Page 259 -

242 Chapter 7

Table 7.6
The KPQM maturity model

Maturity phase Description
Initial Knowledge process quality not planned, changes randomly
(chaotic)
Aware Need for quality has been recognized and initial structures
have been put into place
Established There is systematic structure and defi nition of knowledge
processes and they are specifi cally tailored to needs identifi ed
Quantitatively managed Performance measures are used to plan and track knowledge
processes
Optimizing Structures implemented to ensure continuous improvement
and self-optimization of knowledge processes

the organization can be diagnosed as being at the sharing level of organizational
capability. At the sharing level, KM initiatives such as corporate yellow pages or exper-
tise location systems would be more appropriate priorities.
Paulzen and Perc (2002) have proposed a knowledge process quality model (KPQM)
based on the major tenets of quality management and process engineering. The under-
lying premise is that knowledge processes can be improved by enhancing the corre-
sponding management structures. The maturity model makes it possible to implement
a systematic or incremental KM implementation. The authors make the assumption
that since software development is a knowledge-based activity, it is valid to adapt
these models for KM. The Paulzen and Perc (2002) model is essentially a modifi cation
of the capability maturity model ( CMMI Project Team 2002 ) that addresses the specifi c
characteristics of knowledge processes and KM systems. The maturity model consists
of fi ve phases: (1) initial, (2) aware, (3) established, (4) quantitatively managed, and
(5) optimizing, as shown in table 7.6 .
Note that there is a good fi t with the organizational maturity models presented
earlier. The major advantage of these models is that they enable organizations to
progress in an orderly manner, without skipping any important stages, in order to
achieve the desired end results of effective knowledge transfer, sharing, storing, and
distribution of experiences, learning from past experiences, and so forth.
Table 7.7 shows the Forrester Group KM maturity model, which describes the
different stages of maturity in terms of how people are supported throughout the
KM cycle. In the fi rst phase, assisted, other people are needed in order for knowledge
workers to fi nd valuable content and to connect with subject matter experts. In the
second phase, self-service, employees are able to make use of KM systems such as