Defining "Best Practices" in Knowledge Management: Insights and Dimensions

1. How to Define a “Best Practice” Michael J. Spendolini, Ph.D. President, MJS Associates KM World 2000 September 13, 2000

2. The Issue: Include a “Best Practices” Element in the Knowledge Base • Typical Client requestors • Benchmarking applications • KM database element • Professional Associations • Strategic planners MJS Associates / KM World 2k

3. Why Should We Care? • The best-practice (BP) objective defines the exact nature of the information selected for inclusion • The BP perspective suggests a level of investigation to identify “qualified” information • The nature of information provided by contributors will be influenced by your definition of a BP • How an organization defines a “successful” information product will depend on it’s BP perspective MJS Associates / KM World 2k

4. The Challenge: To Identify a Meaningful Set of Dimensions That Define a “Best Practice” • Research objective: • Review existing formal definitions • Consult with “topic experts” regarding their perspective • Methodology • Literature review (on-line hits: 000s) • On-line survey of benchmarking experts and experienced practitioners (n = 428) • Telephone and on-line interviews with 40+ KM “experts” • Special emphasis on consultants who sell or promote a best practices product MJS Associates / KM World 2k

5. Initial Impressions • There is nothing resembling a consistent and/or uniform BP definition or perspective • Several “definitive” definitions are being promoted, but they seem limited • The implications of the use of the term “best practices” are often ignored or not fully understood • An expedient answer is often desired and/or accepted • Consultants and subject matter “experts” exert a tremendous amount of influence on their client’s perspective • Many “clients” are not very demanding of their “consultants” (lack of “client savvy”) MJS Associates / KM World 2k

6. Project Direction • Identify meaningful dimensions that could be used to define a “best practice” • Attempt to reflect levels of consistency and creativity • Assume that the majority of BP applications will not require or demand a consideration of all identified dimensions MJS Associates / KM World 2k

7. Process Guided by a Basic Belief • That the identification and documentation of a set of BP dimensions can support several desirable outcomes: • Provide a common platform for discussion for data requestors and service providers • Help define the exact nature of a BP-related data set (input sources and data users) • Stimulate a more aggressive BP perspective in the marketplace • Support the notion of a “dynamic” database that is multi-dimensional and evolving MJS Associates / KM World 2k

8. Progress to date: 5 “Core Dimensions” are Proposed • 1. Type of information • 2. Level of Validation / Verification • 3. Geographical reach • Systems Impact • Environmental Considerations MJS Associates / KM World 2k

9. 1. Type of Information • Quantitative • Performance levels, costs, revenue, staffing levels, resource requirements, various ratios, etc. • Process • processes, technologies, org. structure, customer-supplier relationships, strategic decision-making approach, etc. • Strategic • Macro (org.-level) and micro (process level), the strategic planning process itself, environmental analyses, forecasting, growth projections, key business assumptions • Qualitative • Personal opinions, reactions, preferences MJS Associates / KM World 2k

10. 2. Level of Validation / Verification • Evidence that information represents anything of a “special” nature • Often linked with special research effort to provide evidence of relative performance • Position of information on a continuum of performance • Practices • Working practices • Generally accepted practices • Recommended practices • Practices reflecting expert opinion • Practices reflecting absolute performance standards MJS Associates / KM World 2k

11. 3. “Partner” or Source Relationship • Refers to the “locus” of information – inward vs outward looking, level of “out-of-the-box” information represented. • Low level: “the usual suspects” – internal, competitive, members of existing networks, etc. No research required • Medium: non-traditional partners, but from similar types of environments (still a lot in common). Attempts to discriminate and seek high performers • High: Information from non-traditional sources. Selection is process focused as opposed to output focused. MJS Associates / KM World 2k

12. 4. Geographical “Reach” • Location in relation to one’s organization. • Low: “Best-in-class” or “Best-in-Cleveland”. In U.S. by region. In Europe, Asia, Middle East – by country • Medium: Outside of one’s immediate geographical area. For U.S., majority of sources are typically U.S. based. Outside of U.S., by region (e.g., Europe) • High: True global outlook. Proactive search. U.S. generally more conservative MJS Associates / KM World 2k

13. 5. Systems Impact • Reasonable cost-benefit analysis • Consideration of actual costs of practices: transition costs, training, information systems, staffing, consultant, maintenance…….. • Inter-relationship of cost, quality, time, etc. is considered • Long-term implications of cost-benefit • Consideration of internal/external customer-supplier effects MJS Associates / KM World 2k

14. 6. “Environmental” Considerations • Special considerations that effect whether certain information is included or excluded for consideration • An effort is made to insure that processes are “transferable” in different organizational settings • Examples of environmental items: • Organization size, structure, global diversity • Regulatory environment • Market position • Union presence • Profit / non-profit status • Public vs. private • Supply chain factors • Customer relationships • Competitors • Technology use and applications MJS Associates / KM World 2k