Transcript Library and KM

KM and Libraries:
Experiences elsewhere
Nongyao Premkamolnetr
Policy Innovation Center
King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi
[email protected]
26 October 2005
Topics
• KM-related information :- tools & techniques,
technology / applications
• KM and library activities
–
–
–
–
Reference services
Special collection:-Grey literature
As KM centers for SME
As gateway to KM resources
• Libraries as KM partners with the universities
• KM Success indicators
• KM failure factors
Tool & technique used in KM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
After Action Review (AAR)
Community of Practice (CoP)
Connection
Exit interviews
Identifying and sharing best practice
Knowledge center
Knowledge harvesting
Peer assists
Social network analysis
Storytelling
White pages
Source: http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/knowledge_management/km2/toolkit.asp
Communities of Practice (CoP)
“groups informally bound together by shared
expertise & passion for a joint enterprise”
- Etienne Wenger
“peers in the execution of real work. What holds
them together is a common sense of purpose
and a real need to know what each other knows”
- John Seely Brown
Communities of Practice (CoP)
• Why CoP?
– ..for a professional, it is essential to belong to a CoP because it
is very difficult to know every thing .. (Wenger & Jean, 1991)
• Different names:– Learning communities (HP)
– Family Group (Xerox)
– Thematic groups (World bank)
– Peers groups (British Petroleum)
– Knowledge network (IBM)
• Virtual CoP :- discussion lists, forums, shared glossaries,
repositories of reference documents, chat rooms, video &
audio-based communication facilities
Benefits of CoP
 Share best practices, avoid bad practices:
codifying experience
 Solve problems more efficiently: knowing who
and how to ask
 Build member skills: peer learning
 Innovate – vetting and nurturing new ideas
CoP Building Blocks
 Community Leader/Facilitator
 Meetings – F2F, VC, Phone
 Community Website
 Knowledge Base
 Help Desk
 Newsletters, dissemination strategy
 Partnerships/Joint Ownership
Source: Ronald Kim, 2005
Success Factors in Building a CoP
• Focus on topics important to the business of
community members.
• Find a well-respected community member to
coordinate the community.
• Make sure people have time and
encouragement to participate.
• Get key resource persons involved.
• Build personal relationships among members.
• Develop an active and passionate core group.
• Create forums for thinking together as well as
systems for sharing information.
Source: Ronald Kim, 2005
Success Factors in Building a CoP
(cont.)
• Make it easy to contribute and access the
community’s knowledge and practice.
• Create real dialogue about cutting edge issues.
• Reliable technological platform
• Recognition of the participation of the members
• Clear statement of benefits found in
participating in the community
Source: Hernandes, 2003, Ronald Kim, 2005
KM technologies/applications
KM and Library Activities :
Reference services
• Ref. librarians answer thousands of questions every day
• In the process of helping users locate relevant inf.,
librarians have amassed enormous of tacit knowledge
about print & electronic resources.
• “The next best thing to knowing something is knowing
where and how to find it - just in time”
• No single librarian can keep track of or remember the
best sources of inf. for all the questions asked
• They manage to answer only 50-60 % correctly
• Therefore they need to improve services and learn from
each other by sharing correct answers
KM and Library Activities :
Reference services
• Knowledge transfer
– Work with co-workers (tacit 2 tacit)
– Provide answer through email, workshop,
conferences, printed and web-based guide,
publication, informal conversation (tacit 2 explicit)
– Use new technology to yield more creative method :using web Blogs into knowledge based as part of the
knowledge sharing strategy
– Reference librarians need to formalize their tacit
knowledge, non-codified explicit knowledge  ready
reference files, FAQ
KM and Library Activities :
Reference services
• Frequent asked question card files
– All materials that were found with difficulty
– References to questions asked frequently
– Information or items not easily located
through indexes
– Any info. that likely to be needed in the future
but would be at a loss to find again
– Info. of local interest and queries that couldn’t
be answered despite a thorough search
KM and Library Activities :
Reference services
• Knowledge-based expert system fact type questions
– The National Agricultural Library developed a “computerised
expert system” to assist users in obtaining answers to questions
on agricultural topics
• Knowledge repositories:– Contain FAQ, info. & resources for class assignment, important
policies & procedures, emails, addresses, phone no.& urls. of
frequent used resources
– Web-based Ready Ref. Database (RRD) at San Diego State
Univ.
• Electronic Listserv’s, Usenet newsgroup, and
collaborative reference:- QuestionPoint, Stumpers
KM and Library Activities : Reference
services : San Diego State Univ.: RRD
• Is both knowledge repository and a knowledge
map
• It contains knowledge (a repository), but it also
point to knowledge (a knowledge map)
• Knowledge map often point to both people and
documents which are guides that help to locate
important info. in the organistion
• A related process in knowledge creation is
“knowledge linking’ where info. created by other
org. linking to relevant web sites, embeded info.
drawn from outside sources and referrals to
outside experts
http://www.questionpoint.org/index.html
http://domin.dom.edu/depts/gslis/stumpers/
Special collection: Grey literature
• 6 civil- and hydraulic- engineering institutes form
Delft Cluster in the Netherlands
• Develop collaboration to increase the efficiency of
research program
• Knowledge map technique is used to encourage
professionals to share info. on people, projects,
organisations and tools in their working field.
• Knoweldge map answer questions
– Who worked on a similar problem before?
– There must be a tool for this problem, but where?
• Grey literature would be collected, stored,
disseminated in a database
Special collection: Grey literature
• Knowledge map/grey literature system was built
• The project team and the project leadership were shared
from 2 institutes
• Aims to improve access to implicit knowledge
• Strategy was to strengthen the informal networks by
improving codification and diffusion of this knowledge
• Selected subject was “Tunnel construction in soft soil”
• The 10-month project called “Delft Cluster Tunnel
Center” has been developed for the researchers,
consultants and engineers
• The project tried to give answer to 2 questions:
– Is access to knowledge improve?
– Are the informal networks more opens? (consultants and
scientists and contractors)
Special collection: Grey literature
Lessons Learned
• The info. need of each group seem to differ
more than first realised
• Communication with potential end users should
have been better
• Not plan in enough time for consulation of
management and end users
• Testing took a lot of time
• Should have more time in discussions with
software supplier during the development
• Loading of content should have been organised
better
Library as KM centers (LKMC)
• Proposes enhancing libraries as KM centers for SME –
KM and competitive intelligence
• Use semantic web in the LKMC
–
–
–
–
–
XML
URIs
RDF
Ontologies
Intelligent agents
• Documents can be annotated in such a way that their
semantic content will be optimally accessible and
comprehensible to automated software agents and other
computerized tools that function without human guidance
Develop a gateway to KM-related
issue
• National Library for Health (NLH)
http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/knowledge_managem
ent/default.asp
http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/knowledge_management/default.asp
KM partner with the university
• Knowledge process:– Generative : create new knowledge and lead
to the production of innovations
– Productive
– Representative
• Library as an internal strategic partner
Source: Huotari, M-L, 2005
Source: Huotari & Livonen, 2005
KM success Indicators
• Growth in the resources including people and
budget
• Growth in the volume of content and usage
• The project is a organisational initiative, not
individual effort
• Evidence of financial return
Source: Davenport, 1998.
KM Failure Factors
• Technology : connectivity, usability, maintenance
cost
• The focus was on the technology rather than the
business and its people.
• Culture : politics, knowledge sharing, perceived
image, management commitment
• Content :coverage, structure, relevance &
currency, knowledge distillation
• Project management : user involvement, technical
& business expertise, conflict management, rollout
strategy, project cost, project evaluation,
involvement of external consultants
KM Failure factors (cont.)
• KM was not tied into business processes and ways of
working. It was seen as another laborious overhead
activity or yet another new initiative.
• Most knowledge management literature was very
conceptual and lacking in practical advice, which led to
frustration at the inability to translate the theory into
practice - 'it all makes so much sense but why isn't it
working?'.
• A lack of incentives - employees quite rightly asked the
'what's in it for me?' question.
• There wasn't sufficient senior executive level buy in.
.
Further readings
• Chua, A & Lam, W., 2005, “Why KM projects fail: a multi-case
analysis”, J Knowledge management, 9, 3, p6-17.
• Gandhi, S., 2004, “Knowledge management and reference services”, J
Academic librarianship, July.
• Hernandes, C A & Fresneda, P S., 2003, “Main critical success factors
for the establishment and operation of virtual communities of practice”,
3rd European knowledge management summer school.
• Huotari, M-L, 2005, “Knowledge process: a strategic foundation for the
partnership between the university and its library” Library
management, 26, 6/7, p324-335.
• Koenig, M E D., 2003, “Knowledge management, user education and
librarianship” Library review, 52, 1, p10-17.
• Parker, K R et al, 2005, “Libraries as knowledge management
centers”, Library management, 26, 45, p176-189.
• Van den Berg, C. & Popescu, I., 2005, “An experience in knowledge
mapping”, J knowledge management, 9,2, p123-128.