1. business and industrial
2. business operations
3. management
4. project management

Knowledge
Management
System Design
Report
For MapSoft, Inc.
Group 9: Ahmed Dedeche | Haysam Abouzeid | Maryam Yousefpour | Seng Chee Chong | Sharkey Dahir
5/30/2014
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 2
2
The goals of the intervention .......................................................................................................... 3
2.1
Intervention focus ................................................................................................................... 3
2.2
Annotated Rich Picture ........................................................................................................... 4
2.3
Human activity model ............................................................................................................. 5
2.3.1
3
The proposed Knowledge Management System (KMS) ................................................................. 6
3.1
4
Root Definition ................................................................................................................ 5
The elements of the proposed KMS design ............................................................................ 6
3.1.1
People ............................................................................................................................. 6
3.1.2
Technology: ..................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.3
Content: .......................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.4
Process: ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.2
BPMN Workflow model .......................................................................................................... 9
3.3
KMS Evaluation Component ................................................................................................. 10
3.4
Technical Component ........................................................................................................... 11
A Scenario ..................................................................................................................................... 15
4.1
Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 15
4.2
Possible Issues....................................................................................................................... 15
5
References .................................................................................................................................... 17
6
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 18
6.1
Description of the BPMN workflow ...................................................................................... 18
6.2
Scenario................................................................................................................................. 19
6.3
Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 21
1 Executive Summary
The aim of this report is to propose a knowledge management system (KMS) for MapSoft to address
the lack of robust knowledge sharing between users/staff within the organisation. The proposed
solutions in the KMS intend to facilitate the extraction and documentation of tacit and explicit
knowledge from the experts. It will intervene some of the major issues as annotated in the included
rich picture.
This report consists of a root definition and a human activity model that exemplifies the key
activities of the KMS. Moreover, the elements of the designed KMS are illustrated with an annotated
BPMN workflow model. Finally, screenshots of the technical components are presented along with a
scenario of KMS usage to depict the benefits and issues of the proposed KMS.
It is highly recommended to implement this KMS in order to address the issues identified as it
features the following sophisticated processes for all users in the organization: content
management, knowledge mapping, knowledge taxonomy, and evaluation and reward processes.
2 The goals of the intervention
2.1
Intervention focus
A set of interventions are created to facilitate the documentation of both codified knowledge and
insights of problem solving across the organisation to address the concerns of each stakeholder
(McDermott, 1999). The goals of the intervention are:

Increase the organizational memory, by:
 Encouraging experts and project manager to document their experience.
 Facilitate Knowledge Accessibility, by:
 Helping project teams in their search for relevant documented solutions.
 Standardizing documentation.
 Classifying knowledge.
 Eliminate redundancy and work repetition, by:
 Providing advanced search functionality.
 Centralization.
The key concerns of each MapSoft stakeholder are illustrated in the rich picture (Figure-1) and are
summarised in the table below:
Intervention
Number
1
4
5
Issues
Difficulty in searching for the
relevant knowledge or a technical
expert
When facing technical problems, project team
members especially newcomers do not know
who, with the relevant knowledge or
experience to contact.
Absence of a standardised
knowledge-sharing platform
There are no standards in terms of where to
store these documents, hence the experts are
unable share their project experience even if
they are willing to.
Lack of incentive and motivation to
share knowledge
Experts and project managers have very tight
schedule, hence they do not want to spend
time documenting their experience and
knowledge, or answering questions in the
forum as there is no incentive to do so.
2
3
Description
2.2
Annotated Rich Picture
Figure-1: Annotated Rich Picture
2.3
Human activity model
2.3.1
Root Definition
A system owned by MapSoft and operated by project managers, knowledge broker and engineers
that aims to provide a centralized knowledge-sharing platform, by incentivising project managers
and technical experts to document their project experience into the system, in order to improve the
project teams’ problem-solving capability with access to the ever-increasing content repository in
the future, given the currently weak knowledge-sharing organisational culture.
Figure-2: Human Activity Model
Examining the HAM against the “three Es” demonstrates:



Efficacy: The KMS enables employees to create, store, share, and utilize knowledge
enterprise-wide which improves the organizational memory.
Efficiency: The system is efficient, as by utilising organizational memory employees would
have access to the various inputs which could be utilised in different projects. It makes the
organization to get the best use of its resources.
Effectiveness: The system is effective because it ultimately reduces time and cost by
preventing “the reinvention of the wheel”.
3 The proposed Knowledge Management System (KMS)
The proposed knowledge management system elements and the system workflow are illustrated in
the following sections.
3.1
The elements of the proposed KMS design
3.1.1
People
MapSoft Engineers and Project managers:
In Australia branches i.e. Brisbane, Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth, Sydney, and within the USA branch.
Knowledge Broker:
This is a new role that we are introducing as we found that MapSoft is lacking a clear knowledge
management direction. The knowledge broker has the following responsibilities:






Maintaining Skill Registers: Skill registers identifies “who knows what”. Knowledge broker
will update the registers based on the MapSoft’s human resources
Optimizing Social Networks: Using the skill registers, knowledge broker optimizes MapSoft
social networks by linking people for the ideal knowledge sharing
Classifying knowledge: Analyse the Project Practices and classify them in the taxonomy.
Defining documentation guidelines and standards
Mapping knowledge: Create, update and maintain MapSoft’s knowledge map defining the
scope of knowledge map, listing new categories, identifying new knowledge to be explored.
(Refer to section 3.1.4.1.2)
Validating: Examine the quality of the codified knowledge and approve to be stored. Besides,
apply the feedbacks regarding the quality of the shared knowledge retrieved from the
search engine.
3.1.2 Technology:
The following technologies are used to deliver a knowledge management system:
Intranet:
MapSoft’s current intranet is used to provide a global access to the system (Alavi et al, 2006,
Liebowitz, 2003). Users can use their existing intranet account to connect to the KMS. A portal and a
content repository are deployed on the intranet servers.
Content Repository:
The content repository serves as an organizational memory storing Project Practices, Knowledge
tickets, and the relationships among various knowledge areas (Pan & Scarbrough, 1999).
Portal
Portal is a web-based application which enables the users to:



Browse the system;
Create, update and delete a Project Practice; and
Search for a Project Practice within the content repository.
3.1.3 Content:
The Content repository contents include:



Codified tacit knowledge: The best and worst possible course of actions, lesson learneds
from the past projects, and the core knowledge obtained through experiental learning (Lin
et.al ,2006, Kankanhalli et.al, 2005)
Degitized explicit knowledge: Templates, photos, videos, code samples, Geographical
Information System methods obtianed from present or past projects (Lin et.al ,2006, Pan &
Scarbrough, 1999).
Taxonomy to determine the required level of details, type of artefacts and the required
templates for codification.
Project Practices
Currently, MapSoft’s tacit knowledge is not being documented. Moreover, the explicit knowledge is
scattered in many forms and formats. The solution we introduce deals with all of these pieces by
combining them, on project level, in one entity called “Project Practice”.
A Project Practice encompasses Bruner’s (1986) two types of knowledge: logico-scientific and
narrative modes by storing a project scenario along with decontextualized generic guidelines. It also
includes the relevant artefacts and explicit knowledge entities like templates, documents, pieces of
code, etc. (Figure-5)
Knowledge Ticket:
Knowledge tickets are entities assigned to each Project Practice storing meta-data describing
knowledge attributes of the Project Practice. A knowledge ticket shows attributes like Id,
Description, Author, Creation Date, Keyword, Project Type, and Number of Citations (Lin et.al ,2006).
3.1.4 Process:
The proposed knowledge management system comprises of the following processes:
Knowledge Management Process
The knowledge management process includes these key sub-processes: Knowledge Creation,
Knowledge Storage, Knowledge Transfer, and Knowledge utilisation (Alavi & Leidner, 2001):
Knowledge creation
The proposed knowledge creation process comprises the four identified modes of knowledge
creation (Alavi & Leidner, 2001): Socialization, Externalization, Internalization and Combination.
Through the combination and externalization modes, users would be able to document their tacit
knowledge by following the defined templates and taxonomy. They would also be able to use the
system to upload and digitize their explicit knowledge. These tacit and explicit knowledge might
have been the combination of the new explicit knowledge and the existing ones which were already
stored in the system content repository. Moreover, the process facilitates socialization by providing
the contact details of each Project Practice’s expert for further contact.
Figure-3: SECI model of knowledge creation
Knowledge Storage
Prior to storing a Project Practice, knowledge broker validates and measures it against a defined
evaluation criteria, templates, and taxonomies (Pan & Scarbrough, 1999). After Knowledge broker’s
approval, it would be stored in the content repository. A unique knowledge ticket would be assigned
to it (Lee & Hong, 2002), which links it to other existing similar Project.
Knowledge Mapping and classification
Knowledge storage methods must ensure that users can easily find the acquired knowledge and
illustrate the knowledge relationships. This is made possible by classifying Project Practices in a
knowledge taxonomy. The knowledge broker analyses every new Project Practice identifying its
knowledge areas to be classified in the taxonomy. A knowledge map is designed based on the
taxonomy (Figure-10).
Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing and distribution process is enabled by a search engine and a knowledge map.
Using the search engine the system will list the relevant Project Practices. If the users find any of
those helpful, they would recommend them or cite them when documenting their own project.
Likewise, the knowledge map serves as an alternative interface for browsing the organisational
knowledge.
Knowledge Application
The proposed system enables engineers/project managers to re-use the knowledge gained from
previous projects to new similar projects. Hence, they would be able to save time and prevent
“reinventing the wheel”.
Incentive Process:
An incentive process is designed to motivate employees to codify and re-use knowledge which is
based on the Number of Citation. When a user cites a Project Practice, the Number of Citation of
that Project Practice would be incremented automatically. The system uses the number of citations
as a knowledge performance indicator and provides users with a list of the most cited Project
Practices and their authors. MapSoft could award these authors through a recognition and award
program (Liebowitz, 2003)
Knowledge Evaluation Process
The knowledge evaluation process is defined to evaluate the performance of the KMS by measuring
the system against the criteria defined in section 3.3. Later, the knowledge broker uses the
evaluation outcomes to improve the system (Pan & Scarbrough, 1999). Through the evaluation
process the system automatically removes Project Practices which has not been cited within 30 days
which prevents data junkyards.
3.2
BPMN Workflow model
Figure-4: BPMN Workflow model
A description of the work flow can be found on the appendix (6.1)
3.3
KMS Evaluation Component
The success model proposed by DeLone & McLean (2003) has been used as a reference to evaluate
the KMS design. The applicability of the model follows Lin (2007)’s methods, where the metrics are
divided into six major categories as shown in the table below:
Metric
Method of Evaluation
1
System Quality
1.1 Reliability of new system operation
Survey
1.2 Response time to user request
Embedded feature
1.3 New System’s Ease of Use
Survey
1.4 Data accuracy and accessibility
Embedded feature
2
Information Quality
2.1 Usefulness of information
Embedded feature
2.2 Sufficiency: provides complete set of information
Embedded feature
2.3 Timeliness: information is up-to-date for user
Embedded feature
2.4 Reliability: system provides relevant information for user
Embedded feature
2.5 Understandability: information content in system meets user’s
Embedded feature
needs and expectation
3
User Satisfaction
3.1 Experience of the knowledge documentation process using the
Embedded feature
system
3.2 Experience of the information retrieval process using the system
Embedded feature
3.3 Overall user satisfactions of:
Survey
-Using the new system
-Review and reward process
4
Actual System Use (Purpose of Usage)
4.1 To increase user’s sense of accomplishment after they contribute Survey
in the knowledge sharing process
4.2 To increase user’s frequency in documenting knowledge into the Survey
system
4.3 To increase user’s chances of obtaining rewards
Survey
4.4 To increase user’s usage of system in searching for information or Embedded feature
other artefacts.
5
Individual Impact
5.1 Task productivity—the extent to which the KMS improves the
Embedded feature
user's output
per unit of time
5.2 Task innovation—the extent to which the KMS helps users create Survey
and explore new ideas in their work
5.3 Customer satisfaction—the extent to which the KMS helps the
Survey
user create value for the firm's internal or external customers
5.4 Management control—the extent to which the KMS helps to
Embedded feature
regulate work
processes and performance
6
Organizational Impact
6.1 Improved Knowledge Management processes and practices
Survey
6.2 Improved Knowledge Sharing Culture
Survey
*Embedded feature: Features that is already included in the KMS that handles the evaluation for that particular metric.
3.4
Technical Component
Following are a set of prototype screen-shots that gives an insight about the functions of the
proposed KMS:
Figure-5: A Project Practice
Figure-5 shows an example of a Project Practice. The active tab displays a scenario of the project; the
other tabs include the guidelines, and the artefacts. Along with each Project Practice a set of useful
contacts is attached. There is also a discussion board related to each Project Practice.
Figure-6: Project Documentation
This is the panel where Project Practices are documented. We can see the project artefacts
attachment utility on the side.
Figure-7: Quick Search
Figure-7 this dialog box provides a quick accessibility for knowledge “with a click of a button”
Figure-8: Advanced Search
Alternatively, users can search the KMS with more sophisticated criteria via an advanced search
dialog box.
Figure-9: Search Results
Figure-7 displays search results which are a list of Project Practices listed by their relevance to the
search criteria.
Figure-10: Knowledge Map
The knowledge map above serves as an alternative way to browse knowledge. Sub categories would
pop-up when a node is clicked. The end boxes are Project Practices with links to their authors.
Figure-11: Rankings
This is the top authors ranking list. Alternative rankings with other metrics are also possible.
4 A Scenario
The scenario (Appendix 2) illustrates a bottom-up approach in a situation where the main character
used the KMS to complete a project. The scenario gives insight to the corporate environment
thinking, and gives a sense of how information is controlled across the organisation.
4.1
Benefits
Some of the expected benefits of the proposed KMS are:


4.2
All knowledge-sharing issues are addressed:
 Project team members can discover relevant knowledge or technical experts’
contact details with the advanced search function in the KMS.
 Standardised knowledge-sharing platform
 The reward system will increase employee morale in backing the system and create
knowledge retention in the organisation of tacit to explicit knowledge transfer.
Overall, project teams can potentially save a huge amount of time in the future by reusing
knowledge from the ever-increasing data repository instead of starting from scratch.
Possible Issues
Alternatively, the development of the scenario also raises some possible issues:



If Carter did not contact Nancy a very important aspect of knowledge sharing (i.e.
personalisation) might be missed.
Employees’ change readiness needs to be assessed prior the system implementation in
order to mitigate any risk to change resistance. The risk can be reduced by taking action to
increase awareness of its staffs via various digital media and reminders that emphasize on
the positives qualities of the new KMS (Yeh et al., 2006).
The KMS needs to be intuitive for employees to easily navigate through the system so that it
does not pose any adoption barrier for the users. Nevertheless, it is desirable that MapSoft
provides a robust training programme to ensure that employees are fully aware of the full
capabilities of the system (Yeh et al., 2006).
5 References














Liebowitz, J. (2003). A KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE JASON
ORGANIZATION: A CASE STUDY. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 44(2).
Horwitch, M., & Armacost, R. (2002). Helping knowledge management be all it can be.
Journal of Business Strategy, 23(3), 26-31.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: Managing what your organization
knows. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Lin, Y. C., Wang, L. C., & Tserng, H. P. (2006). Enhancing knowledge exchange through web
map-based knowledge management system in construction: Lessons learned in Taiwan.
Automation in Construction, 15(6), 693-705.
Pan, S. L., & Scarbrough, H. (1999). Knowledge management in practice: An exploratory case
study. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11(3), 359-374
Alavi, M., Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2006). An empirical examination of the influence
of organizational culture on knowledge management practices. Journal of management
information systems, 22(3), 191-224.
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge
management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-136.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: an empirical investigation. Mis Quarterly, 113-143.
DeLone, W. H. & McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean Model of Information
Systems Success: A Ten-Year Update. Journal of Management Information Systems. 19(4), 930.
Lin, H. (2007). Measuring Online Learning Systems Success: Applying the Updated DeLone
and McLean Model. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 10(6), 817-820.
Lee, S. M., & Hong, S. (2002). An enterprise-wide knowledge management system
infrastructure. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 102(1), 17-25.
Gupta, B., Iyer, L. S., & Aronson, J. E. (2000). Knowledge management: practices and
challenges. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100(1), 17-21.
McDermott, R. (1999). Learning Across Teams: The Role of Communities of Practice in Team
Organizations. Knowledge Management Review. 8, 32-36.
Bruner, J. S., & Austin, G. A. (1986). A study of thinking. Transaction Publishers.
6 Appendix
6.1
Description of the BPMN workflow
When a new project is initiated, first project manager/engineer searches for similar cases to the one
intended. This is to prevent the amount of redundancy taking place in the server.
If a similar case found and it is useful, the user cites that Project Practice and promotes it to be a
best practice. The user also seeks for relevant information internally and externally, combines it with
previous experience, and applies that to the project.
At the promotion point the first trigger for the evaluation process to start. The system checks how
often the solution has been cited. Provided that the solution was frequently referenced and cited,
the system offers reward to the author and further proceeds promoting the Project Practice to be a
best practice.
However if similar case is not found user seeks relevant information externally. The user then
combines that information with previous experience and applies that to the new project.
Finally, the user documents the practice to be stored in the repository; however the knowledge
broker needs to validate and classify that practice by reading it, analysing it and assigning a
knowledge ticket to it.
6.2
Scenario
Once a upon a time in a city far away in a busy office the newly promoted engineer to CEO (Leon
Cheung) was allocating projects to different projects managers that only MapSoft could operate. He
found one he was sure about because he did not have prior knowledge about it.
Leon “Carter!! I have this project for you, I want it done within the month and report back to me
with the solution and description how you did it.
Carter (project Engineer champion) “No worries boss”, carter immediately remembers the new
portal that had been created by MapSoft Knowledge training team that records and archives
previous projects done by MapSoft. “I’ll get right on it”
Carters sits down at his desk and logs into the portal and runs a search for similar projects. Carter:
“success” as he finds many similar projects. He then runs an advance search for the specific area
message and finds a case describing scenario and actions taken.
Carter then marks a case as useful
System Repository (david): “Case found useful, must promote must promote” The system promotes
the case. “run, case has many citations” if a case has many citation it will become a more relevant
document for best Project Practices and the use that created shall receive an award.
Carter Colleagues were watching Carter swift through the new intranet portal to find the
information after hearing the roar of Leon Cheung.
Engineer 2(Nancy) approach Carter to see how he is going, “how much better is this new system,
have you found what you are looking for? ”...Carter attempts to avoid her because he is carefully
learning new knowledge obtained from the sharing of this information but fails.
Carter: “Hi Nancy, this system is great, it makes it so easy to learn and apply successful previous
company knowledge”
Nancy: “Did you know about the reward if your case/documentation generates many useful marks,
you should keep on eye on the ranking dashboard to see who leading”
Carter: “Oh really, I was not aware of that, I will definitely write up a new more detailed and better
version documents to see if I can redeem a reward”
Nancy: “I’ve been documenting everything all relevant information that I believe that will be useful
for all employees as the company processes, Let us know how you resolved the issue during the
lunch break” Nancy walks away, Carter continues finds and learns how the problem happened and
possible solutions for the situations. He then stumbles upon the author and there contact details
and sends them a message to meet up with them to discuss their project further. But the author is in
another geographical location, therefore a video conference with the individual.
It was lunch break and Leon was not in the office, Carter tends to the lunch room and eagerly
approaches his work colleagues about the new knowledge that he has attained.
Lunch Room 12pm
Carter: “ Hi Nancy, this new system has made it much more easier to find previous Project Practices,
it a huge improvement than previously, where it was impossible to find anyone in a timely manner
to amend issues”
Nancy: “It’s relatively quiet new, there isn’t many cases available yet, the other day I only found one
cases in regarding an issue and tried to contact the writer but was told he was away”.
Carter: “I have not had that issue, i found that there were many documents related to the same
topic, only a couple with good quality Project Practices”
Nancy: “I read on the intranet that they hired a knowledge broker to sort through all the unused and
duplicate documentation, so we don't end up with a junkyard filled with irrelevant data. I find that
using the advanced search options, eliminates the least popular Project Practices but data integrity
will be an issue for a while I reckon.”
Carter: “If more people use the system and mark the relevant Project Practices it’ll create quicker
data integrity, i’ll discuss this with Leon when I get the chance so we can push this as a standard
amongst the organisation where everyone must create at least one documentation to create
awareness, and perhaps before we start a new project we evaluate what previous projects have
done”
Once month later, Carter is in Leon’s office.
Leon “how did you go? better be good news?”
Carter “I found the best Project Practice and solution to the project scenario”
Leon: “I didn't think you would be so quickly and promptly find out the solution, how did you go
about this?”
Carter: “I got off to a good start by using the KMS on the intranet that lead me to a similar case and
spoke to the project leader of it to get great insight into the process even more. I believe that before
all other projects commence we should read previous Project Practices therefore we can benefit
from such an application for enormous long-term benefits in business value. But we need more
business awareness”
Leon” I heard that there were technical issues with that database, and speed of the operating
system. The benefit are valuable and I will make more awareness of this application and give
examples of how successful teams have been just by using this application, but it will be difficult to
change individuals habits in projects. But nonetheless a job well done, lets see if you get a reward at
the end of the quarter for your documentations”.
Months down the track, rewards allocated to best Project Practiced.
Case with more citation (Fredrick’s): “Mum I received an award for an outstanding case I wrote,
many of my colleagues have used my steps to diagnose problem scenarios and rated it as best
Project Practices” The award was $500, but Fredrick left the company and did not receive the award.
To Be continued…
6.3
Table of Figures
Figure-1: Annotated Rich Picture ............................................................................................................ 4
Figure-2: Human Activity Model ............................................................................................................. 5
Figure-3: SECI model of knowledge creation .......................................................................................... 8
Figure-4: BPMN Workflow model ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure-5: A Project Practice................................................................................................................... 11
Figure-6: Project Documentation ......................................................................................................... 12
Figure-7: Quick Search .......................................................................................................................... 12
Figure-8: Advanced Search ................................................................................................................... 13
Figure-9: Search Results ........................................................................................................................ 13
Figure-10: Knowledge Map ................................................................................................................... 14
Figure-11: Rankings ............................................................................................................................... 15