knowledge auditing and mapping: a pragmatic approach

& Research Article

Knowledge Auditing and Mapping:A Pragmatic Approach

Simon Burnett, Lorraine Illingworth* and Linda Webster

Centre for Knowledge Management, Aberdeen Business School, The Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen

Increasingly the knowledge and skills of employees are seen as valuable assets that may beutilised in order to gain competitive advantage at an organisational level. This paper seeksto describe the process, methods and resulting outcomes of a knowledge audit and map carriedout within a tax department in a multinational oil exploration and production company.Although the department had employed systems for managing information, there was a desireto build on this to develop and apply systems and processes to manage and exploit knowledgeembedded in staff. By using questionnaires and interviews, the audit and map process aimedto provide a critical first step in introducing knowledge management into the department, andestablishing a plan of action. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

RATIONALE

Over the last decade, knowledge management hasattracted considerable interest both from practitio-ners and academics as a range of methods for moreeffective management of intellectual assets withinan organisational setting. Due to the advancementin information and communication technologiesand the gradual transformation of the industrialeconomy to the new knowledge economy, both pri-vate and public sector organisations world-wideare now putting a greater emphasis on the rolesof knowledge (Delong and Summers, 2001). Earlyincarnations of knowledge management in organi-sations can be seen to have been heavily focused onthe use of Information and Communication Techno-logy (ICT) in order to structure and store explicitknowledge (Skyrme, 1998). Increasingly however,organisations are appreciating just how limitedthis approach may be, stressing the importance ofknowledge processes such as creating, identifying

and exploiting knowledge and the significance ofindividuals within these processes. Indeed McElroysuggests that ‘valuable organizational knowledgedoes not exist—people in organizations create it’(McElroy, 2001). Therefore an individual’s abilityto create, learn and use knowledge appears toincrease the organisation’s ability to develop com-petitive advantage.

Over recent years both the knowledge audit andthe knowledge map have been seen as importantprocesses in determining and illustrating theknowledge within an organisation. Liebowitz,Rubeinstein-Montano, McCaw, Buchwalter andBrowning believe the knowledge audit to be thefirst ‘critical’ stage of introducing knowledge man-agement into organisations (Liebowitz et al., 1999).Indeed, Frappaolo believes organisations need to‘know what they know’ before they can attemptto introduce a knowledge management initiative(Frappaolo, 2000).

A knowledge audit is able to ‘describe whatknowledge an organization has, who has it andhow it flows (or doesn’t) through the enterprise.A knowledge audit can show what changes areneeded in organizational and personal behaviour,business processes and enabling technologies so

Knowledge and Process Management Volume 11 Number 1 pp 25–37 (2004)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/kpm.194

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

*Correspondence to: Lorraine Illingworth, Research Assistant,The Centre for Knowledge Management, Aberdeen BusinessSchool, The Robert Gordon University, Garthdee Road, AberdeenAB10 7QE. E-mail: [email protected]

knowledge can be applied to improve competitiveadvantage. A successful audit can identify intellec-tual assets of value to the company . . . but it also isvaluable in pointing out improvements to existingprocesses and identifying people who have beenacting as barriers to knowledge proliferation,whether inadvertently or on purpose’ (Stevens,2000). In effect then, the audit not only helps todetermine where knowledge exists within organi-sations, but may also be seen as a type of roadmapindicating the best route to take in terms of processimprovement. According to the Delphi Group ‘asuccessful knowledge audit accomplishes severalthings. It provides an overview of the strength andweaknesses of the organization; it offers a scientificanalysis of the organization’s potential for competi-tive advantage; and it uncovers the benchmarks ofsuccessful knowledge management within an orga-nization’ (The Delphi Group, 1999). Generally aknowledge audit will help to identify: the knowl-edge needs of the organisation; what knowledgeassets are available and where they are located; ifknowledge gaps or bottlenecks exist; and theknowledge flow within the organisation.

Whilst there seem to be several ways of con-ducting a knowledge audit (see Skyrme, 2002;Liebowitz, 2000; Liebowitz et al., 1999), in generalknowledge audits consist of: the identification ofknowledge needs through the use of question-naires, interviews and focus groups; the develop-ment of a knowledge inventory mainly focusingon the types of knowledge available; where thisknowledge is located; how it is maintained andstore, what it is used for and how relevant it is;analysis of knowledge flows in terms of people,processes and systems; and the creation of a knowl-edge map (National Electronic Library Health,2001).

As part of this process the knowledge map mayprovide organisations with a pictorial representa-tion of the previous steps. Vail (1999) definesknowledge mapping as ‘the process of associatingitems of information or knowledge (preferablyvisual) in such a way that the mapping itself createsadditional knowledge. . . . The mapping processoften creates intellectual capital value through thecreation of new knowledge from discovering pre-viously unknown relationships or gaps in expectedones’ (Vail, 1999).

It is therefore evident that a knowledge mapcannot be developed without some type of auditof existing knowledge. Many organisations how-ever, may be unaware that they require an auditat all. Wiig (1993) believes there are severalsigns that an organisation requires a knowledgeaudit:

� Information overload or lack of information.� No awareness of knowledge or information avail-

able in the organisation.� Knowledge duplication through different depart-

ments; reinventing the wheel.� Common use of out of date knowledge or with

no quality or value.� Not knowing where to find appropriate knowl-

edge or expertise.

Organisations that audit and map their knowledgeand as a consequence know what they know cangain many benefits (Hildebrand, 1995). Benefitsinclude: ‘identifying what knowledge is needed tosupport overall organisational goals and individualand team activities; it gives tangible evidence of theextent to which knowledge is being effectivelymanaged and indicates where improvements areneeded; provides an evidence-based account of theknowledge that exists in the organisation and howthat knowledge moves around in and is used bythe organisation; provides a map of what knowl-edge exists in the organisation and where it existsrevealing both gaps and duplication; reveals pock-ets of knowledge that are not currently being usedto good advantage and therefore offer untappedpotential; it provides a map of knowledge and com-munication flows and networks, revealing bothexamples of good practice and blockages and bar-riers to good practice; it provides an inventory ofknowledge assets allowing them to become morevisible and therefore more measurable and accoun-table and giving a clearer understanding of thecontribution of knowledge to organisational perfor-mance; and it provides vital information for thedevelopment of effective knowledge managementprogrammes and initiatives that are directly rele-vant to the organisation’s specific knowledge needsand current situation’ (National Electronic LibraryHealth, 2001).

In order to reap these benefits and provide value,companies will be expected to put in place strate-gies or recommendations based on the findingsof the knowledge audit and the knowledge map.These processes will help to provide insight intothe use and practice of knowledge within the orga-nisations. It will also allow evaluation of the knowl-edge activities and processes and identify potentialareas for improvement. Wexler (2001) suggests thateffective knowledge mapping can produce eco-nomic, structural, and organizational and knowl-edge returns for organisations (Wexler, 2001).

This paper aims to outline the knowledge auditand mapping processes carried out in a tax depart-ment within a large multinational oil company. Itdescribes the process stage by stage focusing on

RESEARCH ARTICLE Knowledge and Process Management

26 S. Burnett et al.

the methods used and the resulting outcomes.Although different organisations may hold differ-ent types of knowledge and carry out differenttypes of processes, it is hoped that this paper willessentially provide a basic outline that may be ofpotential benefit to other organisations.

BACKGROUND TO PROJECT

In late 2001 the tax department of a large oil com-pany (consisting of 20 employees) identified a needto improve working practices through more for-mally managing the tacit and explicit knowledgeheld by its employees. The department approachedthe Centre for Knowledge Management (CKM) toaid them in this process.

The tax department had two main business objec-tives: to provide a high quality cost-effective ser-vice to the company as a whole enabling it tominimise its long-term tax liability, and also to deli-ver the lowest achievable Effective Tax Rate (ETR).The tax department also played a critical value-added role in commercial decision-making by acti-vely seeking to achieve tax savings by influencingthe business to conduct its operations in a tax effi-cient way, optimising tax compliance activity andsuccessfully closing negotiations on difficult issueswhich arose from business operations. There was abelief that the intellectual capital of the departmentcould help to achieve tax savings and to enable thedepartment to fulfil its statutory fiscal obligations.

CKM proposed that the most beneficial way toimprove the management of knowledge withinthe department was to develop and implement aprocess of change that would in turn lead to theestablishment of a knowledge sharing culture with-in the department by implementing and/or improv-ing knowledge-based processes. In order to achievethese aims, it was proposed that, CKMwould act asa facilitator of these stages, and help the depart-ment to determine their own strategy. This wouldteach the department as a whole how they couldhelp to manage their own knowledge on theirown initiative.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The knowledge management audit and map wereintended to develop an understanding of howknowledge is currently utilised within the organi-sation, and to develop a pictorial representationof these knowledge-based processes (for example,the storage and transfer of knowledge) and objects(such as databases or people). The process also

sought to determine other key factors: a knowledgemanagement strategy for the department and thenecessary steps to be taken to achieve this strategy.

The main objectives were:

� To determine where knowledge exists within thetax department.

� To identify the type of knowledge forms whichexist within the tax department.

� To identify the preferred methods of knowledgetransfer within the tax department.

� To investigate how knowledge is then applied byemployees within the department.

� To measure the value of current individual andorganisational performance relating to the sixstep KM process.

� To establish a benchmark of best practice withinthe department.

� To develop a knowledge management strategyfor the department.

� To establish an implementation plan in order toachieve this strategy.

METHODOLOGY

In order to achieve these aims and objectives, aneight-phase approach was adopted to assist the de-partment to achieve its objectives:

Preliminary Phase. Setting the Scene

Phase 1. Learning DayPhase 2. Measurement CriteriaPhase 3. Audit InterviewsPhase 4. Development of

Knowledge MapPhase 5. Feedback EventPhase 6. Implementation Plan

DevelopmentPhase 7. Implementation

Preliminary phase. Setting the scene

From some preliminary meetings with the taxdepartment’s senior management a better under-standing of the current situation was developed.As in many other large organisations, knowledgeand knowledge management were concepts thatwere being raised at a strategic level by senior man-agers. However, the department had been exposedto the concept of knowledge management througha variety of knowledge management initiatives thathad been implemented at the operational level. Thedepartment had conducted work in a related areaover the previous years running a number of work-shops on topic such as document management and

Knowledge and Process Management RESEARCH ARTICLE

Knowledge Auditing and Mapping 27

knowledge management, but had yet to turn theirawareness of those topics into working practice.

With this in mind, the knowledge audit and mapprocess was based around a theoretical and genericmodel of knowledge processes developed by CKMfor application within research, consultancy andteaching environments. Knowledge managementcan be seen as ‘the systematic, explicit, and deliber-ate building, renewal, and application of knowl-edge to maximize an enterprise’s knowledge-related effectiveness and returns from its knowl-edge assets’ (Wiig, 1997). Several authors have pro-posed models for knowledge management whichcollectively comprise of several different processes.A number of these models were researched suchas Wiig’s four stage model (Wiig, 1993) andO’Dell’s seven steps model (O’Dell, 1996) and keyelements were selected from these and added toCKM’s own ideas to develop a useful conceptualmodel. The model is based around 6 knowledgeprocesses as described below:

� Acquisition and Learning—learning, acquiringnew knowledge from people, books, websites etc.

� Storage and Maintenance—storing knowledgeto make it easily accessible to all who may re-quire it and ensuring that it is kept up-to-dateand relevant.

� Application and Exploitation—putting knowl-edge to use, deriving benefit from it in carryingout work.

� Dissemination and Transfer—proactively shar-ing knowledge with others (formally or infor-mally) on a one-to-one or a one-to-many basisverbally, in written form, electronically etc.

� Knowledge Creation—using knowledge to cre-ate value through new ways of doing things,new products or services.

� Performance Measurement—determining howwell the above activities are carried out andhow they impact on work focusing on measur-able benefits.

A comprehensive literature review of relevantmaterial was carried out initially in order to set thescene and develop an understanding of current bestpractice. Several meetings with the client werearranged to ascertain the needs of the departmentand gain an understanding of the department andits strategic objectives. Based on the KM processmodel identified above, a questionnaire was distri-buted to all 20 members of staff in the tax depart-ment from the clerical assistant through to themanager of the tax department. The purpose ofthis survey was to identify what knowledge-basedprocesses currently exist at both a personal and adepartmental level. Under each of the six activities

in the knowledge management process model emp-loyees were asked to express their opinion and des-cribe current processes and situations. They wereasked to describe the types of knowledge theyused on a day to day basis, the formats and sourcesused, how they carried out each process, the benefitsgained from carrying out these processes, the pro-blems associated with each process and suggestedimprovements, if any.

The results from this survey were revealing.Although individuals used different typesof knowledge from various sources dependingon their roles within the department, the resultssuggested there were no defined or standardisedprocedures relating to the above processes. Inaddition, there was also little or no induction pro-cess for new employees. As a result, people didnot know what they were expected to know, andalso did not know what they were looking for orwhere to look for it. The results also provided evi-dence to suggest that although there was no centralaccess point to knowledge and very little qualitycontrol, the department as a whole showed a will-ingness to share knowledge albeit only certaintypes of knowledge. Overall the results confirmedthat there was a need to establish some type of for-malised knowledge management approach toimprove processes.

Phase 1. The learning day

The learning day event was intended to be a one-day interactive event designed to allow the staffwithin the department to develop a common under-standing of knowledge management and its poten-tial benefits for individuals, the department, andthe organisation as a whole. As recommended bySpeel et al. (1999) the learning day itself was animportant part of the overall process as there waslittle knowledge of the practicalities of knowledgemanagement within the department. Therefore inorder to avoid people feeling excluded from theproject, the learning day was intended to empha-sise the importance of ownership of the project bythe employees. In addition the data collated andanalysed from the questionnaires in the prelimin-ary phase was fed back to the department.

The learning day event aimed to get staff to ‘buyin’ to the project, and to understand their own rolewithin it. It also helped individuals to develop anunderstanding of how the department aimed toapply knowledge management and to informfurther phases of the project. The event also pro-vided an opportunity for discussion and clarifica-tion of issues surrounding KM in general and theproject in particular.



The learning day had four main components:

� Setting the Scene—KM: Where are we now?� Examples and Best Practice.� Why me? Why us?� What have we learned?

Seen as the introductory session, ‘Setting the Scene’also provided an opportunity to disseminate thefindings of the questionnaire distributed duringthe preliminary phase of the project. While the sec-ond session provided an overview of best practicesin a variety of different organisations, the third andfourth sessions focused on the employees: their rolewithin the project, the potential benefits and theirattitudes towards the success of the event.

A short feedback questionnaire was issued dur-ing the Setting the Scene session to determinewhether the staff felt the objectives of the day hadbeen achieved (see Figure 1). Feedback from thesmall questionnaire indicated that although ap-proximately three-quarters of the staff membersoffered ‘buy in’ and understood the concept of KMand benefits on offer, only 61% understood theirrole within the project. This was certainly morepositive than expected, however it did indicatethat the roles of individuals within the departmentrelating to the project would have to be clarified.

Phase 2. Measurement criteria

Organisations are now introducing methods ofmeasuring knowledge processes or intangible assetsthat may not rely exclusively on financial mea-sures. Measuring the quality and effectiveness ofknowledge processes has been recognised as anadditional measure of the effectiveness of organisa-tions in addition to financial measures. Knowledgeoutputs are intangible and as such can be difficultto quantify. Perkmann therefore believes ‘quantita-tive measures can be actually very limited in ‘‘mea-suring’’ knowledge processes. For instance, usageis very easy to measure but there is no guarantee

that this will actually result in individual or busi-ness performance’ (Perkmann, 2002).

In this context, CKM aimed to measure eachindividual’s perceptions of the performance of theindividuals and the department in carrying outthe six knowledge activities or processes identifiedas the KM process model: Acquisition & Learning;Storage & Maintenance; Application and Exploita-tion; Dissemination & Transfer; Knowledge Crea-tion; and Performance Measurement. Measuring theknowledge processes in this context would help togain an understanding of how the individuals per-ceived their own performance in relation to the per-ceived performance of the department. It wouldalso help to establish a benchmark and allow bestpractices to emerge.

The main aim of this project was to introduceand implement a process of change that wouldhelp to establish a knowledge sharing culture with-in the department by implementing and/or im-proving knowledge-based processes. As there wasan implicit belief in CKM that the more embeddedthe working practice, the more valuable it may be tothe organisation as a whole, it was anticipated thatthis measurement criteria task would help to intro-duce behavioural change by ascertaining the cur-rent working practices within the department andsuggesting improvements to develop knowledge-based processes. In effect, it was anticipated thatthis performance measurement task would helpto change the behaviour of the individuals withinthe tax department allowing them to strive forbest practice in relation to how they perform eachknowledge-based process. It must therefore benoted that this stage focused on the performanceand not the content of processes.

Each member of staff within the tax departmentwas asked to complete a measurement criteria tablefor performance of both the individual and the de-partment relating to the six knowledge activities.These performances were determined by dissemi-nating questionnaires using closed questions to alltwenty employees within the tax department. State-ments relating to the six knowledge processes ofthe KM process model were given a numericalvalue on a scale from 1–6:

Score 1—This activity does not occurScore 2—This activity happens occasionallyScore 3—This activity is done on an ad hoc basisScore 4—This activity happens frequently even

when unsolicitedScore 5—This activity is carried out regularly as a

separate activityScore 6—This activity is embedded in working

practiceFigure 1 Results of learning day survey



These scores aimed to show working practice with-in the department in relation to the knowledge pro-cesses with the scores gradually increasing fromScore 1: this activity does not occur to Score 6:this activity is embedded in working practice indi-cating a gradual improvement to score 6 which isdeemed as best practice and the score to whichthe employees would be expected to aspire. It wasanticipated that this would help to identify whowas doing what in relation to knowledge-basedprocesses and as a result identify individuals whoneeded to improve the performance of their knowl-edge-based processes. While each member was ex-pected to eventually embed all processes inworking practice, the management did not envi-sage the improvement to be immediate. Therefore,a gradual improvement would be apparent whereeach member would gradually improve score byscore until he/she reached score 6 and embeddedthe processes in their working practice.

Once each individual had completed the mea-surement grid, the scores were then collated anda score was calculated for each activity per personin the department. Over half of all the scores receiv-ed were the same for both the individual and thedepartment i.e. individuals had placed their perfor-mance on the same level/score as the department.Only one respondent believed that the departmentperformed better than himself/herself for all sixknowledge processes with one other placing allhis/her individual scores at the same level as thedepartment. The remaining respondents producedindividual scores that were either lower, higher orthe same as their departmental scores. Performancemeasurement produced low scores with a totalaverage score of 2.6 for the individuals and 3.5for the department. Indeed in relation to the indivi-dual and departmental total average scores all butthe individual scores relating to dissemination andtransfer were slightly lower then the departmentalscores. This suggests that there was a perceptionamong the staff on average that the departmentseemed to perform knowledge based processesmore effectively than individuals did. These scoresalso seemed to indicate that the individuals’ per-ceptions of their own performance and that of thedepartment depended on the role or level of theemployees and length of service.

Once all scores were calculated these resultswere translated into radar diagrams (see Figure 2)giving the first pictorial representation of the cur-rent level of activity, both at individual and depart-mental level, in each of the six activities. Figure 2provides an example of the individual and depart-mental performance as perceived by a member ofstaff within this particular department. It shows,

for example, that while this individual believedthe department as a whole applied and exploitedknowledge regularly as a separate activity, thisstaff member felt that he/she carried out this acti-vity on an ad hoc basis. Indeed, this diagram indi-cates that the department produced higher scoresthan the individual for each of the six activities sug-gesting that the individual felt that he/she did notperform these activities as well as the departmentas a whole.

Such comparison of the individual’s perceptionof their own performance and that of their depart-ment consequently helped to identify the mainareas for improvement. The results of the perform-ance measurement criteria were then used in con-junction with the interview data from the nextphase to produce a current knowledge manage-ment situation for each individual in the taxdepartment.

Phase 3. Audit interviews

As we have noted above the knowledge audit is of-ten seen as an important part of introducing knowl-edge management into an organisation. It is vitalfor an organisation to have an understanding itspresent knowledge assets before it can begin todevelop an improvement process or a knowledgemanagement initiative (The Delphi Group, 1999).As a result, a key phase within this project was toconduct face-to-face, semi-structured interviewswith each of the twenty members of staff in thetax department to form the basis of the knowledgeaudit. These interviews were carried out to furtherincrease the focus and acquire more detailed infor-mation from each individual.

Semi-structured interviews were used in order tokeep to the basic structure of the six areas of theKM process model. However such interviewswould also allow for a degree of flexibility andgive individuals the opportunity to add anythingthey felt to be relevant. By this stage discussionshad taken place with representatives from the taxdepartment relating to the information gatheredso far from the performance measurement grid.As a consequence, it was agreed that the main

Figure 2 Example of a radar diagram



focus should be on two of the six areas of activitydetailed in the KM process model—Storage andMaintenance and Dissemination and Transfer—asthese appeared to be the areas of concern whichwere emerging from the measurement criteria stage.

The interviews aimed to elaborate on data acquir-ed from the initial knowledge management ques-tionnaire and the measurement criteria. Whilethese methodologies focused on the processes andhow they were performed, the interviews aimed toprovide an examination of content within theseprocesses. As the interviews were semi-structuredthey followed the outline below:

� Role within the department.� What types of knowledge are used, preferred

formats.� Where individuals get knowledge, whether these

sources are internal or external.� Who does the individual acquire knowledge from

and pass it on to, the knowledge which would belost if a team member left, specify team member.

� How is the knowledge used, how is knowledgetransferred, stored, acquired etc.

� When—how often do individuals share, store, useand acquire knowledge, when does this take place.

� Why do individuals share, store, use and acquireknowledge, how does this relate to the main areasof tax savings, tax returns and tax exposures.

� What types of barriers/problems exist.� Future Improvements—suggested improvements.

All 20 employees attended the individual inter-views which were taped with each individual’spermission so that they could be subsequently tran-scribed. In general individuals were very willing tocontribute during the interviews and a great deal ofvaluable information was gathered. The durationof the interviews varied from around 20 minutesto 1 hour 45 minutes reflecting the individual’srole(s) within the department and how they relatedto knowledge use.

The interview data seemed to reinforce theresults of the initial questionnaire conducted dur-ing the preliminary phase of the project and sug-gest that although there was a great deal of tacitand explicit knowledge available within the depart-ment, very few people knew where to find it. Asone respondent noted:

‘I don’t always know who to speak to or where togo for a specific piece of knowledge. So what thenhappens is that I talk to someone who then saysgo to talk to someone else then I go to somebodyelse who may or may not know. So I may have togo to five people before I get the right knowledgeor information’.

This observation was also reiterated by anotherrespondent:

‘most of the time . . . you are not really sure whatyou are looking for. You are wading through anenormous amount of things just trying to gatherlots of information/knowledge just to see if thatis really what you need’.

The above observations also reinforced previousfindings that suggested certain people were seenas main sources of knowledge. This suggestedthat there were at least three members of staffwho possessed the bulk of the knowledge withinthe tax department. In support of this observationa number of respondents noted:

‘there is too much knowledge in people’s headwithin the department’.

The interview data also confirmed findings fromthe questionnaire which seemed to suggest thateach individual within the department had his/her own way of carrying out each process and in-deed also indicated varying degrees of contentwithin these processes.

The analysis process brought together all theinformation gathered throughout the audit process:responses to the initial questionnaire; the perfor-mance measurement radar diagrams; and the inter-view transcriptions for each individual. For thepurposes of this project no real comparison be-tween individuals was required. However, whilefocusing on the responses of each individual, itwas evident that there was a degree of overlap par-ticularly with data from the initial questionnaireand the interviews. Similar questions were askedin both the initial questionnaire and the interviewand as such similar responses were therefore evi-dent in both methods for the majority of respon-dents. Although differences and anomalies didoccur in some of the data, most individuals pro-duced similar responses which helped to reinforcethe findings from the initial questionnaire. For ins-tance, when asked to indicate a specific memberof the team whose knowledge would be missed ifhe/she left suddenly, three employees were chosendepending on the section in which the respond-ents worked. Interestingly however, one individualmentioned by several respondents as being themain source of knowledge and someone theywent to acquire and share knowledge felt that his/her performance could improve and indeed scoredhis/her performance lower than the department’sperformance. With the exception of Applicationand Exploitation where he/she believed both indi-vidually and departmentally that this activity wasembedded in working practice, he/she perceived



his/her performance to be less embedded than thatof the department as a whole. While several mem-bers of the team felt he/she was the benchmark toaspire to, this individual felt that personallyimprovements were required to match the perfor-mance of the department.

Clearly the idea that perceptions relating to pro-cess performance and how well or badly thingswere done by individuals or the department diddiffer from individual to individual. Several factorsappeared to influence these perceptions and inclu-ded: the background of the individual and whetheror not he/she had worked in other organisationsor other departments of this particular company;his/her role within the department; as well asthe length of time he/she had spent in the taxdepartment.

While overlap was evident in general there wasan increase in focus from the questionnaires tothe interviews, drilling down to get a more detailedpicture which took the form of the current situationtable. There were two parts to the analysis: the firstgave a description of the current situation and thesecond put forward suggestions for improvements.The current situation and suggested improvements

were included under each of the six themes forevery member of staff. These suggestions werederived both from the information provided byindividuals and from CKM’s experience of KM inpractice in other organisations. Suggestions variedbut included:

� Document procedures and processes.� Standardise procedures and processes.� Make knowledge available from a centralised

point.� Capture precedent and lessons learned and store

in centralised database.

This analysis served to provide a personally tai-lored plan of how each individual’s knowledgemanagement activity might progress in the nextstage of the project and allow development of theknowledge maps.

Phase 4. Development of knowledge maps

Based on the information gathered from thestaff, this stage consisted in the development of aknowledge map for each member of staff (seeFigures 3a and 3b). Once the interview findings

Figure 3a Example 1 of a knowledge map



were collated and analysed the information alongwith the other findings was then translated into aknowledge map. The map is a pictorial representa-tion of the knowledge flows, bottlenecks andsources within the organisation (Grey, 1999).

Due to the detail of each map it was decided thatone map representing the knowledge of all indivi-duals within the department would not be appro-priate. The worry was that if the map was toocomplex the individual and the department as awhole would not gain any value. Once this decisionwas made and after several attempts a suitablemap template was produced which would formthe basis of each individual map. The current situa-tion was then represented pictorially in an indivi-dual knowledge map (see Figures 3a and 3b).

Although the development of the maps wastime consuming, from the analysis of all the infor-mation gathered it was possible to show by meansof the knowledge map where knowledge wasacquired, stored, applied and disseminated byeach individual. For instance, Example 1, Figure3 shows that this individual acquires corporationtax knowledge by reading tax cases, Inland Reven-ue Manuals and Bland as well as gaining knowl-edge by receiving e-mails from colleagues. The

individual then disseminates this knowledgeeither verbally or by e-mail to other colleaguesand the Inland Revenue. He/she then stores thisknowledge of corporation tax in hardcopy files,the H: and S: drives, a relevant database and inhis/her own head. Storage preference is indicatedfrom left to right, therefore this individual storesthe majority of knowledge in his/her head. Thismap also indicates the flow for both the knowl-edge of statues and petroleum revenue tax andas such provides a pictorial representation of thisindividual’s knowledge.

Example 2, Figure 3b also indicates that this indi-vidual acquires knowledge from a variety ofsources and then disseminates each type of knowl-edge to people who ask for knowledge and busi-ness clients. As with the previous example, thisindividual stores the majority of knowledge inhis/her own head. In comparing these two knowl-edge maps it is evident that each individual hasdifferent preferences to sharing and transferringknowledge. Indeed, all twenty maps indicatedthat in general each individual used different typesof knowledge, acquired knowledge from differentsources, shared knowledge with different peopleand stored the knowledge in different ways. These

Figure 3b Example 2 of knowledge map



maps also served to illustrate the flow of knowl-edge and highlight any bottlenecks that may behindering this, and identified consequent areas forimprovement.

Once all the maps were completed each indivi-dual within the department was provided with apersonal information pack. This included each indi-vidual’s interview transcript, his/her current situa-tion table, radar diagrams and their own uniqueknowledge map. This pack provided informationto allow individuals to assess their own currentsituation and address any improvements required,as well as provide preparation material for the pro-ject feedback event.

Phase 5. The feedback event

In order to introduce knowledge management suc-cessfully, Wiig suggests that an organisationshould ‘create an environment of trust, ethical beha-vior, mutual respect, support, and open communi-cation about individual employees’ functions, roles,and importance of contribution’ (Wiig, 1999). Assuch it was seen as important to keep staff awareof project progress and developments. As the pro-ject effectively aimed to potentially change thebehaviour of individuals, it was important to in-form them of all stages of the project. The feed-back event therefore aimed to mark the end of theknowledge audit and map stages of the projectand also inform the staff from the tax departmentof the project progress and to recap on the workconducted to date. The event consisted of threecomponents:

Part 1—Audit and Map ProcessPart 2—Audit and Map ConclusionsPart 3—Audit and Map Recommendations

The first section informed the staff of the audit pro-cess and provided them with the reasoning behindthe use of certain methodology. The audit processwas illustrated by a process map which explainedhow the different stages fitted together. In additiontwo volunteers from the audience were asked toprovide their feedback of the process and theopinion with regard to the effectiveness. Thisallowed for more honest feedback and also helpedto learn from mistakes and inform future knowl-edge audits.

The second section provided the department witha summary of the audit conclusions. During thissession each individual was also asked to providefeedback relating to the knowledge managementand the project in the form of a small questionnaire.This would allow comparison with the question-naire distributed during the learning day event(see Figure 4).

The results confirmed that over the last fourmonths the individuals’ understanding of the con-cept, the benefits and their role within the projecthad increased. Indeed 87% offered ‘buy in’ to theKnowledge Management project.

The third section addressed recommendedimprovements which staff would be expected toconsider. A number of themes and areas for im-provement had been identified through the feed-back sessions during the learning day eventand the survey carried out prior to the event.These theme were reinforced by the data collatedfrom the semi-structured interviews. Recurringissues included:

� Not knowing where to look for appropriateknowledge.

� Lack of documented and defined business proce-dures.

Figure 4 Results of surveys from the learning day and the feedback event



� Little or no knowledge quality control.� Constant change in tax legislation.� Inefficient filing system.

Improvements detailed in this session were devel-oped by management of the tax department basedon the recommendations made by CKM and con-sisted of:

� Improve access and availability of current knowl-edge (best practice and next practice).

� Establish a more systematic approach to learnnew knowledge.

� Design and establish ‘corporate memory’ to storeknowledge.

� Improve quality of knowledge.

This session also included group work in order toassist in the development of the implementationplan for the following year. With the suggestedimprovements in mind, the groups were asked toconsider what type of initiatives the plan shouldinclude, when these recommendations/initiativesshould be put in place, and who should be respon-sible for them. Suggestions included:

� Capture lessons learned in order to establish‘corporate memory’.

� Signposting to improve access and availability ofcurrent knowledge.

� Mentoring programmes to improve the acquisi-tion and learning of new knowledge.

It was felt that providing employees with an oppor-tunity to aid in the development of their KM strat-egy would help to encourage their involvementand motivation during the implementation stageof the project. The feedback was then collated andconsidered in relation to the development of theimplementation plan.

Feedback with regard to the success of the eventwas encouraging. Indeed the employees as a wholeseemed to appreciate their involvement in theimplementation plan group work, suggesting thatthe more involvement they had, the more inter-ested they were.

Phase 6. Implementation plan development

CKM acted as a facilitator at this stage, and helpedthe department to determine their own strategy.Throughout the project and in particular the feed-back event, suggestions and feedback from indivi-duals were noted. These ideas were then collatedand examined thoroughly and these became thestarting point in developing the implementationplan. These suggestions and ideas were prioritisedfrom ‘essential’, ‘beneficial’, ‘nice to have’ or ‘not

relevant’ under the following two categories: im-proving existing ways of working; and establishingnew ways of working. This in turn helped toproduce a KM activities framework which wasdeveloped collaboratively with staff within the de-partment which again utilised the six knowledgemanagement activities as a structure.

The approach detailed above help provide de-sirable outcomes for each activity, as well as pro-ject and behavioural expectations relating toindividuals and teams within the department. Italso aimed to create a set of normalised beha-viours relating to each knowledge process. Undereach process, expectations were provided toestablish desired improvements and implementa-tions. Such expectations included greater usemade of the organisation’s Intranet as a gatewayto relevant information, which would assist insharing new and existing knowledge, and thedevelopment of a ‘yellow pages’ service whichwould be made available via the organisation’sIntranet. An additional benefit of the activitiesframework was that it could also act as a monitor-ing tool which could be used within performanceappraisals.

Phase 7. Implementation

Various implementation activities, based on theimplementation plan and the improvementsdetailed during the Feedback Event, are currentlyunderway within the department. The plan con-sists of:

� The introduction of Yellow Pages, signpostingand a taxonomy to improve access and availabi-lity of current knowledge.

� Establishing induction training, exit interviewsand coaching/mentoring programs to improvethe acquisition and learning of new knowledge.

� The development of lessons learned, precedents,and procedures in order to establish ‘corporatememory’ to store knowledge.

� The introduction of mapping processes, sub-processes, tasks and activities as well as thedevelopment of a best practice system whichoutlines objectives, how it is done, evidence itworks and the benefits and risks to improvethe quality of the knowledge within the taxdepartment.

Having deliberately taken an educational perspec-tive on the project by educating employees regard-ing KM, CKM’s input to this stage of the project hasbeen minimal, although it continues to act in an ad-visory capacity. The employees within the depart-ment now have the necessary knowledge to



improve existing processes and establish new waysof doing things in order to gain savings and over-come existing problems.

DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTEREDDURING THE PROJECT

Despite a vast amount of theoretical material beingavailable on knowledge management, along with asurfeit of organisational case studies, there seemedto be a lack of literature in the practicalities of carry-ing out such projects. Mainly due to the lack of lite-rature to refer to during each stage of the project,difficulties generally arose in designing the toolsfor this project. In fact the main complexity relatedto the knowledge map stage. It was difficult tovisualise how the knowledge map should be pre-sented in pictorial form which would identifyflows, bottlenecks, resources available and as suchassist in identifying recommendations or strategies.It took several attempts to produce a knowledgemap template which the Centre and the manage-ment of the department were satisfied with andthat this would meet the aim of this stage and theproject as a whole. The lack of time available prohi-bited the development of a large, complex, depart-mental map and it is anticipated that in the futureboth individual and departmental maps will beproduced.

A further difficulty related to the different per-ceptions and attitudes of the employees withinthe department. The department consisted of seve-ral employees with different roles, backgroundsand at different stages of their careers. This meantthat each had a distinctly different perspective onwhat the department was doing well and/or badlyand what it needed to do in relation to knowledgemanagement. These factors therefore influencedtheir perceptions of the performance and contentof knowledge processes.

It was also evident through the use of differentmethodologies that some employees were not con-sistent in their responses. When comparisons weremade between the responses of the initial question-naire and the interviews, it was clear that a mino-rity of employees had either added or excludedanswers and this data did not correspond withthe findings of the initial questionnaire. For exam-ple, when asked to indicate the methods of acquir-ing knowledge several respondents gave slightlydifferent answers in the initial questionnaire tothe responses of the interviews. Although this wasnot a difficulty as such, it did increase the time allo-cated to analysing the data in order to produce theknowledge maps which resulted, where appropri-

ate, in all answers been included in the individualmaps. Whether these inconsistencies were due tothe lack of knowledge of the project in the begin-ning it is not clear, however it did affect the projectdeadlines.

In relation to the attitudes of the staff memberstowards the project some resistance was evidentduring the initial learning event. After the event,CKMwere aware that some members of the depart-ment had little experience of knowledge manage-ment or this type of project. Therefore CKM madea conscious effort to inform the department as wellas the senior management of each phase of theproject. It is clear from the comparisons betweenthe attitude surveys in both learning days thatthis approach had encouraged enthusiasm andunderstanding.

Although this project had a very positive andsuccessful conclusion a few difficulties and compli-cations were encountered during the project. Thatbeing said little effort was required to overcomethese difficulties in order to proceed to the nextphase of the project.

FINDINGS

It was apparent from initial reviews of existing lite-rature during the preliminary phase of the projectthat very little literature existed on actually carry-ing out a knowledge audit and map. As a result,CKM developed its own approach to be used inconjunction with the six processes in the KM pro-cess model. Although successful for this particularproject, this approach should not be perceived asthe ‘correct’ way to conduct an auditing and map-ping process, rather it is just one possible approachwhich may be adapted to suit the needs of otherdepartments and organisations. In all KM imple-mentation projects, the project and tools usedmust reflect the culture and operations of the orga-nisations within which it is applied.

This project has shown that those affected by theimplementations resulting from the knowledgeaudit and map must be kept well informed at alltimes, and involved closely within the project, inorder to establish a sense of ownership. By apply-ing an educational perspective, the employees wereable to develop a greater understanding of the con-cept of KM, as well as its potential benefits. How-ever, feedback suggested that this may have beentoo ‘academic’ an approach for some, and conse-quently is a consideration that needs to be handledwith some delicacy. A light-hearted approach tothe feedback event and to the process as a wholearguably proved to be more useful. This encourag-



ed contributions from individuals and helped toobtain ‘buy in’, by staff feeling they were not threa-tened by the process. More generally, it was alsoevident that a number of stages and tools assist inundertaking a successful knowledge audit andmap, and that the actual knowledge audit is onlyone part of a larger ongoing process. In effect, theknowledge audit is only the starting point for anyongoing KM-related activity within an organisation.

It is evident from the process that simple andstraightforward improvement solutions can beput in place in order to begin to establish a cultureof knowledge management at a departmental level.Lastly, it is important to note that any processundertaken (as well as any consequent solutionidentified) must take into consideration the uniquebehaviour of individuals, and aim to provide anatmosphere which empowers individuals ratherthan seeking to control their behaviour.

REFERENCES

Delong JB, Summers LH. 2001. The New Economy:Background, Questions, and Speculations. http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Econ_Articles/Summers_New_Economy_2001.html [17 October 2002].

The Delphi Group. 1999. Why do a knowledge audit?Knowledge Management, December 2000. http://www.destinationkm.com/print/default.asp?ArticleID¼ 633[14 April 2003].

Frappaolo C. 2000. What’s Your Knowledge IQ? Intelli-gent KM, October 2002. http://www.intelligentkm.com/feature/08/feat1.shtml?form_page¼ bi [27 January2003].

Grey D. 1999. Knowledge Mapping: A Practical Overview.http://www.smithweaversmith.com/knowledg2.htm[12 December 2002].

Hidlebrand C. 1995. Information Mapping: Guiding Prin-ciples. CIO, July 1995. http://www.cio.com/archive/070195_map_content.html [14 April 2003].

Liebowitz J. 2000. Building Organizational Intelligence: AKnowledge Management Primer. CRC Press: London.

Liebowitz J, Rubenstein-Montano B, McCaw D,Buchwalter J, Browning C. 1999. The KnowledgeAudit. http://userpages.umbc.edu/�buchwalt/papers/KMaudit.htm [19 November 2002].

McElroy M. 2001. Second generation knowledge manage-ment. http://www.macroinnovation.com/images/McElroy_On_2nd_GenKM.pdf [14 January 2003]

National Electronic Library Health. 2001. Conducting aknowledge audit. http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/knowledge_management/km2/audit_toolkit.asp [30 September2003].

O’Dell C. 1996. In Knowledge Management Handbook,Liebowitz J (ed.). CRC Press: London; 1999.

Perkmann M. 2002. Measuring knowledge value? Evalu-ating the impact of knowledge projects. http://www.ki-network.org/downloads/knowledge_value_b7.pdf [2 October 2003].

Skyrme D. 2002. Knowledge Audit. http://www.skyrme.com/services/kmaudit.htm [7 October 2003].

Skyrme D. 1998. Knowledge Management Solutions.http://www.skyrme.com/pubs/acm0398.doc [14 April2003].

Speel P, Shadbolt N, de Vries W, Hein van Dam P,O’Hara K. 1999. Knowledge Mapping for IndustrialPurposes. http://sern.ucalgary.ca/KSI/KAW/KAW99/papers/Speel1/ [11 April 2003].

Stevens L. 2000. Knowing what your company knows.Knowledge Management Magazine, 21 November 2000.http://www.destinationkm.com/articles/default.asp?ArticleID¼ 6138KeyWords¼ larryþþANDþstevens[10 December 2002].

Vail E. 1999. Mapping organizational knowledge. Knowl-edge Management Review, May/June 1999.

Wexler M. 2001. The who, what and why of knowledgemapping. Journal of Knowledge Management 5(3): 249–263.

Wiig KM. 1993. In Knowledge Management Handbook,Liebowitz J (ed.). CRC Press: London; 1999.

Wiig KM. 1997. Knowledge management: wheredid it come from and where will it go? Expert Systemswith Applications, Vol. 14, Fall 1997.

Wiig KM. 2000. In Liebowitz J, Rubenstein-MontanoB, McCaw D, Buchwalter J, Browning C. 1999. TheKnowledge Audit. http://userpages.umbc.edu/�buchwalt/papers/KMaudit.htm [19 November 2002].

Wiig KM. 1999. Knowledge management and enter-prise effectiveness. Intelligence in Industry, Issue 1,1999. http://www.unicom.co.uk/3in/issue1/2.asp[27 January 2003].



knowledge auditing and mapping: a pragmatic approach

Documents