How To Use Key Performance Indicators in KM Initiatives: by Patrick Lambe

Ringkasan: How to Use KPIs in Knowledge Management by Patrick Lambe
How to Use Key Performance Indicators

in KM Initiatives
By Patrick Lambe
Measuring and evaluating KM performance and impact can be used to serve a

number of purposes. It can be used to:
 Monitor implementations for progress compared to plans
 Gather evidence of beneficial impact
 Control the release of resources for new phases
 Communicate with stakeholders and retain their support and
involvement
 Learn from past activity to feed into new plans
The intention and purpose of the measurement and evaluation activity will affect
the type of data collection instruments that you use. Some will be open and
qualitative using techniques such as storytelling (eg assessment of beneficial
impact needs to be open so that unanticipated benefits can be captured); some
will be closed and qualitative using techniques such as surveys with assessment
questions (eg assessment by managers of the degree to which KM supports
business objectives or has met agreed targets); some will be closed and
quantitative using mechanisms such as activity reports (eg determining the
degree of takeup of a KM activity).
This guide focuses on just one aspect of KM measurement, ie the use of key
performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor progress and perhaps control the
release of resources. It is important to recognize that this forms only a part of the
whole KM measurement and evaluation picture which is touched on, but not dealt
with in any depth here.
The guide has three sections:
SECTION A: USING KPIs EFFECTIVELY

SECTION B: SAMPLE KPIs
SECTION C: TEMPLATE FOR KPI PLANNING
SECTION A: USING KPIs EFFECTIVELY
KPIs Do Not Give the Full Picture
Key performance indicators (KPIs) are just one of the ways of using
measurement and evaluation in KM initiatives. They give a very focused view that
is most useful for monitoring KM activities for progress in the desired direction.
They do not substitute for the other measurement and evaluation activities listed
above.
Monitoring via KPIs can provide useful inputs to impact evaluation, but unless KM
activities have a direct quantitative output such as sales results or direct cost
savings (mostly they do not) they do not in themselves provide sufficient data to
evaluate and assess the positive impact of KM. KPIs almost always need to be
Page 1 of 26
supplemented with some qualitative analysis to understand the background

drivers for the trends and results displayed by the KPIs.
It is a particular risk in using KPIs (especially if you do not extend them with
impact evaluation techniques) that your KPIs give you an illusion of progress.
KPIs typically monitor activities and quantifiable outputs (such as documents
created). KPIs can be good at reporting on KM efforts in tangible ways via
numbers and trendlines, but they do not substitute for evaluating the
performance of KM in terms of positive impact on the business. Counting beans
(or documents) alone does not tell you whether your KM efforts are paying off.
So KPIs are not enough and focusing on them should not distract from the real
question, which is one of organizational performance.
Measurement is Not Static
Secondly, at the beginning of any new KM initiative, your measurement system

will evolve with the activity itself. You will have two, perhaps three measurement
horizons.
(1) Monitoring Investment: Before you start the activity cycle, you will be
most interested in the investments and inputs required to launch and
sustain the activity. If this involves any complexity, such as multiple
investments of money, time and effort from different places, you may
need to monitor the investment inputs to ensure that they are taking place
when required.
(2) Monitoring Adoption: When you launch the activity, you want to check
whether or not the activity is being taken up according to plan. You will
focus on evidence of activity levels, and you will be most interested in
examining the trends (increasing).
(3) Monitoring Health: Once an activity is established you will be less
interested in trends (though you will continue to monitor them for health)
and your focus will shift towards benchmarking your activity levels against
other similar organizations and looking for factors that can strengthen the
activities and the outputs. It is at this stage that you will extend your
monitoring beyond activity levels and start to focus on monitoring and
evaluating value creation from the activity. At the investment and
adoption stages, value creation is not a major target of attention.
This monitoring cycle can vary in duration from a few months to up to a couple of
years depending on the type of activity and complexity of the change being
introduced. For this reason, it is important to be able to build individual sets of
KPIs whenever a new activity, programme or system that is introduced, where
the purpose of the KPIs is defined, the three stage activity cycle is defined and
the duration of each stage is anticipated; and where the switch of focus between
the three stages is properly planned and actioned. Examples of different KPIs for
different types of initiative are given below together with a template to use in
drawing them up.
Understand What the KPIS Mean
KPIs almost always require qualitative analysis to support their interpretation. At

the investment stage (if being monitored), the trigger for a qualitative analysis
will be a variation from plan.
At the adoption stage, the trigger for a qualitative analysis will be a trend
contrary to expectations.
Page 2 of 26
At the health stage, the trigger for a qualitative analysis will be any significant
variation in activity levels or a large gap between a comparable external
benchmark and the actual performance; because this is also the stage at which
the KM activity is expected to create value, proxies for value creation need to be
introduced, and you will need to make a link between your monitoring of KPIs
and your business impact assessments, using the other measurement and
evaluation mechanisms apart from KPIs (such as story collection, MSC 1,
management survey etc).
Examples of these qualitative supporting activities for specific types of KM activity

are given below. These are given for illustrative purposes only, and should be
selected carefully to support your objectives and match your resources.
Be Realistic: KPIs have a Cost
Monitoring and measurement are powerful ways of keeping track of your

investments/efforts and alerting you to important changes (both good and bad) in
your KM initiatives. However, they also have a cost.
In some cases (eg system KPIs) you may need to commission special reporting
tools to generate the reports that you need. Somebody will need to collect data
and analyse it. You may need to conduct an audit. If there are frequent changes
you will need to follow up with qualitative analysis to explore the reasons. Hence
it is essential only to choose the minimum number of KPIs to achieve your
monitoring and evaluation objectives, and consistent with your
resources.
KPIs May Bias Apparent Activity Levels
KPIs are often used to influence action, especially if they are linked to
performance reviews and recognition and reward systems. This may sometimes
produce unintended effects, or a tendency to game the KPIs being monitored, at
the expense of important aspects of KM that cannot be easily measured.
An example of an unintended effect might be the linking of storage costs with file
quotas, where in order to limit the costs of storage space on servers, an
organization might impose quotas, eg on email space or size of network drives
available to a department. Research shows that this does not result in
rationalization of documents (which is the intended effect) but very often a flight
of documents to “invisible” storage such as CDs, thumb drives and PC hard disks.
Faced with a KPI that penalizes certain behaviours, staff will often improvise a
strategy that is invisible to the measurement system.
An example of gaming KPIs might be the linking of rewards to numbers of

knowledge assets submitted. Research shows that there are significant spikes in
quantities of new documents contributed just before performance reviews, but
also that the quality of the knowledge assets is extremely variable. Rewards and
penalties should not normally be associated tightly to quantitative KPIs for
this reason. Qualitative analysis, in particular the contextual information gathered
from anecdotes and examples, is essential for understanding the true drivers
behind numerical KPIs.
1MSC refers to the Most Significant Change evaluation technique developed by Rick Davies
and Jess Dart. See http://www.zahmoo.com
Page 3 of 26
SECTION B: SAMPLE KPIs
In the following section we provide example KPIs for the following:

 KM Programmes
 KM Projects
 KM Activities
 KM Systems
 KM Roles
1. KM PROGRAMMES
This category refers to the overall KM efforts of the organization and is designed
to give a high level view of your overall investment and the impact of your KM
efforts. As you progress through the investment and adoption phases, high initial
investments should be overtaken by rising adoption rates. Eventually your trends
should flatten out and stabilize and you should be able to start recording business
benefits.
Page 4 of 26
Investment & Activity KPIs

KPI Comment Benchmark (APQC
2007) (median value)
Total costs of KM (staff Investment USD 107,000
time and technology) per
full time KM employee
Cost of participation in Investment – requires 5%

KM activities as % of measurement of staff
total cost of KM time for KM activities
Cost of IT as % of total Investment 15%

cost of KM
Total number of KM Activity – participation 80

participants per full time can be online or offline,
KM employee major (document
creation) or minor
(comments)
Total number of active Activity – see metrics for 1.6
face to face communities “active” below
of practice per full time
KM employee
Source: APQC Knowledge Management Metrics Report 2007
Impact KPIs
KPI Comment Benchmark
Middle and senior Impact – via survey – Compare year on year
managers assess this is about meeting key
contribution of each KM defined strategic goals
programme to achieving
organisation’s strategy
Page 5 of 26
Middle and senior Impact – via survey – Compare year on year

managers assess this is typically about
contribution of each KM speed, cost, quality of
programme to work
organization’s operational
effectiveness
Middle and senior Impact – via survey, may Compare year on year
managers assess the need to be supplemented
impact of not having KM, by interviews or focus
programme by groups
programme
Examples of impact of KM Collected via Most N/a

programmes on Significant Change or
organizational anecdote circles
effectiveness (may methodology2
uncover unanticipated
impact)
1.1 KM Projects
KM projects are probably the easiest things to set KPIs for. Projects sit within KM
programmes. If you have a robust project management methodology, your
project plan will break down into the major deliverables for your project,
associated with the different stages of the project. These major deliverables
(within the time, cost and risk parameters that you have set) will be your main
KPIs. The planned return on your investment and project impact should be
managed within the KM Programme KPIs above.
2 Most Significant Change is a methodology for gathering stories about the impact of an
initiative, and then putting them through stakeholder panels who select them for their
importance; anecdote circles is a focus group-like technique for gathering stories from
staff about your area of interest – eg examples of KM impact
Page 6 of 26
2. KM ACTIVITIES
2.1 Knowledge Sharing Activities such as AARs

Staff time invested in Investment – requires Internally across divisions
sharing activities tracking, per participating or comparable
employee organizations in the same
geography and activity
Frequency of activity per Activity Internally across divisions
division or comparable
organizations in the same
Frequency of activity per Activity Internally across divisions
project team or comparable
# participants in Activity Internally across divisions
knowledge sharing or comparable
activities per month organizations in the same
# of cross workgroup Activity Internally across divisions
sharing activities or comparable
Impact KPIs
# Knowledge assets Output Against other KM
created activities
Frequency of use of Indicates reuse value Against other knowledge

knowledge assets created assets
Average age of Indicates currency and Against other knowledge

knowledge assets created updating assets
Participants’ assessment Via survey N/a

of activity value for work
effectiveness and/or
knowledge development
Managers’ assessment of Via survey N/a

activity value for work

activities on Significant Change or
organizational anecdote circles
effectiveness methodology
Page 7 of 26
2.2 KM Competency Development Activities such as Training

Staff time invested in Investment – requires Internally across divisions
KM-related training and tracking, per participating or comparable
learning activities employee organizations in the same
Cost of training Investment – external Internally across divisions
trainers, venue and or comparable
courseware organizations in the same
Number of staff trained Investment Internally across divisions
per division or comparable
% of staff trained in KM- Activity Internally across divisions
related skills and or comparable
knowledge organizations in the same
% of trained staff who Activity Internally across divisions
participate in KM or comparable
projects, activities, organizations in the same
systems geography and activity
Impact KPIs
% of trained staff who Activity – tracks Internally across divisions
participate in KM appropriacy of nominated or comparable
projects, activities, staff and their ability to organizations in the same
platforms, roles, and apply their new geography and activity
apply KM knowledge and knowledge and skills
competencies
Participants’ assessment Via survey N/a

of value of learning and
training activity for work
Managers’ assessment of Via survey N/a

value of learning and
training activity for work
Examples of application Collected via Most N/a

of KM competencies and Significant Change or
knowledge in support of anecdote circles
organizational methodology
effectiveness
Page 8 of 26
2.3 Face to Face Communities of Practice (F2F CoPs)

Staff time invested in CoP Investment – requires Internally across CoPs
activities tracking, per participating
employee
Frequency of meetings Activity – CoP meetings Internally across CoPs
per F2F CoP do not need to be
frequent but they do
need to establish a
regular and consistent
pattern of meetings
Usage of collaboration (See KPIs for Internally across CoPs
platforms collaboration platforms
below)
# CoP members per CoP Activity Internally across CoPs
# of contributing Activity Internally across CoPs

participants per CoP
% of lurkers per CoP Activity – lurkers are Internally across CoPs;

people who are not participation patterns
actively contributing but vary widely but it is
are very likely picking up common to find CoPs
valuable knowledge; with a ratio of 10:1 of
however too few active lurkers to contributors
contributors, and the
community will decline
Ratio of experts to Too few experts and they Internally across CoPs
practitioners to novices will find little incentive to
per CoP participate; too few
practitioners, and experts
will be annoyed by naïve
questions from novices
Average # of divisions Activity – cross boundary Internally across CoPs
represented per CoP sharing
# CoP meetings involving Activity – CoPs Internally across CoPs

other CoPs or external encouraging fresh
experts perspectives
Impact KPIs
created activities


# mentoring and Indicates knowledge Against other mentoring
Page 9 of 26
coaching relationships transfer and continuity and coaching channels in

maintained via F2F CoPs the organisation
Participants’ assessment Via survey Internally across CoPs

of F2F CoP value for work
Managers’ assessment of Via survey Internally across CoPs

F2F CoP value for work
Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across CoPs

topics for the business
generally
Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across CoPs

topics for critical
knowledge areas
Degree to which CoPs are Via survey Internally across CoPs

felt to promote cross
divisional knowledge
sharing
Examples of impact of Collected via Most N/a

CoPs on organizational Significant Change or
effectiveness, problem anecdote circles
solving and innovation methodology
Page 10 of 26
3. KM SYSTEMS
3.1 KM Repositories & Search

Document storage costs Investment Comparable organizations
(paper & electronic) per in the same geography
division and activity
Document storage costs Investment Comparable organizations

per repository (eg paper in the same geography
files; email systems; and activity
network drives;
document management
systems)
Ratio of paper to Audit – paper format Comparable organizations

electronic documents makes sharing in the same geography
complicated and activity
% of staff accessing System reports/logs Internally across divisions
documents
% of staff contributing System reports/logs Internally across divisions

documents
% of staff modifying System reports/logs Internally across divisions

documents
# searches per repository System reports/logs Internally across

respositories
% searches resulting in a System reports/logs Internally across
document being opened respositories
# steps to contribute a Usability study – the Internally across

document simplest systems will repositories
attract more
contributions
# steps to modify a Usability study – the Internally across
attract more
contributions
# steps to access a Usability study – the Internally across
attract more
contributions
Ratio of # of documents Audit – allows you to Comparable organizations
accessible only to track progress of in the same geography
individuals : # of information sharing and activity – but difficult
documents restricted to
workgroups : # of
documents available
enterprise wide
# documents in non- Audit via sampling in all Comparable organizations

enterprise repositories divisions – allows you to in the same geography
Page 11 of 26
(eg CDs, thumb drives, assess risk of records not and activity – but difficult
PC hard disks, email being captured into
accounts) corporate systems
% of enterprise Allows you to track Comparable organizations

documents accessible to progress in providing in the same geography
the search engine single point of access to and activity – but difficult
enterprise information
# duplications/document Audit – allows you to Internally across divisions
variations within a assess degree of
repository redundancy, document
control and consistency
of information
# duplications/document Audit – allows you to Internally across divisions
variations across assess degree of
repositories redundancy, document
control and consistency
of information; and also
compare the performance
of different repositories
for document control
# of location options for Allows you to track the Internally across divisions
storing work related simplicity/complexity of
documents (email : the information
personal storage : shared environment
files : Lotus Notes :
collaboration platforms :
repositories)
Average frequency of System reports/logs – Internally across
updates of documents indicates currency and repositories and divisions
per repository use of information
Average age of System reports/logs – Internally across
documents per repository indicates currency and repositories and divisions
use of information
Impact KPIs
Time to search for Audit – via timesheets Internally across
information repositories, job functions
and divisions
Quality of document By survey - Enhances Internally across
descriptions and findability of relevant repositories and divisions
metadata content
Staff confidence in By survey Internally across
finding the right repositories and divisions
information
Reduction in rework and By survey Internally across
duplication repositories and divisions
Relevance of documents By survey Internally across
in the repository to work repositories and divisions
tasks
Ease of use of each By survey Internally across
repository and function repositories
(find, access, contribute,
modify)
Page 12 of 26
Time to respond to legal Using test drills – for risk Response time set by
discovery of records mitigation legislation
Examples (good and bad) Collected via Most N/a
of impact on work Significant Change or
effectiveness anecdote circles
methodology
3.2 KM Collaboration Platforms
3.2.1 Discussion Forums

Staff time spent browsing Investment – by survey Internally across forums
and posting to forums and divisions
% of staff accessing the Activity – CoP meetings Internally across forums

forums per month do not need to be and divisions
frequent but they do
need to establish a
regular and consistent
pattern of meetings
% of staff contributing to Activity – participation Internally across forums
the forums rates and divisions
# new topics/threads per Activity – currency and Internally across forums

month freshness of discussions and divisions
# of posts per month Activity – enables Internally across forums

tracking of cycles of and divisions
activity
Average # of posts per Activity – extent of Internally across forums

topic discussion and divisions
Average # of replies per Activity – depth of Internally across forums

posting discussion and divisions
% of lurkers per forum Activity – lurkers are Internally across forums;

people who are viewing participation patterns
but not actively vary widely but it is
contributing – they are common to find forums
very likely picking up with a ratio of 10:1 of
valuable knowledge; lurkers to contributors
however too few active
contributors, and the
community will decline
Ratio of experts to Too few experts and they Internally across forums
practitioners to novices will find little incentive to
per forum participate; too few
practitioners, and experts
will be annoyed by naïve
questions from novices
Page 13 of 26
# of divisions Activity – cross boundary Internally across forums

represented among the sharing
contributors
# new members/ Activity – enables Internally across forums

subscriptions per month tracking relevance of
forums
# cancelled subscriptions Activity – enables Internally across forums

per month tracking relevance of
forums
# links to knowledge Activity – guiding staff to Internally across forums
assets published in relevant knowledge
forums assets
Impact KPIs
created activities


# of expertise-related Indicates knowledge Against other sharing and

questions answered via transfer and continuity collaboration platforms
forums and activities
Members’ assessment of Via survey Internally across forums

forums value for work
Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across forums

generally
Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across forums

topics for critical
knowledge areas
Degree to which forums Via survey Internally across forums

are felt to promote cross
sharing

forums on work Significant Change or
effectiveness and/or anecdote circles
knowledge development methodology
of staff
Page 14 of 26
3.2.2 Blogs

Staff time spent browsing Investment – by survey Internally across divisions
and posting to blogs
% of staff accessing the Activity Internally across divisions

blogs per month
# of staff blogging and Activity – participation Internally across

commenting on blog rates. divisions; participation
posts patterns vary widely but
it is common to find this
pattern: 1% of the
population actively
blogging, 10%
commenting and the rest
reading
# of views per post Activity – interest level Internally across divisions

and relevance of posts
# of words per post Activity – enables Internally across divisions

tracking of cycles of
activity and growth in
confidence, possible
knowledge asset creation
# of posts per month Activity Internally across divisions
# of posts per blogger Activity Internally across divisions

per month
# of comments per post Activity – indicates Internally across

interest level and divisions; participation
relevance of posts patterns vary widely but
it is common to find
forums with a ratio of
10:1 of readers to
commenters
# of divisions Activity – cross boundary N/a

contributors
# of divisions Activity – cross boundary N/a

subscribers
# of divisions Activity – cross-linking of N/a
represented on blogrolls blogs across the
organization
# new members/ Activity – enables Internally across divisions

blogs
Page 15 of 26
# cancelled subscriptions Activity – enables Internally across divisions

blogs
# of links to posts in Activity – cross linking of Internally across divisions
other blogs blogs across the
organization
# links to knowledge Activity – guiding staff to Internally across divisions

assets published in blogs relevant knowledge
assets
Impact KPIs
created activities



issues addressed via transfer and continuity collaboration platforms
blogs and activities
Bloggers’ assessment of Via survey Internally across divisions

blog value for work
Subscribers’ assessment Via survey Internally across divisions

of blog value for work
Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across divisions

generally
Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across divisions

topics for critical
knowledge areas
Degree to which blogs Via survey Internally across divisions

sharing

blogs on work Significant Change or
of staff
Page 16 of 26
3.2.3 Wikis

Staff time spent working Investment – by survey Internally across divisions
on wikis
% of staff accessing the Activity – for very Internally across divisions

wikis per month focused use of wikis you
may change this to % of
target staff accessing the
wikis
# of staff contributing to Activity – participation Internally across divisions

wikis rates
# of views per wiki page Activity – interest level Internally across wikis
and relevance of posts
# of revisions per wiki Activity – indicates extent Internally across wikis

page of collaboration
# of contributors per wiki Activity – indicates extent Internally across wikis

page of collaboration
Average age of a wiki Activity – indicates Internally across wikis

page currency of content
# of wiki pages Activity Internally across wikis
# of divisions Activity – cross boundary Internally across wikis

contributors
# of divisions Activity – cross boundary Internally across wikis

subscribers
# of divisions using wikis Activity Internally across divisions

for collaboration
# new members/ Activity – enables Internally across divisions

wikis
# cancelled subscriptions Activity – enables Internally across divisions
blogs
# links to knowledge Activity – guiding staff to Internally across wikis
assets published in wikis relevant knowledge
assets
Page 17 of 26
Impact KPIs
created activities



wikis and activities
Contributors’ assessment Via survey Internally across divisions

of wiki value for work
Subscribers’ assessment Via survey Internally across divisions

of wiki value for work
Relevance of wiki topics Via survey Internally across divisions

for the business generally
Relevance of wiki topics Via survey Internally across divisions

for critical knowledge
areas
Degree to which wikis are Via survey Internally across divisions

felt to promote cross
sharing

wikis on work Significant Change or
of staff
Page 18 of 26
3.2.4 Yellow Pages/ Expertise Directory

% of completed directory Investment – often Internally across divisions
entries requires effort and
management attention;
the percentage if of the
target population
% of staff accessing the Activity Internally across divisions

directory per month
# of searches Activity Internally across divisions
# of views per directory Activity Internally across divisions

entry
# of contacts initiated Activity – indicates Internally across divisions

directly from the entry usefulness for supporting
page collaboration
Average age of directory Activity – currency of Internally across divisions

entry information
# of out of date entries Activity – currency of Internally across divisions

information
Average frequency of Activity – currency of Internally across divisions

updates for entries information
# of divisions using the Activity – cross boundary Internally across divisions

directory to source help sharing
or information
# of cross-divisional Activity – via survey Internally across divisions

contacts arising from the
use of the directory
Impact KPIs
Time to find relevant Via survey Track over time
people
Quality and accuracy of Via survey Track over time

entries in the directory

directory on cross Significant Change or
divisional knowledge anecdote circles
sharing and collaboration methodology

wikis on work Significant Change or
Page 19 of 26

of staff
4. KM ROLES
4.1 KM Champion/Facilitator/Activist

# KM skills training Investment – see 2.2 Internally across
sessions participated in above - KM Competency divisions; comparable
Development Activities organizations in the same
Time spent in KM-related Investment – time to be Internally across
activities formally allocated and divisions; comparable
tracked organizations in the same
# knowledge sharing Activity – by self report Internally across
sessions facilitated divisions; comparable
# knowledge sharing Activity – by self report Internally across
sessions attended divisions; comparable
# contributions (posts or Activity – system logs Internally across
comments or revisions) divisions; comparable
on collaboration organizations in the same
platforms such as wikis, geography and activity
blogs or forums
# knowledge asset Activity – system logs Internally across

documents contributed to divisions; comparable
repository organizations in the same
# KM briefings and Activity – by self report Internally across
communication sessions divisions; comparable
given organizations in the same
# KM briefings and Activity – by self report Internally across
communication sessions divisions; comparable
attended organizations in the same
# F2F CoP meetings Activity – by self report Internally across
participated in divisions; comparable
# KM project meetings Activity – by self report Internally across
attended divisions; comparable
# KM project meetings Activity – by self report Internally across
facilitated divisions; comparable
Page 20 of 26

# occasions of assisting a Activity – by self report Internally across divisions
colleague in a KM
supporting role (eg locate
information, find an
expert, use a KM system
or participate in a KM
activity)
Impact KPIs
created activities



issues addressed via KM transfer and continuity collaboration platforms
Champion support and activities
Colleagues’ assessment Via survey Internally across divisions

of contribution to work
Supervisor’s assessment Via survey Internally across divisions

Usefulness of KM Via survey Internally across divisions

Champion activities for
the business generally
Usefulness of KM Via survey Internally across divisions

Champion activities for
supporting critical
knowledge areas
Degree to which KM Via survey Internally across divisions

Champions are felt to
promote cross divisional
knowledge sharing

Champion activities on Significant Change or
work effectiveness and/or anecdote circles
of staff
Page 21 of 26
4.2 Subject Matter Expert (SME)

Time spent in KM-related Investment – time to be Internally across divisions
activities formally allocated and
tracked
# knowledge sharing Activity – by self report Internally across divisions

sessions actively
participated in
# contributions (posts or Activity – system logs Internally across divisions

comments or revisions)
on collaboration
platforms such as wikis,
blogs or forums
# knowledge asset Activity – system logs Internally across divisions

documents contributed to
repository
# knowledge asset Activity – system logs

documents updated in
repository
# expertise related Activity – system logs Internally across divisions
enquiries answered
# expertise related Activity – system logs

enquiries from other
divisions answered
# KM briefings and Activity – by self report Internally across divisions

communication sessions
attended
# F2F CoP meetings Activity – by self report Internally across divisions

participated in
# mentoring and Activity – by self report Internally across divisions

coaching relationships
supported
Impact KPIs
created activities

Page 22 of 26

SMEs and activities
Colleagues’ assessment Via survey Internally across divisions

Supervisor’s assessment Via survey Internally across divisions

Usefulness of SME Via survey Internally across divisions

knowledge sharing
activities for the business
generally
Usefulness of SME Via survey Internally across divisions

knowledge sharing
activities for supporting
critical knowledge areas
Degree to which SMEs Via survey Internally across divisions

sharing

SME’s knowledge sharing Significant Change or
activities on work anecdote circles
effectiveness and/or methodology
of staff
4.3 Line Manager

Time allocated to KM- Investment – time to be Internally across divisions
related activities in formally allocated and
workgroups managed tracked
# knowledge sharing Investment – time to be Internally across divisions

sessions in workgroups scheduled and activities
managed tracked
# knowledge sharing Activity – by self report; Internally across divisions

sessions actively indicates walking the talk
participated in
Page 23 of 26
# contributions from Activity – system logs Internally across divisions

workgroups managed
(posts or comments or
revisions) on
collaboration platforms
such as wikis, blogs or
forums
# knowledge asset Activity – system logs Internally across divisions

documents contributed to
repository by workgroups
managed
# Trained and active KM Investment – quota to be Internally across divisions

Champions/activists/ agreed, activity
facilitators in workgroups monitored
managed
# active SMEs with Investment – quota to be Internally across divisions

current expertise agreed, activity
directory entries in monitored
workgroups managed

enquiries answered by
SMEs within workgroups
managed

enquiries from other
divisions answered from
within workgrops
managed
# KM briefings and Activity – by self report Internally across divisions

communication sessions
attended or given
# F2F CoP meetings Activity Internally across divisions

participated in by
workgroup members
# mentoring and Activity Internally across divisions

coaching relationships
supported from within
workgroups managed
Impact KPIs
# Knowledge assets Output Internally across divisions
created from within
workgroups managed
Frequency of use of Indicates reuse value Internally across divisions
Page 24 of 26
knowledge assets created
Average age of Indicates currency and Internally across divisions

knowledge assets created updating
Staff’s assessment of KM Via survey Internally across divisions

contribution to work
in the workgroups
managed
Degree to which line Via survey Internally across divisions

managers are felt to
promote cross divisional
knowledge sharing
Examples of workgroup Collected via Most N/a

KM activities on work Significant Change or
of staff
SECTION C: TEMPLATE FOR KPI PLANNING
Measurement Focus:
What are we monitoring? (eg KM Repository, CoP activity, KM Role)
Why are we monitoring it? (eg what benefits do we expect to gain if we measure
it; are we going to set targets, or link to rewards and recognition; if so, are there
any risks?)
Investment KPIs (check question: do we really need to monitor this? Why? How
will we use the data?)
KPI detail Logistics Things to Think About

List detailed KPIs How will each one  Is there additional or new work
here be collected? Who involved in setting this KPI? Is
will collect it? At the KPI warranted?
what frequency?  What will happen if we don’t
When will you start? monitor? Is it really necessary?
 Will a target be set? What is
the risk of gaming or
unintended consequences? How
will you detect this, and what
countermeasures can you
employ?
Adoption KPIs (check question: what do we really need to measure? Why? How
will we use the data? Will some adoption measures be dropped once the activity
stabilises? Which ones?)
Page 25 of 26

employ?
Impact KPIs (check question: what is the desired impact of the activity you are
monitoring? What evidence will give you satisfactory evidence of impact? How will
we use the data? How will we validate it?)

employ?
---000---
Page 26 of 26

How To Use Key Performance Indicators in KM Initiatives: by Patrick Lambe

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

How To Use Key Performance Indicators in KM Initiatives: by Patrick Lambe

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ringkasan: How to Use KPIs in Knowledge Management by Patrick Lambe

How to Use Key Performance Indicators

Measuring and evaluating KM performance and impact can be used to serve a

The guide has three sections:

SECTION A: USING KPIs EFFECTIVELY

SECTION A: USING KPIs EFFECTIVELY

KPIs Do Not Give the Full Picture

supplemented with some qualitative analysis to understand the background

Measurement is Not Static

Secondly, at the beginning of any new KM initiative, your measurement system

Understand What the KPIS Mean

KPIs almost always require qualitative analysis to support their interpretation. At

Examples of these qualitative supporting activities for specific types of KM activity

Be Realistic: KPIs have a Cost

Monitoring and measurement are powerful ways of keeping track of your

KPIs May Bias Apparent Activity Levels

An example of gaming KPIs might be the linking of rewards to numbers of

SECTION B: SAMPLE KPIs

In the following section we provide example KPIs for the following:

Investment & Activity KPIs

Cost of participation in Investment – requires 5%

Cost of IT as % of total Investment 15%

Total number of KM Activity – participation 80

Source: APQC Knowledge Management Metrics Report 2007

Middle and senior Impact – via survey – Compare year on year

Examples of impact of KM Collected via Most N/a

2.1 Knowledge Sharing Activities such as AARs

Investment & Activity KPIs

Frequency of use of Indicates reuse value Against other knowledge

Average age of Indicates currency and Against other knowledge

Participants’ assessment Via survey N/a

Managers’ assessment of Via survey N/a

Examples of impact of KM Collected via Most N/a

2.2 KM Competency Development Activities such as Training

Investment & Activity KPIs

Participants’ assessment Via survey N/a

Managers’ assessment of Via survey N/a

Examples of application Collected via Most N/a

2.3 Face to Face Communities of Practice (F2F CoPs)

Investment & Activity KPIs

# of contributing Activity Internally across CoPs

% of lurkers per CoP Activity – lurkers are Internally across CoPs;

# CoP meetings involving Activity – CoPs Internally across CoPs

Frequency of use of Indicates reuse value Against other knowledge

Average age of Indicates currency and Against other knowledge

# mentoring and Indicates knowledge Against other mentoring

coaching relationships transfer and continuity and coaching channels in

Participants’ assessment Via survey Internally across CoPs

Managers’ assessment of Via survey Internally across CoPs

Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across CoPs

Relevance of discussion Via survey Internally across CoPs

Degree to which CoPs are Via survey Internally across CoPs

Examples of impact of Collected via Most N/a

3.1 KM Repositories & Search

Investment & Activity KPIs

Document storage costs Investment Comparable organizations

Ratio of paper to Audit – paper format Comparable organizations

% of staff contributing System reports/logs Internally across divisions

% of staff modifying System reports/logs Internally across divisions

# searches per repository System reports/logs Internally across

# steps to contribute a Usability study – the Internally across

# documents in non- Audit via sampling in all Comparable organizations

% of enterprise Allows you to track Comparable organizations