Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Measurement of
Knowledge:
Process and Practice in
Knowledge
Management
Not everything that can be counted counts; and not everything that
counts can be counted.
Albert Einstein
Introduction
Organisations of all kinds are aware of the need to manage their
knowledge resources for company success through enhanced
knowledge use and knowledge sharing, but few so far have gone
that extra distance to measure systematically the results of their
work. Many unresolved dilemmas remain about the theory and
practice of KM, not least of which is how to measure whether
KM initiatives or projects actually deliver results. Measurement
is an important area for the field of Knowledge Management
(KM), because as Koenig states, the field is noted for typically
Measurement of Knowledge 343
1
For example, Media Richness Theory was used by Guo Zixiu to explore the
effect of culture on the communication behaviour of a Multinational
Corporation with branches in Thailand, Malaysia, Korea and Australia. See:
Guo Zixiu (2003); Guo Zixiu & DAmbra (2001); Guo Zixiu, DAmbra, &
Edmundson (2002).
350 Davis and Wilson
Knowledge Enablers
Knowledge processes are enhanced by external enablers, such
as information and communication technologies ICTs), and are
influenced by organisational factors (social and behavioural).
The whole rests on an assumption that information seeking,
using and learning are part of a holistic effort to make sense of
the world within specific contexts and situations, driven by
Measurement of Knowledge 351
Knowledge Capital
To fully realise the KM objective, layers of knowledge and
experience are built up to form the basis of the organisations
intellectual capital. It has been suggested that benchmarks can
be derived from empirical evidence about the number and health
of communities of practice, the contributions of individuals and
the contributions of the community itself or of specific work
teams within an organisation (Anklam 2002). These layers are
described as:
Accumulated understandings, experience and insight
of individuals that are brought to bear in formulating
ideas, resolving problems, creating new products, patents
or works, or in building new knowledge claims, for
example, knowledge derived from personal experience that
is embedded in people, in human brains. This kind of
knowledge is characterised as a tacit dimension of
knowledge.
The accumulated works of recorded knowledge,
bodies of knowledge contained in traditional printed or
other recorded formats for example, knowledge
embedded in objects, in repositories such as libraries,
archives, museums, and so on. Knowledge of this type is
characterised as being an explicit dimension of codified,
systematic knowledge.
The specialised expertise accumulated by an
organisation through its particular mix of staff and
organisational processes built up over time - exemplified
352 Davis and Wilson
2
PNR-Putnam Norden Rayleigh model, COCOMO (Constructive Cost Model)
and FPA (Function Point Analysis).
354 Davis and Wilson
3
See also Measuring Intellectual Capital, a section in the general review of
various aspects of IC by Snyder & Pierce (2002, pp.479-490). This review has
over 100 references.
Measurement of Knowledge 357
4
The KMPS is an adaptation of the balanced scorecard (BSC) approach by
Kaplan & Norton (1996).
360 Davis and Wilson
5
See also Sveiby (1977) Chapter 13, Implementing systems for measuring
intangible assets, p.149.
6
Formerly the Department of Industry Science & Resources (ISR).
Measurement of Knowledge 361
OECD average (8.8%) and well below that in Sweden (the highest
at 11.6%), the USA (10.1%), Korea (9.7%) and several other
countries (p.xi). The ITR report credits strong investment in
ICTs as partly responsible for Australias rising multi-factor
productivity,7 which is represented by that part of the economy
that cannot be accounted for directly by inputs of physical
capital and labour (p.xii). Among OECD countries, Australia is
seen as well placed for knowledge diffusion because of its
relatively high-access, low-cost Internet environment (ITR 2002).
Following quickly after the June 2002 ITR report, the ABS
released a discussion paper proposing a framework for
measuring a knowledge-based economy and society (ABS, 2002).
In this paper, the ABS presents definitions of data requirements
for building statistics or indicators of impact of knowledge and
use of ICTs. The basis for the proposed indicators derives its
theoretical foundation from notions of social capital. The extent
of social capital, together with intellectual, structural and
customer capital, is thought to be one of the key indicators for
signifying Australias prospects for success. Building community
through communities of practice, communities of learning, of
interest and purpose, is a key component in KM. Like social
capital, knowledge management consists of the stock of
relationships within a company, organisational context, trust
and norms for enabling, using, sharing and disseminating
knowledge.
Conclusion
It is clear that KM is evolving rapidly as one of the management
imperatives for maintaining innovative and competitive strength
in organisations of all kinds. Approaches to measuring KM
necessarily rely on the use of a number of different conceptual
frameworks in which to couch research questions, and a diversity
of methods for data collection and empirical observation.
Adaptation for application to KM practice of some of the
7
Third highest in the OECD at 11% of GDP in 2001 (ITR 2002).
362 Davis and Wilson
8
Such as those reviewed on productivity measurement by Singh, Motwani &
Kumar (2000).
9
See Footnote 5 for references on measurements in information science.
10
See, for example, Case (2002). The book presents models of information
behaviour and examples of information seeking.
Measurement of Knowledge 363
References
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics (2002). Measuring a
knowledge-based economy and society: an Australian framework
2002. Discussion Paper, no. 1375.0. Canberra: ABS. Available
electronically as a pdf file through www.abs.gov.au.
<http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/FE633D1D2B900
671CA256C220025E8A3?Open> (Last accessed May 27, 2003)
Arora, R. (2002). Implementing KM: a balanced score card
approach. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(3):240-249. (Also
available electronically).
Anklam, P. (2002). Knowledge management: The collaboration
thread, Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 28(6): 8-11
Balanced Scorecard Collaborative Inc. See:
<http://balancedscorecard.com/> Note: A professional services
firm dedicated to awareness, use, enhancement, and integrity of
364 Davis and Wilson
ICTs
software (number/type)
hardware (number/type)
network (number/type)
Internet, Intranet or Extranet
capacity
370 Davis and Wilson
Productivity Indicators
Comparisons of
productivity;
Measures of growth and
quality;
Input-output measures, e.g.
Leontieff matrices.
Measurement of Knowledge 371
11
Documentation on and examples of quantitative measurements for
investigating explicit knowledge are abundant in the discipline of
Information Science. See, for example: Boyce et al (1994), Tague-Sutcliffe
(1995), Wilson (1999). Wilsons comprehensive review of the subdiscipline of
informetrics has over 300 references.
372 Davis and Wilson