SampleReport KMCapabilityAssessment

o
Current Results - April 2021
APQC’s Levels of Knowledge

Management Maturity™
Knowledge Management Capability

Assessment Tool™ Benchmarking Report
Sample Report
<<date>>
March 29, 2022
<<Company Name>>
Table of Contents - SAMPLE REPORT
Thank you for participating in this valuable benchmarking research. For information on
benchmarking your organization's performance in other critical process groups across your
organization, visit http://www.apqc.org.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Dashboard
Comparison Graphs
Demographics
Detailed Responses
About APQC
Instructions
To move through this report, please click on the table of contents items above or click on the
tabs at the bottom of the page.
For Additional Assistance

Please feel free to email us at kmcat@apqc.org with any questions or concerns.
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2 of 36 Confidential

Executive Summary - SAMPLE REPORT
X2A0T
Best Practices, Business

Current Results - April 2021Drivers, and Gap Analysis
Effective Knowledge Management (KM) depends upon a coherent, integrated approach that includes strategy, cultural elements (people), knowledge flow
processes, and supporting content and technology. Lacking capability in one or more of the areas not only results in a lower overall maturity in APQC’s
Levels of Knowledge Management Maturity TM scale, wide differences in capability within the four (4) key areas may also result in a lower level of maturity
than expected. That’s because of the leverage that each area provides to the organization’s KM capability. For example, increasing technology enablement
capability may provide significant increases in access to expertise, resulting in increased knowledge flow; or similarly increasing process capability may
provide ease of replication of best practices throughout the organization.
Driving the need for increased KM maturity often comes from a variety of reasons, but many times they include: loss of expert knowledge due to attrition,
increased complexity of the organization’s business (both due to increased content as well as geography), innovation needs, and competitive pressures. The
need for an organization to “know what it knows” has become an imperative and not simply a “nice to have” capability.
It is important to consider multiple categories of measures when evaluating your organization’s KM capability and maturity. For that reason, the APQC
Knowledge Management Capability Assessment ToolTM is further broken down into twelve (12) discrete, actionable categories that provide an organization
opportunities to both focus its KM efforts as well as to prioritize how those actions will increase overall KM capability effectively. The following chart
highlights key performance indicators relating to KM capability in the 12 categories for your organization compared to all pa rticipants.

Results Summary - SAMPLE REPORT
This results summary provides a quick view of your maturity levels and progress toward higher levels for each of the assessment domains. It also overlays the results of all participants for comparison.
Current Results - March 2022
Knowledge Management Change Knowledge Flow KM Tools & Content Information

Objectives Business Case Budget Resources Governance Communication Measurement
Maturity Management Process Approaches Management Technology
Level 5 Innovate
Level 4 Optimize
Level 3 Standardize
Level 2 Develop
Level 1 Initiate
Your Organization All Participants
KM Assessment Score Your Organization All Participants
5 Objectives 0.53 2.26
Business Case 1.25 1.95

4.5
Budget 1.58 2.53
4
Resources 0.40 2.25
3.5 Governance 0.40 2.35
3 Change Management 0.25 1.34
Communication 0.25 1.85

2.5
Knowledge Flow 1.50 2.46
2
KM Approaches 1.42 1.68
1.5
Measurement 0.50 0.90
1 Content 0.50 2.35
0.5 Information & Technology

0.50 1.83
0
Objectives Business Case Budget Resources Governance Change Communication Knowledge Flow KM Appraoches Measurement Content Information
Management Management Technology
Your Organization All Participants

X4A0T
1.00
0.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Strategy - Objectives
People - Resources
Special Note:
Strategy - Business Case
Current
Results -
April 2021
Strategy - Budget
for your organization.

People - Governance and People - Resources
Leadership
People - Governance and

Leadership
People - Change Management

People - Communication
Process - Knowledge Flow
People
Process
KMCAT: At a Glance
© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Process - KM Approaches and
People - Communication Tools
Process - Measurement
Content and Information

Technology - Content
Management Process
Comparison - SAMPLE REPORT
People - Overall
Technology - Information
To update your data submission, please contact APQC.
Technology
All Participants
Your Organization
All Participants
Your Organization
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Process - Knowledge Flow Process Strategy - Business Case
Strategy - Budget
People - Resources
Process - KM Approaches and Tools People - Governance and

Leadership
People - Communication
Process
Process - Measurement Process - Knowledge Flow

Process
5 of 36
Any charts below lacking a bar or value for "Your Site" indicates inadequate data was provided to calculate, report, or chart this metric
Process - KM Approaches and

Tools
KMCAT: At a Glance (Peer Groups)
Process - Measurement

Process - Overall Technology - Content
Management Process
Technology
All Participants
All Participants
Region Average
Industry Average
Revenue Average
Your Organization
Your Organization
3.00
4.00
5.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
2.00
0.00
1.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Technology - Content
Management Process
Strategy - Business Case

Technology
Strategy - Budget
Strategy
Content and Information Technology

Technology - Overall Strategy - Overall
All Participants
All Participants
Your Organization
Your Organization
Confidential
X5A0T
Demographics - SAMPLE REPORT
Process Classification Framework

The foundation of the APQC's Open Standards Benchmarking research is the Process Classification Framework, or PCF (www.apqc.org/pcf). APQC and its members
developed the PCF, which is updated by a global advisory council of industry leaders. As a common language, the PCF allows organizations to see and discuss their
activities from an industry-neutral viewpoint. Regardless of size, industry or geography, organizations can use the PCF to benchmark and improve processes.
The PCF organizes operating and management processes into 13 enterprise-level categories, including process groups and more than 1,500 processes and associated
activities. Organizations can then talk specifically about the exact same activity and know what is included in that activity. This benchmarking report focuses on PCF
processes 13.5.1: Develop KM strategy and 13.5.2 Assess KM capabilities.
The following processes and activities are included in the scope of this survey.
Hierarchy
PCF ID ID Name
11073 13.5 Develop and manage enterprise-wide knowledge management (KM) capability
11095 13.5.1 Develop KM strategy
11100 13.5.1.1 Develop governance model
11101 13.5.1.2 Establish central KM core group
11102 13.5.1.3 Define roles and accountability of core group versus operating units
11103 13.5.1.4 Develop funding models
11104 13.5.1.5 Identify links to key initiatives
11105 13.5.1.6 Develop core KM methodologies
11106 13.5.1.7 Assess IT needs and engage IT function
11107 13.5.1.8 Develop training and communication plans
11108 13.5.1.9 Develop change management approaches
11109 13.5.1.10 Develop strategic measures and indicators
11096 13.5.2 Assess KM capabilities
11110 13.5.2.1 Assess maturity of existing KM initiatives
11111 13.5.2.2 Evaluate existing KM approaches
11112 13.5.2.3 Identify gaps and needs
11113 13.5.2.4 Enhance/Modify existing KM approaches
11114 13.5.2.5 Develop new KM approaches
11115 13.5.2.6 Implement new KM approaches

X5A0T
Participant Demographics as of March 2022
Participants' Industry
Government/Military 21.98%
Services 16.30%
Petroleum/Chemical 15.56%
Pharmaceutical 9.14%
Industrial Products 8.89%
Financial Services/Banking 6.42%
Electronics 4.69%
Energy and Utility 3.46%
Insurance 2.22%
Consumer Products/Packaged Goods 1.98%
Aerospace 1.73%
Healthcare 1.23%
Unknown 0.99%
Mining 0.99%
Retail and Wholesale 0.74%
Research Organization 0.49%
Agriculture 0.49%
Engineering 0.49%
Legal Services 0.49%
Non-Profit 0.49%
Automotive 0.25%
Distribution/Transportation 0.25%
Telecom 0.25%
Medical Equipment 0.25%
N = 405 Railroads 0.25%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

X5A0T
Participants Size by Revenue

$20 billion or greater, 10%,
Between $15 billion and $20
10%
billion, 1%, 1%

billion, 2%, 2%
Not Characterized, 31%, 31%

billion, 9%, 9%

billion, 21%, 21%
Less than $100 million, 11%,

11%
N = 405
Between $500 million and $1 Between $100 million and

billion, 6%, 6% $500 million, 9%, 9%

X5A0T
Participant Region
Central & South America
Europe
2%
5%
Asia - Pacific
6%
Africa & Middle East

5%
US & Canada
82%
N = 405

X6A0T
Your All
Objectives Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Has a business need for KM been identified?
No 0%
Identified 16%
Identified and documented X 18%
Identified, documented, and communicated across stakeholders 65%
2 Have employees communicated an interest in managing knowledge in the organization?
No 0%
Ad hoc X 20%
Groups of employees and management have explored how to apply KM to their units 33%
Discussions are occuring among key stakeholders 47%
Level 2
1 Is valuable domain knowledge identified and documented?
No 0%
Ad hoc, in discussions and/or meetings 10%
Within teams or departments X 31%
Within one or more specific functions or business units 22%
Formally, performed on a regular basis 37%
2 Are KM approaches tested to ensure they enable knowledge flow?
No 31%
Ad hoc X 33%
Frequently 4%
Consistently 10%
Consistently using a standard approach 22%
3 Is value creation recognized as a major objective of KM?
No 8%
Potential sponsors and early adopters 37%
By specific functions or business units X 24%
Consistently across the organization 31%
Level 3
1 Are core knowledge assets identified, captured and standardized for reuse?
No 6%
Locally, within teams or departments X 31%
Within one or more specific disciplines or business units 29%
Standard process used consistently across the organization 18%
Standard process used consistently with measureable outcomes 16%
2 Is valuable discipline or business unit knowledge reused?
No 2%
Locally, within teams or departments X 33%
Within one or more specific disciplines or business units 41%
Routinely done across the organization 24%
3 Are the KM strategy and road map documented?
No X 24%
Defined with limited documentation 35%
Completely documented 0%
Completely documented & approved by KM executive sponsor 41%
4 Are the KM vision and mission aligned to creation of business value?
No 22%
KM vision and mission exist but not aligned X 10%
Implicitly aligned 24%
Explicitly aligned to business value 43%

X6A0T
Your All
Objectives Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
4
1 Are knowledge assets leveraged for competitive advantage?
No 14%
Ad hoc X 51%
Consistently 6%
Consistently with a replicable approach 10%
Consistently with a replicable approach and measurable impact 18%
2 Is the KM infrastructure (i.e., people, process, and technology) responsive to increased demand
and evolving business needs?
No 16%
Ad hoc X 24%
Around major change events or significant changes to strategy 35%
On a defined schedule 8%
On a defined schedule and around major change events or significant changes to strategy 16%
3 Are KM competencies (skills and expertise of KM practitioners) enhanced to meet increased
demand and evolving business needs?
No X 27%
Reactively in response to business needs 37%
Proactively and aligned to KM strategic plans 12%
Proactively, aligned to KM strategic plans and performance expectations 24%
4 Is KM aligned with the enterprise business framework (e.g., vision, mission, and strategies)?
No X 27%
Explicitly aligned 24%
Explicitly aligned with measurable outcomes 22%
Level 5
1 Is KM aligned with enterprise innovation efforts?
No X 31%
Explicitly aligned to organization's innovation initiatives 18%
Explicitly aligned and helps identify and select enterprise innovation efforts 18%
2 Is KM integrated with an enterprise excellence framework (i.e., quality, continuous
improvement programs)?
No X 35%
Ad hoc 18%
Work collaboratively with other groups 29%
Standard approach 8%
Standard integrated approach across the improvement lifecycle 10%

Your All
Business Case Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Has a rationale for action been established based on the value of knowledge?
No 4%
Identified 29%
Level 2
1 Have focus areas for KM been identified?
No 6%
Informally identified X 33%
Formally documented 12%
Formally documented and agreed upon by KM executive sponsor 49%
2 Are KM focus areas aligned with business strategies and critical success factors?
No 16%
Implicitly aligned X 37%
Explicitly aligned 24%
Explicitly aligned and linked to measurable business outcomes 22%
3 Are business needs captured and used as an input into the KM strategy?
No X 20%
Ad hoc 41%
Standard approach 14%
Standard approach integrated into strategic planning cycles 24%
Level 3
1 Is there a formal business case that includes expected benefits and impact of applying KM to
business opportunities?
No X 45%
Business case documented 22%
Documented business case includes qualitative and quantitative benefits 12%
Documented business case includes qualitative and quantitative benefits with measurable
20%
impact
2 Is financial analysis conducted to model the value of KM investments?
No X 71%
Financial analysis included in business case 12%
Financial analysis conducted and re-assessed on an ongoing basis 2%
Financial analysis conducted, re-assessed on an ongoing basis, and communicated to
14%
stakeholders
Level 4
1 Is a formal business case for evolving KM (e.g., add new approaches, add resources, move to a
new domain) based on predicted gains and impact to the organization?
No X 43%
Informally 24%
Documented 10%
Documented, including predicted gains and impact 6%
Documented, including predicted gains and impact and approved by KM executive sponsor 16%

Your All
Business Case Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 5
1 Is KM used for collaborative value creation with suppliers and customers?
No 35%
Ad hoc X 41%
Consistently 8%
Routinely using a consistent approach 4%
Opportunities for collaborative value creation are actively promoted to customers and suppliers 12%
2 Is the organization's knowledge used as a marketable asset (e.g., marketing campaigns, sales,
industry credential)?
No X 37%
Individual employees use the organization's knowledge as a marketable asset 20%
Organizational knowledge is formally incorporated into marketing collateral 14%
Organizational knowledge is acknowledged as a valuable asset by the market 29%

Your All
Budget Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Is there a funding source for KM?
No 16%
Funding is re-allocated from other budgets X 29%
Explicit budget has been established 55%
Level 2
1 Are budget allocations for KM efforts approved by KM executive sponsors and key stakeholders?
No 20%
Approved and funded by single source 27%
Approved and funded by key stakeholders X 12%
Approved and funded in alignment with business needs and priorities 41%
2 Are budgets established for each approved KM effort?
No 39%
Budget needs are defined for KM efforts X 22%
Budget allocations are based on defined needs 18%
KM efforts are managed to budget 20%
Level 3
1 Is there a standard KM budgeting cycle and process?
No X 39%
Based on anecdotal evidence and learnings from KM projects 31%
Based on financial analysis and learnings from KM projects 4%
Standardized and repeatable process based on financial analysis and learnings from KM projects
27%
Level 4
1 Is KM integrated into business budgeting cycles and processes?
No X 49%
Integrated with a few business units/functions 24%
Integrated into majority of business unit/function budgeting cycles 4%
Fully integrated organization-wide with defined standard approach, including compliance and
22%
tracking of non-compliance
Level 5
1 Are budgets adjusted to respond to changing demand for knowledge assets and competencies?
No X 49%
Budget growth based on estimated needs 39%
Budget growth based on data models to forecast need 0%
Leverage analytics (e.g., usage and trends) and emerging KM opportunities and Infrastructure
12%
capabilities to develop and forecast budget needs

Your All
Resources Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Do KM advocates promote the value of KM to business leaders and relevant stakeholders?
No 0%
Limited, informal discussions have been held with a few stakeholders X 39%
Formal discussions have been held with impacted stakeholders 33%
Extensive discussions have been held with all stakeholders 29%
Level 2
1 Are representatives from business units or disciplines involved in design of KM approaches to
enable knowledge flow?
No X 20%
Representatives are included in testing prior to launch 8%
Representatives are consulted in KM design efforts 33%
Designated representatives actively participate in KM design efforts 39%
2 Is there a group tasked with design and implementation of KM strategies and approaches?
No 2%
There is an informal group 14%
Formal group(s) are in place for design X 18%
Formal group(s) are in place for design and implementation 10%
Formal group(s) are in place for design and implementation with stakeholder oversight 55%
Level 3
1 Are there active champions and sponsors of KM in the business?
No 8%
Informal roles X 41%
Formal roles 20%
Formal roles with allocated time and participation goals 10%
Formal roles with accountability for results 20%
2 Are individuals in the business assigned to coordinate and manage knowledge flow processes
and approaches?
No 22%
Informal roles X 24%
Formal roles 14%
Formal roles with allocated time and participation goals 10%
Formal roles with accountability for results 29%
3 Are KM capabilities (e.g., people, processes, and technologies) improved based on assessment
and feedback?
No 22%
Informal process X 31%
Systematic process to identify improvement opportunities 16%
Systematic process to identify, prioritize, and implement improvement opportunities 14%
Systematic process to identify, prioritize, and implement improvement opportunities with
16%
measurable outcomes
4 Is there a formal group and process to coordinate and facilitate KM approaches?
No 33%
Chartered KM group governed by defined roles X 24%
Chartered KM group governed by defined roles and standard processes 8%
Chartered KM group governed by defined roles and standard processes with associated
35%
performance expectations
5 Does the KM group identify and support new opportunities to apply KM capabilities?
No 10%
Reactively in response to requests X 35%
Proactively seeks out new opportunities 27%
Systematically identifies new opportunities aligned with business objectives 29%

Your All
Resources Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 4
1 Does the KM group provide direction and resources to develop knowledge assets that support
organizational core competencies?
No X 14%
Responds to requests from the business 39%
Proactively seeks out relevant stakeholders to identify and prioritize opportunities 22%
Standard approach for systematic improvement of organizational core competency 8%
Standard and measured approach for systematic improvement of organizational core
16%
competency
2 Are KM skills and capabilities incorporated into employee development strategies, processes,
and practices?
No X 29%
Ad hoc 39%
Formal development plans in place for KM-specific roles 12%
Formal development plans in place for all knowledge-intensive roles 4%
Formal development plans in place for all knowledge-intensive roles with measures and
16%
accountability
3 Does the business allocate resources for developing knowledge assets?
No X 10%
Ad hoc 41%
Resources allocated to develop specific knowledge assets 22%
Resource allocation plan is in place to develop and update knowledge assets 27%
4 Are change agents and knowledge experts embedded in the business to support knowledge
flow?
No X 20%
Informal roles 31%
Formal roles, communicated to the business 24%
Formal roles, communicated, and assigned accountability for knowledge flow 24%
5 Does the KM group and business collaborate to determine resource requirements?
No X 24%
Ad hoc 24%
For strategic KM efforts aligned with key business practices and initiatives 29%
Formally, as part of standard KM strategy and budgeting process 22%
Level 5
1 Are KM competencies embedded across the enterprise?
No X 53%
KM training and guidance available on a self-serve basis 29%
KM training and guidance integrated in employee development plans 6%
KM training and guidance embedded directly into critical processes, applications, and
12%
workflows

Your All
Governance Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Does senior leadership support testing ways to improve knowledge flow?
No 14%
Approves plan X 20%
Approves plan and provides resources 29%
Approves plan, sets expectations and provides resources 37%
Level 2
1 Is cross-functional input used to set the direction for KM?
No 10%
Input collected on ad hoc basis X 53%
A consistent process used to gather and analyze input 37%
Level 3
1 Does leadership include KM initiatives in the organizational strategy?
No X 14%
Informally 31%
Documented within organizational strategic plans 22%
Documented within organizational strategic plans, and communicated across stakeholders 8%
Documented within organizational strategic plans, communicated with monitored action plans 24%
2 Is there a formal, operational, and cross-functional steering or advisory committee for KM?
No X 24%
Informal group 29%
Chartered and meets regularly 16%
Chartered, meets regularly, and accountable for decisions 6%
Chartered, meets regularly, accountable for decisions, and drives direction of KM 24%
Level 4
1 Are resource and accountability models in place for KM?
No X 35%
Defined roles to support KM 29%
Defined roles integrated into job descriptions 10%
Standardized roles integrated into job descriptions and in performance plans 12%
Standardized organization-wide model that defines how roles collaborate to support KM 14%
2 Do senior sponsors set priorities for KM with input from the business?
No X 22%
Informally 43%
Standard process to collect input 4%
Standard process to gather input and defined criteria to set priorities 10%
Standard process and defined criteria integrated with business planning and strategy
20%
Level 5
1 Does executive leadership own and actively guide KM across the enterprise?
No X 33%
Ad hoc 24%
Structure and process for leadership to guide KM 18%
Structure and process with defined leadership accountability for KM 8%
Structure and process with defined leadership accountability tied to performance goals 16%

Your All
Change Management Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Have successes and problems in knowledge flow been identified and communicated?
No 8%
Ad hoc X 45%
Structured collection of successes and problems 12%
Structured collection and documentation of successes and problems from relevant stakeholders
10%
Standard approach to document and communicate input collected from relevant stakeholders
24%
on a routine basis
2 Have industry KM initiatives and best practices been investigated for potential adoption by the
organization?
No X 10%
Ad hoc 41%
Structured investigation of KM initiatives and best practices 16%
Documented analysis based on evaluation of KM initiatives and best practices 6%
Standard approach for analysis conducted on a routine basis and around major change events 27%
Level 2
1 Is a plan in place to recognize successful KM efforts?
No 35%
Ad hoc X 27%
Documented plan 6%
Documented plan aligned to KM objectives 2%
Standard approach to recognize success linked to KM objectives and communicated to
31%
stakeholders
2 Are education and training plans in place to support KM efforts?
No X 31%
Ad hoc 29%
Documented plan for education and training 6%
Documented plan for education and training aligned to KM objectives 12%
Documented and resourced plan to educate and train stakeholders 22%
3 Is a change management strategy in place to support the KM strategy and efforts?
No X 45%
Partially documented 29%
Completely documented and aligned to KM strategy and efforts 2%
Completely documented, aligned to KM strategy and efforts, and implemented 2%
Completely documented, aligned to KM strategy and efforts, implemented, and has buy-in from
22%
impacted stakeholders
4 Have senior managers approved KM measures of business impact?
No X 55%
KM measures of business impact are in place 10%
Senior managers are aware of KM measures of business impact 10%
Senior managers formally approve KM measures of business impact 24%

Your All
Answer Participants
Level 3
1 Are KM efforts and trends assessed, benchmarked, and analyzed regularly?
No X 49%
Ad hoc 8%
2 Are KM advocates promoting KM efforts?
No 18%
Primarily reactive X 51%
Primarily proactive (>50% of advocates) 14%
Primarily proactive with measures of engagement 16%
3 Is training on KM approaches and methods available to all employees?
No X 37%
Available to employees in targeted roles 14%
Available to employees in impacted departments, functions, business units 14%
Available enterprise-wide 35%
4 Has accountability for applying knowledge flow processes and approaches expanded beyond KM
group?
No X 37%
Resides primarily with the KM team 24%
Shared between the KM team and the business function or unit 22%
Resides primarily with the business function or unit 16%
5 Have barriers to knowledge sharing and use been identified and addressed?
No 12%
Identified but not addressed X 31%
Identified and some have been addressed 31%
Most (>75%) identified barriers have been addressed 8%
Barriers are continually identified and addressed with regular evaluation 18%
Level 4
1 Do KM advocates have accountability for KM results?
No X 39%
Informally 35%
Accountable for process and activity measures 12%
Accountable for process, activity, and outcome measures as defined by performance plans
14%
2 Is KM training embedded in onboarding strategies and practices?
No X 55%
For specific teams or departments 18%
Standardized and integrated into enterprise-wide onboarding 12%
Standardized, integrated, with expectations for participation in relevant KM efforts 14%
3 Is formal recognition (e.g., awards, acknowledgements in corporate communications, incentives,
etc.) given for participation in KM efforts and successes?
No X 41%
Ad hoc 29%
Formal program for acknowledgement 22%
Formal program tied to performance expectations and/or career advancement 8%
4 Is training provided to support new and/or updated KM efforts?
No X 45%
Training requirements identified after implementation of new/updated KM efforts 10%
Training requirements are identified during design 10%
Training delivered in line with requirements identified during design 14%
Training outcomes and feedback drive continous improvement 20%

Your All
Answer Participants
Level 5
1 Is KM aligned with formal process improvement?
No X 41%
Ad hoc 16%
KM and process improvement align on project by project basis 24%
KM and process improvement consult regularly to coordinate and align efforts 6%
KM and process improvement proactively work together to prioritize opportunities, engage the
12%
business, and demonstrate value
2 Is KM aligned with organizational learning?
No X 27%
Ad hoc 41%
KM and organizational learning align on project by project basis 12%
KM and organizational learning consult regularly to coordinate and align efforts 20%
KM and organizational learning proactively work together to prioritize opportunities, engage
0%
the business, and demonstrate value
3 Is KM aligned with talent management?
No X 53%
Ad hoc 31%
Expectations for KM skills and competencies are embedded in talent management programs 8%
KM is integrated and measured as part of career progression requirements 2%
KM is integrated and measured as part of career progression requirements for technical and
6%
leadership paths

Your All
Communications Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Have advocates communicated the basic concepts and benefits of KM?
No 10%
Ad hoc X 20%
For targeted audiences involved in KM activities 27%
Communicated broadly across the organization 43%
Level 2
1 Have advocates promoted the business value of KM approaches to senior leaders and key
stakeholders?
No 4%
Ad hoc 14%
To targeted leaders and stakeholders X 49%
Standard approach to communicate value of KM approaches broadly and on a routine basis 24%
2 Are reasons and ways to participate in KM approaches communicated to end users?
No 20%
Ad hoc X 20%
To targeted end users 22%
Standard approach to communicate broadly on a routine basis 22%
Level 3
1 Are KM success stories broadly communicated?
No 29%
Informally exchanged X 29%
Collected and shared with target audiences 8%
Collected and shared broadly across the organization 16%
Standard approach to collect, validate, and share broadly as part of formal communications
18%
plan
2 Has a formal KM communications plan been implemented?
No X 49%
Implemented for target audiences 16%
Implemented for all audiences 6%
Implemented for all audiences and aligned to KM objectives 12%
Implemented for all audiences, aligned to KM objectives, and reviewed and updated on a
16%
routine basis
3 Is a brand strategy used to promote KM to the organization?
No X 45%
KM efforts are individually branded 18%
Encapsulating brand across all KM efforts 6%
Encapsulating brand that aligns to KM objectives 6%
Encapsulating brand that aligns to KM objectives and promotes KM's value and credibility 24%
Level 4
1 Is a multi-channel communication strategy implemented for KM?
No X 53%
Multi-channel strategy with no audience segmentation 8%
Multi-channel strategy with limited audience segmentation 16%
Multi-channel strategy with extensive customization for different audiences 8%
Multi-channel strategy that uses analytics to optimize communications 14%
2 Is the KM communication strategy integrated with corporate communication strategy?
No X 57%
Ad hoc 18%
Standard integrated approach 8%
Strategic and operational integration of messages 0%
Strategic and operational integration of messages with shared accountability 16%

Your All
Communications Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 5
1 Is KM used as a differentiator to attract prospective employees, partners, and customers?
No 63%
On a case-by-case basis X 18%
For targeted recruiting and marketing activities 4%
Broadly across recruiting and marketing activities 0%
KM is an integral part of the organization's communicated value proposition 14%

Knowledge Flow Your All
Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Process Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Does knowledge flow occur through regular interactions (e.g., email, phone calls, in-person
conversations, etc.)?
No 2%
Ad hoc 6%
Occurs in response to specific needs 20%
Occurs regularly X 43%
Occurs regularly with established expectations and norms 29%
Level 2
1 Are knowledge flow processes embedded in KM approaches (e.g. communities of practice,
lessons learned, and After-Action Reviews)?
No 16%
Ad hoc 39%
Knowledge flow processes defined for KM approaches X 16%
Defined knowledge flow processes are embedded in KM approaches 4%
Consistent knowledge flow processes are embedded in KM approaches 24%
Level 3
1 Are standardized knowledge flow processes embedded across the enterprise?
No 37%
Ad hoc X 16%
Used with limited KM approaches and projects 12%
Used across several (>50%) business units and functions 10%
Used enterprise-wide (=>75%) 24%
Level 4
1 Are knowledge flow processes embedded into core business processes?
No X 41%
Embedded into a few (<50%) core business processes 33%
Embedded into a majority (>50%) of core business processes 12%
Embedded into all core business processes enterprise-wide with performance measures 4%
Embedded into all core business process with performance measures and monitored for
10%
compliance/noncompliance
Level 5
1 Are knowledge flow processes expanded to include contractors, customers, business partners,
etc.?
No 43%
Ad hoc 35%
A strategy for including external parties is documented X 2%
Processes are expanded to include external parties 12%
Expanded processes regularly demonstrate value to the business and external parties 8%

KM Approaches & Your All
Tools Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Are story telling and one-to-one exchanges used to transfer knowledge?
No 6%
Ad hoc 14%
In response to requests 24%
Occurs regularly X 31%
Occurs regularly with established expectations and norms 24%
Level 2
1 Have core business processes that require enhanced knowledge flow been identified?
No 16%
Ad hoc 33%
Formally within departments or teams X 20%
Formally across business areas with leadership approval 8%
Consistent process used with leadership approval and performance expectations established 22%
2 Have knowledge needs and gaps been identified for each KM focus area?
No 29%
Ad hoc 41%
Defined process to identify needs and gaps X 4%
Consistent process implemented to identify and document needs and gaps for each identified
2%
KM focus area (=>50%)
Consistent process implemented to identify and document needs and gaps for each identified
KM focus area (=>75%) and includes plans to address and close gaps with established 24%
3 Have KM approaches to support knowledge flow been implemented in parts of the
organization?
No 31%
Implemented X 24%
Implemented and aligned with core business processes 14%
Implemented and integrated into core business processes 8%
Implemented and integrated with activity measures tracked and monitored 22%

Level 3
1 Has a KM resource center been established?
No 39%
Established with general KM resources X 24%
Established with targeted information aligned to organization's KM program, KM best practices,
8%
and KM approaches and tools
Curated and actively managed and moderated with activity measures 29%
2 Do you assess the maturity and strength of the organization's KM capabilities?
No X 33%
Ad hoc 24%
Formally on a periodic basis 14%
Formally on a regularly scheduled basis 29%
3 Are KM methods and tools available to knowledge workers?
No 20%
Upon request X 24%
Available 24/7 across multiple platforms and devices 16%
Available 24/7 via multiple platforms and devices and allow for interaction with the KM team 6%
Available 24/7 via multiple platforms/devices and regularly updated based on user feedback
33%
and evolving business and knowledge needs
4 Are enablers and infrastructure implemented to support the knowledge flow process?
No 37%
Implemented X 22%
Implemented and aligned with knowledge flow process 12%
Implemented and integrated into knowledge flow process 6%
Implemented and integrated with activity measures tracked and monitored 22%
5 Does the organization use standard and repeatable knowledge flow processes and KM
approaches?
No 29%
In less than 25% of core business processes or domains X 35%
In some (26 - 50%) of core business processes or domains 10%
In many (between 51-74%) core business processes or domains 10%
In all (=>75%) core business processes and domains 16%
6 Are standard approaches used to capture and retain valuable knowledge?
No 14%
Ad hoc X 29%
Standard approach(es) within business units and teams 24%
Standard approach(es) across business areas 12%
Standard, enterprise-wide approach(es), with compliance tracking 20%

Level 4
1 Are KM competency maps in place for individuals roles and/or jobs?
No X 63%
For defined KM roles 18%
For KM roles and key organizational roles within core business processes and domains 8%
For all organizational roles and process-specific roles for core business processes 2%
For all organizational roles and process-specific roles enterprise-wide with performance goals 8%
2 Does the KM group offer a portfolio of standard KM approaches, products, and services?
No X 51%
Standardized services available and promoted 31%
Standardized services aligned with measures of efficiency 4%
Standardized services with measures of efficiency aligned to core business needs and strategies 6%
Standardized services available with demonstrated impact on business outcomes 8%
3 Do new and/or enhanced KM methodologies and approaches support the knowledge flow
process?
No X 39%
Ad hoc 20%
Implemented around major change events or significant changes to strategy 22%
Implemented on a defined schedule 2%
Integrated and implemented into business strategy and planning cycles 16%
Level 5
1 Has KM become a core competency of the organization?
No X 55%
Business has an expectation of KM competency across the workforce 27%
KM competency development activities are planned across the workforce with explicit funding 4%
KM competency planned, funded, and implemented across the workforce with monitored
4%
KM competency planned, funded, and implemented across the workforce with monitored
10%
performance expectations and demonstrated impact on the business
2 Are KM approaches, methodologies, and tools integrated with other improvement disciplines
(e.g., process, organizational development, learning)?
No X 61%
Integrated approaches, methodologies, and tools 12%
Integrated and aligned to common strategies and goals 12%
Integrated, aligned, and collectively monitored, evaluated for business impact 6%
Integrated, monitored, and evaluated with aligned continuous improvement 8%

Your All
Measurement Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Is there a value proposition for KM?
No 14%
Informally 29%
A value proposition has been documented X 14%
A value proposition has been documented, and communicated across relevant stakeholders 43%
2 Are existing KM capabilities leveraged for reuse?
No 18%
Ad hoc X 27%
Reuse driven by identified business need 35%
As part of value-based analysis with targets for expected reuse 20%
3 Has an assessment of critical knowledge in current business processes/domains been
conducted?
No 31%
Ad hoc 31%
Consistent approach to assess critical knowledge X 8%
Consistent approach, evaluated for risks to, or gaps in, critical knowledge 2%
Assessed, evaluated for risks or gaps, and plan(s) in place to address 29%
Level 2
1 Have employee satisfaction surveys been conducted regarding KM?
No 37%
Ad hoc X 27%
2 Has a cost and benefit analysis been calculated for KM efforts and projects?
No X 59%
Ad hoc 22%
Required 2%
Required, standardized, and performed regularly 2%
Required, standardized, and performed regularly using a pre-defined set of criteria for
14%
evaluation
3 Are activity measures used for KM ?
No X 55%
Defined and designed 10%
Defined, designed and partially implemented 4%
Defined, designed and fully implemented 6%
Fully implemented, reviewed, and updated periodically 24%
4 Are key performance indicators used for KM?
No X 57%
Defined, designed and approved by stakeholders 8%
Defined, designed and partially implemented 6%
Defined, designed and fully implemented 6%
Fully implemented, reviewed, and updated periodically 22%
5 Has a tangible business impact from the application of KM been recognized?
No X 37%
Recognized, with little documentation 31%
Recognized, documented, and aligned to business' critical success factors 4%
Recognized, documented, and aligned to business' critical success factors and key performance
4%
indicators
Recognized, documented, aligned, and communicated to key stakeholders 24%

Your All
Answer Participants
Level 3
1 Does the organization assess employee satisfaction with KM?
No X 49%
Ad hoc 24%
Formal assessment of overall satisfaction with KM capabilities 6%
Formal assessment of overall satisfaction and with implemented KM approaches on a defined
0%
schedule
Formally assess and evaluate for improvement opportunities on a defined schedule 2%
Assess, evaluate, and report results and recommendations to key stakeholders on a defined
18%
schedule
2 Has a formal return or value on investment been calculated for KM?
No X 73%
Ad hoc 8%
Required 4%
Required, standardized, and performed regularly 0%
Required, standardized, performed regularly and endorsed by relevant stakeholders 14%
3 Is there a formal measurement process for KM?
No X 47%
Informal process 18%
Standard process with defined responsibilities 6%
Standard process with defined responsibilities used on a routine basis 8%
Standard process with defined responsibilities, used routinely and monitored for compliance 20%
4 Are standard measures used to monitor the impact of KM on business performance?
No X 73%
Standard measures are aligned with business processes and outputs 8%
Aligned, standard measures are consistently monitored 0%
Data is analyzed to show impact on business performance 2%
Data is analyzed to show impact on business performance, with analysis communicated to
16%
stakeholders

Your All
Answer Participants
Level 4
1 Is the health and effectiveness of KM efforts evaluated and reported?
No 49%
Ad hoc X 14%
Formally evaluated, reported, and monitored for some KM efforts 12%
Formally evaluated, reported, and monitored for each KM effort 8%
Formally evaluated, reported & monitored to identify, prioritize, & track improvement activities
16%
for each KM effort
2 Is there evidence of enhanced KM competencies?
No X 49%
Informally 24%
Standard approach for collecting and reporting evidence 8%
Established competency development goals that are evaluated regularly and included in KM
4%
reporting cycles
Established competency development goals that are evaluated regularly, included in reporting
14%
cycles, and integrated into KM analytics processes
3 Is KM measurement reporting integrated with enterprise reporting?
No X 65%
Informally 8%
Formally aligned 8%
Formally integrated with regular oversight and compliance checking 8%
Formally integrated with enterprise business reporting processes, evaluated against business
10%
performance targets, and used to establish future goals for KM
4 Has a quantitative analysis of knowledge flow processes, KM approaches, and impact from KM
been conducted consistently?
No X 80%
Analysis includes time-based performance and correlation between measures and performed
10%
on-demand
Analysis is extended to include causation and statistical analytics and performed on a regular
4%
basis
A comprehensive set of analyses (e.g., causation, correlation, and trend analysis) is performed
0%
on a defined schedule for all KM approaches and efforts
A comprehensive set of analyses (e.g., causation, correlation, and trend analysis) performed on
6%
a defined schedule to drive strategic planning, forecasting, and future impact modeling
Level 5
1 Are KM efforts correlated to business and employee performance outcomes?
No X 76%
KM efforts are correlated to business and employee productivty 14%
KM efforts are correlated to business and employee productivity on a regular basis 2%
KM efforts are correlated to business and employee performance outcomes on a defined
2%
schedule to optimize KM improvement
KM efforts are correlated to business and employee performance outcomes on a defined
6%
schedule to optimize KM improvement and establish performance
2 Are KM goals and measures integrated into the organization's performance management
system?
No X 51%
Established and evaluated for KM roles 24%
Established and evaluated for KM and critical business roles 14%
Established and evaluated for all roles in the organization 2%
Established and evaluated for all roles in the organization and integrated into defined career
8%
progression

Your All
Content Management Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Are document management processes in place?
No 6%
Ad hoc 14%
Common approach within functions and teams X 31%
Standard approach enterprise-wide 10%
Standard approach enterprise-wide including naming convention, storage, and version control 39%
2 Has a need for organizing and managing knowledge assets been identified?
No 4%
Identified 24%
Level 2
1 Is content identified and organized?
No 4%
Within teams, departments, or communities X 47%
Across business units and functions 18%
Comprehensive enterprise-wide strategy 31%
Level 3
1 Are content management workflows standardized?
No 20%
Enterprise-wide standard established 6%
Standardized content management lifecycle is implemented enterprise-wide and monitored
24%
and updated periodically
2 Do standard taxonomies for classifying core knowledge assets exist?
No 31%
Enterprise-wide standard established 12%
Standardized enterprise-wide, implemented, monitored and updated periodically 22%
Level 4
1 Does the content management lifecycle support the knowledge flow process?
No X 29%
Ad hoc 24%
Critical knowledge flow needs are considered as part of the content management lifecycle
27%
within some parts of the organization
Critical knowledge flow needs are considered as part of the content management lifecycle
10%
across most (=>75%) of the organization
Content management lifecycle is proactively optimized to balance content integrity with critical
10%
knowledge flow needs across most (=>75%) of the organization
2 Are content management capabilities continually evaluated and enhanced based on
performance data, feedback, and needs analysis?
No 37%
Ad hoc X 24%
On a defined schedule and around major change events or significant changes to strategy
24%

Your All
Content Management Assessment Questions - SAMPLE REPORT
Answer Participants
Level 5
1 Is content proactively pushed or recommended to end users based on roles, needs, and usage
patterns?
No X 59%
Customized view based on static criteria (e.g., location) 16%
Content pushed to end users based on dynamic criteria (e.g., roles and projects) 16%
Content pushed to end users based on multi-dimensional analysis to anticipate knowledge
0%
needs
Content pushed to end users and decision support systems based on multi-dimensional analysis
8%
to anticipate knowledge needs
2 Is content and usage data analyzed to identify emerging business needs, risks, and
opportunities?
No X 59%
Analysis conducted on demand (e.g., as part of strategic initiative) 24%
Standard, routine approach to conduct analysis and report it to the business 4%
Standard, routine approach to conduct analysis with recommendations implemented in the
4%
business
Standard, routine analysis conducted with recommendations implemented and demonstrated
8%
outcomes

Information Your All
Technology Answer Participants
Level 1
1 Are existing technologies leveraged for knowledge sharing?
No 2%
Within teams or departments X 20%
Across the organization 69%
Level 2
1 Are technology needs assessments conducted for KM with stakeholders?
No 31%
Ad hoc 27%
Around major change events or significant changes to strategy X 22%
Standard approach with a defined schedule 0%
Standard approach, defined schedule and around major change events or significant changes to
20%
strategy
2 Are KM approaches designed and implemented in collaboration with the technology group(s)?
No 27%
Ad hoc 6%
KM engages technology group for specific implementation support X 14%
KM engages technology group for specific design and implementation support 6%
KM partners with technology group during design, implementation, and sustainment
47%
3 Are data security and privacy requirements factored into the design of KM approaches?
No 12%
Ad hoc 29%
Standard approach to review and integrate requirements X 14%
Standard approach to review and integrate requirements and train end users 10%
Agreement between KM and technology group(s) on appropriate implementation and training
35%
of data security and privacy requirements
Level 3
1 Are KM-enabling technologies implemented to meet scalability requirements?
No 22%
Evaluated on a case-by-case basis X 14%
Evaluated and implemented on a case-by-case basis 24%
Evaluated and implemented enterprise-wide in alignment with the KM strategy 8%
Re-evaluated and adapted based on performance and evolving needs 31%
2 Are compliance, data security, and privacy policies managed for KM-enabling technologies?
No 8%
Compliance, data security, and privacy policies established 24%
Established and consistently applied X 8%
Established, consistently applied, and managed 18%
Established, consistently applied and managed with independent oversight 41%
3 Are KM-enabling technologies integrated into the organization's systems architecture?
No 14%
KM-enabling technologies are loosely aligned to organization's systems architecture
X 14%
Some KM-enabling technologies are integrated with organization's systems architecture 27%
All KM-enabling technologies are integrated with organization's systems architecture
10%
KM-enabling technologies are updated and improved as part of the organization's systems
35%
architecture

Information Your All
Technology Answer Participants
Level 4
1 Are KM-enabling technologies embedded in core business processes to support knowledge
flow?
No X 24%
Embedded into a few core business processes 41%
Embedded into a majority of core business processes 20%
Embedded into all core business processes with performance measures 4%
Embedded into all core business processes and leveraging performance measures to drive
10%
continuous improvement
2 Are search capabilities integrated across KM-enabling technologies?
No 16%
Multiple, non-integrated search capabilities X 51%
Enterprise search capability integrated across critical KM-enabling technologies 6%
Enterprise search capability integrated across all KM-enabling technologies 10%
Enterprise search capability returns contextual results from across all KM-enabling technologies 16%
Level 5
1 Do KM-enabling technologies improve automatically based on self-learning systems?
No X 71%
Piloted 14%
Implemented in limited areas 6%
Implemented in all of knowledge critical areas 2%
Implemented in all of knowledge critical areas with demonstrated results 6%
2 Do KM-enabling technologies integrate with relevant business systems to optimize knowledge
access and flow?
No X 47%
Integrated with limited relevant business systems 31%
Integrated with most relevant business systems 8%
Integrated with all relevant business systems with demonstrated results 8%
Seamless integration across all relevant business systems with proven optimization 6%
3 Are KM-enabling technologies integrated across the external value chain (e.g., vendors,
suppliers, customers)?
No X 57%
Ad hoc for specific relationships 27%
Standard process allows controlled access by external value chain partners 10%
Standard process to integrate KM-enabling technologies with external value chain partners'
6%
systems

X18A0T
About APQC - SAMPLE REPORT
Founded in 1977, APQC is a member-based nonprofit serving approximately 500 organizations worldwide in all industries. An internationally recognized resource for
process and performance improvement, APQC helps organizations adapt to rapidly changing environments, build new and better ways to work, and succeed in a
competitive marketplace. APQC focuses on benchmarking and metrics, best practices, knowledge management, performance improvement, and professional
development.
APQC claims a distinguished list of achievements including organizing the first White House Conference on Productivity, spearheading the creation and design of the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 1987, and jointly administering the award for its first three years.
In 1992, the evolution of best practices and benchmarking as tools for breakthrough improvement led APQC to form the International Benchmarking Clearinghouse, a
comprehensive service designed to promote, facilitate, and improve the process of learning from best practices. As an innovative thought leader, APQC, its members,
and partners helped launch knowledge management (KM) as a key business practice in 1995.
Most recently, APQC introduced Open Standards Benchmarking, which seeks to standardize the processes and measures that global organizations use to benchmark
and improve performance. With over 5,000 participants from around the world representing a variety of industries, APQC's Open Standards Benchmarking has
become the world's premier database for benchmarks and best practices. A sample list of Open Standards Benchmarking participants can be found online at
http://www.apqc.org/participants.
Today, APQC works with organizations across all industries to find practical, cost-effective solutions to drive quality and process improvement. More information
about APQC and its best practices and benchmarking products and services can be found online at www.apqc.org.

X18A0T
How to Use the Open Standards Benchmarking Report

To help your organization gain the greatest value from its custom Open Standards Benchmarking report, APQC has outlined some simple and effective ways to
leverage the findings.
Reviewing Your Open Standards Benchmarking Report
When you receive your benchmarking report, set aside a block of time to read through it in its entirety. Note any questions you would like to pose to the APQC
research team for clarification or additional information. You can contact the Open Standards Benchmarking help desk by phone at 800-776-9676 or +1-713-681-4020
and by e-mail at kmcat@apqc.org.
Stakeholder Review Session
Conducting a review session with key stakeholders is an excellent way to develop and gain support for improvement initiatives. Some of the most common ways that
organizations leverage Open Standards Benchmarking reports in their stakeholder review sessions are:
• to set goals as part of the annual budgeting and planning process;
• to identify and prioritize improvement projects;
• to compare performance and business practices across multiple internal units;
• to learn about and adapt best practices from top performers;
• to incorporate metrics into businesses cases to support restructuring, merger, or outsourcing evaluations;
• to provide performance data for common frameworks or methodologies such as Six Sigma; and
• to establish a baseline prior to a technology implementation.

X18A0T
Here’s how three past participants leveraged the information in their reports:
• A building products manufacturer held a two-day event with leaders from various functional areas to discuss the data. The company coupled the Open Standards
Benchmarking report with customer feedback to plan improvements. Over the course of two days, the company spent 20 hours reviewing findings and developing a
list of 20 improvement projects.
• International Truck & Engine used several reports to facilitate its annual planning process. A team reviewed the data, flagged improvement areas, and set goals for
the next year. The organization identified between five and 10 action items for each Open Standards Benchmarking report it completed.
• Working with a consulting firm, Thomas Steel Strip used the Open Standards Benchmarking report as a foundation for its process improvement plan. The team
created a matrix of its key measures, customized some calculations, and conducted work sessions to identify improvements. As a result of the follow-on activities, the
supply chain area reduced finished goods inventory by almost 50 percent and increased inventory turns, allowing for lower inventory levels and faster delivery.
Here’s what participants had to say about their Open Standards Benchmarking reports:
• “I reviewed six or seven key points [from the report] internally with a group. The company comparisons were very relevant. We identified about 25 percent of the
[company comparison] information for further internal discussion.”
• “We’ve added the findings to our benchmarking measurement program that we use for program review, course correction, and feedback throughout the
organization.”

SampleReport KMCapabilityAssessment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SampleReport KMCapabilityAssessment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

o

Current Results - April 2021

APQC’s Levels of Knowledge

Knowledge Management Capability

For Additional Assistance

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2 of 36 Confidential

Best Practices, Business

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 3 of 36 Confidential

Current Results - March 2022

Knowledge Management Change Knowledge Flow KM Tools & Content Information

Your Organization All Participants

KM Assessment Score Your Organization All Participants

5 Objectives 0.53 2.26

Business Case 1.25 1.95

3.5 Governance 0.40 2.35

3 Change Management 0.25 1.34

Communication 0.25 1.85

1 Content 0.50 2.35

0.5 Information & Technology

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 4 of 36 Confidential

for your organization.

People - Governance and

People - Change Management

People - Change Management

Process - Knowledge Flow

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Content and Information

Process - Knowledge Flow Process Strategy - Business Case

Process - KM Approaches and Tools People - Governance and

People - Change Management

Process - Measurement Process - Knowledge Flow

Process - KM Approaches and

Content and Information

Strategy - Business Case

Content and Information

Content and Information Technology

Content and Information

Demographics - SAMPLE REPORT

Process Classification Framework

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 6 of 36 Confidential

Demographics - SAMPLE REPORT

Participant Demographics as of March 2022

Industrial Products 8.89%

Financial Services/Banking 6.42%

Energy and Utility 3.46%

Consumer Products/Packaged Goods 1.98%

Retail and Wholesale 0.74%

Research Organization 0.49%

Legal Services 0.49%

Medical Equipment 0.25%

N = 405 Railroads 0.25%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 7 of 36 Confidential

Demographics - SAMPLE REPORT

Participants Size by Revenue

Between $10 billion and $15

Not Characterized, 31%, 31%

Between $1 billion and $5

Less than $100 million, 11%,

Between $500 million and $1 Between $100 million and

© 2020 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 8 of 36 Confidential

Demographics - SAMPLE REPORT

Africa & Middle East