Sunday, October 13, 2002
WHITE PAPTER ON
BRINGING THE KM SOLUTIONS MATRIX TM TO LIFE [TAXONOMY]*
October 13, 2002
Richard Buck, CKM (CKM2002-8) – Research Project toward MCKM™ Status
The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for bringing the KMPro KM Solutions Matrix™ to life. This paper discusses what the KM Solutions Matrix™ is and the ten key steps of formalizing it and putting it into production as a KMPro Knowledge Management (KM) analytical tool. Scope: This paper focuses on the case study classification perspective and not on the automation of the matrix. Automation will be handled by Douglas Weidner using e-learning tools.
WHAT IS THE KM SOLUTIONS MATRIX?
The KM Solutions Matrix™ is a grid or matrix designed to support mapping of actual KM case studies to a work environment under study by a KM Analyst or KM Project Team. The objective of the matrix is fourfold: 1) to identify areas of the studied work environment where KM solutions already exist; 2) to speed research for a new KM project so that the project can readily take advantage of relevant best practices and thereby minimize reinventing the wheel; 3) to provide a practical schema for classifying the proven results of new case studies; and, 4) to direct future research to matrix gaps that need closing.
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO USE THE MATRIX?
To use the matrix, the KM analyst must classify or categorize the work environment under study using standardized classifications that will be determined by this study. These classifications then serve as a map to actual case studies that have been previously categorized and stored according to the same rules. The result is identification of case studies that are relevant to the specific work environment under study.
METHODOLOGY OBJECTIVE
The objective of the research methodology is to establish a logical, validated, and defensible research approach to creating the matrix components (horizontal and vertical axes) so that it will result in a tool that is reliable, credible, and eminently useful.
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
Step 1 – Project Plan: Develop a detailed project plan that defines the specific participants, supporting organizations, and review and approval processes to ensure a rigorous and credible research process and results. This should include plans for sustaining the tool and its data after the initial research is complete.
Step 2 – Classification Taxonomy: Develop a complete, functional, and repeatable classification taxonomy for use with the tool.
Step 3 – Peer Review: Obtain sufficient peer reviews to refine and have confidence in the classification taxonomy.
Step 4 – Pilot Research: Conduct a trial classification of a small number of case studies to test the classification taxonomy and procedures.
Step 5 – Initial Pilot Review: Review the results of the trial classification and make necessary adjustments before expanding the research.
Step 6 – Validate: Supplement the validation process by classifying work places independent of the case studies.
Step 7 – Expand Research – Expand research to classify a larger number of case studies and put the tool out for broader testing and evaluation.
Step 8 – Fine Tune Research: Fine tune research results and make necessary adjustments.
Step 9 – Implement: Implement the tool and formalize the process for sustaining it.
Step 10 – Continuously Improve: Adapt tool to CKM training usage and continuously improve content through CKM student dialogue and research.
STEP 1 – DEVELOP DETAILED PROJECT PLAN
In this step, Richard Buck will develop a detailed plan including identification of subtasks, people responsible, and deadlines. Buck will define participants such as the 2002-8 COP, leveraging its facilitator, as the first level of peer review and the DC KMPro Chapter as the second level. At this point, this is just a recommendation for these member’s participation. Buck will address them separately in order to request their support and participation. For purposes of this white paper, I am assuming that they will participate. I will encourage establishment of a Case Study classification group within the KMPro community to sustain case study classifications over time. We will need to define a voluntary organizational position, such as one of KMPro’s Deputy CKOs, to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Tool.
STEP 2 – DEVELOP CLASSIFICATION TAXONOMY
Buck will develop a classification taxonomy, separate from Weidner’s existing taxonomy that is complete in terms of addressing major descriptors of a work environment. The taxonomy should be functional in order to be usable by KM practitioners. It should be repeatable in that multiple people can apply it with similar results. This step will involve development of a strawman classification taxonomy and suggested review and approval procedures including treatment of incomplete or difficult cases. Note: Case abstracts or identification by industry sector may supplement search capability. Buck may need to define and/or research validity measures. The last action in this step is to rationalize the Buck taxonomy with the Weidner taxonomy.
STEP 3 – PEER REVIEWS
Buck will coordinate and/or monitor sufficient number of peer reviews by qualified KM industry representatives to ensure credibility. The first level will hopefully be a sequence of peer reviews by the 2002-8 COP, led by its Facilitator. Comments will be incorporated as appropriate and the classification updated.
The COP will also discuss and review the classification methodology for such topics as the number of people required to review and classify a case study for credible results, an approval process for the classification, and provision for treatment of exceptions.
The DC Chapter could serve as an additional level of review if necessary. Raksha Sukhia, its President, will be enlisted by Weidner for this effort. Finally, the KMPro membership can be solicited using the KMPro Continuous Feedback System (CFS) provided by Innovative Management Concepts, if needed.
STEP 4 – TRIAL CLASSIFICATION (PILOT)
A trial classification of a small number of case studies (such as 10) will be conducted in order to test the classification taxonomy and the classification procedures. The CKM2002-8 COP will hopefully conduct the trial classification.
STEP 5 – ASSESS RESULTS OF TRIAL CLASSIFICATION (PILOT)
The results of the classification will be collected and tabulated. In addition, classifier comments and suggestions will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.
STEP 6 – VALIDATE CLASSIFICATION SCHEMA in COP WORK PLACES
To further validate the classification procedures, it would be interesting to ask the COP members to classify their own workplace. The COP results should be reviewed and incorporated as applicable.
STEP 7 – RESEARCH - CLASSIFY A LARGER NUMBER OF CASE STUDIES AND EXPAND TESTING
During this step, we will classify a larger number of case studies (such as 50) to further test and validate the classification taxonomy and procedures. The tool, with this number of cases plus the original 10, should be put out for broader evaluation and testing. Perhaps we could involve more members beyond the DC Chapter and the CKM2002-8 COP for this review. Comments and changes will be collected.
STEP 8 – MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS
At this point, the tool development will probably involve a larger group. Perhaps the KMPro organization or committee will review and rule on adjustments as the initial phase of formalization of organizational ownership.
STEP 9 – IMPLEMENT THE TOOL AND FORMALIZE SUSTAINING IT
Implementing the tool will require establishing rules for access and use by members only (?). It needs a location such as the KMPro server with member access. There should be a committee established to ensure review and classification of remaining case studies and of new case studies. Ownership of maintenance and operation of the tool will be formalized as well. Note that the tool may require society approval for adoption.
STEP 10 – CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE
The intellectual property of the KM Solutions Matrix™ is exclusively owned by Douglas Weidner. It was developed by him in his non-salaried role as KMPro Chief Knowledge Officer, and as Executive Director of KMPro’s Learning Center. As envisioned, the KM Solutions Matrix™, as a Tool, will be dedicated to two KMPro functional areas:
1. KMPro Learning Center: In the Learning Center, the Tool will be used as a teaching tool for CKM and other KM courses, and as an implementation/research tool to augment the “Perform Knowledge Audit” Activity of the KM Methodology to “Create a Learning Organization”. The Tool will be programmed by Weidner using KMPro’s Authoring Program.
2. Vendor Area: The Tool will be enriched in Version Two to include vendor solutions to defined matrix cells. In other words, cells will house both the description of proven case studies applicable to that cell, as well as KM technologies that address the issues to be solved in that cell. In this case, the Learning Center, as tool developer, will integrate with and enrich the capabilities of the Innovation Lab.
BRINGING THE KM SOLUTIONS MATRIX TM TO LIFE [TAXONOMY]*
October 13, 2002
Richard Buck, CKM (CKM2002-8) – Research Project toward MCKM™ Status
The purpose of this paper is to outline a strategy for bringing the KMPro KM Solutions Matrix™ to life. This paper discusses what the KM Solutions Matrix™ is and the ten key steps of formalizing it and putting it into production as a KMPro Knowledge Management (KM) analytical tool. Scope: This paper focuses on the case study classification perspective and not on the automation of the matrix. Automation will be handled by Douglas Weidner using e-learning tools.
WHAT IS THE KM SOLUTIONS MATRIX?
The KM Solutions Matrix™ is a grid or matrix designed to support mapping of actual KM case studies to a work environment under study by a KM Analyst or KM Project Team. The objective of the matrix is fourfold: 1) to identify areas of the studied work environment where KM solutions already exist; 2) to speed research for a new KM project so that the project can readily take advantage of relevant best practices and thereby minimize reinventing the wheel; 3) to provide a practical schema for classifying the proven results of new case studies; and, 4) to direct future research to matrix gaps that need closing.
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO USE THE MATRIX?
To use the matrix, the KM analyst must classify or categorize the work environment under study using standardized classifications that will be determined by this study. These classifications then serve as a map to actual case studies that have been previously categorized and stored according to the same rules. The result is identification of case studies that are relevant to the specific work environment under study.
METHODOLOGY OBJECTIVE
The objective of the research methodology is to establish a logical, validated, and defensible research approach to creating the matrix components (horizontal and vertical axes) so that it will result in a tool that is reliable, credible, and eminently useful.
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
Step 1 – Project Plan: Develop a detailed project plan that defines the specific participants, supporting organizations, and review and approval processes to ensure a rigorous and credible research process and results. This should include plans for sustaining the tool and its data after the initial research is complete.
Step 2 – Classification Taxonomy: Develop a complete, functional, and repeatable classification taxonomy for use with the tool.
Step 3 – Peer Review: Obtain sufficient peer reviews to refine and have confidence in the classification taxonomy.
Step 4 – Pilot Research: Conduct a trial classification of a small number of case studies to test the classification taxonomy and procedures.
Step 5 – Initial Pilot Review: Review the results of the trial classification and make necessary adjustments before expanding the research.
Step 6 – Validate: Supplement the validation process by classifying work places independent of the case studies.
Step 7 – Expand Research – Expand research to classify a larger number of case studies and put the tool out for broader testing and evaluation.
Step 8 – Fine Tune Research: Fine tune research results and make necessary adjustments.
Step 9 – Implement: Implement the tool and formalize the process for sustaining it.
Step 10 – Continuously Improve: Adapt tool to CKM training usage and continuously improve content through CKM student dialogue and research.
STEP 1 – DEVELOP DETAILED PROJECT PLAN
In this step, Richard Buck will develop a detailed plan including identification of subtasks, people responsible, and deadlines. Buck will define participants such as the 2002-8 COP, leveraging its facilitator, as the first level of peer review and the DC KMPro Chapter as the second level. At this point, this is just a recommendation for these member’s participation. Buck will address them separately in order to request their support and participation. For purposes of this white paper, I am assuming that they will participate. I will encourage establishment of a Case Study classification group within the KMPro community to sustain case study classifications over time. We will need to define a voluntary organizational position, such as one of KMPro’s Deputy CKOs, to be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Tool.
STEP 2 – DEVELOP CLASSIFICATION TAXONOMY
Buck will develop a classification taxonomy, separate from Weidner’s existing taxonomy that is complete in terms of addressing major descriptors of a work environment. The taxonomy should be functional in order to be usable by KM practitioners. It should be repeatable in that multiple people can apply it with similar results. This step will involve development of a strawman classification taxonomy and suggested review and approval procedures including treatment of incomplete or difficult cases. Note: Case abstracts or identification by industry sector may supplement search capability. Buck may need to define and/or research validity measures. The last action in this step is to rationalize the Buck taxonomy with the Weidner taxonomy.
STEP 3 – PEER REVIEWS
Buck will coordinate and/or monitor sufficient number of peer reviews by qualified KM industry representatives to ensure credibility. The first level will hopefully be a sequence of peer reviews by the 2002-8 COP, led by its Facilitator. Comments will be incorporated as appropriate and the classification updated.
The COP will also discuss and review the classification methodology for such topics as the number of people required to review and classify a case study for credible results, an approval process for the classification, and provision for treatment of exceptions.
The DC Chapter could serve as an additional level of review if necessary. Raksha Sukhia, its President, will be enlisted by Weidner for this effort. Finally, the KMPro membership can be solicited using the KMPro Continuous Feedback System (CFS) provided by Innovative Management Concepts, if needed.
STEP 4 – TRIAL CLASSIFICATION (PILOT)
A trial classification of a small number of case studies (such as 10) will be conducted in order to test the classification taxonomy and the classification procedures. The CKM2002-8 COP will hopefully conduct the trial classification.
STEP 5 – ASSESS RESULTS OF TRIAL CLASSIFICATION (PILOT)
The results of the classification will be collected and tabulated. In addition, classifier comments and suggestions will be reviewed and incorporated as appropriate.
STEP 6 – VALIDATE CLASSIFICATION SCHEMA in COP WORK PLACES
To further validate the classification procedures, it would be interesting to ask the COP members to classify their own workplace. The COP results should be reviewed and incorporated as applicable.
STEP 7 – RESEARCH - CLASSIFY A LARGER NUMBER OF CASE STUDIES AND EXPAND TESTING
During this step, we will classify a larger number of case studies (such as 50) to further test and validate the classification taxonomy and procedures. The tool, with this number of cases plus the original 10, should be put out for broader evaluation and testing. Perhaps we could involve more members beyond the DC Chapter and the CKM2002-8 COP for this review. Comments and changes will be collected.
STEP 8 – MAKE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS
At this point, the tool development will probably involve a larger group. Perhaps the KMPro organization or committee will review and rule on adjustments as the initial phase of formalization of organizational ownership.
STEP 9 – IMPLEMENT THE TOOL AND FORMALIZE SUSTAINING IT
Implementing the tool will require establishing rules for access and use by members only (?). It needs a location such as the KMPro server with member access. There should be a committee established to ensure review and classification of remaining case studies and of new case studies. Ownership of maintenance and operation of the tool will be formalized as well. Note that the tool may require society approval for adoption.
STEP 10 – CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVE
The intellectual property of the KM Solutions Matrix™ is exclusively owned by Douglas Weidner. It was developed by him in his non-salaried role as KMPro Chief Knowledge Officer, and as Executive Director of KMPro’s Learning Center. As envisioned, the KM Solutions Matrix™, as a Tool, will be dedicated to two KMPro functional areas:
1. KMPro Learning Center: In the Learning Center, the Tool will be used as a teaching tool for CKM and other KM courses, and as an implementation/research tool to augment the “Perform Knowledge Audit” Activity of the KM Methodology to “Create a Learning Organization”. The Tool will be programmed by Weidner using KMPro’s Authoring Program.
2. Vendor Area: The Tool will be enriched in Version Two to include vendor solutions to defined matrix cells. In other words, cells will house both the description of proven case studies applicable to that cell, as well as KM technologies that address the issues to be solved in that cell. In this case, the Learning Center, as tool developer, will integrate with and enrich the capabilities of the Innovation Lab.
