14
Strictly Private & Confidential Draft – for discussion purposes on Draft – for discussion purpos Strictly Private & Confidential Knowledge Management Comparative Analysis: UN Agencies in Vietnam 23rd January 2003

Strictly Private & Confidential Draft – for discussion purposes only Strictly Private & Confidential Knowledge Management Comparative Analysis: UN Agencies

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Strictly Private & Confidential

Draft – for discussion purposes only Draft – for discussion purposes only

Strictly Private & Confidential

Knowledge Management Comparative Analysis: UN Agencies in Vietnam

23rd January 2003

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

2

Comparative Agency Analysis – Introduction & Considerations for Interpretation

• This document provides a baseline and comparison of current Knowledge Management activities across the 10 UN agencies operating in Vietnam (Note: sufficient information was not gathered from UNIDO and UNHCR for these agencies to be included in the comparative analysis)

• The analysis is based on the information that we were able to gather in the course of the 8 week project and should be regarded as an constructive tool, drawing attention to the need for focussed efforts on KM. The document highlights the strengths to build on, as well as identifying gaps and weaknesses which require improvement.

• Analysis of the current level of Knowledge Management has been done at an individual agency level- The analysis compares agency against agency, rather than agency versus global best practice- It summarises the level of development in each of the key KM ‘building blocks’- It uses data taken from: in depth agency interviews, agency focus groups, KM survey

• Where possible a standard method of analysis has been used in order to compare agencies with one another. However the quantity and quality of available information varied across agencies resulting in some value-judgements being made in the analysis process

• In particular, the quantity information available from FAO, UNODC and WHO made it necessary to make more value-judgements

• Detailed research results from the in-depth agency interviews, agency focus groups and KM survey can be found in the appendix of the main strategy document

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

3

Website

Agency dictats

Email

LAN

Intranet

IT support

Infrastructure

Proportion who feel that there is currently enough sharing between agencies

Proportion who would value centralised access to sharing

Clarity of understanding of agencies working on similar issues

Proportion in agency with a learning plan

Proportion who believe incentives are important for knowledge sharing

Most important incentives

Culture

‘Average’ level of sharing of identified documents in the survey

Extent of current sharing between agencies: project documents, statistics, contact information

Proportion who believe that they have access to sufficient knowledge in order to maximise their current performance

Most searched for types of information

Content

Extent of use (“frequent” or “sometimes”) of existing KM resources in the UN: UN website, UN library, other agency websites

Observations on preferred methods of sharing

Extent of use (“frequent” or “sometimes”) of existing KM resources: UN website, intranet, physical filing, electronic filing

Observations on preferred methods of sharing

Tools

Frequency of sharing programme information

Clarity of process on where to find project documents, use of: UN website, UN library, agency websites, VDIC

Frequency of contact with other agencies

Clarity of process for submitting knowledge

Clarity of process for project documents, statistics and contact infromation

Existence of dedicated KM resources

Process

BETWEEN AGENCIESWITHIN AGENCYBuilding Block

Website

Agency dictats

Email

LAN

Intranet

IT support

Infrastructure

Proportion who feel that there is currently enough sharing between agencies

Proportion who would value centralised access to sharing

Clarity of understanding of agencies working on similar issues

Proportion in agency with a learning plan

Proportion who believe incentives are important for knowledge sharing

Most important incentives

Culture

‘Average’ level of sharing of identified documents in the survey

Extent of current sharing between agencies: project documents, statistics, contact information

Proportion who believe that they have access to sufficient knowledge in order to maximise their current performance

Most searched for types of information

Content

Extent of use (“frequent” or “sometimes”) of existing KM resources in the UN: UN website, UN library, other agency websites

Observations on preferred methods of sharing

Extent of use (“frequent” or “sometimes”) of existing KM resources: UN website, intranet, physical filing, electronic filing

Observations on preferred methods of sharing

Tools

Frequency of sharing programme information

Clarity of process on where to find project documents, use of: UN website, UN library, agency websites, VDIC

Frequency of contact with other agencies

Clarity of process for submitting knowledge

Clarity of process for project documents, statistics and contact infromation

Existence of dedicated KM resources

Process

BETWEEN AGENCIESWITHIN AGENCYBuilding Block

Agency name Agency Size: xx Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: xx

Summary details about Knowledge Management in this agency

Summary details about Knowledge Management in this agency

Summary details about Knowledge Management in this agency

Developed Developing

Source: Information based on in-depth interviews, focus groups, survey results

DevelopingDeveloping

DevelopedDeveloped

DevelopingDeveloping

DevelopedDeveloped

Not very developedNot very

developedNot very

developedNot very

developed

UndevelopedUndeveloped UndevelopedUndeveloped

Very developed Undeveloped

Comparative Agency Analysis – Methodology

3. Analysis by building block:

• Process• Tools • Content• Culture• Infrastructure

6. Overall rating for the level of development

in each building block

2. “Headline” findings for each agency, sourced from:

• In-depth agency interviews

• Agency focus groups• KM survey

5. Details of key findings relating to each building block

1. High level information relating to each agency

4. Information sources used

7. Rating scale

The diagram below outlines the process used in conducting the comparative analysis between UN agencies.

Note: As far as possible fact based information (from the survey results) was used to make comparisons, however in a number of instances the availability of additional information influenced the rating given. Furthermore, the breadth and quality of information available was not consistent across all agencies inevitably resulting in some value-judgements being made in the analysis process. Insufficient information was obtained from UNIDO and UNHCR so these agencies have not formed part of the comparative analysis

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

4

Comparative Agency Analysis – Summary

Agency KM within agency

KM between agencies

UNDP/UNV

UNICEF

UNESCO

UNAIDS

WHO

UNFPA

ILO

UNODC

FAO

UNHCR

UNIDO

Summary of agency comparative analysis Diagram to illustrate the level of knowledge sharing within and between UN agencies in Vietnam

The comparative analysis reveals that there is considerable disparity in the evolution of the knowledge management frameworks in place in each agency. Agencies are far better at sharing within their agency than they are at sharing with other agencies, but still have considerable progress to make before knowledge management is at a level which maximises the performance of the country team.

DevelopingNot very developed

Undeveloped Very developedDeveloped

Developed

Not very developed

Developing

Very developed

FAO

UNODC

ILO

UNFPAWHO

UNAIDS

UNESCO

UNDP

UNICEF

Sharing between UN agencies

Sh

arin

g w

ith

in U

N a

gen

cies

TARGET

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

5

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Process for submitting most types of knowledge is perceived to be fairly clear – average of 62% feel this is the case Clarity of process for submitting information to be shared varies, 67% believe there is a clear process for submitting project documents, 47% think it is clear for statistics and 67% for contact information Confusion over who is responsible for KM – 43% don’t know that there is a dedicated resource

Project info is not regularly shared – 80% share rarely or never 67% of staff surveyed rarely or never have contact with other agencies No clear source of information e.g. when looking for project documents: 58% go to the UN website, 17% to the UN library, 25% agency websites, 8% to VDIC For sharing project documents, reliant on ad hoc emails (92%) and inter-agency meetings (69%), little word of mouth sharing

Tools A high proportion of the agency use the 5 main sources available There is strong use of the agency intranet for information, the website is used less (83% use the intranet, 54% use the website) The physical & e-filing systems are also used ‘frequently or sometimes’ – by 73% and 93% of respondents respectively VietInfo has been developed and rolled out to the agency Currently Improving LAN knowledge structure and will apply to intranet

Most people do not use the tools available to them for sharing between agencies – e.g. users using the following tools sometimes or frequently: 13% UN Vietnam website, 14% UN library, 20% other agency websites On average 81% of respondents rely on email to communicate most types of information to other agencies VietInfo handed over to GSO and planned roll-out to other agencies

Content 60% think that current access to sufficient knowledge is “just right” in order to maximise their current performance Project documents, strategy documents and agency publications are currently the most searched for items

60% believe that most key information suggested in the survey is shared with other agencies (although 80% say they rarely/never share project documents with other agencies) 38% think that project documents are shared with other agencies, 62% believe that statistics are shared, 46% for contact information

Culture There is a strong learning culture – 93% have an individual learning plan Incentives are important for KM – 73% agree/strongly agree. Peer recognition, career recognition and publishing are important UNICEF has a number of initiatives in place to address KM UNICEF has a dedicated information taskforce looking at KM

Over 2/3s feel that not enough sharing between agencies occurs Everyone surveyed would value having central access to skills and resources from other agencies 67% believe that they have a clear understanding of which agencies work with similar issues to UNICEF

Infrastructure LAN designed with good structure and dedicated information drive HQ managed web and intranet Dedicated and knowledgeable local IT support

Agency uses Lotus Notes for intranet and email Very strong agency dictats for all IT developments Currently working on centralising intranet info on new templates

Comparative Agency Analysis – UNICEF

UNICEF Agency Size: 80 Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: Lotus Notes

One of the most developed, committed and innovative of the agencies, in the process of implementing Head Office global standards and structures There is a developed sharing culture within the agency and potential exists for greater sharing between agencies, but there is a failure to take on

responsibility for implementing this at an individual level Strong dictats for knowledge tools at head office level may present technical difficulties in sharing at a country team level

Developed

Developed

Not very developed

Developing

Developed Developing

Source: 2 in-depth interviews (Chief of Planning and IT Officer), 1 dedicated Focus Group (6 attendees), 16 survey responses

Developing

Developing

Developed

Developed

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

6

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Process for submitting knowledge is perceived to be fairly clear – average of 66% feel this is the case 75% believe there is a clear process for submitting project documents, 45% for statistics and 75% for contact information Fragmented (not dedicated) KM resources assist in the process

No frequent sharing of project documents with other agencies – 76% of respondents rarely or never share No clear source of information e.g. when looking for project documents: 10% go to the UN website, 30% to the UN library, 35% agency websites, 30% to VDIC Most information sharing is done through working groups - 76%

Tools HQ Intranet is used sometimes or frequently by 77% of respondents, website is less well-used with 53% using sometimes or frequently Physical filing system is used frequently/sometimes by 72% Although electronic filing system is used by 43% agency, it is reported to have a considerable capacity constraint

UN website and agency websites are regarded as the main tools for sharing (used by 30% and 50% of respondents frequently or sometimes). The UN library is only ever used rarely None of the centrally available tools are used regularly: on average 82% rarely or never use them It is considered most important that tools are reliable and have accurate and up-to-date information

Content 95% think that current access to sufficient knowledge is “just right” in order to maximise their current performance The information which is most commonly required relates to project documents, project contact info and agency publications It is not clear where to go to find most types of information, although people rely mainly on electronic and physical filing

A very high proportion believe that most key information suggested in the survey is shared with other agencies (73%), although this is contradicted by the data that 76% rarely share 53% think that project documents are shared with other agencies, 71% believe that statistics are shared, 94% think that contact information is shared

Culture There is not a strong formal learning culture – only 40% have an individual learning plan Majority (73%) feel that incentives are important for KM, currently peer recognition and publishing of work are most important Deterred from using KM if it is out-of-date or not relevant

Vast majority feel that enough KM already exists between agencies – only 14% think that there is hardly any or not enough 85% surveyed would value having central access to skills and resources from other agencies 67% believe that they have a clear understanding of which agencies work with similar issues their own

Infrastructure Limited LAN capacity (centralised e-filing does not exist due to limited capacity and dominance of hard-copy documents) Head Office Intranet is well used Website is not well used No dedicated IT support

Representation on UNCT website is a single page description In process of trying to get permission for local website to be set-up In process of reorganising and electronically cataloguing library Many documents are available in hard copy only which makes sharing difficult

Comparative Agency Analysis – ILO

ILO Agency Size: 26 Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: GroupWise

ILO is a new agency in Vietnam, so has not yet had the time or resources to construct a sophisticated KM system (LAN recently installed, no dedicated IT support etc), however this could work in its favour as it is in a position to implement ‘best practice’

Physical filing system is the main method for storing documentation and a LAN has only recently been introduced Majority feel they have a clear understanding of other agencies’ work and share with others, but do not take individual responsibility for doing so

Not very developed

Not very developed

Not very developedNot very developed

Source: 1 in-depth interviews(Librarian), 1 joint Focus Group (2 attendees), 21 survey responses

Developing

Not very developed

Developed

Developing

Developing

Not very developed

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

7

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Overall it is felt that there is a clear process for submitting information. 74% of survey respondents there is a clear process 82% believe there is a clear process for submitting project documents, 55% for statistics and 55% for contact information Dedicated KM resources, with senior management recognition

Reasonable frequency of sharing project docs with other agencies, only 21% rarely or never share Clearer source of information e.g. when looking for project documents: 54% go to the UN website, 23% to the UN library, 23% agency websites, 8% to VDIC Reasonable level of contact with other agencies, only 21% rarely or never contact others

Tools Strong use of currently available resources: 87% use UNDP website frequently or sometimes. 94% use the intranet and 87% use electronic filing, not as strong reliance on physical filing – 66% There is a well-developed and well used local intranet Value personal interaction e.g. working lunches

UN website is regarded as the main tool for sharing – 73% use frequently or sometimes. 64% use the UN library and only 34% use the agency websites frequently or sometimes Email and telephone are the main methods of information sharing (87% and 80% respectively)

Content 40% think that current access to sufficient knowledge is “just right” in order to maximise their current performance The most searched for content using the available tools are statistics, strategy documents, agency publications Users are not clear on what source to go to for different documents and types of information, with the exception of calendar information

58% of respondents think that they currently share the information types suggested in the survey with other agencies 38% think that project documents are shared with other agencies, 77% believe that statistics are shared, 38% for contact information

Culture There is an individual learning programme, of which 100% of respondents are involved 93% of respondents think that incentives are important in encouraging knowledge sharing Peer and career recognition exist as motivators

There is demand for more knowledge sharing with other agencies. 60% think that ‘hardly any’ or ‘not enough’ sharing takes place 71% think they have a clear understanding of agencies working on similar issues Everyone surveyed would value having central access to skills and resources from other agencies

Infrastructure LAN with reasonable capacity and structure Dedicated and well-maintained local website Dedicated local and well-maintained intranet, limited search functionality Dedicated local IT support (contractors & full-time)

No strong dictats from HQ about content for local website and intranet Working on upgrading capacity and speed of connections Concerns expressed about outsourcing content management Have recently been digitizing library content

Comparative Agency Analysis – UNDP

UNDP/UNV Agency Size: 67 Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: MS Outlook

Developed

Developing

Strong KM within agency: developed tools, processes, infrastructure and culture for sharing information Strong use of Local Agency Intranet for knowledge sharing within the agency UNDP appear to provide a reasonable amount of information to other agencies (relative to the CT as a whole), however there is demand for more

information from other UN agencies and NGOs to be supplied to UNDP

Developed

Developing

Developing

DevelopingDeveloped

Source: 4 in-depth interviews(Head of Programme and Knowledge Management, Learning Manager, Web Manager, UNV Programme Officer), 1 dedicated Focus Group (4 attendees), 16 survey responses

Developed

Not very developed

Developed

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

8

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Not felt that clearly defined processes exist for sharing, average of 47% say there is a clear process 45% believe there is a clear process for submitting project documents, 27% for statistics and 55% for contact information Fragmented (not dedicated) KM resources assist in the process

Project info is fairly regularly shared – only 34% share rarely/never 50% of staff surveyed rarely or never have contact with other agencies Clearer than some agencies on source of information e.g. when looking for project documents: 25% go to the UN website, 8% to the UN library, 42% agency websites, 0% to VDIC

Tools Available resources are used on a fairly frequent basis- 63% use the 5 main resources frequently or sometimes The intranet is the least likely place people will look when searching for specific information – 67% use UNDP website frequently or sometimes. 58% use the intranet and 67% use physical filing, strong reliance on electronic filing – 92%

UN website and agency websites are regarded as the main tools for sharing – 58% use these frequently or sometimes. Only 8% use the UN library frequently or sometimes Agency makes extensive use of email, inter-agency meetings and word-of-mouth to communicate with other agencies Word-of-mouth is a more important method than meetings

Content The agency is divided on their opinion as to whether there is easy access to sufficient information – 50% not enough, 50% just right There is no clear source of information for different types of content and a number of sources may be used

44% of respondents think that they currently share the information types suggested in the survey with other agencies 25% think that project documents are shared with other agencies, 25% believe that statistics are shared, 58% for contact information

Culture Not as clear a commitment to learning as in other agencies – only 45% have an individual learning programme Incentives for sharing are important (75% feel this to be the case): peer and career recognition and publishing of work

Everyone would value having access to materials skills and resources produced by other agencies Feel very strongly that there is not enough information sharing between agencies – 82% say that there is too little Not everyone has a clear understanding of which agencies are involved in similar work to them, only 64% feel they do

Infrastructure Agency intranet exists, but only two members of staff have access due to configuration problems. HQ-related information, not very relevant to field staff LAN has been in place for 1 month, no structure in place yet, previously used peer-to-peer sharing Emails sent out from the registry are a key means of sharing information

Local agency website is dual language and contains up-to-date news Limited online documents available on website Plan to move the website to HQ in order to apply a common format across the whole organisation

Comparative Agency Analysis – UNESCO

UNESCO Agency Size: 20 Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: MS Outlook

Developing

Developing

Developing

Developing

A knowledge sharing culture exists, but lacks formalised structure and processes as well as organisational commitment Strong belief that there is not enough sharing between agencies and everyone would value access to materials produced by others Aware of tools available for sharing and make considerable use of these resources, but existing resources do not meet their needs

DevelopingDeveloping

Source: 1 in-depth interview (Programme Officer), 1 joint Focus Group (4 attendees), 12 survey responses

Developing

Not very developed

Developing

Developing

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

9

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process No clear process for most types of information, only 47% feel that there is a clear process 71% believe there is a clear process for submitting project documents, 47% for statistics and 53% for contact information Fragmented (not dedicated) KM resources assist in the process, role split between librarian & filing clerk

Project info is fairly regularly shared – only 38% share rarely/never Not clear on source of information to use e.g. when looking for project documents: 33% go to the UN website, 27% to the UN library, 17% agency websites, 7% to VDIC 53% of respondents rarely or never have regular contact with other agencies

Tools Emphasis is on physical and electronic filing when using information systems – 94% using the physical filing system frequently or sometimes, 83% say the same of e-filing Agency intranet and website are not so well used, only 47% and 53% say they use it frequently or sometimes

The UN website is the most used tool – but only 47% use this frequently or sometimes. The other central tools are used very infrequently: 24% use other agency websites and 12% use the UN library frequently or sometimes

Content 71% think that current access to sufficient knowledge is “just right” in order to maximise their performance Most searched for types of information are project documents, monitoring reports, project briefs and project evaluations Considerable use of government counterpart studies and reports, policy reports and strategies

Extensive sharing with other agencies does not currently exist, only an average of 54% think that the documents suggested are shared 47% think that project documents are shared with other agencies, 73% believe that statistics are shared, 40 contact information

Culture Incentives important to majority (73%), particularly career recognition There is not such a strong commitment to learning as is demonstrated in other agencies, only 59% have an individual learning plan Good informal sharing process at agency lunch every day

Everyone would value having central access to materials, skills and resources from other agencies Feel very strongly that there is not enough information sharing between agencies – 87% say that there is too little Not everyone has a clear understanding of which agencies are involved in similar work to them, only 60% feel they do

Infrastructure Centrally maintained agency intranet provides strategies, guidelines and other information which is considered to be useful. The usefulness of this tool is not widely known across the agency Agency library contains relevant information but requires reorganisation after office move No dedicated IT support, IT focal point (with ‘interest in IT’ only)

Agency website news was last updated in April 2003 Wide variety of information stored on agency website Recent addition to intranet is “Knowledge Assets” – an online electronic discussion group

Comparative Agency Analysis – UNFPA

UNFPA Agency Total: 21 Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: MS Outlook Express

There are no clear processes or sophisticated tools in place for information sharing within the agency, physical filing dominates A strong sharing culture does not currently exist with other agencies (aside from working groups), relying on direct contact rather than the available tools The agency shows considerable desire for sharing more information in the future and strong value is placed on having central access to other agency

information, skills and resources

Developing

Not very developedDeveloping

Source: 1 in-depth interview (Programme Officer), 1 dedicated Focus Group (6 attendees), 17 survey responses

Developing

Not very developed

Developing

Developing

Developed

Developing

Not very developed

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

10

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process There is mixed opinion of whether clear processes exist for submitting information: 50% feel the process is clear, 33% do not 50% believe there is a clear process for submitting project documents, 50% for statistics and 50% for contact information UNAIDS staff are all located in a single room, therefore informal sharing takes place on a regular basis

Half of respondents share information frequently, while the other half share sometimes, no-one said they rarely or never share Not clear on source of information to use e.g. when looking for project documents: 20% go to the UN website frequently /sometimes, 20% the UN library, 20% agency websites, 0% to VDIC No standard process for sharing, but inter-agency meetings valuable

Tools Agency makes some use of currently available resources: 50% use UNDP website frequently or sometimes. 83% use the intranet and 83% use electronic filing, not as strong reliance on physical filing – 67% The agency is located in one room so the use of formal tools is not as important, email, agency meetings and word of mouth are more valuable

The UN website is the most used tool – 84% use this frequently or sometimes, 50% use other agency websites frequently or sometimes. Only 17% use the UN library frequently or sometimes Global website provides comprehensive information on global cause and strategy, UNAIDS intern is focusing on maintaining the Vietnam agency website

Content 83% think that current access to sufficient knowledge is “just right” in order to maximise their performance

‘Average’ level of sharing is not very high 59% think that the information suggested in the survey is shared However, there is full sharing of statistics reported (100% think that these are shared with other agencies) 67% contact information is shared, but only 33% report sharing of project documents

Culture 33% indicated that they have an individual learning plan (this may be a result of the survey group including interns The small office environment and cross agency nature helps to foster a sharing culture Incentives are fairly important to sharing in UNAIDS – 67% rated them as such, particularly peer recognition and publishing

Feel there is a reasonable level of sharing between agencies – only 33% say “too little/not enough” Nearly all (84%) would value centralised access to other agency information 66% feel that they have a clear understanding of agencies working on similar issues to them

Infrastructure No dedicated IT support, rely on UNDP or external contractors LAN has only been recently set-up and filing is done centrally by one person In the process of reorganising library content

Local contributions to global website are only made if globally applicable Currently in process of updating local website: updating structure, documents etc Setting up an email network for distributing information to interested internal and external parties

Comparative Agency Analysis – UNAIDS

UNAIDS Agency Total: 6 Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: MS Outlook

Developing

Because of the small size and location (all in one room) of this agency, informal knowledge sharing takes place on a daily basis UNAIDS is a programme and therefore works frequently with other agencies for external publications. Even so, as an agency, 33% still feel they do not

have a clear understanding of what other agencies do in relation to HIV/AIDS The majority of people within the agency feel that they have sufficient access to knowledge

Not very developed

Not very developed

Source: 1 in-depth interview (Programme Officer), 1 joint Focus Group (2 attendees), 6 survey responses

Developing Developing

Developed

Developed

Developing

Developing

Developing

Note: % responses may not be fully representative as they include new and temporary staff e.g. interns

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

11

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Programme staff give secretary documents for physical and electronic filing The programme staff also have individual responsibility for collecting and distributing knowledge

Information sharing is mostly programme and project based, through HOA meetings, working groups, agency staff meetings Strong process reported to be in place for managing the submission of documents to the centrally managed website

Tools Main method for sharing knowledge is through meetings, distribution of hard copy documents and the shared drive Library exists, but is not useful because it is not well structured Agency Head Office owns the intranet, which is perceived to be less useful than the website.

Staff meetings and face-to-face contact are main ways of communicating with other agencies There is a structured distribution for press releases Agency Head Office owns the website

Content There is a demand for templates, methodologies on how to distribute information There is no clear source of information for different types of content Most relevant information is shared amongst the agency

There is demand for more project information, M&E evaluation reports, working groups, external research and statistical data Government statistics are communicated on a monthly basis to feed into the ‘Situation Report’ and fed into the CCAs Project documents & updates are made available on the website

Culture There is a policy in place for encouraging KM This is a small agency with an informal and unstructured approach to sharing, but there is a willingness to share

There is a general feeling that not enough sharing takes place between agencies Believe that a centralised organisational structure is required in order to make improvements

Infrastructure No dedicated IT resource, partly rely on UNDP LAN managed by UNDP Library resource currently not optimised Agency intranet currently not perceived as a great asset, HQ are considering updating in a similar way to the website

HQ own the website, entire site updated in 2003 applying a common template across all geographies Increasingly strong dictats from HQ (website and intranet)

Comparative Agency Analysis – UNODC

UNODC Agency Total: 8 Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: Lotus Notes

Knowledge sharing is regarded as important, but given the small size of the agency formal structures and processes have not been put in place Agency recognise the value of sharing across agencies and would make use of content provided by other agencies from a centralised source It is felt that there is a lack of coordination in the sharing of knowledge – dedicated organisational structure and clear processes are required

Not very developed

Not very developed

Not very developed

Developing

Not very developed

Not very developedNot very developed

Source: 1 in-depth interview (Programme Officer), 1 joint Focus Group (1 attendee), 2 survey responses

Developing

Not very developed

Developing

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

12

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Daily updates made to the intranet and regional project management system

Procedures manual exists to detail how to present information to the government No process in place for formal distribution of documents to other UN agencies, reported need for a standardized process & training Sharing done on a needs-orientated basis, particularly external

Tools Email is the main way of sharing information – but is overloaded with irrelevant information When the files are too big, documents are shared through CD ROM Regional intranet is updated daily and used frequently A LAN exists but is not widely used A library, documentation centre, Malaria information centre exist Regional information system which is used to store project updates, used daily

The most widely used tool is email WHO belongs to a number of external networks and internally mainly shares information with UNICEF, UNDP, ILO UNAIDS, UNFPA There is a local WHO website which contains out of date information

Content There is the need for standard templates to be developed Evaluations and reports exist – although there is a complaint that the information is out of date

A wide range of content is available to others via the library and documentation centre, but not electronically Demand for sharing of project documentation, monitoring and evaluation reports, project management tools

Culture There is an initiative to improve knowledge sharing: WHO is investigating different ways to increase the effectiveness of sending and storing emails, ways to upgrade the IT system There is a general reluctance for training on new systems, even if this will increase effectiveness

There is a strong culture of sharing with external organisations and limited sharing within the UN Low priority given to updating local website which is out of date

Infrastructure The regional intranet is maintained from Manila No dedicated IT support, provided by either 1) someone with an interest in IT 2) IT contractor 3) regional office Reported requirement for training on more efficient use of IT tools Plan to upgrade IT system: PCs, back-up process, connection speed

Website is currently very outdated, but updating it is not considered a priority at the moment, may be done early 2004 Regional office in Manila define policy and guidelines for technology used in the region Investigating option of outsourcing website to Healthlink (NGO based in the UK)

Comparative Agency Analysis – WHO

Knowledge Management was identified as a higher priority at a recent office retreat, a number of moves in this direction have started WHO provides information to a large number of external organisations (NGOs, Governments) but there is limited knowledge sharing between agencies Regional intranet is the primary information resource used within the agency

Not very developed

No clear basis

Developing

Not very developed

WHO Agency Total: 41 Local Website: Local Intranet: (regional) Email: MS Outlook

DevelopingDeveloping

Developing

Source: 2 in-depth interviews(2 Programme Officer2), 1 joint Focus Group (2 attendees), 3 survey responses

Developing

Not very developed

Developed

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

13

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Standardised and efficient process reported to be in place for capturing and storing all internal project-related information Programme staff are often reliant on own resources No dedicated KM resource

Information mainly disseminated by email and hard copies Need for improvement to the process for capturing and storing external information

Tools Library is main tool of sharing and is well kept. Some information in library available on CD rom Centrally owned intranet with no country page. Provides activities and press releases. Not reported as key tool

Local agency website is not up-to-date and has few online documents, as there is a lack of available resources to maintain this

Content Library contains books, publications, project reports and field documents, external reports, periodicals, databases The agency collects third party statistics (e.g., from newspapers) on an ad hoc basis. Although there is no formalised or centralised system to collect or share the data

The library is accessible to all and contains a wide range of information, but is not electronically available

Culture Lack of ownership within the team to take responsibility for knowledge sharing There is no training programme in place

There is a demand for more knowledge sharing Requirement for awareness of the benefits of creating efficient processes. Need for greater understanding of the wider value of knowledge sharing

Infrastructure Intranet is centrally maintained and has no country page, any contributions are made by the librarian No dedicated IT support, use contractor when required

Local agency website is locally maintained, but not very up-to-date Shared library resource

Comparative Agency Analysis – FAO

FAO Agency Total: 13 Website: Intranet: Email: MS Outlook

Need for greater understanding of the benefits of KM across agencies Centralised system exists for collecting and sharing data, but inaccuracies have led to reliance on individual filing systems as well The library is an important source of information

Not very developed

Not very developed

Not very developed

Not very developed

Not very developed

Not very developed

Not very developed

Source: 1 in-depth interview (Programme Officer), 1 survey response

Not very developedNot very developed

Not very developed

Strictly Private & Confidential

Strictly Private & Confidential

14

Building Block WITHIN AGENCY BETWEEN AGENCIES

Process Clarity of process for submitting knowledge

Clarity of process for project documents, statistics and contact infromation

Existence of dedicated KM resources

Frequency of sharing programme information

Clarity of process on where to find project documents, use of: UN website, UN library, agency websites, VDIC

Frequency of contact with other agencies

Tools Extent of use (“frequent” or “sometimes”) of existing KM resources: UN website, intranet, physical filing, electronic filing

Observations on preferred methods of sharing

Extent of use (“frequent” or “sometimes”) of existing KM resources in the UN: UN website, UN library, other agency websites

Observations on preferred methods of sharing

Content Proportion who believe that they have access to sufficient knowledge in order to maximise their current performance

Most searched for types of information

‘Average’ level of sharing of identified documents in the survey

Extent of current sharing between agencies: project documents, statistics, contact information

Culture Proportion in agency with a learning plan

Proportion who believe incentives are important for knowledge sharing

Most important incentives

Proportion who feel that there is currently enough sharing between agencies

Proportion who would value centralised access to sharing

Clarity of understanding of agencies working on similar issues

Infrastructure LAN

Intranet

IT support

Website

Agency dictats

Email

Comparative Agency Analysis – Methodology

Agency name Agency Size: xx Local Website: Local Intranet: Email: xx

Summary details about Knowledge Management in this agency Summary details about Knowledge Management in this agency Summary details about Knowledge Management in this agency

Developed Developing

Source: Information based on in-depth interviews, focus groups, survey results

Developing

Developed

Developing

Developed

Not very developed

Not very developed

Undeveloped Undeveloped

Very developed Undeveloped