Journal of Knowledge Management Practice,

Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 12, No. 4, December 2011

Assessment Of Knowledge Management Maturity In An R&D Organization

K.K. Kuriakose, Baldev Raj, R. Malathi, V. Parameswaran, S.A.V. Satya Murty, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, India

ABSTRACT:

Assessment Knowledge Management Maturity is a necessary step for any organization which has initiated the journey of Knowledge Management. Also validation of any knowledge management maturity model is an important test for the model. This paper details the work done to achieve the dual purpose of assessing the knowledge management maturity of an R&D organization and validating the Knowledge Management Maturity Model developed by the authors.

Keywords: Knowledge management, Maturity assessment, Maturity model validation

1. Introduction

Knowledge Management (KM) is a fast moving interdisciplinary field that has been created by the collision of several others like Information and Communication Technology, Information Science, Systems Science and Engineering, Knowledge Engineering, Collaborative Engineering, Human Resource Management, Organizational Development, Change Management and Performance Management. It is a conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the right time and helping people share and put information into action in ways that will improve organizational performance (APQC, 2000). KM is an important capability in an organization’s arsenal, but it has been one of the least scientific approaches with an absence of proper methodologies for assessment, application or implementation (Natarajan, 2005). While there is not a cookbook solution to implementing and achieving improvements in KM performance, paths have emerged that in case of some organizations, have yielded benefits (Bukowitz and Williams, 1999). It is unlikely that the KM implementation can be achieved in one giant leap, and a staged framework is thus desirable (Kochikar, 2000, Mohanty and Chand, 2005, Pee and Kankanhalli, 2009). Regardless of whether an organization is just getting started, conducting the first implementation of KM pilot projects, or preparing to revitalize or leverage successful KM approaches and tools to other areas in the enterprise, it should have a road map with milestones and checkpoints to guide its efforts (Hubert and Lemons, 2010). If KM is to become a professional discipline within the organization rather than a short lived ‘fad’, it is essential to have a reliable instrument for defining ones current position and driving long-term development (Ehms and Langen, 2002)). Knowledge Management Maturity Models (KMMM) provide such an instrument with a clear cut road map for any organization that is embarking on knowledge management implementation. It provides the clear vision with a description of the path to improvement (Klimko, 2001).

In order to assess the maturity of the KM implementation in any organization the KMMM applicable for the organization need to identified. For this study the KMMM developed by the authors (Kuriakose et. al, 2011) is used. A major R&D organization in India is the context of study.

This paper evaluates the Knowledge Management Maturity of an R&D organization based on the KMMM developed by the authors, through a case study. It also evaluates the KM maturity of the sub units of the organization, through the embedded case study. It also identifies the inhibiting factors of the sub units of the organization and the organization as a whole, in achieving higher levels of maturity through a survey and also suggests methods to improve KM maturity of the organization. The study also validates the KMMM developed by the authors. The paper is organized as follows. The first section describes the organizational context. The second section briefly describes the KMMM. The third section details the case study and analysis. The fourth section dwells on the conclusion and the future work

2. The Organizational Context

The organizational activities are mainly Research and Development (R&D) with respect to Fast Reactor. The organization has eleven major technical groups and two non technical groups. Only ten technical groups are considered for the study. The organization had initiated formal K M practices a few years back. It had developed and documented a formal KM policy for the organization. It had implemented an interconnected technology infrastructure for knowledge preservation and sharing, with freedom for individual groups to organize its own knowledge repository. It also had created part time KM rolls like Chief Knowledge Officer and Group Knowledge Officers, with a task force constituted by the Director, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the organization.

Though the organization is predominantly R&D oriented, it has groups which are carrying out technical services, operation and maintenance and project execution. Brief description of the activities of the groups are listed in Table 1 below (IGCAR, 2011a): The actual names of the groups are not mentioned for confidentiality

Group	Activities
G1	Carrying out R&D and analytic support with respect to all the Chemistry aspects of the Organization
G2	Developing Electronics and Instrumentation Systems, providing computational and information services to the Organization
G3	Providing Engineering Services to the Organization
G4	Design and Project Execution
G5	Development and testing of models and prototype components
G6	Carrying out basic research and applied research
G7	Carrying out basic research
G8	Carrying out Design and R&D
G9	Plant Operation and Maintenance
G10	Technology Development, R&D activities and Project execution

Table 1. Groups And Activities

The organizational website (IGCAR, 2011b)) reads the following facts:

· The organizations was established in 1971 with a clear mission of conducting broad based multi disciplinary programme of Scientific Research and Advanced Engineering, directed towards the development of sodium cooled Fast Breeder Reactor Technology.

· Over the years, the organization has established comprehensive R&D facilities covering the entire spectrum of Fast Breeder Reactor Technology related to Sodium Technology, Reactor Engineering, Reactor Physics, Metallurgy and Materials, Chemistry of Fuels and its materials, fuel Reprocessing, Reactor Safety, Control and Instrumentation, Computer Application etc. and has developed a strong base in a variety of disciplines related to this advanced technology. Apart from thrust areas related to nuclear technology, the organization has credentials as a leader of basic research in various frontier and topical areas.

· The organization has staff strength of 2816 including 1274 Engineers and Scientists. The annual outlay of the Organization is 670 million rupees towards R&D activities and plan schemes.

· Many of the Departments of the Organization are ISO 9001.2008 certified.

· The Organization extends its expertise and facilities to other R&D Sectors and industries. It also has collaborations with other R&D Organization and educational institutions. It also has identified the knowledge gap areas, where expertise needs to be developed.

· The organization in its journey of excellence has achieved several scientific and technological milestones, with international benchmarks and high impact on its mission program. To quote, its Director “Enhancing Quality and Commitment of Human Resources is the key to our strategy of achieving and sustaining excellence. We believe in innovations in management of Science and Technology forenhancing our focus, creativity and productivity” (IGCAR, 2007; p. 2)

It was decided by the top management to assess the Knowledge Management Maturity of the Organization and identify methods to improve the maturity. In order to assess the maturity, the Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KMMM) developed by the authors was used (Kuriakose et al, 2011). The Organizational study to assess the maturity was also used to validate the model. A case study approach was found to be appropriate since many of the questions were pertaining to ‘how’ and ‘why’ and an in depth description of the phenomenon was required (Yin, 2009).

3. Knowledge Management Maturity Model

The KMMM (Kuriakose et al, 2011) has six maturity levels. It identifies five Key Areas: People, Process, Technology, Knowledge and Return On Investment (ROI). It also identifies 20 parameters (Key Parameters) for all the Key Areas (People-6, Process-4, Technology-6, Knowledge-3, ROI-1). The parameters can have different values called Key Values, which can be either qualitative values (Low, Medium and High) or quantitative values (0-100%). The value ‘Nil’ indicates that, either the parameter is not applicable, or it is not assessed or the value is negligible. Each maturity level is identified by a group of Key Maturity Indicators (KMI), which is a combination of Key Areas, Key Parameters and Key Values. The maturity levels and KMIs are reproduced in table 1.

Maturity Level

People

Process

Technology

Knowledge

ROI

Default

Only routine _

Initial

Awareness- Low
Participation -Low
KM roles –Low
Mentoring and Succession Planning-Low
Communities of Practice-Nil
Reward and Recognition Scheme- Nil

KM Policy-Low
KM Strategy-Low
KM Processes-Low
Process Integration-Nil

Network-Medium
Data and Information management-Medium
Explicit Knowledge Management-Low
Tacit Knowledge Management-Low
KE techniques-Nil
Technology Integration- Nil

Knowledge Classification-Low
Knowledge Capability Areas-Nil
Knowledge Organization-Nil

Employee Satisfaction-Nil

Qualitative

Development

Awareness- Medium
Participation -Medium
KM roles -Medium
Mentoring and Succession Planning-Medium
Communities of Practice-Low
Reward and Recognition Scheme- Low

KM Policy-Medium
KM Strategy-Medium
KM Processes-Medium
Process Integration-Low

Network-High
Data and Information management-High
Explicit Knowledge Management-Medium
Tacit Knowledge Management-Medium
KE Techniques-Low
Technology Integration-Low

Knowledge Classification-Medium
Knowledge Capability Areas-Medium

Knowledge Organization-Medium

Employee Satisfaction-Medium

Quantitative

Development

Awareness->50
Participation ->50
KM roles ->50
Mentoring and Succession Planning->50
Communities of Practice->50
Reward and Recognition Scheme- >50

KM Policy->50
KM Strategy->50
KM Processes->50
Process Integration->50

Network->50
Data and Information management->50
Explicit Knowledge Management->50
Tacit Knowledge Management->50
KE techniques->50
Technology Integration->50

Knowledge Classification->50
Knowledge Capability Areas->50
Knowledge Organization->50

Employee Satisfaction->50%

Maturity

Awareness->90
Participation ->90
KM roles ->90
Mentoring and Succession Planning->90
Communities of Practice->90
Reward and Recognition Scheme- >90

KM Policy->90
KM Strategy->90
KM Processes->90
Process Integration->90

Network->90
Data and Information management->90
Explicit Knowledge Management->90
Tacit Knowledge Management->90
KE techniques->90
Technology Integration->90

Knowledge Classification->90
Knowledge Capability Areas->90

Knowledge Organization->90

Employee Satisfaction->90%

Extended- organizational maturity

Same as level 4 with extended value chain of the organization.

Same as level 4 with extended value chain of the organization

Table 2. Maturity Levels And Key Maturity Indicators

The questionnaire contained 21 factors, that can influence KM maturity, which were developed based on the discussions in Bukowitz and Williams (1999) and the pilot study. The presence of those factors can act as enablers and the absence can act as inhibitors. The questionnaire used a five point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neither agree/nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree) to collect the response from the participants. The questionnaire was pre-tested, with a few senior, middle and junior level employees, for the understanding of the questions and the concepts that is represented. Based on the feedback received, the structure was modified to make the inhibiting factors more explicit by adding the ‘if’ to all the inhibiting factors. For example for the inhibiting factor “lack of adequate time” the initial question was ‘I am willing to share more of my work, experiences, ideas, expertise, etc. with other members of the organization as my contribution to the organizational knowledge repository, if: I have more time’. The question was modified as ‘I am willing to share more of my work, experiences, ideas, expertise, etc. with other members of the organization as my contribution to the organizational knowledge repository: if I have more time’. Also since the questionnaire was personally administered, by the investigators after the awareness seminar, the necessary clarifications could be provided. However the clarifications required were minimum.

If the answer to the question is ‘strongly agree’, it indicates that ‘lack of time’ is a strong inhibiting factor. If the answer is ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ it is considered as a positively answered question (Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004). The mean, standard deviation and percentage of positive responses for each group are summarized in the table 4. The strongest inhibiting factor for each group is highlighted.

S.No	Inhibitors	G1			G2			G3			G4			G5			G6			G7			G8			G9			G10
S.No	Inhibitors	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR	M	SD	PR
1	Lack of time	3.33	1.12	56	3.43	1.01	54	3.86	0.92	78	4.13	0 .81	87	3.82	0.97	74	3.93	0.96	78	3.67	0.69	55	3.68	1.12	61	3.29	1.07	50	3.83	0.92	77
2	Lack of awareness of knowledge requirements	3.67	1.12	75	3.94	0.73	77	3.95	1.00	81	4.31	0.48	100	4.13	1.00	82	3.86	0.99	71	4.28	0.67	88	4.29	0.66	96	3.57	1.09	14	4.00	0.77	77
3	Lack of expertise in organizing the available Knowledge	4.33	1.12	78	3.40	1.01	51	3.70	0.91	70	3.88	0.62	75	3.97	0.90	77	2.86	0.91	28	3.44	0.62	39	3.82	0.77	68	3.43	0.85	50	4.00	0.84	82
4	Lack of awareness of the process of contribution	4.11	0.33	100	3.66	0.84	60	4.08	0.72	84	4.00	0.52	87	4.03	0.81	79	3.36	1.11	50	3.89	0.83	61	3.86	0.89	68	4.14	0.53	93	3.76	0.77	67
5	Lack of assistance in contribution	3.22	1.39	44	3.20	1.21	43	3.43	1.12	54	3.56	0.89	56	3.38	1.16	59	2.21	1.37	14	2.83	0.79	16	3.36	0.87	46	3.36	1.08	50	3.71	0.96	68
6	Lack of user friendly technology infrastructure	3.67	1.32	67	4.06	0.76	80	4.00	0.78	75	4.31	0.70	87	4.28	0.69	92	3.93	0.96	64	3.72	1.02	44	4.25	0.84	75	4.00	0.88	78	4.23	0.60	91
7	Lack of integration of the process of contribution with day-today work	3.11	1.45	56	4.09	0.70	86	3.92	0.89	67	4.44	0.73	87	4.38	0.63	82	4.00	0.85	78	3.83	0.92	50	4.29	0.76	82	4.00	0.68	78	4.00	0.87	80
8	Lack of awareness of the utility of the contributions	4.22	0.67	89	3.40	1.03	54	3.57	1.01	57	3.44	1.03	62	3.77	0.81	69	3.86	0.83	71	3.39	1.09	44	4.00	0.77	79	3.36	0.84	43	3.89	0.99	77
9	Lack of tangible reward	3.78	1.09	56	3.00	1.08	34	3.03	1.21	32	2.94	1.06	31	3.38	1.09	43	3.00	0.93	21	3.00	1.08	22	3.43	1.23	54	2.64	1.01	14	3.03	1.25	40
10	Lack of recognition	4.22	1.20	67	3.29	0.99	48	3.14	1.13	38	3.06	1.29	50	3.59	1.23	66	3.21	1.15	43	3.00	1.03	17	3.39	1.10	46	2.86	1.10	21	3.66	0.91	65
11	Lack of gratefulness	4.44	1.13	78	3.03	0.89	28	3.22	1.20	40	3.13	1.20	37	3.44	1.25	54	2.57	1.12	14	2.83	0.86	17	3.07	1.12	25	2.57	0.51	0	3.37	0.88	57
12	Lack of feedback	4.56	0.53	100	3.77	1.06	74	3.89	0.97	70	3.88	0.96	81	4.10	0.75	77	2.00	0.65	78	3.94	0.73	72	4.14	0.59	89	3.79	0.89	64	4.11	0.83	82
13	Lack of weightage for contribution in performance appraisal	2.89	1.36	33	3.31	1.11	46	3.35	1.14	46	3.31	1.45	62	3.64	1.04	66	3.71	0.80	78	3.00	0.97	22	3.50	1.29	57	3.14	1.08	28	3.14	1.46	54
14	Lack of protection of intellectual property	4.11	1.27	78	3.40	3.80	48	3.41	1.01	48	2.75	1.34	31	3.54	1.27	56	4.14	0.83	86	3.44	0.86	33	3.50	1.32	57	3.79	0.89	64	3.49	1.27	57
15	Lack of assurance against negative reverse impact	3.89	0.78	67	3.80	0.93	71	3.84	0.90	67	3.31	1.14	50	3.56	1.17	64	4.36	0.81	93	3.39	0.92	17	3.64	1.03	57	3.71	0.91	57	3.77	1.11	71
16	Lack of assurance against belitting by colleagues	3.22	0.97	33	2.80	1.13	28	3.27	0.90	38	2.69	1.08	18	2.90	1.02	25	3.21	0.77	43	2.61	0.70	6	2.75	1.17	25	2.71	1.07	14	3.57	1.07	57
17	Lack of awareness on the significance of the contribution to the organization	4.11	1.05	78	3.77	1.03	66	3.73	1.07	62	3.88	1.15	75	4.18	0.91	84	4.43	0.49	100	4.00	0.91	72	4.32	0.98	82	4.07	0.83	71	3.94	1.06	74
18	Lack of directive from the reporting officer	3.11	0.93	33	3.06	1.00	31	3.05	0.97	38	3.50	1.15	50	3.36	0.84	38	3.57	1.05	50	2.83	0.62	6	3.61	1.17	54	3.36	1.01	43	3.37	0.91	51
19	Lack of contributions from colleagues	3.67	0.87	67	3.00	1.06	34	2.97	1.07	27	3.00	1.26	31	3.31	1.06	43	3.64	0.89	50	2.83	0.71	11	3.11	1.34	43	2.57	0.94	7	3.09	1.01	37
20	Lack of assurance on meeting the knowledge requirements by the organizational knowledge repository	4.00	0.76	78	3.43	1.09	46	3.54	0.96	57	3.50	0.86	75	3.87	0.86	66	3.54	0.93	61	3.11	1.08	39	3.89	0.88	71	2.79	0.97	21	3.69	0.90	77
21	Lack of mandatory organizational policy on contributions	4.00	0.7	78	3.26	1.07	74	3.14	1.25	43	3.00	1.41	31	3.31	1.17	46	3.07	0.88	21	2.67	1.03	11	2.89	1.26	48	2.93	1.00	21	2.91	1.20	48

Table 4: Inhibiting Factors Of Groups (M – Mean ; SD – Standard Deviation ; PR – Positive Response)

4.4. Analysis

The analysis was carried out based on various groups of the organization to identify the maturity levels of individual groups and the prominent inhibiting factors. Also the analysis was carried out, organization wide to identify the most prominent inhibiting factors.

4.4.1. Groups

The knowledge management maturity of various groups is discussed in the following sections.

Group G1: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1+, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘Low’ performance in ‘Communities of Practice’ and ‘Reward and Recognition Scheme’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of feed back’, with a mean of 4.56, standard deviation of 0.53 and 100% positive responses.

Group G2: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1++, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Medium’ performance in ‘Awareness’, ‘Participation’ & ‘KM roles’ and ‘Low’ performance in ‘Communities of Practice’ and ‘Reward and Recognition Scheme’ , which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1++, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘ Network’, ‘Medium’ in ‘Explicit KM’ and ‘Low’ in ‘KE Techniques’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of integration of the process of contribution with day to day work’, with a mean of 4.09, standard deviation of 0.70 and 86% positive responses

Group G3: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1+, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Low’ performance in ‘Communities of Practice’, and ‘Reward and Recognition Scheme’ which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of awareness of the process of contribution’, with a mean of 4.08, standard deviation of 0.72 and 84% positive responses.

Group G4: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1+, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Low’ performance in ‘Reward & Recognition Scheme’ and ‘Communities of Practice’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of integration of the process of contribution with day to day work’, with a mean of 4.44, standard deviation of 0.73 and 87% positive responses

Group G5: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1++, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Medium’ performance in ‘Awareness’, ‘Participation’ & ‘KM roles’ and ‘Low’ performance in ‘Communities of Practice’ and ‘Reward & Recognition Scheme’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’ and ‘Medium’ in ‘Explicit KM’. It is in Level 1+ maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area, since it has achieved, ‘Medium’ performance in ‘Knowledge Classification’. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of integration of the process of contribution with day to day work’, with a mean of 4.38, standard deviation of 0.63 and 82% positive responses

Group G6: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1+, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Low’ performance in ‘Reward& Recognition scheme’ and ‘Communities of Practice’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of awareness on the significance of contribution to the organization’, with a mean of 4.43, standard deviation of 0.49 and 100% positive responses

Group G7: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1++, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Medium’ performance in ‘Awareness’, ‘Participation’ & ‘KM roles’ and ‘Low’ performance in ‘Reward& Recognition scheme’ and ‘Communities of Practice’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1++, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’, ‘Medium’ in ‘Explicit KM’, and ‘Tacit KM’. It is in Level 1++ maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area, since it has achieved, ‘Medium’ performance in ‘Knowledge Classification’ and ‘Knowledge Capability Area’. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of awareness of knowledge requirements’, with a mean of 4.28, standard deviation of 0.67 and 88% positive responses

Group G8: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1++, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Medium’ performance in ‘Awareness’, ‘Participation’ & ‘KM roles’ and ‘Low’ performance in ‘Reward& Recognition scheme’ and ‘Communities of Practice’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of awareness on the significance of contribution to the organization’, with a mean of 4.32, standard deviation of 0.98 and 82% positive responses

Group G9: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1++, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Medium’ performance in ‘Awareness’, ‘Participation’ & ‘KM roles’ and ‘Low’ performance in ‘Reward & Recognition Scheme’ and ‘Communities of Practice’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’, ‘Medium’ in ‘Explicit KM’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

The strongest inhibiting factor is ‘lack of awareness of the process of contribution’, with a mean of 4.14, standard deviation of 0.53 and 93% positive responses.

Group G10: The group has achieved a maturity of Level1+, in ‘People’ Key Area, since it has achieved a ‘Low’ performance in ‘Reward & Recognition Scheme’ and ‘Communities of Practice’, which pertains to level 2 performance. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Process’ Key Area. The group is in Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area, since it has achieved ‘High’ in ‘Network’. It is in Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The group has achieved an over all KM maturity of Level 1.

4.4.2 Organization

The overall organizational KM maturity is determined by the lowest level achieved by any of the groups. Hence the KM maturity of the organization is Level1+, in ‘People’ Key Area, Level 1 in ‘Process’ Key Area, Level 1+, in ‘Technology’ Key Area and Level 1 maturity in ‘Knowledge’ Key Area. The organization has achieved an ‘Employee Satisfaction’ of ‘Low’ in KM activities. However as per the model ROI is not evaluated for Level 1 maturity. The organization has achieved an overall KM maturity of Level 1. The inhibiting factors of the organization ordered based on the mean is depicted in table 5.

Sl.No.	Inhibiting Factors	Mean	SD	PR
1	Lack of user friendly technology infrastructure	4.10	0.81	77.55
2	Lack of integration of the process of contribution with day-today work	4.08	0.85	78.36
3	Lack of awareness of knowledge requirements	4.03	0.87	82.04
4	Lack of awareness on the significance of the contribution to the organization	4.01	0.99	75.10
5	Lack of feedback	4.00	0.85	77.95
6	Lack of awareness of the process of contribution	3.89	0.80	73.77
7	Lack of time	3.72	1.00	68.16
8	Lack of assurance against negative reverse impact	3.71	1.02	64.08
9	Lack of expertise in organizing the available Knowledge	3.71	0.92	64.89
10	Lack of awareness of the utility of the contributions	3.68	0.95	64.48
11	Lack of assurance on meeting the knowledge requirements by the organizational knowledge repository	3.58	0.98	56.79
12	Lack of protection of intellectual property	3.50	1.17	53.87
13	Lack of recognition	3.35	1.12	48.57
14	Lack of weightage for contribution in performance appraisal	3.34	1.19	51.42
15	Lack of assistance in contribution	3.31	1.12	48.97
16	Lack of directive from the reporting officer	3.27	0.98	40.00
17	Lack of gratefulness	3.17	1.10	37.14
18	Lack of tangible reward	3.12	1.14	36.32
19	Lack of mandatory organizational policy on contributions	3.09	1.16	37.55
20	Lack of contributions from colleagues	3.09	1.07	34.69
21	Lack of assurance against belitting by colleagues	3.00	1.05	31.02

Table 5: Inhibiting Factors Of The Organization (SD – Standard Deviation; PR – Positive Response)

The most predominant inhibiting factors based on mean (mean >=4.0) are ‘lack of user friendly technology infrastructure’ (mean=4.10), ‘ lack of integration of the process of contribution with day to day work’ (mean=4.08), ‘lack of awareness of knowledge requirements’ (mean=4.03), ‘lack of awareness on the significance of the contribution to the organization’ (mean=4.01), and ‘lack of feedback’ (mean=4.00). The organization need to formulate and implement an action plan to eliminate or at least minimize the inhibiting factors, to achieve higher levels of KM maturity.

Type of Work

%

Research

27

Development

31

Project

21

Technical

21

Qualification

%

Diploma

18

Graduate

44

Post Graduate

29

Ph.D.

9

Discipline

%

Science

27

Engineering

73

Design /Grade

%

Upto SO/B

15

SO/C-E

68

SO/F-G

15

SO/H & Above

2

Gender

%

Male

83

Female

17

Age

%

< 30

31

30 - 39

28

40 - 50

25

> 50

15

Service

%

< 10

43

10 - 19

24

20 - 30

19

> 30

14

The demographic variables of the participants are shown in the pie chart 1. Though the organization is predominantly Research & Development, the highest number of participants were carrying out development work (31%), followed by research (27%). The participants were mostly graduates (44%), followed by postgraduates (29%). The discipline of engineering was more predominant (73%), compared to science (27%). The participants were middle level officers (68%). Gender distribution was male 83% and female 27%. More of younger generation participated (age<30=31% and service <10=43%) in the study.

Pie Chart. Demographic Variables Of The Participants

4.5. Validation

Four tests that have been commonly used to establish the quality of any empirical research are construct validity, internal validity, external validity and reliability Yin, 2009). These tests are described in the following sections.

Construct Validity:

It is concerned with identifying correct operational measures for the concepts being studied. A pilot study was conducted across the cross section of the organization and the feed backs received were implemented in the case study. This case study used multiple sources of evidences like focus group discussion, structured interview, questionnaire, organizational web site, organizational annual report etc. Also, the case study was conducted by a team of investigators. The key informants of the organization have reviewed the draft case study report. Hence the study satisfies the construct validity.

Internal Validity:

It is concerned with establishing causal relationship in which certain conditions are believed to lead to other conditions. Since this case study is an exploratory type, it is not applicable.

External Validity:

It is concerned with generalization of the studies findings. Since the case study has embedded sub units of analysis, the findings of the study can be analytically generalized across similar organizations.

Reliability:

It is concerned with demonstrating that the operations of the study can be repeated with the same results. The goal of reliability is to minimize the biases in the study. Since the study is conducted by a team of investigators and it used multiple sources of evidences, the reliability can be ensured.

In addition to the above four tests, the study also satisfies discriminant validity (Trochim, 2006). Different groups of the organization are at different levels of maturity with reference to different key areas. This indicates that key areas are distinct and not correlated, providing evidence of discriminant validity. Also the ‘absolute test’ specified by Kulkarni and Freeze is satisfied as detailed below. For every key area, achieving a lower level maturity is a prerequisite for achieving next level maturity (Kulkarni and Freeze, 2004). The results indicate that none of the higher levels can be satisfied without satisfying the lower levels. Hence the study validates the Knowledge Management Maturity Model

5. Conclusion and Future Work

The case study was used to identify the current KM maturity of the organization and its individual groups. Though the organization is in Level 1 in the over all maturity, it has achieved Level 1+ in ‘People’ and ‘Technology’ Key Area. The organization need to focus more on ‘Process’ and ‘Knowledge’ Key Areas to move to Level 1+. For the organization to progress to Level 1++, it needs to qualitatively improve on the various parameters identified in the model. Also it needs to have a mechanism to monitor and take corrective actions on the qualitative progress on the parameters. Further it needs to eliminate the inhibitors of KM maturity, identified by the study.

Following are some of the suggestions made by the participants that indicate the areas that need to be improved. “some persons from each section should be made responsible to collect and make the information available”; “all organizational publications should be made available in the portal”; “provision for marks for documents and contributors should be available”; “discussion forums should be made available”; “in addition to approved knowledge documents, unapproved knowledge documents, blogs are also to be made available”; “search capability may be made more versatile”; “more credit should be given to the knowledge sharer”; “submission of knowledge documents should be made mandatory”; “record of important discussions and talks should be made available”;

The active participation of the employees and the suggestions received from them indicate that the awareness and interest in KM activities have significantly improved, due to the study.

Similar study can be repeated at periodic intervals to evaluate the improvement in KM maturity and identify other inhibiting factors if any. Also it is possible to design and conduct a longitudinal study with a mix of case study and survey approach spread across a period of about five years. Many parameters like improvement in the usage, contribution, participation, knowledge quality can be derived from the portal itself.

6. Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge all the facilitators and participants of the study. Since the number is very large we are unable to acknowledge them individually.

7. References

APQC (2000), “Successfully Implementing Knowledge Management”, Best Practice Report

Bukowitz, W.R. and Williams, R.L. (1999), “The Knowledge management Fieldbook”, Pearson Education Limited, Edinburgh Gate, Harlow, CM20 2JE

Ehms, K. and Langen, M. (2002), “Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with KMM” available at: http://www.kmmm.org (Accessed 11, February, 2009).

Hubert, C. and Lemons, D. (2010), APQC’s Level of Knowledge Management Maturity, available at: http://www.apqc.org/knowledge-base/download/33020/a%3A1%3A%7Bi%3A1%3Bs%3A1%3A%222%22%3B%7D/inline.pdf?destination=node/33020

IGCAR (2007), Excellence with Relevance-High Impact Breakthroughs, Significant Achievements (2004-2007), available at: http://www.igcar.gov.in/benchmark/index.pdf (Accessed 11, January, 2011)

IGCAR (2011a), Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research- Annual Report, 2011

IGCAR (2011b), available at : www.igcar.gov.in

Klimko,G. (2001), Knowledge Management and Maturity Models: Building Common Understanding, In Proceeding of the 2^nd European Conference on Knowledge Management, 269-278.

Kochikar, V.P. (2000), “The Knowledge Management Maturity Model: A Staged Framework for Leveraging Knowledge”, KM World 2000, Santa Clara, CA.

Kulkarni, U. and Freeze, R. (2004),”Development and Validation of a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model” Proceeding of Twenty fifth International Conference on Information Systems, 657-670.

Kuriakose, K.K., Baldev Raj, Satya Murty, S.A.V., Swaminatha,P. (2011), “Knowledge Management Maturity Model – An Engineering Approach”, Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Vol. 12, No. 2, June 2011

Mohanty, S.K. and Chand,M. (2005), “5iKM3 Knowledge Management Maturity Model” Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai. Available at : http://www.tcs.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/White%20Papers/5iKM3%20Knowledge%20Management%20Maturity%20Model.pdf (accessed 16, February, 2009).

Natarajan, G. (2005), “A KM Maturity Model for the Software Industry”, KM Review, Vol.8, Issue 2, 20-23.

Pee, L.G. and Kankanhalli, A. (2009), “A Model of Organizational Knowledge Management Maturity Based on People, Process and Technology,” Journal of Information & Knowledge Management Vo.8, No.2, 79-99.

Trochim, W.M.K. (2006), “Research Methods Knowledge Base” Avaialable at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/measval.php, (Accessed 10, February, 2011)

Yin, R.K. (2009), “Case Study Research Design and Methods”, Sage Publications, California.

About the Authors:

K.K. Kuriakose graduated with honours in Electrical Engineering from the Regional Engineering College (now known as the National Institute of Technology), Calicut, India in 1977. After undergoing training in Nuclear Science and Engineering from Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) Training School, he joined the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR), India in 1979. He had further obtained Master of Engineering (first class) in Electrical Communication Engineering from the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India in 1986, and Master of Business Administration from Indira Gandhi National Open University, India in 2000. Currently he is the Head of the Knowledge Management Section and a doctoral-level research scholar in the area of knowledge management with Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India. He has more than twenty five publications in national and international conferences/ journals/ reports in the area of Information Management, Knowledge Management and Simulation. His research interests include information management systems, knowledge management, organizational learning and software engineering. He is the corresponding author and can be contacted at kuriakose@igcar.gov.in, kkkuriakose2003@yahoo.com.

Dr. Baldev Raj, b 1947; BE, Ph.D, D.Sc.; Member, International Nuclear Energy Academy, German National Academy of Sciences, Fellow, Third World Academy of Sciences and Fellow of all Engineering and Science Academies in India. He is a Distinguished Scientist & Director, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu (retired). His specializations include materials characterization, testing and evaluation using non-destructive evaluation methodologies, materials development and performance assessment and technology management. He has more than 750 publications in leading refereed journals and books. He has co-authored 12 books and co-edited 32 books and special journal volumes. He has 5 Indian Standards and 18 patents to his credit. He is Editor-in-Chief of two series of books: one related to NDE Science & Technology and another related to Metallurgy & Material Science. He is on the editorial boards of national and international journals. He is member of many national and international committees and commissions. He has been invited to deliver plenary and panel speeches in the most eminent international forums and more than fifty occasions in thirty countries. He has won many national and international awards and honours. He has passion for teaching, communications and mentoring. His other interests include science and technology of cultural heritage and theosophy.

R.Malathi did her diploma in Electronics and Communication Engineering, in 1987. She joined Computer Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam India in 1990. She was associated with the administration of internet and email facilities and also with the network security. Currently she is associated with the development of knowledge management portal, development of taxonomy, elicitation of tacit knowledge and creation of knowledge management awareness at IGCAR.

V.Parameswaran obtained Master of Computer Applications in first class from Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli, Tamilnadu, India in 2002. He joined Computer Division, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam India in 1997. He was associated with the operation of high performance computing facilities at IGCAR. Currently he is associated with the development of knowledge management portal, development of taxonomy, elicitation of tacit knowledge and creation of knowledge management awareness at IGCAR.

S.A.V. Satya Murty did his BTech at Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, India in 1977, for which he was a university gold medalist. Later, he joined a one-year orientation course in Nuclear Science and Engineering at BARC. He was awarded the Homi Bhabha prize for getting 1^st place. He joined the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research (IGCAR) in 1978. He played a key role in the establishment of a mainframe computer system for IGCAR. He was also instrumental in establishing internet and e-mail facilities at IGCAR. He was responsible for the upgrading of the IGCAR Campus Network. He took keen interest in network security and commissioned many security servers, a high-performance computing facility, a intra-DAE VSAT network and a grid computing facility at IGCAR. He has more than 70 journal publications/conference proceedings and edited one international conference proceedings. At present, he is the Director, Electronics and Instrumentation Group at IGCAR, and a. doctoral-level research scholar with Homi Bhabha National Institute.

Sl.No.	Parameters	G1	G2	G3	G4	G5	G6	G7	G8	G9	G10
1	Awareness	L	M	L	L	M	L	M	M	M	L
2	Participation	L	M	L	L	M	L	M	M	M	L
3	KM Roles	L	M	L	L	M	L	M	M	M	L
4	Mentoring & Succession Planning	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
5	Reward & Recognition Scheme	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
6	Communities of Practice	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
7	Network	H	H	H	H	H	H	H	H	H	H
8	Data & Information Management	M	M	M	M	M	M	M	M	M	M
9	Explicit Knowledge Management	L	M	L	L	M	L	M	L	M	L
10	Tacit Knowledge Management	L	L	L	L	L	L	M	L	L	L
11	A I Techniques	N	L	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
12	Technology Integration	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
13	K M Policy	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
14	K M Strategy	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
15	K M Processes	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L
16	Process Integration	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
17	Knowledge Classification	L	L	L	L	M	L	M	L	L	L
18	Knowledge Capability Area	L	L	L	L	L	L	M	L	L	L
19	Knowledge Organization	N	L	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
20	Employee Satisfaction	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L	L