Page 341 -

324 Chapter 9

• List barriers to KM implementation (e.g., culture where “ knowledge is power ” or
where individual possession of knowledge is consistently rewarded)
• List KM leverage points or enablers (e.g., existing initiatives that could be built upon)
• Identify opportunities to collaborate with other business initiatives (e.g., combine
knowledge continuity goals with succession planning initiatives in human resources)
• Conduct a risk analysis (e.g., knowledge that will soon “ walk out the door ” due to
imminent retirements or knowledge that is considered to be at risk because only a few
individuals are competent in this area and very little of their expertise exists in coded
or tangible knowledge assets)
• Identify redundancies within the organization (e.g., the case of the right hand not
knowing what the left hand is doing)
• Identify knowledge silos (e.g., groups, departments or individuals that hoard knowl-
edge or block fl uid knowledge fl ows to other groups, departments or colleagues)
• Determine how the organization ranks with respect to others within the industry
(e.g., are they early adopters of KM, KM leaders that are emulated by others, or are
they just becoming aware of KM needs within their organization)
One of the ways to perform gap analysis is to locate any gaps in knowledge. A good
way to do this is to once again survey and/or interview key stakeholders to fi nd out
what types of knowledge they would like to have in contrast to what they actually
have. A second set of questions (adapted from Liebowitz et al. 2000 , 7), as shown in
table 9.2 , can help complete this step of the analysis required for a KM strategy.
Next, the gap analysis will need a list of prioritized KM objectives to be addressed
by the organization. This list is typically gathered through interviews with senior
management and focus groups with the managers of all core business divisions. The
sessions are a form of brainstorming where participants are encouraged to think “ blue
sky ” thoughts, that is, to momentarily ignore constraints and reality checks and envi-
sion a more utopian version of their company. Typical questions would include: If all
were possible, what would your ideal day be like? What are some of the thorns in your
side that you would like taken care of immediately? What major changes would have
an enormous impact on your company ’ s effi ciency and effectiveness?
The differences between the “ as is ” situation, as assessed by the fi rst step in the
audit, serves to paint a portrait of the status quo, warts and all. The second stage asks
the stakeholders to put into words their visions for an improved version of their orga-
nization, one with an ideal culture, technological infrastructure, and skilled resources
and, above all, with no constraints. After this brief respite, the stakeholders are then