DISCUSSION

The ABC Foundation has made impressive steps, as previously highlighted, towards becoming the knowledge leader in its field. In conducting interviews with key individuals in the Foundation, a number of suggestions were made to ensure that the Knowledge Initiative succeeds. These include (Liebowitz, 2001a):

• Ensure that all senior management officials are strongly committed to the Knowledge Initiative and that they will also be actively involved in using the knowledge management systems.

• Develop a knowledge management education program throughout the Foundation so that everyone can better understand the principles of knowledge management and how the knowledge management initiatives will impact their current roles and responsibilities.

• Have an internal knowledge management working or core group consisting of representatives in the Foundation from the different areas—the representatives will become the "knowledge stewards" in their respective areas in helping to build support and educate their colleagues in knowledge management.

• Use storytelling as a means of sharing tacit knowledge and codify the stories in the knowledge transfer system (storytelling is a popular way of conveying knowledge in the field).

• Develop a standard evaluation process to measure outcomes and effectiveness metrics relating to the knowledge management initiatives.

• Use intelligent agent technology to push relevant lessons learned and material to those within (and perhaps outside) the Foundation and Company.

• Use more crossfunctional teams to cut across functional silos.

• Creating teams could be impeded by the overly formal structure of the organization (even though there are only about 107 Foundation members).

• Need to have a more robust program development function.

• Make sure that these knowledge management initiatives are appropriately resourced.

• Target "breaking/hot" areas of knowledge for online communities and threaded discussions.

• Mine the Foundation's grant database for further creating knowledge and "good-best practices/lessons learned."

• Use intrinsic motivation first for encouraging use of online communities (although, a number of organizations use extrinsic motivation, incorporating learning and knowledge sharing criteria into the individual's annual performance review).

• Develop an ability to have customized portals for employees within the knowledge transfer system.

• Create a comprehensive knowledge taxonomy that would be used for categorizing the content on the knowledge transfer system as well as for organizing expertise for an expertise locator system.

• Continue to incorporate feedback mechanisms to refine and augment the knowledge transfer system via practitioner, policymaker, media, and academic input.

• Track and share research originating from the grants and link with the Foundation's strategic planning process.

• Continue to nurture a knowledge sharing environment (e.g., continuing to share weekly reports across the Foundation).

• Look for better ways of mining the institutional knowledge of those in the Foundation (i.e., the tacit knowledge) to get it into the knowledge transfer system (e.g., may want to use knowledge discovery techniques, web-based expert systems, or online searchable video technologies).

Besides the interviews, a review was made of the internal documents relating to the knowledge management efforts underway and proposed at the Foundation. A number of key areas were only briefly mentioned but in the end will determine the success of the knowledge management initiatives at the Foundation. First, knowledge management is 80 to 90 percent people and culture, and 10 to 20 percent technology. Some minor reference to the need for organizational change management was mentioned in the internal documents, but this should be a well-conceived major component of the knowledge management efforts. Developing a strategy for encouraging and building a knowledge sharing culture, including knowledge sharing proficiencies, techniques, and processes, is a critical component that is being overlooked in the current documents. Second, a guiding principle mentioned in the New Century Initiative was to have measurable results. This is a key area, and metrics for knowledge sharing and demonstrating the success of the knowledge management efforts need to be formalized. Third, mention was made of the need for developing knowledge-based tools for practitioners. This will also provide a value-added benefit in the form of web-based expert systems, decision support systems, and other decision analysis tools.

Knowledge Sharing and Metrics

The mantra among the knowledge management community is that 80 percent of knowledge management is people and culture and 20 percent is technology. A key component of the people and culture factors deals with encouraging a knowledge sharing environment within the organization (Liebowitz, 1999). Kochikar (2000) has developed a knowledge management maturity model whereby the highest level is "Sharing." This level involves reaching the institutionalization of a culture of sharing whereby sharing becomes second nature to all. Organizational boundaries are rendered irrelevant and knowledge flows frictionlessly (Kochikar, 2000).

Xerox's reputation has been built on a strong knowledge sharing culture. Xerox's Eureka system contains many thousands of tips to help repair technicians worldwide who repair copiers at client sites. At Xerox, knowledge sharing has become part of a fabric inside the company for all employees (Hickins, 1999). Dow Corning has created clubs to promote research and development interaction for knowledge sharing purposes (Easton and Parbhoo, 1998). Many organizations like American Management Systems have created Corporate Knowledge Centers in core competency areas to encourage online communities of practice for increased knowledge sharing (Preece, 2000). Lockheed-Martin applies knowledge sharing by matching the type of knowledge with the right transfer method (Dixon, 2000).

According to The Delphi Group (Hickins, 1999), a study of more than 700 U.S. companies showed that the majority of corporate knowledge is in employees' brains, which presents a challenge in trying to encourage the sharing of this knowledge. About 12 percent of the corporate knowledge was in electronic knowledge bases, 42 percent in employees' brains, 26 percent in paper documents, and 20 percent in electronic documents. In order to elicit and represent the knowledge in people's heads in a formal way, the knowledge acquisition bottleneck (from the days of knowledge engineering) plays a critical role (Liebowitz, 2001b and 2001c; Schreiber et al., 2000). The knowledge engineering paradox states that the more expert an individual, the more compiled is his or her knowledge, and the harder it is to extract this knowledge. This makes knowledge sharing a challenging task, but an organization can promote and nurture its knowledge sharing culture by installing knowledge sharing measures within a motivate-and-reward structure within an organization.

Several organizations already have developed knowledge sharing proficiencies in order to further encourage the use of knowledge sharing within the organization and externally to the organization's customers (Liebowitz and Chen, 2001). The World Bank has learning and knowledge sharing criteria as part of its employees' annual job performance review. American Management Systems evaluates employees partly on how well they contribute to the organization's knowledge repositories and what is the value-added benefit derived from applying the knowledge from these repositories (Andriessen and Tissen, 2000). Gemini Consulting has similar measures for knowledge sharing as part of its employees' performance review.

In order to leverage employee know-how, organizations have found that developing knowledge sharing proficiencies for the organization and incorporating these proficiencies as part of the employee's annual appraisal seems to be a necessary step in helping to build and jump-start a knowledge sharing culture. As the knowledge sharing process becomes institutionalized over time, the culture for knowledge sharing will become a natural occurrence in the organization.

Knowledge Sharing Proficiencies

Before creating knowledge sharing proficiencies, we must first provide a definition for a "knowledge sharing proficiency." A knowledge sharing proficiency is an attribute that allows the creation of knowledge to take place through an exchange of ideas, expressed either verbally or in some codified way. Some organizations like Johnson & Johnson and the World Bank have knowledge fairs geared to promoting an increase in knowledge sharing and generating new colleague-to-colleague relationships for better transfer of tacit knowledge. A number of organizations have already created knowledge sharing as a guiding principle for the organization. For example, the Public Service Commission in Canada has "Knowledge, Information, and Data Should Be Shared" as one of their four guiding principles.

The World Bank, which wants to be known as the Knowledge Bank, includes learning and knowledge sharing factors as part of its annual performance evaluation. These factors include: open to new ideas and continuous learning; shares own knowledge, learns from others, and applies knowledge in daily work; builds partnerships for learning and knowledge sharing. In a university setting, Liebowitz and Chen (2001) developed knowledge sharing proficiencies within the Information Systems Department to consist of the following:

Collaboration, in the Form Of

• Joint proposals/papers one has written with colleagues within and outside the department

• Co-Principal Investigators on funded research efforts

• Participation in research teams with team members from faculty/students in the Department

• Consulting engagements with faculty/students in the Department

• Joint teaching in or giving guest lectures to colleagues' courses (e.g., Honors courses, filling in for others if colleague is out of town, etc.)

• Mentoring colleagues in the Department and providing lessons learned to colleagues

• Letting your colleagues teach courses that you normally teach, especially if it can advance their area of research (i.e., eliminating the philosophy that an individual faculty member "owns" a course)

Thinking of We, Not Me

• Circulating articles and special issue announcements that may interest other colleagues in the Department

• Circulating announcements for conferences and RFPs (request for proposals) to colleagues, and putting together joint sessions at conferences

• Engaging in activities to help strengthen the Department versus ones that enhance individual achievement

• Offering appropriate colleagues in the Department to write invited papers if one is unable to do so

• Offering to others a chance to review papers for journals if in the colleague's area of specialization

• Being proactive in Department and University Activities (e.g., attending IT company briefings, meeting IT-related company CEOs, attending IT-related seminars, etc.)

• Letting department faculty and students use one's lab for research appropriate to that lab's focus (versus the attitude that this is "my" lab)

• Providing leads to colleagues for possible research or consulting

• Providing leads to students for jobs and calling personal contacts to allow students to get their foot in the door

Other possible knowledge sharing proficiencies could include: the number of new colleague-to-colleague relationships spawned; the reuse rate of "frequently accessed/reused" knowledge; the number of key concepts that are converted from tacit to explicit knowledge in the knowledge repositories and used by members of the organization; the dissemination of knowledge sharing (i.e., distribution of knowledge) to appropriate individuals; the number of new ideas generating innovative products or services; the number of lessons learned and best practices applied to create value-added; the number of "apprentices" that one mentors, and the success of these apprentices as they mature in the organization (Liebowitz and Suen, 2000; Housel and Bell, 2001).

The U.S. Department of Navy is embracing knowledge management and knowledge sharing principles to transform itself into a knowledge-centric organization. As the sharing of information and knowledge becomes embedded in day-to-day activities, the flow and change of best practices should increase, providing the fluid for true process improvement. In addition, the high visibility of content areas across the organization facilitates the exchange of new ideas regarding process change.

A Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness Inventory

Over the years, there have been a series of various instruments to assess knowledge management and organizational effectiveness. Some of these instruments include the KMAT (Knowledge Management Assessment Tool) by the American Productivity & Quality Center, Expedient Knowledge Inventory by Strategy I^st, the Organizational Effectiveness Inventory by Human Synergistics, Inc., and the Learning Effectiveness Index by CapitalWorks. These instruments broadly cover elements of how well an organization is learning and applying its knowledge, but they do not specifically look at the issues of knowledge sharing effectiveness for potentially building knowledge sharing proficiencies for an organization.

In order to fill this vacuum, Liebowitz and Chen (2001) developed a knowledge sharing effectiveness inventory that consists of twenty-five questions that are divided into four parts. The first part deals with "Communications Flow," which tries to assess how knowledge and communication exchanges are captured and disseminated throughout the organization. The second part examines the "Knowledge Management Environment," which looks at internal cultural factors related to knowledge management within the organization. The third part deals with "Organizational Facilitation" which assesses the sophistication of the knowledge management infrastructure and knowledge sharing capability within the organization. The last part deals with "Measurement," which assesses the likelihood of knowledge sharing and knowledge management being successful within the organization. The Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness Inventory is shown in the following table.

Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness Inventory

This questionnaire has been developed by Dr. Jay Liebowitz and Yan Chen in the Laboratory for Knowledge Management at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. Kindly mark a response for each statement. The results will be used to determine knowledge sharing proficiencies and effectiveness at the ABC Foundation. Thank you for your help.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
ABOUT COMMUNICATION
Key expertise is often captured in an online way in my organization.
I get appropriate lessons learned sent to me in areas where I can benefit.
I usually have time to chat informally with my colleagues.
Individualized learning is usually transformed into organizational learning through documenting this knowledge into our organization's knowledge repository.
ABOUT KM ENVIRONMENT
There are many knowledge fairs/exchanges within my organization to spawn new colleague-to-colleague relationships.
There are lessons learned and best practices repositories within my organization.
We have a mentoring program within my organization.
We have Centers of Excellence in our organization whereby you can qualify to become a member/affiliate of the Center.
We typically work in teams or groups.
Our main product is our knowledge.
I feel that we have a knowledge sharing culture within our organization versus a knowledge hoarding one.
We have a high percentage of teams with shared incentives whereby the team members share common objectives and goals.
There are online communities of practice in my organization where we can exchange views and ideas.
ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL FACILITATION
I am promoted and rewarded based upon my ability to share my knowledge with others.
There is an adequate budget for professional development and training in my organization.
Success, failure, or war stories are systematically collected and used in my organization.
The measurement system in my organization incorporates intellectual and customer capital, as well as the knowledge capital of our products or services.
We have the technological infrastructure to promote a knowledge sharing environment within our organization.
We typically have integrated assignments where the number of projects in which more than one department participates occurs.
We have internal surveys on teaming, which surveys employees to see if the departments are supporting and creating opportunities for one another.
We track the degree to which the organization is entering team-based relationships with other business units, organizations, or customers.
The organization's office layout is conducive to speaking with my colleagues and meeting people.
ABOUT MEASUREMENT
The reuse rate of "frequently accessed/reused" knowledge in my organization is high.
The distribution of knowledge to appropriate individuals in my organization is done actively on a daily basis.
New ideas generating innovative products or services are a frequent occurrence in my organization.

Analysis of the Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness Inventory as Applied to the ABC Foundation

The Knowledge Sharing Effectiveness Inventory was distributed both in hard copy at an ABC Foundation all-hands staff meeting, as well as sent electronically to all employees in the Foundation. We received 58 completed surveys out of 107 Foundation members, giving a response rate of 54 percent. The following table shows the percentage results from the completed surveys.

	Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
ABOUT COMMUNICATION
Key expertise is often captured in an online way in my organization.	2%	17%	32%	37%	12%
I get appropriate lessons learned sent to me in areas where I can benefit.	2%	19%	20%	47%	12%
I usually have time to chat informally with my colleagues.	14%	38%	21%	21%	7%
Individualized learning is usually transformed into organizational learning through documenting this knowledge into our organization's knowledge repository.	2%	12%	24%	45%	17%
ABOUT KM ENVIRONMENT
There are many knowledge fairs/exchanges within my organization to spawn new colleague-to-colleague relationships.	4%	36%	10%	38%	12%
There are lessons learned and best practices repositories within my organization.	7%	34%	19%	33%	7%
We have a mentoring program within my organization.	4%	4%	17%	48%	27%
We have Centers of Excellence in our organization whereby you can qualify to become a member/affiliate of the Center.	0%	7%	13%	40%	40%
We typically work in teams or groups.	7%	50%	23%	18%	2%
Our main product is our knowledge.	12%	27%	26%	26%	9%
I feel that we have a knowledge sharing culture within our organization versus a knowledge hoarding one.	2%	26%	26%	41%	5%
We have a high percentage of teams with shared incentives whereby the team members share common objectives and goals.	0%	29%	31%	36%	4%
There are online communities of practice in my organization where we can exchange views and ideas.	2%	29%	26%	31%	12%
ABOUT ORGANIZATIONAL FACILITATION
I am promoted and rewarded based upon my ability to share my knowledge with others.	2%	13%	24%	41%	20%
There is an adequate budget for professional development and training in my organization.	21%	55%	9%	13%	2%
Success, failure, or war stories are systematically collected and used in my organization.	0%	12%	23%	46%	19%
The measurement system in my organization incorporates intellectual and customer capital, as well as the knowledge capital of our products or services.	5%	14%	27%	40%	14%
We have the technological infrastructure to promote a knowledge sharing environment within our organization.	12%	50%	12%	19%	7%
We typically have integrated assignments where the number of projects in which more than one department participates occurs.	5%	36%	30%	24%	5%
We have internal surveys on teaming, which surveys employees to see if the departments are supporting and creating opportunities for one another.	0%	10%	10%	54%	26%
We track the degree to which the organization is entering team-based relationships with other business units, organizations, or customers.	0%	8%	22%	44%	26%
The organization's office layout is conducive to speaking with my colleagues and meeting people.	5%	31%	28%	22%	14%
ABOUT MEASUREMENT
The reuse rate of "frequently accessed/reused" knowledge in my organization is high.	2%	13%	51%	31%	3%
The distribution of knowledge to appropriate individuals in my organization is done actively on a daily basis.	2%	17%	33%	41%	7%
New ideas generating innovative products or services are a frequent occurrence in my organization.	7%	38%	33%	14%	8%

In terms of communication, 52 percent of those surveyed felt that they usually have time to chat informally with colleagues. This is an important attribute for building a knowledge sharing culture. This personalized approach can help the exchange of tacit knowledge between individuals, and informal learning through these exchanges can account for 70 to 80 percent of learning, according to Larry Prusak with the IBM Institute of Knowledge Management. The Foundation, however, needs to enhance its codification strategy in terms of capturing key expertise in an online way. Only 19 percent felt that this was being done effectively. The knowledge transfer system initiative should greatly facilitate codifying key expertise via its best practices, lessons learned, and online community components. The Foundation might also consider using intelligent agent technology within their knowledge transfer system to push lessons learned to appropriate individuals who could benefit from these lessons in the organization (only 21 percent said this was currently being done). Transforming individualized learning into organizational learning will be enhanced by the knowledge transfer system, as only 14 percent said that this was being done well currently.

In terms of the knowledge management environment, the Foundation respondents generally acknowledge that the Foundation's main product is knowledge (39 percent agreed, 26 percent neutral). A team-based approach is well-recognized and applied in the Foundation, and there appear to be opportunities to share and exchange knowledge in various informal settings (e.g., company picnic, etc.). Even though the opportunities for knowledge sharing exist, only 28 percent felt that a knowledge sharing culture is present at the Foundation. Prior to the knowledge transfer system, the Knowledge Exchange is on the Foundation's intranet to allow online threaded discussions. Unfortunately, very few people have contributed and used this capability to date. Additionally, only 7 percent agreed that a mentoring program exists within the Foundation. The Foundation may want to consider a formal mentoring program to improve the sharing and exchange of tacit knowledge and encouraging a knowledge sharing culture. Systematic job rotations might also be used to encourage a better understanding of the Foundation's core activities and promote interdisciplinary dialogue. Forty-one percent felt that best practices and lessons learned repositories exist in the Foundation, which is a positive sign towards building a knowledge sharing environment.

In terms of organizational facilitation for developing a knowledge management capability, there are a number of positive signs: 76 percent felt an adequate budget exists for training and development (this is excellent, indicating the further recognition for and development of intellectual capital); 62 percent felt the technological infrastructure to promote knowledge sharing is in place; 41 percent felt that there are crossfunctional, integrated teams being used; and 36 percent felt that the office layout is conducive to speaking with colleagues and meeting people. The Foundation may want to consider revising its motivation and reward system to include learning and knowledge sharing criteria. Only 15 percent felt they were rewarded and promoted based upon their ability to share their knowledge with others. In order to nurture a knowledge sharing culture, the Foundation should consider systematically collecting success, failure, and war stories in the knowledge transfer system, and using "storytelling" as a means for knowledge sharing.

In terms of measurement, 15 percent felt that they typically reused knowledge from others in the Foundation. A low 19 percent felt that knowledge was actively distributed to individuals in the Foundation. On a positive note, 45 percent felt that new ideas generating innovative products or services are a frequent occurrence in the Foundation.

In assessing the four areas of the knowledge sharing effectiveness inventory, the following ratings are deduced based upon the survey results:

• Communication: C-/D+

• Knowledge Management Environment: C

• Organizational Facilitation: C

• Measurement: C

Overall, the Foundation is currently performing at a "C" knowledge sharing level, on a scale of A to F. Even though this may indicate an "average" knowledge sharing performance level, the Foundation will quickly be improving its knowledge sharing effectiveness through its Knowledge Initiative. Additionally, in the author's experience, ABC Foundation scored better than others in this knowledge sharing survey, and is on the right path towards meeting its strategic theme of "sharing knowledge." As a word of caution, however, the Foundation should concentrate on the people, process, and cultural issues relating to knowledge management versus simply the technology issues.