Assessing your portfolio of knowledge management approaches

APQC recommends that once a KM team has brainstormed potential solutions, it compare them by listing the following for each approach under consideration:

• advantages or benefits of the approach,
• disadvantages of the approach,
• the requirements (i.e., resources or conditions) to make the approach work, and
• the expected outputs and benefits that would result from applying the approach.

The comparison of pros, cons, requirements and expected results will be useful as the KM team starts to narrow down the options in the next step. However, the KM team may need to return to relevant business stakeholders for additional information to ensure accurate comparisons. That is especially true when identifying the expected outputs and benefits, which should align closely with the goals expressed by the business.

Step 4: Evaluate KM approaches against business criteria and implementation constraints.

Filter prospective KM approaches and practices by evaluating them against set business criteria and known or assumed implementation constraints. APQC recommends a two-phased filtering process, although in some cases internal or external constraints (e.g., a budget ceiling or mandate to use a given product) may prescribe a particular approach or greatly narrow the range of possible choices.

In the first phase of the filtering process, the KM team refines the list of options based on the organization’s business circumstances. APQC recommends scoring prospective approaches against six criteria:

Applicability—To what extent does the approach address the business’ knowledge need(s)? Consider both current knowledge needs and potential future needs that business leaders or the KM team foresee.

Scope of applicability—Does the approach address multiple needs or the needs of multiple business units or functions? Consider the extent to which the approach might help other groups or parts of the organization, regardless of whether they have articulated a need yet.

Resource feasibility—To what extent does the organization have, or can it engage, the people resources to support the approach? Consider both full-time resources and voluntary participation from subject matter experts and others out in the business.

Technological feasibility—To what extent does the organization have, or can it create, the technology resources to support the approach? Consider whether new technology will be required, its cost, ease of implementation and how well it will integrate with existing systems.

Cultural feasibility—To what extent do situational or cultural factors support the approach? Consider the degree of process and/or behavioral change the approach will require as well as any situational factors such as mergers, downsizing or impending retirements that might affect successful implementation.

Interdependencies—To what extent can the approach be pursued without relying on others or decisions made outside the KM team’s sphere of influence?

To filter prospective approaches, a KM team must score them on each criterion. Scores range from 1 to 5, with 1 equaling “not at all” and 5 equaling “a great deal” or “extremely well.” The team adds up the scores on all six criteria to obtain a relative weighting. Approaches that receive the lowest overall scores then can be eliminated from contention.

The KM team should take the lead on the scoring, but it may need input from other stakeholders. For example, the corporate IT function is probably the best judge of the technology requirements and costs associated with each approach, and business leaders may have unique insight into the cultural feasibility of the various options.

In the second phase of the filtering, the KM team takes a closer look at the approaches still under consideration, including the resources necessary to implement each and the constraints that would need to be addressed prior to implementation. The evaluation criteria will vary by organization, but common constraints include:

• whether implementation of the proposed approach will exceed the current absorptive capacity of the organization and target audience;
• whether the approach can be deployed with the available budget and resources;
• the extent of new technology required and how easily it can be integrated with existing systems;
• the scalability of the proposed approach;
• any associated security, privacy or intellectual property concerns;
• the magnitude of the change management and engagement required;
• how well the approach fits into the KM program’s existing capabilities and portfolio; and
• the difficulty of/timeline for measuring outcomes that will resonate with leadership.

After evaluating the implementation issues associated with each approach, the KM team should be ready to choose one to recommend. The team can either build a full business case at this stage or wait until it receives feedback from the business owner in the next step. If all the proposed approaches pose significant implementation challenges, the team may need to refine or combine the approaches to reach a viable solution.

Step 5: Provide a recommendation to the business owner for feedback.

Present the recommendation to the business owner to either further refine the proposal or get approval to create a detailed business plan and proceed. Business leaders usually expect to be given a cohesive solution and recommendation that takes into consideration all the needs and constraints. The KM team should meet with the business owner to discuss the benefits, requirements, any potential negative impacts and tradeoffs between the choices to be made. In some cases, the team may want to test the constraints by presenting multiple alternatives for the business owner to weigh and compare.

The expected output from this step is a recommended KM approach and deployment plan that incorporates feedback from the business owner.