59

Chapter 3
Planning for Knowledge
Management:
Conducting a Knowledge Assessment

Cynthia Shamel
Shamel Information Services, USA

ABSTRACT
As data, information, and knowledge proliferate, professionals continue to grapple with the need to get
their arms (or head) around it all. Needs analysis, information audits, and knowledge audits represent
a range of processes intended to aid in understanding what an organization knows and how the workers
can best access the knowledge. The chapter examines the knowledge assessment process with practical
examples based on project experience. Drawing on case reports from the literature and studies undertaken
by the author, the chapter addresses various methodologies, possible outcomes, typical challenges, and
occasional pitfalls. The author’s experience sheds light on techniques and strategies leading to strategic
recommendations and successful project results.

INTRODUCTION: TAKE STOCK the absence of an audit or in the absence of

Knowledge management (KM) begins with
knowing what you know and do not know -
and understanding the consequences. Experts
agree that a successful knowledge manage-
ment initiative will begin with a baseline
of insight into an organization’s current
knowledge related practices, and some will
go so far as to say that KM initiatives fail in
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5186-9.ch003
understanding the role of information in the
enterprise.
This chapter looks at the knowledge assess-
ment as a key component of the knowledge
management process, beginning with what to
call it and ending with a discussion of trends
and future directions. Using case studies
and highlighting specific tips and examples
through the Theory in Practice feature, the
chapter covers background and history, jus-

Copyright © 2014, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

tification and benefits, structure and steps,
and future trends.
First things first: What do we call the
process? The literature includes at least the
following terms and probably more: knowl-
edge audit, knowledge assessment, informa-
tion audit, gaps analysis, needs assessment,
library services study, information services
study, knowledge resource inventory. While
these names are often used interchangeably,
they are not synonymous. Rather, they repre-
sent a continuum of processes in the attempt
to understand how knowledge workers get,
store, and share information and knowledge.
Just as data becomes information that then
becomes knowledge, understanding the pro-
cess and how it impacts workers depends on
needs analysis, information analysis (audit),
and knowledge assessment (audit). A needs
analysis tends to focus on what knowledge
workers require in order to do their jobs.
An information audit will examine how in-
formation assets are used, how they move,
and how they support organizational goals.
A knowledge audit includes analysis of tacit
Figure 1. Knowledge assessment and the KM process ©Susan Henczel (used with permission)
60
Planning for Knowledge Management
knowledge (generally found in the heads of
knowledge workers) and explicit knowledge
(found in reports, databases, books, and other
objects). Gaps analysis, needs assessment,
and library services studies represent subsets
or portions of a larger audit project. Which
terms to use will depend on two questions: 1)
Where is the organization in the KM process?
and 2) What language will resonate within the
organization’s culture?
For the purposes of this chapter, the broad-
est and all encompassing term is knowledge
assessment. More specific terms such as needs
analysis, information audit, or knowledge audit
are used when appropriate.
Where Is the Organization in the KM
Process? In a paper presented at the Global
2000 Worldwide Conference on Special Li-
brarianship, Susan Henczel (2000) suggests
that the needs analysis, information audit, and
knowledge audit help move an organization
from information management to knowledge
management. Figure 1 shows where each
of these projects fits into the KM process.
Henczel expresses a distinction between these
Planning for Knowledge Management
terms and shows where the process fits into
an overall knowledge management initiative.
One might view the continuum as a pro-
gression from data to knowledge. What sort
of data does an organization need to generate
or acquire in order have necessary information
that can be developed into the kind of tacit or
explicit knowledge helping the organization
meet its strategic goals?
Henczel makes the following distinction
between an information audit and a knowl-
edge audit:
The information audit finds out what informa-
tion resources and services people need to do
their jobs, as well as how those resources and
services are actually used. An information
audit enables the mapping of information
flows and identifies bottlenecks, gaps, and
duplications.
The knowledge audit identifies an organiza-
tion’s knowledge assets and how and by whom
they are produced. If an information audit
has already been conducted, a knowledge
audit will also allow assignment of a level of
strategic significance or importance to those
knowledge assets.
These days most definitions of the knowl-
edge audit would state that the study addresses
tacit as well as explicit knowledge. Since
Henczel wrote in 2000, the concepts have
continued to evolve. Dale Stanley and Guy St.
Clair, in teaching the knowledge audit process,
distinguish between the needs assessment, the
information audit, and the knowledge audit.
The needs assessment is reactive and gives
the study team information about what work-
ers require to do their jobs. The information
audit process is proactive, identifying gaps
and developing an understanding of how
knowledge assets come into the organiza-
tion, move, and are shared. The knowledge
audit facilitates an integrated and interactive
approach to knowledge management, includ-
ing the means to develop a strategic response
to managing tacit and explicit knowledge as
well as programs and services (personal com-
munication July 12, 2013).
As far as definitions go, Ulla de Stricker
may have taken the angst out of the definition
by simply stating that the audit is a process to
discover “how knowledge workers go about
getting, storing, and sharing information and
knowledge and with what results” (personal
communication March 27, 2013).
What language will resonate? Deciding
what terms to use or how to name the process
is more than a matter of formal definitions,
theory, and conventional understanding. What
to call an actual project or process can depend
on specific sensitivities within the enterprise,
and project leaders should always use lan-
guage meaningful to those participating in
the process. An information audit carried out
within the Australian Securities and Invest-
ments Commission was called “information
discovery” because that term “was seen as be-
ing ‘a more friendly term than Audit’” (Orna,
1999, p. 203). When a client requests a library
services study and then goes on to describe, to
a T, what an information professional would
call an information audit, wait before offer-
ing a correction. Does it really matter? If the
term “library services study” has meaning
for the client and it does not misrepresent
the project at hand, then go along and call
the project a library services study. One can
always provide background and definitions in
the final report, if necessary, but it is helpful
to use language with meaning for the people
involved (see Box 1).
Definitions, scope, steps, and methods for
any knowledge assessment project will depend
upon the goals and objectives of the specific
study. Whatever it is called, the process gen-
erally seeks to inform decision making
61
 Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 1. Theory in practice: What to call the project

Experts differ on whether to call an audit an audit. Those opposed to using the term suggest that clients are put off by the
financial connotations of the word because they tend to associate it with restriction or change.

In the case of a study completed by the editor of this book and the author of this chapter for a global company, the client
was very specific that the term audit not be used. The preferred project name was Information/Knowledge Resources
Study. This name held meaning for the knowledge workers in the enterprise and did not convey any negative implications.

On the other hand, several years ago this chapter author recommended an information audit to a medical diagnostics
company. The project champion and decision maker was none other than the Chief Financial Officer who loved the term
‘audit’, fully embraced its connotations, and approved the project with the suggested budget and timetable.

within an organization. The next section ex- to “Information Challenges.” In it he points

amines some of the history and background
behind the knowledge assessment, the ques-
tions the study tries to answer, and the deci-
sions it seeks to inform.
BACKGROUND: UNDERSTAND
THE CONTEXT
Information audits and their kindred have
become an important tool for knowledge
managers and information professionals
throughout the world. Australia, the United
Kingdom, the United States, South Africa, and
China in particular have produced numerous
case studies in conducting information audits.
Librarians and information professionals are
often, but not always, the instigators of these
studies. Research scientists, elected officials,
and corporate boards also point out the need
to better understand the holdings and use of
information and knowledge assets in an organi-
zation. Leaders generally seek to provide their
knowledge workers with the resources they
need to do their jobs and meet organizational
objectives, but the leaders also desire to know
the most efficient and cost effective means.
Peter Drucker (1999), well known business
management guru, addressed the urgency and
importance of information to the knowledge
worker in Management Challenges for the
21st Century. He devotes an entire chapter
out that technology alone does not provide
the information executives need to do their
jobs. “Enterprises and individuals will have
to learn what information they need and how
to get it. THEY WILL HAVE TO LEARN
TO ORGANIZE INFORMATION AS THEIR
KEY RESOURCE” (p. 110). Drucker goes
on to assert that most knowledge workers and
executives have not made much of an effort
to decide what information they need, much
less how to organize it. If today’s businesses
need further convincing about the value of
“knowing what you know” perhaps Drucker’s
view on knowledge worker productivity will
seal the deal. “The most valuable asset of a
21st-Century institution, whether business or
nonbusiness, will be its knowledge workers
and their productivity” (p. 135).
While Drucker makes the global, sweeping
case for the information or knowledge audit,
there are at least two nitty gritty forces at
work to justify such initiatives. Quoting KM
consultant Nigel Oxbrow, Library Journal
noted in the year 2000 that the “two main
drivers for information audits … are intranets
that don’t deliver benefit … and knowledge
management initiatives, where the KM team is
trying to get a handle on information available
from both inside and outside the organization,
and on where and when that information is
needed” (DiMattia & Blumenstein, 2000, p.
48). Practically speaking, knowledge work-

62
Planning for Knowledge Management
ers and executives are motivated for a wide
range of reasons and are in a quest to address
a multitude of questions with the intention of
delivering cost effective information solutions
to workers across the enterprise.
The next section examines the history
of knowledge assessments and provides ex-
amples of the motives behind them.
HISTORY OF THE KNOWLEDGE
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
In the Dow Jones news database Factiva, the
first mention of a “knowledge audit” appears
in the Portland [Maine] Press Herald on June
18, 1996. A writer for the paper interviewed
director Alan King from the Center for Energy
Information. Regarding the knowledge audit,
King says (p. 3C):
It’s a term we coined, but it’s a specific func-
tion. We make a company step back and look
at how information is used in an organization
from an individual level. What information
do you need to do your job? Where does that
information come from, what information do
you create, and where does it go?
King may not have heard of the concept
of a knowledge audit before his company
“coined the term,” however there are earlier
mentions in the published literature. At about
the same time (June 23, 1996), a Mr. Denham
Grey posted this thought on the KM Forum:
I have noticed an increase in “knowledge
artifacts” and their use in decision streams
within organizations. This trend is likely to
grow as connectivity increases and standards
for “data” exchange improve. It is part of my
knowledge audit process to enquire, detect,
rank and evaluate K artifacts which are an
important knowledge object.
In the abstract for a 1996 article entitled
“The Knowledge Audit” in the journal Stra-
tegic Direction, it is stated that “[a]n audit
should be conducted to assess and value an
organization’s knowledge base and learning
skills.” Here, the purpose of the audit is to
assess whether the organization’s culture
encourages learning.
Early Use of the Term
‘Information Audit’
The term “information audit” in the Factiva
news database appears first in Computing
magazine on September 3, 1987. Officials
in a European country ordered each govern-
ment department to conduct an “information
audit” to identify valuable information that
could be offered for sale to the private sector.
A broader search of the library and informa-
tion literature sees the information audit term
in use well before 1987. The Bulletin of the
American Society for Information Science
published R.H. Riley’s two page article “The
Information Audit” in 1975. In 1979, Infor-
mation Manager published an article by A.V.
Quinn titled “The Information Audit: A New
Tool for the Information Manager.” By 1999
information audits were “being done … in a
wide range of businesses and organizations
in the UK, from pharmaceutical firms, banks,
and the health service, to charities and cultural
organizations such as museums” (Orna, 1999,
p. 69). At the same time the United States
library and information literature reflected
a lively discussion of the concept includ-
ing “The Corporate Information Audit” in
Library Management Quarterly, 1991; “The
Information Audit” in Information Advisor,
1995; and “Information Audits: What Do We
Know and When Do We Know It?” in Library
Management Briefings, 1997.
In early 2000, Paul Burden produced a
bibliography of knowledge management
63

publications used by the Center for Knowl-
edge Management at Dominican University.
His search of 34 business, education, and
information science databases resulted in a
list of 86 articles on knowledge mapping and
information audits with a strong emphasis
on mapping over auditing. Research for this
chapter produced a bibliography of over 100
references focused on the knowledge or in-
formation audit, with well over half (58) of
them published in 2000-2011. A search of
60 multidisciplinary databases, conducted in
early 2013, produced the results in the chart
shown in Figure 2. The first reference comes
from 1976, and the peak of 172 references
occurred in 2007.
As more and more enterprises came to
realize that effective knowledge management
depends on a clear understanding of current
conditions and practices, the audit gained
traction as an important component of knowl-
edge management planning. As Paul Burden
said in 2000, “If the Knowledge Map/Infor-
mation Audit is not done prior to any com-
puter, network, or personnel changes, then all
of the effort, resources, and time will be
wasted.” Burden further notes how an audit
Figure 2. Chart showing frequency of mentions of “Information Audit” or “Knowledge Audit” in the
published literature
64
Planning for Knowledge Management
can contribute to strategic planning, suggest-
ing it is “a way for an organization to not only
see where it is in terms of its Knowledge
Management program, but also assist in plan-
ning its future development” (p. 69).
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER:
WHAT DRIVES AN AUDIT?
Knowledge workers generally launch an in-
formation audit to solve a problem or inform
a project or process. Sometimes the initiator
is the library or information center. Workers
in other departments often recognize the need
for an assessment of some kind. Interested
parties include research and development,
legal, finance, and information technology.
Government departments are often interested
because they wish to demonstrate prudence
and excellence in KM. This author has worked
on audits initiated by workers in business
development, customer insights, and strategic
marketing. A recent request for assistance
came from medical research scientists in a
branch of the United States military. It may
well represent a shift “up the food chain” as
Planning for Knowledge Management
organizational leaders call for better knowl-
edge management strategies and tools.
What drives an audit? What prompts the
knowledge worker to decide it is time to take
stock of the situation and make plans to move
forward? We already know from Oxbrow and
DiMattia that audits will be prompted by in-
tranets that do not deliver benefit, the desire
to launch knowledge management initiatives,
and the need to get a handle on information
assets. Based on over thirteen years of expe-
rience with information audits in a library
or information center, Chris Dobson (2002)
wrote that broader project goals can prompt
an audit and will vary depending upon the
specific needs of the organization. She offers
this elaboration (p. 32):
If you’re setting up a new library, you want
to pinpoint needed resources, discover gate-
keepers (those people who can answer nearly
any question from their personal knowledge
or individual library), and find out how the
organization will use information once you
provide it. For existing information services,
you should focus on awareness, relevance, us-
ability, and unmet needs. If you’re developing
a knowledge management system, you’ll need
additional data on how information moves
within the organization.
More recently, Zeno C.S. Leung et al.
(2010) in the Department of Applied Social
Sciences at Hong Kong Polytechnic University
stated (p. 366). A typical knowledge audit
usually attempts to answer the following
questions:
• What are the organization’s knowledge
needs?
• What knowledge assets or resources
does it have and where are they?
• What gaps exist in its knowledge?
• How does knowledge flow throughout
the organization?
• What blockages are there to that flow
(i.e., to what extent do people, process-
es, and technology currently support
or hamper the effective flow of knowl-
edge)? (p. 366).
Leung’s list does a good job of covering just
about any scenario that might constitute the
need for an information or knowledge audit.
The goals and objectives of most audits will
fall under the scope of one of these questions.
It is very important to clarify exactly what
questions the audit intends to answer and what
objectives the project will aim at accomplish-
ing. Such information will support the business
case for conducting the audit and inform the
design and methodology for the audit itself. In
The Information Audit, Susan Henczel (2001)
elaborates on the various strategic objectives
of the information audit. Among others she
points to the following (p. 27):
• To ensure that information resources
and services support organizational
goals
• To identify the needs of key informa-
tion users in the organization
• To map information flows within the
organization and between the organiza-
tion and its external environment
• To identify gaps and duplications or
areas of over-provision of information
resources
• To identify the important information
resources used by the organization
Any number of organizational realities can
spur the launch of a knowledge assessment.
We do know that the advent of technology put
a greater urgency on understanding informa-
tion assets. In 1988 Peter Drucker pointed out
65
 Planning for Knowledge Management

“as advanced technology becomes more and
more prevalent, we have to engage in analysis
and diagnosis - that is, in ‘information’- even
more intensively or risk being swamped by
the data we generate” (p. 3). The driver for
the audit will inform the methodology and
the scope of the project (see Box 2).
WHY CONDUCT A KNOWLEDGE
ASSESSMENT?
In the end, what turn of events will prompt an
organization to take on a project that tends to
rock the boat and challenge the status quo?
Outcomes can require the proverbial turning
of the ship, which may not be easy when the
ship is large and has momentum. Experience
indicates that the captain or one of the other
officers of the ship has identified a situation
that puts the organization at risk or a problem
that impacts productivity. The need to reduce
costs, enhance findability of information,
manage information overload, avoid reinvent-
ing the wheel, or ‘know what we know’ have
each been justification to launch a knowledge
assessment. Having a handle on reality can
help the enterprise avoid decisions that damage
the flow of knowledge. This happened to the
Chrysler Corporation in the 1980s when re-
organization disrupted the engineers’ network
for sharing tacit knowledge. Design defects
ensued, thus damaging product quality and
reputation (Cohen, p. 78).
Goals for a knowledge assessment will
vary, but benefits are assured and can include
(Servin & De Brun, 2005, p. 22):
• Helping the organization clearly iden-
tify what knowledge is needed to sup-
port overall organizational goals and
individual and team activities.

Box 2. Theory in practice: What prompts an audit?

Experience with several audit projects demonstrates how the motivators behind the audit and the problem being addressed
can inform the scope of the project.

Scenario 1: A pharmaceutical company librarian expressed concern that knowledge workers on the commercial side of
the business (not the scientists) might not have all the resources they need. The librarian suggested they might want access
to such resources as Harvard Business Review and Datamonitor. Resulting project: Conduct a needs assessment using a
series of 20 interviews to identify gaps and determine what resources the team actually needed.

Scenario 2: A geographically dispersed company planned to launch a knowledge sharing initiative and wished to identify
resources and knowledge throughout the organization that would be appropriate to share across locations. Resulting
project: Conduct an information audit through numerous interviews and collect data from the procurement process to
identify information assets suitable for sharing.

Scenario 3: Business development staff in a mid-size firm had orders from the Board of Directors to get a better handle
on the competition. The initial vision was to create a competitor intelligence database. The directive from the Board
brought to light the larger challenge: No one was responsible for overseeing the knowledge assets of the enterprise in
terms of acquisition, creation, storage, or sharing. Information silos prevailed, and home grown solutions were common.
Resulting project: Conduct a knowledge audit to fully understand where information came from, how it was shared,
how much it cost, and what barriers were limiting the flow. The project included a survey of all 700+ employees and
interviews with 30 stakeholders to identify nodes of information, gaps, and opportunities to improve processes.

In all three cases, significant additional value was derived from the fact that the audit uncovered much more information
than was at first anticipated. For example, in Scenario 2 it became apparent that improvements in the organizations’
mechanisms for sharing knowledge among employees were called for.

66
Planning for Knowledge Management
• Giving tangible evidence of the extent
to which knowledge is being effectively
managed and indicating where im-
provements are needed.
• Providing an evidence-based account
of the knowledge in an organization
and a tracking how that knowledge
moves around in, and is used by, the
organization.
• Presenting a map of what knowledge
exists where in the organization, re-
vealing gaps and duplication.
• Identifying pockets of knowledge that
are not currently being used to good
advantage and therefore offer untapped
potential.
• Providing a map of knowledge and
communication flows and networks, re-
vealing examples of good practice and
blockages and barriers to good practice.
• Presenting an inventory of knowl-
edge assets, allowing them to become
more visible and therefore more mea-
surable and accountable, and giving a
clearer understanding of the contribu-
tion of knowledge to organizational
performance.
• Supplying vital information for the
development of effective knowledge
management programs and initiatives
that are directly relevant to the organi-
zation’s specific knowledge needs and
current situation.
LET THE ASSESSMENT BEGIN:
CARRYING OUT THE PROCESS
Over and over again the literature states
there is no one set method for conducting an
information audit or knowledge assessment.
Indeed, experience indicates the tools to apply
or the approach to take must be aligned with
the situation at hand. Variables influencing
the process include goals, objectives, budget,
enterprise size, available time, and human re-
sources. This section of the chapter examines
the leadership team, the working environment,
and some of the soft skills required for suc-
cess. Then, an overview of basic structure and
steps to follow is illustrated by specific cases
and standard methodologies. Subsequent
sections discuss how to collect information,
what to measure, how to perform analysis and
evaluation of findings, and how to deliver or
communicate findings.
Begin at the Beginning
A successful knowledge assessment requires
that certain foundations be in place. They
include skilled leadership, a clear mandate
with time and budget, and support from top
management. While the number of people
with firsthand experience in conducting the
information audit may be limited, there are
definite characteristics to consider in assem-
bling the team.
Define the Leadership Team
An assessment or audit team needs skilled
leadership. Ideally the leader has experience
or training in the process (or access to the
appropriate expertise). Each member of the
team needs time to dedicate to the project.
How much time will vary, but it would be
realistic to allow for a 50% time commitment
spread over 30 to 120 days. A comprehensive
knowledge audit with extensive interviews
and knowledge mapping in a large corpora-
tion can take as much as a year or more, and
the project team needs to be available and
supported throughout.
In addition to time, team members need
impartiality and honesty to obtain a thorough
view of the good and the bad of informa-
tion and knowledge within the organization.
67
 Planning for Knowledge Management

Participants need to trust the integrity of the
team in order to feel comfortable sharing their
views with confidence. The team also requires
a good measure of “people” skills to assure ef-
fective listening, political sensitivity to issues
within the organization, tact, and flexibility.
Other soft skills suitable to the task include
good communication and time management.
Internal or External Expertise? Given that
there is no one accepted methodology for
conducting a knowledge assessment, it should
come as no surprise that experts do not agree
on whether the audit should be conducted by
insiders or outsiders to the organization. Eliza-
beth Orna, information audit expert writing
in 1999, is unequivocal. The process “should
be managed and controlled from inside the
organization, and carried through by people
who work there.” She holds this view largely
because she places high value on the “knowl-
edge … people have of their own organization”
(Orna, 1999, p. 79). The information audit
team assembled at Miller Brewing Company
reached the same conclusion (Table 1). Its
members examined the options of hiring an
external consultant or having the team itself
conduct the audit. After looking at the pros
and cons of a consultant, they decided that an
internal team would perform the audit.
Equally well respected audit professionals
assert the benefits of bringing in an outside
consultant. The benefits outweigh perceived
costs, assuring impartiality, expertise, and the
depth of an outside opinion. In this author’s
experience, knowledge workers speak more
freely to an outsider than they do to their own
colleagues, suggesting the possibility that
findings may be more valid when obtained
by an outsider (see Box 3).
Address the Actual Work Environment
The actual working environment can directly
impact the ability of the team to gather the
necessary information and assess the oppor-
tunities for the organization. The three most
important variables affecting this aspect of
the project include management support (as
part of corporate culture) and budget.
Table 1. Miller Brewing’s list of pros and cons
for hiring a consultant
Pros Cons
• Lacking bias • Time to bring
• Outside experience from similar consultant up to speed
projects • High cost
• Credibility of recommendations

Box 3. Theory in practice: The case for an outside consultant

A mid-size pharmaceutical company’s librarian required an objective assessment of her services and the resources
provided to her internal clients. She was well liked throughout the company and had good working relationships with
colleagues in numerous departments. When the library staff sought information to evaluate resources and services, she
wisely contacted a consultant to conduct the assessment. When the librarian is well liked and appreciated, constituents
sometimes hold back on criticism or complaints for fear of hurting feelings or damaging relationships. An outsider can
offer anonymity and encourage participants to share honest views of existing services and projected needs.

A small biomedical company brought in an outside consultant largely because no one internally had an understanding
of the knowledge assessment process. In fact, at the outset it was not even realized that such a process was possible. The
managers knew only that they needed help with information management. The consultant was able to suggest an audit as a
tool to provide a strategy for addressing the information management challenges.

A large global corporation hired a consultant to conduct an information audit largely because the internal staff did not
have adequate time to dedicate to the process. The company provided active project input, but the outside consultants
conducted the work and compiled the results with significant value-add recommendations.

68
Planning for Knowledge Management

Support from upper management is essen-
tial to the success of a knowledge assessment
project. The process requires timely, open,
and honest responses from workers across the
organization, and in general these individu-
als need to know that management endorses
their participation, gives them permission to
use their time on the initiative, expects them
to deliver honest and professional answers to
the questions asked, and will not recriminate
or punish negative findings in any way. When
a project launches, a letter from management
stating these expectations contributes signifi-
cantly to the smooth initiation and completion
of information gathering and sets the stage
for later implementation of recommendations
(see Box 4).
A wise project planner wants to know in
advance the expected costs for any project.
Management needs to understand project costs
and anticipated benefits in order to build or
support the project’s business case. This in-
formation may influence the decision to recruit
internal or external expertise. While a tar-
geted needs assessment is possible with a
budget as small as $10,000, budgets ranging
from $30,000 to $150,000 are more typical.
Factors influencing cost include the size of
the organization, the number of people to be
interviewed and/or the number of focus groups
to be held, the depth of analysis required, and
the scope of recommendations.
Process Overview
With the consistency of a spiritual mantra, the
KM literature asserts and agrees that there is no
one accepted methodology for performing an
information or knowledge audit. Nevertheless
knowledge assessments do get done efficiently
and effectively by working through a few core
steps that have proven effective over time.

Box 4. Theory in practice: Sample letter from management to announce the project

Dear Colleagues,

In our corporate effort to advance goals in knowledge management and to continue developing knowledge sharing across
the organization, I invite you to participate in an exciting new initiative we believe will deliver considerable value for all
business teams.

The Knowledge Center and Corporate Library has launched a Knowledge Assessment Study, headed by Jane Infopro
on the KM Team. Working with Brilliant Consultants Inc., we will identify new, cost effective ways to deliver new
knowledge and share existing knowledge across the enterprise.

Experts from Brilliant Consultants will contact you soon to schedule a 30-minute interview in order to discuss your
information management practices and the resources you consult in the course of your work. All responses will be kept
anonymous with results aggregated to protect confidentiality.

This project has the full support of the Board of Directors. When the consultants contact you, we ask that you:

     1. Make time in your schedules to meet with them whether on the telephone or in person to provide input from
your team, and
     2. Provide honest input to the project in order to best inform findings and recommendations.

Your assistance in this strategic initiative is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Joan Honcho
Chief Executive Officer

69
 Planning for Knowledge Management

The key to success is flexibility appropriate
to the situation at hand. In spite of the lack of
a universal approach, experience has shown
that a few key steps provide a fairly universal
structure to the process:
1. Planning,
2. Information Gathering,
3. Analysis,
4. Recommendations,
5. Reporting, and
6. Implementation.
Working with and through these six steps,
the audit team can customize the details to fit
the project goals and the organizational reali-
ties including the budget. If the budget cannot
expand to meet all the project objectives, then
the project must adapt to fit within the budget.
It means setting priorities, attending to the
most important concerns first, and working
as cost effectively as possible.
A productive audit process aligns closely
with organizational goals and objectives.
The true value of an information audit lies
in maximizing the impact from information
and knowledge resources on advancing the
goals of the enterprise. A productive audit
requires sensitivity to organizational culture,
taking into account attitudes toward sharing
and managers’ support for knowledge manage-
ment. Where information hoarding, silos, and
‘knowledge is power’ attitudes prevail (see the
chapters on challenges and culture), the orga-
nizational culture could inhibit open participa-
tion in a knowledge assessment project. Some
organizations have insurmountable barriers to
knowledge sharing. Examples include secu-
rity clearances in governmental departments,
proprietary financial information in publicly
owned companies, and restrictions imposed
by intellectual property rights. Acknowledg-
ing such conditions in advance helps project
managers plan a process that works within
these realities rather than ignoring them.
In the course of a knowledge assessment
project, knowledge workers will be asked to
cooperate in answering surveys, participating
in interviews, or compiling and sharing lists
of information assets. The project design and
methodology must take all these variables into
account in order to assure success (see Box 5).
Not all recommended methods or steps
address the concept of implementation. Per-
haps it is assumed that recommendations
flowing from the study will in fact become
reality. In any case, carefully developed rec-
ommendations and clearly communicated
reporting should lead to a plan for implemen-
tation. Finally, closing the loop on the assess-
ment process is the notion to “repeat.” Knowl-
edge auditing should be a cyclical process
repeated at intervals to reinforce awareness
and ensure the organization stays on track.
Experts in knowledge auditing have pub-
lished their own variations on project structure,

Box 5. Theory in practice: Management support

Management support can make all the difference in terms of knowledge worker participation in an information audit. In
one project I inquired about the culture from the point of view of assuring maximum participation in an all-employee
survey, suggesting that some kind of incentive to encourage participation might be appropriate. The executive assured me
not to worry. In the end there was a 90+% response to the online survey. Here’s why: The CEO instructed employees to
respond to the survey.

It turns out the company had a strong CEO from whom employees were accustomed to receiving instructions to which
they were expected to respond. This particular instruction was no different from others. The CEO says “do X,” and so it
was done.

70
Planning for Knowledge Management
with the number of steps ranging from three
to ten. Huan Vo-Tran (2011) at RMIT Uni-
versity in Melbourne, Australia summarized
10 information audit methodologies described
in the published literature between 1987 and
2004 (p. 273). Some of the methodologies
outlined leave much to the imagination. For
instance, the three step process says simply,
1. “Initial audit (inventory),
2. Collecting the data, and
3. Data analysis.”
Elizabeth Orna’s (1999) process, described
in Practical Information Policies, offers a
more detailed view containing 10 steps, nota-
bly ending with Step 10: Repeat the auditing
cycle (p. 75).
In 2001, scholars from The Robert Gor-
don University’s Aberdeen Business School
Centre for Knowledge Management described
a knowledge management initiative to which
they provided assistance. The project ad-
dressed the tacit and explicit knowledge held
by a 20 person team in the tax department of
a large oil company. It was quite ambitious,
leading to a detailed knowledge management
strategy and a plan for implementation. The
team applied an eight-phase approach (Bur-
nett, Illingworth, & Webster, 2004, p. 27):
Preliminary Phase: Setting the Scene
Phase 1: Learning Day
Phase 2: Measurement Criteria
Phase 3: Audit Interviews
Phase 4: Development of Knowledge Map
Phase 5: Feedback Event
Phase 6: Implementation Plan Development
Phase 7: Implementation
At about the same time Burnett was work-
ing with the oil company tax team, Susan
Henczel (2001) published her information
audit methodology in The Information Audit:
A Practical Guide. It has become one of the
best known methods for the information audit.
Henzcel’s Seven Stages are:
Stage One: Planning
Stage Two: Data Collection
Stage Three: Data Analysis
Stage Four: Data Evaluation
Stage Five: Communicating Recommenda-
tions
Stage Six: Implementing Recommendations
Stage Seven: The Information Audit as a
continuum pointing back to the ongoing
process of matching services with needs
Henzcel asserts that this is not a highly
structured or controlled process but rather
a flexible one able to bend to meet varying
conditions and constraints. In 2006, the South
African Journal of Libraries and Informa-
tion Science published a test of the viability
of this seven step approach. Authors Lufuno
Raliphada and Deonie Botha found that Hen-
zcel’s method “could be effectively used as
an information management activity within
a medium sized public organization.” They
further concluded that flexibility and cost
effectiveness are the two biggest advantages
of this method. They also point out that the
process is cumbersome, particularly in that the
planning stage includes activities that need to
be repeated later (p. 249).
Henzcel’s approach has gained some trac-
tion over the years as its application gets tested
and reported. In addition to Raliphada’s evalu-
ation of the effectiveness of Henzcel’s seven
steps, Vo-Tran opted for Henzcel’s method to
study creation, processing, and dissemination
of information in a mid-sized architecture firm.
He chose the method after careful examination
of nine approaches examined in the literature
between 1987 and 2008. Vo-Tran chose this
methodology (p. 275) because it …
71

1. Leverages the strengths of earlier works
2. Focuses on a strategic direction for the
organization
3. Includes a continuum or cyclical process
4. Incorporates information technology into
its overall process
5. Considers management and operational
aspects with the submission of a busi-
ness case in the planning stage before
proceeding
Thus, the published literature appears to
support acceptance of Henczel’s approach to
conducting the information audit. Neverthe-
less, the fact remains that each project will have
important individual characteristics calling for
a customized approach. The following sections
take a closer look at the key steps generally
making up each project, including examples
from project experience.
Planning
The five Ps of project execution apply: Prior
planning prevents poor performance. In the
case of a knowledge assessment, regardless of
scope, prior planning can assure useful results,
adequate time and budget, smooth execution,
cooperative and engaged participants, and
project support throughout the organization.
Thus, the key actions in preparing to launch
a knowledge assessment include:
1. Establish objectives
2. Define the scope and resource allocation
3. Choose a methodology for data collection
4. Develop a communication strategy
5. Enlist management support
These steps are common and fundamental
to good project planning, and they are spelled
out in great detail by Susan Henczel in The
Information Audit: A Practical Guide.
72
Planning for Knowledge Management
Briefly stated, the stages involve determin-
ing the answers to the following questions:
1. What are we attempting to find out?
2. How much time do we have, and who is
doing the investigation?
3. What methods will be most suitable for
collecting information about information
assets, practices, and services?
4. How can we ensure everyone understands
clearly what is going on and why?
5. How can we gain and sustain manage-
ment support?
Establish Objectives
The organization’s leaders must clearly under-
stand, and the project’s leaders must clearly
define, what the project will accomplish and
how the findings will inform organizational
decision making. What problems or oppor-
tunities will the project address? Definition
of project objectives affects the rest of the
process and can influence budget, timeline,
methodology, and findings. Objectives are
not “things we will do during this audit.”
Objectives point to a larger organizational
need that can be addressed through the find-
ings of the audit. The objectives of the study
will influence the methodology, the buy-in
from management and executives, the likely
participants, the plan for communication, and
the scope of the recommendations. Objectives
for undertaking an audit vary and may include:
• Identifying content for a Web site or
intranet
• Determining the first steps in a larger
KM initiative
• Supporting information services or in-
formation technology activities
• Addressing an identified problem in
sharing or learning
Planning for Knowledge Management
• Aligning knowledge resources with or-
ganizational goals and objectives
• Discovering opportunities for cost
savings
• Establishing a benchmark for future
reference
• Improving service efficiency and
effectiveness
• Retaining or identifying sources of or-
ganizational knowledge to prevent loss
of expertise
Objectives must be developed within and
adapted to the framework of the organization.
Such an understanding provides the necessary
foundation for defining reasonable and reach-
able objectives. Fundamental organizational
characteristics such as internal politics, struc-
ture, culture, and communication practices
help define the possibilities and options for
knowledge management. For example, inter-
nal politics sometimes make it difficult to get
full participation from relevant departments.
Understanding the structure, often seen in
the organizational chart, helps identify where
knowledge resources may lie and who should,
or should not, participate in the study. Culture
influences most objectives but particularly
knowledge sharing. If the study team knows
at the outset that knowledge workers have a
history of guarding information or holding it
close to vest, it may or may not be appropriate
to set “improved information flow throughout
the company” as one of the objectives. Culture
not only relates to sharing but can reflect an
overall attitude toward information. Internal
cultural barriers need not derail a knowledge
management project, but they cannot be de-
nied or ignored.
The best laid plans of mice and men do at
times go astray. The findings of a knowledge
assessment project may reveal the need to ad-
just objectives. In other words, the results of
the audit could indicate that the issue project
leaders thought to address is not the key issue
after all. Flexibility in listening and learning
may point the team toward even more pro-
ductive approaches to addressing knowledge
management within the organization than
those originally set out as expected outcomes
(see Box 6).
Define the Scope and Resource
Allocation
Project planning must address the actual scope
of the project. Careful definition of scope and
resources keeps the project on track and on
time while delivering actionable information.
There are at least four ways to scope the project,
depending upon the objectives being addressed:
1. Limit activity to a specific department
or departments rather than including the
entire organization.
2. Use the organizational chart to define a
certain demographic such as high level
managers or key information users for
participation in the study.
3. Limit the scope based on geography, so
that only one site or city or country or
region participates in the audit.
4. Focus on a specific problem or question
for all affected departments to address.
The scope clearly influences the time, staff,
and budget necessary to meet project objec-
tives. In deciding how much time to allow for
project completion, planners must decide who
will conduct the assessment (internal staff or
external consultants), how many people can
commit to working on the project, and how the
expense affects spending on other enterprise
projects and priorities. In many cases, these
three variables will shift in relation to each
other, leading to a need to balance and weigh
them at the outset and as the project moves
forward (see Box 7).
73
 Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 6. Theory in practice: Responding to unexpected realities

Every project begins appropriately with carefully defined objectives. Planners ask themselves “what do we hope will
come out of the study and what will we do with the findings?” Experience indicates that audit findings may uncover
unexpected realities and thus impact goals as the project unfolds.

Example 1
Problem to Address: The business development team needs a better way to manage information related to other
companies in the industry: “If only we could gather up the resources housed across the company into one database, we
would save time and effort and have better intelligence.”
Project Findings: The lack of information management was pervasive. Every department had the same notion that
“information resources exist somewhere - they just need to be corralled and organized.”
Recommendation: A technology solution (database) was not the answer. In this case, the information audit revealed the
need for an information professional empowered to centralize information and knowledge management and provide cost
effective services across the entire organization.

Example 2
Problem to Address: We have a fabulous new intranet site. The assessment project will identify resources from across the
company that can be added to it for all to share.
Project Findings: Most of the content housed in various departments was not suitable for broad sharing in an enterprise
wide search site. The resources already on the site, as defined by the knowledge management team, were well chosen and
perhaps sufficient. The larger issue uncovered by the study was the inability of knowledge workers to identify “who does
and knows what” within the company.
Recommendation: Develop an employee or expertise directory to facilitate and otherwise support networking and
connections between various departments and teams across the enterprise.

Box 7. Theory in practice: Dealing with an expanded scope

One large knowledge audit was based on a plan for time, participants, and budget that assumed a maximum of 50
interviews with knowledge workers on five continents. As a result of the commonly encountered “you might like to
interview as well our colleagues in X office,” the actual number of interviews was closer to 70.

Neither the size of the project team nor the budget could increase. As a result, the timeline bore the brunt of the change,
stretching out to accommodate the extra interviews.

Choose a Methodology for Data
Collection
In the planning phase, the assessment leader-
ship team must outline a method to collect and
analyze data and formulate recommendations.
The options for information gathering are
discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
The method must align with available tools
and resources. For instance, there is no point
in deciding to hold focus groups if the study
team lacks money to pull groups together
or skills to manage the groups. Similarly,
the method should not rely on complex data
analysis if the team does not have access to
or expertise in software typically used for that
kind of crunching. Rather, the method should
fit available resources while still providing
the information necessary to meet project
objectives.
Develop a Communication Strategy
Open communication before, during, and
after the study contributes significantly to the
success of the project. Careful consideration
of communications during the planning stage
can help assure a high level of participation

74
Planning for Knowledge Management
and useful input. Knowledge workers are busy
meeting their own goals and objectives as they
manage the priorities and concerns of their
departments and teams. A project as encom-
passing as a knowledge or information audit
can come across at best as a distraction or at
worst as a threat. The project team needs to plan
for messaging content and communication
channels to employ throughout the process.
Effective messaging communicates the
benefits of the audit so that knowledge work-
ers understand how the project outcome will
improve their own situations. It helps manage
expectations by defining how much input time
is requested, when to expect the output or
results of the study, and what kind of changes
could result. Messaging after project comple-
tion should include a summary of shareable
findings and possible next steps.
Knowledge assessments sometimes raise
fears among workers that some kind of change
is afoot that could result in more work, fewer
resources, less access to necessary informa-
tion, or even personnel shifts. Employees do
not welcome projects they fear might lead to
layoffs or staff reductions. In this case, the
messaging must address goals and outcomes
focusing on the anticipated benefits of the
process.
Communication channels vary, but project
leaders should engage all appropriate means to
convey the message to the affected knowledge
workers before, during, and after the audit.
Typical options include a newsletter article,
an email blast, individual direct emails, an
intranet newsfeed, employee meetings, and
Box 8. Theory in practice: The need for an internal champion
During the planning stages of one information audit the internal champion, who in this case was the Executive Vice
President of Human Resources, abruptly left the company. Project leaders knew the initiative could not go forward
without executive level support. Fortunately the Chief Financial Officer, recognizing an opportunity to evaluate spending
on information resources, quickly picked up the mantle and carried the project forward. Only a week or two was lost in the
timeline, with no significant impact on project outcome.
signage. Of equal importance is the messen-
ger. Should the message come from the study
team, management, the board, or someone
else? As mentioned earlier, in one case an
email from the company’s Chief Executive
Officer proved sufficient to encourage worker
participation and establish project priorities
across the organization. Choosing the most
appropriate messenger can help ensure the
message gets heard.
Enlist Management Support
Finally, if the project team does not already
have management support in launching or
commissioning a knowledge assessment, then
it must establish support during the planning
period (see Box 8). Without support from the
top, the project is likely to suffer from lack of
funding, lack of participation, lack of access
to necessary tools, or - worst of all - lack of
implementation of project recommendations.
The knowledge assessment team needs to
assure managers that it understands how the
project will advance organizational goals.
Should the team need to construct a business
case in order to bring top management on
board, Elizabeth Orna offers the key points
managers need to understand and support
(1999, pp. 76-77):
• The objectives of the audit, both imme-
diate and longer-term
• The long term benefits to be expected,
in terms of achieving key business
objectives
75

• The scope proposed: is the audit to
cover the whole organization, or parts
of it, or particular activities or process-
es? Is it to start with one or more pilot
projects?
• The phases proposed: the audit plan
should be based on realistic steps, with
stopping points for evaluation and deci-
sion making
• The benefits from each phase: what the
organization can expect to gain from
each step
• The timescale, expressed both in per-
son days and the total elapsed time to
completion
• The deliverables, for example [progress
reports and presentations at the end of
the each phase]
• The resources required.
Information Gathering
A knowledge assessment invariably involves
the collection of information. What informa-
tion to collect and how to collect it unfolds
within the development of a method and re-
fers back to objectives, scope, and resources.
Within this context, methods for data col-
lection vary to include analysis of existing
documents and databases, observation of
behavior, monitoring actual resource usage,
questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups.
Each approach has its own benefits and chal-
lenges. Many projects involve a combination
of collection techniques in order to meet the
designated objectives. In maximizing the
opportunity for success, one must keep the
following points in mind:
• Keep data collection in line with proj-
ect goals and resources. Chose only
those methods you have the staff and
the budget to execute well.
76
Planning for Knowledge Management
• Do not try to cover too much. For ex-
ample, avoid the temptation or outside
pressure “to take advantage of this op-
portunity” by adding “just one more
question” to a survey.
• Test and validate every questionnaire
or survey to be sure responders under-
stand the questions so that they are able
to deliver the useful answers you seek.
Information gathering requires project
planners to consider which tools to use, from
whom to collect data, and what questions to
ask. While there is no one “correct” method,
there is ample history and experience to draw
from in making informed choices.
Data Collection Tools
Most knowledge assessments rely on surveys,
interviews, and focus groups to gather the
bulk of necessary information. However, these
are not the only options for the project team.
There are at least six data collection methods.
Analysis of Existing Documents and
Databases: Taking time to understand what
resources and content are already at the dis-
posal of knowledge workers can save time
in the long run. Knowing what information
the enterprise creates and uses can influence
what questions to ask in the surveys or inter-
views. It is also useful to inquire with finance
or procurement within the organization to
learn how information assets are purchased
and categorized. It can be informative - and
sometimes surprising - to see what is not
known about spending or cannot be known
due to lack of proper tracking.
Observation: This technique reveals bar-
riers or stumbling blocks in the flow of in-
formation or in the execution of technology
solutions. Watching users search the intranet
or interact with document management tools
Planning for Knowledge Management
uncovers users’ search techniques and assump-
tions about findability. Of course watchers
should obtain permission from those being
watched.
Monitoring Actual Usage: In the days be-
fore electronic and digital assets, monitoring
usage might have been done by noting how
often a book got checked out or what reference
materials were left behind on library tables.
Now, statistics available through database
or online subscription vendors and through
Website monitoring tools such as Google
Analytics shed light on what resources get
visited how often.
Questionnaires: Administering a question-
naire is easier than ever with online survey
tools (commercial or free). The fee-based
tools offer more powerful survey and analyt-
ics features, but for a wide range of projects
the free versions work well. Questionnaires
are particularly useful to collect factual data
such as lists of “go-to” resources or databases,
personal subscriptions, or data sources. Ques-
tionnaires offer many advantages in that they
can be administered to relatively large groups
of people, deliver information in a short pe-
riod of time, reach geographically dispersed
groups, and offer anonymity or confidentiality.
Successful surveys are short with clear and
unambiguous questions. They may include
open ended questions (the answer cannot be
yes or no), multiple choice questions, or rating
scales. The following open ended question
is recommended for every questionnaire and
is generally offered as the last question: “Is
there anything else you want us to know for
the purposes of the study?” It gives responders
the opportunity to offer information the project
planners could not have anticipated and often
leads to surprising insights. Most knowledge
workers cannot or will not take more than
20 minutes or so to respond to a survey.
Twenty to 25 questions could be considered a
maximum, as long as on balance they can be
answered within 20 minutes. Survey testing
is non-negotiable. It is inevitable that while
all the questions and expected answers may
seem clear to the survey designer, something
will be unclear or be misunderstood by the
responders. Testing, rewriting, and retesting
will assure maximum usability of the data
ultimately collected.
A good response rate for a widely distrib-
uted survey should exceed 70%. One would
hope for at least 50% for validity, but with the
right incentives 90% is not out of the ques-
tion. Incentives could be tangible or monetary
rewards or a request or mandate from manage-
ment. Effective incentives vary depending on
organizational culture and expectations.
Interviews: It is hard to envision a knowl-
edge assessment process that does not include
interviews. They enable a two way flow of
information not readily achieved through
other methods. Open ended questions and the
follow up questions flowing from them can
lead to discoveries and insights not otherwise
revealed. Interviews are generally held one-
on-one, however they may involve two or
three people who work closely together and
have similar needs or challenges. Benefits
of interviews include the ability to probe for
more detail or further explanations as appro-
priate, the opportunity to explore information
flows and barriers, the opportunity to build or
strengthen relationships with key knowledge
workers, and participation from all relevant
groups within the organization.
Interviews are time and labor intensive, and
interviewers require training and experience.
Fortunately interviews need not occur face to
face. Telephone calls, online video chats, or
Webinar software enable affordable 30-60
minute conversations across time zones. As
with the questionnaire, interview questions
should be tested and practiced by the inter-
viewers. In most cases, training or practice
for simple interviews can be accomplished
77

with observation and two or three practice
sessions. A typical interview begins with a
welcome message and “thanks for taking time
to speak with me.” Most interviewees appreci-
ate receiving in advance the set of questions
to be used and an overview of the purpose of
the knowledge assessment project, an indica-
tion how the results might be used, and an
estimate when the results will be available.
In addition, they typically request a project
recap as the interview begins. It is useful to
manage expectations by explaining how the
interview will be conducted and reaffirming
how much time it will take. After the scripted
or preplanned questions are asked, the final
open ended question “is there anything else
we need to know?” provides an opportunity
for interviewees to volunteer detail not already
covered. It is useful to ask permission to get
back in touch should the interviewer require
clarification or further information. In turn, the
interviewer can provide appropriate contact
information should the knowledge worker
have any questions or further insights to offer
after the interview.
Whether to tape the interview remains
an open question. Some information audi-
tors consider it mandatory while others say
that recording inhibits the conversation and
encumbers the process. At a minimum, the
interviewer must take notes, and experience
indicates that an immediate review following
the end of the interview provides the op-
portunity to correct and clarify the notes for
future reference.
In planning the interview, consider which
type will best suit the project at hand. There
are at least three types of interviews: struc-
tured, semi-structured, and unstructured.
The structured interview has a preset list of
questions with each question asked in the
same order during each interview. This ap-
proach requires minimal interviewing skills.
It also delivers quantifiable results, enabling
78
Planning for Knowledge Management
the analysis to say something like “of x indi-
viduals interviewed, y consider ease of use to
be the most important feature of a corporate
intranet.” The semi-structured interview
begins with a prepared list of questions or
topics to use in eliciting information, but can
also include more open ended questions and
enable an experienced interviewer to follow
up on selected points or responses. The un-
structured interview is informal, beginning
with a general explanation of the topic or
information of interest. It requires a skilled
and experienced interviewer to draw out the
salient points.
Focus Groups: A focus group amounts to
collective interviewing. A moderator leads
six to ten people in addressing typically five
questions or topics. When conducted in ad-
vance of a series of interviews, focus group
findings feed the formation of questionnaires
or interview questions. When held after
distributing a questionnaire or conducting
one-on-one interviews, the focus group af-
fords an opportunity to expand on or clear up
individual findings. Group discussions often
bring out information that might otherwise
go undetected (see Box 9). While some assert
that participants are more forthcoming in a
group than they might be as individuals, that
is not always the case. Some might hold back
for fear of what others think of their ideas. It
helps if all participants are at the same level
within the organization. Mixing supervisors
and subordinates in the same group can stifle
sharing. Focus group sessions last 45-90 min-
utes, and as the name suggests, the discussion
moves from a general view to a more focused
discussion of the questions at hand. Topics to
cover are typically sent out in advance so that
participants can give some thought to their
opinion or answers.
Moderating a focus group takes a fair
amount of practice and training. The mod-
erator, sometimes called the facilitator, must
Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 9. Theory in practice: Surprising findings from a focus group

Information professional Chris Dobson (2002) discovered the ‘two click rule’ in a focus group. The topic revolved around
the value of a biweekly newsletter distributed electronically by the company librarian. In the course of the discussion, a
consensus emerged. If the notifying email included a link to the newsletter, recipients would click on the link and read the
newsletter. If the notification required the recipient to go first to the library intranet site and then click on the newsletter,
they probably would not bother.

Dobson uses the finding as an example of the kind of information that would only come out during a focus group (p. 35).

maintain objectivity and see that the study
objectives are met. In addition, the moderator
needs to listen carefully, guide the discussion,
and ensure that everyone has a chance to
participate. The successful focus group takes
place in a relaxed atmosphere with a free flow
of ideas and conversation.
Project Participants
Whether the study team elects to use question-
naires, one-on-one interviews, focus groups, or
a combination of these methods, it is impor-
tant to decide what constitutes a meaningful
sample size and who needs to have a voice.
Sample size varies depending upon meth-
odology and project goals. In theory, with a
questionnaire or online survey, every knowl-
edge worker in the enterprise could participate.
Automated online survey and analysis tools
make it possible to collect and analyze large
quantities of input. Of course, the possibility
does not imply suitability. It may be best to
decide which sections of the company have
relevant information or knowledge needs and
practices and then target these groups. That
being said, inclusion has its benefits as it can
help increase interest and buy-in while some-
times uncovering unexpected information.
Organizational culture and available resources
(staff and budget) help guide the decision.
In the case of interviews and focus groups,
sample size must accommodate all affected
constituencies in order to assure valid out-
comes. How are appropriate candidates identi-
fied and selected? Often the internal project
sponsors can point to the teams, departments,
and users best able to inform a knowledge
assessment. In one audit, conducted for a
company with 3,500 employees, the project
team relied on executive management to select
participants. The project sponsor requested
each of the 80 senior leaders in the company to
appoint someone from their team to make time
for an interview. DiMattia and Blumenstein
(2000) cites the example of a Westinghouse
information audit with a pool of 22,000 em-
ployees on which to draw. Recognizing that
she could not include everyone, she needed
to establish criteria defining who should to
include (p. 50). In this case the corporate
librarian identified her customers (and likely
candidates for a survey) by culling two years
of research questions to see who asked them
and by examining circulation records for busi-
ness books to see who had checked them out.
Selection of participants can influence
the findings, the recommendations, and the
ultimate implementation of any changes
coming out of the audit. Study participants
often become advocates for the outcome and
take part in the implementation process. One
criterion to apply in selecting participants is
to seek out the gatekeepers or information
gurus. Experience indicates that most organi-
zations have individuals with strong interest
in information management or significant
knowledge of information needs. For example,
such individuals may have initiated a local
knowledge management solution of their

79
 Planning for Knowledge Management

own (such as a portal or share site). Within a
team or department, workers will often turn
first to the gatekeeper or guru for information
solutions before turning to IT or the library
(if there is one). In the case of focus groups,
it is helpful to invite members from the same
department, project team, or job classification.
Having something in common helps assure
a reasonable level of interest and discussion
from them. Finally, as mentioned earlier, it is
best to avoid mixing supervisors and subor-
dinates (see Box 10).
Questions to Ask
Consistent with the understanding that there
is no one “correct” method for conducting a
knowledge assessment or information audit,
it should come as no surprise that there is no
one set list of questions to ask. Whether you
opt for a survey, individual interviews, or fo-
cus groups, the questions to ask will depend
entirely on the objectives of the project. In
any case, ensure the questions relate directly
to the project. Unrelated questions lead to
fatigue and lack of interest among those be-
ing interviewed and serve as a distraction for
those analyzing and evaluating the findings.
Typically, in a comprehensive knowledge
study, the team wants to know about the fol-
lowing broad areas (Orna, 1999, p. 84):
1. Information resources currently used
(content and ‘containers’)
2. Guardians and stakeholders
3. Information flow and interactions
4. Technology and systems to support the
use of information
5. How the cost effectiveness of information
is assessed
Orna details what one might want to know
about each of these general areas, pointing out
that knowing what information or knowledge
resources the organization owns or has access
to, and knowing where they reside, is funda-
mental to any knowledge assessment project. It
is the beginning of ‘knowing what we know’.
Identifying and understanding the practices
of guardians and stakeholders provides valu-
able input to creating a knowledge map and to
identifying nodes or collections of informa-
tion. Inevitably within a business unit or an
enterprise, individuals take an interest and
rise to the occasion as local unofficial gurus
of information management. Individuals gain
a reputation as the go-to person or the first
line of defense in pointing to locally held
information assets. Identifying these people
and collecting information on what they
know reveals a great deal about information
creation, acquisition, storage, and flow within
the organization.

Box 10. Theory in practice: Survey or interviews?

Not all knowledge assessments require a survey and interviews, but some do. In one case the company was small enough
to permit a survey of all employees plus a round of one-on-one interviews. The questionnaire sought to determine overall
corporate practices for finding information and to build an inventory of sources used. It was crafted and tested online
using the paid version of SurveyMonkey, and the corporate CEO ultimately distributed the link to all employees. The
response rate was very high and resulted in data that could be used to recommend corporate journal subscriptions and
document delivery options.

The subsequent interviews delved into departmental knowledge management practices and challenges. Interview findings
uncovered internal knowledge management champions and produced a better understanding of corporate culture revealing
an overreliance on email and a general feeling of information overload. One surprising finding revealed a competitive
intelligence risk. When she could not find useful information within her own company, one knowledge worker relied on a
former colleague (who happened to be at a competing company) to supply certain types of search results for her.

80
Planning for Knowledge Management
Questions about information flow focus
on identifying internal and external sources:
Who brings information into the company,
how is it shared, and what barriers inhibit the
flow? Technology and systems should sup-
port this flow, facilitating access to necessary
resources. Thus, questions about technology
address usability, appropriateness, and com-
patibility with other systems.
Finally, most knowledge assessment stud-
ies do well to determine a baseline of expendi-
tures and perceived value in order to address
perceptions of cost effectiveness. Ideally the
questions related to costs shed light on actual
expenditures by a given business unit or by
the entire organization. Surprisingly, many
companies do not know what they spend
to acquire external information or create
reports internally. The accounting systems
lack adequate categorization to easily identify
information related spending. For example, a
subscription to a database or market research
service might be labeled “consulting” in one
business unit, “research” in another, and “mis-
cellaneous” in a third. Thus, the first round in
the knowledge assessment may simply bring to
light such opportunities to improve or clarify
recordkeeping. Once it is clear, for example,
that seven departments are each spending
an average of $50,000 per year for the same
type of information content, the study recom-
mendations may suggest negotiating a more
cost-effective enterprise wide subscription.
Henczel (2000, p. 220) approaches the
categorization of topics for questions more
broadly, suggesting that it is usual to collect
three types of data:
1. Data relating to information required to
perform tasks and activities
2. Data relating to the ‘level of criticality’
of information resources, tasks, and
activities
3. Data relating to information transfer
The questions asked and the level of detail
expected from responders must align with each
individual’s position in the organization and the
amount of time allotted. Questions that can be
answered ‘off the top of the head’ generally
receive much more participation than questions
requiring extensive digging into spending re-
cords or time sheets. Henczel outlines a process
wherein the interviewee is asked to list the
tasks performed and the information required
to complete each task. Then, he or she is asked
to describe where the information comes from
and how important it is to the task it supports
(on a scale of 1 to 5). Henczel’s questionnaire
also asks for a listing of information or reports
created by the business unit for other sections
of the organization. Finally, the questionnaire
asks responders to rate the importance of vari-
ous characteristics when choosing or using a
particular information resource. These char-
acteristics include availability, accuracy, cost,
currency, and delivery method (p. 96).
Such insight provides important input rating
the value of resources and to mapping infor-
mation flow, but providing this level of detail
is time consuming. Analyzing the findings is
also time-consuming. Since this level of detail
is not necessarily needed from each and every
responder, questionnaires might be tailored or
customized for responders within a department
or business unit (see Box 11 and Box 12).
ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
Once the input has been collected, by whatever
means, the next steps involve data analysis and
evaluation. Strictly speaking, analysis means
separating the data into its constituent parts
for study while evaluation means examining,
judging, or appraising it. In the case of an
assessment project, the team needs to derive
knowledge from the collected input in order
to offer recommendations. The first step in
81
 Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 11. Theory in practice: Employee questionnaire in a medium sized firm

The Information Sources survey is designed to help us learn more about the information you need to do your job. It will
help identify gaps and opportunities in the information services available to you.

Thank you very much for taking time to complete this survey. Your participation is appreciated and should require less
than 15 minutes. All answers will be kept confidential. Information will be aggregated for the purposes of the study
report.

     1. In what department do you work?

     2. What is your job title?
     3. As part of your job, do you ever need information from journals, databases, libraries, market research, news, or other
outside sources? (If the answer is no, you can end the survey here.)
     4. Please list the professional or trade associations you belong to (paid for by the company).
     5. What newspapers, journals, newsletters, or magazines do you subscribe to (not including those coming with
memberships you describe in your answer to Question 4)?
     6. If you have budgetary responsibility, please offer an estimate of how much your department spends each year to
obtain information from outside the company (subscriptions, photocopies, reports, etc.).
     7. Which databases, subscriptions or fee-based search services on the below list do you use?
     8. How many times each week do you search for work related information on the Internet?
     9. How many times each week do you ask colleagues within the company for work-related information?
Check all that apply for questions 10-20:
     10. When you need work-related information, how do you look for it?
     11. What kind of information do you need?
     12. Where do you generally look for information on competitors?
     13. Where do you look for patent information?
     14. What databases do you search for scientific/technical/medical literature?
     15. How do you get general business news?
     16. How do you get market research information?
     17. How do you get industry news?
     18. Where do you look for safety/regulatory/quality information?
     19. Where do you look for information on management or human resources topics?
     20. What else do we need to know about the information you need and how you go about getting it?

We are grateful for your input! Thank you for taking time to participate in the survey.

analysis is to organize the data in such a way Analysis

as to understand it at a higher level. Doing so
leads to information that can be evaluated to
draw meaning in the context of project objec-
tives and organizational goals and objectives.
Here is where the rubber meets the road, so
to speak, as the information experts begin to
see the patterns and practices in the organiza-
tion’s information management. The analysis
phase begins to reveal gaps, duplications,
usage anomalies, over-provision or under-
provision, information flows or barriers, use
of inappropriate or sub-standard resources,
and cultural themes. All of it feeds into the
development of recommendations.
Techniques used for analysis depend upon the
kind of data collected and the resources avail-
able to the project team. Generally speaking,
the approach fits into one of three categories
or types:
1. General analysis,
2. Strategic analysis, or
3. Flows analysis.
A general analysis stems from open ended
survey and interview questions. It requires the
analyst to digest large volumes of text look-

82
Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 12. Theory in practice: Interview questions from two audits

In each of two studies, the interviews were conducted in a relaxed conversational style by experienced interviewers.
In neither case did the team try to collect data that could lead to quantifiable assessments. Rather it sought to elicit
information useful in understanding the knowledge culture, identifying knowledge guardians or gurus, learning about gaps
or missing pieces, and understanding how knowledge flows (or does not flow) within the organization.

All interviews begin with an explanation or recap of the project and process and end with a special thank you to the
interviewee for taking time to participate and share.

Interview questions for interviewees identified as key “knowledge consumers”:

Project Objective: To identify what we know and to identify means to track what we know.
     1. What is your primary job responsibility?
     2. What are the projects you spend most of your time on?
     3. What kind of information do you use in your normal work processes?
     4. How do you usually obtain that information?
     5. What Internet sites are particularly useful to you?
     6. What information do you wish you had that you cannot easily obtain?
     7. What reports or other information do you generate?
     8. Who receives the information?
     9. What reports do you receive from others in the organization?
     10. Are they useful?
     11. Do they come to you proactively, or do you need to go asking for them?
     12. What other comments could you make about your access to information?

Interview questions for interviewees designated by top management:

Project Objective: To identify business teams’ information related practices and discover whether “information silos”
present a barrier to exchange among teams.
     1. For the sake of context, could you describe in general terms the work your department performs and illustrate by
describing typical work products? To support the work, what external and internal resources do you consult?
     2. What challenges do you perceive with respect to using those resources? (Typical comments include timeliness, user
friendliness, cost, and finding time to examine the resource.)
     3. How do you stay current with relevant new developments or competitive information?
     4. How does your unit share knowledge internally and with other departments?
     5. Does any type of “expertise directory” exist to identify the experience of colleagues? If not, would you value such a
resource?
     6. What other comments could you offer regarding access to and use of information in your team?

ing for themes or common threads related to
pain points, enterprise knowledge/information
culture, workarounds, and awareness (or lack
thereof) regarding available resources. De-
pending on the number of interviews, it can
be helpful to create a spreadsheet reflecting
interviewee name and department down one
axis and key concepts on the other to create
a visual impression showing how many times
a matter was raised and who raised it. Word
clouds, in which word size indicates preva-
lence, give a general view of key concerns or
often repeated concepts. To create Figure 3,
the collected notes from dozens of interviews
were pasted into Wordle. The resulting word
cloud reflects a concern for people, teams,
resources, needs, sharing, and of course in-
formation and data.
In analyzing content from interviews, the
simple “Find” command in word processing
software is helpful in guiding the analyst to
important concepts within large quantities of
text: For instance, the number of times the
word “barrier” occurs is a finding in itself.
Strategic analysis works from quantifi-
able data collected through surveys or highly

83

Figure 3. Word cloud based on interview notes
structured and standardized interviews. Sur-
vey questions shed light on perceived value
of resources, spending, go-to sources and
search strategies, as well as general classes
of information sought. For example, ratings
reveal how important something is to the
knowledge worker and can be used to prioritize
new products or services:
Do you consider article delivery service as
_____ must have
_____ nice to have or
_____ not needed?
Please rate the following subscription ser-
vices as
_____ must have
_____ nice to have or
_____ not needed
Using an online survey tool such as Sur-
veyMonkey facilitates distribution, collection,
and analysis of data. A thoughtfully generated
and carefully tested online questionnaire
can save a great deal of time by automating
the analysis while delivering insights not
otherwise discoverable. Strategic analysis of
interview data sometimes requires the addi-
84
Planning for Knowledge Management
tional step of inputting answers into a database
system - a step that may require coding and
tagging so that the system can be queried
to generate customized reports. When the
data provides details on specific information
resources, a database can generate reports
(Henczel, 2000, p. 221)such as:
• The tasks supported by each informa-
tion resource
• The importance of each information re-
source to the tasks it supports
• The information resources that support
each organizational objective
• The tasks for which the ‘ideal’ resourc-
es are not provided
• Duplications of resources
Very large studies sometimes require sta-
tistical analysis using specialized software,
however experience indicates that projects of
such huge size are rather rare (see Box 13).
Outputs from the strategic analysis of data
frequently include tables, graphs, or SWOT
(strengths, weaknesses, opportunity, and
threats) charts. Spreadsheet software such as
Excel facilitates creation of tables, particu-
Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 13. Theory in practice: Resource lists submitted via spreadsheets

One knowledge audit requested participants to submit spreadsheets listing information assets used by the knowledge
worker (those assets obtained externally and those generated internally). Spreadsheets came in from several dozen
participants. Seeing no way to automate the process, the audit team manually created an aggregated spreadsheet showing
all assets and who submitted them. It was a labor intensive task, but the end result proved very useful because the audit
team could produce charts and graphs showing overlaps, frequently used resources, and frequent users. Charts identified
the top ten resources mentioned, the departments using the largest number of resources, and the individuals who were
intense users of information assets.

larly pivot tables, to show who uses particular
resources, which departments rely on specific
resources, and who are heavy information
consumers. Pie charts and bar graphs help
analysts see, for example, how the use of re-
sources varies across the organization. Analyz-
ing the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
and threats and listing them in the classic four
square grid works well when studying pro-
cesses or systems used to manage information
assets. For example, the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission applied a SWOT
analysis to the data from 80 interviews, parsing
out the comments as a strength, weakness,
opportunity, or threat to give analysts a struc-
tured list from which to work in evaluating the
findings and responding with recommendations
(Orna, 1999, p. 206).
Flows analysis comes out of surveys,
interviews, observation, and examination of
existing documents and databases. This pro-
cess shows how knowledge moves into, out of,
and around an organization. Not every project
requires flows analysis, however the exer-
cise works well to reveal barriers, silos, and
gatekeepers. Flows analysis is often referred
to as knowledge mapping, since diagrams of
various kinds are generally used to organize
the data and to display findings. A knowledge
map might show how an individual worker
uses information illustrating the following:
• What documents, databases, or tacit
knowledge feed into the work
• Where information originates
• What reports, content, or knowledge
get created as a result
• Where the information is stored
• Who else gets it once it has been created
A knowledge map can also show how a
given document moves into, through, or out
of the organization.
Social network maps have become a useful
tool in understanding the flow of tacit knowl-
edge. They represent the connections between
knowledge workers showing who knows whom
and how knowledge flows as a result of a
specific work process (customer complaint or
social worker case management for instance).
Finally, marking up an organizational chart
with data from interviews or surveys can reveal
gatekeepers and silos of information.
Today’s digital environments offer an
abundance of tools to create flow charts,
organizational charts, mind maps, and social
networking diagrams. In order to appreciate
the value of these images, it helps to look at
some examples. In “Knowledge Auditing and
Mapping: A Pragmatic Approach,” Burnett et
al. (2004, pp. 32-33) includes two knowledge
maps from the tax department of an oil com-
pany. They illustrate document formats such
as notes, books, papers, or online along with
content including cases, statutes, and courses.
The map shows what is stored where, with stor-
age places listed as “tacit, H:Drive, Database,
S:Drive, and Hardcopy Files.” In “Assessing

85

Knowledge Assets: Knowledge Audit of a
Social Service Organization in Hong Kong,”
Leung et al. (2010, p. 375) offers a detailed
map for an individual social worker showing
what kind of information flows to and from
this worker, identifying format and content.
Rather than focusing on an individual, Chan
(2011, p. 109) illustrates a process in a map
detailing the customer complaint process.
The diagram details the customer complaint
process showing how documents flow within
a battery manufacturing plant.
Some cloud based or online social network-
ing sources provide analysis tools that facilitate
knowledge mapping. LinkedIn offers a good
example. Through LinkedIn Labs it is possible
to create a map visualizing an individual’s
connections. The map is interactive, making
it possible to hover over any individual’s node
and see what connections track back to him or
her. Clicking on any name reveals his or her
profile along with a list of shared connections
(see for example Figure 4).
Figure 4. Author’s LinkedIn network as portrayed by LinkedIn Labs (http://inmaps.linkedinlabs.com/)
86
Planning for Knowledge Management
Evaluation
Once the data has been adequately analyzed
with appropriate themes identified and visu-
als created, it is time to “figure out what it
all means.” How do the findings align with
the objectives of the study and the realities of
the entity being assessed? The project team
can now begin matching what is (as shown
in the data analysis) with what should be (as
defined by organizational goals).
The study team should have enough or-
ganizational knowledge to interpret themes,
analyze gaps and duplications, and attach
meaning to the movement of information.
Do the findings support the hypothesis or
assumptions developed at the beginning of
the study? Are there any surprises or anoma-
lies? Themes generally reveal weaknesses
or strengths in knowledge management that
can be converted to opportunities. Common
weaknesses include:
Planning for Knowledge Management
• Lack of necessary resources or use of
sub-standard resources to “do the job”
• Lack of knowledge regarding resources
created by or available to other workers
or departments
• Not knowing who to ask when help is
needed
• Inability to adequately store and track
essential information objects (reports,
documents, slide decks)
• General fear of sharing (if I give infor-
mation away, I will lose power or con-
trol in some way)
• Misunderstanding as to what kind of
information others need to do their jobs
• General sense of information overload
and inability to prioritize incoming
information
• Awareness that there may be duplica-
tion of effort or spending with no in-
stitutionalized means to address this
concern
Common strengths sometimes reflect
weaknesses. These include:
• Willingness to share - if only we
knew who needed our information or
knowledge
• Desire to organize content given the
right tools and resources
• Desire to manage costs by avoiding
duplication and improving vendor
negotiations
• Appreciation of the value of centralized
knowledge management
• Recognition that knowledge manage-
ment processes can save time and help
everyone do a better job
In evaluating study findings, the team must
take corporate culture or organizational reali-
ties into account in order to derive meaning
from the findings. Consideration of the fol-
lowing questions will help the team put the
findings into a workable context.
How do the findings measure up against
organizational goals and objectives? In or-
der to put weight or priority on the findings,
compare them against organizational goals. In
working on a biotechnology company audit,
the consultant noted that the company placed
a high priority on ethical and legal use of its
own intellectual property, even including this
concept in the company’s values statement and
in new employee training. At the same time,
existing company practices uncovered during
the audit process put the company at risk for
copyright violations (using the intellectual
property of others). The discrepancy and the
resulting risks led project leaders to place
high priority on recommendations related to
copyright compliance.
Does the organization have the political
will to address the problem? Executive and
management support, even to the point of
mandates, is generally required to assure some
level of commitment to corrective action. If
for any reason there appears to be a lack of
support, it may be prudent to take a pass on
a given problem, at least for the time being.
For example, in the case of a company put-
ting a very high priority on learning from past
mistakes, it is significant to find (1) there is no
way of sharing prior learnings and (2) there are
cultural barriers to admitting failure. Turning
around such a corporate culture could be an
insurmountable challenge if leadership is not
willing or able to rally in support of necessary
changes (see Box 14).
Do the potential benefits of addressing the
problem outweigh the risks? Every change,
even if it is for the best, creates ripple effects
throughout the organization. Responsibilities
move between individuals and departments.
Processes change, requiring learning curves
and time adjustments. Priorities adjust so that
what used to be of little interest suddenly be-
87
 Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 14. Theory in practice: Providing incentives to action

Sometimes corrective action requires a mandate from management or some kind of appropriate incentives. In a recent
project where recommendations required a corporate shift in the culture of sharing and tracking project success, the
consultants recommended steps be added to employees’ key performance indicators that require certain knowledge
management practices to be followed. An evaluation of adherence to these practices was added to the annual review
process.

In another case, where new initiatives for knowledge sharing were put in place, the team included gamification incentives.
Knowledge workers obtained points, badges, and recognition through designated sharing activities.
Whether to use the carrot or the stick or a combination depends on the situation.

comes a primary concern. Finally, budgets RECOMMENDATIONS

must adapt to all these changes. It helps if the
benefits are clear to all concerned. In the case
of the company inadvertently putting itself at
risk for copyright infringement, the costs of
bringing company practices into compliance
appeared high. However, the audit revealed
that potential costs in terms of fines or penal-
ties were much higher - quite apart from the
damage to corporate reputation. (As an aside,
the intangible benefits achieved when workers
feel good about their ethical business prac-
tices are hard to measure but real nonetheless.)
Are there sufficient resources to address
the problem? Financial and human resources
are often required to address knowledge man-
agement problems. While financial savings
may in some cases result, it is prudent not to
count on any. Costs may be simple additions
such as new journal subscriptions or a new
hire, or they may involve more complex staff
realignments. Making sense of findings and
evaluating possible solutions must take into
account the availability of staff or finances.
The study team should weigh organizational
goals and priorities against the problems
identified. Experience has shown that when
the need is great enough, a strong case can
be made for a significant extra expense even
when budgetary restrictions would have
argued against it. It is the role of the study
team to find the balance between corporate
objectives and study findings.
While the analysis stage reveals what the data
can tell us and the evaluation stage looks at
what it means, developing recommendations
answers the question “what do we do about
it?” The recommendations must be grounded
in industry best practices and must address
the study objectives. The recommendations
must be feasible within the context of the
enterprise. It is important to find the balance
between the ideal or best practice and the
solutions appropriate to a given situation. The
recommendations must in addition include
an implementation plan.
Incorporate industry best practices.
Knowledge management tactics take many
forms including technical and human solutions
ranging from the installation of a platform such
as Microsoft SharePoint to employing a trained
librarian or information professional. Tactics
vary in scope from adding document delivery
service for one-off articles to negotiating a site
license with a multidisciplinary database ven-
dor for hundreds of magazines and journals.
Solutions recommended by the audit team
should reflect industry best practices. Time
has taught that a complex technology platform
for knowledge management does not always
represent the best solution (although there was
a time when technology was thought to be the
answer). Documenting how recommendations
are in line with industry standards may be in

88
Planning for Knowledge Management

order - for example, through a search of the
literature or interviews with noted experts.
Address study objectives. In addition to
reflecting industry best practices, the recom-
mendations should closely align with study
objectives. Be sure that the recommendations
speak to the drivers of the study - but in addi-
tion take advantage if the findings open doors
to unexpected opportunities.
In one project focused on cost savings, the
audit team polled key constituents to learn
what information assets they were bringing
into the organization, including subscriptions,
market research reports, custom research,
online databases, print reference materials,
and one-off purchases of journal articles.
The team also contacted procurement for data
showing the purchase of such materials. The
team assumed that with input from the various
business units supplemented by data from the
purchasing department, it would be possible
to identify users, redundancies, and opportu-
nities to reduce costs. Findings revealed that
many participants could not say what their
department purchased or how much they
spent because of inadequate recordkeeping.
Procurement could not produce useful lists
of purchases because of inadequate coding
or tagging of knowledge and information as-
sets. In this case, the knowledge audit team
recommended that the enterprise develop
a meaningful list - in cooperation with the
procurement department - of codes and sys-
tematically implement the use of those codes
to facilitate future tracking of expenditures.
The process found that in order to meet the
study objective in the future, certain interim
changes to current practices and systems must
be put in place.
Make sure recommendations are feasible.
In an ideal world an enterprise would have all
of the political will, financing, and staffing
required to implement all recommendations
arising from the audit. This virtually never
happens, so recommendations must be tailored
or prioritized to fit the realities of the situation
at hand. Even with ample financial and human
resources in place, a knowledgeable project
team may conclude that a recommended solu-
tion simply “will not fly” in the organization
right now. In that case, the alternative might
be a phased approach with recommendations
offering a step-by-step means of getting from
the status quo to an improved situation (see
Box 15).
Include a plan: While a list of recommen-
dations addressing study objectives might
seem like a reasonable conclusion for the
knowledge audit, there is another question to
answer. How does the organization get from

Box 15. Theory in practice: Delivering feasible recommendations

The knowledge audit at a start-up company revealed that research scientists did not have copyright compliant access to the
scientific literature they needed in order to advance the research goals of the organization. The audit team identified the
need for a searchable, full-text database of the scientific literature to deliver articles in a timely way without concern for
copyright infringement.

Management had not budgeted for the expense and was not willing to allocate the necessary funding from other sources.
Recognizing the limitations, the audit team nevertheless recommended a Phase I training in a well respected public-access
scientific literature resource and contracting with a document delivery service. This gave the research scientists improved
understanding of the free literature search option and copyright compliant access to the full text of identified articles while
postponing the expense of a database subscription.

Phase II of the recommendation, however, called for a site license for commercial databases in order to provide for access
to a broader range of literature and for immediate downloads of articles.

89

the current situation to the improved situation
pointed to by the recommendations? A plan
prioritizes the recommendations, identifies
responsible parties to carry out the work, and
creates a timeline for getting things done.
Three years is generally a workable timeframe
for planning purposes. Few institutions are
nimble enough to make significant changes
in a shorter period. The easy fixes or “quick
wins” in the first year help establish credibil-
ity and demonstrate effectiveness early on,
thus establishing the foundation for moving
on to the harder or more complex tasks pri-
oritized into years two and three.
Reporting
Most knowledge audits produce a written
report for the record. The written report in-
cludes an executive summary (less is more
when it comes to getting the attention of
busy executives), sections on methodology,
findings, recommendations, and an imple-
mentation plan. It is helpful to BLUF (put the
Bottom Line Up Front). No reader, no matter
how dedicated, wants to plow through page
after page of background, justification, and
project details to figure out where the initia-
tive is going.
Ideally the audit team has offered interim
progress reports to stakeholders or decision
makers along the way in writing or through
presentations. Doing so helps identify red flags
or pitfalls that could derail the process if left
unaddressed. Interim reporting also sheds light
on the viability of possible recommendations
under consideration.
Reporting often involves something of
a sales pitch in order to obtain executive or
decision maker buy-in to the study recom-
mendations. It is essential to position the
recommendations so that decision makers can
easily see the benefits of implementation and
the risks of retaining the status quo. Remind
90
Planning for Knowledge Management
them why the study was initiated in the first
place and what kind of management support is
behind it. Be mindful of individual preferences
for communication and do not be surprised if
the results of six months of research, evalu-
ation, and study must be boiled down into
five slides for executive consumption. Get
to the point immediately in the presentation,
and only provide background and supporting
evidence as needed.
In an oral presentation plan, five slides
could address the following topics:
1. The situation the project was meant to
address (threats, risks, opportunities)
2. What the study found (good news and
bad)
3. What we recommend be done about it
(and it is eminently doable)
4. Steps for getting it done (including quick
wins)
5. Action required to get started
Finally, in writing or presenting, consider
language carefully. First and foremost, avoid
jargon and acronyms. Every industry has its
shorthand language. Information profession-
als talking to other information professionals
will understand what it means to put in place
an LAS or ILS, but no one else will. (An
LAS is a library automation system, an ILS
is an integrated library system - both involve
cataloguing, circulation, authority control, and
serials management capabilities.) Sometimes
even spelling out the acronym is not helpful.
Instead use unambiguous, natural language
that is clear to most readers and listeners.
One must also consider the context. In most
cases it is clear to use the term ‘information
properties’ to refer to reports, documents, slide
decks, or books. However, in one knowledge
audit conducted for a travel company, the
concept of ‘information properties’ confused
the listeners. In their world, ‘property’ means
Planning for Knowledge Management
only one thing - a hotel. The term was aban-
doned early on and substituted with “asset”
or the actual word such as database, research
report, or book.
Implementation
The last step in the first iteration of a knowl-
edge assessment process is implementation.
Putting the recommendations into place
requires a certain amount of finesse, tact,
and people skills. Change management is a
discipline all to itself. Suffice it to say here
that missteps in implementation could lead to
a missed opportunity within the organization.
Stakeholders might give the team a chance at
achieving change, but if it is not well done,
the team may not get a second chance. This
is particularly true of technical solutions such
as intranets, portals, or sharing platforms. As
enterprise content manager Jüris Kelley puts it,
“many end-users will give you one chance to
show them why they should spend their time
using your system” and the “quickest way to
achieve collaboration failure is to launch a new
system that is a dud” (Kelley, 2005, p. 30).
As indicated above, the entire knowledge
assessment process is iterative. Once a project
is complete, it is time to begin planning for an
update. As the organization implements the
recommendations of an audit, time passes,
and priorities change so that a study update
becomes necessary. Most organizations ben-
efit from a plan evaluation after 18-36 months.
Such a cycle keeps the recommendations fresh
and relevant and facilitates the adaptation to
changing conditions (see Box 16).
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE
TRENDS: NOW WHAT?
Over the last 15-20 years, information and
knowledge auditing has evolved. Practitioners
now make a distinction between the needs
assessment, the information audit, and the
knowledge audit. They acknowledge that no
single approach serves all purposes and that
an audit may be led by an internal team or
external consultants or by a combination.
Further, the experts understand the differ-
ence between explicit knowledge and tacit
knowledge and see clearly that technology
has a role but cannot serve alone to solve the
challenges of knowledge management.
The knowledge or information audit
continues to gain traction as a means toward
meaningful knowledge management. In-
formation professionals commonly include
sessions on information/knowledge audits at
industry conferences and write about their
experiences in the professional literature. For
instance, the 2013 SLA conference (attended
by specialized librarians) included a full day
workshop on the knowledge audit. In 1997
Sue Henczel said there are “very few people
with firsthand experience in conducting
complete information audits” (DiMattia &
Blumenstein, 2000, p. 48). That is less true
in 2013. Consultancies have emerged to pro-
vide audit services to clients of all sizes in all
industries. The literature abounds with case
studies of assessments conducted by internal
staff. LinkedIn includes information audit
among its list of skills.
In the literature search for mentions of
‘information audit’ or ‘knowledge audit’
conducted in April 2013, the total number
of references found remained under 10 per
year until 1990. At that point the references
began a steady climb through the 1990s until
2007 when it peaked and began to taper off.
In 1993 Pat Alderson at Travelers Com-
panies wrote in Best’s Review that “the ‘new‘
information professional” will be an infor-
mation consultant, auditing the company’s
information needs, supplying resources and
measuring how well data needs are met” (p.
91
 Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 16. Theory in practice: A client speaks

The knowledge manager in an international company with extensive emphasis on business intelligence was leading
a project to develop an intranet based “Information Central” providing access to a range of commercial resources.
To support the specific design and rollout of the Information Central, the knowledge manager made the business case
to superiors that it would be valuable not only to focus on it, but to understand in a broader perspective the current
practices on the part of knowledge workers. As a result, a comprehensive knowledge audit was undertaken in an effort to
understand precisely (1) how the business teams around the world were currently going about finding data and market
intelligence and (2) whether there were adequate mechanisms for communicating lessons learned and insights gained
from one team to other teams. The following represents the knowledge manager’s observations regarding the knowledge
audit process and the value derived from it:

I have been championing knowledge management and world class market intelligence for over a decade at my company.
One thing missing for all those years was true executive support and buy-in. The support received usually stalled at the
Vice President level as the VPs appeared not to be in a position to gain support from their superiors.

Through some management changes and new voices coming into the company, that all changed suddenly. My team
received budget to hire an outside consultancy to help conduct a professional knowledge study. We began the RFP process
and requested proposals from several respected consultants. We were looking for a solid track record and for assurance
that the engagement would deliver value.

We were pleased to see two consultants, each with a stellar reputation, teaming up to create a proposal uniquely suited to
our requirements. Their combined experience perfectly complemented the complex environment typical of my company.

The anticipated “perfect match” proved true as the consulting team began work. Following an initial two day in-person
meeting to learn more about our company, the consultants suggested and we agreed that interviews with representative
knowledge workers would be the best method by which to gather insight into their information related practices and
challenges. I learned a great deal from observing the consultants as they went about crafting the investigative phase of the
project and …

• Developed questions to ask the interviewees

• Created an invitation for senior leaders to send to individuals they nominated to be interviewed - the invitation was sent
out by the Senior Vice President sponsoring the audit to ensure the project was taken seriously
• Wrote a meeting invitation and sent it to the nominated interviewees along with a preformatted template to complete
with information about the resources they currently buy and/or use
• Tracked responses and set up the interviews
• Conducting the 1-4 person interviews (in which I, on the consultants’ advice, did not participate in the interest of
confidentiality and freedom to speak)
• Sent out thank you notes to the participants

Throughout the interview process, we discovered that the participants were enthusiastic and more than willing to give
of their time. Very few individuals turned out to be unavailable at the scheduled time. The participants were especially
pleased that the study was taking place - in other words, that KM was going to get serious attention - and expressed their
hopes that it was the first step in enabling change to take place within the organization.

For one month after the interviews were completed, the consultants compiled their findings and created two reports:
Recommendations for KM policy at my company and recommendations for our Information Central. Key among the
recommendations - and something I would never have thought of - was the formation of a Knowledge Advisory Board
consisting of prominent stakeholders. A summary report was in addition created for the participants in order to ensure
they had a sense of the direction recommended for the company.

continued on following page

92
Planning for Knowledge Management

Box 16. Continued

A final in-person, two-day meeting took place at my company to give me an opportunity to showcase in front of my boss
the exciting opportunities uncovered by the findings. We reviewed the reports and then began discussing in detail how
to implement the recommendations. Having learned so much from the study about the “cost of not knowing,” gaps and
barriers to knowledge sharing, and internal and external resources being used, we were now in a position to make well
informed decisions in leveraging the opportunity to impact the organization positively. The opportunities we saw were
quick wins as well as wins for the longer term.

Our discussions produced a three-year roadmap tailored to our organizational culture’s focus on planning. It encompassed
four pillars: Business Process, Procurement, the Information Central, and Personnel. Emphasizing action in year 1 for
immediate progress (the quick wins), the roadmap provided for gradual increases in KM personnel resources and for
evolving assessments of priorities to ensure the planned actions could be taken in years 2 and 3.

Shortly thereafter, a presentation was created for the sponsoring Senior Vice President. He was pleased with the clarity
of vision in the recommendations and in the roadmap and speedily authorized the distribution of the summary report to
interview participants.

Because of the study, we now have relevant validation points when initiating activities on the knowledge management
front. My team and I have in a few months accomplished a great deal:

• My team selected the members for and set up a Knowledge Advisory Board. We chose 10 champions of knowledge
sharing whose credentials were confirmed in the study. The Board has advised our team on the various activities we
have been undertaking. The members have been leaders in getting their team members to attend training events
sponsored by the knowledge management team.
• I sought out a company to build an expertise directory enabling employees to identify who knows what - not just based
on what people do here at my company, but on previous experience and expertise. During recent training sessions, I
have seen people in the audience perk up with smiles and even applaud when they heard the directory was being created.
• Our Information Central user base has grown by 600%.
• We are having conversations with many teams to start cultivating their content for addition to the Information Central.
• We are discussing with global human resources opportunities to integrate knowledge sharing into the onboarding
process of new colleagues to the company.
• We created a new brand, logo, and tagline for our Information Central.
• We developed better relationships with Procurement so as to get better value from our market intelligence resources.
• We are reviewing licenses for content to determine whether they are the “right size.”
• To generate maximum awareness in the company, we have planned a “relaunch” of the Information Central with
enhanced searching capabilities and a new brand identity.
• Training opportunities have been set up so that employees may learn how to use the Information Central via in-person
trainings in one-on-one sessions or through international Webinars.
• We created a monthly newsletter to “shout about” what we are planning and what we are doing; it is the perfect
communication vehicle for speaking about market intelligence resources and how they are impacting the business.
• A Knowledge Management analyst was hired to be responsible for curating the content for the Information Central.

These are just some of the exciting opportunities my company is now pursuing as a result of undertaking the study.

The value derived from the systematic work of the consultants and from their deep insight is priceless. In no way could
a study have been performed internally to make such useful discoveries; the consultants knew just what to probe for,
and they knew just what the findings meant for my company. I cannot overstate how their experience and expertise has
advanced knowledge management and sharing across my company in such a short time: The return on investment has
been immense and obvious.

93

54). The prediction has panned out to some
degree and has spread to other disciplines as
knowledge workers recognize the need for
balanced knowledge management. In a broader
sense, the auditing activity has become part
of the professional skill set for a number of
knowledge workers. Peter Griffiths (2010)
specifically sees the opportunity to incorporate
financial audit practices with the information
professional’s traditional audit approach and
goes on to make a distinction between the
various professions’ views toward the process.
He mentions the following: an information
scientist’s approach, an accountant’s ap-
proach, an internal auditor’s view, a record
manager’s view, the information security view,
the competitive intelligence view, the IT and
systems view, and the knowledge management
view. He concludes that the audit is a work in
progress with changing roles for the various
professional groups that include information
auditing among their tools (p. 222).
The international association of special-
ized librarians (SLA) in 2006 formed the
Knowledge Management Division for infor-
mation professionals interested in this area of
expertise. In 2008 the association added the
Knowledge Management Certificate Program
to its professional development curriculum
in recognition of the growing need for and
the growing interest in providing strategic
knowledge management services in organiza-
tions. Knowledge management consultants
Dale Stanley and Guy St. Clair conduct the
series of workshops that leads to the SLA KM
Certificate. Mr. Stanley (personal communica-
tion, July 12, 2013) recently shared his view
of trends in the development of knowledge
assessment tools including the needs assess-
ment, the information audit, and the knowledge
audit. He notes that the needs assessment
represents a reactive approach to knowledge
management wherein the information profes-
sional asks “what do you need to do your job?”
94
Planning for Knowledge Management
The information audit reflects a more proac-
tive approach looking more broadly at “how
good are the resources you have and what is
missing?” The knowledge audit takes a more
integrated, holistic approach, still asking about
needs and opportunities but seeking to further
understand how knowledge is used, identifying
opportunities to affect culture. The assessment
tool now includes analysis of tacit knowledge
such as social networks and expertise. Stanley
notes that “a good knowledge audit leads to a
strategy that falls between the audit process
and a mere technological (intranet or portal
or collaboration) solution.”
As tacit and explicit knowledge increases
in volume and complexity, the need for value-
added knowledge management, grounded in a
knowledge assessment, will continue to grow.
As the methods for assessing and managing
explicit knowledge become fairly well and
widely understood, attention will expand to
more intentionally include tacit knowledge.
At least two pointers support this view: A
recent knowledge assessment project initially
focused entirely on explicit knowledge assets
identified as a key gap the need to track and find
individuals having specific knowledge and
experience. This challenge was not identified
in advance by the internal team but became
very clear early in the project. Further, a solo
librarian within a large United States govern-
ment department pointed out recently the rate
at which tacit knowledge was being lost as
older workers from the Baby Boom genera-
tion retired. Her organization recognizes the
need to put a process in place to capture tacit
knowledge. These two examples are anecdotal,
but they point toward a direction for knowledge
assessment in the future.
The knowledge assessment continues to
serve as the foundation for successful knowl-
edge management and is a growing discipline
for information professionals.
Planning for Knowledge Management
REFERENCES
Alderson, P. (1993). Managing the costs of on-
line information. In Best’s review-Property-
casualty insurance ed. Academic Press.
Anonymous,. (1987). In the online informa-
tion sector Europe is striving for unity in face of
US and Japanese competition. Computing, 21.
Anonymous. (1996). The knowledge audit.
Strategic Direction, (119), 12-15.
Bates, M.E. (1997). Information audits: What
do we know and when do we know it?. Library
Management Briefings, 1-7.
Berkman, R. (1995). The information audit:
methods for managing information The In-
formation Advisor, 7, 2.
Burden, P. R. (2000). Knowledge manage-
ment: The bibliography. Medford, NJ: Infor-
mation Today.
Burnett, S., Illingworth, L., & Webster, L.
(2004). Knowledge auditing and mapping: A
pragmatic approach. Knowledge and Process
Management, 11(1), 25–37. doi:10.1002/
kpm.194
Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good com-
pany: How social capital makes organizations
work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press. doi:10.1145/358974.358979
DiMattia, S. S., & Blumenstein, L. (2000).
In search of the information audit: Essential
tool or cumbersome process? Library Jour-
nal, 48–50.
Dobson, C. (2002). Beyond the information
audit: Checking the health of an organization’s
information system. Searcher, 10(7), 32.
Drucker, P. F. (1988). The coming of the new
organization. In Harvard business review on
knowledge management (pp. 1–19). Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges
for the 21st century. New York: HarperCollins.
Grey, D. (1996, June 23). KM forum discus-
sion archives – The early days. Retrieved
from http://www.km-forum.org/t000015.htm
Griffiths, P. (2010). Where next for information
audit? Business Information Review, 27(4),
216–224. doi:10.1177/0266382110388221
Henczel, S. (2000). The information audit
as a first step towards effective knowledge
management: An opportunity for the special
librarian. INSPEL, 34, 210–226.
Henczel, S. (2001). The information audit: A
practical guide. Munich, Germany: K G Saur.
doi:10.1515/9783110974645
Kelley, J. (2005). Sustaining collaboration
and information sharing. AIIM E-DOC, 19(3),
30–32.
LaRosa, S. M. (1991). The corporate informa-
tion audit. Library Management Quarterly,
14(2), 7–9.
Leung, Z. C. S., Cheung, C. F., Chu, K. F.,
Chan, Y. C., Lee, W. B., & Wong, R. Y. W.
(2010). Assessing knowledge assets: Knowl-
edge audit of a social service organization in
Hong Kong. Administration in Social Work,
34, 361–383. doi:10.1080/03643107.2010.
512843
Orna, E. (1999). Practical information poli-
cies: How to manage information flow in orga-
nizations. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing.
Quinn, A. V. (1979). The information audit:
a new tool for the information manager. In-
formation Manager, 1, 18–19.
Riley, R. H. (1975). The information audit.
Bulletin of the American Society for Informa-
tion Science, 2(5), 24–25.
95

Servin, G., & De Brun, C. (2005). ABC of
knowledge management. National Health
Services. Retrieved from http://www.fao.
org/fileadmin/user_upload/knowledge/docs/
ABC_of_KM.pdf
Turkel, T. (1996). CEI’s exports cover the
globe. Portland Press Herald, p. 3C.
Vo-Tran, H. (2011). Adding action to the infor-
mation audit. Electronic Journal of Information
Systems, 14(2), 271–281.
ADDITIONAL READING
Botha, H., & Boon, J. A. (2003). The in-
formation audit: Principles and Guidelines.
Libri: International Journal of Libraries &
Information Services, 53(1), 23. doi:10.1515/
LIBR.2003.23
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (1998). The informa-
tion audit: An integrated strategic approach.
International Journal of Information Man-
agement, 18(1), 29–47. doi:10.1016/S0268-
4012(97)00038-8
Buchanan, S., & Gibb, F. (2008). The in-
formation audit: Methodology selection.
International Journal of Information Man-
agement, 28(1), 3–11. doi:10.1016/j.ijin-
fomgt.2007.10.002
Dietrick, B. (1997). The art of knowledge
mapping: Where to begin. Information Advi-
sor 9(12).
Griffiths, P. (2005). Performing an informa-
tion audit. Records Management Society
Bulletin (126), 19-21.
Kilzer, R. (n.d.). Information audit: Keys for
understanding the academic library. Technical
Services Quarterly, 29(3), 200–206. doi:10.1
080/07317131.2012.681284
96
Planning for Knowledge Management
Liebowitz, J., Rubenstein-Montano, B.,
McCaw, D., Buchwalter, J., Browning, C.,
Newman, B., & Rebeck, K. (2000). The
knowledge audit. Knowledge and Process
Management, 7(1), 3–10. doi:10.1002/
(SICI)1099-1441(200001/03)7:1<3::AID-
KPM72>3.0.CO;2-0
Lubbe, W. F., & Boon, J. A. (1992). Infor-
mation audit at a university. South African
Journal of Library & Information Science,
60, 214–223.
Perez-Soltero, A., Barcelo-Valenzuela, M., &
Sanchez-Schmitz, G. (n.d.) Design of an ontol-
ogy as a support to the knowledge audit pro-
cess in organisations Journal of Information
& Knowledge Management 08(2), 147-158.
Raliphada, L., & Botha, D. (2006). Testing
the viability of Henczel’s information audit
methodology in practice. South African Jour-
nal of Library & Information Science, 72(3),
242–250.
Ravishankar, M. N. (2008). Rewarding end-
users for participating in organizational KM: A
case study. Journal of Organizational and End
User Computing, 20(1), 35–49. doi:10.4018/
joeuc.2008010103
Robertson, G. (1994). The information audit:
A broader perspective. Managing Informa-
tion, 1(5), 34–36.
Sharma, R. S., Foo, S., & Morales-Arroyo,
M. (2008). Developing corporate taxonomies
for knowledge auditability: A framework
for good practice. Knowledge Organization,
35(1), 30–46.
Soy, C., & Bustelo, C. (2009). A practical ap-
proach to information audit: Case study – La
Caixa Bank, Barcelona. Managing Informa-
tion 16(6), 41-46.
Planning for Knowledge Management
St. Clair, G. (1996). The information audit: A
powerful tool for special librarians. SpeciaL-
ist, 19(2), 9.
Stevens, L. (2000). Knowing what your
company knows. Knowledge Management
(3), 38-42.
Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do we really understand
tacit knowledge? The Blackwell Handbook
of Organizational Learning and Knowledge
Management. M. Easterby-Smith and M.A.
Lyles (Eds.) Maulden, MA, Blackwell.
Webb, S. (1994). The information audit. Informa-
tion Management Report, 9-11.
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
Explicit Knowledge: Knowledge found in
tangible assets such as books, reports, slide-
decks, databases, and documents (hard copy
or digital).
Focus Group: A preselected group of
individuals participate in a discussion led by
a moderator or facilitator, with the conversa-
tion generally moving from general to more
specific topics.
Information Audit: A process for iden-
tifying how information assets are acquired
or produced within an organization and how
workers store, share, and use them.
Knowledge Audit: An evaluation tool used
to understand both the tacit and explicit knowl-
edge assets within an organization and their
role in advancing the organization’s goals.
Knowledge Map: An image or diagram
illustrating how knowledge comes into and
moves within an organization. It may identify
knowledge assets, gatekeepers, and connec-
tion nodes.
Needs Analysis: A process to identify the
information and services workers require in
order to do their jobs.
Structured Interviews: All participants
respond to the same list of predefined ques-
tions.
Tacit Knowledge: Knowledge acquired
through experience that is not easily codified
for sharing.
Unstructured Interviews: Participants
respond to questions that emerge from the
discussion and that may vary from one par-
ticipant to the next.
97