Page 379 -

362 Chapter 10

• Even though a community of practice is a grassroots-driven, organically evolving,
and somewhat elusive entity, there are a number of indicators that can be used to
assess the health and value created by the CoP.
• It is generally recommended that a combination of different metrics be used in order
to assess the entirety of a KM project or program.

Discussion Points

1. Why are traditional accounting-based measures not entirely suitable for KM?
2. What are some of the key challenges in developing a measurement strategy?
3. What are the major benefi ts of drawbacks of quantitative, qualitative, and anecdotal
measures?
4. KM metrics remains an issue, as it is often only too easy to measure the costs
of implementing KM whereas the benefi ts prove too elusive to measure. Discuss this
KM issue: what are some of the methods and measures that can be used to make KM
benefi ts less elusive?
5. Explain how you would approach intellectual assets in developing KM applications.
What are some of the key challenges? Why can ’ t we use a single measurement method
when dealing with intellectual assets?
6. Compare and contrast the three KM metrics of benchmarking, BSC, and house of
quality. What are their major advantages and major drawbacks in monitoring progress
toward strategic KM and business goals?
7. What does the results-based approach offer that other methods do not?
8. How would you go about assessing the value of a CoP:
a. To an individual
b. To the community
c. To the host organization

References

Andriessen, D . 2005 . Implementing the KPMG Value Explorer ® critical success factors for apply-
ing ic measurement tools. http://www.weightlesswealth.com/downloads/Implementing%20
the%20value%20explorer.PDF . (accessed June 4, 2010).
Angus , R. 2003 . KM ’ s father fi gure: Robert Buckman. InfoWorld March 14. http://www
.itworldcanada.com/news/kms-father-fi gure-robert-buckman/118164. (accessed June 4, 2010).