Knowledge management dph day 2012

Knowledge Management

Department Day 2012

Public Health Department

David Hercot, Maria Paola Bertone & Bruno Meessen*

2

Knowledge

“is not a static embedded capability or stable disposition of actors,

but rather an ongoing social accomplishment, constituted and reconstituted as actors engage the world of practice”

Orlikowski (2002)

Tacit/implicit knowledge

Evidence/ research

KNOWLEGDEKnow “how”

Acceptability/legitimacy of knowledge

Appropriate skills at local

level

4

Knowledge Management Strategies (KM)

“enabling individuals, teams and entire organizations to collectively and systematically

capture, create, store, share and apply

knowledge, to better achieve their objectives”

Young (2008)

K value chain

Sharing Knowledge

6

ISNT’IT THE JOB OF WHO ?

7

Ecological Niches in GH

Policy

Research

International Actors

PracticeNeed to bring these

actors together

re-think

9

audience

interface

publishing

support

Ways of “sharing Knowledge”

• Push

• Pull generation

• Interactions

10

Research outputs

• Deliverables• Policy Briefs• Academic Conference Presentation • Peer reviewed papers• Press Release

11

Do you consider

• Workshop with supposed implementers• One pager (25-3-1)• Blog post• Mailing/Tweet/Facebook/Linkedin• Contributing to discussions

12

Why we need to engage in KM strategies

• Demand for Continuing Public Health Education • Visibility of Dpt• Relevance of K creation• Develop our network of

– partners in research, – potential students and – funders

• Need to find new ways of keeping touch with ground.

13

Why … cont’d (the research perspective)

• What -> How– Appropriate research design

• (Gertler Madon Parkhurst)

– New methodological approaches • (Pawson, Marchal)

– Good collaboration on the field • (op re and action re – Grodos Mercenier Remme Zachariah)

– Co Production • (Community of practice as a way of coproducing relevant

knowledge - Spiegel)

14

Why COPs

“Strengthening capabilities for producing and applying knowledge through direct engagement with affected populations and decision-makers provides a fertile basis for consolidating capacities to act on a larger scale. This can facilitate the capturing of benefits from the “top down” (in consolidating institutional commitments) and the “bottom up” (to achieve local results).”

Spiegel 2011 BMC IH & HR

15

16

Community of Practice

“a group of people who share a concern, set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” Wenger et al (2002)

Community of Practice

Three key dimensions define a CoP• Domain of interest,• Community of participating people and• Practice of sharing knowledge

(Wenger et al, 2002)

17

occasional

transactional

peripheral

active

coordinator

core group

lurkers

leaders

sponsors

experts

beginners

alumni

outsiders

18

The Galaxy of a CoP

Peer-to-peer interactions

Expert-to-apprentice interactions

Outline

• Concepts• How do we do it? • Key Performance Indicators – an illustration• Brainstorming

19

Communities of Practice

Launched Members ggle (other)

PBF Feb 2010 594

EBPB Mar 2008 113 (64)

Fin Access Mar 2011

HSD Feb 2012 27 (73)

EV4GH (?) Feb 2010 127 (214)

20

21

How do we connect?

Telephonee-mail

Face-to-face

Facebook

Skype Dropbox

Web Conferencing

(WeBex)

Website

Wiki pages

Google Group

22

Challenges of CoPs

Power structures and hierarchies

Build trust and mutual understanding

Cultural and social values of collaboration vs. of individual success

Resistance to change and to atypical knowledge

Conditions for success

• Political buy-in

• Face-to-face events and virtual interaction

• “Rhythm” of activities

• Added value to members

• A facilitator,

• A core group

• IT tools adapted to audience

23

More Examples of KM

• Push– Mailings– Conference Teaching

• Pull generation– Commenting– SEO optimisation

• Interaction– Workshops– groups

24

CONCLUSIONS

25

Opportunities of KM

• Generation of new Knowledge• Increase relevance of Knowledge chain• Increase our relevance• Reducing carbon footprint, jetlag

26

Challenges of KM activities

• The right domain• Adequate platform(s) -> New expertise • Online is not enough, F2F

• Resources (time and money)

27

Outline


28

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

29

30

Outline


31

BRAINSTORMING

32

If KM was to become a priority of the Dept

• What would be the – Domains– Activities– Priorities– Challenges

• Which KPI would you like to see reported by those engaged ?

33

Personal Notes from discussion during presentation

Incomplete, subjective, anonymised, unsorted and uncensored

34

• Because other do it: other concurrent universities/institutions engage in online media and communities so there is no guarantee that this will increase our visibility we might just be keeping abreast of what others are doing.

• Do we need to go that (competitive) way?• Is it our role? We should publish papers and

when there is enough new evidence WHO or other will organise a meeting with policy makers to share the new knowledge.

35

• Is it acceptable for implementers to be told by researchers from the North what they have to do ?

• It takes a lot of time. Cost effectiveness has to be put in question.

• There is a need for a Knowledge manager person.

36

• We need to monitor the audience. It’s a basic principle of marketing when they try to sell something. Who do you want to reach ? What do they want to hear ?

• Look for similitudes with KCE Dominique Roberfroid. For synergies with new course he plans to organise.

• Quamed is a COP• The message should be new enough to learn

something to audience and close enough to their current knowledge to get people to move.

37

• Wikipedia can be very bad resource but the reality is that people use it.

• Email remains the major source of communication for many

• Mobile devices will be generalised among our audience (in Africa) in the coming years.

• People in LBW settings tend to go to websites they know when they need an information. (Christophe – Environment)

38

• If your research is pertinent it will be picked up by those who need it.

• The scientists who tweet are the good scientist that’s why they are more cited.

• If you go to interactive discussion you open the window for sharing knowledge/information inexact or against your philosophy

• It is easier/ more rewarding to network among like minded. Hence there might be a risk/benefit of selection bias for members in a network/cop.

39

• Do you know who is in your COP ? Aren’t the same persons in different COPs?

• As a dpt we should do it but what to do should be carefully thought of.

• Did you monitor how much of our alumni are engaging in the COPs?

40