ABSTRACT:
The National Defense Strategy (2008b), the Quadrennial Defense Review (2006), and the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (2009) specifically highlight a newer focus by the Department of Defense (DoD) on knowledge in operations as opposed to traditional weapons platforms. As such, each of the military services has put KM programs into place to varying degrees incorporating KM education as an aspect of implementation. Given that research on KM education is sparse and given that organizations that do not address KM education are more likely to fail with KM efforts, this multiple-case study provides a first look at KM education across the DoD. The results indicate that each of the services has different perceptions, approaches, expectations, and challenges with regards to KM education. Although some differences are necessary, the inconsistencies and lack of collaboration amongst the services may somewhat undermine the purposes for which KM programs were originally intended.
Keywords: Knowledge management,
Knowledge management education, Department of Defense, Multiple-case study
1. Introduction
The
Ø
What is the perceived importance of KM education?
Ø
What is the specific nature of the programs in place to
educate for KM?
Ø
What are the goals and expected outcomes of KM education?
Ø
What measures are used to evaluate KM education outcomes?
Ø
What key issues have been encountered while trying to
develop KM education programs?
2. Literature Review
2.1. KM
In The DoD
For over ten years the DoD has leveraged KM principles to improve
information-sharing and support decision-making for warfighters
(Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense [OASD], 2000a; OASD, 2000b). The
National Defense Strategy (DoD, 2008b), the
Quadrennial Defense Review (DoD, 2006), the Capstone
Concept for Joint Operations (DoD, 2009), and the DoD Information Enterprise Strategic Plan (DoD, 2010) are key military guidance documents that reflect
both the growing importance of the “knowledge” resource as well as
considerations that must be made to better exploit it. While recognizing the lack of a
"centralized" DoD KM effort, the DoD Information Management/Information Technology Strategic
Plan 2010 articulates the role of KM in enabling "effective and agile
decision-making" and calls for the creation of a better
"knowledge-sharing environment and application of knowledge-sharing
concepts during the planning of joint experiments, operational concept
development, combat operations and other missions" (DoD,
2008a, pg. 6). In light of the DoD-level KM
objectives, each of the military services, have developed KM programs to
varying extents--each include an education element. As recently as April 2009, DoD KM leaders convened and, among a number of KM goals,
articulated the desire to increase KM education (
2.2. KM Education
Holsapple and Joshi (1999) identified the lack of understanding
and comprehension of the concept of KM as a cause for ineffective management of
knowledge. KPMG (2000), in a study of more than 400 organizations, highlighted
the “lack of user uptake due to insufficient communication” and “lack of
training” as key reasons why the proposed benefits of KM systems failed to meet
expectations. For organizations attempting to implement KM programs, it is
widely acknowledged that KM education and/or training is an important element
in making it happen. This idea is reflected in a variety of KM literature
including the KM frameworks literature (e.g. Wiig,
1993; Stankosky, 2005) and the KM critical success
factors literature (e.g. Davenport et al, 1998; Choi,
2000; Jennex & Olfman,
2000). For example, the KM framework
offered by Wiig (1993) is comprised of three pillars:
1) exploring knowledge and its adequacy; 2) finding the value of knowledge; 3)
managing knowledge actively. Each of
these pillars rest on a foundation of a “broad understanding of knowledge”. Wiig (1993) proposes that for an organization to have a
“highly developed capability” (p. 22) in KM it must make a long-term investment
in education and training. Stankosky’s KM framework
(2005) proposes four pillars--leadership, organization, technology, and
learning. Similar to Wiig, Stankosky
states, “KM must be given a priority position in our educational and training
systems” (2005, p. 3). As for the critical success factors literature,
Davenport et al (1998) identify that “clear purpose and language” (p. 51) with
regards to KM is critical; a way to improve clarity and purpose can be via
education. In Choi’s (2000) investigation of 217
organizations, he found employee education to be one of the five critical
factors with regard to KM implementation. Albeit with regard to knowledge
management “system” success, Jennex and Olfman (2000) also find that “motivation and commitment of
users include incentives and training” and “senior management support
including…providing training” (p. 439). Overall, the literature indicates that
organizations that address KM education
stand to experience greater success in implementing KM.
2.3. Key Education Program
Considerations
Implementing KM programs in organizations often requires significant
organization change (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Holt et al, 2007). One of the most effective tools in reducing cultural resistance to a new effort and
institutionalizing change is through education (Lovelady, 1984; Mohrman et al,
1989). The KM education programs, as they
exist in the military services, can be characterized as professional continuing
education programs. While Cervero (1988) highlights
the lack of a “solid research base” on professional education program
development, he offers specific strategies
for doing so. Such strategies include a focus on administrative decision-making
(Pennington & Green, 1976), a focus on strengthening professional
performance (Houle, 1980; Nowlen,
1988), and a focus on “practice” and follow-up “audit” involving collaboration
between higher education institutions and professional associations (Queeney & Smutz, 1990). Light and
Cox (2001) offer that curriculum and course design considerations are also
essential and should include: 1) good learning goals, objectives, or outcomes,
2) good curriculum materials and delivery methods for achieving those goals;
and, 3) good tools for assessing whether and how those goals are achieved.
Glaser & Nitko (1971) and Lynton and Elman (1987)
both suggest that subject matter experts, with input from academia and
practitioners, should design curriculum which assures that the curriculum
provides the most relevant and accurate material. With regard to assessment,
Anderson and Ball (1978) identify that collecting and analyzing data in the
form of test scores, questionnaires, interview data, logs and diaries,
observations, and ratings serve as effective evaluation mechanisms for most
educational programs. Glaser and Nitko (1971) further
add that such measurement provides an important feedback mechanism for continuing
curriculum development and goal attainment assessment.
3. Methodology
This research used a case study approach as it
is considered appropriate where few studies have been conducted (Benbasat et al., 1987). Furthermore, a multiple-case study
design (Yin, 2003) was chosen as it could more easily illustrate complementary
and contrasting KM education approaches. Each service was designated an
individual case with the Navy and Marine Corps combined as a single case as the
Marine Corps KM program is under the authority of the Navy Chief Information
Officer (CIO) office. To allow for general comparisons between cases, service
"KM education programs" was chosen to be the unit of analysis. As Yin
(2003) describes, using multiple sources of evidence allows the development of
“converging lines of inquiry” (p. 98) which can be used to convincingly and
accurately answer research questions. As such, data collection consisted of
interviews and document reviews. Interviews (11 total)
were conducted with members of the organizations responsible for the services’
KM programs. Specifically, interviews for the Air Force were conducted with
members of both the Warfighter Integration and CIO's
KM office (known as SAF/XC) and the Air Force Center of Excellence for KM.
Interviews for the Army and the Navy were conducted with members of each
service's respective CIO's KM office.
Each of these “offices” was responsible for service-wide oversight and
implementation of KM. Data was also collected by reviewing KM education
documents published by each service as well as doing a content analysis of
related information available on each service's central "KM"
portals--Air Force Knowledge Now (AFKN),
Army Knowledge Online (AKO), and Navy Knowledge Online (NKO). All data
collected was entered into a case study database and pattern matching was used
as the analysis method. In order to ensure design quality, construct validity,
external validity, and reliability all were addressed in accordance with Yin
(2003). In order to establish construct validity--to ensure that correct
operational measures were employed--this research analyzed numerous documents
from multiple sources that addressed service-wide KM and KM education
initiatives. A strong chain of evidence supporting the conduct of the research
was also established. Finally, only individuals responsible for service-wide KM
and KM education initiatives were interviewed; respondents were given the
interview questions in advance and were also allowed to review the draft case
study report when finalized for additional clarification. In order to address
external validity, the research involved investigation across three similar
cases with the understanding that the military nature of the organizations
might limit generalizability. Finally, with respect
to designing for reliability, a robust case study database was developed that
not only captured data but reflected, in detail, the conduct of the research
itself.
4. Results
Data pertaining to each of the investigative questions
will be presented the paragraphs that follow. Service-specific findings for
each will be highlighted where possible.
4.1. What Is The Perceived
Importance Of KM Education?
4.1.1. Air Force
Despite the lack of high-level leadership support for KM efforts as
evidenced by the absence of service-wide policies, strategies, etc., in a 2004
memorandum to the Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) Vice Commander, the Air
Force CIO (SAF/XC) did delegate responsibility for service-wide Air Force KM
efforts to the AFMC Center of Excellence for Knowledge Management. This
4.1.2. Army
The Army has established a service-wide KM effort it calls Army Knowledge Management (AKM). While AKM serves only as a guide for Army KM efforts, the purpose is to develop a "network-centric, knowledge-based force" (Department of the Army [DoA], 2003). The AKM effort was initiated in 2001 by the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Army. Additional AKM Guidance Memorandums published by the Secretary and Chief of Staff provide continued guidance for AKM efforts. AKM has five stated goals: 1) adopt governance and cultural changes to become a knowledge-based organization, 2) integrate KM and best business practices into Army processes to promote the knowledge-based force, 3) manage the infrastructure as an enterprise to enhance efficiencies and capabilities such as collaborative work, decision-making, and innovation, 4) institutionalize Army/Defense Knowledge On-line as the enterprise portal to provide universal and secure access for the entire Army , and 5) harness human capital for the knowledge-based organization (DoA, 2008c). Officially, the Army's KM education efforts are led by the CIO/G-6's KM and Human Capital divisions which published an Army-wide implementation plan back in 2003 (DoA, 2003). However, today, the Army has gone even further and appointed the Combined Arms Center (CAC) as the functional proponent for AKM; the CAC subsequently organized a directorate in the Knowledge Division (Battle Command Knowledge System [BCKS]) whose sole focus is supporting individuals and organizations applying KM. The Army also continues to publish updates to its KM regulations and guidelines to include the Army KM Regulation 25-1 (DoA, 2008b), Field Manual 6-01.1, KM Section (DoA, 2008a), and How the Army Runs (Chapter 16) KM (DoA, 2009). Overall, the data suggested a strongly perceived need for KM education as highlighted by two major actions: 1) formal delegation of KM education responsibilities to the CIO/G-6 office (which reports directly to the Chief of Staff of the Army) and the CAC; and 2) publishing a service-wide, authoritative documents with specific education actions and deadlines.
4.1.3. Navy/Marine Corps
In October 2005, the Department of the Navy (DON) CIO published a memorandum to communicate the Navy's KM strategy (DoN, 2005). This memorandum established a KM vision "to create, capture, share, and reuse knowledge to enable effective and agile decision-making, increase the efficiency of task accomplishment, and improve mission effectiveness". Interviews revealed that in order to realize this vision, a four-fold strategy was developed to: 1) broaden and expand Departmental awareness that KM concepts, when applied to the operational and business processes of any command, will enable significant improvements in mission accomplishment; 2) encourage commands to implement KM programs, structure, pilots, and methodologies as part of process improvement efforts; 3) assist commands with KM experience to share their experiences, lessons learned, and results to foster collaboration, enable shortened learning cycles, and assist other efforts; and, 4) assist commands embarking on new implementations to build upon the experiences and resources of others. This memorandum further clarified seven focus areas in order to effectively implement this strategy that included KM advocacy, training and education, culture change, CoPs, KM collaboration, KM tools, and KM integration with related initiatives. The memorandum concluded by directing commanders to use KM concepts and tools to improve business and warfighting effectiveness, share KM best practices and resources, and continue to champion KM as a critical enabler of force transformation. The DoN CIO Campaign Plan 2010 (DoN, 2010a) also highlighted the continued importance of KM by specifically citing the need to improve information sharing and KM capabilities. The Campaign Plan 2010 specifically identifies the need to “develop follow-on strategies for KM” (p. 12) as well as provide assistance to Navy organizations in “applying KM tenants and implementing KM programs” (p. 12). Finally, the DoN Cyber/IT Workforce Strategic Plan FY 2010-2013 (DoN, 2010b), identifies KM (among others) as a “specific workforce role” (p. 4-5) and sets out specific goals and objectives that will allow the DON to “recruit, manage, develop, sustain, and retain” (p. 3) a qualified workforce. As a whole, this evidence suggested a strongly perceived need for KM education as highlighted by two major actions: 1) formal delegation of KM education responsibilities to the DON CIO office which reports directly to the Chief of Naval Operations; and 2) publishing service-wide, authoritative documents that include KM vision, strategy, focus areas, and specific KM education actions.
4.2. What Is The Specific
Nature Of The Programs In Place To Educate For KM?
4.2.1. Air Force
The Air Force Center of Excellence for Knowledge Management staff tailors educational sessions for customers as requested. After educational sessions are completed, these same personnel work with desiring customers to establish CoPs. The sessions range from one-to-two hour KM overviews with live demonstrations of the AFKN tool to one to two-day immersion events which include in-depth instruction on concepts such as CoP knowledge owner roles and the dynamics community interaction. To date, KM education has been customer-specific, but AFKN personnel related in interviews that they are attempting to standardize KM education sessions and materials. Some of these educational materials have been developed and placed on the AFKN portal for access by interested users. Additional KM education products are offered via the IT e-Learning module on the main Air Force Portal. Ten of these e-learning courses mention "knowledge management" in the course description and/or course objectives.
4.2.2. Army
The Army has a robust KM education program that is delivered via a number of
methods to include CIO/G-6 directed training, computer-based training support,
Army Knowledge Leaders program, unit-level Knowledge Management Section
personnel programs, web-based instruction, and resident KM courses. The Army CIO/G-6
office and CAC conduct programs to educate and establish a baseline
understanding of KM among the Army Staff, functional communities, and the
operational Army. The CIO/G-6 office has created an instructional DVD,
"Foundations of Army Knowledge Management" (that can also be accessed
on-line) which is divided into eight learning modules. The Army
Knowledge (AK) Leaders program brings in top college business and IT major
graduates for two years of intensive academic training, hands-on experience,
and mentoring in IT management and leadership--a course on KM is part of this
program. CAC also hosts a four-week KM Qualification course and a two-and-half
day KM Application Course. Finally, the Army has
published Field Manual 6-01.1, KM
Section, (DoA, 2008a)
that establishes the doctrinal principles, tactics, techniques, and
procedures necessary to effectively integrate KM into the operations of
brigades, divisions, and corps. This same document
indicates that training and education for KM personnel “often occurs
outside the unit in special courses…[or] in the unit,
either by distributive learning or by training teams
” (DoA, 2008a, pg. 2-6). At lower levels, Standard
Operating Procedures address additional details with regard to implementing KM
to include knowledge assessments, lessons learned, KM tool user guides, etc.
4.2.3. Navy/Marine Corps
KM in the Navy is focused on its two main postures: in-garrison and at sea. KM education for in-garrison applications is conducted primarily through DON CIO-directed KM education sessions. DON CIO purports KM education as a critical component of the Navy's KM program and has absorbed all costs for the DON CIO-directed sessions. As such, multi-day sessions are conducted by DON CIO personnel upon request and focus on creating "awareness and understanding of the full spectrum of KM and how it can impact performance," within the context of the Navy enterprise, commands, communities, and individuals.
KM education for the Navy's at-sea posture is
designed primarily to support carrier strike group Knowledge Officers (KO).
Tactical Training Group Pacific (TTGP) conducts KM education sessions for
A final KM education product, available via Navy
Knowledge On-Line (NKO), is a continuing education course titled, Knowledge Distribution, Knowledge Flow, and
Organizational Performance. While KM education courses are mandatory for
Navy Information Professionals, they are also available to any interested Navy
personnel.
4.3. What
Are The Goals And Expected Outcomes Of KM Education?
4.3.1. Air Force
As stated previously, the KM education offered
to all AF employees is provided by the Air Force Center for Knowledge
Management Excellence (AFKN) and via on-line training hosted on AFKN and the AF
Portal. The content provided by AFKN ranges from educating on general KM theory
and application to specific operation of the AFKN KM system. The specific topic
matter of such sessions, as well as, the desired goals and outcomes are often
tailored to user requests but were observed to fall into the categories of: 1)
creating general KM awareness, 2) use of the AFKN KM system tool, or 3) the
application of KM theory/practices for resolution of specific organizational
problems. Similarly, the stated goals of the KM education products available through
the AF Portal included: 1) introduce a new focus on performance improvement
based on knowledge; 2) develop KM awareness; 3) initiate knowledge use,
leverage, and application within organizations; and 4) support KM within
organizations.
4.3.2. Army
Within the Army the primary organization for training and education is the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). TRADOC has maintained a strong focus on KM within the BCKS division. With continued updates of its KM regulations (DoA, 2006) and the recent publication of its KM Strategic Plan (DoA, 2008c), it is expected that TRADOC KM education efforts will, among other objectives, help to: 1) focus on providing innovative working solutions and upgraded capabilities for actionable decision making, 2) leverage and capitalize on existing KM capabilities and grow them to meet future requirements, and 3) promote a collaborative culture throughout TRADOC and the Army to encourage knowledge sharing (DoA, 2008c).
With respect to the “Foundations of Army
Knowledge Management" DVD, the specific expected outcomes are stated that, when complete, each viewer should be able to: 1) define KM in the Army context, 2) identify components of Army's knowledge-based goals, and
3) understand how every member of the Army plays a role in KM. There are
numerous KM education modules within the BCKS site, each with their own
objectives.
4.3.3. Navy/Marine Corps
The Navy provides four avenues for KM education—DON CIO-directed sessions,
Tactical Training Group (TTGP) activities, Naval Post Graduate (NPS) courses,
and an on-line continuing education unit offered via Navy Knowledge Online. The published desired outcomes of the DON
CIO-directed sessions are to help each attendee: 1) understand KM, 2)
understand the differences between enterprise/command, community, and
individual KM, 3) know which learning tools are
available, 4) know where to locate supporting KM references and
resources, and 5) possess the ability to apply KM to real-world problems. In
contrast, the desired outcomes of the TTGP KM
education activities are focused on ensuring that
4.4. What Measures Are Used To
Evaluate KM Education Outcomes?
4.4.1. Air Force
The AF Center of Excellence for KM staff were
found to use pre-and post-tests to measure participant learning in their
tailored AFKN/KM training sessions. For those users who specifically requested
AFKN KM system-related education/training, CoPs were
also established and subsequent “use” statistics were gathered. These “use”
statistics (e.g. website hits, documents stored, number of CoP
members) were used indirectly to assess the effectiveness of the
education/training. In contrast, it was found that KM education products
available through the Air Force Portal and AFKN did not incorporate any form of
assessment to evaluate participant learning.
4.4.2. Army
Many of the measures used by the Army focused on “aspects” of attendance. Numbers of those who viewed the "Foundations of Army Knowledge Management" module (DVD or on-line) were tracked. Attendance was taken at CIO/G-6-directed educational sessions. For the resident courses offered by BCKS, mastery of the hands-on objectives was evaluated through testing. The BCKS directorate was also found to have an assessment team on staff that assists organizations in assessing KM processes, to include KM education. The assessment protocol includes identifying individual and organizational knowledge gaps. As evidence of the focus on measuring outcomes, BCKS recently published an article, Trends in Knowledge Assessments (McGurn, 2010) in the online journal, Connected.
4.4.3. Navy/Marine Corps
The Navy/Marine Corps was found to use a combination of outcome assessment
approaches. Attendance was taken at the DON CIO-directed educational sessions.
In contrast, TTGP was found to use end-of-course surveys to evaluate education
material quality and participant learning. It was also found that TTGP
conducted interviews with carrier strike group leadership and KOs after they
returned from deployments to assess perceptions of KO effectiveness in
performance of KM duties as well as assessment of leadership support of KM and
4.5. What Key Issues Have Been Encountered While Trying To Develop
KM Education Programs?
4.5.1. Air Force
Senior leadership support for KM in the Air Force and AFKN remains a
challenge. Interviews revealed this may be due to a general lack of KM
understanding among senior leaders. This lack of leadership support has
translated into few expectations for growth in KM education programs and a lack
of funding support for existing ones. The Air Force Center of Excellence for KM
staff, for instance, has fielded the AFKN KM system with limited funding and
with in-house development only. This has lead to a lack of “bells and whistles”
seen on other commercial KM/collaboration systems. Finally, where there has
been mention by KM proponents in the CIO's office regarding inclusion of KM
education into professional military education (PME) courses as a way to expand
KM education across the service, there has been a great deal of
"push-back".
4.5.2. Army
Army leadership and culture is extremely supportive of KM and KM education. The robust nature of its KM education opportunities is a testament to that support. Despite the significant progress in developing KM education opportunities, procuring funding to create new and maintain old KM education products and offerings, given the many other competing resource demands, continues to be a challenge.
4.5.3. Navy/Marine Corps
Navy/Marine Corps leadership is also very supportive of KM and KM education.
One of the DON CIO's top goals has been to incorporate KM education into PME
courses. DON CIO staff stated they were working to justify the benefits of
doing so and were hoping to make this addition in the coming years. As was found in other services, the TTGP KM education
efforts are also impacted by funding support issues due to competing demands.
Another unique issue involves the difficulty in channeling
5. Summarizing
Given the responses to the numerous investigative questions, it is obvious
that an assessment of KM education as it exists across the
|
|
Air Force |
Army |
Navy/Marine
Corps |
|
Perceived Importance |
-Conflicting findings -No published support from service leaders but importance acknowledged -KM practitioners desire KM system “training” but little KM “education” |
-Perceived important by service leaders and KM practitioners -Publications/strategy reveals hard evidence |
-Perceived important by service leaders and KM practitioners -Publications/strategy reveals hard evidence |
|
Nature of Programs |
-AFKN KM system education/training -AFKN user-tailored education -KM module offered via IT E-Learning on AF Portal |
-Robust KM edu/trng pgm -BCKS website/training products -CIO/G-6- directed sessions -Field Manual guidance for all KM personnel |
-DON CIO-directed sessions -TTGP sessions -NPS courses -NKO courses |
|
Goals and Expected Outcomes |
-Familiarization w/key concepts of KM -Develop better users of AFKN KM system |
-Development of workforce -Familiarization w/key concepts of KM -Applying KM in the workplace |
-Development of workforce -Familiarization w/key concepts of KM -Applying KM in the workplace -Preparing duties |
|
Outcome Evaluation Measures |
-AFKN user-tailored sessions—pre/post testing -AFKN KM system sessions—collect “use” statistics |
-Tracked # of viewers of “Foundations” DVD & on-line module -Attendance taken for CIO/G-6 sessions -BCKS organizational assessment team |
- Attendance taken for DON-led sessions -TTGP uses end-of-course surveys/interviews -NPS uses end-of-course surveys/tests -NKO module requires pre/post test |
|
Program Development Issues |
-Senior leadership support -Adding KM to PME courses -Funding |
- Funding |
-Adding KM to PME courses -KM education prior to at- sea assignment rotations -Funding |
Table 1: Summary Of DoD KM Education Findings
6. Discussion
As for expected outcomes, it was learned that, although the nature of the KM education programs differ somewhat, the expected outcomes are in many ways similar. All services desired familiarization of the key concepts of KM. However, while the Air Force desires to develop better users of its AFKN KM system, the Army and Navy both are working to see KM applied at all levels of the service.
Also, all services used traditional outcome measures such as pre/post testing, website hits, attendance, and end-of-course surveys. It is not uncommon in KM research, and even information technology research, to use proxy measures for evaluating KM effectiveness given its complex nature. While researchers have developed models to more accurately measure KM effectiveness (Jennex, 2006), only the Army has attempted to adopt more complex measures to evaluate the effectiveness of KM and KM education.
Finally, with regard to the Army and Navy, overarching service-wide goals backed by strong senior leadership support appear to have resulted in greater resource (money, people, and time) commitment to KM education. The broad range of Army and Navy KM education offerings allow the services to provide KM education to personnel with varying degrees of understanding and ability, thereby increasing the total number of personnel that are educated about KM. All services, however, reported funding issues as obstacles in implementing complete KM education programs. This is not surprising given the expense of modern weapon systems and the sheer volume of current military operations.
7. Implications For Practice And Theory
The implications of this research with regard to practice indicate that there are many ways to approach KM education depending on mission/business goals, leadership support, and resource availability. The Army provides a good example of a robust KM education program, followed by the Navy/Marine Corps. What is obvious across all the cases, however, is that strong leadership support is a critical ingredient to success. With strong leadership, KM education can be better inculcated into the service and resource commitment issues can be mitigated as well. It was also observed that “one size fits all” KM education is not possible or desirable in large enterprises such as the military services. Although “general KM awareness” education was seen as important across the board, it was also seen as necessary to educate for KM application in the workplace. The services also appear to have similar issues with “outcome measurement” as is reported in the literature. As Jennex (2006) states with regard to KM or KM system success, “researchers are finding it difficult to quantify results” (p. 429-430). Only a few KM education/training offerings attempt to assess “learning” as opposed to “exposure.” Finally, and ironically, it appears the services could benefit from some “KM with regard to KM.” Other than a few rare instances, such as a joint trainers’ workshop held in October 2008 (Anonymous, 2010), it was found that the services were not collaborating on KM much less KM education. Given that all of the services belong to the DoD and that “joint operations” have become the standard, it would seem that collaboration across the services to provide, at least, general KM education could facilitate consistency in “message and approach”, promote resource savings, and provide additional impetus for knowledge-sharing across service stovepipes rather than within them.
Finally, the implications for theory involve an addition to the body of research concerning KM education--this research being the first look at KM education in the military services. More specifically, it adds support to the existing research that discusses the importance of KM education and the nature of KM education programs, as well as illustrates how leadership support and resource barriers to execution parallel those encountered in developing KM programs in general.
Anderson, S. B. and Ball, S. (1978). The Profession and Practice of Program Evaluation.
Anonymous. (2010). Jointness in KM Training - a Way Ahead. Connected, Fall, 2008. Retrieved August 25, 2010 from http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/bcks/Connected/Connected-Fall2008.pdf
Bassi, L.J. (1999). Measuring Knowledge Management Effectiveness. In J. W. Cortada and J. A. Woods (Eds.), The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999-2000 (pp. 422-427).
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., and Mead, M. (1987). The Case Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, (11)3, 368-386.
Cervero, R. M. (1988). Effective Continuing Education for
Professionals.
Chaudry, A. S. and Higgins, S. E. (2003). On the need for a multidisciplinary approach to education for knowledge management. Library Review, 52(2), 65-69.
Choi, Y. S. (2000), An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Successful Implementation of Knowledge Management. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Department of the Army (2003). Army Knowledge Management Implementation Plan. 1 September 2003. Retrieved August 13, 2010 from http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/BCKS/ArmyKMImplementationPlan.pdf
Department of the Army (2006). TRADOC Regulation 25-1, Information Management, 16 September 2006, Headquarters Training and Doctrine Command, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. Retrieved from http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r25-1.pdf
Department of the Army. (2008a). Army Field Manual Instruction No. 6-01.1, Knowledge Management Section, 29 August 2008. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPortal/atia/adlsc/view/public/24845-1/FM/6-01.1/FM6_01X1.PDF
Department of the Army, (2008b). Army Regulation 25-1, Army Knowledge Management and Information Technology, 4 December 2008. Retrieved August 13, 2010 from http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/25_Series_Collection_1.html
Department of the Army (2008c). TRADOC Knowledge Management Strategic Plan v.6, 2 December 2008. Headquarters Training and Doctrine Command, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. Retrieved August 14, 2010 from https://www.us.army.mil/suite/doc/20370709
Department of the Army (2009). How the Army Runs, Chapter 16, Army Knowledge Management,
Department of Defense (2006), Quadrennial
Defense Review Report, Secretary of Defense,
Department of Defense (2008a). Information Management/ Information Technology (IM/IT) Strategic Plan 2008-2009. Chief Information Officer, Washington, D. C.. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://cio-ii.defense.gov/docs/DoDCIO_Strat_Plan.pdf
Department of Defense (2008b), National Defense Strategy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D. C.. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://www.defense.gov/news/2008%20national%20defense%20strategy.pdf
Department of Defense (2009), Capstone
Concept for Joint Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Department of Defense (2010). Information
Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration)/Department of Defense Chief Information Officer, Washington, D. C.. Retrieved August 3, 2010 from http://cio-nii.defense.gov/docs/DodIESP-r16.pdf
Department of the Navy (2005). Memorandum: Department of the Navy Knowledge Management Strategy. DON CIO. Washington, D. C. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from http://www.doncio.navy.mil/PolicyView.aspx?ID=424
Department of the Navy (2010a). Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer Campaign Plan 2010. DON CIO. Washington, D. C. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from http://www.doncio.navy.mil/Products.aspx?ID=1356
Department of the Navy (2010b). Department of the Navy Cyber/IT Workforce Strategic Plan FY2010-2013. DON CIO. Washington, D. C. Retrieved August 15, 2010 from http://www.doncio.navy.mil/Products.aspx?ID=1839
Glaser, R. and Nitko, A. J. (1971). Measurement in
Learning and Instruction. In R.L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd ed.) (pp.
625-670).
Grossman, M. (2007). The Emerging Discipline of Knowledge Management. Journal of Information Systems Education, 18(1), 31-38.
Holsapple, C. W. and Joshi, K.D. (1999). Description
and Analysis of Existing Knowledge Management Frameworks. Proceedings of the 32nd
Hawaii Conference on Information System Sciences, Maui, HI.
Holt, D. T., Bartczak, S. E., Clark, S. W., & Trent, M. R. (2007). The Development of an Instrument to Measure Readiness for Knowledge
Management. Knowledge Management
Research and Practice, 5(2), 75-92.
Houle, C. O. (1980). Continuing Learning in the Professions.
Jain, P. (2009). Knowledge Management for 21st Century Information Professionals. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 10(2), 1-11.
Jennex, M. E. (2006). Knowledge
Management System Success Factors.
In D. Schwartz (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of Knowledge Management (pp. 429-435).
KPMG Consulting (2000), Knowledge Management Research Report, New York, NY.
Light, G. and Cox, R. (2001), Learning
and Teaching in Higher Education: the Reflective Professional.
Lovelady, L. (1984). Change Strategies and the Use of OD Consultants to
Facilitate Change:
Lynton, E.A. and Elman, S.E. (1987). New Priorities for the University: Meeting
Society’s Needs for Applied Knowledge and Competent Individuals.
McGurn, L. (2010). Trends in Knowledge Assessments. Connected, Winter 2010. Retrieved August 14, 2010 from http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/bcks/Newsletter.asp
Nowlen, P. M. (1988). A New Approach to Continuing Education for Business and the
Professions: The Performance Model.
Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense/C3I. (2000a). Information Superiority
and the Future of DoD.
Retrieved August 4, 2010, from
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_Information_Superiority.pdf
Office of the
Assistant Secretary of Defense/C3I. (2000b). Information Superiority Making
the Joint Vision Happen. Retrieved August 4, 2010, from
http://www.dodccrp.org/files/joint_vision/JVCover.html
Pennington, F. C. and
Green, J. (1976). Comparative Analysis of Development Processes in Six Professions.
Adult Education, (27), 13-23.
Queeney, D. S. and Smutz,
W. D. (1990). Enhancing the performance of professionals: the practice-audit
model. In Willis S. L., Dubin, S. S. (Eds.), Maintaining professional competence approaches to
career enhancement, vitality, and success throughout a work life
(pp.162-163).
Ruth, S. Theobald, J., and Frizzel V. (1999). University-based
Approach to the Diffusion of Knowledge Management Concepts and Practices.
Proceedings of the
SIGCPR ’99.
Ruth, S., Shaw, N., and Frizzell,
V. (2000). Knowledge Management Education: An Overview of Programs of
Instruction. In C.W. Holsapple
(Ed.), Handbook on Knowledge Management
(pp. 581-603).
Stankosky, M. (2005). Advances in Knowledge Management: University
Research Toward an Academic Discipline. In M. Stankosky
(Ed.), Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management
(pp.1-14).
Sutton, M. J. (2002). A Topical Review of Knowledge Management Curriculum
Programs in University Graduate Schools: Library and Information Science,
Cognitive Science, Information Systems and
Wiig, K. (1993). Knowledge Management Foundations.
Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research:
Design and Methods (3rd ed.).
Contact
the Authors:
Summer E.
Bartczak,
Gary L.
Wright, Capt, USAF, Air Force
Operational Test & Evaluation Center, Kirtland AFB, NM; Email: gary.wright@afotec.af.mil
Todd A. Peachey, Lt Col, USAF, Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45431; Email: todd.peachey@afit.edu
James P.
Downey, Cmdr, (USN Retired),
Kaye McKinzie, LTC, (