Dr. Jay Liebowitz, Dr. Bonnie Rubenstein-Montano, Doug McCaw, Judah Buchwalter, and Chuck Browning
Department of Information Systems
University of Maryland-Baltimore County
1000 Hilltop Circle
Baltimore, Maryland 21250
Butler Newman, Ken Rebeck, and the Knowledge Management Methodology Team
RWD Technologies, Inc.
10480 Little Patuxent Parkway
Columbia, Maryland 21044
ABSTRACT
One of the critical first steps in the knowledge management area is to conduct a knowledge audit. Some people view the knowledge audit as being the business needs assessment, cultural assessment, and an examination of what knowledge is needed, available, missing, applied, and contained. In the same manner that a manufacturing company will first inventory its physical assets, an aspiring "knowledge organization" should also inventory its intellectual capital assets. This paper will focus on the third strand of the knowledge audit described above, namely determining what knowledge is needed, what knowledge is available and missing, who needs this knowledge, and how will this knowledge be applied. Then, a case study will be discussed where the knowledge audit instrument was used.
Views of the Knowledge Audit
A critical part of a knowledge management methodology is performing a knowledge audit
(Liebowitz, 1999). A knowledge audit may identify the following (Wiig, 1993):
information glut or lack of information lack of awareness of information elsewhere in the organization inability to keep abreast of relevant information significant "reinventing the wheel" common use of out-of-date information, and not knowing where to go for expertise in a specific area.
A knowledge audit assesses potential stores of knowledge. It is the first part of any knowledge management strategy. By discovering what knowledge is possessed, it is then possible to find the most effective method of storage and dissemination. It can then be used as the basis for evaluating the extent to which change needs to be introduced to the organization. Part of the knowledge audit is capturing "tacit" knowledge. To do this, some organizations use
communication technologies and virtual teams, including groupware, discussion databases, video
conferencing, data conferencing, and teamware.
In a knowledge audit, one should try to identify the knowledge of: people who know the
contents of libraries, including feedback from lead customers with product innovations and
adaptations; rules of thumb; shortcuts; and cheat sheets. For the audit, look at: flows, sinks,
sources, and constrictions in addition to the stores. Look for opportunities and assess the form
and nature, relevance, usefulness, costs, timeliness, and the accuracy of the data collected. Pay
close attention to the context, the transformations, and the assumptions along the way.
According to Debenham and Clark (1994), a knowledge audit is a planning document
which provides a structural overview of a designated section of an organization‘s knowledge as
well as details of the qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the individual chunks of
knowledge within that designated section. The document also identifies the knowledge
repositories in which those chunks reside. They feel that the knowledge audit is a scientific
measurement of the state of affairs of specified sections of corporate knowledge.
Debenham and Clark (1994) further explain the detailed objectives of a knowledge audit
as:
to give a high-level view of the extent, nature, and structure of the knowledge in a
specified section;
to provide meaningful hard data input to the strategic plan for knowledge processing; to identify the relevant knowledge repositories within the organization; to provide a statement of the qualitative characteristics of the chunks of knowledge within
a particular knowledge repository; and
to provide scientific estimates for the quantitative characteristics of the chunks of
knowledge within a particular knowledge repository.
In their view (Debenham and Clark, 1994), the knowledge audit report includes:
two page executive summary highlighting the major findings of the knowledge audit
--a clear statement of the reason for conducting the knowledge audit.
--a description of the audit process
--an analysis of the accuracy and sensitivity of the findings
--the conclusions, which should summarize the detailed findings of the knowledge
audit in an easily digestible form, and should relate these findings to the reasons why
the audit was conducted.
a "block map"--a diagram displaying the various knowledge blocks audited, their
relationships to one another and the knowledge repositories in which they reside
a section containing "block proformas"--the means used to record information about the
qualitative characteristics of a block, as well as to record the values for the quantitative
characteristics of a block--in a knowledge audit report, there is usually one proforma per
page and one proforma per block
an index providing the page numbers of the various blocks and corresponding repositories.
According to Shah et al. (1998), some questions for a knowledge audit include:
1. Business Concept
How do you conceptualize the business?
What is the mission or objectives of your team or unit?
2. Enterprise Know-How
How dependent are you on knowledge and expertise?
How do you generate knowledge?
Please describe various methods in which you codify knowledge (e.g., knowledge maps of
who knows what, printed sources (rule books), experience databases (repository of
customer problems and actions)
Do you codify knowledge related to both successful and failure experiences?
What mechanisms exist to transfer knowledge from expert people/teams to other
people/teams (e.g., training, informal talks, etc.)?
3. Knowledge Workers
Are they focused on what they are best at?
What kind of partnership exists between management and knowledge workers?
How do you use training and team processes to enhance knowledge/skills?
How is compensation linked with knowledge/skill levels?
4. Knowledge Mediated through IT
Is IT used just to process data or also to manage knowledge?
How do you implement your IS projects related to knowledge management?
5. Organizational Design
Does the flow of information in your unit foster or hinder innovation?
How close are you to being a modern networked, flat, and adaptable organization?
Some traditional internal audit tools used by auditors in Fairfax County, Virginia include:
Walk Throughs--Trace a document, transaction, or activity through a process from
beginning to end in order to become familiar with the process.
Flow Charts Input-Output Models
Wiig (1993) points out several knowledge analysis methods that could be used in theknowledge audit:
Questionnaire-based knowledge surveys: used to obtain broad overviews of an operation‘s knowledge status Middle management target group sessions: used to identify knowledge-related conditions
that warrant management attention
Task environment analysis: used to understand, often in great detail, which knowledge is
present and its role
Verbal protocol analysis: used to identify knowledge elements, fragments, and atom Basic knowledge analysis: used to identify aggregated or more detailed knowledge Knowledge mapping: used to develop concept maps as hierarchies or nets Critical knowledge function analysis: used to locate knowledge-sensitive areas Knowledge use and requirements analysis: used to identify how knowledge is used for
business purposes and determine how situations can be improved
Knowledge scripting and profiling: used to identify details of knowledge intensive work
and which role knowledge plays to deliver quality products
Knowledge flow analysis: used to gain overview of knowledge exchanges, losses, or
inputs of the task business processes or the whole enterprise
Certainly, a "knowledge map" showing the taxonomy and flow of knowledge is a critical
part of the knowledge audit. Some people (e.g., Snowden, 1999) believe that the best representations for knowledge maps are stories--they convey the context, the values, and the message. The most productive audit activities may be: identification of knowledge opportunities for connecting to customers, capturing the corporate memory (helping learning and preventing repeated errors), and compiling a directory of true experts and their interests.
According to Dataware (1998), one of the leaders in the knowledge management field, a
productive knowledge audit need only concentrate on answering the following question: "In order
to solve the targeted problem, what knowledge do I have, what knowledge is missing, who needs
this knowledge and how will they use the knowledge?"
The audit begins by breaking that information into two categories: what knowledge
currently exists and what knowledge is missing. Once the location or source of the missing
information is identified, they can begin to structure the relevant information so that it can be
easily found. At the conclusion of the knowledge audit, the knowledge management team has the information necessary to design its knowledge management system on paper.
Dataware believes strongly in the need to capture the tacit knowledge. That is why we focus on identifying tacit knowledge in the knowledge audit. One way is to
make tacit knowledge more accessible by capturing it as metadata (data about an explicit
knowledge asset). One can ask subject-matter experts what kinds of questions they most often
ask others in the process of doing their jobs. One can also create skills databases, online
communities of practice, and searchable repositories of resumes or skills profiles.
Consider using a qualitative organization of knowledge assets--being able to search by
topic versus location. One can use a process-oriented approach to have a generalized model of
how a business functions--from understanding customers and markets to managing people,
processes, and resources--and mapping it to the knowledge contained in the organization.
Conceptual models are often the most useful method of classification, but harder to construct and
maintain. Conceptual models organize information around topics, such as proposals, customers,
or employees.
Taxonomies map people, documents, opinions, ideas, and links to external resources in
ways that allow individuals to find the knowledge they need quickly--knowledge maps.
The next section states the objective of a knowledge audit and outlines the steps.
Objective of the Knowledge Audit (adapted from Dataware [1998])
In order to solve the targeted business problem, what knowledge do we have, whatknowledge is missing, who needs this knowledge, and how will we use the knowledge?
Knowledge Audit Steps
1. Identify what knowledge currently exists in the targeted area
a. Determine existing and potential sinks, sources, flows, and constraints in the targeted
area, including environmental factors that could influence the targeted area
b. Identify and locate explicit and tacit knowledge in the targeted area
c. Build a knowledge map of the taxonomy and flow of knowledge in the organization in
the targeted area. The knowledge map relates topics, people, documents, ideas, and links
to external resources, in respective densities, in ways that allow individuals to find the
knowledge they need quickly
2. Identify what knowledge is missing in the targeted area
a. Perform a gap analysis to determine what knowledge is missing to achieve business
goals
b. Determine who needs the missing knowledge
3. Provide recommendations from the knowledge audit to management regarding the status quo
and possible improvements to the knowledge management activities in the targeted area
The next section shows a knowledge audit instrument developed by the authors to address the steps in the knowledge audit process above. It is important to note that follow up questions via interviews, focus groups, and observation will need to be accomplished after completion and analysis of this knowledge audit questionnaire.
Knowledge Audit Instrument
The audit instrument consists of two sets of questions. The first set seeks to find answers for step 1 of the knowledge audit and the second set seeks to find answers for step 2 of the knowledge audit. Step 3 of the audit would then follow from the findings in steps 1 and 2.
Note: "Categories of knowledge" refers to the types of skills, rules, and practices (i.e., things you need to know) for your job. Examples might include (a) a professor who needs knowledge about presenting information, motivating students, developing course materials, ordering textbooks, etc., (b) a lawyer who needs knowledge about how to research, communication skills, locating relevant documents and legislation, filing documents, court rules, ethical rules, etc., or (c) a doctor who needs knowledge about diagnosing illnesses, performing surgery, treating diseases, bedside manner, writing prescriptions, etc. Generally speaking, "information" answers who, what, where and when questions; whereas, "knowledge" answers how and why questions.
Step 1. Identify what knowledge currently exists in a targeted area.
Questions: Answer as completely as possible
List specifically the categories of knowledge you need to do your job.
Which categories of knowledge listed in question 1 are currently available to you?
For each category of knowledge you specified in question 1 …
How do you use this knowledge? Please list specific examples. From how many sources can you obtain the knowledge? Which sources do you use? Why? Besides yourself, who else might need this knowledge? How often would you and others cited in question 5 use this knowledge? Who are potential users of this knowledge who may not be getting the knowledge now? What are the key processes that you use to obtain this knowledge? How do you use this knowledge to produce a value added benefit to your organization? What are the environmental/external influences impacting this knowledge? What would help you identify, use or transform this knowledge more effectively? Which parts of this knowledge do you consider to be (a) in excess/abundance, (b) sparse and (c) ancient/old/outlived its useful life?
How is knowledge currently being delivered? What would be a more effective method for delivering knowledge?
Who are the "experts" in your organization housing the types of knowledge that you need?
In what form is the knowledge that you have gained from the experts?
What are the key documents and external resources that you use or would need to make your job easier?
What are the types of knowledge that you will need as a daily part of your job (a) in the short term (1-2 years) and (b) in the long term (3-5 years)?
Step 2. Identify what knowledge is missing in the targeted area.
Questions: Answer as completely as possible
What categories of knowledge do you need to do your job better?
What categories of knowledge do you reuse? Are there other instances where knowledge is not typically reused, but reuse would be helpful?
For each category of knowledge you specified in question 1 …
To what degree could you improve your level of performance by having access to all of the knowledge cited in question 1? Who or what might serve as potential sources of this knowledge?
What types of questions do you have to which you cannot find answers?
For each type of knowledge listed in question 5 …
Of the knowledge that is missing, which types are related to: (a) job performance, (b) competitive advantage of the organization, (c) possibly lead to future expansion of the organization or (d) simple administrative questions? What departments/people did you think would answer your question(s) but did not? In what areas do you find yourself asking the same types of questions repeatedly?
Who has asked questions [that you are aware of] that have not been answered? In what department do they work? What level are they (i.e., job title)?
What people/departments have contacted you for information?
For each person/department listed in question 10 …
What level in the organization is each requester? Is the requester a new employee (less than 1 year), a medium-term employee (1-3 years) or a long term employee (over 3 years)?
Of the questions that you have been asked by others in the organization, what knowledge was requested that you consider to be (a) essential for business performance, (b) essential for the company‘s competitive advantage, (c) important for leading to innovations and new business areas in the future and (d) outdated and no longer useful for the business?
What mechanisms might be helpful for encouraging knowledge sharing and transfer in your organization?
Which aspects of your organization seem to provide barriers to effective knowledge management? (i.e., what constraints impede knowledge sharing and transfer?)
What are the main reasons that you could have made errors/mistakes on the job?
If your organization has considered outsourcing in the last 5 years …
In what areas was the outsourcing considered? If outsourcing was rejected, why? If outsourcing has taken place, why?
How much time do you spend looking for knowledge?
Case Study: ReVisions
The organization chosen for the Knowledge Audit is a small behavior health care organization. The organization has about 50 employees and provides behavior health care in the Catonsville, Maryland area.
ReVisions provides clinical services to children, adults and seniors; residential services to adults with specialized supports for seniors; social skill development for adults with psychiatric disabilities and training and job placement services for adults. (
http://www.revisionshealth.com/)
The VP/CFO allowed us to distribute the survey to 15 employees, of which 5 were returned. Of the 5 returned 2 were completed by the VP/CFO, the CEO and 2 staff, and one was incomplete, but comments were made.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
The are approximately 200 employees working at ReVisions Behavioral Health Systems, including 135 professional staff. Fifteen copies of the Knowledge Audit Questionnaire (as shown in the previous section) were distributed to the management and staff. Of those fifteen audits, five were returned to the Knowledge Audit team. The staff completed three questionnaires and upper management (CEO and VP) completed the other two questionnaires. Thus, the analysis and recommendations presented in this summary document only are based on a small number of the total staff at ReVisions. It is therefore recommended that there be an attempt to elicit more responses and revisit the analysis before any of the recommendations presented later are implemented. The analysis and results are also based in part on informal interviews with upper management. This was necessary to gather pertinent information and to gain some understanding of the corporate culture. A more intensive cultural audit would have been performed had time allowed.
The audits returned were easily divided into two categories: staff and senior management. It was unmistakably obvious from the audits that the two types of employees have different ideas about what knowledge they need to effectively and efficiently perform their job functions.
Senior Management
Senior management was focused on high-level domains such as financial, environmental, and political. They indicated a need for knowledge that will allow strategic planning to move the company forward and enable continuous improvement. They mentioned that competitive edge and competitive advantage were critical factors with which they were concerned. Some of the more salient concerns were centered on external factors that affect their business. As a behavioral health care provider, they need to be aware of who is in power in the government and what their policies are regarding behavioral science, grants, funding, etc.
The senior management listed various external sources of knowledge that enable them to act. These include news sources, market surveys, attorneys, industry experts, business journals, trade associations, etc. Financial statements, peers, subordinates, and personal education were included in the list of internal sources of knowledge.
They indicated that access to outcome process knowledge is very limited and that improving access to outcome process indices would allow for better decision making. They identified other members of senior management as the experts who hold the knowledge they require. Knowledge of the activities of their peers and access to news and trade publications were a common element identified by senior management as external sources necessary to perform their jobs.
As expected, individuals have different needs based on their job function. The CEO requires outcome process knowledge while the CFO requires access to billing and financial knowledge. All indicated that they needed better, faster, more reliable access to their respective knowledge sources. The management identified financial questions that the accounting and billing departments should be able to answer but cannot. This indicates an area of improvement in the financials department that needs to be addressed. All indicated that there was a need for technological improvement for Information Technology, connectivity, etc. Lastly, senior management indicated that the MIS functions have been outsourced due to a lack of knowledge in this domain and the price benefit (small businesses often outsource MIS because it is cheaper than hiring a full-time MIS professional). Fundraising was also considered for outsourcing.
Staff
The staff (mainly social workers) identified different needs. Some of the categories identified by the staff were regulatory statutes, health information, resources for clients, and training development. Other areas identified, such as supervising staff and creating schedules, were based on tacit knowledge held by very few people. One startling problem indicated by one employee was that most of the knowledge she needed was more readily available outside of the office. The knowledge areas identified by the staff were considered to be critical because they involved compliance with federal and local laws, standards, and regulations. The scheduling and training development areas are also critical since they directly impact staff effectiveness.
All of the staff members identified similar sources of the knowledge they needed. These include various sources on the Internet, colleagues, personal education, publications, etc. They indicated that at minimum their fellow colleagues needed access to this information. Other sinks for their information included direct line staff, supervisors, and directors. As with the senior management, the staff needs access to this knowledge on a daily basis. Knowing where to look for knowledge at ReVisions is the key to finding your answers. The problem is that most people do not know where to go for the answers to their questions.
The staff at ReVisions identified the directors and senior management as the experts who possess the knowledge they need. Additionally, they have listed formalized policy and procedures and training as resources that would make their job easier. They also indicated in several different locations throughout the audit that additional computer training and Internet access would make their jobs easier.
It would seem that people are not aware of the knowledge that is held by other staff members. Often people call around to several different people before they get an answer to their question. All employees feel that they spend a great deal of their day looking for the information and knowledge they need to do their job. There is a great deal of wasted time and "reinventing the wheel" occurring at ReVisions. A common theme that surfaced was that communication between the departments is poor. This was seemingly attributed to both physical and procedural factors. The staff indicated that the phone system was poor and that the e-mail system was "iffy." Communication lines appear to need improvement between departments. This needs to be addresses on a cultural level.
As expected, the staff has a greater need for procedural knowledge whereas the senior management requires procedural knowledge as well as strategic action knowledge.
Interviews
As indicated earlier, informal interviews with the Vice President have alluded to other factors affecting knowledge management at ReVisions. It is the nature of the social work industry to have a high turnover rate. Social workers are generally well-educated individuals with Master‘s degrees. The field requires this level of certification but the jobs rarely pay what people feel they are worth. Thus, there is a high turnover rate. People come and go quickly. They may amass certain knowledge of the industry of about ReVisions in general. This knowledge is not captured before they leave the company. Also, a few of the senior management have knowledge that is very tacit. This includes knowledge about dealing with politicians, lobbyists, making deals, etc. This knowledge is personalized and could benefit others in the company if it could be captured.
ReVisions has a case history of their patients. This is a paper-based system and represents a large untapped knowledge source. Case management could be improved with knowledge of past case histories.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are, for the most part, individual recommendations that can be implemented in whole or in part. This phenomenon arose because the ReVisions staff, through their audit answers, identified several unrelated knowledge requirements.
Knowledge Base
It is evident from the interviews and audits that ReVisions would be able to curb the "brain drain" by eliciting knowledge from staff members on a more active basis. The key is to formalize the knowledge as soon as possible so that it isn‘t lost when an employee leaves the company. With the advent of the Internet, a number of standards have arisen that allow for easy collection of knowledge through HTTP forms. This can be used through the Internet or on Web Servers on the company Intranet. A Lessons Learned knowledge-base can be easily created to elicit knowledge after a special/critical situation occurs.
Additionally, products from companies like Verity, Excalibur, DataWare, etc. would allow the building of the corporate memory. People must be able to share the knowledge they have with others in the company who need. This is not a passive process, but an active one. Knowledge Management tools allow the integration of heterogeneous sources of information. They also create the facilities for knowledge sharing in the way of intelligent indexing, agents, and groupware. No doubt, people in ReVisions have policies and procedures for performing their job. Unfortunately they are probably in a number of locations (i.e. their mind, a word processing document, a note jotted down in a notebook somewhere. It will be necessary to use a Knowledge Management tool to formalize and disseminate the information. These tools will also help to elicit knowledge from staff on a continuous basis so they do not leave the company without first sharing what they know. This will help to build the corporate memory. Once this process starts, it will always be a work in progress.
Staff Development/Skills Assessment
In order to facilitate better training (which produce better staff and therefore better results), ReVisions should implement a program to identify what skills staff members have and what skills they need to do their job. This could involve a Knowledge Inventory in specific departments of the company. Each employee could fill out an Experience Form with his or her relevant skills and knowledge. This could be kept as a simple database for all employees to access. This would aid ReVisions in four ways. First, they could identify what critical skills their staff does not possess. Second, it would help them identify leaders qualified to lead in-house training sessions. Third, it would create a Knowledge Base so that people could easily identify who might possess the knowledge to answer their questions. Finally, the investment in training will likely elicit feelings of greater loyalty from the employees. This may help to lessen the high turnover rate. Employees will often stay with a company longer if they feel it is responding positively to their needs and taking an interest in their careers.
Abuzz‘s BeeHive product could assist in this endeavor. This product tracks in-house expertise and examines weaknesses in expertise. The concentration is on capturing tacit knowledge. BeeHive uses web browsers and standard e-mail to track profiles on users. This would allow for the use of the current infrastructure in place at ReVisions.
Communities of Practice
ReVisions should establish Communities of Practice. This will allow people with like needs to get together (perhaps weekly) to discuss topics that interest them. This informal practice leads to knowledge sharing and transfer that cannot be achieved by a computer based system. It will essentially allow for the transfer of tacit knowledge from one person to another. People who have attended conferences or training sessions can pass that knowledge on to their fellow workers. This is the essentially the modern version of "talking around the water cooler."
Formal corporate structures may be good for allocating resources, making large
Formal corporate structures may be good for allocating resources, making large decisions and aligning accountabilities but they are insufficient to the development, application and spread of knowledge. The informal nature of communities is much more conducive to learning, continually increasing mastery and development of new knowledge. (Communities of Practice, an Introduction by Michael McMaster,
http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/mmintro.html)
Best Practices
ReVisions could implement a Best Practices Program. This will require an analysis of ReVisions‘ core competencies. From these, they will be able identify in which categories they want to implement Best Practices.
That‘s why, organizations must emphasize ‘best practices,‘ however they need to explicitly observe the caveat: This is what has worked fine so far. Use it if you think if it makes sense in the context of your application. Question it - and let everyone know - if it doesn‘t make sense in your specific context. (Toward a Knowledge Ecology for Organizational White-Waters, http://www.brint.com/papers/econotes.htm)
Process is one of the key areas where Best Practices can be implemented. From the Knowledge Audit, it would appear that the accounting and billing processes need to be analyzed and benchmarked against other companies known to perform this process in an expert manner. Since accounting/billing is process common to many companies across many industries, ReVisions does not have to fear losing competitive intelligence by working with another company in their industry. There will be ample companies in other industries to benchmark themselves against.
Corporate Portal
ReVisions has various knowledge needs that can only be met by outside sources. As previously indicated, these are news sources, trade and industry sources, government regulation, etc. It is impossible for any person to monitor all of these sources of knowledge. A good solution to this problem would be a corporate portal. Powerize and Plumtree offer corporate portal software that allows companies to monitor many different external sources of knowledge. The Powerize server allows the user to search through varied sources of knowledge and query results. Powerize will aggregate and summarize the results and present them to the user in a clear, concise format. This would answer the senior management need for summation of research results from varied sources. The Plumtree Portal would be more appropriate for the staff. The Plumtree portal does not store information, but rather it manages the links to knowledge content from varied sources. It allows the user to go to one place to do all of their knowledge searching. This is all done in the context of a web browser with hyperlinks to the pertinent data sources.
A corporate portal acts as a dynamic card catalog for all the information available on the corporate network. The Plumtree Server polls key data sources to automatically maintain references to documents, database reports, GroupWare discussions, Web pages, and other content. (http://www.plumtree.com/products.html)
Extras
ReVisions has already started to develop an Information Technology infrastructure. There are computers connected to a Local Area Network. They have an e-mail system, a web page, and limited access to the Internet. The e-mail system has been criticized in the audits, however, it may be possible to better leverage the e-mail system to facilitate knowledge sharing at now additional cost to the company. This would require the staff to "know" how to use the e-mail system intimately and be invested in using it as a tool.
Complications
There are a few complications involved in the recommendations presented here. ReVisions does not have the technical expertise to implement the recommendations. Their outsourcing of their MIS function evidences this. Therefore, any implementation of the recommendations would similarly require outsourcing of IT talent.
Additionally, there is a limited budget for Information Technology improvements. This will have serious repercussions on the recommendations since, as with all IT improvements, there is a modest up front investment. A Return on Investment highlighting intangible assets and the value of knowledge sharing would be helpful to justify these recommendations to the financial officers.
Summary
The knowledge audit process plays a key role in identifying a knowledge management strategy for the organization. Certainly, a proper business needs assessment and cultural assessment also need to be performed as part of the knowledge audit. This paper stressed the third element of the knowledge audit in identifying knowledge assets in the organization. The questionnaire may be used as a first guide to help elicit this type of knowledge from individuals in the organization. Of course, careful analysis of the questionnaire results should be conducted, along with follow-up interviews, focus groups, and other related methods.
References
Dataware Technologies (1998), Seven Steps to Implementing Knowledge Management in Your Organization, Corporate Executive Briefing,
http://www.dataware.com/.
Debenham, J. And J. Clark (1994), "The Knowledge Audit," Robotics and Computer Integrated
Manufacturing Journal, Pergamon Press, Vol. 11, No. 3.
Liebowitz, J. (Ed.) (1999), The Knowledge Management Handbook, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL.
Shah, P.N., Y. Pathak, A. Nayak, and A. Ma (1998), "Knowledge Audit of the Call Center at
MindSpring Enterprises," Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, May,
http://amy.ma.home.mindspring.com/mindspr.htm
Snowden, D. (1999), "Story Telling for Knowledge Capture," The International Knowledge Management Summit Proceedings, The Delphi Group, San Diego, CA, March 29-31.
Wiig, K. (1993), Knowledge Management Methods, Schema Press, Arlington, TX.
