Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
<<date>>
<<Company Name>>
APQC’s Levels of Knowledge Management Maturity™
Knowledge Management CapabilityAssessment Tool™ Benchmarking Report
September 2020
AnyOrg Incorporated
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Confidential
Sample Report
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Scope and Participant Demographics
Assessment Tool Results
Detailed Responses
About APQC
Instructions
For Additional Assistance
Thank you for participating in this valuable benchmarking research. For information
on benchmarking your organization's performance in other critical process groups
across your organization, visit http://www.apqc.org.
To move through this report, please click on the table of contents items above or
click on the tabs at the bottom of the page.
Please feel free to email us at [email protected] with any questions or concerns.
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Executive Summary
Best Practices, Business Drivers, and Gap AnalysisEffective Knowledge Management (KM) depends upon a coherent, integrated approach that includes strategy, cultural elements (people), knowledge flow processes, and supporting content and technology. Lacking capability in one or more of the areas not only results in a lower overall maturity in APQC’s Levels of Knowledge Management MaturityTM scale, wide differences in capability within the four (4) key areas may also result in a lower level of maturity than expected. That’s because of the leverage that each area provides to the organization’s KM capability. For example, increasing technology enablement capability may provide significant increases in access to expertise, resulting in increased knowledge flow; or similarly increasing process capability may provide ease of replication of best practices throughout the organization.
Driving the need for increased KM maturity often comes from a variety of reasons, but many times they include: loss of expert knowledge due to attrition, increased complexity of the organization’s business (both due to increased content as well as geography), innovation needs, and competitive pressures. The need for an organization to “know what it knows” has become an imperative and not simply a “nice to have” capability.
It is important to consider multiple categories of measures when evaluating your organization’s KM capability and maturity. For that reason, the APQC Knowledge Management Capability Assessment ToolTM is further broken down into twelve (12) discrete, actionable categories that provide an organization opportunities to both focus its KM efforts as well as to prioritize how those actions will increase overall KM capability effectively. The following chart highlights key performance indicators relating to KM capability in the 12 categories for your organization compared to all participants.
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Results Summary
Objectives Business Case Budget Resources GovernanceChange
ManagementCommunication
Knowledge Flow
Process
KM Tools &
ApproachesMeasurement
Content
Management
Information
Technology
Level 5 Innovate
Level 4 Optimize
Level 3 Standardize
Level 2 Develop
Level 1 Initiate
Knowledge
Management Maturity
This results summary provides a quick view of your maturity levels and progress toward higher levels for each of the assessment domains. It also overlays the results of all participants for comparison. If you have completed a previous
KM CAT submission, your previous results will be shown below the current results.
Current Results - August 2020
Your Organization All Participants
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Comparison
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
Stra
tegy
- O
bje
ctiv
es
Stra
tegy
- B
usi
nes
s C
ase
Stra
tegy
- B
ud
get
Peo
ple
- R
eso
urc
es
Peo
ple
- G
ove
rnan
ce a
nd
Lead
ers
hip
Peo
ple
- C
han
ge M
anag
emen
t
Peo
ple
- C
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Pro
cess
- K
no
wle
dge
Flo
wP
roce
ss
Pro
cess
- K
M A
pp
roac
hes
an
dTo
ols
Pro
cess
- M
eas
ure
men
t
Co
nte
nt
and
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy -
Co
nte
nt
Man
age
me
nt
Pro
cess
Co
nte
nt
and
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
no
logy
- In
form
atio
nTe
chn
olo
gy
KMCAT: At a Glance
Your Organization
All Participants
Special Note: Any charts below lacking a bar or value for "Your Site" indicates inadequate data was provided to calculate, report, or chart this metric for your organization. To update your data submission, please contact APQC.
0 0 0 00 0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
Stra
tegy
- O
bje
ctiv
es
Stra
tegy
- B
usi
nes
sC
ase
Stra
tegy
- B
ud
get
Stra
tegy
- O
vera
ll
Strategy
Your Organization
All Participants
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
Peo
ple
- R
eso
urc
es
Peo
ple
- G
ove
rnan
ce a
nd
Lead
ers
hip
Peo
ple
- C
han
ge M
anag
emen
t
Peo
ple
- C
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Peo
ple
- O
vera
ll
People
Your Organization
All Participants
0 0 0 00 0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
Pro
cess
- K
no
wle
dge
Flo
wP
roce
ss
Pro
cess
- K
M A
pp
roac
he
s an
dTo
ols
Pro
cess
- M
easu
rem
ent
Pro
cess
- O
vera
ll
Process
Your Organization
All Participants
0 0 00 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
Co
nte
nt
and
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy -
Co
nte
nt
Man
agem
ent
Pro
cess
Co
nte
nt
and
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
no
logy
- In
form
atio
nTe
chn
olo
gy
Co
nte
nt
and
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
no
logy
- O
vera
ll
Content and Information Technology
Your Organization
All Participants
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00
1
2
3
4
5
Stra
tegy
- O
bje
ctiv
es
Stra
tegy
- B
usi
nes
s C
ase
Stra
tegy
- B
ud
get
Peo
ple
- R
eso
urc
es
Peo
ple
- G
ove
rnan
ce a
nd
Lead
ersh
ip
Peo
ple
- C
han
ge M
anag
eme
nt
Peo
ple
- C
om
mu
nic
atio
n
Pro
cess
- K
no
wle
dge
Flo
wP
roce
ss
Pro
cess
- K
M A
pp
roac
hes
and
Too
ls
Pro
cess
- M
easu
rem
ent
Co
nte
nt
and
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
no
logy
- C
on
ten
tM
anag
em
ent
Pro
cess
Co
nte
nt
and
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy -
Info
rmat
ion
Tech
nolo
gy
KMCAT: At a Glance (Peer Groups)
Your Organization
Top Performer - AllParticipants
Top Performers -Industry
Top Performers -Region
Top Performers -Revenue
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 5 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Survey Scope and Participant Demographics
Process Classification Framework
The following processes and activities are included in the scope of this survey.
PCF ID
Hierarchy
ID
11073 13.5
11095 13.5.1
11100 13.5.1.1
11101 13.5.1.2
11102 13.5.1.3
11103 13.5.1.4
11104 13.5.1.5
11105 13.5.1.6
11106 13.5.1.7
11107 13.5.1.8
11108 13.5.1.9
11109 13.5.1.10
11096 13.5.2
11110 13.5.2.1
11111 13.5.2.2
11112 13.5.2.3
11113 13.5.2.4
11114 13.5.2.5
11115 13.5.2.6
Enhance/Modify existing KM approaches
Develop new KM approaches
Implement new KM approaches
Develop change management approaches
Develop strategic measures and indicators
Assess KM capabilities
Assess maturity of existing KM initiatives
Evaluate existing KM approaches
Identify gaps and needs
Develop training and communication plans
The foundation of the APQC's Open Standards Benchmarking research is the Process Classification Framework, or PCF (www.apqc.org/pcf). APQC
and its members developed the PCF, which is updated by a global advisory council of industry leaders. As a common language, the PCF allows
organizations to see and discuss their activities from an industry-neutral viewpoint. Regardless of size, industry or geography, organizations can
use the PCF to benchmark and improve processes.
The PCF organizes operating and management processes into 13 enterprise-level categories, including process groups and more than 1,500
processes and associated activities. Organizations can then talk specifically about the exact same activity and know what is included in that
activity. This benchmarking report focuses on PCF processes 13.5.1: Develop KM strategy and 13.5.2 Assess KM capabilities.
Name
Develop and manage enterprise-wide knowledge management (KM) capability
Develop KM strategy
Develop governance model
Establish central KM core group
Define roles and accountability of core group versus operating units
Develop funding models
Identify links to key initiatives
Develop core KM methodologies
Assess IT needs and engage IT function
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 6 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Survey Scope and Participant Demographics
Participant Demographics as of January 2020
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 7 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Survey Scope and Participant Demographics
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 8 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Assessment Questions Your Answers All Particants
Has a business need for KM been identified?
No 0%
Identified 12%
Identified and documented X 58%
Identified, documented, and communicated across stakeholders 30%
Have employees communicated an interest in managing knowledge in the organization?
No 2%
Ad hoc 28%
Groups of employees and management have explored how to apply KM to their units 32%
Discussions are occuring among key stakeholders X 38%
Is valuable domain knowledge identified and documented?
No 17%
Ad hoc, in discussions and/or meetings 19%
Within teams or departments 28%
Within one or more specific functions or business units X 27%
Formally, performed on a regular basis 9%
Are KM approaches tested to ensure they enable knowledge flow?
No 22%
Ad hoc 25%
Frequently 22%
Consistently X 19%
Consistently using a standard approach 12%
Is value creation recognized as a major objective of KM?
No 12%
Potential sponsors and early adopters X 38%
By specific functions or business units 28%
Consistently across the organization 22%
Are core knowledge assets identified, captured and standardized for reuse?
No 15%
Locally, within teams or departments 31%
Within one or more specific disciplines or business units X 24%
Standard process used consistently across the organization 19%
Standard process used consistently with measureable outcomes 11%
Is valuable discipline or business unit knowledge reused?
No 26%
Locally, within teams or departments X
Within one or more specific disciplines or business units
Routinely done across the organization
Are the KM strategy and road map documented?
No 23%
Defined with limited documentation X 20%
Completely documented 31%
Completely documented & approved by KM executive sponsor 26%
Are the KM vision and mission aligned to creation of business value?
No 16%
KM vision and mission exist but not aligned 26%
Implicitly aligned X 34%
Explicitly aligned to business value 24%
Are knowledge assets leveraged for competitive advantage?
No 26%
Ad hoc X 36%
Consistently 18%
Consistently with a replicable approach 13%
Consistently with a replicable approach and measurable impact 7%
ObjectivesLevel 1
Level 2
1
2
1
2
3
Level 3
Level 4
1
2
3
4
1
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 9 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
Is the KM infrastructure (i.e., people, process, and technology) responsive to increased
demand and evolving business needs?
No 17%
Ad hoc 28%
Around major change events or significant changes to strategy X 29%
On a defined schedule 16%
On a defined schedule and around major change events or significant changes to strategy 10%
Are KM competencies (skills and expertise of KM practitioners) enhanced to meet increased
demand and evolving business needs?
No 12%
Reactively in response to business needs X 49%
Proactively and aligned to KM strategic plans 24%
Proactively, aligned to KM strategic plans and performance expectations 15%
Is KM aligned with the enterprise business framework (e.g., vision, mission, and strategies)?
No X 41%
Implicitly aligned 31%
Explicitly aligned 19%
Explicitly aligned with measurable outcomes 7%
Is KM aligned with enterprise innovation efforts?
No 22%
Implicitly aligned X 42%
Explicitly aligned to organization's innovation initiatives 27%
Explicitly aligned and helps identify and select enterprise innovation efforts 9%
Is KM integrated with an enterprise excellence framework (i.e., quality, continuous
improvement programs)?
No X 31%
Ad hoc 24%
Work collaboratively with other groups 21%
Standard approach 13%
Standard integrated approach across the improvement lifecycle 11%
This view will be provided for all 12 assessment domains in the full report.
1
2
Level 5
2
3
4
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 10 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
About APQC
Most recently, APQC introduced Open Standards Benchmarking, which seeks to standardize the processes and measures that global organizations
use to benchmark and improve performance. With over 5,000 participants from around the world representing a variety of industries, APQC's Open
Standards Benchmarking has become the world's premier database for benchmarks and best practices. A sample list of Open Standards
Benchmarking participants can be found online at http://www.apqc.org/participants.
Today, APQC works with organizations across all industries to find practical, cost-effective solutions to drive quality and process improvement.
More information about APQC and its best practices and benchmarking products and services can be found online at www.apqc.org.
In 1992, the evolution of best practices and benchmarking as tools for breakthrough improvement led APQC to form the International
Benchmarking Clearinghouse, a comprehensive service designed to promote, facilitate, and improve the process of learning from best practices. As
an innovative thought leader, APQC, its members, and partners helped launch knowledge management (KM) as a key business practice in 1995.
Founded in 1977, APQC is a member-based nonprofit serving approximately 500 organizations worldwide in all industries. An internationally
recognized resource for process and performance improvement, APQC helps organizations adapt to rapidly changing environments, build new and
better ways to work, and succeed in a competitive marketplace. APQC focuses on benchmarking and metrics, best practices, knowledge
management, performance improvement, and professional development.
APQC claims a distinguished list of achievements including organizing the first White House Conference on Productivity, spearheading the creation
and design of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1987, and jointly administering the award for its first three years.
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 11 of 12 Confidential
Sample Report
About APQC
How to Use the Open Standards Benchmarking Report
To help your organization gain the greatest value from its custom Open Standards Benchmarking report, APQC has outlined some simple and
effective ways to leverage the findings.
Reviewing Your Open Standards Benchmarking Report
When you receive your benchmarking report, set aside a block of time to read through it in its entirety. Note any questions you would like to pose
to the APQC research team for clarification or additional information. You can contact the Open Standards Benchmarking help desk by phone at 800-
776-9676 or +1-713-681-4020 and by e-mail at [email protected].
Stakeholder Review Session
Conducting a review session with key stakeholders is an excellent way to develop and gain support for improvement initiatives. Some of the most
common ways that organizations leverage Open Standards Benchmarking reports in their stakeholder review sessions are:
• to set goals as part of the annual budgeting and planning process;
• to identify and prioritize improvement projects;
• to compare performance and business practices across multiple internal units;
• to learn about and adapt best practices from top performers;
• to incorporate metrics into businesses cases to support restructuring, merger, or outsourcing evaluations;
• to provide performance data for common frameworks or methodologies such as Six Sigma; and
• to establish a baseline prior to a technology implementation.
Here’s how three past participants leveraged the information in their reports:
• A building products manufacturer held a two-day event with leaders from various functional areas to discuss the data. The company coupled the
Open Standards Benchmarking report with customer feedback to plan improvements. Over the course of two days, the company spent 20 hours
reviewing findings and developing a list of 20 improvement projects.
• International Truck & Engine used several reports to facilitate its annual planning process. A team reviewed the data, flagged improvement areas,
and set goals for the next year. The organization identified between five and 10 action items for each Open Standards Benchmarking report it
completed.
• Working with a consulting firm, Thomas Steel Strip used the Open Standards Benchmarking report as a foundation for its process improvement
plan. The team created a matrix of its key measures, customized some calculations, and conducted work sessions to identify improvements. As a
result of the follow-on activities, the supply chain area reduced finished goods inventory by almost 50 percent and increased inventory turns,
allowing for lower inventory levels and faster delivery.
Here’s what participants had to say about their Open Standards Benchmarking reports:
• “I reviewed six or seven key points [from the report] internally with a group. The company comparisons were very relevant. We identified about
25 percent of the [company comparison] information for further internal discussion.”
• “We’ve added the findings to our benchmarking measurement program that we use for program review, course correction, and feedback
throughout the organization.”
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 12 of 12 Confidential
