Knowledge Management Working Group (KM WG) Meeting

glazierhedgeManagement

Nov 7, 2013 (3 years and 1 month ago)

64 views

1


Implementing Best Practices (IBP) and Knowledge for Health (K4Health) Project

Knowledge Management Working Group
(KM WG)
Meeting

Theme: “Advancing Measurement and Learning”

JHU∙CCP
,
Baltimore, MD

October 11
, 2011


Meeting Minutes


The
goals
of this meeting
were to:

1)

R
eview
the KM WG’s
progress
in the
year since its inception

2)

D
iscuss the theme of “Advancing Measurement and Learning


3)

I
dentify priority topics and
next steps for the coming year


Two renowned KM experts


Jay Liebowitz and Stacey Y
oung


joined the meeting to present
their work, share their vision of KM, and contribute to the development of new ideas and
KM
approaches
.


Attendee

list
*
Alberto Andretta, ChildFund International

Zachary Baquet, USAID/BFS

Piers Bocock,
JHU∙CCP/K4Health

*Erin Broekhuysen, JSI

Natalie Campbell, MSH

Daniel
Cothran, JSI

*
Peggy D’Adamo, USAID

Willow
Gerber, MSH

*Sarah Harlan,
JHU∙CCP/K4Health

Kate Howell, URC

Bill Lester, NPOKI

Jay Liebowitz, UMUC

*Patricia Mantey, FHI 360

Elsie Mwaniki, JHU∙CCP/K4Health

*Angela Nash

Mercado, JHU∙CCP/K4Health

Theresa Norton, Jhpiego

Saori Ohkubo, JHU∙CCP/K4Health

Simone Parrish,
JHU∙CCP/K4Health

Suzanne Rainey, Forum One

*Laura Raney, FHI 360

Sally Salisbury, Consultant

Rebecca Shore,
JHU∙CCP/K4Health

Loren Sollenberger, Insight Corp

Kate Stence,
JHU∙CCP/K4Health

*Tara Sullivan,
JHU∙CCP/K4Health

Linda Tawfik,
Knowledge Management Services

Sarah Weber, CRS

Stacey Young, USAID


*

Asterisk i
ndicates participation in the KM Advisory Committee


We also had a number of participants join the meeting via phone/GoToMeeting.



Welcome and Overview


10:30
-
11:00


Presenters
:

Piers Bocock
,

JHU∙CCP
,
pbocock@jhuccp.org


Tara
Sullivan
,

JHU∙
CCP
,
tsulliva@jhuccp.org


Piers Bocock
welcomed participants

to the JHU∙CCP office
. He congratulated the group on
its
progress
during its first
year

it
had been 365 days since
the group’s first meeting

and asked:
What’s next for the KM WG?


2


Tara Sullivan
reviewed the
KM WG’s purpose,
and
gave an
overview

of
the current status of its
deliverables
.



There have been a number of successes in the past year:

o

The
KM for Health and Development eToolkit has been completed and launched

o

The WG documented the
KM business case
and collected related resources in
the toolkit.

o

The KM M&E logic model
has been completed



Areas that will need more work in the coming year
:

o

The KM toolkit has some gaps (i.e., KM success stories).

o

The issue of KM strategy needs to be discussed more.

o

The logic model will be used as the foundation for the revision of the M&E
guide
for information products.



The WG is currently chaired by JHU∙CCP, but the chair will
rotate each year
.



Fostering Research & Scholarship at UMUC


1
1
:00
-
11:45



Presenter:

Dr. Jay Liebowitz,

Orkland Endowed Chair in Management & Technology,
University of Maryland University College
,
JLiebowitz@umuc.edu


Dr. Liebowitz
shared
some of his tools and methods
for
measuring KM, and discussed
his work
fostering knowledge sharing at UMUC.


General thoughts



The KM terms we are using may be new, but the KM field itself is not new.



It is crucial to look at
informal networks to supplement the formal, hierarchica
l structures
in organizations. T
he informal w
orld isn’t as well understood,
so it is important to use
social and network analyses to map connections
.


Knowledge retention

and long
-
term planning



Dr. Liebowitz shared results of some recent KM literature, and stressed the need for
knowledge retention (KR), which should be a part of all knowledge sharing strat
egies.



A

recent study found that ~80% of respondents
had no
formal
KR strategy in place. This
study focused on non
-
profit

& gov
ernment organizations, but the same is true in the
business world.



KM
should go
hand
-
in
-
hand with succession development and long
-
term planning
.



A tool for assessing KM maturity was developed by Liebowitz and others; it scores how
well KM systems are working. Most organizations score ~2
-
3 (on a scale of 0
-
5).



4 pillars of a human capital strategy



Knowledge Management



Competency
Management



Performance Management



Change Management


Tenets for Knowledge Sharing/KM success



Have a recognition/reward structure in place.

3




Explain the benefits of knowledge sharing to others.



Share failures as well as successes


with creativity comes fail
ure.

o

Dr. Liebowitz suggested have a “Failure Award”
to encourage sharing
challenges, and
embedding “lessons learned” into overall reporting requirements.



Knowledge sharing should be incorporated into everyone’s job.



Use appropriate technology (make sure t
he technology works for people, and not vice
versa)
.


Knowledge Sharing at UMUC



They now have a digital repository

for research materials


accessible by all affiliated
with the university.



He works to nurture a culture of research and
k
nowledge
s
haring



he
put
s

together
talks on flash drives to create awareness of integrating better across programs,
departments, etc.



UMUC hosts a “Share Fair” (in both
face
-
to
-
face
&
v
irtual
format
s
)


includes
presentations and awards for research
.



New grant money to f
oster research and publications of
junior
faculty

members
.


KM

Measurement &
Metrics



It is eas
ier to
measure
systems or process outcomes, but what we really want are the
outcome

measures.



Metrics
need to
be mapped back to the mission and strategic goals/
objectives of the
org
anization.



You

can’t always trust numbers.
A
necdotal evidence
is often
just as useful

for measuring
KM impact.



Innovation
often
comes from “weak ties”


the knowledge generated outside one’s own
field


so you can look at
measuring
joi
nt research presentation, collaboration, etc
.



It is crucial to share
lessons learned in formal
(including published materials)
& informal
venues
.


Dr. Liebowitz closed by stressing that
knowledge retention
should be addressed by senior
leadership

and orga
nizational management teams. We need to
improve our methodologies,
tools, and metrics

for KM. It is important to apply
ideas from other disciplines

(
for example,
social network analysis,
which arose from sociology & education)

and to
focus on an
integrated, systems
-
based approach

to KM.


Questions and discussion

from the group followed

Dr. Liebowitz’s presentation
:



One participant asked Dr. Liebowitz to name some
compelling reasons/ways to sell
KM within an organization.

He responded that a

busine
ss case is important, in order to
show others KM’s value. It is also crucial to have a senior
-
level KM champion, and to
ensure that the KM strategy is aligned with the overall goals of the organization.
The
most important reason to argue for KM is to

creat
e new products/services: T
hrough
cross
-
collabo
ration, we will innovate. Also, KM leads to
memory
-
building for the
institution,
along with
adaptability and agility.



The group discussed
where
KM’s “home”
should
be
within the organization.

Dr.
Liebowitz said that there is not
one set

home


for KM


there may be a need for a
n
interdisciplinary

KM WG within an organization. Sometimes, the best place for a KM
group to sit is under the VP for Strategy


this allows KM to take on a strategic rol
e in the
organization.

4




The group discussed
KM/KS in the context of USAID

(which Stacey Young addressed
later in the WG meeting).

o

USAID
is emphasizing evidence
-
based dev
elopment more than in the past, and
is r
e
-
engineering work processes to incorporate evid
ence
-
based initiatives into
the design of programs.

USAID is rebui
lding their internal capacity (
traditionally,
technical strength has resided more w
ith

partners than internally
)
.

o

KM needs to be holistic.
While
making the business case

for KM
,
one should
talk
about the objectives first and then talk about how KM can support those
objectives.

o

Another participant stressed that o
ne of the main drivers for KM is the fear that
money
is being wasted w/ duplication of effort. USAID is also decentralized
,
with
bur
eaus & missions doing their own thing. We need to ensure that all sectors
communicate better.



Another participant asked Dr. Liebowitz:
How do we go about
being more innovative
,
and
how do we encourage
people to share knowledge

rather than hold onto it?
He
responded by stressing the importance of
trust
within
an organization


this
crucial for
knowledge sharing
. He recommended the book
“Mastering Organizational Knowledge
Flow”


a good resource for sharing knowledge within an organization.



Someone asked
if there are ever
instances where KS actually may be inefficient?

Dr.
Liebowitz said that

k
nowledge is a capital asset, and
you need to have a

team approach
to looking at KM and
to have the right provisions in place if certai
n knowledge cannot or
should not
be shared outside the organization.
C
ertain password
-
protected technology
settings
can be applied,
so organizational knowledge
does not
get out
.
He also
recommended a book by G Schiuma, which discusses KM
from an organizati
onal capital
standpoint.



One WG member stated
asked for
tips on collecting data
, as the
metrics seem labor
-
intensive. He responded that
t
ools
and
techniques need to be in place
before
collect
i
ng
metrics. A
lso, INSNA.org has software, pubs, & techniques for

collecting metrics. It
doesn’t require as much people power as you think


you just need the right ways &
methods in place to gather & collect data. Taking time to set up the systems is important.



Dr. Liebowitz discussed
ways to get people to admit failur
es
. In one organization, he
started a journal called “Failures & Les
sons Learned in IT Management,” which included
bittersweet stories or outright failures.
A

safe environment needs to be created in order
for others to share.
P
seudonyms
can be used.
Part

o
f this is an education issue,
but it’s
finally up to senior leadership to create the environment to test these innovations

and
create a comfortable space for sharing

both failures and successes
.



USAID’s KM Strategy: Process, Progress, Perspectives


12:15
-
1:0
0


Presenter:

Stacey Young,

PhD, Senior Knowledge Management Advisor, Bureau for Policy,
Planning and Learning, Office of Learning, Evaluation and Research, USAID
USAID
,
styoung@usaid.gov


Stacey began by sharing
some background:



USAID’s vision behind the KM strategy
: T
o “i
ncrease USAID’s aid effectiveness by
improving the quality of its programs

and
extending its influence

through
leveraging knowledge and evidence, infusing learning through
out technical activities,
5


and catalyzing learning among USAID staff, partners, and broader practitioner
communities.




USAID
sees the limitation of what they can do w/ their
resources without adequate KM.



A f
ocus on KM & learning improves develo
pment pract
ice across the board, and can
lead to a
much greater impact
.



USAID is now working on developing on their KM strategy, and is looking for input

from
others who work in KM
.


She defined a
“learning organization”

as one that

can:
coordinate & collaborate,
learn, and
adapt
. (C, L, and A)



Coordinate & Collaborate:

USAID is looking to improve collaboration among


and with


partners.
Collaborating with country
-
level stakeholders needs to be more systematic
. It
is important
be strategic about when & how
collaboration occurs
.



Learning:
USAID needs to fill knowledge gaps, test hypotheses, learn from others’
experiences, and transfer knowledge to others. USAID needs to improve the system of
bringing in knowledge from other places (specifically the country le
vel). They need to
identify “game changing conditions”


things that could have a huge influence on
USAID’s work
.



Adapt:
USAID needs to be able to adapt as they go but still stay on track. Evaluation
creates a learning loop that is significant and rigorous
. It is important to enable an
iterative approach to evaluation, but to still be able to complete this in a tight timeframe.


She stressed that
an organization

must start by looking at their
o
bjectives,
and
then
determine
how
KM&L
can
support that
objective
.


Enabling conditions
can help with the implementation of the KM strategy. These include
champions, clear objectives, technology, clear roles and responsibilities, resources, incentives
(hard and soft), and a high
-
level support.


Stacey presented

two possible KM approaches
:



The first started with countries, brought in missions, then brought in support (
via TA,
coaching, tools, techniques, evaluation support, technology & systems, performance
management)
. In this model, everything would happen at t
he country level.



The second approach (due to financial cuts, etc.) would embed knowledge and learning
within all reforms, and would include language on learning in all of the evaluation policies
for programs, etc. This model would support and reward exist
ing successful/promising
efforts, and provide examples and models for those who want to invest in K&L.


USAID KM/L Strategy
deliverables
:



Actual
strategy document



R
ollout/communication/change management plan



L
earning lab for implementation support



C
ontinuous feedback system


She
solicited feedback

and asked

the WG what
they

would like
to see in a KM

strategy. She
asked how the strategy should be informed by:
existing K repositories, K
-
sharing processes,
platform, & tools
. She acknowledged that havin
g a strategy is not enough


sharing it and
providing support as it is rolled out is equally important.



Questions and discussion

from the group followed

Stacey Young’s presentation
:

6





One participant asked about the
relationship of KM & project
management
, and the
need to have key staff become project managers in addition to their ongoing jobs.
Stacey answered that learning needs to be integrated into the program cycle. She said
that USAID has
integrated language on learning into the program guid
e (and the
evaluation step). There is an interim step, though


implementation



and we need to
articulate K&
L into that step.



Another member said that it seems that
i
ntegrating KM into SOPs

would productive, as
KM for KM’s sake won’t go very far in
a limited funding environment.
If KM is presented
as optional,
there may be pockets of innovative people, but it may be difficult
to
implement organization
-
wide
unless KM&L is integrated into project management.



One member recommended that Stacey look at
the decision
-
making guides for FP


to
encourage investment in
evidence
-
based, high
-
impact strategies
.



Several members of the KM WG are
comparing KM
-
related job descriptions
, as a
way to discuss roles & responsibilities.



The group discussed what
types of
indicators

could go into RFPs. Someone
suggested having a model and a set of
indicators that explains how knowledge feeds
into results

including outputs and outcomes
. This could
help explain USAID’s
expectations across all the development areas
, and would

help USAID CAs know what
they needed to report
.



We discussed the
need for
adaptation
/flexibility
, and how that may conflict with the
need to collect baseline & endline data. There may be a fear that we cannot adapt if
we’ve already collected baseline data
. One group member recommended having some
static indicators, and then others that can be added or changed. Another participant
recommended having static indicators and then backing these data up with qualitative
results.



Areas for
KM WG
to
pursue

this y
ear


1:15
-
1:30



Led by
Laura Raney, FHI 360
,
lraney@fhi360.org


Laura
reviewed
the
KM WG
outputs

in the past year:



15 individuals from 10 organizations developed

“Making the Case for KM
.




12 different organizations

contributed to the KM for Health and Development Toolkit.



An
Advisory Committee
has been formed.



A KM panel for the
Intl FP Conf in Dakar
has been accepted.


The following items were added to the
KM WG “wish list”

for this coming year:



C
larify roles &
responsibilities for KM



Perpetuate
learning about the field of KM


create
learning opportunities to build the
capacity in PH prog
rams to incorporate KM strategy



Ensuring representation at high
-
level meetings and conferences



KM
Advocacy



Research agenda



Knowledge retentio
n

7




Project management


how to make KM mec
hanisms part of everyday work and develop
practical working solutions



M&E


continuing
this past year’s conversations and also:
gathering data, using metrics,
showing that
KM
has impact



Showing tha
t participating in virtual discussions/listservs

act
ually has an impact on
programs



Combining efforts for research (e.g., combining NA with other similar efforts)



Reaching out beyond this arena


maybe w/ World Bank or others?



What can we learn from our BC
C colleagues who are involved in messaging?



A list of “quick win” projects


some things you could do w/ immediate payback, and help
to get buy
-
in within the organization?



Case studies
to
document how KM can help turn innovations into reality (related to
scale
-
up)



Knowledge Café


1:30
-
2:30


Based on the KM WG “wish list,” the group decided upon the following as
topics for the
K
nowledge
C
afé
:

1.

KM
s
trategy (continuing the discussion from Stacey Young’s presentation


discussion
notes will be shared with her)

2.

Research
a
genda

3.

KM
a
dvocacy

4.

KM
i
ntegration



Q
uick
W
ins”

5.

KM
s
uccess
s
tories


Participants visited three
of the five
tables

during the hour
-
long
K
nowledge
C
afé. Facilitators
stayed at the same table
the whole time
,
and recorded
notes from all three group discussions
.



Knowledge Café report back



2:30
-
2:45


Knowledge Café t
ables
were
facilitated by

Theresa Norton, Saori Ohkubo, Daniel
Cothran
,
Alberto Andretta,
and

Sarah Harlan
.


KM
Advocacy

(facilitator: Theresa Norton)



We should p
erpetuate learning
about KM

through our advocacy work.



We should
focus on
how we can
be
represent
ed in

all important conferences, meetings,
presentation opportunities
.



We need more productive engagement in KM.



There is a need for KM media and advocacy products kit (they should be label free


with an inter
-
agency KM WG brand).

8




We could also produce: a 1
-
2

page brief; KM eLearning info; mini
-
blog entries; mini
stories/case studies; webinars, a
F
acebook page; and conference presentations
(especially non
-
KM conferences).



In all of our products, we need to make sure we are using the right language to ensure
ch
ampions’ support and participation.



We can look at SBCC projects and see what we can learn from their work.


Research Agenda
(facilitator: Saori

Ohkubo
)



It is important to
have
o
ur own agenda and test KM hypotheses. We need to
show
the
impact

of KM (i.e.
,
that investing in KM can improve outcomes).



We can also measure/prove

impact and success from participating virtual KM sharing,
CoP, leadership programs
.



Knowledge retention is a key area we should consider researching.




We should be documenting the ways t
hat KM can
implementation and scale
-
up

of
programs.



We should also l
earn from SBCC colleagues about messaging
.



This topic goes hand in hand with the existing KM M&E task force.


KM Strategy
(facilitator: Alberto Andretta)

Elements/ideas provided by the two

presenters that we found useful in our own thinking
around KM&L development strategy



Larger architecture (i.e., KM&L to serve the organization’s development goals)
coupled with building block (i.e., KM&L with PM; KM&L as integral part of project
design).



KM&L Strategy must be supported by internal and external capacity development.



The importance of considering the location where KM&L resides within a given
organization. And how that reconciles with an often highly decentralized setting.



KM&L as a strategi
c objective (with indicators and budget line) in project/program
design.



Need of constant support from senior management.


Ideas/perspectives to consider in developing a KM&L strategy



KM&
L strategy needs to facilitate the identification of various knowledge
users/contributors. For instance, the field remains as a privileged space for
innovative knowledge and solutions.



Accordingly, there seems to be a strong need for upward, horizontal,
vertical
information flows.


The idea/metaphor of knowledge personas emerged in the
conversation to remind us of the traits of the actual users of and contributors to the
shared knowledge base.



There is/will be a need to deeply understand the AID’s KM&L f
ramework and
strategy so that each individual proposal (and implementing agency) can speak to
the larger shared knowledge base.



The agencies represented in the K4Health consortium will collate, analyze and offer
a set of roles and responsibilities around K
M&L as defined in existing RFAs.



Learning
-
centered project design: this is a topic to be explored and tested. In
essence, the idea is that project design and actual implementation should be done
by facilitating development of local capacities. KM&L the
n becomes a precondition
and a driver for implementation…and not “just” one among other objectives in a
project design.


9


Possible KM&L Strategy WG deliverables in the coming year



List of possible/tested KM&L indicators to include in project design.



Explore

and test learning
-
centered development paradigm
.



Lessons learned from agencies represented
.




Could USAID co
-
fund some initiative of KM&L WG that could result in concrete
contributions to AID’s framework/strategy?


KM Integration & “Quick Wins”

(facilitato
r: Daniel
Cothran
)



How quick is a “quick win”?

Much of what we want to

do with KM may take some time.
Also,
things go in waves and we have a need to focus on sustainability in crafting these
“wins”


focusing on areas that are working already
.



Quick wins
should focus on: sustainability, incentives, culture, and what already works.



We should work more on integrating within p
roject
management.



We also need a common definition of KM
, and to have KM

integrated within programs
(can be included in RFAs).



Specific ideas:

o

Develop a “who’s who” or expert locator, and searchable shared directories of
those working in KM.

o

Hold a seminar series.

o

Identify and work with IT champions.

o

Identify potential partners whom we have not tapped into and reach out


E.g.,
Wo
rld Bank, universities, etc.


KM Success Stories

(facilitator: Sarah Harlan)



The term “success story” may be limiting


group members recommended using “case
study,” “learning story,” or “KM story.”



We can develop criteria for writing these stories, working closely with the M&E/research
task force.
How do we attribute success to KM specifically? To answer this question, we
will need to systematize and measure KM programs to attribute a program’s succe
ss (or
failure) to KM activities.



We can use different vehicles and formats for these stories.

o

We can use pre
-
existing sites to distribute them; we do not need to create a new
platform.
(Most will go on the KM Toolkit.)

o

We may need a marketing expert to h
elp with the format and dissemination of
these stories. We can use a variety of formats, including: video, photos with
descriptive captions, longer narratives, and shorter vignettes.



We can develop guidelines and templates for writing
up these case studie
s.



Where do we look for these stories? We should look at who is implementing KM
activities


and then look for “bright spots.” We can then trace back to determine how
these “bright spots” got that way.



We should focus on who would
use
the success story (i
.e., why we should capture them)


if we focus on the end user of materials or KM programs, we can then determine what
the KM process was that led to the individual using a product or method.


After the knowledge café facilitators reported back to the grou
p,
the larger group decided on
the
KM WG’s
priority focus areas for the coming year
:



Research Agenda


We discussed the importance of testing hypotheses and
demonstrating the impact of KM approaches, with the ultimate goal of improving
outcomes. This topic will be incorporated into the existing M&E task force, led by Saori
Ohkubo (JHU∙CCP) and Tara Sullivan

(JHU∙CCP).

10




Strategy


The group agreed that defi
ning roles and responsibilities
for KM will be
crucial as we move forward. This will be a new task force, and will be led by Alberto
Andretta (ChildFund International).

Alberto will also connect with Stacey

and share the
group’s ideas with her.



Case Studies


Documenting both successes and challenges will promote learning
among others implementing KM activities. This will be a new task force, and will be led
by Sarah Harlan (JHU∙CCP).



Advocacy


The group tal
ked about the need to promote KM at conferences and events.
A task force to develop a panel submission for the upcoming International
Communication Association Conference will be formed


led by Angela Nash
-
Mercado
(JHU∙CCP).



Closing Remarks and Next St
eps


Peggy D’Adamo

of USAID made some brief
closing remarks
. She talked about the
importance of
building evidence of KM to show impact, cost
-
effectiveness, or both.


Tara Sullivan summarized the
next

s
teps

for the KM WG
:



We will have a teleconference the topic of acknowledging contributions


and to respond
to a draft document developed by
Erin Broekhuysen
. This was on the meeting agenda,
but we ran out of time.



Three new task forces will be started

S
trategy,
C
ase
S
tudies,

and
A
dvocacy

and
leaders will begin to recruit group members
. The
“research agenda”
discussion will be
rolled into the existing M&E task force
, and the “integration and quick wins” discussion
will be incorporated into the new strategy task force.