A KM Maturity Life Cycle ModelThis paper reports on a maturity modeling and assessment capstone project undertaken by Kent State University faculty and graduate students in collaboration with knowledge management practitioners. [It was transmitted via E-mail by Denise Bedford on October 14, 2014, with permission for reuse with credit to its authors.]The goal of this paper is to share with the knowledge management community the outputs and the outcomes from the 2013 follow-up assessment. The paper describes an open source knowledge management maturity life cycle model and a methodology for conducting repeated assessments against the framework. The framework and assessment method are practical for any size organization, in any economic sector, regardless of whether they are for-, non-, or not-for-profit. The paper also presents six challenges the academic team encountered when trying to work with existing models and methodologies.Kent State University Knowledge Management ProgramKSUKMP_4beee0fd-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9Denise A. D. BedfordGoodyear Professor of Knowledge Management, Kent State University, Kent OhioMargaret CampGraduate Student, Knowledge Management, Kent State University, Kent OhioDessie HeinGraduate Student, Knowledge Management, Kent State University, Kent OhioTyler ListonGraduate Student, Knowledge Management, Kent State University, Kent OhioJeffery OxendineGraduate Student, Knowledge Management, Kent State University, Kent OhioDean TestaManager, Knowledge Management Office, Goodyear Tire & Rubber CompanyGoodyearThe Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company (Goodyear) was the sponsoring organization. Goodyear is one of the world's largest tire companies. It employs about 69,000 people and manufactures its products in 51 facilities in 22 countries around the world. Its two Innovation Centers in Akron, Ohio and Colmar-Berg, Luxembourg and Development Center in Hanau, Germany strive to develop state-of-the-art products and services that set the technology and performance standard for the industry. Goodyear’s technology division, known as RDE&Q (Research, Development, Engineering & Quality) was the subject of this assessment. RDE&Q consists of 2500 associates amongst the 51 global locations, with the majority located within the 3 centers.Goodyear's RDE&Q DivisionWhile relatively new to the practice of knowledge management, Goodyear’s RDE&Q division has made significant strides in just four years. They have established a Knowledge Management Office, identified Knowledge Management Champions throughout the organization, conducted maturity assessments, designed and implemented several knowledge management interventions. Much of this progress is attributable to a forward-looking and strategic-thinking Director. The active and considered involvement of corporate management has contributed to the firm’s sustained progress against goals.Goodyear's Knowledge Management OfficeThe firm's Knowledge Management Office was created for the RDE&Q division in 2009 to grow a knowledge centric culture, to support knowledge sharing and transfer, ensure maintenance and usability. An initial knowledge management assessment was conducted in 2011 to establish a develop an understanding of areas in need of attention and to measure future progress against goals. Knowledge Champions were identified to guide progress in key areas of the division. An initial set of maturity levels and maturity definitions were defined for four high level categories. The assessment highlighted some opportunities for growth. Interventions were designed to address these opportunities. In 2013, the Kent State University team was invited to conduct a second assessment to measure the impact of the interventions on maturity levels. This paper describes the lessons the joint team learned in the followup assessment._4beee12e-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9To describes an open source knowledge management maturity life cycle model and a methodology for conducting repeated assessments against the framework._4beee246-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9Business GoalsThe goal of knowledge management is to help an organizational leverage its resources to achieve its business goals and to become more than the sum of its individual parts (Bollinger and Smith 2001).TranformationKnowledge organizations must transform the way they work, how they manage, what they value, how they behave and how they think. The transformation should be reflected in their vision of a knowledge organization and the strategy they develop to achieve that vision. Achieving the vision generally involves taking a multi-faceted approach. A multi-faceted approach will draw from the underlying structure of the field itself (Bedford 2012).VisionThe starting point for a maturity model and assessment methodology is a clear delineation of the organization's vision of a knowledge organization and its strategy for achieving that vision.StrategyPersistenceThe vision and strategy should be reflected in a persistent yet flexible maturity framework.FlexibilityInterpretationMaturity levels reflect the organization's interpretation of stages it expects to move through.InterventionsKnowledge management factors reflect the level at which interventions and assessments are conducted ... Knowledge management interventions are how we achieve maturity. Without interventions, there is little reason to believe that an organization will transform the way it works or thinks. The reflects our vision, but it is only through initiatives and interventions that we achieve that vision. There are three components to Stage 2 -- Knowledge Growth Initiatives, the knowledge strategies that are embedded in these initiatives, and the knowledge goals for each initiative. The team observed that there is little discussion of how knowledge management initiatives tie back to maturity frameworks. We believe this is a significant gap in practice.AssessmentsKnowledge management maturity assessments should not be undertaken unless there is an expectation that interventions have changed the maturity level. Assessments should be targeted to interventions and focused on the factors that were expected to mature as a result of the investment. This means that assessments should be scheduled to measure the impact of outcomes and outputs.MetricsAssessments should focus on initiative level metrics... Metrics should be defined at the start of an intervention so that interpretation of maturity is predictable, consistent and reliable. In this way, the assessment is also suitable to the intervention and aligned with the maturity level of the factor.Holistic ViewpointTaking a holistic view of strategy, management and assessment has several benefits.Good PracticesFirst, it ensures that initiatives are anchored in good practices in that facet.TrustIt also ensures that each initiative is tied directly back to a maturity level and to maturity factors. This strengthens trust in the maturity assessment.GrowthIt also ensures that the framework grows as a result of initiatives -- middle-out rather than just top-down.Middle-Out ApproachAwarenessFinally, there is a potential to increase awareness of knowledge management throughout the organization where all projects or initiatives are tied to knowledge management goals, strategies and metrics.Lessons LearnedThroughout the project, the academic team learned five valuable lessons. The learning experience was possible because of the project environment established by the organization’s Director and Knowledge Management Office Manager.DynamismLesson Learned 1: Dynamic Nature of Business Priorities and Need for Stable Baseline Framework -- If knowledge management maturity assessments are to be trusted, they must be conducted against a persistent yet flexible framework. While there is no comprehensive and universally accepted set of knowledge management maturity factors, there are comprehensive frameworks that came be adapted to suit the organization’s requirements. The framework that was proposed provides a basis for comparison with peer institutions and supports alignment with the organization’s business goals and priorities (Table 1). The proposed framework provides a consistent and logical grouping of factors that will stand the test of time, without constraining the organization’s ability to targeted facets or factors for short-term growth. A more comprehensive framework increases awareness of gaps and opportunities. The new structure allows an organization to better plan initiatives and schedule assessments. The new grouping of factors allows an organization to assess the maturity of the whole facet as well as the maturity of individual factors. The new categories also align with areas of expertise in the knowledge sciences field. This should allow Goodyear to leverage internal and external expertise to improve targeted maturity rates.BaselineClearly Defined FactorsLesson Learned 2: Importance of Clearly Defined and Unconfounded Factors Maturity assessment takes place at the factor level and aggregated at the facet level. Maturity assessment at the factor level requires a clear and unconfounded definition. While we expect there to be relationships among factors, factors should be as distinct as possible. Factors should also be easy to understand by stakeholders.Strategic AlignmentWhile definitions should draw from industry best practices, each organization should define its own knowledge management factors and these factors must be aligned with and supportive of its business goals. As business goals change in response to the external environment, and as a knowledge organization matures, the nature and the importance of factors will change. Table 1 provides examples of factors that might align with each of the ten facets.RelevanceLesson Learned 3: Relevance of Maturity Levels to Stakeholders -- The 2011 assessment leveraged a standard set of maturity factors that aligned with project management and general capability modeling practices, specifically -- Individual, Standard, Integrated, Measured, and Optimized. In 2013, the Director suggested that the maturity levels be redefined and relabeled to make sense to stakeholders and to foster buy-in to the knowledge management strategy. The five maturity levels are: We Are Aware, We React, We Act, We Consistently Apply, and How We Work. The new labels are both people-focused and action oriented (Figure 3).Individual FactorsLesson Learned 4: Lack of Maturity Levels Assigned to Factors -- The team observed that case studies reported in the open literature often measure maturity at the broad category rather than an individual factor level. This means that factor-based maturity levels are defined after the fact and only at the time of assessment. Prior to undertaking the assessment, the project team -- in consultation with the Knowledge Management Office Manager -- defined maturity levels for each factor that was to be assessed. Maturity levels were built into the survey before it was administered. Levels were hidden from the respondents. This provided a clean and objective foundation from which the team could calculate maturity levels.SchedulingLesson Learned 5: Assessing Maturity -- From a life cycle perspective, we understand that it is important to schedule assessments when and where a change in maturity is expected. Assessment are expensive and should not be undertaken unless there is an expectation of change -- either positive or negative. The 2013 assessment targeted factors which had been the focus of recent interventions. This was in contrast to the 2011 assessment which targeted 60 factors across four 4 categories. In 2013, the calculation of maturity levels was straight forward because the factors were clearly identified and because the maturity levels were built into the assessment instrument. The level of trust in the outcome increased as a result.AwarenessWE ARE AWARE_4beee30e-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9Level 1 Interest There is awareness and interest in the value of KM. _4beee412-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 1.1 TBD TBD Business Need Business need is recognized _4beee502-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 1.2 no institutionally defined practices TBD TBD ReactionWE REACT_4beee5f2-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9Level 2 Projects [Initiate] knowledge management projects in a domain or a business unit. _4beee700-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 2.1 TBD TBD Domain Knowledge Identify and document domain knowledge. _4beee7e6-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 2.2 TBD TBD Alignment & Usage Align knowledge with business needs and used in business processes. _4beee8cc-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 2.3 TBD TBD Focus areas Identify focus areas for knowledge management. _4beeea02-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 2.4 TBD TBD ActionWE ACT_4beeeab6-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9Level 3 Business Value KM vision/mission are linked to business value creation. _4beeebce-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 3.1 TBD TBD Roadmap Roadmap to achieve KM goals exists. _4beeecc8-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 3.2 TBD TBD Reuse Knowledge is reused. _4beeedb8-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 3.3 TBD TBD Domain Knowledge Domain knowledge is identified, captured, and standardized into business. _4beeeeb2-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 3.4 TBD TBD ApplicationWE CONSISTENTLY APPLY_4beeefca-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9Level 4 Strategic Alignment KM aligned with business vision. _4beef7b8-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 4.1 TBD TBD Competencies & Investment Competencies are defined and the institution invests in the KM. _4beef8da-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 4.2 TBD TBD Budget KM is in budget cycle. _4beef9fc-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 4.3 TBD TBD Metrics Metrics are defined and monitored. _4beefb00-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 4.4 TBD TBD WorkHOW WE WORK_4beefc04-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9Level 5 Business Framework KM part of the business framework. _4beefd76-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 5.1 TBD TBD Innovation Aligned with innovation initiatives. _4beefe7a-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 5.2 TBD TBD Collaboration Evident in collaboration across activities. _4beeff74-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 5.3 TBD TBD Knowledge Assets & Expertise Demand and value of knowledge assets and expertise is recognized. _4bef0096-540d-11e4-9598-096c79920db9 5.4 TBD TBD 2014-10-14OwenAmburOwen.Ambur@verizon.net