
people within the organization. A successful knowledge audit can show needed changes in
organizational and personal behavior, enabling technologies and business processes so that
knowledge can be applied to improve how well the utility achieves its mission. It can also be
valuable in pointing out improvements to existing processes, clarifying the knowledge people
really need, and locating sources of that knowledge.
The knowledge audit begins with Knowledge Mapping, a process for identifying and locating
knowledge within the organization. Now this information can be used to design a knowledge
management system. For example, information that is used by a large number of employees
would become part of a web-based application widely available to multiple employees (see
Case Example #1). As a second example, Communities of Practice might be implemented to
help mitigate identified knowledge gaps within a specific area or practice, mobilizing knowledge
from one source of expertise in the organization to a larger team of employees who can use that
knowledge to improve their efficiency and effectiveness.
Tiwana offers a six-step process for the multidisciplinary group of people who make up the
audit team to document knowledge assets.
(1) Define the goals. This would include targeting of specific goals or knowledge and
identifying any constraints.
(2) Determine the ideal. This does not have to be extremely detailed.
(3) Select the method to use. The method should be one with which your organization is
comfortable. For example, a virtual survey process may be a good starting point for
a geographically dispersed organization, but not very effective for groups of
employees who do not regularly use computers.
(4) Perform the audit and document assets. This becomes an internal benchmarking
product that can later be used to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge
management initiatives. This would also be the place where a knowledge map is
developed for use across the organization.
8
Jeff Angus, the Project Director of Data Works, Ltd., Seattle, Washington
C-59
(5) Track knowledge growth over time. As the ideal defined in (2) above changes, so
too do knowledge needs of the organization. Periodic knowledge audits help identify
the direction over time that the organization is heading and provide the opportunity
for conscious strategic shifts.
(6) Determine your organization’s strategic position within its technology framework. As
the knowledge audit surfaces information that can now populate information
systems, the directions in which knowledge management and information technology
should and should not focus are clarified.
It is critical to have a consistent framework to assess the knowledge assets that are
discovered during the knowledge audit. While the knowledge discovery process selected in (3)
and performed in (4) above often uses surveys and interviews, it may also include focus groups
or Delphi studies, formal and informal reports, and exploration of databases, employee skills,
the sharing of best practices and core competencies which can provide indicators of knowledge
robustness.
In Project Study #9, the Utility identified critical knowledge and knowledge gaps as part of a
complete Workforce Planning Project. In Project Study #23, the Utility used a questionnaire to
help identify critical operational knowledge and as input for development of a documented
action plan. The questionnaire and the process they are using to develop their action plan are
attached to the project study. In Case Example #2, a knowledge audit was used to measure
Return on Investment.
Expected Outcomes:
Important information and knowledge will be identified, stored and made available to
those who need it.
Learning and succession planning will be easier because of this meta-knowledge.
Actions can be taken to fill in gaps of knowledge and information, avoiding mistakes and
frantic searches for problem resolution.
Training, planning and decision-making will be more efficient.
All of the above will increase Utility efficiency and effectiveness.
See:
Project Study #9 (Tualatin Valley Water District, OR)
Tools: Communities of Practice
Knowledge Blueprint
Knowledge Mapping
___________________________
References:
Bennet, A. & Bennet, D. (2004). Organizational Survival in the New World: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive
System. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The Knowledge Management Toolkit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
C-60
KnowledgeBase Roadmap9
A framework for building the knowledge base in a specific area of knowledge.
Supports: knowledge sharing, communities of practice, knowledge reuse, knowledge
retention
LEVEL OF EFFORT
HIGH
SIZE OF UTILITY
MED-LARGE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
The KnowledgeBase roadmap provides a framework for building the knowledge base in a
specific area of knowledge. A knowledge base is the collection of information, supporting
context, and the individuals and groups who possess and can share and apply the knowledge
necessary to ensure the performance and sustainability of the Utility. A knowledge base is
generally focused in a specific domain of practice (thus the emergence of the term community of
practice). It may support an established community of practice, or a group of employees
working in the same functional area. (See also Shared Space.) While a Utility may already
have an information infrastructure in place, the KnowledgeBase development process focuses
on creating collaborative processes and information support for a specified area of knowledge.
An KnowledgeBase example is the IWRM (integrated water resources management)
knowledge base which includes data from basic hydrological monitoring for estimating
sustainable water supplies and data on water resources from remote sensing. While political,
institutional and economic instability caused a severe decline in basic hydrological monitoring
(for example, downsizing of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in Venezuela
resulted in most stations of the original network no longer operational), the World Hydrological
Cycle Observation System is now making an important contribution to the available knowledge
base (UN World Water Development Report 2).
The Implementing Community
Development of a knowledge base is best implemented by community members practicing in
that functional area. It requires a core group of community members involved in the entire initial
process. These individuals would take on the roles of Community Leader, Coordinator,
Cybrarian and Technologist. The Leader provides day-to-day support while serving as an active,
contributing member. The Leader strives to further the community's goals by: (1) serving as a
subject matter expert; (2) coordinating with and connecting other team or community members;
(3) planning, scheduling and managing activities; (4) interfacing with senior leadership; (5)
representing the KnowledgeBase effort at briefings; (6) recognizing contributions; and (7)
tracking budget expenditures, if applicable. The Coordinator assists the Leader in performing
the above tasks, but focuses on internal coordination rather than external relations with the
organization. While Cybrarian is a new cyber-term, it easily resonates with most people.
Cybrarian conveys the notion of one who looks after the collecting and access to library-type
resources needed by the Utility. Regardless of the extent of dedicated Web support that is
available to the Utility, the Cybrarian will provide help with finding and connecting domainrelated assistance in the Web environment. This person has at his or her fingertips both Internet
9
C-61
and Intranet sites of value. The Technologist watches over infrastructure support. As the
KnowledgeBase comes together, the Technologist ensures Utility employees can connect and
communicate through various media, providing them options and resources for collaboration.
When decisions are being made regarding the infrastructure, the Technologist is available to
relate technical issues to KnowledgeBase requirements. The role is best filled by a person who
knows the domain and is technically savvy.
The following products are developed as part of the knowledgebase:
1. Matrix of groupware functions that the community will focus on for its first release of the
KnowledgeBase
2. List of identified knowledge domain information (documents, presentations,
spreadsheets, etc.) that includes specific documents
3. List of folders used for organizing domain information
4. Graphical model and supporting narrative of "AS-IS" information flows between the
Utility community of practice and stakeholder organizations
5. List of community members and the folders that they have been assigned
6. Groupware electronic repository. Information will have been migrated to the groupware
application under the given folder structure
7. List of asset rules that ensures all groupware transactions are done in a manner
consistent across the community
8. Graphical model and supporting narrative of "TO-BE" information flows between the
community and stakeholder organizations. This would includes a list of business
performance measures and expected efficiencies from the KnowledgeBase (e.g., cycle
time = 8 weeks; goal is 2 week reduction).
The Key Tasks to develop a KnowledgeBase are the following. Each key task is first
introduced and then discussed in greater detail below.
1. Requirements: Map identified collaborative tool functions to business requirements to
simplify deployment, narrow training scope, and ensure more efficient use of the
groupware.
2. Inventory: Define knowledge assets in a business process context and identify whether
they will be created by the community or borrowed from other business owners.
3. Taxonomy: Develop a business context classification structure for organizing the
inventory of information. It should provide an intuitive navigation scheme for members of
the community and other interested stakeholders.
4. Flow Model: Model AS-IS business processes based on the flow of inventory assets to
and from customers. Focus on how assets are created and disseminated.
5. Migrate: Provide necessary technical support to migrate inventory assets that exist in
legacy repositories. Inventory should be organized, classified as relevant, and mapped
to a classification owner. Owners are typically subject matter experts from within the
Utility.
6. Map: Identify owners of the Inventory folders and designate life-cycle responsibility at a
folders structure level.
7. Asset Rules: Establish business rules for the use of the groupware to maintain
consistency while performing business transactions. Designate which groupware
functionality will be used to process specific transactions.
8. Transformation: Identify, in priority order, high value/low risk business processes that
provide the group with the highest value in terms of customer service, cycle time
C-62
reduction, and total ownership cost. Focus on measures that correlate to related
business performance measures.
9. Training: Secure computer-training facilities to allow "hands-on" training for users.
Transformed business processes will be simulated in a training environment for user
testing and acceptance.
Key Task 1: Requirements
This task is aimed at narrowing the functional scope of the selected groupware application to
only those functions that enable the achievement of mission-related measures (that is, reduction
in cycle time). For example, given a groupware application, conduct a functional analysis of the
application. At minimum the analysis should include the function name, description and release.
List all of the functions that the groupware application is capable of performing (such as, add a
new document). This list should not include any extended or custom functionality. Focus on the
base functionality of the groupware.
Once a list has been prepared, convene the community members to review the list. Leaders
should aim at obtaining consensus over which functions meet the general requirements of the
community's needs within the first release of the KnowledgeBase. Enter 1 for ―
release‖ if the
community requires the function in the first release. Enter 2 or 3, respectively, if the community
feels as though that particular function can be postponed for a later release. The community is
expected to base its functionality decisions on lessons learned and past experiences, and the
requirements of the project.
Work Product: Requirements Traceability Matrix - Excel spreadsheet containing the following
elements: REQ ID, REQUIREMENT (or Function Name), DESCRIPTION, RELEASE (version of
the implementation that will contain the corresponding function), NEW or EXISTING,
FULL/PARTIAL, COMMENTS, DOCUMENTS
Key Task 2: Inventory
The inventory offers community members the opportunity of identifying all information
associated with established business processes. With the help of a facilitator or community
leader, convene a session of community members and conduct a brainstorming session on
information that is either inputs to or outputs of the community's business processes.
Once the list has been developed, assign each member the responsibility of reviewing the
baseline list and adding information not captured during the community session. Compile the
baseline list along with the individual input from community members. This will become the
baseline inventory for the community.
Work Products: Inventory List - Excel spreadsheet containing the following elements: ASSET
ID#, NAME, DESCRIPTION, BEST PRACTICE, RECORDS MANAGEMENT META DATA
(SSIC data)
Key Task 3: Taxonomy
The objective of taxonomy building in the community is to provide an intuitive structure for users
who are interested in obtaining information from or contributing to a community's practice.
Convene the community to brainstorm a list of categories based on the prepared inventory list.
The objective of the taxonomy brainstorming session is to develop as complete a list as
possible. Disregard the length of the list. The actual list can be finalized during a separate
community session. See Taxonomy. Tip 1: Limit the final consolidated list to 9 categories. Tip
2: Limit sub categories to 3 levels.
Once the group has developed a list, distribute the list to group members and have them
conduct a personal assessment of the list. Community members add, consolidate, or
recommend deletions to the list. Community leaders will consolidate the group and individual
C-63
lists into a single group list. Once completed, begin assigning inventory items to their respective
categories.
Work Product: Taxonomy List - Excel spreadsheet consisting of the following elements:
FOLDER ID #, CATEGORY, LEVEL, OWNERS, STATUS, DESCRIPTION, and REVISION
NOTES.
Key Task 4: Flow Model
The purpose of flow modeling is to graphically illustrate how inventory items are transferred
between organizations as business transactions are conducted. The model will present a view
that allows for easy identification of ―
As-Is‖ business processes. To begin, model the
organizations involved in the inventory exchange as depicted below.
Sample Flow Model
Using the baseline inventory list, illustrate how each item travels between community and
organization. In some cases, an inventory item may traverse several paths between
organization and community until the business process cycle is completed.
Sample Flow Model w/ Path Example
The ―
As-Is‖ flow model is complete when each of the inventory items has been illustrated on the
model.
Once the graphical model has been completed, the Leader will write a narrative that
describes the path of community inventory items. The narrative should e written in terms that
are easily comprehensible. Within the narrative, incorporate details that are not readily apparent
within the model. See Picture Map and Storyboards.
C-64
Work Product: ―
As-Is‖ model and narrative of the business process and the knowledge
assets transacted during the identified processes. Illustration of community, stakeholders or
customers and the direction flow of assets between services and customer.
Key Task 5: Map
Mapping provides a means for the community to maintain its data. Community members will be
designated as the point of contact for a particular category of data within the knowledgebase. As
with any community, all members must participate in the maintenance and upkeep of its locale.
Mapping is a relatively quick and informal process. Convene a meeting of community
members. Using the established taxonomy list, have community members volunteer for folders
that fall within their area of responsibility. Record these assignments in the ASSIGNED OWNER
column of the taxonomy list. Additionally, have members volunteer for folders as an alternate
point of contact. Therefore, each folder will have two community members who are familiar with
the folder structure, content, and access privileges granted the folder.
Work Product: See Taxonomy List - Excel spreadsheet of ASSET CLASSIFICATIONS and
ASSIGNED OWNER.
Key Task 6: Migration
Migration of data is important to demonstrating the capabilities of the groupware application. It
also provides a means of validating what has been accomplished in terms of data organizations.
Finally, it provides a context for discussing how Inventory and taxonomy contribute to the
Utility's business processes
Migration begins with validation of both Inventory and taxonomy lists. This ensures what has
been gathered thus far accurately reflects the needs of the community. Convene the community
and conduct a quick review of both lists. Pay particular attention to those Inventory items that (a)
are not associated to a business process and (b) are not products of the community. Items that
are not associated to a business process may be considered for removal. Items that are not a
product of the community may exist as parts of an adjacent community. If so, eliminate
redundancy by cutting out "borrowed" items.
Once the lists have been validated, begin populating the project workspace according to the
taxonomy. Data can be populated manually or in batch. Tools are available for large-scale
conversions.
Work Product: Tool user accounts for all core group members and operational prototype of
current release of the collaborative workspace.
Key Task 7: Asset Rules
Asset Rules provide members with groupware guidelines for moving data in and out of the
knowledgebase. They also designate which groupware function will be used to support specific
transactions in business processes. An example of an asset rule is using a compound
document instead of a folder to collect and present periodic volume releases of a newsletter. In
this case, two different groupware functions could be used to achieve similar results.
Establishing asset rules provides a consistent means for interacting with the KnowledgeBase.
Sets of asset rules exist for each business process supported. Regardless of the size, rules
must be put in place to avoid differences in practitioner usage. Asset rules will most commonly
be identified with a business process. However, in some cases, specific documents may have
an asset rule associated with them specifically.
Begin with listing the different processes or documents that will require an asset rule.
Remember, all transactions conducted within the groupware application will require a set of
asset rules that provide guidance to the community members. For example, a particular
community maintains a community calendar within its groupware application. The document
C-65
format of the calendar is a Microsoft Word file. To provide guidance to the community on the
use of this document, the following asset rules have been created:
1. Calendar only maintained by assigned owner
2. Community members who need to add a date to the calendar will use the groupware's
document Check-in / Check-out function
3. The community will maintain three months of its calendar. One month of past events and
two months of future events
4. All community members will create a change notification on the community calendar
thus allowing them to receive email notification upon calendar update
Again, a set of asset rules should be developed for each process or document involved in a
community business transaction. Asset rules should be reviewed periodically to ensure
applicability and effectiveness.
Work Product: Asset Rules - Excel spreadsheet including BUSINESS RULE NUMBER,
BUSINESS RULE, DESCRIPTION, REVISION, STATUS, and COMMENTS
Key Task 8: Transformation
Transformation is key to achieving value from the KnowledgeBase. The use of the
KnowledgeBase process implies communities will undergo a transformation in how they do
business. If transformation is not achieved, the community has done nothing more than increase
its burden and develop another data repository.
To transform, begin by selecting "high value/low risk" flows of inventory identified in the flow
model stage. The flow selection should be based on that which the community believes would
bring the highest value at the lowest risk to the community's mission, that is, the most likely to
be successful with no side effects or perturbations. List and prioritize which flows will be
transformed into the groupware application such that all future transactions relating to the
selected process will be conducted via the groupware.
Once processes have been listed and prioritized in terms of value and risk, prepare an
assessment or "gap analysis" of the "AS-IS" process and the "TO-BE" process. The analysis
should include:
1. List of stakeholders who will be affected by the process change
2. Changes to the process in terms of steps required to complete the process - Are there
any changes to the process? If so, document the changes.
3. Measures and metrics for assessing the value achieved by transforming the "AS-IS"
process to the groupware application environment
4. Document asset rules associated to conducting the process in the "TO-BE" environment
Work Product: TO-BE model and narrative of the business processes transacted. Includes a
Gap Analysis identifying changes to AS-IS model and documented asset rules.
Key Task 9: Training
Training ensures that all community members possess the necessary skills to function within the
collaborative work environment. Community leaders should not assume that its members
understand and can operate within the knowledgebase without training and support.
Training in this context includes more than just application training. It includes context-based
training that is rooted in business processes. That is, members are trained in both the use of the
groupware application and the business processes it supports. This way, training has relevance
to the community member and has immediate application.
C-66
Training can be accomplished within the community by identifying a training lead for the
community. Typically, this person will possess an above average aptitude for Information
Technology and has a good grasp of the business processes.
The trainer will use the Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) developed earlier in the
process to design a course for community members. The RTM provides the basis for the
training. That is, it lists what groupware topics the trainer will cover. It is up to the trainer to
select the business context of the functional topics. The trainer should develop a group of use
cases or scenarios that illustrates to community members how the groupware will be utilized
within the community's business environment. An example of a use case is: (1) update group
calendar; (2) login to groupware; (3) check-out calendar; (4) add new calendar entry; and (5)
check-in calendar.
There is no replacement for hands-on training. Where possible, utilize a training center to
deliver training to community members. Training should be designed to be brief and specifically
geared towards business processes. Long training sessions greater than 1.5 hours have proven
to be ineffective. If training seems too long, scale back on the coverage areas. Keep it
manageable, applicable, short, and enjoyable for your community members.
In the KM Plan attached to Project Study #23, the Utility is developing an Intranet-supported
knowledge base for critical operational knowledge. This includes an increase in work
instructions, process flowcharts and digital photos.
Expected Outcomes:
An established knowledge inventory and folder structure for the domain of knowledge
A process for capturing documents
A framework to continually improve business processes leveraging lessons learned and
reusing best practices
Increased community collaboration and support
Identified target efficiencies in mission related measures such as cycle time, customer
service and total ownership cost
See:
Document Repository
Knowledge Audit
Knowledge Blueprint
Knowledge Ontology
Knowledge Taxonomy
Lessons Learned
Picture Map
Shared Space
Storyboard
C-67
Knowledge Blueprint
A template for recording KSI (knowledge, skill, information) requirements.
Supports: knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
The Knowledge Blueprint is a template that allows you to record information about each
knowledge, skill, and information (KSI) requirements for specific jobs. A series of knowledge
blueprints might be filled out for each KSI requirement, each detailing a different knowledge
object used to transfer the knowledge. The example below shows one way of transferring First
Aid skills (the knowledge object is a training course). Other knowledge objects for this
requirement might be books, manuals, pictures, apprenticeship etc. Separate blueprints should
be filled out for each knowledge object as appropriate.
How do I use the Knowledge Blueprint?
For each KSI requirement you should create a set of knowledge blueprints. These are the plans
for knowledge transfer and should indicate the lifespan and update frequency of the material.
The template should enable you to think through each KSI requirement in turn and define
knowledge objects/knowledge transfer methods that satisfy that requirement. As different
knowledge objects will take different update frequencies and potentially different audiences, you
may need a range of knowledge objects to satisfy each KSI requirement. Fill in the templates
using the example below as a guide.
Output/Example
KSI Requirement
Title (Knowledge Object)
Community/Content Center
Knowledge Transfer Modality
Process Phase
Available Through (Media Type)
Target Audience
Update Frequency
Purpose
Abstract
Contents
Responsibility for compiling
and/or authoring
First Aid Skills
First Aid Training Course (Hands-On Training)
Medical (First Aid Skills)
Cognitive understanding
Prior to field work
Workshop
All Utility personnel
Offered once a month, required once a year
To ensure Utility personnel understand and are capable of practicing
basic First Aid
Explanation of basic First Aid skills such as the Heimlich Maneuver,
how to administer CPR, basic emergency medicine and health
maintenance.
How do I perform CPR?
How do individuals react in emergency situations?
What are the important components of health maintenance?
Who do I contact for what?
First Aid training leader (through HR)
C-68
Estimate effort in ongoing
maintenance and updating
Sources of information
3 days per First Aid workshop
Local hospitals
Primary care physicians
Emergency care personnel
Expected Outcomes:
When all important knowledge objects are identified and templates recorded, the Utility
(or some subdivision) has a record of its basic knowledge needs. These can be
changed or added to as desired.
The record of knowledge objects can serve to ensure proper training and learning is
accomplished, thereby keeping Utility employees up to date on specific training
requirements.
As new knowledge is needed, the knowledge templates can be increased or updated,
ensuring a current inventory of required knowledge objects is available.
See:
Tools: Knowledge Audit
Knowledge Mapping
C-69
KM Desk Guide
An information resource specifically tied to job activity
Supports: knowledge retention, new hires, job transition, knowledge sharing, resource
management
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
One of the most difficult parts of coming into a new position is figuring out what is and is not
known and available, and where all the required resources are located. A simple tool that
supports this transition is the KM Desk Guide, which helps to make knowledge explicit and
reusable. The Desk Guide contains specific information needs to successfully accomplish the
job, including such things as:
an organizational breakdown
project team members
regular meeting dates
processes for decision-making
applicable guidance and directive documents or descriptions of same and pointers to
their locations
technology systems accessed (and where data needed and used is stored)
individuals who can serve as knowledge resources (and their area(s) of expertise)
instructions for use of collaboration systems
To ensure necessary specificity, templates can be developed to match functions within the
drinking water utility that serve as guides for needed information. For example, when this
approach was used in the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) of the U.S. Department of
the Navy, guidance templates were developed (in the logistics group) for configuration/data
managers, logistics management specialists, and quality control managers. Each employee
was required to develop a Desk Guide—or continue building on one already developed—and
update it on a regular basis (at least annually), as well as two weeks prior to job departure. This
provides useful information for anyone new to the organization, or joining a new team within the
same organization. Further, an updated Desk Guide was tied directly to an individual’s annual
performance review, and considered a baseline requirement for performance awards.
A variation of this is the virtual Desk Guide which would make each individual’s Desk Guide
accessible to others across the organization.
The Sample Desk Book Template (1) focuses on Competency Manager turnover information.
The Sample Desk Book Template (2) is an example of a desk guide used for Configuration
Management and Information Management. See also the Interviewing Profiling Tool
Expected Outcomes:
Workers are aware of the essential information and contacts needed to do their jobs.
New hires come up to speed faster.
C-70
In the virtual application, the importance of knowledge and key relationships is
recognized and made available to others, thereby facilitating communications and
collaboration across the organization.
See:
Tools: Interviewing Profiling Tool
KM Plan (3. Smart Book)
Leave a Legacy
Learning History
Sample Desk Book Template (1)
Sample Desk Book Template (2)
_______________________
Reference:
DeLong, David (2004). Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
C-71
Knowledge Management Plan
A plan to implement a knowledge management initiative or strategy within a drinking water
utility.
Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, succession planning, creating a
learning organization
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
In order to execute a Knowledge Management Plan—which would call out specific actions to
be accomplished—an individual or team must be tasked with leading implementation of the
plan. The way a plan is implemented is as important as what is being implemented. Since
knowledge is a critical asset of any utility and it is embedded in every single employee of the
organization, knowledge management cannot be done to an organization. While leadership is
necessary, effective knowledge management is accomplished from the inside-out, through
individuals, groups, teams and whole organizations becoming networked among themselves
and with external stakeholders and information sources and proactively creating, sharing and
applying information and knowledge.
As an example, a Sample KM Plan used by an organization in the Department of the Army
(DOA) is provided. However, as with the DOA, each water utility has different knowledge needs
that are heavily dependent on the size of the organization, the number and breadth of changing
environmental demands, the age and condition of the plant infrastructure, the technology
infrastructure that is in place, the level of training and expertise achieved across the
organization, the turn-over rate, the culture and many other factors. The example below was
used for an organization of around 400 people. A Knowledge Management Officer (KMO) had
been tasked as lead (a collateral duty), and had pulled together a team that crossed functional
and departmental lines to ensure coordinated implementation in their areas of work. Thus while
the description is written from the viewpoint of the KMO, the way the program was implemented
was through a KMO team. The organization also participated in a number of Communities of
Practice that connected them to other organizations working in similar functional domains.
Other connections were sustained through participation in associations similar to AWWA and
regular attendance at conferences which provided opportunities for Benchmarking.
An approved Knowledge Plan serves as a guide, a source of authority to meet objectives,
and as a contract between the implementing team and higher authority. While plans must often
be adjusted during implementation, knowledge management plans almost always require the
support and cooperation of other individuals in the utility. This must be voluntary on their part,
and is obtained only through sharing and understanding the nature and importance of
information and knowledge to the success and future of the utility. Although senior
management approval of the plan is necessary, it is also necessary for them to show visible
interest and backing for implementation of the plan. See Leadership Commitment Visibility.
One useful way to ensure success is to have all key participants and senior management
personally sign the plan document. This ensures ownership—thereby most likely backing—for
the effort.
C-72
In Project Study #23, a KM action plan and implementation of that plan was necessary for
the Utility to successfully complete their System Certification Process. Their KM plan is
attached to the project study. Knowledge plans are included in Case Example #8 (NWRI
Nigeria), Case Example #9 (SEUF India), Case Example #10 (IWSD Zimbabwe), Case
Example #11 (TREND, Ghana), Case Example #12 (AMREF, Kenya).
Expected Outcomes:
Develops a common vision and way ahead.
A well-written plan, signed by all participants, will greatly facilitate successful
implementation.
A well-run program can serve as an example and as a voice for waking a utility to the
usefulness and value of knowledge management to its future.
See:
Case Example #8 (NWRI Nigeria)
Case Example #9 (SEUF India)
Case Example #10 (IWSD Zimbabwe)
Case Example #11 (TREND, Ghana)
Case Example #12 (AMREF, Kenya)
Tools: Benchmarking
Sample KM Plan
Ideas: Additional Assessment Tools
Leadership Commitment Visibility
Department of the Navy Metrics Guide
MQI paper The Change Agents Strategy
MQI paper KM, Learning and the Knowledge Worker
C-73
Knowledge Management Plan
Sample Plan
This plan is somewhat over-simplified to emphasize major points. Additionally, it is framed
from the viewpoint of a KMO (Knowledge Management Officer) who will be working with a team
representing departmental and functional areas across the organization, and a larger
Community of Practice for implementation of KM across the larger enterprise.
1.
Establish an atmosphere of trust within the organization, within and between sections (and
functional areas). This foundation of trust is essential if members of the organization are to
share information that will lead to retained and helpful knowledge.
KMO establishes leadership-approved incentive program for the quarterly and annual
incentive awards (certificates, coins, and small statues) for the shared knowledge voted
by organizational members to be the most helpful to the organization. Once established,
KMO manages and improve the incentive awards program as needed.
KMO establishes and maintains a leadership-approved ―
My Story‖ program (the sharing
of stories by organization members on who they are and what they offer the team), and
development of an ―
Encouragement List‖ (three positive things about each member of
the organization that affirm that individual’s worth as a knowledge source and
contribution to the organization). These are used to introduce individuals during
meetings, provide examples where appropriate, and design Knowledge Sharing events
such as lunchtime exchanges.
KMO facilitates the ―
Care to Share‖ Blog on the Staff SharePoint site on anything
organizational members care to share with each other about hobbies, interests, trips,
photos, etc.
2.
Establish and maintain a Knowledge Management Education Program.
KMO establishes and maintains a program to educate organizational members in the
principles and procedures of Knowledge Management such as ―
Leave a Legacy‖ and
related programs.
3. Establish a ―
Smart Book‖ policy to pass knowledge from one person to the next person to
occupy the position. [See KM Desk Guide]
KMO designs a Leadership-approved ―
Smart Book‖ format containing:
Role/Function/Grade for each position; software used (purpose and details of how to use
it if necessary); websites used (and why); contacts (phone; e-mail) used in the
performance of duties and why, ―
My Story‖ section on what the particular person brings
to the position (It’s usually done THIS way, but I’ve found that THIS works better ...‖);
Recommendations (―
If I could do anything to improve the duties/performance of this
position I would ....‖ List any equipment, training, additional personnel, contracts, or
other suggestions you have.)
C-74
KMO interviews organization members to get ―
their take‖ on what they offer the
organization from their unique perspective; challenges they’ve faced and how their life
experiences bring knowledge that helps the organization and those the organization
serves. (Sample questions: What has been the biggest challenge in your life? What is
the biggest challenge on the job? How do the two relate to each other? What is your
greatest strength? How do you use that strength to serve others in the organization?
How do you use your strength to serve water utility customers and other stakeholders?
What is the line of sight between your job activities and the utility’s purpose?)
4. Continually seek improvement of processes, procedures and practices through sharing
knowledge and best practices.
KMO maintains records of procedures, processes and practices throughout the
organization and seeks to find best practices for their improvement. KMO then
maintains records of those best practices until changes occur which lead to improving
them. As appropriate, the KMO pulls together a group of functional area specialists to
discover the patterns emerging from best practices, and then embeds what is learned in
appropriate communities, teams, educational programs, and organizational processes.
Working with teams and communities, KMO oversees the development of ―
job aids‖ to
improve performance.
KMO serves as ―
warehouse manager‖, helping to locate and transfer
information/knowledge that organization members need to do their jobs better and
mobilize the knowledge/products they produce across the organization.
KMO maintains backups of material for future reference.
5.
Leverage state-of-the-art technologies to enhance the gathering and sharing of
information/knowledge throughout the organization and those whom the organization
serves.
Working with the CIO, KMO stays abreast of, and advises organization members of the
latest trends in technology for the gathering and sharing of information/knowledge
through websites, virtual worlds, collaboration software and the latest products and
techniques.
KMO works with the CIO and organization members whose jobs include library and file
room functions to ensure production and maintenance of digital archives of significant
events, training, briefings, etc. that occur at and by the organization for use in training
materials, legacy materials, improvement of processes and procedures and the overall
sharing of knowledge with and for the organization.
Approved by: [Senior Manager/Leader and Direct Report Manager]
Acknowledged by: [KMO and Implementation Team Members]
C-75
Knowledge Mapping
A process for identifying and illustrating the location of knowledge within an organization.
Supports: knowledge audit, knowledge flows, strategic planning, succession planning,
decision-making
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Knowledge mapping is a fundamental step in any knowledge management initiative and the
first step in a knowledge audit. There are many approaches to knowledge mapping. Davenport
and Prusak describe knowledge mapping as locating important knowledge within the
organization and then publishing a list or picture that shows users where to find that knowledge.
Thus, the knowledge map is a guide to show people in the organization where to go when they
need expertise. The knowledge map connects people to information and data repositories
(whether in hard copy or virtual format), serving as an inventory of what knowledge exists in the
organization and where it may be found. Conversely, Tiwana uses the term ―
knowledge
directories‖ to describe knowledge maps that serve the purpose of showing users where to
obtain knowledge or expertise on specific subject matter. These directories may refer to people
with expertise (Expertise Locator), documentation libraries, process descriptions, suppliers, firm
policies, methodologies, and so on. In Case Example #1 a knowledge map was developed for
sources of expertise.
Zack focuses on strategic knowledge mapping. This approach maps the firm’s knowledge
along two dimensions: the degree to which it supports the firm’s strategy, and its quality relative
to competing firms. There are three focus areas in strategic knowledge mapping:
(1) What the organization needs to know to execute its strategy;
(2) What the organization does know; and
(3) What the organization’s partners (or competitors) know.
In responding to each question, knowledge can be classified according to whether it is core,
advanced, or innovative. Core knowledge represents the basic knowledge required to operate
in the industry. Advanced knowledge differentiates a firm, enabling it to compete in a changing
world and remain viable. Innovative knowledge is unique and enables a firm to significantly
differentiate itself as a knowledge leader, with the potential for changing the industry in
fundamental ways.
Once an organization has decided on the strategic direction for its future, it can identify the
knowledge required to reach that goal. This assessment can then be compared to the utility’s
knowledge map to see where the gaps arise. Benchmarking and mapping other water utility’s
knowledge can also provide key insights into filling those gaps as well as the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of obtaining required or desired knowledge. Strategic knowledge mapping
enables an organization to identify and act upon its knowledge strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats (similar to a typical SWOT analysis).
C-76
As an example of knowledge mapping, Microsoft used the following process to improve the
matching of employees to jobs and work teams:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Develop the structure of knowledge competency types/levels;
Define the knowledge required for particular jobs;
Rate employee performance in particular jobs by knowledge competencies;
Implement knowledge competencies in an online system; and
Link the knowledge model to training programs.
It is important to recognize that a knowledge map represents a point in time. Knowledge
mapping is an ongoing quest within an organization (including its supply chain and customers)
to help (1) discover the location, ownership, value and use of knowledge artifacts (information
that has helped create knowledge in the past); (2) learn the roles and expertise of people; (3)
identify constraints to the flow of knowledge; and (4) highlight opportunities to leverage existing
knowledge. The process included conducting a survey (see Sample Questions regarding the
existence of current knowledge and needed knowledge), performing a Knowledge Audit, and
then translating the findings into a knowledge map. See also the Interviewing Profiling Tool.
Surveys and interviews should be multilevel and cross departmental lines. The larger the
organization, the more critical to understand the perceptions and expectations at all levels of the
organization. In Case Example #16, the Virginia Department of Transportation began the
knowledge mapping process with a series of interviews. In Case Example #6, SHELL HP used
knowledge maps to assess gaps in organizational knowledge.
There are challenges to knowledge mapping. Assembly of the map can be difficult because
the information used in the map is highly fragmented and undocumented. Knowledge that
resides in the minds of employees may require time-consuming interviews and surveys.
Further, knowledge maps must be updated on an ongoing basis due to the dynamic nature of
knowledge assets within the organization. Finally, to maximize the benefits of knowledge maps
employees and managers must find them to be useful, or they will go unused. However, as
people who hold large amounts of knowledge continue to retire, awareness of the importance of
knowledge retention is rising in the industry. Knowledge mapping serves as a tool to
understand what knowledge needs to be captured and retained.
In the Learn@WELL Case Study, a personal KM map is prepared by each individual in the
organization to assess information behaviors (skills, experience and attitudes). The questions
are asked:
Who are you working with?
How do you obtain the information you need?
How do you share information and knowledge?
How do you document what knowledge you have?
What do you need to learn?
The aim of this personal mapping is for people to think and talk about what they know in a
systematic way, modifying it as needed. Further Learn@WELL discovered that group
discussions of individual KM maps provide opportunities for suggestions to be made about how
individuals can modify their information behavior to contribute to effective knowledge sharing
within the organization. Similar questions are part of Social Network Analysis.
In Project Study #26, the Utility used knowledge mapping as part of their Talent Resource
Planning process.
C-77
Expected Outcomes:
The knowledge map as a directory encourages knowledge re-use and prevents reinvention, saving search time and acquisition costs, and decreasing decision-making time
while increasing customer response.
Knowledge mapping identifies significant information and some of the critical knowledge in
the heads of employees. Highlighting such knowledge prior to retirement or leaving gives
the utility time to develop replacements for key workers
The knowledge map as a strategic tool provides knowledge sources for decision-makers
and customers in an uncertain and changing environment.
A knowledge map helps identify knowledge gaps relative to strategic future goals and
highlights knowledge that is no longer relevant to utility success..
See:
Case Example #1 (Revisions)
Tools: Benchmarking
Expertise Locator
Knowledge Audit
Sample Questions
Knowledge Blueprint
Sample KM Plan
_______________________________
References:
Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Tiwana, A. (2000). The Knowledge Management Toolkit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Zack, M. (1999). Knowlede and Strategy. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
C-78
Knowledge Mapping
Sample Questions
Questions regarding the existence of current knowledge:
List categories of knowledge you need to perform your job.
Which of this knowledge is available to you?
How do you use this knowledge to meet the goals of your utility?
From where do you obtain this knowledge?
How do you obtain this knowledge?
Is this knowledge readily available or difficult to find?
What could help you find, use and share knowledge more efficiently?
Does the environment you work in help or hinder acquiring knowledge?
Who do you consider experts in your organization?
In what form is the knowledge that you get from these experts?
What are the primary documents or resources you use in your work?
Who has control of those documents?
Questions regarding missing knowledge:
List categories of knowledge you need to better perform your job.
How would your performance improve if you had this knowledge?
Where or from whom could you get this knowledge?
What knowledge do you use over and over again?
How much time do you spend looking for knowledge?
Do you ever have to recreate knowledge you previously used?
What types of questions do you ask to which you cannot find answers?
Who comes to you for information? What level are they?
Do you have the information they need?
Did the requested knowledge have to do with:
Business performance?
Functional area expertise?
Administrative issues?
How much of the knowledge you use is outdated?
What are the barriers to knowledge sharing in your organization?
What can be done to promote knowledge sharing?
What are the reasons you make mistakes on the job?
C-79
Knowledge Moments
A new frame of reference for creating and supporting situations that connect people and their
knowledge.
Supports: knowledge sharing, organizational learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
An organization can be viewed as a collage of human knowledge moments. This refers to
the daily experiences and interactions across the utility and among the utility and its larger
stakeholder community as people read, write, converse and think during their workday—and
often in reflection and mental chatter outside of the workday.
Knowledge moments happen at the intersection of people, places, processes and purpose,
with every knowledge moment offering a learning experience to those involved. Since
knowledge is defined as the capacity to take effective action, knowledge moments refer to
exchanges that provide the potential for, or lead to, effective action. Thus the behavior of the
utility is enhanced by the result of the interaction of all decisions made and actions taken based
on the knowledge moments of every individual in the Utility. Similar to the butterfly concept in
chaos theory (see the MQI paper on Systems and Complexity Thinking), there is the potential
for success or failure based on knowledge moments which cannot be specifically identified or
tied directly to that success or failure.
A sustainable utility is co-evolving with its environment. Thus, the quantity and quality of
both planned and spontaneous exchanges within the utility’s larger stakeholder community
affects both the quality of the utility’s work products and stakeholder’s perceived quality of the
utility’s work products.
This new frame of reference lays the groundwork for applying this understanding to the
drinking water utility. The questions a utility must ask are:
How can the utility increase the quantity and quality of knowledge moments for its
employees?
How can the utility increase the quantity and quality of knowledge moments with the
larger stakeholder community?
Expected Outcomes:
Improved knowledge sharing resulting in more effective actions by employees.
Expansion of each employee’s network of colleagues resulting in greater access to
needed information and knowledge and a better appreciation for how the utility works.
See:
Ba Space
C-80
Peer View Process
Shared Space
The World Cafe
Ideas: Community Outreach
Group Learning
Knowledge Sharing
_____________________
Reference:
Dvir, R. (2006). ―Kn
owledge City, Seen as a collae of Human Knowledge Moments,‖ in Carrillo, F.J. (Ed.).
Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences, and Perspectives. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier.
C-81
Knowledge Ontology*
The conceptual framework that expresses the primary concepts and relationships among
those concepts in a particular area.
Supports: collaboration, knowledge sharing, search and retrieval
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW*
*FOUNDATIONAL FOR KNOWLEDE TAXONOMY
When we talk about a drinking water utility or a water system, we are actually considering all
the context and relationships to other concepts that provide a general understanding of these
topics for those familiar with the drinking water utility industry. For example, when engineers
talk about achieving high levels of water use efficiency, they do not have to keep asking how
this topic relates to regulatory approvals since that is common knowledge in the field. Yet, this
contextual link is critical to understand why controlling leakage is important and how it relates to
overall plant effectiveness. In contrast, a city planner may not have this knowledge and
therefore not understand why this is a priority to the drinking water industry. It is a group’s
common understanding of the concepts related to water use efficiency that provide the basis for
classifying topics and determining which ones are more general or more detailed to establish an
effective hierarchy. These concepts inherently have connections to many other concepts with
different strengths of relationships. Developing an ontology helps surface and understand these
relationships.
The ontology is translated into a hierarchy of descriptive categories that form the taxonomic
schemes used to structure the classification process. Even with a detailed taxonomy, the
classification scheme cannot convey the relative importance of the taxonomy nodes within the
document nor the relationship among the nodes, which is exactly the contextual information
needed to transform information into knowledge. The ontology provides this contextual
information.
For example, the Standard Subject Identification Code (SSIC) (used by the Department of the
Navy and other government organizations) has a node titled Data/Information under Operations
and Readiness. As a user, this can also describe an information technology system function
and therefore belongs under Information Technology or some other heading that starts with an
information theme. Similarly, this topic can be about new data storage techniques, both
hardware and software, and therefore belongs under a Research and Development heading.
Each case is correct and useful but it is difficult to determine which is best without more
knowledge on the context of how the topic is being used. One common method to alleviate
some of this discrepancy is to use a thesaurus of terms to augment the terms used for the
taxonomy nodes. This allows a wider set of words to form the basis of determining what is
relevant to a particular node in the same way as we might use synonyms and antonyms to help
someone understand a new word.
The TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies talks about
ontologies and taxonomies in plain language. In the author’s words, you begin by defining a
structure to organize information into categories of main concepts, and then by terms to group
C-82
like items. The concepts are defined in an ontology that maps the main ideas and their
relationships. Once this conceptual map is made, a set of terms must be created that defines
how to label items according to the concepts described in the conceptual map. This structure
set of terms is a taxonomy. This paper describes the basics and how to develop and implement
them.
Expected Outcomes:
Enables development of an effective taxonomy.
Allows individuals to intuitively navigate large volumes of resources.
Blends the need for context and individuality with a consistent and structured framework.
See:
Case Example #14 (Defence Information Agency)
Tools: Document Repository,
Knowledge Mapping
Knowledge Taxonomy
Ideas: Folksonomies
TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies
______________________
References:
Malafsky, G.P. (2003). ―
Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets‖ in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.).
Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters. Lexington, KY: Springer-Verlag.
_____________________
*Adapted from Porter, D., Bennet, A., Turner, R. & Wennergren, D. (2002). The Power of Team: The Making of a CIO. Washington, D.C.: The
Department of the Navy.
C-83
Knowledge Taxonomy*
A structured set of names and descriptions used to organize information and knowledge in a
consistent way.
Supports: knowledge sharing, search and retrieval, decision-making
LEVEL OF EFFORT
HIGH
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
A taxonomy is an agreed-upon vocabulary of topics arranged around specific themes. For
example, effective use of an organizational taxonomy enables a common language that both
engineers and technicians can use to access needed information and communicate and
understand each other no matter who has stored it. Classification becomes more and more
important as the number of items increases and people have trouble remembering what they
have and where to find it. It becomes very useful when organizations have access to large
amounts of information available via global electronic networking.
Creating an orderly method of classifying and relating knowledge is tremendously complex.
Consider the enormous quantity of written, spoken and visual information that occurs and is
stored somewhere in your drinking water utility, then consider where it occurs and resides. Your
utility may have multiple technology systems with many legacy applications, have limited
resources to capture critical information and processes, and rely on a variety of external experts
as needs emerge. Further, (1) even in the same organization people use different words for
similar concepts, and (2) people often use the same words to convey different concepts
depending upon the context of an exchange, what we think other people already know or don’t
know, and how it relates to other activities and thoughts.
A typical taxonomy is based on a logical arrangement, usually hierarchical, and built on an
organization’s natural workflow and knowledge needs in an intuitive structure (with ―
intuitive‖
representing a shared understanding of a specific domain of information). Examples of
taxonomies are the Standard Subject Identification Code (SSIC), the Library of Congress
Classification (LOCC) and the Dewey Decimal System. As we build a classification scheme, we
define topics and order them based on relative importance to our organization and their level of
detail. For example, water treatment and sewage treatment are included in the Dewey Decimal
System under Environment Protection Engineering (see below) because they are specific
instances of the general field.
Sample of Dewey Decimal System
600
628
Technology & Applied Sciences
Environment Protection Engineering
628.1
Water Supply
628.162
628.3
Water
Treatment
Sewage
Treatment
C-84
But how far should we go in listing the aspects of water? Should we scour the world for every
possibility and create a note for all water related topics? As can be seen, issues quickly arise
while defining a taxonomy and lead to hair-splitting decision about what nodes should be
included and which are subordinate to others. As a consequence, taxonomies grow in size and
complexity as they attempt to cover all the important topics in a field or organization.
As an example, a portion of the physics taxonomy from the American Institute of Physics
below shows the extreme detail of the nodes. Note that while an accountant might have
difficulty understanding what these topics represent, for a physicist or an engineer they are still
broad definitions since there are many sub-specialties under each topic.
80. INTERDISCIPLINARY PHYSICS AND RELATED AREAS OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
81. Materials science
81.05.t Specific materials: fabrication, treatment, testing and analysis
Superconducting materials, see 74.70 and 74.72
Magnetic materials, see 75.50
Optical materials, see 42.70
Dielectric, piezoelectric, and ferroelectric materials, see 77.80
Colloids, gels, and emulsions, see 82.70.D, G, K respectively
Biological materials, see 87.14
81.05.Bx Metals, semimetals, and alloys
The challenge that comes along with KM is effective management, and that means
organizing a large amount of related but disjointed information into something that is useful,
accurate and trustworthy. The TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and
Taxonomies talks about ontologies and taxonomies in plain language. In the author’s words,
you begin by defining a structure to organize information into categories of main concepts, and
then by terms to group like items. The concepts are defined in an ontology that maps the main
ideas and their relationships. Once this conceptual map is made, a set of terms must be
created that defines how to label items according to the concepts described in the conceptual
map. This structure stet of terms is a taxonomy. This paper describes the basics and how to
develop and implement them.
In Case Example #16 (Virginia Department of Transportation), an integrated taxonomy
development and data design was used to allow for consistent collection, indexing, and access
of lessons learned across the agency.
C-85
Expected Outcomes:
Enables the exploitation of information and knowledge.
Improves the quality and speed of communication and decision-making.
Facilitates greater efficiency, effectiveness and innovation across large organizations.
See:
Tools: Knowledge Mapping
Knowledge Ontology
Ideas: Folksonomies
TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies
____________________
References:
Malafsky, G.P. (2003). ―
Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets‖ in Holsapple, C.W.
(Ed.). Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters. Lexington, KY: Springer-Verlag.
_________________________
*Adapted from Porter, D., Bennet, A., Turner, R. & Wennergren, D. (2002). The Power of Team: The Making of a CIO. Washington, D.C.: The
Department of the Navy.
C-86
Ladder of Inference
An approach for checking the assumptions related to our mental processes.
Supports: decision-making, learning, knowledge sharing
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
The ladder of inference is a model that describes an individual's mental process of
observing situations, drawing conclusions and taking action. When we say "the fact is …,‖ what
we are actually saying is ―
the fact, as I understand it based upon my data selection process,
cultural and personal background, judgments, beliefs and assumptions, is ..." This is important
because there are a lot of steps in between the data and the actions we take based upon that
data. By recognizing and exploring our thinking processes, we may understand ourselves and
develop more effective and higher leverage solutions.
Directly Observable Data
After an event takes place, our mental processing immediately screens out a certain percentage
of the data. In other words, our vision is naturally limited and absorbs only a portion of the data
that represents life events. The ladder of inference helps us check our assumptions by asking
three questions: Have we added meaning? Have we made judgements, conclusions and
inferences based on attached meaning? Have we built beliefs, assumptions or mental models
that are affecting this decision?
ADD: Meaning (Personal and Cultural). When we look at the information we have
collected, we attach our own personal meaning and cultural biases to what we observe.
No information, therefore, is pure--it is influenced by whoever observes and analyzes
their information.
MAKE: Judgments, Conclusions and Inferences. Based on the meaning we attach to the
information collected we make inferences or judgments and arrive at conclusions that
influence our behavior. Therefore one piece of information could lead to as many
different conclusions as there are people analyzing it.
BUILD: Beliefs, Assumptions, Mental Models. Over time, and the conclusions we reach
from an event or pattern of events we develop our belief system. We may become
fixated on certain ways of viewing how the world works, creating our own mental models
that reoccur each time an event takes place.
Another way of looking at the ladder of inference is to consider the bottom range of the
ladder as the:
(a) Observable information and the associated experience we take in from external
situations. Then, the next rung up the ladder ...
(b) We select, filter, limit the information and that is what we consciously observe. Then,
the next rung ...
C-87
(c) We interpret our observations and create meaning and understanding from that
interpretation. Then, ...
(d) We make assumptions based on our meaning and understanding, which leads to ...
(e) Conclusions regarding the situation. From these conclusions we then create or
adapt ...
(f) Beliefs about a situation, which through extended experience we take as beliefs
about the world. These beliefs then ...
(g) Guide or determine our actions.
This process is often unconscious and we are not aware of the role of our limited view of the
situation or of the assumptions we have made. This leads to actions that come from a particular
frame of reference, mindset or what Senge calls a mental model.
What value is there in checking our assumptions? All too often, people fall into what may
be termed "competency traps,‖ a routine of problem solving that provided initial success and is
used over and over with little regard for how accurately it fits with the current problem. The
ladder of inference helps us break out of that trap by providing an easy tool to ask, "What
assumptions am I making about this particular situation that may be wrong and/or limit my
deeper understanding of the problem?" As we work to more clearly understand the problem, we
may actually be able to reframe our perspective to more effectively understand the problem.
What value is there in being more aware of your own reasoning? The ladder of
inference helps us understand why it is important to make our reasoning steps explicit. By
consciously reviewing the information that supports our conclusions, we can improve our ability
to explore complex problems and reduce those instances where (often without realizing it) we
"jump" to conclusions based upon information that is incomplete.
What value is there in making your reasoning clear to others? People often employ
defensive behaviors such as trying to control situations that we have little control over, always
acting as if we're in control, and never saying "I don't know." By having a tool which provides us
an opportunity to say, "As I understand what you're saying, x leads to y which results in z. . . am
I on track with your thinking," we don't have to resort to trying to defuse complex issues on our
own or end up attempting to cover up the fact that we don't understand the situation.
What value is there in inquiring into other’s reasoning? When people in organizations
jointly practice skilled incompetence, the result is the formation of defensive routines. By having
a mutually acceptable tool, we can inquire into each other’s thinking without resorting to
rudeness.
A very powerful application of the ladder of inference is to introduce it at the beginning of a
project. When team members commit to individually and collectively examine their beliefs and
assumptions and making them explicit, a great deal of time spent arguing and going around in
circles can be eliminated.
A similar concept to the ladder of inference is Senge’s ―
mental models.‖
Expected Outcomes:
Improved problem solving and decision-making.
Improved knowledge sharing and communication.
Better understanding of our own assumptions and mental models that we use to
interpret situations and develop solutions.
A more open mind to other people who see things differently than we do.
Improved ability to think critically about issues and problems.
See:
C-88
Facilitation
_________________________
References:
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. Kleiner, A., Robers, C., Ross, R. and Smith B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York, NY:
Doubleday.
C-89
Learning History
A structured process for gathering information related to a project, strategy or initiative.
Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge retention, assessment, organizational learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
C2
A learning history is a very useful tool to capture knowledge resident in the minds of
individuals. It is a retrospective history of significant events in an organization's recent past
described in the voices of people who took part in those events. Researched through a series of
debriefings or reflective interviews, the learning history uses feedback from employees at all
levels to help an organization evaluate its progress. A learning history goes beyond simply
gathering best practices and other lessons learned. It
(1) provides the time and space for participants to openly reflect on the learning from an
initiative or event;
(2) enhances the reflection process so that team or project members begin to make new
connections and see how their actions ultimately produce final outcomes;
(3) gathers information from a variety of perspectives to reduce bias in the assessment
process;
(4) analyzes data to draw out key themes;
(5) contains accurate, validated information;
(6) is written in the words of those involved, not paraphrased in the words of consultants;
and
(7) provides a vehicle to promote discussion among participants in the initiative.
In debriefings, interviewees recall their experience, in their own words, in a way that reflects
their collective learning experience. While this technique captures knowledge resident in
individual minds, it is then transcribed into a question/answer format with all interview results
considered together in a collective format. An alternative approach would be videoing the
interviews and cutting and splicing responses into a collective format. Regardless of the
medium, what is important is to ensure the interview occurs while events are still fresh in
participant’s minds.
Using this approach, utilities can learn by reviewing both successes and failures, assessing
them systematically, and recording the lessons learned in a form that employees find open and
accessible. Recording employee’s experience with technical projects, special response teams,
change programs, stakeholder groups, technical conferences or symposia, leadership
conferences, workshops, site visits, and so forth, helps to ensure that useful knowledge is
shared and that mistakes are not repeated.
A six-step approach to creating a learning history is outlined below.
C-90
Step 1. Select Interview Candidates. Interview candidates are selected to give a variety of
perspectives on the project or process. When developing a thorough learning history, the
selection of interview candidates should include those who initiated, participated in, or were
affected by the project in any way.
Step 2. Conduct Interviews. (See Interviewing) Interviews can be conducted in-person, or by
telephone when in-person interviews are not possible. The interviews generally average about
45 minutes in length and to maintain consistency are conducted by the same interviewers
whenever possible. The interviews are designed to be reflective, to allow the interview
candidate to speak freely without the constraints of over structure. No more than six general
questions are prepared in advance. Additional questions are asked during the interview based
on the responses of the interview candidates to gather more specific information. General
interview questions might include:
What was your role in the initiative?
How would you judge the success of the initiative?
What would you do differently if you could?
What recommendations do you have for other people who might go through a similar
process?
What innovative things were done or could have been done?
Step 3. Record and Transcribe Interviews. Interviews are recorded to ensure the quotes used
in the learning history are accurate. The recorded interviews are transcribed to enable analysis
of interview data.
Step 4. Analyze Data. The interview data is analyzed and sorted to identify like themes and
sub-themes. Quotes are identified to support the major themes from a balance of perspectives.
Step 5. Document Key Themes and Supporting Quotes. In this step, assemble and record
the themes and supporting quotes into the right-hand column of the document. The quotes
should be in no particular order, but designed to provide a picture of the theme from the different
perspectives of the interview candidates. Now develop the left-hand column of each section,
which includes commentary and potential questions for consideration that relate to the adjacent
quotes. The left-hand column commentary does not reflect the questions asked during the
interview process but rather comments, questions, and conclusions posed by the author to the
reader for further reflection.
Step 6. Validate Quotes. In the final step in the process, validate the quotes that are used in
the learning history document with the interview candidates. Although interviews were recorded
and quotes are anonymous, quotes are validated to ensure they were not taken out of context
and truly represent the intent of the speaker. Quotes are sent to each interview candidate for
correction and a signature of approval.
Expected Outcomes:
Allows an organization to learn from its own history.
Makes employees aware of the importance of focused learning on the job by
demonstrating past experiences, successes and mistakes.
See:
Case Example #3 (Hill and Knowlton)
C-91
Engaging Golden Experience
Interviewing
KM Desk Guide
C-92
Learning How to Learn1
A process for investigating your own capabilities of learning and optimizing the situations in
which you best learn.
Supports: individual learning, decision-maker efficiency and effectiveness, group
learning, organizational learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
INTRODUCTION
Learning is the act or process we all go through as we acquire new data, information, skills
or knowledge. From an external perspective, we believe others have learned when they
demonstrate changes in behavior that produce effective results. In this section we will consider
learning in the context of acquiring complex concepts and knowledge as distinct from
memorizing simple data and information. (See the MQI paper on surface, shallow and deep
knowledge.) Because of our individually unique genetics, development, experience and
cognitive and emotional characteristics, there is not a single process that results in maximum
learning. Some people learn best from reading, some from listening to lectures, some from
teaching, some from dialogue, social conversation or listening to stories, some from visual
displays, some from internal reflection, some from intense debate and some from rituals and
repetition. Any one or combination of these may work best at any given time and situation.
While we all learn as we go through our personal life cycle, the amount and efficiency of that
learning varies widely among individuals. As society becomes more complicated and changes
occur more frequently, the need to learn in order to keep up with our own area of expertise
becomes a challenge in itself. This is particularly true for professionals working in a world
where they must maintain a solid understanding of rapidly changing areas of knowledge that are
becoming more complex. One of the challenges of this millennia is for professionals to learn
how to develop and maintain their knowledge and competency in order to grow and provide the
value added needed by their organizations.
AXIOMS
We take as an axiom that the responsibility for learning, and learning how to learn falls on
the individual, and that self-directed learning is usually the best. No theory of learning can take
into account individual characteristics. Unfortunately, as Hilgard and Bower have noted,
―
It has been found enormously difficult to apply laboratory-derived principles of learning
to the improvement of efficiency in tasks with clear and relatively simple objectives. We
may infer that it will be even more difficult to apply laboratory-derived principles of
learning to the improvement of efficient learning in tasks with more complex objectives.‖
Another given is that proactive learning is better than reactive learning. Academic
institutions, training programs and other adult educational programs that offer or facilitate
learning are useful, but in general they can all too easily produce students that are passive
learners. As Knowles noted ―
For some time now I have been aware of the fact that the products
C-93
of our educational system don’t know how to learn—they only know how to be taught.‖ Yet for
most situations passive learning is inadequate, only the adult learner knows what knowledge is
needed, when it is needed, how it will be used and possibly how best they can learn.
As we move through the phases of life, our local environment will likely undergo significant
changes. In school we probably learned from lectures and self-study, yet our learning dealt
mostly with theory and simple problems. In real life we have to learn to deal with ambiguity, nowin problems and messy situations. We also must learn to learn in a wide variety of local
environments, some of which we find difficult or even offensive. In other words, to maintain
learning over time and in a wide variety of situations we must learn how to learn—a subject that
is rarely discussed in academia or in the corporate world.
Since each of us is unique, with our own history, motivations and cognitive skills and
preferences, we know that our ability to learn will also be unique to each of us. Thus learning
how to learn will be a personal journey, undoubtedly with help from others, but the brunt of the
work must be done by each of us. If we consider the need to learn deep knowledge as noted
above, then the normal academic approach of lectures and self-study may well be inadequate.
We may learn about ―
X‖ but we must live with ―
X‖ to learn ―
X‖. That is to get the ―
feel of X‖, to
be able to anticipate the consequences of our decisions and actions, and by doing so, achieve
effective results. Only experience coupled with practice, reflection, questioning, challenging,
guessing and trial and error creates the insights and ―
a-ha‖ experiences that lead to real
understanding and comprehension.
A most important question is: How do we learn how to learn from all of these ways of
gaining data, information and knowledge? The starting point is to know ourselves: our own
strengths, weaknesses, feelings and likes and dislikes relative to the acquisition and
assimilation of new information and knowledge. How we have learned best in the past, what
our preferences for receiving new information and, most important, can we learn how to learn
from all of the various techniques and artifacts of learning situations. Since we will continue to
be exposed to a wide variety of learning situations such as those mentioned above, even if we
dislike learning from lectures, we should make an effort to learn how to learn from lectures.
Every process for learning can contribute to our build-up of knowledge and to ignore some
methods by ―
turning off‖ is to lose an opportunity. Each individual can look at a given situation
and reflect on how to learn from that situation. Two perspectives are helpful. One is to look at
the situation and ask what is in the situation that I can learn from. The second and more difficult
is to ask yourself what do I need to do to get the maximum learning out of this system—
composed of the situation, me, and the interaction between us. Answers to such questions will
encourage learning about learning in each situation. Let’s take a couple of examples—
storytelling and reading.
Most people are aware of the power of stories to communicate understanding, values and
guidelines. They are easily remembered and recalled when needed and may serve as internal
mentors that offer guidance to us when we find ourselves in a situation related to the lessons of
the story. See Storytelling. Storytelling could perhaps be looked at as a form of teaching, true
but incomplete. The storyteller can learn from listening to the comments and observing the
reactions of the audience. Any forthcoming dialogue will give the storyteller much greater
insight into the different meanings and insights lying within a good story. However, to learn from
such an experience, the storyteller must consciously ask questions, listen carefully and be open
to different interpretations of her story. Just as good teachers learn much from their students,
every individual can learn by helping others learn. Good stories carry a secret weapon within
them that is powerful but usually unnoticed—the values within the story. The secret is that the
listener hears the story and derives its values. By creating the values themselves, the listener
has ownership and will accept and remember the values.
Many people consider reading a book a passive activity. In doesn’t have to be. Since we all
learn from an interaction, a dialogue on a given subject, we can interact with a book by
C-94
highlighting or underlining passages we believe important. This simple process gives the
unconscious mind more time to absorb the sentences and think about them. By prioritizing
ideas and concepts using a four star system next to important areas we can easily return to the
book and pick out areas that were most interesting and important, thereby reinforcing or
reviewing our earlier thoughts—again reinforcing learning. Another technique is to challenge
statements believed to be untrue, thereby creating action items for our own further research. Or
we add our thoughts and questions in the margins where the author made statements that
trigger our own knowledge.
In other words, we can become active participants with the book and use it as a vehicle for
creating and pulling information and knowledge from our own experiences or unconscious mind.
There is an old saying that is very appropriate: ―
We don’t know what we know until we say it,
write it or think it.‖ Thus if a book is read not just as a source of someone else’ ideas, but as a
tool to leverage our experience, emotions, intuitions and creative powers, we can amplify our
learning from every book we read. To do this takes patience, practice and time. It is an
example of learning how to learn and each reader will need to develop their own techniques that
are comfortable and fit individual learning preferences.
The above examples are not meant to be definitive. They suggest that sometimes situations
can be used to expand and improve our capacity to learn and create knowledge by asking
ourselves the question: ―
How can I gain the maximum knowledge from this specific situation?‖
See:
Tools: Dialogue
Storytelling
Individual Learning
MQI paper Surface, Shallow and Deep Knowledge
MQI paper KM, Learning and the Knowledge Worker
____________________________
REFERENCES:
Hilgard, E. R., and Bower, G. H. (1966). Theories of Learning. New York; Appleton-Centure-Crofts.
Knowles, Malcolm S (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
____________________________
1
Used (with permission) from a paper by David Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute
C-95
Leave a Legacy
A process to capture tacit knowledge.
Supports: knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, knowledge retention
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
The Leave a Legacy approach was developed and is being used by a Department of the
Army organization. It has been adapted to drinking water utilities as presented below, and is
written in the form of individual letters sent to all employees that could be signed by any
appropriate leader or manager within the drinking water utility. In the below example, this letter
is sent from the Knowledge Management Officer for the organization.
―
Dear ______,
Imagine that it is the day of your retirement. As you walk out the doors, for the last time, what
is the legacy you want to leave behind?
One way I serve you as Knowledge Management Officer is to help you leave a legacy, a
record of "what you accomplished and how" during your time here. This helps you influence
future generations for years to come.
Do you have "How To" lists for each task you do? Formalized, these are called
"Standard/Standing Operating Procedures." But, informally, they are your record of how you
help the organization and its customers. You may not even realize it until you write these things
down, but you have special skills and knowledge that others don't have. If it’s not captured
somehow, that knowledge will be lost when you leave, resulting in reduced service to our
customers, those people you’ve spent your life here working to support.
To help you capture this knowledge, your legacy, I've created two spots on [in this case the
SharePoint site for collaboration]:
(1) A "How To" folder where you can upload a Word document you create of how you do
the tasks you do, especially those things others might not realize you do, or might
not know how to do them without you. Or, you can just open the document that's
already there, copy the info from your document and paste it into that one.
(2) A "My Legacy" folder for more generic thoughts you want to leave behind. These
might be initiatives you've started or would like to see started.
Or, if you prefer, feel free to send your "how to" or "legacy" ideas back to me as an attachment
or text of an e-mail. Or, want me to come and speak to you in person? NOTE: I intentionally
haven't left an example to avoid setting a format. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the form
that works best for you! Bullets? Pictures? Drawings? Stories? Formal SOPs? Voicemail? Or
something different? Your choice.
C-96
I am particularly interested in the implicit and tacit knowledge you have been accumulating
over the years that has been the basis for your high performance in this utility. Many of your
most difficult actions and decisions have been based on your intuition and judgment created
over years of experience, both successes and mistakes. So what can you tell us about your
learning that will help your relief avoid errors and keep our utility high performing? Where have
you found intuition to be most valuable in your work, and what should your relief look for in
these areas? Any hints, feelings, rules, heuristics that you found useful would help us greatly
and represent a wonderful legacy for our future.
We realize you did not get such help when you began your career many years ago, but things
were simpler then, and time moved slower. Today we have little time for mistakes, nor margin
for errors. If your oldest child were stepping into your shoes tomorrow, what would you tell
her/him other than your telephone number? Leave a legacy behind that directly affects the way
this utility serves its customers, thus enriching the lives of your colleagues and customers for
generations to come with your contributions.‖
Expected Outcomes:
A fluid and efficient transition between an employee’s departure and the new employee
getting up to speed.
Decrease in new employee mistakes.
Accelerated learning by new employee.
See:
Tools: Engaging Golden Expertise
KM Desk Guide
KM Plan
Learning History
C-97
Lessons Learned*
A systematic collection, capturing, and mobilizing approach for ensuring the organization
learns from its successes and mistakes.
Supports: organization learning, decision-making, knowledge retention
LEVEL OF EFFORT
HIGH
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Many organizations use the term ―
lessons learned‖ to describe the way they avoid repeating
mistakes, or ensure building on past successes. Yet a lesson can only be applied if it has been
successfully identified, captured and shared. Even in learning organizations that embrace
knowledge sharing, the process for identifying lessons learned may lack rigor or depth, and end
up as a generic statement in a report sitting on the shelf gathering dust (or its electronic
equivalent). Lessons learned can be collected many ways (meetings, reports, conversations,
and so forth) and conveyed in many forms (notes, videos, diagrams, databases, and so forth).
Collison and Parcell (reference below) describe ten key steps to consider capturing lessons
learned. Similar to the After Action Review process, they must occur as soon after an event as
possible: call the meeting, invite the right people, appoint a facilitator, revisit the objectives and
deliverables of the project, go through the project step-by-step, ask what went well, find out why
these aspects went well, and express the learning as advice or guidelines for the future, ask
what could have gone better, ensure that participants leave with their feelings acknowledged,
record the meeting.
While in this process identifying and recording lessons learned may be a fairly straightforward process (see Sample Lessons Learned Report), this is only part of the knowledge
management cycle. Lessons learned and the guidelines they spawn have no intrinsic value; the
benefits come from ensuring that the lessons are effectively applied. See Knowledge Sharing,
Knowledge Mobilization, Group Learning, and Communications Publications. Documenting and
applying lessons learned is an important part of the strategy presented in Case Example #12
(AMREF Kenya).
Lessons learned can be critical for an organization’s survival. When this is the case, formal
collection, analysis and knowledge mobilization processes should be developed and executed.
For example, a few days after collector-observers from the Center for Army Lessons Learned
(CALL) 1 arrive at a mission, they start sending in observations to headquarters. They report
details on issues and questions outlined in a data collection plan. This raw data is then turned
over to CALL analysts. To obtain feedback on the data, analysts post observations on
electronic bulletin boards and electronic mailing lists that reach communities of experts and
other interested people. The bulletin boards are open forums anyone can access, so that they
create a broad, generalized audience. The mailing lists deal with a specific subject or specialty.
A subscriber to the list receives all the messages posted to the list that day, and can also post
messages to be read by all the other subscribers. Thus the mailing list’s audience is a
community of people interested in a certain subject, what could be described as a community of
interest.
C-98
Feedback from these two avenues starts coming in right away. CALL analysts relate it to the
new information coming from the collector-observers and to information the Army already has.
Studying these relationships produces more questions and new issues, which the analysts send
to the collector-observers so they can get more information. In this way, the analysts maintain
the following cycle:
Collector-observers observe, collect data, and report to the analysts.
The analysts post the data for experts to read.
Experts give feedback to the analysts.
Based on the feedback, the analysts redirect the collector-observers.
This cycle continues until the analysts have finished their interpretation. When that happens,
the data has turned into knowledge that can be acted upon—lessons.
In the Haiti mission, CALL used this method to deliver validated lessons to ground troops
within five days of the original observations. CALL produced 26 scenarios, including video
footage, simulations and scripts of situations faced by the troops to use as training materials for
the incoming troops. See Case Example #7.
In Case Example #16, the Virginia Department of Transportation used an integrated
taxonomy development and data design to allow for consistent collection, indexing, and access
of lessons learned across the agency.
Expected Outcomes:
Fairly rapid, widespread learning by teams involved in real world experiences.
Creation of a library of lessons learned.
Improved awareness of, and communication with, others in the same field of activity.
A resource to get quality answers to complex problems.
See:
Case Example #12 (AMREF Kenya)
Peer View Process
Sample Lessons Learned Report
Success Stories
Group Learning
Knowledge Sharing
4003 Knowledge Mobilization paper
_____________________
Reference:
* Collison, C. & Parcell, G. (2001). Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and Learning
Organizations. Chichester, West Sussex: Capstone Publishing (Wiley).
____________________________
1
U.S. Army example compiled from The Federal CIO Council KM Toolkit.
C-99
SAMPLE REPORT
L E S S O N S L E AR N E D R E P O R T
Name of project or initiative:
Point of contact:
Purpose of document: The purpose of the Lessons Learned Report is to pass on any
lessons which can be usefully applied to other projects.
Quality and management processes used:
What went well?
What went badly?
What was lacking?
Assessment of method used:
Analysis of project issues and their results:
Recommendations for future enhancement or modification of the project
management method:
Recommendations for changes to the process or product used:
Useful measurement or statistics o how much effort was required:
Other important thoughts:
Author/Title/Date
C-100
Mentoring
A learning relationship between an experienced employee and a newer, high-potential
employee.
Supports: individual learning, succession planning, knowledge sharing, knowledge
retention
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MEDIUM
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Mentoring is the relationship between an experienced, proven mentor and a newer, high
potential employee to provide personal learning and communication experiences. Mentoring
can be either a formal Utility-sanctioned arrangement or an ad-hoc relationship that just
happens because both individuals choose to do it. It can last for as little as a month or as long
as both parties desire.
While there are many ways of implementing the process, it usually involves individuals
spending time together and discussing issues and challenges that come up in the organization.
The Mentor describes problems faced in the past and discusses approaches and solutions
he/she used that worked, or did not work. If the two individuals become comfortable with each
other—a highly desirable result—then a deeper sharing of beliefs, insights, feelings and ways to
behave and act can be shared and discussed. Such confidentiality is of great value to the
mentee as it gives her an appreciation for, and understanding of, exactly what it means to be a
senior leader or manger in the organization. In the best of relationships their conversations are
kept confidential, allowing the transfer of knowledge and, to some extent, a deeper
understanding of the nature of the organization and its unstated rules.
During the mentoring process the mentee has the opportunity to shadow the mentor to see
and feel the nature and content of problems, people, environments and the dynamics and
variability of a typical senior manager’s day. When close relationships are developed, these
sometimes last after the mentoring relationship is finished. This results in a strong relationship
network that can benefit both parties and the Utility.
In some cases mentoring relationships do not work out and only surface learning occurs.
Either party can stop the process without reason. Overall, the process is an excellent way to
expose a good, younger employee to what it means to be a senior manager and to learn some
of their deep knowledge, much like the master-apprentice relationships in medieval days.
In Project Study #29 the Utility implemented a formal mentoring program to build
relationships and develop leadership competencies.
Expected Outcomes:
The mentee learns faster and contributes more to the Utility.
The mentor has the opportunity to think about (and question) their own knowledge and
experience as well as learning how younger workers see the Utility and their jobs.
C-101
See:
Project Study #29 (Seattle Public Utilities, WA)
Tool: Dialogue
Ideas: Individual Learning
Knowledge Sharing
C-102
Peer View Process
A process for building familiarity with (and trust of) the expertise of others.
Supports: knowledge sharing, building trust
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
The ―
peer view‖ process (also called a peer assist) provides an effective example of both
managing conversations and the sharing dimensions. Before a project is about to start, the
project manager facilitates a meeting in which all team members are invited to participate.
Individual members are asked to provide related insights from previous projects, experiences
and lessons learned.
Through this peer view process, not only is performance on the task at hand improved, but
people become much more aware of the unique skills and abilities others can bring to projects.
This creates a natural process for becoming familiar with the expertise of others. It also begins
to develop the needed norms of reciprocity and trust that make the sharing of expertise
comfortable. Should a problem appear at a future time, these individuals are more likely to
come together and provide their inputs to help solve the current problem or derive potential
solutions.
This process is used at AT&T. Since there are virtual teams of AT&T employees dispersed
around the globe, video conferencing is often used as a supporting mechanism to increase the
effectiveness of this enabler.
Expected Outcomes:
Better knowledge sharing among key employees.
Speeds up teambuilding process, thereby getting the team up and running more quickly.
Better quality of decision and implementation through improved trust and collaboration.
See:
Dialogue
Knowledge Moments
C-103
Picture Map
A map used for clarifying a process.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
The picture map includes pictures and words to map a specific process or procedure.
Working visually allows us to see the ongoing productions that are multi-dimensional and
sometimes chaotic. Pictures present a step-by-step guide explaining performances and skills
that cannot be easily reduced to words. The visual technique of pictures used by ―
how to‖
instructional plans, (such as assembling a bicycle or replacing a printer cartridge) help us to
memorize content and easily repeat operative procedures. For example, creating a database of
work procedures, instructions and training manuals with accompanying ―
picture maps‖ provide a
mechanism for effectively capturing and sharing knowledge across the utility.
In Project Study #23, Louisville Water Company (LWC) uses a picture map to show the
water flow from the Ohio River to the utilities 25 million gallon Clearwell. LWC describes its
picture map in this manner:
C-104
“Follow the Flow
Hmmm. Now how does the water from the Ohio River turn into drinking water? And how
does it get to your house?‖
Expected Outcomes:
Clearer understanding of a process or procedure.
Sharing critical operations knowledge.
Supports successful results.
See:
Project Study #23 (Louisville Water Company, OH)
Tools: Storyboard
Storytelling
C-105
Prioritization Matrix
A process for setting priorities for tasks or issues.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, decision-making
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
Use the Prioritization Matrix to prioritize tasks, issues, etc. (based on known, weighted
criteria) and identify the most influential actions within your process. Before you use this tool,
assemble all the tasks within your core strategic process. Each critical action will be
quantitatively evaluated in comparison with other steps within the process.
How do I use the Prioritization Matrix?
The Prioritization Matrix is a grid. Enter each task onto the horizontal and vertical columns of
the grid. Each task is compared to the other tasks, and evaluated accordingly:
1
Equally Important
5
Significantly More Important
10
Exceedingly More Important
.5
Significantly Less Important
.1
Exceedingly Less Important
Whenever a number is entered in a row, its reciprocal must be entered in the corresponding
column. Calculate and total each row to determine the overall weight of each task when the
matrix is complete. This will give you a prioritized listing of each task with respect to the other
tasks.
Examples/Output
Critical Action
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
.5
.1
.5
1
.5
1
5
B
5
.5
10
.5
10
.5
10
C
10
5
1
1
.1
5
.5
D
5
.1
1
.5
1
5
1
E
1
5
1
5
5
.1
5
F
5
.1
10
1
.5
1
.5
G
1
5
.5
.5
10
1
10
H
.5
.1
5
1
.5
5
.1
Total
27.5
15.8
18.1
19.0
14.0
22.6
12.7
32.0
Expected Outcomes:
Improved capability to compare and determine relative importance of several tasks
where limited funds, people or time requires selection of tasks.
See: Case Example #21 (NASA)
Knowledge Sharing
C-106
Relationship Building1
Processes for building relationships within Utilities at all levels and areas throughout the
organization.
Supports: individual learning, knowledge sharing, dialogue
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
The best organizations—and the teams and communities in those organizations—are built
upon strong relationships. Relationships typically form naturally from working together over a
period of time. However, a relationship-building exercise can speed up the process and
strengthen relationships already developed. Two sample relationship building exercises are
provided below: Connecting with Community Members and What's the Moral of the Story?
Connecting with Community Members
This exercise is designed to help build personal relationships between and among members
and to begin to answer the questions: What do we know? What do we need to know? Who
knows it? It can be effective with groups from 5-40, and takes from 20-60 minutes depending on
the group size. Needed props include: a set of blank, individual, member factoid cards strung
together on a loose ring - perhaps a community key ring! Each member should have a blank set
with a blank card for each member.
Cards have Community Name and Member Name on one side. On the other side they have
the following outline:
Member name:
Organization:
Best way to contact:
Best time to call:
Previous interesting job or organization:
Top knowledge need:
Fun Fact:
Follow the steps described below:
1. Organize participants into groups of four to six. Adjust according to total number of
members.
2. Explain that the goal of this activity is to learn about each other's unique backgrounds
and perspectives as well as getting to know each other better.
3. Give each participant a set of blank factoid cards.
4. Explain the directions:
Subgroups should convene for 10 minutes to complete factoid cards.
Each member completes own factoid cards.
C-107
After 10 minutes, disperse subgroup members and regroup into new subgroups - be
sure that everyone hears from every other member in one of the subgroup sessions.
Note: Rotations should last just long enough for members to gather information, but
still want more time -- whet their appetite!
Repeat subgroup formation until each member has completed a card for all of the
other members.
Tip: Provide complete set of blank cards to new members as they join and encourage them to
complete them, one-on-one, with each member.
Tip: As new members join, provide new factoid cards to existing members and encourage them
to complete new cards informally and add them to their rings.
What's the Moral of the Story?
An exercise called What's the Moral of the Story? can be used to practice sifting through
information and deriving lessons learned. It is effective in a group of 8-20 and takes
approximately 8-10 minutes. The only props required are fables.
Follow these easy steps:
1. Ask participants to pair up.
2. Distribute fables.
3. Explain that fables and folk tales are short fictional narratives that illustrate a moral, or a
lesson. They are an indirect means of telling truths about life. Thus they have a level of
meaning beyond the surface story.
4. Tell pairs they have five minutes to read two fables and find a moral in each.
5. After five minutes, ask members to discuss possible morals of the story.
A variation on this theme is to use fables without known morals and ask the group to develop
some. Some suggested Fables from Aesop are The Rooster and the Jewel, the Crow and the
Pitcher, and the Ass and his Shadow.
The Rooster and the Jewel. A Rooster, scratching for food for himself and his hens, found a
precious stone and exclaimed: "If your owner had found thee, and not I, he would have taken
thee up, and have set thee in thy first estate; but I have found thee for no purpose. I would
rather have one barleycorn than all the jewels in the world." Moral: The misinformed despise
what is precious only because they cannot understand it.
The Crow and the Pitcher. A Crow perishing with thirst saw a pitcher and, hoping to find
water, flew to it with delight. When he reached it, he discovered to his grief that it contained so
little water that he could not possibly get at it. He tried everything he could think of to reach the
water, but all his efforts were in vain. At last he collected as many stones as he could carry and
dropped them one by one with his beak into the pitcher, until he brought the water within his
reach and thus saved his life. Moral: Necessity is the mother of invention.
The Ass and His Shadow. A Traveler hired an Ass to convey him to a distant place. The day
being intensely hot, and the sun shining in its strength, the Traveler stopped to rest, and sought
shelter from the heat under the Shadow of the Ass. As this afforded only protection for one, and
as the Traveler and the owner of the Ass both claimed it, a violent dispute arose between them
as to which of them had the right to the Shadow. The owner maintained that he had let the Ass
only, and not his Shadow. The Traveler asserted that he had, with the hire of the Ass, hired his
Shadow also. The quarrel proceeded from words to blows, and while the men fought, the Ass
galloped off. Moral: In quarreling about the shadow we often lose the substance.
In Project Study #29, the Utility implemented a formal mentoring program to build
relationships and develop leadership competencies.
C-108
Expected Outcomes:
Better understanding of other workers, and hence better cooperation and collaboration,
resulting in improved Utility performance.
When needed, the organization can rapidly create teams that can work together to solve
problems.
Values, being the bedrock of Utility success, cannot be taught but can be learned,
accepted and utilized by employees as they listen to, and interpret, stories and
anecdotes, especially those relevant to the Utility.
See:
Project Study #29 (Seattle Public Utilities, WA)
Case Study #9 (The Socio Economic Unit Foundation, India)
Ba Spaces
Dialogue
Knowledge Moments
Shared Space
________________________
References:
Nilson, Carolyn (1993). Team Games for Trainers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Von Oech, R. (1998). A Kick in the Seat of the Pants, Using Your Explorer, Artist, Judge, and Warrior to be More
Creative. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
_____________________________
1
C-109
Shared Space1
A concept that promotes environments for nurturing knowledge sharing.
Supports: knowledge sharing, creativity, problem solving
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
MED-LARGE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
One of the impacts of our post-industrial society is the exponential rise of the need for
collaborative environments, and new ways of behaving to effectively engage those
environments. For example, as more and more meetings take place with larger and sometimes
geographically dispersed groups, the role of facilitators (see Facilitation) and the value of
agendas with good process design were recognized. Highly specialized process design along
with unique environments has been found to vastly increase creativity and significantly reduce
time required for interacting.
The idea of shared space moves far beyond the room in which those meetings are held or
even a virtual meeting platform. In the paragraphs below shared space will be discussed in
terms of both the physical and virtual workspace.
Schrage uses a story to build an understanding of the importance of shared space, and how
it expands the space between the sender and receiver in a conversation. You are at lunch with
a colleague when an idea emerges from the conversation. Pulling out a pen you quickly jot
down a diagram of the idea on a napkin. Watching you closely, your colleague says ―
No, no
that’s not what I meant‖, takes the pen, and adds a few lines and additional context to the
diagram. Now the conversation turns to exploring the meaning of the images on the napkin. If
a waiter came and took the napkin away, the conversation might go away. You were talking to
each other through a medium, a shared reference point (or shared space) that changed the
dynamics of the conversation and served as a mutual communication and learning tool.
In terms of workspace, a lot has been learned about the importance of shared space. A
common example is the value of conversations that occur around the water fountain or during
the coffee break. Many organizations now take this into account when designing office space.
For example, centrally locating a wide staircase with highly visible seating spaces when spaces
reside on two levels to facilitate interactions or Knowledge Moments. Nonaka and Takeuchi
introduced the idea of ―
Ba spaces‖, common seating areas or small conference areas centrally
located with a pleasant and stimulating environment. The intent is to encourage people to
engage in conversations in their day-to-day work environment.
As virtual systems have become part of daily work life, a great deal of research has gone into
designing stimulating and user-friendly systems. As shared space becomes available over time
and distance, the boundaries and reach of organizations widens. This reaching out offers the
opportunity for an expansion of thought built on an ecology of shared space. Some descriptive
terms for this ecology include: cool, fast, free, open, global, relevant, compelling and rich.
Cool is both tangible and intangible. In the tangible sense, how does this shared space
impact your senses? Is it attractive? Can you be in it with a clear sense of presence? In the
intangible sense, how does it make you feel? Does it meet your needs?
C-110
Fast is critical in the ever-increasing pace of our lives. We now reach around the world in
fractions of seconds to obscure sources of the latest scientific or business developments.
Speed is becoming ―
multi-media‖, meaning that one media supports another. You reach for
your mouse to find and send an email, 30 minutes later you’re on the phone with someone
you’ve never met, and three weeks later you’ve having lunch with that individual during a
conference at a distant city.
Free has to do with minimizing the costs for people to engage. Nothing is free. But focusing
on the cost of engagement may be a barrier to entry, whether it be time and space for a face-toface engagement or the cost of a collaborative software environment. There are two issues
addressed here. One is that inordinate costs are distracting to building relationships. The
second is that costs become a hurdle for every opportunity reaching out. This design principle
simply says to make the costs transparent to the individual, pursuing economies of scale and
absorbing the cost at the organizational level.
Open refers to both the boundaries of the system and the expansion of thinking. An open
information technology architecture is a fundamental design principle. Opening up space to
colleagues definitely fosters the notion of networking. Opening up to new ideas and different
ways of thinking fosters learning and innovation.
Global has to do with exploration and the emerging sense of unity as a world. In the future
global may truly become the concept of shared space. But even today, no matter what our field
of expertise, it is pursued in a global context with the realization that the global space has much
to offer in terms of learning.
Relevant initially implies relevance to the topic of the domain and the assets of the
knowledge base. Relevance is also the building of ideas as individuals, groups and the
organization learn from each other.
Rich means that the space is rich in design (colors, ideas, variety, complexity) such that it
stimulates all areas of the mind/brain.
Compelling starts with the stickiness of the virtual system, then moves beyond that
stickiness to considering shared space in terms of its ability to attract and retain participation.
Does the shared space operate in such a way as to become a key asset to participants in their
day-to-day work?
Wenger describes 13 fundamental elements of community that technology can affect. These
are: presence and visibility, rhythm (in terms of events and rituals that reaffirm value), variety of
interactions, efficiency of involvement (must be easy), short-term value (each interaction needs
to create some value), long-term value, connection to the world, personal identity, communal
identity, belonging and relationship, complex boundaries (multiple levels and types of
participation), evolution (maturation and integration) and active community-building.
It is also important to recognize that in many ways the resources of a shared space are to
knowledge workers what tools or instruments have been in many crafts, guilds, and builders
throughout history. In many instances the relationship to tools has taken on a reverence that
has deep cultural or religious meaning. Such relationships complement or build upon regard for
professional skills and status. Such is the transformation that occurred as knowledge workers
moved from typewriter to computer to computational computing power to the computer as a
communications tool to a virtual space in the 21st century ―
my-workspace‖ revolution, and have
extended into Wikis and Blogs. See Case Example #20 for a baseline set of guidelines for
social networking.
In Case Example #22, the US Forest Service developed a community center on line to
assist wildland fire work groups in sharing knowledge. Today knowledge workers develop,
aggregate, and manage their personal workspace resources virtually throughout their career,
and have the expanded capability of interacting and working in a global shared space.
C-111
Expected Outcomes:
Knowledge transfer among employees.
Creative ideas that help the utility.
Improved organizational learning and communication.
A sense of ownership and belonging.
See:
Tools: Ba Spaces
Blog
Facilitation
Knowledge Moments
Reference Materials for Knowledge Sharing
MQI Paper on Relationship Network Management
____________________________
References:
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Schrage, M. (2000). Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Schrage, M. (1990). Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration. New York, NY: Random House.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
____________________________
1
Adapted from the Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer cPort Toolkit.
C-112
Sleep On It
An approach for improving problem solving and innovation.
Supports: individual learning, problem solving
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
Sleeping on a question can yield an answer the next morning. This is a particularly powerful
way to access tacit knowledge. Tell yourself, as you fall asleep at night, to work on a problem
or question. The next morning when you wake up, but before you get up. Lie in bed and ask the
same question, listening patiently to your own, quiet, passive thoughts. Frequently, but not
always, the answer will appear, although it must be written down quickly before it is lost from the
conscious mind.
This process becomes more effective if the conscious mind has been primed. For example,
early in the evening, prior to going to bed, take a focused period of time to ―
brainstorm‖ with
yourself, asking yourself a lot of questions related to the task at hand. Even if you don’t think
you know the answers, reflect carefully on the questions and be patient. This is the process of
active reflection.
Another aspect of this approach is useful when a group or team is tackling a difficult problem.
It has been found that the answers from the team can be improved if, rather than acting on the
quick responses, let the team sleep on the problem and review the answers they come up with
in the morning. What happens is that while you sleep your unconscious mind is processing the
information taken in that day, keeping the valuable information and discarding that which
doesn’t make sense. It is also working on solutions to issues or problems that have come up
during the previous day. When the team gets back together the next day, there will be new
ideas and thoughts, and a clearer vision of the best way ahead.
Expected Outcomes:
Improved problem solving and decision making.
Increased number of new ideas.
Better awareness of the importance and power of the unconscious.
C-113
A process for mapping the relationships among people, teams, or across organizations.
Supports: Knowledge sharing, organizational learning, improved communications,
information flows
Many companies and organizations invest a considerable amount of money in restructuring
organizational charts and reengineering business processes only to be disappointed with the
results. This is because much of the work happens outside the formal organizational structure.
Often what needs attention is the informal organization, the networks of relationships that
employees from across functions and divisions to quickly accomplish tasks. These informal
relationships can cut through formal reporting procedures to jump-start stalled initiatives and
meet extraordinary deadlines. However, informal networks can just as easily sabotage the best
laid plans of companies by blocking communication and fomenting opposition to change unless
leaders know how to identify and direct them. Learning how to map these social links can help
you harness the real power of your organization.
Using social network analysis, it is possible to translate a myriad of relationships and ties into
maps that show how the informal organization gets things done. In the simplest form, these
maps consist of a series of named dots (or "nodes"), each of which represents a person, and
lines or arrows connecting the dots to represent the existence of relationship between people.
For example, the two individuals who have the largest number of connecting lines (the two dots
with six lines each connecting to them) communicate more with their coworkers than the
individuals (represented by the outlying dots) who have only one connecting line.
Some useful networks to understand within your organization might be:
1. The advice network, which shows the prominent players in an organization on whom
others rely to help them solve problems and provide technical information
2. The trust network, which shows which employees share delicate political information
3. The communication network, which reveals the employees who talk about work-related
matters on a regular basis
C-114
Information to build these networks can usually be gathered by means of a simple
questionnaire, or you can use the interview process. Examples of questions asked would be:
From whom do you seek work-related information?
To whom do you give work-related information?
When you need information or advice, is this person accessible to you?
When you need information or advice, does this person respond within a sufficient
amount of time to help you solve your problem?
How frequently have you received work-related information from this person in the past
month?
From the answers to these or similar questions a map is created that connects people who
receive information with people who have provided that information. Looking at a network of
relationships can help you to identify the integrators, or the employees who are seen by many
as experts or who are trusted as an information source. The two individuals who have the
largest number of connections are likely to know more about what is going on in the Utility and
the feelings and attitudes of the workforce than others. Recruiting such individuals to be
involved in the implementation will make your communication effort easier, as these people
have a wide reach in the informal communication network of the organization. Or, this could
represent an individual who is a bottleneck to communications. The questions then become:
Has the group become too reliant on this individual? What would happen if this individual left?
The bottom line is that the process of SNA allows organizations to assess their ability to create
and share knowledge, and once their current state is recognized, it becomes an enabler for
improving these abilities.
There are several software products available to do SNA mapping. These programs use
simple screen-oriented interfaces, allowing the user to drag nodes with the mouse and click to
add new modes. Each node is assigned a number of attributes, which are highlighted using
color and shape. There are also several tools for automatic layout of the network. Once the
mapping is complete, analysis of this structure of connections can provide information on
relationships that facilitate or impeded work, offering intervention opportunities.
In Project Study #31, the Utility used Social Network Analysis to assess the quantity and
quality of information flows. A beneficial byproduct was identification of additional SMEs critical
to this and future reuse projects.
Expected Outcomes:
Provides the Utility with an understanding of how information flows, who moves
information around and where the sources of information and knowledge sharing are.
Identifies key personnel who have the contacts and trust to be able to assist in efforts to
change the organization relative to how the work gets done.
Knowing how the communication network works gives managers the baseline upon
which they can make changes to improve communications (or relationships) between
departments or with field activities.
See:
Project Study #18 (Rice Lakes Utilities, WI)
Project Study #31 (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, NC)
C-115
Tools: Relationship Building
Shared Space
APQC’s benchmarking study on Virtual Communications
MQI’s paper on Relationship Network Management
_________________________
References:
Bennet, A. and Bennet, D. (2004). Organizational Survival in the New World: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive
System. Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Cross, R. and L. Prusak. (2002). ―T
he People That Make Organizations Stop—or Go‖ in Harvard Business
Review, 80, No. 6, 104-112.
Cross, R.S, Borgatti, S. and Parker, A. (2002). ―M
aking Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to
Support Human Networks‖ in California Management Review, 44, No. 2, 25-46.
Cross, R., Nohria, N. and Parker, A. (2002). ―S
ix Myths About Informal Networks—and How to Overcome Them‖
in Sloan Management Review, 43, No. 3, 67-76.
C-116
Storyboards
An approach to sequentially visualizing an event, process or series of activities before they
occur.
Supports: learning, knowledge sharing, knowledge retention
LEVEL OF EFFORT
LOW
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
NARROW
A storyboard is a series of visuals (illustrations or images) displayed sequentially for the
purpose of pre-visualizing an event, process or series of activities. Storyboarding is used
extensively by video and movie-makers, with the visuals serving as a layout of events as they
will be seen through the camera lens. But storyboarding can be an effective tool in many
circumstances. Through a detailed storyboard the whole idea is presented like visual shorthand.
You don’t always need to know the dialogue to understand the emotional (or instructional)
context of it all.
For example, a storyboard can serve as a way of understanding and communicating a new
Utility process. First, it could be used by a team to design/develop a new process, laying the
key parts of the process out, developing a common understanding, and deciding the most
effective order. Second, it can be used as a vehicle to validate the process with experts. Third,
an updated storyboard could be used with verbal directions to illustrate specific aspects of the
process to new hires. A sequential visual representation of a tricky connection can prove much
more effective than written directions alone. It provides the opportunity to capture small details
related to specific processes.
Expected Outcomes:
Clearer understanding of a process or procedure.
Improved results through the use of groups in the design process.
See:
Tools: Picture Map
Storytelling
C-117
Storytelling
A tried and true process for effectively transferring knowledge.
Supports: knowledge sharing, culture change, individual and organizational learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Storytelling, whether in a personal or organizational setting, connects people, develops
creativity, and increases confidence and learning. In Case Example #12 (AMREF Kenya)
storytelling is considered an important part of sharing. The Defense Information Agency
identified storytelling as a best practice in Case Example #14. An organizational story is a
detailed narrative of management actions, employee interactions, or other intra-organizational
events that are communicated informally within the organization. A research paper exploring the
unique relationship of man and his stories, looking at various aspects of storytelling and
differences between written and oral stories, and reviewing the use of stories in organizations is
included in the resource section. See Storytelling: The Thread of Humanity. A related paper
included in the resource section is: From Stories to Strategies.
A variety of story forms exist naturally throughout organizations, including scenarios,
anecdotes, and fictional stories. Scenarios are the articulation of possible future states,
constructed within the imaginative limits of the author. While scenarios provide an awareness of
alternatives—of value in and of itself—they are often used as planning tools for possible future
situations. The plan becomes a vehicle to respond to recognized objectives in each scenario.
An anecdote is a brief sequence captured in the field or arising from a brainstorming session. To
reinforce positive behavior, sensitive managers seek out and disseminate true anecdotes that
embody the value desired in the organization. The capture and distribution of anecdotes across
organizations carries high value. The values and rules underlying an organization can be
determined when a large number of anecdotes are captured within an organization.
Conveying information in a story provides a rich context for learning since stories remain in
the conscious memory longer and create a larger number of memory traces than information not
in context. Therefore, a story is more likely to be acted upon than most normal means of
communications. The use of stories in organizations can build descriptive capabilities, increase
organizational learning, convey complex meaning, and communicate common values and rule
sets. These aspects are described in greater detail below.
Stories have the ability to increase our descriptive capabilities, a strength in this age of
uncertainty where we must be able to describe our environment and have the self-awareness to
describe our individual capabilities. Description capabilities are essential in strategic thinking
and planning, and create a greater awareness of what we could achieve. Fictional stories can
be powerful because they provide a mechanism by which an organization can learn from failure
without attributing blame. Some organizations actually create characters from archetypes taken
from a large number of organizational anecdotes. These characters are used over and over
again. Once established, they become a natural vehicle for organizational learning and a
repository for organizational memory.
C-118
When well constructed, stories can convey a high level of complex meaning. The use of
sub-text can convey this meaning without making it obvious. Sub-text is a term that refers to an
unstated message not explicit in the dialogue of the story. (See the in-depth research paper on
CONTEXT in the Resource Section.) Analogies are often used to aid in the transfer of
particularly complex information and knowledge to give the human mind something to relate to.
This form of learning has been used throughout human history to transfer complex concepts
and core values.
Finally, because stories communicate common values and rule systems, they provide a
mechanism to build organic organizational response to emerging requirements. This means that
as new situations and new challenges arise in response to an ever-changing world, a common
set of values will drive that response at every level of the organization. To operate in a highly
uncertain environment, we must have common values and rule systems that support networks
of groups and teams organized around a common purpose. Stories provide just such a catalyst.
As an example, The World Bank used what they called a Springboard Story to move that
organization to become a knowledge organization. The Springboard Story, a powerful method
of communicating knowledge about norms and values, is a transformational story that enables
the listener to take a personal leap in understanding how an organization or community or
complex system may change. The intent of this type of story is not to transfer information, but to
serve as a catalyst for creating understanding within the listener. These stories enable listeners
to easily and quickly grasp the ideas as a whole in a non-threatening way. In effect, they invite
the listener to see analogies from their own histories, their own contexts, and their own fields of
expertise.
These Springboard Stories were told from the perspective of a single protagonist who was
known to the audience and actually in the predicament being told in the story; there was an
element of strangeness or incongruity to the listeners which could capture their attention and
imagination; the story had a degree of plausibility and a premonition of what the future might be
like; and there was a happy ending. Happy endings make it easier for listeners to take the
imaginative leap from the explicit story to the implicit meaning. There are two books referenced
below that provide details and practical how-to information for creating Springboard stories.
With the advent of the Internet and Intranet, there is a larger opportunity to use stories to
bring about change. Electronic media adds moving images and sound as context setters.
Hypertext capabilities and collaboration software invites groups, teams and communities to cocreate their stories. New multiprocessing skills are required to navigate this high-tech world,
skills that include the quick and sure assimilation of and response to fast-flowing images and
sounds and sensory assaults.
In summary, when used well, storytelling is a powerful transformational tool in organizations,
one that will work well for the sharing of knowledge across a utility, and across the larger group
of utility stakeholders.
Expected Outcomes:
High level of transferring information and knowledge to Utility employees.
Utilities can understand and take ownership of the Utility’s purpose, mission and values
much easier when stories are used to explain and communicate these concepts.
See:
Case Example #12 (AMREF Kenya)
C-119
Lessons Learned
Picture Map
Storyboard
Success Stories
MQI paper CONTEXT
MQI paper Storytelling: The Thread of Humanity
MQI paper From Stories to Strategies
_________________________
References:
Brown, J.S., Denning, S., Groh, K. and Prusak, L. (2005 ). Storytelling in Organizations: Why Storytelling is
st
Transforming 21 Century Organizations and Management. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Cassady, M. (1990). Storytelling Step by Step. San Jose, CA: Resource Publications, Inc.
Denning, S. (2001). The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations. Woburn,
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
C-120
Success Stories
A strong methodology of communicating best practices across Utility stakeholders.
Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, team building
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
SCALABLE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
An old adage is ―
success begets success.‖ And indeed it can if a success in one situation is
recognized and understood sufficiently to benefit others who are in similar situations and
circumstances. This aspect is related to the transfer of Best Practices.
Success stories can also serve to showcase project efforts and accomplishments to
stakeholders. What happened in this project? What significant findings or results occurred?
Use the language appropriate for your target audience (see Communications Plan), and
positive, catchy phrases or quotations from participants along with facts and figures.
Radhakrishna at Penn State University provides the following tips for writing success stories:
Explain in about 10 sentences the need, importance, and significance of your project
(the problem situation).
Cover in 5-6 sentences the objectives and methodology (what you want to accomplish
and how information is collected).
Talk about in 10-15 sentences the project results (what happened, significant findings).
Present in 10 sentences or less the program impact (what’s being done differently, what
has been learned).
Discuss in 5 sentences or less the future potential (what’s next for this project, what is
the larger contribution to the Utility/stakeholders).
Disseminate (newspapers, conference proceedings, professional organizations,
extension publications, staff updates, impact statements, journal articles).
In Project Study #25, the Utility implemented a Process and Operational Improvements
initiative that has resulted in significant dollar savings. In this organization, continuous
improvement is celebrated.
Recognizing successes can serve as a reward for individuals, teams and communities, and
for the Utility as a whole. See ideas for recognition and rewards.
Expected Outcomes:
Communicates successes that others can duplicate or build upon.
Provides a reward to those who made the effort successful by letting them communicate
their work to others in the Utility.
In some cases, the patterns that created the success can be studied and applied to
other situations, thereby producing more successes in other areas.
C-121
See:
Best Practices
Communications Plan
Storytelling
References:
Radhakrishna, R.B. (2002). ―
Writing Success Stories for Program Enhancement and Accountability.‖ Downloaded
from http://www.joe.org/joe/2002April/tt2.html August 2008.
C-122
The World Café
A process for building knowledge about a focused need or opportunity.
Supports: collaboration, idea generation, problem solving
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
MED-LARGE
SCOPE OF WORK
C
2
While the World Café as a named and framed process formed in the mid 1990’s, it is a
process that has intuitively been used (both formally and informally) in organizations and groups
of all sizes for many years. Focused on the social aspect of building new ideas and the valueadded each individual can contribute to that idea, there are evolving rounds of dialogue. For
example, let’s say there are 30-40 people engaged in finding a solution (or solutions) to a
burning issue. These people may all be within the same organization, part of a larger
connected stakeholder group, or interested/informed individuals invited to participate in the
World Café experience. Concurrently, they may be individuals with knowledge focused around
a specific domain-although working from different frames of reference—or they may represent a
variety of functional areas with a common interest in the issue or opportunity being addressed.
Good questions (those for which we do not have answers) are developed around the issue at
hand. The larger group breaks into smaller groups—of 4, 5 or 6—with each group gathered
around a paper tablecloth-covered table or around a flip chart with markers for everyone. All the
groups may be addressing a single Café Question, or there may be several closely-related and
overlapping questions scattered among the groups. For a set period of time each group
engages in conversations (using all the rules of Dialogue) around the question they are
addressing. As the conversations progress, core ides re captured through drawings, symbols or
words.
After a period of time—in our example a half hour has passed—individuals rotate to another
group of their choice. One person in each small group stays behind to host the incoming group.
As the second round begins, the ―
host‖ of each group has the opportunity to introduce the
―
seed‖ ideas from round one, and the second dialogue period begins. This rotation is repeated
five or six times, providing the opportunity for both cross-fertilization and social development of
new ideas. The results from this process then become the basis for action planning, with the
host who has stayed with a specific set of ideas becoming the expert resource for those ideas.
Expected Outcomes:
Creative ideas and processes to solve a specific problem.
New relationships and connections made among participants.
See:
C-123
Tools: Dialogue
Knowledge Moments
__________________________
Reference:
Brown, Juanita, with Isaacs, David and the World Café’ Community (2005). The World Café: Shaping Our Futures
Through Conversations That Matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
C-124
Wiki
A web site or group of web pages used for collaboration.
Supports: Knowledge sharing, collaboration, group and individual learning
LEVEL OF EFFORT
MED
SIZE OF UTILITY
MED-LARGE
SCOPE OF WORK
WIDE
Wikis are emerging throughout organizations, often replacing static intranets to serve as an
organization’s software of choice for collaboration. In their book The Wiki Way: Quick
Collaboration on the Web, authors Ward Cunningham and Bo Leuf describe the Wiki concept as
follows:
A wiki invites all users to edit any page or create new pages within the web site.
A wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page
link creation easily and intuitive.
A wiki is not a carefully-crafted site for casual visitors, rather it seeks to involve the visitor
in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the
landscape of the site.
An example of a wiki is the Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia project that is an example of open
source computing. The name is a derivation of wiki (a collaborative web site) and encyclopedia.
The content for Wikipedia is contributed by volunteers around the world, and can be edited by
anyone with access to the Internet. This on-going project has more than 75,000 active
contributors on more than 10,000,000 articles in over 250 languages. Contributions remain the
property of their contributors while being widely and freely distributed and reproduced. While
the articles are not all of encyclopedic quality at the beginning, by the time experts from around
the world have contributed their thoughts and edited previous thoughts, the contributions
eventually come into balance and provide comprehensive (and current) coverage, something
that was impossible to achieve through the normal encyclopedia channels. See
www.wikipedia.org.
Another example of open source computing is Citizendium (the Citizens’ Compendium of
everything). This project builds on the Wikipedia approach but requires contributors to use their
real names and is strictly moderated for unprofessional behaviors through ―
gentle expert
oversight.‖ A main feature is ―
approved articles‖ which have undergone a form of peer review
by credentialed topic-experts. Citizendium is focused on the reduction of bias, facts versus
opinion, and fairness and sympathy. It expects professional behavior and is also family-friendly
in the topics that are included. See www.citizendium.org
A related virtual source of information is the Encyclopedia of Earth, focused on Earth’s
natural environments and the interaction of society with those environments. It is composed of
articles written by scholars, professionals, educators and experts in a collaboration and peerreviewed process. While there is much material available via the Internet in the area of the
environment, what the EoE does is provide an authoritative source. The EoE touts itself as the
C-125
largest reliable information resource on the environment in history. It includes articles on the
hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, magnetosphere, cryosphere and biosphere; the living
organisms on Earth; the interactions and feedbacks among society, biological diversity and the
physical systems of Earth; and the interdisciplinary field of environmental science, natural and
social. See www.eoearth.org All of these sources can provide immediate, current information
which must then be intelligently assessed in terms of its usefulness to the subject at hand.
In Case Example #20, IBM encourages an open exchange through blogging, social web
applications such as wikis and networking.
Expected Outcomes:
Provides easy and fast access to information, although the quality of the information
should always be considered.
See:
Tools: Blog
Ideas: Technology Related Tools
C-126
Appendix D
Assessment Instrument Questions and Interpretations
D-1
The Drinking Water Utility KM Toolkit
Readiness Assessment Instrument
Questions
VERY
LOW
GENERAL QUESTIONS
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
VERY
HIGH
Q1: A KM strategy’s contribution to the
current performance of my Utility would be
1
2
3
4
5
Q2: A KM strategy’s contribution to the
sustainable performance of my Utility would be
1
2
3
4
5
Q3: The level of credibility of the business
case for a KM strategy is
1
2
3
4
5
Q4: Support of the Governance group that
oversees this Utility for a KM strategy is
1
2
3
4
5
Q5: The level of financial resources available is
1
2
3
4
5
Q6: The availability of qualified people to
implement the KM strategy is
1
2
3
4
5
Q7: The amount of time available for
employees to implement a KM strategy is
1
2
3
4
5
Q8: Leadership’s level of personal interest
in the KM strategy would be
1
2
3
4
5
Q9: Leadership’s ability to work well together
in support of a KM strategy would be
1
2
3
4
5
Q10: The leadership team’s expectation of
achieving the intended results of a KM strategy
would be
1
2
3
4
5
Q11: The leadership team’s willingness to
reward employees who contribute to the KM
strategy is
1
2
3
4
5
Q12: The leadership style in my Utility is
[very control oriented (1), in between (2-4)
or very collaborative oriented (5)] ...
1
2
3
4
5
Q13: The level of leadership involvement and
Interaction with the workforce is
1
2
3
4
5
LEADERSHIP (General Manager and Direct Reports)
D-2
VERY
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
VERY
HIGH
Q14: In my Utility leadership’s acceptance
of change is
1
2
3
4
5
Q15: Leadership’s understanding of KM
and its usefulness is
1
2
3
4
5
Q16: The level of communication among
Utility departments is
1
2
3
4
5
Q17: The level of management’s
empowerment of the workforce is
1
2
3
4
5
Q18: The use of teams or groups to
accomplish specific objectives within this
Utility is
1
2
3
4
5
Q19: Managers’ willingness to accept and
implement new initiatives is
1
2
3
4
5
Q20: The level of support for knowledge
sharing through the structure of this Utility is
1
2
3
4
5
Q21: The consistency of management
direction and Utility goals is
1
2
3
4
5
Q22: The effectiveness of the organization’s
support of employee training and development is
1
2
3
4
5
Q23: The willingness of employees to accept
and take advantage of change is
1
2
3
4
5
Q24: The level of trust among Utility employees
is
1
2
3
4
5
Q25: The capacity of employees to tackle and
take a flexible approach to problems is
1
2
3
4
5
Q26: The energy level and spirit of the
workforce in my Utility is
1
2
3
4
5
Q27: The percentage of workers who learn
fast enough to keep up with change is
1
2
3
4
5
MANAGEMENT
CULTURE
D-3
VERY
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
VERY
HIGH
Q28: The level of networking and
communication among Utility workers is
1
2
3
4
5
Q29: The percentage of employees who
understand the vision of this Utility is
1
2
3
4
5
Q30: The percentage of employees
empowered to do their job with minimal
direction is
1
2
3
4
5
Q31: The discipline of the workforce in
accomplishing the critical processes of the
utility is
1
2
3
4
5
Q32: The level of trust between employees
and managers is
1
2
3
4
5
Q33: The level of employee training,
learning, and development in this Utility is
1
2
3
4
5
Q34: The percentage of employees that
think in terms of systems, and how their
work affects other employee efforts and
the mission of the organization, is
1
2
3
4
5
Q35: How well will the strategic business
plan support the KM strategy?
1
2
3
4
5
Q36: How well will the operational plan
support the KM strategy?
1
2
3
4
5
Q37: How well will the capital improvement
plan support implementation of a KM strategy?
1
2
3
4
5
Q38: How well will the Utility’s information
technology master plan support implementation
of a KM strategy?
1
2
3
4
5
Q39: How well will your information
technology department support implementation
of a KM strategy?
1
2
3
4
5
Q40: The competency and skill sets of this
Utility’s employees is ...
1
2
3
4
5
ALIGNMENT
D-4
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT
[INSERT DATE TAKEN]
Assessment Scoring Sheet
The total score on this assessment of your drinking water utility is [TOTAL NUMBER IS
INSERTED].
As a general guideline, consider the following (with the caveats below) before determining
whether to initiate a KM strategy.
(a) If your total score is 140 or greater, your Utility should be ready to successfully
implement a KM strategy.
(b) If your total score is between 130 and 140, you may consider implementing your KM
strategy, but you may have some assessment items that need to be fixed as part of
that strategy.
(c) If your total score is between 110 and 130, you may have to delay implementation of
the full KM strategy and instead select one or more initiatives for implementation
while fixing or upgrading those specific low-scored items needed for full KM strategy
success.
(d) If your total score is under 110, low-scored items (levels 1 or 2) should be dealt with
prior to implementing a KM initiative (or perhaps a KM strategy if the weak areas are
independent of your KM strategy or they can be corrected).
CAVEATS:
While the total score is one indicator, it is not sufficient to determine your utility’s readiness to
implement a KM strategy. Other factors that may play a significant role in determining
readiness include the specific KM strategy being considered; the history, culture, size, vision
and current situation of the utility; the external environment (customers, government regulations,
local community, Unions, political issues) within which the utility operates; and the nature and
number of the items scored at level 1 or 2. For example, an item scored at level 1 or 2 could
range from highly significant to irrelevant depending upon its impact on your particular KM
strategy.
Shown below is a figure representing the spectrum of your assessment. The figure indicates
the number of items valued at levels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
[A BAR CHART IS INSERTED]
This chart can be viewed from two perspectives. First, the number of items scored for a given
level indicates their potential contribution to assisting in the implementation of a KM strategy.
Second, note the stop-light colors attributed to the various levels. The two right-hand columns
(representing levels 4 and 5) are green, indicating those items fully support implementation of a
KM strategy. The center column (representing level 3) is yellow, indicating a mid-level
assessment for those items and that some caution should be maintained relative to their ability
to support implementation of a KM strategy. The two columns on the left (representing levels 1
and 2) are colored red, indicating that these items provide a low or minimum contribution to a
KM strategy. These two columns also indicate that the items represented may need to be
corrected prior to initiating a KM strategy. For example, if you have two or three assessment
items scored at a 1 or 2 level that are relevant to your specific KM strategy, yet all other items
D-5
were scored at level 3 or higher, you will need to decide whether it is best to (a) delay starting
the KM strategy until these low-scored items are corrected, or (b) start the KM strategy and
improve these low-scored areas early during strategy implementation. A third option would be
to modify the KM strategy to reduce the impact of the low-scored items. A large number of lowscored items relevant to a KM strategy may also drive the decision not to implement that
specific strategy at this time.
A next step is to individually look at all of the items shown below which were scored at levels 1,
2 or 3. Next to each of the items printed below is a short discussion of that specific item. The
intent is to provide information and suggestions to help you interpret the importance of each
item to your KM strategy, the external environment, and the internal nature of your Utility.
[LEVEL 1, 2 AND 3 PARAS (QUESTION AND RESPONSE) INSERTED AS DETERMINED BY
YOUR RESPONSES]
GENERAL QUESTIONS
Q1: A KM strategy’s contribution to the current performance of my Utility would be ...
Q1-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the contribution a successful KM strategy would provide
to your utility is medium. It is likely that more work is needed to analyze the specific strategy to
ensure increased contribution to your Utility. A discussion of “developing strategy” is included in
the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q1-2: Selecting level 2 for this item indicates that you consider that the KM strategy would
provide a low level of contribution to performance. This suggests that the strategy itself may not
be applicable to your Utility at this time. Perhaps a rethinking of the specific strategy intended
would result in a higher level of contribution. A discussion of “developing strategy” is included in
the Planning phase of the toolkit process. You might consider creating a team of
knowledgeable leaders and managers to study the options available that could potentially
provide a higher payoff to the Utility. The MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and
Success, is provided in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q1-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that a KM strategy would have little or no contribution to your
organization, and therefore your Utility may not be ready to implement the KM strategy at this
time. You may want to explore the full potential of KM in terms of other strategies or initiatives.
The Introduction and Planning phase of the toolkit process may prove useful in building and
understanding KM and KM strategies. Additionally, the Tools section of the toolkit under
Resources offers an overview of KM initiatives.
Q2: A KM strategy’s contribution to the sustainable performance of my Utility would be ...
Q2-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that a successful KM strategy would provide a medium
contribution to your Utility’s sustainable performance. This may be acceptable if your goal is to
focus on improving current performance. Since many KM strategies also provide sustainable
performance improvements, you may want to look at your KM strategy and your Utility
characteristics to see if both current and sustainable performance can be achieved
simultaneously. The discussion on “Nurturing Organizational Health” in the Sustainable phase
of the toolkit may prove useful.
Q2-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the KM strategy would provide little support for
sustainable performance. If this limitation is acceptable, you may want to proceed with
D-6
implementation. If this limitation is not acceptable, then the strategy should be reviewed and
perhaps modified. The discussion on “Nurturing Organizational Health” in the Sustainable
phase of the toolkit may prove useful.
Q2-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the KM strategy will not contribute to sustainable
performance. This being the case, you may want to reconsider the importance of sustainability
to your Utility before taking further actions. The discussion on “Nurturing Organizational Health”
in the Sustainable phase of the toolkit may prove useful.
Q3: The level of credibility of the business case for a KM strategy is ...
Q3-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the business case may not be solid and may be
questioned by others. It may be that you intend to develop the business case as part of the
implementation of the KM strategy. The feasibility of this approach will likely depend upon the
interests and acceptance of KM by the governance group. A discussion of “The Need for KM in
Water Utilities” is included in the Introduction to the toolkit. The Business Case for KM in the
drinking water utility industry can be accessed from this section or through the White Papers
section under Resources.
Q3-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that a strong business case has not been developed at this
time. This makes the justification of the strategy challenging and may lead to non-acceptance
by the Utility. Under these conditions it is suggested that further work be put into development of
the business case. A discussion of “The Need for KM in Water Utilities” is included in the
Introduction to the toolkit. The Business Case for KM in the drinking water utility industry can
be accessed from this section or through the White Papers section under Resources.
Q3-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that it is difficult, or may not be possible, to develop a business
case for the intended KM strategy. Under these conditions it is suggested that further work be
put into understanding the outcome of the KM strategy and relating that outcome to the
performance or sustainability of the Utility. A discussion of “The Need for KM in Water Utilities”
is included in the Introduction to the toolkit. The Business Case for KM in the drinking water
utility industry can be accessed from this section or through the White Papers section under
Resources.
Q4: Support of the Governance group that oversees this Utility for a KM strategy is ...
Q4-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there is not strong support by the Governance group for
the KM strategy. If support of this group is needed to implement the strategy, then a strong
business case and close communication with the Governance group may be necessary. If
support of this group is not needed, then the KM strategy can move forward. However, it is
advisable to develop a strong business case and share this business case with the Governance
group and other key individuals. In the toolkit, a paper titled “The Business Case for KM” can be
accessed from The Need for KM in Drinking Water Utilities section in the Introduction, or
through the White Papers section under Resources.
Q4-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the Governance group would provide low support for the
KM strategy. This level of support may significantly impair the outcome of the strategy. In this
situation, it is essential that efforts be made to bring the Governance group onboard with the KM
strategy in order to gain their cooperation and support. You may find the paper titled “The
Business Case for KM” useful. It can be accessed through the White Papers section of the
D-7
toolkit under Resources. For more information on KM, see the extensive Resource Documents
section also under Resources.
Q4-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the Governance group will have little or no support for the
KM strategy. Under these conditions, the specific strategy anticipated and the interest and
influence of the Governance group will determine whether the KM strategy is feasible or not.
Effort is required to build an understanding within the Governance group of the value of KM.
You may find the paper titled “The Business Case for KM” useful. It can be accessed through
the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. For more information on KM, see the
extensive Resource Documents section also under Resources.
Q5: The level of financial resources available is ...
Q5-3: Selecting level 3 indicates an uncertainty concerning availability of financial resources, or
perhaps an uncertainty about the financial resources needed. Depending on the specific KM
strategy and the amount of anticipated financial resources needed, suggested actions could be
to (a) go ahead and start the program in anticipation of solving any resource issues early in the
program, or (b) delay the program until resources are available.
Q5-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that financial resources may not be available. If financial
resources are essential for successful implementation of the strategy you have selected, that
strategy should be delayed until resources are available, or perhaps another strategy
considered.
Q5-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that financial resources are not available. Unless the KM
strategy does not require financial resources, it should be delayed and reconsidered at a later
time.
Q6: The availability of qualified people to implement the KM strategy is ...
Q6-3: Selecting level 3 indicates some uncertainty as to the availability of qualified people for
implementing the KM strategy. Under these conditions, the actions may be to (a) delay the
strategy until qualified people can be made available or (b) review the prioritization of human
resource allocations and identify and charter the key individuals necessary to make the KM
strategy successful. You might wish to consider utilizing recent retirees. There is a short
discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden Experience” in the Tools section of the
toolkit under Resources.
Q6-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the chances of having qualified people available to
implement the KM strategy are low. Under these conditions it may be best to delay or cancel a
KM strategy until the availability of key people can be assured. Another option is to create a
phased KM strategy where a small number of people are initially required and plan to
supplement them as the strategy proceeds. You might wish to consider utilizing recent retirees.
There is a short discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden Experience” in the Tools
section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q6-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little chance of having qualified employees
available to implement the KM strategy. Under these conditions, the KM strategy cannot be
attempted. Creating a situation which has a significant chance of failure simply creates
problems with morale in the future. In order to move forward, you need to review the
prioritization of human resource allocations and involve individuals with appropriate skill sets
D-8
and experience in order for the strategy to succeed. If funds are available for hiring additional
people, you might also wish to consider utilizing recent retirees. There is a short discussion of
an approach called “Engaging Golden Experience” in the Tools section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q7: The amount of time available for employees to implement a KM strategy is
Q7-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there may not be enough time available for employees to
implement the KM strategy. While time commitments can be corrected during implementation, it
may be risky to start a program without assurance that time priorities will support effective
implementation. You might want to reconsider the KM strategy in order to reduce the time
needed for employees to implement the strategy, or to allocate additional time for
implementation. Another option is to consider utilizing recent retirees in support of available
internal personnel. There is a short discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden
Experience” in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q7-2: Selecting level 2 indicates there is most likely not enough employee time available to
implement the strategy. As a consequence the decision to implement may need to be delayed
until adequate time can be made available. In addition, you may wish to consider utilizing
recent retirees. There is a short discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden
Experience” in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q7-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that employees do not have time to implement this strategy.
In this case, the strategy should be reconsidered for later implementation or modified to require
less employee time.
LEADERSHIP (General Manager and Direct Reports)
Q8: Leadership’s level of personal interest in the KM strategy would be ...
Q8-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that leadership may not take a serious and personal interest in
implementation of the KM strategy. In this case, it will be important to review the KM strategy
and evaluate the significance of personal leadership participation in strategy success. While all
strategies require leadership support, and the personal interest of leadership greatly enhances
the probability of success, some KM strategies require less leadership visibility than others. A
discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging Leadership Commitment section of
the Planning phase in the toolkit.
Q8-2: Selecting level 2 indicates a lack of leadership interest in the KM strategy. This may
significantly impact the effectiveness of the program, and therefore the strategy may have to be
seriously reconsidered or carefully discussed with leadership in order to build their willingness to
personally support the strategy. A discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging
Leadership Commitment section of the Planning phase in the toolkit. In the toolkit, a discussion
of the benefits of KM to drinking water utilities gathered during a survey of over 200 utilities is
located in the White Papers section under Resources.
Q8-1: Selecting level 1 indicates there is essentially little or no interest by leadership in offering
their personal support. Under those conditions it would not seem wise to initiate the strategy
until these conditions are changed. A discussion of leadership visibility is included in the
Engaging Leadership Commitment section of the Planning phase in the toolkit. In the toolkit, a
D-9
discussion of the benefits of KM to drinking water utilities gathered during a survey of over 200
utilities is located in the White Papers section under Resources.
Q9: Leadership’s ability to work well together in support of a KM strategy would be ...
Q9-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the leadership team may not be working closely together.
This could present significant problems to implementing a KM strategy since employees in
different departments would receive different directions and views on the importance and
implementation of the KM strategy. Such differences can quickly reduce enthusiasm and create
concerns among departments as to the importance of and actions necessary to the KM
strategy. For ideas on collaborative leadership see the MQI research paper on Collaborative
Leadership in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q9-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leadership does not work well together and would
probably not cooperate in implementing a Utility KM strategy. It may be best to work with
leadership to determine what could be done to get their collective backing, interest and
knowledge of the importance and value of the KM strategy prior to beginning implementation.
For ideas on collaborative leadership see the MQI research paper on Collaborative Leadership
in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q9-1: Selecting level 1 indicates there is little or no leadership collaboration, seriously
jeopardizing the potential success of a KM strategy. Under these conditions, the Utility most
likely has strong silos that prevent communication and collaboration. It may be best to postpone
implementation of a Utility-wide KM strategy until these issues can be worked through. As
another approach to implementation, consider selecting and implementing a KM initiative in a
department familiar with and conducive to KM implementation. The success of this initiative
could then serve as a pilot for a larger implementation approach and make visible to the entire
Utility the efficacy and potential of KM. You might want to look at The Business Case for KM in
drinking water utilities located in the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources.
Another resource is the MQI research paper on Collaborative Leadership located in the
Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q10: The leadership team’s expectation of achieving the intended results of a KM
strategy would be ...
Q10-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that leadership has only a medium expectation of achieving
the desired results from this KM strategy. Under these conditions the workforce will likely pick
up on, and react to, such perspectives of leadership. It is suggested that careful consideration
be given to whether the KM strategy can be successfully implemented. Further study and
recognition of why the strategy will be successful and how it will be beneficial to the Utility may
be needed. It may be useful to review The Business Case for KM in drinking water utilities that
can be accessed through the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. Another
approach is to scan the Case Examples and Project Studies (also under Resources) to find
success stories about strategies and initiatives similar to those you propose.
Q10-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leadership has a low expectation that the KM strategy
will achieve its intended result. This might be due to a lack of understanding of KM’s potential, a
disagreement with the specific strategy proposed, or the readiness of the Utility to accept and
implement such a strategy. Under any of these conditions, it would be unwise to move ahead
too quickly. Leadership must play a strong role in implementing any KM strategy. This role is
discussed in the Leading and Managing section of the Executing phase of the toolkit process.
D-10
Q10-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the organization is most likely not ready for
implementation of a KM strategy. With such low expectations it would be very difficult to
implement a KM strategy. A pilot KM initiative in a department, coupled with a program to
inform leadership of the value of KM may help build the leadership team’s expectation of
achieving the intended results. Leadership’s role is discussed in the Leading and Managing
section of the Executing phase of the toolkit process.
Q11: The leadership team’s willingness to reward employees who contribute to the KM
strategy is ...
Q11-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there may be a question regarding leadership’s
willingness to reward employees who contribute to the implementation of a KM strategy. Since
rewards are one of the positive forces in KM strategy implementation, careful consideration
should be given to the feasibility of success under these conditions. Consider including
development of a rewards approach as part of the implementation strategy. Some KM
approaches to Recognition and Rewards are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q11-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leadership has little willingness to reward employees
who contribute to KM strategy success. Under these conditions it may be best not to go forward
with the strategy unless some form of rewards to key individuals may be found. Some KM
approaches to Recognition and Rewards are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q11-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that leadership will not reward employees. It may be unwise
to implement a KM strategy at this time. Another option is to find local rewards for employees
who significantly contribute to the KM strategy, or implement a local KM initiative whose
success would convince the leadership team of KM’s value to the Utility.
Q12: The leadership style in my Utility is [very control oriented (1), in between (2-4)
or very collaborative oriented (5)] ...
Q12-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the leadership style of management in the utility is
midway between control oriented and collaborative oriented. Each functional area of an
organization has to find its own optimal styles of management dependent upon the focus of their
business. For example, where safety is concerned control management may be required.
Where innovation and flexibility are needed in the workplace a collaborative management
approach would work best. A key question to ask is: what management styles are best for the
different departments within the Utility and will they support the basic activities needed for
successful KM strategy implementation? If the answer is yes, the KM strategy can move
forward. If the answer is no, a separate and distinct leadership strategy should be applied to
each department involved in the overarching KM strategy. A discussion of leading and
managing consistent with a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit
process.
Q12-2: If the leadership style leans more toward control (level 2 ) it will probably be difficult to
get managers, or employees, to begin sharing information and knowledge. Under these
conditions it may be best to delay implementation of a KM strategy or incorporate a change of
leadership style into the KM strategy. Another approach is to implement a KM initiative in part
D-11
of the Utility where collaboration is supported. A discussion of leading and managing consistent
with a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process.
Q12-1: Selecting level 1 indicates a strong control-oriented management which, depending on
the specific strategy considered, might prevent success. In this case efforts should be made to
move the Utility from a control-oriented approach to a collaborative, or perhaps mixed,
approach, depending on the specific needs of the Utility. A discussion of leading and managing
consistent with a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process.
Q13: The level of leadership involvement with the workforce [as described by
“management by walking around”] is ...
Q13-3: Selecting level 3 indicates some degree of personal interface between leaders and their
employees, which would aid in the implementation of a KM strategy. On the other hand, if the
Utility has leaders who remain aloof from their employees, these parts of the Utility may have
difficulty accepting and implementing a KM strategy. A discussion of leading and managing
related to a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process.
Q13-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leaders do not maintain close contact with employees,
and therefore may not provide personal support to KM strategy implementation. Both
leadership and management roles in implementing a KM strategy are very important because of
the typical changes in culture and behavior that occur throughout the Utility as part of the
strategy. A discussion of leading and managing related to a KM strategy is included in the
Executing phase of the toolkit process. In addition, a discussion of Becoming a Change Agent
is included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process.
Q13-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that leaders are relatively aloof from their employees and it
would be unlikely that they lend personal support to the KM strategy. If this condition is correct,
it may be best to delay implementation of the KM strategy until leadership has time to digest,
analyze, understand and recognize the importance and long-term contribution that a KM
strategy can provide to the Utility. A discussion of leading and managing related to a KM
strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process. It may also be useful to
review The Business Case for KM in drinking water utilities that can be accessed through the
White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. An additional resource is to scan the
Case Examples and Project Studies (also under Resources) to find success stories about
strategies and initiatives similar to those you propose.
Q14: In my Utility leadership’s acceptance of change is ...
Q14-3: Selecting level 3 indicates a somewhat slow acceptance of change in the organization.
To the extent this is valid, leadership may be hesitant to accept significant changes in culture,
policies, or "ways of doing business." Since the role of leadership is to set the tone and
reinforce the importance of the changes resulting from a KM strategy, it may be wise to get
leadership more on board before commencing a KM strategy for the Utility. Such preparation
time may pay high dividends in the future. A discussion on Becoming a Change Agent is
included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process.
Q14-2: Selecting level 2 indicates leadership is typically resistant to change and this may
present a strong challenge to a successful KM initiative. It may be necessary to put off the KM
initiative until leadership can be persuaded of the value and need for the anticipated changes.
Another option would be to implement a KM initiative that can validate the value of change and
D-12
KM. It may be useful to review The Business Case for KM in drinking water utilities that can be
accessed through the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. Another resource
is the discussion of Becoming a Change Agent that is included in the Preparing phase of the
toolkit process.
Q14-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that leadership will likely resist any changes in the Utility and
therefore, until this resistance is dissolved, it may be best to wait until leadership can be brought
on board to support the KM strategy. One option would be to implement a KM initiative that can
validate the value of change and KM. It may be useful to review The Business Case for KM in
drinking water utilities that can be accessed through the White Papers section of the toolkit
under Resources. Another resource is the discussion of Becoming a Change Agent that is
included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process.
Q15:
Leadership’s understanding of KM and its usefulness is ...
Q15-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the leadership team has not been brought fully on board
as to the nature and value of knowledge management to the Utility. Because the leadership
teams’ role in the desired strategy is very important, it is suggested that this issue be corrected
before commencing the KM strategy. See the Introduction to the toolkit. Numerous resources
are also available under Resources in the toolkit. These include case examples, project
studies, white papers, case studies, APQC benchmarking and best practice studies as well as
MQI research papers.
Q15-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the leadership team knows very little about knowledge
management, and hence immediate steps are suggested to bring them up to speed in order to
empower them to understand and participate in the KM strategy. If this cannot be done, it may
be best to delay implementation of the KM strategy. See the Introduction to the toolkit.
Numerous resources are also available under Resources in the toolkit. These include case
examples, project studies, white papers, case studies, APQC benchmarking and best practice
studies as well as MQI research papers.
Q15-1: Selecting level 1 indicates the leadership team has little or no understanding of
knowledge management. Under these conditions it is best to delay initiating a KM strategy until
sufficient time can be taken to ensure the leadership team is aware of, understands, and will
support implementation of the KM strategy. See the Introduction to the toolkit. Numerous
resources are also available under Resources in the toolkit. These include case examples,
project studies, white papers, case studies, APQC benchmarking and best practice studies as
well as MQI research papers.
MANAGEMENT
Q16:
The level of communication among Utility departments is ...
Q16-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the level of communication among Utility departments is
average, and therefore improvement would be helpful to the success of a KM strategy. While a
KM strategy may be implemented under these conditions, it would be worthwhile to observe the
level of communication and take actions to improve and facilitate additional communication
channels among departments. This may well follow directly from the KM strategy since many
strategies include improving the knowledge sharing among both individuals and departments.
The toolkit is full of resources that support knowledge sharing and communication. For
example, see the section on Growing a Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the
D-13
toolkit process. You might also wish to review several initiatives in the Tools and Ideas sections
of the toolkit under Resources; specifically, Dialogue, Social Network Analysis, and Knowledge
Sharing.
Q16-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is below average communication among
departments, and specific actions are needed to create an environment within which employees
communicate easily and effectively. This lack of communication makes it difficult to implement
KM strategies such as building a knowledge centric Utility or nurturing a knowledge sharing
culture. The toolkit is full of resources that support knowledge sharing and communication. For
example, see the section on Growing a Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the
toolkit process. You might also wish to review several initiatives in the Tools and Ideas sections
of the toolkit under Resources; specifically, Dialogue, Social Network Analysis, and Knowledge
Sharing.
Q16-1: Selecting level 1 indicates very poor or little communication among departments of the
Utility. While it may be feasible to successfully implement a knowledge initiative within a given
department where communication is effective, a Utility-wide KM strategy would be very difficult
to implement. The Social Network Analysis tool in the Tools section of the toolkit under
Resources provides a methodology for identifying the areas that are holding communications
back as well as the integrative points within an organization. The toolkit is full of resources that
support knowledge sharing and communication. For example, see the section on Growing a
Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. You might also wish to
review other initiatives in the Tools and Ideas sections of the toolkit under Resources.
Q17: The level of management’s empowerment of the workforce is ...
Q17-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the overall empowerment of employees for this Utility is
average. The specific level of empowerment should be determined. There is a discussion of
empowerment included in the MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and Success, which
is located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources. If it is insufficient
to encourage knowledge creation, sharing, and collaboration among employees steps should be
built into the KM strategy to strengthen this aspect of utility effectiveness. Relationship Network
Management, an approach to developing self empowerment, is included as a MQI paper in the
Q17-2: Selecting level 2 indicates a general overall lack of empowerment of employees. To
successfully implement a KM strategy under these conditions would mean building up employee
confidence and practice in taking actions, creating and sharing knowledge, and accepting
responsibilities for their decisions. This goal could be made part of the overall KM strategy
implementation. Without employees feeling empowered to create and share their knowledge
with others, they are likely to have a difficult time meeting the KM strategy objectives. A
discussion of empowerment is included in the MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and
Success, which is located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources.
Relationship Network Management, an approach to developing self empowerment, is included
as a MQI paper in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q17-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is very little, if any, empowerment of employees in
the Utility. Since empowerment is very important to knowledge creation and sharing, solutions
to this limitation should be identified and implemented prior to or during a KM strategy start up.
There is a discussion of empowerment included in the MQI monogram, A Model for Team
Learning and Success, which is located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under
D-14
Resources. Relationship Network Management, an approach to developing self
empowerment, is included as a MQI paper in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit
under Resources.
Q18: The use of teams or groups to accomplish specific objectives within this Utility is
...
Q18-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that teams may be occasionally used by the Utility, but are
not part of its general operating style. Since employees who are working in teams typically
communicate and collaborate with each other in a highly productive way, the importance of
teams or groups to accomplish desired objectives should be carefully observed and considered
when creating and implementing a KM strategy. See the section on Growing a Knowledge
Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and the MQI monogram, A Model for
Team Learning and Success, located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q18-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that teams are not used very often in your Utility. This may
impose a burden on the KM strategy and the culture of the workforce would need to be moved
toward a team-oriented, collaboration-based approach to support success of the KM strategy.
Depending on the specific KM strategy selected, special attention would most likely have to be
paid to creating effective workforce team and groups skills. Organizational culture is discussed
in the Building the Foundation section of the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. Also, see
the section on Growing a Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and
the MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and Success, located in the Resource
Document section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q18-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the Utility rarely uses teams. Given this state of affairs,
it is worth looking carefully into the current culture to determine how well employees are able to
communicate and collaborate in their daily work. As a minimum the KM strategy should include
learning how to work in teams, or a KM initiative whose purpose is to create effective team and
community communication and collaboration. This could begin as a local initiative or pilot
program which would then be expanded to the entire Utility. See the section on Growing a
Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and the MQI monogram, A
Model for Team Learning and Success, located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit
under Resources.
Q19: Managers’ willingness to accept and implement new initiatives is ...
Q19-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the Utility’s capability to implement new initiatives is
average at best. Thus, some training or learning may need to be planned into the KM strategy.
In addition, those employees who have demonstrated the willingness and capacity to work with
change and implement new initiatives may be considered for leading specific parts of the KM
strategy. A discussion on Becoming a Change Agent is included in the Preparing phase of the
toolkit process.
Q19-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the Utility's capability to implement new initiatives is low,
and possibly that there is little experience in this area. If this is the case, it may be worth
considering additional training and development of key individuals to ensure their ability to
implement a KM initiative. However, it should be noted that managers who are reluctant to
accept and implement new initiatives may not be easily changed. They may resist or slowdown
a KM strategy implementation. Moving managers to other positions is one way of stimulating
D-15
their learning and getting them used to changes. Another approach is to make them aware of
the need and benefit of change. Still a third approach, is to get them to work together as a team
with the responsibility for implementing a KM strategy.
Q19-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that most managers in the Utility would not be comfortable
implementing new initiatives, and therefore would undoubtedly have difficulty supporting a KM
strategy. Without management and leadership support it is very difficult for any KM strategy to
be successfully implemented. See the discussion on Ensuring Leadership Commitment in the
Planning phase of the toolkit process. A significant effort may be needed in moving
management styles such that management actions will facilitate the creation of new initiatives
and change prior to starting a KM strategy. Under these conditions, it would probably be best
not to initiative a KM strategy unless that strategy directly addressed the issues of initiating and
living with change. An alternate approach would be to work with the managers through team
assignments and team building to give them greater experience and comfort in initiating and
dealing with change, which could then be transferred to a KM strategy at a later date. A
discussion on Becoming a Change Agent is included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit
process. An MQI paper on personal change is included in the Resource Document section
under Resources. Papers on Barriers and Critical Success Factors to KM initiatives and
strategies developed from the 4003 study of over 200 drinking water utilities is accessible
through the White Papers section under Resources.
Q20: The level of support for knowledge sharing through the structure of this Utility is ...
Q20-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the Utility’s structure provides a medium level of support
for employee knowledge sharing. Depending on the specific KM strategy intended, this may be
adequate as long as the structure does not inhibit an increased level of employee knowledge
sharing. If the structure does inhibit knowledge sharing, then it needs to be reviewed and
perhaps modified through policies and procedures, with emphasis placed on increased
collaboration among departments or divisions, or efforts made to reduce silo mentalities and
practices. Another step may be to review the organizational processes and create more teams
and communities. Related materials in the toolkit include the discussion on Thinking Systems in
the Planning phase of the toolkit process, the discussion on The Four Organizational
Processes in the Executing phase of the toolkit process, and the Learning section in the
Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. Papers on Barriers and Critical Success Factors to KM
initiatives and strategies developed from the 4003 study of over 200 drinking water utilities is
accessible through the White Papers section under Resources. Approaches to knowledge
sharing are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q20-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the structure is detrimental to employee knowledge
sharing. Implementation of a KM strategy should be delayed until the structure can be reviewed
and needed actions taken. For example, if the structure does not contain computer networking,
does not allow communities of practice, or does not encourage meetings among department
heads or frequent discussions among first-line supervisors exchanging their experience, then
knowledge will rarely be shared. Creating and maintaining trust is another very important
aspect of knowledge sharing and can be influenced by knowledge structure. Without a support
structure, it is difficult to get a successful outcome from any KM strategy. Under these
conditions it would be worthwhile to implement a KM initiative that would look at how to modify
the structure to encourage and create knowledge sharing among employees. All of these may
be particularly important actions to implement since knowledge sharing is a key aspect of most
KM strategies. Related materials in the toolkit include the discussion on Thinking Systems in
the Planning phase of the toolkit process, the discussion on The Four Organizational
D-16
Processes in the Executing phase of the toolkit process, and the Learning section in the
Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. Papers on Barriers and Critical Success Factors to
KM initiatives and strategies developed from the 4003 study of over 200 drinking water utilities
is accessible through the White Papers section under Resources. Approaches to knowledge
sharing are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q20-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the nature of the structure is seriously inhibiting
knowledge sharing. If this is correct, it would be essential to evaluate the structure and take
proper actions prior to commencing a KM strategy. Actions could include a KM initiative
focused on evaluating the current structure and creating and implementing changes necessary
to encourage and support continuous knowledge sharing. Related materials in the toolkit
include the discussion on Thinking Systems in the Planning phase of the toolkit process, the
discussion on The Four Organizational Processes in the Executing phase of the toolkit
process, and the Learning section in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. Papers on
Barriers and Critical Success Factors to KM initiatives and strategies developed from the 4003
study of over 200 drinking water utilities is accessible through the White Papers section under
Resources. Approaches to knowledge sharing are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit
under Resources.
Q21: The consistency of management direction and Utility goals is ...
Q21-3: Selecting level 3 indicates some variability or inconsistency in management direction
and Utility goals as seen by employees. To the extent that this is true, employees may well
assume any new change program such as a KM strategy is another “flavor of the day” and not
give it the serious consideration necessary for successful implementation. One solution is to
ensure that management is fully aligned and supportive of the program and personally active in
its implementation. The toolkit offers a myriad of resources to help build understanding of the
value of KM, including case examples, project studies, and several APQC benchmarking/best
practice studies with additional examples. These are all accessible through Resources. A
discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging Leadership Commitment section of
the Planning phase in the toolkit.
Q21-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that management has a history of fluctuations and changing
goals and directions for the Utility. When these conditions occur, they represent a potential
barrier to implementation of a KM strategy and actions need to be taken to counter the reaction
of employees to "the new flavor of the month." The solution could be to assure that leadership
and senior management are fully aligned and supportive of the program, and are personally
supportive and/or active in its implementation. The toolkit offers a myriad of resources to help
build understanding of the value of KM, including case examples, project studies, and several
APQC benchmarking/best practice studies with additional examples. These are all accessible
through Resources. A discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging Leadership
Commitment section of the Planning phase in the toolkit.
Q21-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that management has a strong history of shifting goals and
directions for the Utility. This condition would almost certainly generate an employee
perspective of, "we have seen it before and it will go away as other initiatives have” or “this is
the new flavor of the month, why should I take it seriously?" Such attitudes represent a
significant barrier to successful KM strategy implementation and must be addressed and
resolved prior to initiating a KM strategy. Since this issue reflects a general mistrust of
management decisions and actions on the part of employees, it is larger than bringing
management on-board with the KM strategy. Further, it will not easily go away. Definitive
D-17
management decisions and actions aligned to Utility goals and with consistent follow-through
over time are required to mitigate this effect.
Q22: The effectiveness of the HR department’s support of employee training and
development is ...
Q22-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the HR department provides some support for employee
training and development but not necessarily as much as desired. HR has the opportunity to
play a significant role in influencing and building the Utility culture relative to learning and human
development. Depending on the specific KM strategy to be implemented, the role of the HR
department may be significant and needs to be brought into the strategy, with specific required
resources and responsibilities assigned to HR. Where there is a question regarding HR
support, senior management may have to step in and take a personal interest to ensure that the
HR department has the resources and authority to support the KM strategy. The role of HR in a
KM strategy is the subject of a White Paper included in the toolkit under Resources.
Q22-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the HR department is providing little support for
employee training and development. This could be a major barrier to successfully implementing
a KM strategy, depending on the specific strategy selected. If the HR departments’ role is
significant in this strategy, then leadership should ensure the required changes in HR
responsibilities and activities occur prior to or in concert with implementation of the KM strategy.
The role of HR in a KM strategy is the subject of a White Paper included in the toolkit under
Resources.
Q22-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the HR department is providing little or no support for
employee training and development. This would be rare, but to the extent it occurs it would be
essential to ensure that the HR department has the authority and resources to provide the
needed support for employee training and development prior to implementing a KM strategy.
Knowledge creation, sharing and application are essential to many KM strategies, and as a
result employee training and development is foundational. The role of HR in a KM strategy is
the subject of a White Paper included in the toolkit under Resources.
CULTURE
Q23: The willingness of employees to accept and take advantage of change is ...
Q23-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there is some willingness to accept and take advantage
of change but it is not a strong point of the Utility. The importance of this item would depend
upon the change required in implementing a specific KM strategy. If significant change is
needed, then actions should be taken to prepare the Utility to accept and embrace change.
Depending on the history and specific nature of the Utility’s culture and leadership and
management style, this may be a long-term challenge. People cannot be ordered to change.
For example, you cannot successfully tell a knowledge worker to share their knowledge, trust
others, be creative, or collaborate with their peers. The following factors are instrumental in
determining whether or not an individual will change: awareness, understanding, believing,
feeling good, ownership, empowerment, and impact. For more information on these factors see
the Becoming a Change Agent section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. In
addition, an MQI paper, “A New Change Model: Factors for Initiating and Implementing
Personal Action Learning,” discusses these factors in detail. This paper is accessible in the
D-18
Q23-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the Utility’s culture is not comfortable with change and
may provide resistance to any KM strategy. Utility cultures are often highly resistive to change
unless they have a history of continuous learning and adapting to a changing environment. In
any case, depending on the size of the utility and the specific KM strategy selected, this level
would indicate the need for a carefully thought out and significant effort to ensure that the
culture would accept and adapt to the necessary changes required by the strategy. A
discussion of culture is included in the Connecting the Dots section of the Preparing phase of
the toolkit process and the APQC best practice report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing
Culture” located in the Resource Documents section under Resources.
Q23-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the history of the Utility is one of stability, and most likely
has a culture which is change resistant. Unless the intended KM strategy requires little or no
change in the current culture, it may be best to address the change requirements before
initiating a KM strategy. Knowledge management involves the creation, sharing and application
of knowledge, all of which encompass learning and change. A discussion of culture is included
in the Connecting the Dots section of the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and the APQC
best practice report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture” located in the Resource
Documents section under Resources.
Q24: The level of trust among Utility employees is ...
Q24-3: Selecting level 3 indicates an average level of trust among Utility employees. While this
may be acceptable to commence a KM strategy implementation, a high level of trust is desired
for maximum knowledge sharing and organizational learning. Using teams, team building and
collaborative groups working closely together to make decisions and take actions on
implementing the KM strategy could improve the overall level of trust in the Utility. Trust in an
underlying theme in the MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning and Success” and the
APQC best practices report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture”.” Both are available in
the Resource Document Section of the toolkit under Resources. You might also want to review
the “Building Trust” and “Knowledge Sharing” lists in the Idea section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q24-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is a below average level of trust among Utility
employees. Under this condition it may be best to consider the importance of trust among
employees as it relates to a specific KM strategy to be implemented. If trust is significant, the
KM strategy may be delayed until the trust level of the Utility can be increased. A second option
would be to build in a process for trust enhancement during the KM strategy implementation.
Trust is one of the critical factors for any KM strategy and as such, becomes a major challenge
to management and leadership. Trust in an underlying theme in the MQI monogram “A Model
for Team Learning and Success” and the APQC best practices report on “Creating a
Knowledge-Sharing Culture”.” Both are available in the Resource Document Section of the
toolkit under Resources. You might also want to review the “Building Trust” and “Knowledge
Sharing” lists in the Idea section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q24-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is essentially little or no trust within the Utility.
Under these conditions it is most likely futile to try to implement a KM strategy before resolving
the trust issue. Resources focused on trust in the toolkit include:
The MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning and Success” in the Resource
Documents section of the toolkit under Resources.
The APQC best practices report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture” in the
D-19
The “Building Trust” and “Knowledge Sharing” lists in the Idea section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q25: The capacity of employees to tackle and take a flexible approach to problems is ...
Q25-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that employees are sometimes able to be flexible in their
approach to solving problems. A KM strategy implementation may offer a vehicle for improving
employee's capacity to solve problems and stay flexible in how they deal with issues. The Four
Organizational Processes section in the Executing phase of the toolkit process and the
Nurturing Organizational Health section in the Sustaining Phase may provide insights on the
need for flexibility.
Q25-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that employees are not good at tackling and taking a flexible
approach to problems. In this situation it may be best to delay the KM strategy or create training
as part of the strategy mechanisms to improve employee capacity for problem-solving and
flexibility. The Four Organizational Processes section in the Executing phase of the toolkit
process and the Nurturing Organizational Health section in the Sustaining Phase may provide
insights on the need for flexibility.
Q25-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that employees have difficulty solving problems and being
flexible. This kind of a condition is frequently created by a strong control oriented organization,
which has not empowered the workforce and is intolerant of mistakes. Under these conditions it
may be very difficult to implement a successful KM strategy. The Four Organizational
Processes section in the Executing phase of the toolkit process and the Nurturing
Organizational Health section in the Sustaining Phase may provide insights on the need for
flexibility.
Q26: The energy level and spirit of the workforce in my Utility is ...
Q26-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the employees have a medium energy level and spirit
toward their work. Under these conditions it may be possible for a successful KM initiative to
pull a workforce together, increasing energy and improving Utility performance at the same time.
In any case, a medium energy level workforce is going to move slower toward an objective, and
therefore the implementation program needs to take this into account.
Q26-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the employees have low energy levels and not too much
spirit towards their work. This would most likely make it quite difficult to implement a KM
strategy. However, the KM strategy might be implemented in a manner which would improve
the energy level and spirit of the workforce, providing management and senior leadership are
personally involved and use that involvement to communicate with their employees. You might
wish to review the Ensuring Leadership Commitment section in the Planning phase of the
toolkit process and the myriad of Idea lists including Recognition, Knowledge Sharing and
Rewards and Communications Publications located under Resources.
Q26-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the employees have very low energy levels and little or
no spirit towards their work. When this occurs, there are generally larger underlying issues at
play. Regardless, this situation would make it very difficult to implement a KM strategy. One
approach would be to create a problem solving team or hold a collaborative problem solving
forum to surface and address these critical issues. Various resources in the toolkit may be of
assistance. For example, there is a discussion of the Collaborative Problem Solving Forum in
D-20
the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. The MQI monogram “A Model for Team
Learning and Success” may be a useful resource.
Q27: The percentage of workers who learn fast enough to keep up with change is ...
Q27-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that overall the Utility learning rate is average. This would
indicate that implementation of a KM strategy would likely increase the learning rate throughout
the Utility and provide more efficient and effective use of the knowledge generated. If there are
specific pockets within which learning is not occurring, they should be addressed as part of the
KM strategy. Learning is discussed in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process.
Q27-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the overall Utility learning rate is low. Since knowledge
management is about creating, leveraging, sharing and applying knowledge, the learning rate of
the Utility is very important to a KM strategy. With a low-level learning rate, it will likely be
necessary that special care be given to upgrading the Utility’s capability of working
collaboratively, learning, and sharing information and knowledge. This area should be
addressed as a significant part of the KM implementation strategy. Learning is discussed in the
Sustaining phase of the toolkit process.
Q27-1: Selecting level 1 indicates a very low overall rate of learning for the Utility. Depending
upon other assessments within this instrument, it may be necessary to delay implementation of
a KM strategy until the overall learning capacity of the Utility has been improved. An
organization cannot survive in an uncertain and changing environment without the ability to
learn. Serious consideration should be given to developing and embracing an organizational
learning strategy. Learning is discussed in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. An
MQI paper on knowledge management and organizational learning is included in the Resource
Documents section under Resources.
Q28: The level of networking and communication among Utility workers is ...
Q28-3: Selecting level 3 indicates there is some networking and communication among Utility
workers, but it is not at a high level. Networking and communication is an indicator of employee
communication and collaboration, and as such is an essential element in effective KM strategy
implementation and success. At this level, a specific plan should be made and implemented to
increase the amount of networking and communication among Utility employees as part of the
KM implementation strategy. Growing a Knowledge Network is discussed in the Preparing
phase of the toolkit process. Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a process for mapping the
relationships among people, teams, or across organizations which may prove useful for
identifying places where communication links may be broken. It is discussed in the Tools
Q28-2: Selecting level 2 indicates there is not very much networking and communication
among Utility workers. Contingent upon other aspects of the assessment (in particular those
areas related to knowledge sharing and management interactions), this may indicate that
significant effort needs to be put into the creation and improvement of employee networking and
communication before implementing a KM strategy. Consider Social Network Analysis (SNA)
as a process for mapping the relationships among people, teams, or across organizations.
SNA may prove useful for identifying places where communication links are broken. It is
discussed in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources.
D-21
Q28-1: Selecting level 1 indicates there is very little and perhaps no networking and
communication among Utility workers. In this extreme case, it may be unwise to begin a KM
strategy implementation. The creation, sharing and application of knowledge represent the
payoff of knowledge management, and as such, require a level of communication and
networking by Utility employees. Conducting Social Network Analysis (SNA), a process for
mapping the relationships among people, teams, or across organizations, will help surface
communications issues. SNA is discussed in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q29: The percentage of employees who understand the vision of this Utility is ...
Q29-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that some employees are aware of the vision of the Utility. A
KM strategy is usually intended to improve the current and future performance of the
organization in support of the vision of the Utility. This relationship between the objectives of
the KM strategy and the vision is one key to having employees understand the need for, and
importance of, the KM strategy. Ensure that this connection is clearly communicated as the KM
strategy moves forward. You might wish to refer to the Developing the Strategy and Writing the
Plan sections in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q29-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that most employees are not clear about, or aware of, the
Utility’s specific vision. Before implementing a KM strategy it may be best to build employee
understanding of and appreciation for the vision of the Utility. Another option is to ensure the
vision of the organization is addressed early during KM strategy implementation along with the
relationship of the KM strategy to this vision. Refer to the Developing the Strategy and Writing
the Plan sections in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q29-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that very few, if any, employees understand or are aware of
the Utility’s vision. Before implementing a KM strategy it may be best to build employee
understanding of and appreciation for the vision of the Utility. Another option is to ensure the
vision of the organization is addressed early during KM strategy implementation along with the
relationship of the KM strategy and each individual’s contribution to this vision. Refer to the
Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan sections in the Planning phase of the toolkit
process.
Q30: The percentage of employees empowered to do their job with minimal direction is ...
Q30-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there are some employees who are empowered and do
not have significant oversight. This group could represent the core of the group supporting KM
strategy implementation. If these individuals are located in specific departments and other
departments have few or no empowered workers, the Utility KM strategy may be challenging.
This should be taken into account in developing of the specific approach to the KM strategy to
be implemented. Empowerment is discussed in the MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning
and Success” and the MQI paper “Collaborative Leadership.” Both can be accessed through
the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q30-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there are only a few employees who are empowered,
with most employees working in the same level of a control-oriented environment. This situation
would make implementation of a KM strategy difficult since KM relies on the individual worker
using their knowledge and expertise to collaborate and share with others, and making decisions
within the envelope of their competency, experience and level of empowerment by
management. Empowerment is discussed in the MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning
D-22
and Success” and the MQI paper “Collaborative Leadership.” Both can be accessed through
the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q30-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that very few or perhaps none of the employees in the Utility
are empowered. This situation would make it quite difficult to implement a KM strategy for the
Utility. Most often, this is a leadership/management problem that must be addressed before
moving ahead with a KM strategy. You may wish to review the Leading and Managing section
in the Executing phase of the toolkit process and the MQI paper on “Collaborative Leadership”
in the Resource Documents section of Resources.
Q31: For the critical processes of the Utility, workforce discipline is ...
Q31-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that not all critical processes are implemented by workers
with high discipline. Critical processes would be considered as those that ensure safe drinking
water for the public, or those that require safety procedures that must not be compromised. The
challenge here is that—when implementing a KM strategy for the entire Utility—employees
involved in the critical processes maintain their discipline and careful performance on a daily
basis while simultaneously learning and sharing their knowledge and helping others perform
well. Considerations such as these may need to be taken into account in the creation of KM
strategy implementation. Note that workforce discipline and management control are not
synonymous.
Q31-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there are critical processes within the Utility in which
employee discipline may be lower than desired. Under these conditions, this discipline must be
reinstated. If the KM strategy is implemented it should support both disciplined processes as
well as collaboration and knowledge sharing.
Q31-1: Selecting level 2 indicates that the critical processes within the Utility are not
implemented with sufficient employee discipline. While this rarely occurs due to the critical
nature of the drinking water industry, if such a situation does exist it should be corrected
immediately and prior to implementing any KM strategy.
Q32: The level of trust between employees and managers is ...
Q32-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that while there is a level of trust between workers and
management in this Utility, there is also some distrust. Trust is an essential ingredient in the
workplace before collaboration and knowledge sharing can be implemented effectively. Thus
actions should be considered early in the implementation phase of the KM strategy to improve
the level of trust between management and the employees. Trust is an underlying theme
throughout the discussions on knowledge strategies and initiatives. It is also a major area in the
extended APQC and MQI studies and reports located in the Resource Documents section of the
Q32-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is not very much trust between management and
the employees. Under these conditions it may be best to approach and resolve the trust issue
prior to implementing a KM strategy. Trust between management and the employees
represents a foundation upon which empowerment, knowledge sharing and learning can be
built. Without this foundation the challenges may be too great for the Utility to successfully
implement a KM strategy. You may wish to refer to the MQI paper on “Collaborative
Leadership” in the Resource Documents section under Resources. Trust is an underlying
theme throughout the discussions on knowledge strategies and initiatives. It is also a major
D-23
area in the extended APQC and MQI studies and reports located in the Resource Documents
Q32-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no trust between management and the
employees. When this situation occurs, it would be very difficult to implement almost any form
of KM strategy unless the strategy is specifically designed to improve the level of trust
throughout the Utility. Building trust takes time, significant effort and patience by all concerned.
It is particularly challenging if the lack of trust is organization-wide and management is control
oriented with silos and/or old boy networks built into the culture. You may wish to refer to the
APQC best practice report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture” and the MQI paper on
“Collaborative Leadership” in the Resource Documents section under Resources.
Q33: The level of employee training, learning, and development in this Utility is ...
Q33-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that this Utility has a medium level of employee training,
learning and development. This may be an adequate baseline to initiate a KM strategy.
Depending on the specific strategy selected, it may be important to look at the various
departments within the Utility to determine if training, learning and development are adequate to
meet current and anticipated needs relative to the creation, sharing and application of
knowledge and the empowerment of employees. Refer to the Sharing and Learning sections in
the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process.
Q33-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that while there is some employee training, learning and
development it may not be adequate. Specific actions may be necessary to upgrade training,
learning and development either prior to commencing—or as part of—a KM strategy. Refer to
the Sharing and Learning sections in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process.
Q33-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no employee training, learning and development.
If this is the case, the KM strategy should not be implemented unless it contains training, learning and
development as part of the strategy, or perhaps that could be the strategy. Organizational learning and
knowledge management go hand in hand. You might wish to read the MQI paper on organizational
learning and knowledge management located in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q34: The percentage of employees that think in terms of systems, and how their work affects
other employee efforts and the mission of the organization, is ...
Q34-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there are some employees within the Utility who do think
in terms of systems and how their work affects other employee efforts and contributes to the
mission of the organization. This is a positive situation upon which KM strategies may be built.
A discussion on Thinking About Systems is included in the Planning phase of the toolkit
process. For those desiring a deeper treatment of systems and complexity, there is an MQI
paper on this topic as related to decision-making included in the Resource Documents section
of the toolkit under Resources.
Q34-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there are perhaps a few employees who think in terms of
systems and how their work affects other employee efforts and the overall mission of the
organization. Since the capacity to think in terms of systems and interaction among workers
provide significant support for any KM strategy being implemented, this characteristic in the
Utility may need to be further developed by using teams, or perhaps training in systems and
complexity. While this situation may not preclude a successful KM strategy, it would be
D-24
worthwhile to include team training and workshops on collaboration and communication as part
of the startup of KM strategy implementation. One approach would be to embrace Relationship
Network Management (RNM) as a core competency for Utility employees. A paper on RNM is
included in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. A discussion on
Thinking About Systems is included in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. For those
desiring a deeper treatment of systems and complexity, there is an MQI paper on this topic as
relationed to decision-making included in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under
Resources.
Q34-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no systems thinking in the Utility which
would include an understanding of how one employee’s work affects other employees as well as
its relationship to the organizational mission. While such a situation may not preclude
successful KM implementation, it highlights the need for, and importance of, developing
employee capacity to think broader than their individual job responsibilities and to begin to
communicate and collaborate more effectively with other employees. Plan on including team
training and workshops on collaboration and communication as part of the startup of KM
strategy implementation. One approach would be to embrace Relationship Network
Management (RNM) as a core competency for Utility employees. A paper on RNM is included
in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. Another approach for
medium-large utilities would be to consider developing and supporting Communities of Practice
(CoP). A large number of resources on CoPs are included in the toolkit. A good starting place
is Community of Practice in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. A discussion on
Thinking About Systems is included in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. For those
desiring a deeper treatment of systems and complexity, there is an MQI paper on this topic as
related to decision-making included in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under
Resources.
ALIGNMENT
Q35:
How well will the strategic business plan support the KM strategy?
Q35-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that this plan will provide some support to the KM strategy. If
the strategic business plan is well developed and consistent with the purpose and vision of the
Utility, then the KM strategy would most likely be aligned with, and supportive of, the business
plan. If the business plan does not support the needs of the KM strategy, then it may be
necessary to ensure that the business plan and the KM strategy are aligned. It may be
beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning
phase of the toolkit process.
Q35-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is minimum alignment between the business plan
and the KM strategy. . If the strategic business plan is well developed and consistent with the
purpose and vision of the Utility, then the KM strategy would most likely be aligned with, and
supportive of, the business plan. If the business plan does not support the needs of the KM
strategy, then it may be necessary to ensure that the business plan and the KM strategy are
aligned. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the
Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q35-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no alignment or relationship between the
business plan and the KM strategy. Clearly this gap needs to be addressed. If the business
plan does not support the needs of the KM strategy, then it will be necessary to ensure that the
D-25
business plan and the KM strategy are aligned. It may be beneficial to read the sections on
Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q36:
How well will the operational plan support the KM strategy?
Q36-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the operational plan provides some support to the KM
strategy, but not necessarily a large amount. Depending on the anticipated interaction and
relationship between the operational plan and the KM strategy, this may be acceptable. Where
possible, the two should mutually support each other. It may be beneficial to read the sections
on Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q36-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the operational plan may provide some support for the
KM strategy. If the operational plan and KM strategy are independent and do not need
interaction and alignment, then a KM strategy may begin implementation. However, the plan
and KM strategy may have to be reviewed to bring them into better alignment. It may be
beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning
phase of the toolkit process.
Q36-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the operational plan will provide little or no support for
the KM strategy. If this is the case then the plan and the KM strategy need to be reviewed and
brought into closer alignment and mutual support. It may be beneficial to read the sections on
Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q37: How well will the capital improvement plan support implementation of a KM
strategy?
Q37-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the capital improvement plan provides some support for
the KM strategy. In this case, a KM strategy would have to be reviewed for its relationship to
the capital improvement plan to ensure the KM strategy supports the long-term goals of the
Utility. If the two are relatively independent, there should be no issue in commencing the KM
strategy. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the
Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q37-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the capital improvement plan is relatively independent of
the KM strategy. This should not be an issue unless the KM strategy directly impacts the capital
improvement plan. In this case, the plan and the KM strategy need to be reviewed carefully and
brought into alignment. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy
and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q37-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the capital improvement plan will not support the KM
strategy. Assuming the KM strategy needs support from the capital improvement plan, then
these two should be brought into alignment. If there are no negative impacts between the two,
the KM strategy could begin implementation, assuming other aspects of this assessment are
acceptable. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing
the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process.
Q38: How well will the Utility’s information technology master plan support
implementation of a KM strategy?
Q38-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the information technology master plan provides some
support for the KM strategy. If the KM strategy involves significant technological support, this
D-26
issue could require careful consideration before proceeding with the strategy. Whatever level of
technology support is needed, it is important to ensure that the technology is selected and
implemented in a manner which is cohesive with Utility needs and resources, and employee
acceptance. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation section in the Preparing
phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the
Q38-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the information technology master plan provides some,
but not necessarily sufficient, support for the KM strategy. If the KM strategy is highly
dependent upon technological support, as many KM strategies are, implementation may have to
be delayed until it is assured that adequate technology is available. You may wish to review the
Building the Foundation section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also
Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q38-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the information technology master plan would provide
little or no technology in support of the KM strategy. Since technology is an enabler for KM, this
may not be acceptable, depending upon the needs of the KM strategy. A careful review of the
plan and the KM strategy is necessary. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation
section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in
the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q39: How well will your information technology department support implementation of
a KM strategy?
Q39-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the information technology department will provide
medium support to the KM strategy. This may be satisfactory if the KM strategy does not
require significant technology and its related support. However, if technology is a significant
aspect of the KM strategy, then a part of that strategy must ensure that the information
technology department is capable of providing necessary support. You may wish to review the
Building the Foundation section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also
Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q39-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the information technology department will be able to
provide some support, but perhaps not enough to ensure an effective KM strategy. If the
strategy is dependent upon strong IT support, this issue should be resolved before commencing
the KM strategy. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation section in the Preparing
phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the
Q39-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the information technology department is essentially
unable to provide support to the KM strategy. This is only be acceptable if the KM strategy does
not include any technology for its implementation. However, since IT is an enabler of KM, this is
highly unlikely. When technology is required, the KM strategy would need to be delayed until
this issue is resolved. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation section in the
Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in the Ideas
Q40: The competency and skill sets of this Utility’s employees is ...
Q40-3: Selecting a 3 indicates that the competency and skills of this Utility’s employees are
average in their capacity to support a KM strategy. This should be adequate to implement a KM
D-27
strategy; however, the strategy might be designed to include training and other experiences to
build up employee capabilities. While competencies and skills are included throughout the
Resources section of the toolkit, you may wish to review the Lehigh County Authority
Workforce Plan, which includes a model that serves as a hiring guide and provides skills
expectations of their leadership team. The Plan is included in the Resource Documents section
of the toolkit under Resources.
Q40-2: Selecting a 2 indicates that the competency and skills of this Utility’s employees are
lower than average. Depending on the KM strategy, it may be best to delay implementation, or
to modify the strategy to include upgrading the competencies and skills of employees. One
approach is to engage retirees to support rapid upgrading of employee competencies and skills.
See Engaging Golden Experience in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. While
competencies and skills are included throughout the Resources section of the toolkit, you may
wish to review the Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, which includes a model that serves
as a hiring guide and provides skills expectations of their leadership team. The Plan is included
in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources.
Q40-1: Selecting a 1 indicates that the competencies and skills of the Utility workforce are low.
This condition needs immediate attention. A KM initiative could be used to upgrade weak areas
while simultaneously supporting implementation of a broader KM strategy. While competencies
and skills are included throughout the Resources section of the toolkit, you may wish to review
the Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, which includes a model that serves as a hiring
guide and provides skills expectations of their leadership team. The Plan is included in the
In concluding your analysis, consider the four areas below:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
The total score and the above discussion;
the appropriateness of your specific strategy;
the impact of items scored at a level 1, 2 or 3 on your KM strategy; and
the impact of the external environment in which the KM strategy will be implemented.
Then, use your judgment to determine the readiness of your Utility to implement a specific KM
strategy. You may find it helpful to get several other managers in your Utility to take the
assessment and use a team dialogue to arrive at your Utility’s readiness for a KM strategy.
D-28
Appendix E
Knowledge Management Toolkit Intro and Process Phases
Knowledge
Toolkit Resources
Related WaterRF Research
Knowledge
The decisions that are made every day by every single person in your Utility determine the
performance of the Utility that day. Knowledge is about making good decisions and taking
the best actions in a given situation. This is why knowledge is defined as the capability
(potential or actual) to take effective action. When you have good knowledge your decisions and
actions will result in what you expect or plan to happen. Managing knowledge in an organization
means ensuring decision-makers at all levels have the ability and the information they need to
make the best decisions and take the most effective actions.
Knowledge can be thought about in many different ways. One way is to consider it in terms
of explicit, implicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be called up from memory
and described in words or visuals such that another person can comprehend what is expressed.
Emotions can also be expressed as explicit knowledge in terms of changes in body state; for
example, when someone blushes. Implicit knowledge is a bit more complicated. It is knowledge
stored in memory which you may not recall but can be triggered, usually by an external event.
Examples of triggers are questions, dialogue and reflective thought. In other words, implicit
knowledge is something you do not know you have but is self-discoverable. Tacit knowledge
describes that which cannot be recalled and put into words. It is a knowing or doing that is
known or acted upon but which cannot be articulated or explained. Examples range from
intuitive feelings to bicycle riding.
There are other ways to think about knowledge that can be useful to individuals and
organizations. For example, thinking about knowledge in terms of surface knowledge, shallow
knowledge and deep knowledge can help a manager ask relevant questions about specific
levels of knowledge. It also helps us to recognize the scope and depth of knowledge available
to maximize problem solving, decision-making and action in simple, complicated and complex
situations. Further, these three levels of knowledge help tailor learning and knowledge to
improve knowledge sharing and retention. Another way to think about knowledge is in terms of
types of knowledge grouped by similarities and differences, specifically, in terms of what
knowledge is needed to do a particular type of work or take a particular action. This is useful
when considering the knowledge needs for specific jobs, and identifying knowledge gaps in a
Utility. See the MQI paper on The Depth of KNOWLEDGE.
Another way to think about knowledge is in terms of technical, social and structural.
Technical knowledge applies to functional capabilities, and is typically demonstrated as a skill.
Social knowledge is embedded in the exchanges individuals have among themselves, and is
built on relationships and culture. Structural knowledge is what is embedded in the Utility’s
systems, processes, policies and procedures, and is usually rules-based. In Project Study
#23, the Louisville Water Company surveyed retiring managers to discover the technical, social,
and structural knowledge needed to do their jobs.
Knowledge Management (KM) is all about people—individuals, groups and
organizations—effectively applying their knowledge. KM looks at the organization through
an information and knowledge lens and asks the question: What can leaders and managers
do to help employees work more efficiently and effectively, be proactive, and take the best
actions to support the goals and strategy of the Utility? In short, KM can help resolve a
specific problem, change a culture, or prepare an organization (and individuals) for a better
future.
KM consists of a group of related ideas, principles and practices that, when tailored and
applied by experienced people to specific issues, can improve the quality of the Utility’s
decisions and actions. The unifying theme is its focus on information and knowledge. It is
also an approach to increasing the Utility’s capacity to deal with growing change,
uncertainty and complexity. For example, one KM objective is to build a collaborative
learning organization with employees who create, share, leverage, and apply their
information and knowledge in support of Utility objectives. The payoff includes rapid
response, employee satisfaction, quality work and fewer mistakes. When individuals begin
to understand the potential offered by KM—and that it is all about helping them use their
knowledge better, they often get excited. This happened in Project Study #11.
At different times in its history and implementation, KM has been focused on information
systems, communities of practice, and knowledge strategies. Combining these focuses, the
U.S. Department of the Navy considered KM from three viewpoints: information, decisionmakers, and the organization.
From the viewpoint of information: Connecting information and people. This includes
searchable and linked information repositories consistently organized through the use of
a taxonomy; and the flow of information through systems support of communities, teams
and various communications and intermediation approaches (connecting those who
need knowledge with those who have the knowledge).
From the viewpoint of the decision-maker: Facilitating understanding. This includes
the use of meta information to ensure understanding of the context of how specific
information has been used in the past (and its effectiveness in that situation). This also
includes the ability to access what is needed (information literacy) and to have open
communications with others to build awareness and facilitate the creation of new ideas
(relationship network management). Further, it focuses on the ability of individuals and
teams to understand what is accessed and effectively use it to make decisions (critical
thinking, systems and complexity thinking; decision-making in a complex environment,
From the viewpoint of the organization: Nurturing a knowledge sharing culture. This
also means nurturing a learning organization, which includes encouraging and
supporting communities of practice and communities of interest, and rewarding
knowledge sharing. It also includes leadership commitment and providing the guidance,
planning, and tools to support movement within the organization toward becoming a knowledge
centric organization.
As you move through this toolkit, additional resources are embedded to facilitate a deeper
understanding. However, it is important to recognize that neither KM (nor for that matter any
strategy or initiative) will provide all the answers for your Utility. Ultimately, it is informed,
intelligent thinking, caring and mission-aligned individuals making the best decisions
that will take your Utility into the future. What is critical about KM is its concern with the
knowledge that must be created by all of your decision-makers using the best available
information. Thus KM focuses on information, the flow of information across the organization
(and beyond), and individual and organizational learning to create and maintain the best
knowledge available relative to the present and future needs of your Utility. See the MQI
research reports on The Current State of KM.
[This is a short description of KM that can help you describe to others why it is important to
drinking water utilities.]
KM is a set of ideas, principles and practices that make knowledge available to decisionmakers at every level of the organization, and help encourage workers to learn, take the
initiative and guide their actions to meet utility goals and objectives. Efficiency can be improved
by reducing mistakes, optimizing processes, broadening worker responsibilities, and reducing
time spent searching for documents, information or expertise. Effectiveness improves when
employees know their job, can learn fast enough to keep up with changing work needs, and
know who to tell, or ask, relative to the impact of their actions. To be optimally effective means
to look at the entire utility from a knowledge perspective, making KM a central part of overall
leadership, management and day-to-day decision-making. [See The Business Case for KM in
the drinking water utility industry.]
As finding or sustaining high-quality water resources becomes increasingly difficult and
drinking water is recognized world-wide as a scarce resource, emerging research in water
treatment and wastewater and solid waste treatment will offer new opportunities. New
processes and procedures will focus on improved efficiency and effectiveness in terms of the
services and products provided, customer perceptions and needs, and environmental
requirements. [See the 4003 report on issues faced by drinking water utilities and regulatory
perspectives for the water utilities.]
Toolkit Resources
A large number of resources are available in this toolkit from various contributors that can
serve as guidance in implementing KM strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities. These
resources take the form of white papers, published articles, research studies, case studies, case
examples, project studies (internal examples), tools, idea sheets, and more. As you move
through this toolkit these resources are linked to related topics.
Several resources that serve as generic guides to KM and the implementation of KM are
briefly introduced below:
Knowledge and information management in the water and sanitation sector: A hard nut to crack
published by the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, June 2006, written by Jan Teun
Visscher, Jaap Pels, Viktor Markowski and Sascha de Graaf; Reviewed by Urs Karl Egger
(SKAT) and Ratan Budhathoki (NEWAH) (included with permission)
Following the introduction and a brief treatment of concepts and definitions, this document
addresses strategy (a KM strategy, the strategy document, monitoring and evaluating KM efforts),
people (knowledge acquisition, learning styles, training and learning, and KM roles in an
organisational setting); processes (KM/IM and examples); technology (the KM spectrum);
enablers and barriers (culture, policies and structure, learning projects); improving KM (person,
organisational and sector); cases and example; and references. Go directly to this resource.
Public sector information technology and knowledge management written by Susan Turnquist,
Project Management, American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
This paper addresses the topic of KM in the public sector, mainly in the federal government, and
particularly focuses on how the development of information technologies has contributed to KM
and changes in public administration. Go directly to this resource.
Related WaterRF Research
Organizational Development Needed to Implement a Knowledge Management Strategy at
Water Utilities (WaterRF #4003) (This toolkit is a product of this study.)
Will identify the benefits of implementing a KM initiative and investigate and identify
organizational development factors critical to the success of implementing a KM initiative. Will
develop a toolkit for drinking water utilities to evaluate and develop their organizational cultures
so that they are supportive of successful implementation of KM strategies and initiatives.
(Underway)
http://waterrf.org/search/detail.aspx?Type=1&PID=4003&OID=4003
Strategies to Help Drinking Water Utilities Ensure Effective Retention of Knowledge (WaterRF
#3120)
Will identify strategies, tools, and techniques that utilities can use to retain knowledge of the
retiring and shifting workforce. Will include key drivers, critical success factors, barriers, and
costs and benefits relat

Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water

Transcription

Similar documents

Agenda Item Cover Sheet

Smart Energy Source - Oklahoma State University

PureNet™ Asset Management

covers layout.indd - The Edison Foundation

GA Power Utility Easement Pebblebrook HS

CoServ Gas—Texas Administrative Code

Kulim 220MW CCGT

4929 139,000

viewing or downloading our brochure

2015 Annual Financial Statement