KM and Libraries: Experiences elsewhere

1. KMandLibraries:Experiences elsewhere Nongyao Premkamolnetr Policy Innovation Center King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi nongyao.pre@kmutt.ac.th 26 October 2005

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. KM technologies/applications

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. http://www.questionpoint.org/index.html

17. http://domin.dom.edu/depts/gslis/stumpers/

18. 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

19. 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)

20. 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

21. 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

22. Develop a gateway to KM-related issue • National Library for Health (NLH) http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/knowledge_management/default.asp

23. http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/knowledge_management/default.asp

26. 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

29. Source: Huotari & Livonen, 2005

30. KM successIndicators • Growth in the resources including people and budget • Growth in the volume of content and usage • The projectis a organisational initiative, not individual effort • Evidence of financial return Source: Davenport, 1998.

31. 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

32. 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. .

33. 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.

34. THANK YOU