This is an unpublished paper on the topic:
Knowledge Mapping
First, let’s put a framework on what we might be mapping. If we accept that what we are attempting to represent is a “knowledge ecology” – that is, a natural learning organization that creates, sustains, and fosters knowledge generation and sharing, then the resulting mapping exercise will be more likely to be representative of how knowledge really works in the organization. Another approach is to consider that we want to make visible both “who knows what” and “who knows who” (though the latter is often captured in a separate approach known as “social network analysis”). The knowledge map, by showing us where knowledge resides and how it flows, in itself creates new knowledge by making knowledge visible.
According to Hubert St. Onge, we can think of knowledge as consisting of “stocks” (quantity) and “flows” (movement). Knowledge stocks consist of the intangible knowledge assets of the organization: specifically, individual capabilities, organizational capabilities, and customer relations. The organization increases its knowledge “stocks” through the interaction of these three: that is the knowledge “flow” aspect. The business case for knowledge mapping is: we must understand the current situation and future desired state of both knowledge stocks and flows, which constitute the potential for increasing the (intangible) assets of the firm. Increasingly, the intangible assets of the firm are being reported as a significant percentage of total assets in annual reports (for example, in 2000, GE reported $31.6B in intangible assets, out of $496B, or approximately 6% of total assets). Other key advantages of knowledge mapping are:
• Encourages reuse of knowledge
• Finds pockets of knowledge previously hidden
• Discovers emergent communities of practice
• Enables and speeds up research time
• Improves responsiveness to customers
• Leads to better decision-making and problem solving
What is mapped in a knowledge-mapping project? Typically, knowledge is discovered that is embodied in documents, emails, presentations, policies, publications, and databases. These are the “stocks” that represent what is in people’s heads. These stocks must be matched with interviews and other forms of data collection to determine where the expert networks and communities of practice that use this knowledge reside and how they communicate. This is the “flow” aspect. The flow information is more difficult to obtain, and must be based on observation and key questions, such as:
• What business issues do you deal with?
• How do things get done around here?
• What is the interrelationship between work groups?
• What information resources do you use?
Most experts agree (but some experts will call this whole process the “knowledge audit”) that the steps in a knowledge mapping project comprise:
• a knowledge audit,
• knowledge mapping, and
• knowledge gap analysis,
followed by whatever new tools, processes, or policies these analyses indicate. A needs-driven knowledge map will be much more useful than merely cataloging the knowledge of the organization, because it will direct the analysis to understanding where there are gaps in the content and movement of the current organizational knowledge. The knowledge audit is the essential first data-gathering step that is often skipped or given short shrift. The reasons are the same as with most innovations or change efforts: the pressures to come up with the quick fix typically mean that we fail to spend the time assessing the current state that we want to change.
The knowledge audit includes the examination, review, assessment and evaluation of the organization’s knowledge abilities. Its primary function is to make the knowledge that is in the organization visible. The knowledge audit is not merely a set of interviews with a compilation of the response data. The use of the word “audit” implies that there must be independent analysis, verification, and especially validation of the information received. Few organizations spend the time and money needed to do a full knowledge audit, which may be due to the fact that many organizations have still not fully accepted a knowledge economy approach (that the knowledge that exists in the organization is a quantifiable asset and should be managed as such). Ann Hylton describes a three-stage knowledge audit process: first stage is an organizational survey; second is a series of face-to-face interviews; and the third stage she defines as identifying, locating and mapping of the explicit and tacit knowledge of the firm. The scope of the audit can include just one department or the whole organization, with timing ranging accordingly from one week to six months. Hylton warns that the following must be in place for a successful audit to occur:
• knowledge management is a core business strategy
• sufficient budget for the audit and implementing the results
• management must acknowledge that managing knowledge and the audit are not “quick-fix” approaches
• the organization should be prepared to invest people time in the audit
• the organization should be committed to taking action based on the audit
Key considerations for the knowledge mapping project include:
• What are the goals for the mapping project?
• Who should be involved in the project?
• Who is expected to use it?
• How complex should the map be?
• Will the map be static or dynamic?
• Will the map focus on knowledge topics or experts?
• Does the proposed format and language work across cultures?
• How will it be maintained?
• Who will maintain it?
• How will new sources of knowledge be incorporated?
• What will be the roll-out process, including training and usage considerations?
• How will the project be assessed, both short- and long-term?
Knowledge mapping promises that, in parallel with the development of increasingly sophisticated mapping and Internet tools, we could actually represent the knowledge of the firm and make that accessible to everyone in the enterprise. This would have tremendous benefits for reuse of knowledge, innovation, knowledge sharing, and global communications. At the same time, knowledge mapping is another case where practice is outstripping research and analysis. The definition and scope of the term itself is varied, and there has not been a leading authority or body that has clearly defined the term yet. There does seem to be a lot of experimentation with mapping, but there is little to show tangible positive outcomes, such as a report that tracks top-line (innovation, new product introductions) or bottom-line (cost/time savings) effects from mapping. I was unable to find any comparison of mapping approaches and what each would produce for a firm in a particular industry either (seems likely that a knowledge map for a manufacturer would differ from one for a service company, for example). Another question I have is that any organization considering mapping should be clear up and down the chain what the map is intended to accomplish. If it is used incorrectly, in other words, if there is a perception that the map will be used for control or judgment of competencies (“why don’t they know that?”), the mapping project could backfire and result in people moving away from knowledge sharing and back to knowledge hoarding. The promise of knowledge mapping is that we could really understand the organization as a whole (“know what we know”), but this should not be seen to replace a networked-based approach that supports focused communities of practice and links them together in knowledge networks that allow all employees to access the conversations and social connections where tacit knowledge resides. A map is useful, but the map is not the territory.
Resources:
“A KM Initiative is Unlikely to Succeed Without a Knowledge Audit,” by Ann Hylton. Hylton explores in detail her approach to the knowledge audit, which includes a mapping process. She emphasizes the knowledge economy approach, and includes useful information on scoping, costing, and understanding what’s involved in a thorough knowledge audit.
http://www.knowledgeboard.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=78415
“Knowledge Networks – Mapping and Measuring Knowledge Creation and Re-Use,” by Valdis Krebs. Valdis is a master of the social and work-flow mapping algorithm. He was an early innovator in using social network mapping to illuminate corporate relationships in Silicon Valley that showed how innovation occurred over time.
http://www.orgnet.com/IHRIM.html
“Mapping Organizational Knowledge: Bridging the Business-IT Communications Gap,” by Edmund F. Vail III. The author outlines a process for a knowledge mapping project that appears pretty thorough. Several useful examples are described of knowledge maps with different purposes.
http://www.ptechinc.com/01/sub/kma/assets/KnowlMapping.pdf
“Organizational Mapping: Knowing the Pitfalls” by Xenia Stanford. Stanford provides helpful definitions to the various types of mapping that can get lumped together: competency mapping, social network mapping, and others, and how they can be misused or actually damaging to the organization. Stanford is head of http://www.knowmap.com/, which publishes a newsletter and manages on website dedicated to knowledge mapping and auditing.
http://www.skyrme.com/updates/u59_f1.htm
“A Conversation with Hubert St.-Onge,” by Jay Chatzkel. An interview that reveals St.-Onge’s thinking and challenges in working with Clarica’s knowledge strategy.
http://www.progressivepractices.com/articles/Saint-Onge_Selections-Web.pdf
Copyright 2002. Dori Digenti. All rights reserved.
