INTEGRATING CURRENT PRACTICES AND INFORMATION

SYSTEMS IN KM INITIATIVES

A Knowledge Management Audit Approach

Oscar M. Rodríguez-Elias, Cesar E. Rose-Gómez

Division of Graduate Studies and Research, Institute of Technology of Hermosillo

Ave. Tecnológico, Hermosillo, Son., Mexico

Aurora Vizcaíno

Informatics Higer School, University of Castilla-La Mancha, Ciudad Real, Spain

Ana I. Martíenz-García

Computer Science Department, CICESE Research Center, Ensenada, B.C., Mexico

Keywords: Knowledge Management, Knowledge Audit, KM Audit, Knowledge Flow Analysis, KM Process

Improvement.

Abstract: Researchers and practitioners in the field of knowledge management have observed the need of performing

studies to understand the context and specific knowledge workers’ needs before proposing strategies or

systems that may not be entirely useful for organizations, resulting in costly and unsuccessful knowledge

management projects. Different approaches have been proposed to face this problem, such as process

engineering techniques to integrate knowledge management in business processes, and also knowledge

audits to identify the knowledge and knowledge problems in organizations. This paper draws on the idea of

the knowledge audit to propose a methodology for knowledge management audits, which integrates process

engineering techniques and the main tasks of knowledge audits. The methodology was developed based on

one of our previous works, literature review, and our own experience in field studies. The methodology, its

constitutive phases and main tasks, together with some aspects about its use in field studies, including

benefits and weaknesses, are described.

1 INTRODUCTION

Although the Knowledge Management (KM) field

has being in the interest of practitioners and

researchers for more than a decade, many KM

initiatives are still being unsuccessfully

implemented. The reasons for KM failures have

been under investigation from different perspectives,

and different authors have written their opinions on

this respect. For instance, Stewart (2002) analyzed

different KM initiatives and found that much of

them tend to fail because a lack of understanding of

the real needs of organizations. In recent years,

researchers in the field of KM have getting more

attention towards the need for understanding the real

necessities not just of the managerial positions of

organizations, or of the organization as a whole

entity, but the particular requirements of knowledge

workers at all the levels of an organization. For

instance, Karl Wiig (2004) has developed a whole

theory on the need for people focused on KM.

Based on the observations of other authors, we

can state that for KM to be effective, organizations

must start looking for what it is really important for

their knowledge workers (Wiig, 2004), as well as

identifying means to integrate KM into the daily

work processes (Scholl, König, Meyer, & Heisig,

2004) and into the daily working tools (Davenport,

2007). All this is particularly true for small

companies, which often do not have the resources to

Rodríguez-Elias O., Rose-Gómez C., Vizcaino A. and Martíenz-García A..

INTEGRATING CURRENT PRACTICES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN KM INITIATIVES - A Knowledge Management Audit Approach.

DOI: 10.5220/0003100100710080

In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2010), pages 71-80

ISBN: 978-989-8425-30-0

 2010 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

engage themselves in costly and time consuming

KM efforts (Wong, 2005). As has been observed by

Sparrow (2001), before implementing a KM

initiative, small firms have to see the implications of

KM into their current processes. This implies to

understand the particular context of such

organizations in terms of the KM practices that they

could be actually applying, trying to harnes those

current practices, and their current working tools by

integrating those as part of the KM efforts. In this

scenario, a KM audit should be the first step towards

the implementation of KM, particularly in small

companies.

In this paper, we describe a KM audit approach

developed to study and understand knowledge needs

in organizational processes, with a focus on the

identification of the current practices and the

Information System (IS) that migth be contributing,

either explicitly or implicitly, to KM activities. The

remain of this paper is organized as follows: first, in

Section two we introduce the foundations for the

methodology, which is described in Section three.

Then, in Section four we present some scenarions in

which the methodology has been applied, together

with the main results of such studies. Afterwards, in

Section five we discusses about some lessons we

have learned during our work, and about the work to

be done; to finally conclude in Section six.

2 TOWARDS KM AUDIT

In this paper, we are proposing KM audit as an

extension of the concept of Knowledge Audit (KA).

Hence, we will first depict on the Knowledge Audit

concept and on the works we have studied to

develop our proposal.

2.1 Knowledge Audit

According to Lauer & Tanniru (2001), a knowledge

audit (KA) is to understand the processes that

constitute the activities of a knowledge worker, and

see how well they address the “knowledge goals” of

the organization.

Liebowitz, Rubenstein-Montano, McCaw,

Buchwalter, & Browning (2000) define a KA as a

tool that assets potential stores of knowledge. By

discovering what knowledge is possessed, it is then

possible to find the most effective method of storage

and dissemination. It can then be used as the basis

for evaluating the extent to which change needs to

be introduced to the enterprise.

The KA is used to provide a sound investigation

into the organization’s knowledge health. It

examines knowledge sources and use: how and why

knowledge is acquired, accessed, disseminated,

shared and used (Hylton, 2002).

According to literature, Perez-Soltero, Barcelo-

Valenzuela, Sanchez-Schmitz, & Rodriguez-Elias

(2009) have identified that the benefits that an

organization might obtain by carrying out a KA

include the following:

• Providing scientific evidence to determine if the

potential value of the company’s knowledge is

maximizing.

• Offering evidence and formalized accounting of

existing knowledge within the organization as well

as how it moves through the company.

• Detailing in the knowledge inventory “what

knowledge exists and where it is in the

organization”, which is crucial to determine the

abundance and worth of corporate knowledge.

• Allowing for the creation of a map detailing

internal and external knowledge and its flow,

besides formal and informal social networks. This

facilitates to identify the inefficiencies that take

place when there are duplicate efforts, knowledge

voids and bottle necks in the knowledge flow.

• Helping the company to identify and plan the

knowledge required to support its goals, tasks, and

activities.

• Allowing for the measurement of the relative

worth of knowledge entities as perceived by

initiators and users (e.g. employees).

• Offering measurement and the valuation of the

efficacy of the company’s capacities and

competences with respect to knowledge and KM

when compared to clients, partners, and even

competitors.

• It facilitates the measurement of the effectiveness

and efficiency of knowledge capture by the

company and the success with which the captured

knowledge is used to support the interests of

outsiders such as partners and clients.

• Allowing hidden knowledge to become visible,

knowledge assets to become more tangible and,

therefore, facilitates activities focused on

accounting for them and their measurement.

• Making it easier for KM initiatives to become

more efficient and effective.

• Producing independent and objective indicators

based on knowledge values that can be used to

plan and implement KM projects. Such measures

being far richer than measures that only focus on

the success or failure of particular KM initiatives.

KMIS 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

Additionally, Rodríguez-Elias, Martínez-García,

Vizcaíno, Favela, & Piattini (2009) have identified

that some of the benefits a company might obtain by

studying the knowledge involved in their processes

include the followings:

• Identify knowledge related problems.

• Increase the information of the knowledge and

knowledge sources involved in the processes.

• Identify tools that can be integrated within the

KM initiative.

• Identify requirements in order to acquire or

develop new tools through which to improve the

knowledge flow.

• Analyze the effects of including KM strategies in

the processes.

• Improve the assignment of human resources.

From all the above, we can observe that

understanding knowledge needs may get great

benefits to an organization, so we agree that this

understanding should be an important first step

towards the development of KM initiatives.

2.2 The Knowledge Audit Process

According to (Liebowitz, Rubenstein-Montano,

McCaw, Buchwalter, & Browning, 2000) a KA can

be realized following three main steps:

1. Identify what Knowledge Currently Exists in

the target area, which include: a) determine

existing and potential sinks, sources, flows, and

constrains in the target area, including

environmental factors that could influence the

target area; b) identify and locate explicit and

tacit knowledge in the target area, and c) build a

knowledge map of the taxonomy and flow of

knowledge in the organization in the target area.

The knowledge map relates topics, people,

documents, ideas, and links to external resources

in respective densities, in ways that allow

individuals to find the knowledge they need.

2. Identify what Knowledge is Missing in the

target area, which include: a) perform a gap

analysis to determine what knowledge is missing

to achieve business goals, and b) determine who

needs the missing knowledge.

3. Provide Recommendations from the KA to

management regarding the status quo and

possible improvements to the KM activities.

We believe that in spite of the benefits of a KA,

it is not enough since it is also required to identify

the mechanisms, activities, and processes that

companies are using to manage what they know.

That means, it is also required a KM Audit.

2.3 The KM Audit

Most literature on KA assumes that such activity is

carried out in companies which want to implement a

KM strategy, and that currently don’t have one.

However, even when a company would not have

explicit KM practices, they use to perform KM

activities even when they are not aware of it. At least

this fact has found to be true in different field studies

(Aurum, Daneshgar, & Ward, 2008; Meehan &

Richardson, 2003).

Lauer & Tanniru (2001), state that the goal of a

KM audit is “to understand the processes that

constitute the activities of a knowledge worker, and

see how well they address the knowledge goals of

the organization”. Thus we define a KM audit as the

identification, analysis and evaluation of the

mechanisms, activities, processes and practices

being followed to manage the knowledge that a

company already has, or to create or acquire the

knowledge that this requires to fulfil its goals.

For a KM initiative to be successful, it is

important to identify not just the knowledge we want

to manage, but also to identify the mechanisms and

activities that the actors of a process currently

perform to manage their knowledge. In fact, one of

the current concerns in KM practitioners and

researchers is to identify the manner in which KM

strategies can be integrated to the common working

processes, harnessing at most as possible the current

working practices and technological infrastructure

(Davenport, 2007; Scholl, König, Meyer, & Heisig,

2004). This situation is particularly important for

small companies, since they probably would not

have the resources for engaging themselves in a

costly KM project requiring big changes in their

current working processes and technological

infrastructure (Sparrow, 2001; Wong, 2005).

Based on literature review and our own

experience, we consider that a KM audit should

include:

• A Knowledge Audit as has been described

previously.

• Identify the Knowledge Goals. A knowledge

goal is a goal that gives direction to KM, and that

it is exclusively concerned with knowledge

processes, such as knowledge acquisition,

creation, sharing, etc. (Lauer & Tanniru, 2001).

• Identify the Current KM Practices being

performed by actors of the organizational

process, and how they aid to the accomplishment

INTEGRATING CURRENT PRACTICES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN KM INITIATIVES - A Knowledge

Management Audit Approach

of the knowledge goals. It is important to

identify both, formal and informal KM practices.

If a company has already implemented a KM

initiative, then we could be trying to improve

that previous initiative by harnessing what has

been functioning well, and improving what is

being functioning badly. As well, even when a

company would not have formal KM practices,

their employees might follow KM activities

implicitly, even when they might be unaware that

they are doing KM.

• Identify the Mechanisms being used by the

actors of the organizational process as KM

facilitators, and the manner in which they

influence, positively or negatively, the

accomplishment of the knowledge goals. If we

want to include current KM practices, we should

think on using the current mechanisms that the

actors of the process use to manage their

knowledge.

• Identify the Working Tools being used within

the process and that may be being used, or might

have the potential to be used as KM tools.

• Identify the Problems affecting the well

management of the important knowledge for the

organizational processes.

2.4 Knowledge Audit Methodologies

Several researchers and practitioners have made

proposals for performing KA. For instance,

Liebowitz, Rubenstein-Montano, McCaw,

Buchwalter, & Browning (2000) have proposed a

KA methodology based on a set of key questions

oriented to aid in the identification of the knowledge

that currently exists, and that missed in a target area.

The answers to those questions should provide

insights to propose recommendations for possible

improvements of KM activities.

Hylton (2002) has developed a methodology for

KA focused on auditing the knowledge that people

need to do their jobs efficiently. This methodology

follows three main steps: 1) a survey for collecting,

collating, analyzing and measuring corporate

knowledge data and information via the voice of the

knowledge people; 2) a knowledge inventory to

stock-taking and measurement of tacit and explicit

knowledge to determine the actual and potential

knowledge wealth, and 3) the building and

development of a corporate knowledge map of the

structure and flow of knowledge, highlighting who

has what knowledge and how they disseminate and

share knowledge in the corporate knowledge

community.

Choy, Lee, & Cheung (2004) developed a KA

methodology of three phases: pre-audit preparation,

in-audit process, and post-audit analysis. The pre-

audit preparation stage is focused on providing

orientation to the KM strategy, and performing a

cultural assessment; the in-audit process stage is

carried out through structured interviews to capture

process-critical knowledge; while post-audit analysis

is performed through the use of knowledge

inventory, knowledge maps, and social network

analysis. The main contribution of this work is that it

is proposed as a mean for evaluation whether a

company is prepared for starting a KM initiative.

Perez-Soltero et al., (2007) have followed a KA

methodology which focuses on the core processes of

an organization. That means, the core processes of

an organization are choose to be analyzed, where

core processes are defined as “collection of cross-

functional activities that are essential for external

customer satisfaction and achieving the mission of

the organization” (p. 9). This methodology consists

of ten steps: 1) Acquire organizational strategic

information and identify organizational processes; 2)

Identify organization’s core processes and establish

measurement criteria; 3) Prioritize and select

organization’s core processes; 4) Identify key

people; 5) Meeting with key people; 6) Obtaining

knowledge inventory; 7) Analyzing knowledge flow;

8) Knowledge mapping; 9) Knowledge Audit

Reporting; and 10) Continuous Knowledge Re-

auditing.

From the analysis of different KA

methodologies, Perez-Soltero and his colleagues

(2007) have observed that most of them attempt to

audit everything, no matter if what it is audited is

significant or not to the organization. Thus, the

approach of focusing on the core processes of an

organization is a better way to perform a KA which

focuses on the most important knowledge. However,

one weakness of their methodology, and also a

weakness of the other KA methodologies we have

studied, is that they do not consider, at least

explicitly, focusing on the current KM practices and

technological infrastructure as the basis for

proposing KM solutions. That is why we have used

our own approach, but considering the main

proposals we have studied in the different KA

methodologies found in literature.

From the analysis of the different KA

methodologies; we observe that three main stages

should be carried out in a KM audit:

1. An information collection stage.

2. A processes analysis stage.

3. A reporting and solutions proposal stage.

KMIS 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

The main differences between the KA

methodologies are on the techniques used to carry

out each of these stages, and the focus of each one of

these. From the literature review and our previous

research work, we have adapted a methodology for

knowledge flow identification (Rodriguez-Elias,

Martinez-Garcia, Vizcaino, Favela, & Piattini,

2005), in order to be used as the basis for performing

KM audits, also considering some of the strengths

we have identified in the KA methodologies just

described.

3 A KM AUDIT METHODOLOGY

The KM audit methodology being proposed is based

on a previous methodology, which was designed to

aid in the analysis of organizational processes from a

knowledge flow perspective (Rodriguez-Elias et al.,

2005). It was defined to assist in three main areas: 1)

to identify, structure, and classify the knowledge that

exists in the process studied, 2) to identify the

technological infrastructure which supports the

process and affects the knowledge flow, and 3) to

identify means with which to improve the

knowledge flow in the process. In a wide sense,

KoFI was designed to propose KM solutions based

on the results of a KM audit to specific

organizational processes.

KoFI is orientated towards helping to analyze

specific work processes, particularly knowledge

intensive process. Thus, it considers the focus on

core processes proposed in the Perez-Soltero et al.

(2007) KA methodology. The process followed to

apply the methodology is iterative, since each stage

may provide useful information for the preceding

stages.

The KoFI methodology has three main phases:

knowledge-focused process modelling, analysis of

the process (which include identification of

knowledge sources, topics, and flows, and

knowledge flow problems), and analysis of the tools

affecting the knowledge flow.

In order to adapt this methodology to be used as

a KM audit methodology we have extended it. This

extension includes an explicit phase for data and

information gathering; an analysis phase, which is

performed following the original analysis phases of

the KoFI methodology, and a reporting and solution

proposing stage. The figure 1 provides a general

view of the extended methodology.

Data and Information Gatering

• Structured interviews

• Document analysis

• Observation

Process Analysis

• Process modeling

• Knowledge flow analysis Identification of:

• Knowledge sources

• Knowledge topics

• Knowledge flows

• Knowledge flow problems

• Identification and analysis of KM tools and

practices

Reporting and solution proposing

• Report writing

• Requirement specification

• Prototype development and evaluation

Figure 1: Stages of the KM audit methodology.

In the following subsections we will briefly

describe each of the stages of our proposed

methodology, together with some techniques and

guidelines to carry out each stage. We will focus on

the elements that aid to identify the role that current

practices and Information Systems plays in the KM

activities.

3.1 Information Gathering Phase

This stage is perhaps one of the most important of

the whole methodology, since if we do not obtain

the correct data it will be highly probable that the

results of the following stages will be useless.

Unfortunately, we have observed that having a

rigorous formal and detailed data gathering protocol

could be very difficult to develop and to adapt it to

specific organizations’ needs. So, we have followed

some general guidelines, which are adapted

according to the particular situation of each

organization, and according to what we observe

during each particular case. These general guidelines

are as follow:

1. If the researchers have no prior information

about the process to be studied, perform longs

interviews to the main actors of the

organization. These interviews should be made

to obtain information useful to identify which

processes should be analyzed, and who is the

people we should talk to first.

2. Identify the people related to the process, the

responsible of it, the people who might serve

information to the process, the people who

might use information from the process, and the

INTEGRATING CURRENT PRACTICES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN KM INITIATIVES - A Knowledge

Management Audit Approach

people who perform the activities required for

the process.

3. Perform semi-structured interviews to key

people. This key people are those who might

have a general view of the process, and which

might have a better idea about how the process

and its main activities should work. These

interviews should be carried out to obtain

information about the main activities, and

products (inputs, outputs, and internal products)

of the process, and to start identifying the main

knowledge required and generated during the

process, the knowledge sources, and the

working tools that might be supporting or

affecting the flow of knowledge. Liebowitz,

Rubenstein-Montano, McCaw, Buchwalter, &

Browning (2000) provide a set of sample

questions that can be used as a basis for

defining the interviews protocol.

4. If there are many people performing similar

roles into the process, interview just one or two,

and use that information to create a

questionnaire to perform a survey with the rest

of the people, in order to identify similarities

and differences.

5. Identify documents with information about the

processes, if they exist to use them to compare

them to the information obtained from the

interviews, and to complement it.

6. Perform sessions of observation to validate that

the people are really performing the process in

the form they have told. Document any

differences or additional information to

complement or adequate the gathered data.

7. Create models of the process considering the

activities, the roles that people play, the sources

of information and knowledge, the main

knowledge topics or areas, and the relationships

between all these items. This model should be

validated by the interviewed people to use them

as the basis for the analysis phase.

8. Perform all these activities in a cyclic way, until

researchers and practitioners are conform to the

models, and agree that these models really

reflect the process being carried out.

3.2 Knowledge Focused Process

Modelling

A graphical model of the process, which indentifies

the knowledge required or generated, and the

knowledge sources and the working tools that may

be used as knowledge flow facilitators or channels,

is one of the main results of the data gathering

phase, and it is the main source of information for

the analysis phase.

In order to use these models for the next stage, it

is important to explicitly represent the knowledge

and its sources within the model, since integrating

elements in an explicit way into a process model,

greatly facilitates its analysis (Rodríguez-Elias et al.,

2009).

Thus, given the importance of this step, we have

been following a graphical process modelling

approach that explicitly represents the knowledge

and its sources. This approach was proposed in

(Rodriguez-Elias et al., 2005), and it is an adaptation

of the Rich Picture technique (Monk & Howard,

1998). Figure 2 present an example of this approach.

The graphic elements and their possible connections

are described next:

Role

Knowledge source

used in the

process/activity

Process/Activity

•List of main knowledge

topics required to fulfill

the process/activity

•List of knowledge

topics that a Role

obtains by participating

in a process or activity.

•List of main knowledge

topics generated during

the process/activiy

•List of knowledge

topics that a Role has

and uses during the

process/activity.

Knowledge source

generated in the

process/activity

•List of knowledge

topics obtained from

a knowledge source.

•List of knowledge

topics stored in a

knowledge source.

Figure 2: Example of the Rich Pictures notation used.

• Activities are represented with a cloud.

• Roles are represented with a cartoon of a person,

or any other figure that could better reflect what the

role is.

• Knowledge Areas or Topics are listed within

brackets.

• Knowledge Sources can be represented with a

rectangle, or they can be also represented with

another figure to differentiate between each type of

source (document, information system, repositories,

etc.).

• Connections are represented with lines. Just

roles and activities are connected with undirected

lines, this indicates that the role participate in the

activity. A line directed from an activity to a list of

knowledge topics, indicates that that knowledge is

generated in the activity; if the line is directed from

KMIS 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

the list of knowledge topics to the activity, indicates

that that knowledge is required to perform the

activity. A line directed from a role to a list of

knowledge topics indicates the knowledge that is

extracted from that role, this means, the role has that

knowledge and uses it to carry out the activity; a line

from the list of knowledge to a role is used to

indicate that the role obtains that knowledge by

participating in the activity. A line from a knowledge

source to an activity indicates that the source is used

in the activity, if the line is directed from the activity

to the source, then, that source is created in that

activity; if the line is bidirectional, then the source is

modified in the activity. Finally, a line directed from

a source to a list of knowledge topics indicates that

the knowledge is obtained from the source; if the

line is directed from a list of knowledge to the source

then indicates that the knowledge is stored in the

sources during the activity.

3.3 Process Analysis Phase

The process models are a basis for the analysis phase

composed of four steps, 1) identification of

knowledge sources, 2) identification of knowledge

topics, 3) identification of knowledge flows, and 3)

identification of knowledge flow problems.

One result of these steps is a knowledge map of

the knowledge sources and topics, indicating what

knowledge topics are stored in each source, and the

relationships of these items with the main activities

of the process. To create the map, taxonomies of

knowledge sources and topics are developed, which

are later used as a basis for an ontology that defines

the structure of the map. The map is useful to know

where the sources are, how can these be accessed,

and in which activities are they required or useful.

Additionally, in this stage the main mechanisms

being used as knowledge flow channels are

identified, such as information systems, documents,

key people such as knowledge brokers, knowledge

hubs, etc. Finally, a list of the main types of

problems affecting the knowledge flows is

developed, classifying and describing the problems

and its context. Together with each type of problem

one or more possible solutions are described in order

to latter be used to gather requirements for designing

a KM system or strategy.

3.4 Analysis of KM Support Tools

The previous stage helps to identify the main tools

being used as knowledge flow channels. We

consider that these tools are those that affect

(positively or negatively) to the different KM

activities (capture, storage, dissemination, sharing,

retrieval, etc.). In this stage, we analyse those tools

to evaluate to what level they are supporting the

knowledge flow and the different KM activities. To

accomplish this, we follow a framework proposed in

(Rodriguez-Elias, Martinez-Garcia, Vizcaino,

Favela, & Piattini, 2008).

This framework helps to classify each tool

according to the purpose of the knowledge managed

with it, the people that can be benefited with its use,

the domain and structure of the knowledge managed,

and the KM activities being supported. Thus, one

can specify whether a tool allows managing

knowledge within different dimensions. For

instance, in the case of knowledge use from personal

uses to industry wide use; in the dimension of

domain knowledge, from business knowledge to

technical knowledge; in the dimension of the

structure of knowledge, from highly tacit, such as

skills, to highly explicit and structured, such as

mathematical formulation; and in the case of the KM

activities supported, from a tool that inhibits the

flow of knowledge to a tool that improves it.

3.5 Reporting and Solution Proposing

In this final stage, the information obtained and

generated during the data gathering and process

analysis phases is integrated and structured to

document and report to the process administrators

the state of the process, the findings of the study,

and possible solutions to the problems found.

The report consists of six main sections:

1. Introduction, which includes the next

subsections: purpose describes the purpose and

goals of the study carried out, presents a general

description of the process or processes studied

and their context, and a description of the

people to whom the information might be

useful; methodology, a brief description of the

methodology followed, the time consumed, the

people involved, and any other data useful to

estimate the cost of the study, this section also

includes any limitation of the study that might

be important to take into consideration; main

findings, a brief description of the main

findings and its implications to the process, to

the current KM practices and/or to the possible

solutions.

2. Process Description, this section presents a

detailed description of the current process (or

processes) under study. The process models

generated and validated during the previous

INTEGRATING CURRENT PRACTICES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN KM INITIATIVES - A Knowledge

Management Audit Approach

stages are used to document it in this section of

the report. Thus, an important result of the study

is a detailed and validated description of the

current process, including the main knowledge

required and generated during each activity, and

the sources used to store it or to acquire it.

3. Current State of KM Practices, this section

presents a wide description of the current KM

practices observed, and the results of the

analysis of the tools that support the different

KM activities. The description may be

presented organized by KM activity, describing

the current state of each KM activity.

4. Knowledge Base, this section includes a

description of the current knowledge base of the

process which consists of the taxonomy of

knowledge sources and topics, its properties and

relationships. The development of an ontology

can be a useful mean to structure and document

this knowledge base (Perez-Soltero et al., 2009).

5. KM Problems Observed, in this section, the

main problems affecting the management of

knowledge are documented. It is important that

these problems are organized and classified. To

this end we use problem scenarios, a technique

proposed in (Rodriguez-Elias et al., 2005). A

problem scenario is a description of a problem

in form of a story. Each problem scenario is

composed of: 1) a name which briefly describes

the problem, 2) a type of problem in which it is

classified (such as information loss or difficult

to find, knowledge flow bottle neck, etc.); 3) a

description of the problem, which is a story that

describes how the problem occurs, and that

includes its context; and finally 4) one or more

alternative scenarios describing how the

possible solutions could change the problematic

situation. These alternative scenarios are the

basis for the recommendations and solutions

proposed. Additionally, they can be also used

for gathering requirements for designing KM

systems for solving the observed KM problems.

6. Recommendations and Solutions Proposed.

This section is used to sensitize the main

problems affecting the flow of knowledge, to

make recommendations for improving the flow

and the KM practices, and to propose solutions

to the problems observed. If the proposal

considers the development, modification or

acquisition of software tools to face the

problems or to implement the improvements,

this section also includes the general

requirements of such tools.

4 USING THE METHODOLOGY

The development of the proposed methodology has

been done following an action research approach

(Avison, Lau, Myers, & Nielsen, 1999). This means

that we have been using the methodology to study

different processes in different scenarios. The results

and lessons learned in each case have been used to

improve the methodology. This section shall

describe the main results of the application of the

methodology in each field in which it has been used.

4.1 In the Software Development Field

The first application of the methodology was for

studying knowledge needs in a software

maintenance process (Rodríguez, Martínez,

Vizcaíno, Favela, & Piattini, 2004). In this case we

get aware of the importance of considering explicitly

in the methodology the identification of current KM

practices, and the current tools supporting KM

activities. After this, the extensions made to the

methodology were used to make a second analysis

of the same process. In this second analysis, it was

identified one tool being used as the main

knowledge flow channel, and the result of the study

was the proposal of small improvements to that tool

in order reduce the loss of knowledge, increase the

capture of knowledge, facilitates its retrieval, and

improve its flow.

4.2 In the Manufacturing Field

The second application of the methodology was for

studying one of the processes of a manufacturing

firm (Rodriguez-Elias, Morán, Labandera, &

Vizcaíno, 2008). The result of this study was the

development of a knowledge portal for the firm,

which facilitates the identification and access to the

knowledge and information sources available in the

firm, according to the activities that a specific role

has to carry out. This is possible since the portal was

developed following the structure of the knowledge

base defined according to the methodology.

4.3 In the Social Field

A third use of the KM Audit methodology was for

studying the processes followed by an organization

focused on promoting support for elderly people.

Specifically this study was conducted to identify

how to help this institution to disseminate their

activities and to gather more participants. The result

of the study was the documentation of the processes

KMIS 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing

of this institution, and the inclusion of

communication technologies, such as social

networks, in the activities of the participants, in

order to increase the promotion of their activities.

An important result of this study was that it helped

us to validate that the proposed process modelling

approach was easy to understand for elderly people

without knowledge in this field, and that had not

interest on learning it.

4.4 In the Academic Field

Currently we are using the methodology as a mean

to teach KM systems design to graduate students in a

master degree program. The students analyze

different processes of a public higher education

institution, and propose solutions to one of the main

KM problems they find. Until now, we have

identified several communication problems between

the different departments, and within each

department. As a result, some students are designing

a knowledge diffusion system for the institution. The

system faces the problem of knowledge diffusion in

several ways: for employees and students to get

aware of what is happening in the institution, and to

help them to inform about the results of their main

activities; and for the institution to inform the

community about its strengths and the knowledge

and technological developments it is creating.

5 DISCUSSIONS AND FINAL

COMMENTS

The case studies in which the methodology has been

applied have taught us the benefits of performing a

KM audit before thinking in specific KM solutions.

In all the studies, there have been found practices

and tools that can be harnessed as part of the KM

initiatives proposed; which was one of the main

requirements for developing the proposed

methodology. However, these projects have also

shown us that performing studies of this type are

really time consuming. Because of the last, we

believe necessary to develop tools to reduce the

effort that this type of studies require. In this

direction, we are currently developing tools for

facilitating the process modelling stage, and the

development of the knowledge base of the studied

processes. Additionally, we have observed that one

weakness of the methodology is the lack of a stage

to evaluate its results, and the benefits of the

proposed solutions. Unfortunately, the literature in

this field is still scarce, and it shows that much work

have to be done yet. Finding a way to perform this

evaluation should constitute part of our further work.

Additionally, it is important to continue validating

the methodology, by applying it in more diverse and

complex scenarios, and compare the results to KM

studies performed in similar domains.

6 CONCLUSIONS

It is a fact that KM is gaining an increasing interest

in almost any sector, either private or public, what is

taking organizations from diverse fields and sizes to

invest in KM as a mean to make them competitive,

and more dramatically, to help them to survive in a

rapidly changing environment. Unfortunately, many

KM initiatives are still being developed without

considering a wide study of the real knowledge

needs of the organization’s processes and

employees, which might provoke for companies or

public organizations to waste their money, time, and

resources in KM projects that might be unsuccessful.

In this paper we proposed a methodology to

perform knowledge management audits as a starting

point in the proposal or development of KM

initiatives. The methodology is focused on

identifying and understanding the knowledge needs

in organizational processes by performing a

knowledge flow analysis following a process

engineering approach. The methodology has been

developed from the results of previous works,

literature review, and its application in field studies,

following an action research approach. The main

case studies in which our proposal has been used

were also presented in this paper. From these field

studies, some observations about the benefits and

weaknesses of the methodology emerged, and have

given us some insights to our future work,

particularly the development of an evaluation stage

to drive the evaluation of the results of the

methodology, such as the KM solutions proposed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We want to acknowledge the financial support of

CONACYT and DGEST, in Mexico. Also the

partially support of the ENGLOBAS (PII2I09-0147-

8235) and MELISA (PAC08-0142-3315) projects,

Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha,

Consejería de Educación y Ciencia; the PEGASO

project (TIN2009-13718-C02-01), Ministerio de

INTEGRATING CURRENT PRACTICES AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS IN KM INITIATIVES - A Knowledge

Management Audit Approach

Educación y Ciencia (Dirección General de

Investigación)/ Fondos Europeos de Desarrollo

Regional (FEDER), and the FABRUM project (PPT-

430000-2008-063), Ministerio de Ciencia e

Innovación, in Spain.

REFERENCES

Aurum, A., Daneshgar, F., & Ward, J. (2008).

Investigating Knowledge Management practices in

software development organizations – An Australian

experience. Information and Software Technology,

50(6), 511-533. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2007.05.005.

Avison, D. E., Lau, F., Myers, M. D., & Nielsen, P. A.

(1999). Action research. Communications of the ACM,

42(1), 94-97. doi: 10.1145/291469.291479.

Choy, S., Lee, W., & Cheung, C. (2004). A systematic

approach for knowledge audit analysis: Integration of

knowledge inventory, mapping and knowledge flow

analysis. Journal of Universal Computer Science,

10(6), 674–682.

Davenport, T. H. (2007). Information Technology for

Knowledge Management. In K. Ichijo & I. Nonaka,

Knowledge Creation and Management (pp. 97-117).

New York: Oxford University Press.

Hylton, A. (2002). A KM initiative is Unlikely to Succeed

without a Knowledge Audit. Proceedings of

KMAC2003, the Knowledge Management Aston

Conference, Operational Research Society,

Birmingham. doi: 10.3217/jucs-010-06.

Lauer, T., & Tanniru, M. (2001). Knowledge Management

Audit-a methodology and case study. Australasian

Journal of Information Systems, 9(1), 23-41.

Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano, B., McCaw, D.,

Buchwalter, J., & Browning, C. (2000). The

Knowledge Audit. Knowledge and Process

Management, 7(1), 3-10. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-

1441(200001/03)7:1<3::AID-KPM72>3.0.CO;2-0.

Meehan, B., & Richardson, I. (2003). Identification of

Software Process Knowledge Management. Software

Process: Improvement and Practice, 7(2), 47-55. doi:

10.1002/spip.154.

Monk, A., & Howard, S. (1998). The Rich Picture: A Tool

for Reasoning About Work Context. Interactions, 5(2),

21-30.

Perez-Soltero, A., Barcelo-Valenzuela, M., Sanchez-

Schmitz, G., & Rodriguez-Elias, O. M. (2009). A

computer prototype to support knowledge audits in

organizations. Knowledge and Process Management,

16(3), 124-133. doi: 10.1002/kpm.329.

Perez-soltero, A., Barcelo-valenzuela, M., Sanchez-

schmitz, G., Martin-rubio, F., Palma-mendez, J. T.,

Vanti, A. A., et al. (2007). A Model and Methodology

to Knowledge Auditing Considering Core Processes.

ICFAI Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(1), 7-23.

doi: 10.1.1.72.8091.

Rodriguez-Elias, O. M., Martinez-Garcia, A. I., Vizcaino,

A., Favela, J., & Piattini, M. (2005). Identifying

Knowledge Flows in Communities of Practice. In E.

Coakes & S. Clarke, Encyclopedia of Communities of

Practice in Information and Knowledge Management

(pp. 210-217). Hershey, PA.: IGI Global.

Rodriguez-Elias, O. M., Martinez-Garcia, A. I., Vizcaino,

A., Favela, J., & Piattini, M. (2008). A framework to

analyze information systems as knowledge flow

facilitators. Information and Software Technology,

50(6), 481-498. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2007.07.002.

Rodriguez-Elias, O. M., Morán, A. L., Labandera, J. I., &

Vizcaíno, A. (2008). Improving Knowledge Flow in a

Mexican Manufacturing Firm. Research in Computing

Science: Advances in Computer Science and Artificial

Intelligence, 39, 29-45.

Rodríguez, O. M., Martínez, A. I., Vizcaíno, A., Favela, J.,

& Piattini, M. (2004). Identifying knowledge

management needs in software maintenance groups: a

qualitative approach. In Fifth Mexican International

Conference in Computer Science, 2004. ENC 2004.

(pp. 72-79). IEEE Computer Society Press. doi:

10.1109/ENC.2004.1342591.

Rodríguez-Elias, O. M., Martínez-García, A. I., Vizcaíno,

A., Favela, J., & Piattini, M. (2009). Modelling and

Analysis of Knowledge Flows in Software Processes

through the Extension of the Software Process

Engineering Metamodel. International Journal of

Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering,

19(2), 185-211. doi: 10.1142/S0218194009004155.

Scholl, W., König, C., Meyer, B., & Heisig, P. (2004). The

future of knowledge management: an international

delphi study. Journal of Knowledge Management,

8(2), 19-35. doi: 10.1108/13673270410529082.

Sparrow, J. (2001). Knowledge management in small

firms. Knowledge and Process Management, 8(1), 3-

16. doi: 10.1002/kpm.92.

Stewart, T. A. (2002). The case against knowledge

mangement. Business 2.0. Retrieved from

http://www.iwp.jku.at/born/mpwfst/06/cogneon/The_

Case_Against_KM.pdf.

Wiig, K. (2004). People-focused knowledge management:

how effective decision making leads to corporate

soccess. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Wong, K. Y. (2005). Critical success factors for

implementing knowledge management in small and

medium enterprises. Industrial Management & Data

Systems, 105(3), 261-279. doi:

10.1108/02635570510590101.

KMIS 2010 - International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing