38 | update

7 (6) June 2008

feature

knowledge sources, gaps and needs.In order to find out how to conduct anaudit, we studied a large body of scientificand business-related literature. Unfor-tunately, very little material was usefulbecause it did not go beyond the theoreticaldiscussion of what a knowledge audit is ormight be. So we turned to other organi-sations experienced in the KM field. Thepractical tips from Tatiana White (OxfordUniversity Library Service) and CarolineDe Brún (NHS), combined with the moretheoretical research, gave us an insight into what knowledge management is about andhow we could implement it in our library.The two-month audit was organised insix different phases.

We planned the actual audit. Forexample, we spent a considerable amountof time analysing the library structure andculture. We considered this a crucial step,because it provided us with the enablingand disabling conditions for making rec-ommendations after the audit. Anotherimportant issue was to determine the aimand the scope of our KM audit: we wantedto give all library workers – not only man-agers and supervisors – the opportunity toparticipate.Prior to the audit we also organised ameeting with all staff members to tell themabout our plans and to ensure a broad own-ership base for the future implementationof our recommendations.

An online survey was launched for alllibrary workers to complete. When wehad the results, we organised a series of in-depth interviews with some of the key knowledge players in the previously out-lined strategic knowledge domains of ourlibrary (customer knowledge, informationdissemination, reading promotion, library management development, community information and media education). Oneof the biggest challenges was to encouragepeople to fill out the rather extensive ques-tionnaire. Promoting the audit as a stra-tegically significant project proved to be a very useful solution.

3, 4

We analysed and evaluated the resultsof our audit and prepared for a series of recommendations.

A second meeting was organised to thank senior management and library workersfor their co-operation and to present theresults of the audit and our recommenda-tions.

At present we are developing and imple-menting the recommendations.

Audit results

The most surprising result of the audit wasthat, although the majority of library staff members were willing to share knowledge,they did not feel encouraged to do so. Rea-sons given were: library management didnot explicitly support them; they did notknow who knew what; they lacked time toshare knowledge, etc.The respondents had the chance to sug-gest how management could encouragethem to share knowledge. Answersincluded: by allocating time; by explicitly stimulating people to share their knowl-edge; by embedding knowledge sharing ineveryday practice; by providing the meansto share knowledge (an ‘open platform’as someone suggested). During the inter-

ibraries excel in managing infor-mation and knowledge capturedin books and documents, butthey fail in locating and man-aging the knowledge potentialin the heads of their own people.The public library of Vlissingen, insouth-west Holland, where I work, pro- vides services in its main building, and inthe nearby village, in the local school andin the local hospital. It has a staff comple-ment of 44 people, who work together in astrongly team-oriented environment.The library management has alwaysbeen convinced that, to stay relevant, thelibrary has to provide more specialist serv-ices. To do this, it knew that more efficientuse had to be made of the knowledge andskills of library staff members. In the pastthere had been problems related to knowl-edge transfer between library workers at thedifferent sites and between library staff andcustomers. Library staff had been throughmany training programmes but manage-ment had no clear idea of who possessed what knowledge and what knowledgecould be made use of in order to achievethe library goals.

The knowledge audit

Prior to formulating a knowledge manage-ment strategy and encouraging knowledgetransfer, we wanted to locate, analyse andevaluate the library’s internal knowledge.It was decided to organise a ‘knowledgeaudit’.The main objective of the audit was tomap and evaluate current knowledge prac-tices and culture and to identify potential

Karolien Selhorst

reports on how aknowledge management audit wasthe first step in making best use ofthe hidden knowledge potential ofa Dutch library’s staff.

Knowledge management:

making use of

hidden staff talent