Assessment of ADB's Knowledge Management Implementation Framework (2010)

8/2/2019 Assessment of ADB's Knowledge Management Implementation Framework (2010)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/assessment-of-adbs-knowledge-management-implementation-framework-2010 1/54

Project Number: 26194December 2009

Assessment of ADB’s Knowledge Management

Implementation Framework

The views expressed in this paper are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect

the views or policies of the Asian Development Bank, or its Board of Governors, or thegovernments they represent. ADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in thispaper and accepts no responsibility for any consequence of their use. Terminology used may

not necessarily be consistent with ADB official terms.

December 2010





Teleos5 St. Julianʼs Avenue, Ludlow, Shropshire, United Kingdom

Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: http://knowledgebusiness.com

2

2009-2011 – Knowledge Management Results Framework. (Additional supportingdocuments include the findings of the Learning for Change Survey (August 2010) andcollection of ADB KM reports and case studies published under the series of Knowledge Solutions ). This Report on ADB KM trends also will assist ADB Management inestablishing a new set of KM goals for the years beginning in 2012.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



3

Executive Summary

In May 2005, Teleos conducted the first in a planned series of electronic surveys of ADBstaff to determine their perceptions regarding the ADB Knowledge Management (KM)

Implementation Framework. This Report compares the 2010 data findings against the2005-2009 results and highlights KM trends in ADB. The findings were benchmarkedagainst the eight recognized MAKE (Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises) knowledgeperformance dimensions to determine ‘high-level’ KM trends at the ADB.

A major benefit of this diagnostic tool is that through an independent, third-party study,the Asian Development Bank can benchmark how successful its knowledge strategy andframework is when compared across internal departments and against the world’s leadingknowledge-driven enterprises. A series of Enterprise MAKE Assessments will allow theADB to monitor the progress of implementing its knowledge strategy and framework overtime.

The sixth electronic KM Survey was conducted November 9-26, 2010. This Reportcompares the 2010 data findings against previous results and highlights KM trends inADB.

2010 KM Survey Trends

Trend 1

Teleos has observed that organizations move through recognizable stages during a KM

implementation process (see Section 4.5). Based on this year’s ADB KM Survey as wellas the results of previous MAKE studies, it appears that the ADB has made the transitionbetween Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the five-stage MAKE Knowledge ManagementImplementation Model. Typical of this transition phase are changes in seniormanagement leadership, changes in the core KM team, perceived diminishing returnsfrom KM investments (simple knowledge processes have been improved, but morecomplex knowledge processes have not been examined), and there is a generalimpression by many managers and staff that the organization’s knowledge ‘problems’have been solved.

Successfully moving from one KM stage to another is critical to becoming a Most Admired

Knowledge Enterprise. To avoid falling into the trap of complacency that the ADB hastransformed itself into a “world-class” knowledge organization, Senior ADB Managementshould ensure the completion of all outstanding goals found in the Enhancing Knowledge




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



4

Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009-2011 document, and preparea new set of KM goals for the years beginning 2012. The 2010 KM Survey reveals thatthere is still much work for ADB to do in improving its knowledge capabilities, and thatthere are significant opportunities for improvement across the entire organization.

Recommendation 1

ADB Management should ensure that the KM Implementation Framework continues to be aligned to the organization’s current Vision, Mission and Goals. ADB Management should review the Enhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for2009-2011 document and prepare a new KM Plan of Action (for years beginning 2012) that aligned to Stage 3 (Reinvigoration) of the MAKE KM Implementation Model. These new KM‘stretch’ goals should be designed to support the four identified pillars: (i) sharpening the knowledge focus in all ADB operations, (ii) promoting and empowering communities of practice for knowledge capture and sharing, (iii) strengthening external knowledge partnerships to develop and disseminate knowledge, and (iv) scaling up staff development

programs to improve technical skills and manage knowledge. Gaining the full support of theProfessional Staff continues to be a critical concern and should be addressed as a matter ourgency.

Trend 2

Over the first three ADB KM Surveys (2005-2007), there was substantial improvement inthe eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions. However, with the exception oforganizational learning, the 2008 ADB KM Survey revealed a decline in organizationalknowledge capabilities, especially in knowledge-driven culture; knowledge leadership;creation, access and use of knowledge products; and successfully working with externalstakeholders.

Considerable progress has been made since the adoption of Enhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009-2011. The 2010 ADB KMSurvey (supported by other surveys such as the 2010 Learning for Change Survey ),reveals that ADB, faced with many structural and human resources challenges andworking within global economic uncertainties, is improving its knowledge capabilities in alleight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions. Several ‘barriers’ identified in lastyear’s KM Survey, especially lack of progress in becoming a learning organization,appear to have been addressed with positive results. ADB has moved closer tobecoming a best practice learning organization.

ADB should be commended in its efforts to create a holistic KM ImplementationFramework. All too often organizations stress improvements in one or two MAKE




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



5

knowledge performance dimensions, which results in an unbalanced approach and oftenleads to a dysfunctional knowledge culture and collaborative knowledge-sharingenvironment. In the case of ADB, its KM Implementation Framework encompasses alleight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions, resulting in a well-balanced, holisticknowledge-driven organization.

Recommendation 2

The National Officers, Professional Staff and Administrative Staff are improving their knowledge capabilities at different rates. The challenge for ADB Management is to devise new KM programs and initiatives that meet the needs of these three distinct groups of knowledge workers while at the same time moving the entire enterprise forwards towards becoming a leading knowledge-driven organization.

Trend 3

The National Officers are ‘realistic’ in their assessment of ADB’s KM ImplementationFramework and a majority of NO’s are working to ensure the success of ADB KMinitiatives. They understand that a successful ADB KM implementation process will takea number of years to yield substantial positive benefits for the organization. It alsorequires constant managerial attention and support.

However, 15% of the National Officers (compared to 10% in the 2009 KM Survey) gavethe ADB’s KM Implementation Framework a Total Score of less than 40 points. Thisincreased “resistance to change” could be a concern if the trend were to continue. Basedon hundreds of MAKE Assessments, it is possible that managerial ‘fatigue’ is setting in.

The fact that after six annual studies there remains a significant (and growing) minority ofNational Officers who do not believe in and/or fully support the ADB KM implementationprocess should be addressed as soon as possible. This group of NO’s is large enough tosignificantly impede the successful implementation of KM within the ADB.

Recommendation 3

The ADB Management should create new KM programs and initiatives to re-engage / re- energize the NO’s in the KM implementation process when preparing the next KM Plansof Action for the ADB KM Implementation Framework and Enhancing KnowledgeManagement under Strategy 2020 document.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



6

Trend 4

Professional Staff have become slightly more positive of ADB’s KM ImplementationFramework. However, when taking into account the support provided by ADB KMprograms targeted at this functional group, there still appears to be widespread

misunderstandings and/or even opposition to the ADB KM Implementation Plan. Thesemisunderstanding and/or opposition is typical of key knowledge workers in the earlystages of the KM implementation process, but after six years of ADB KM implementationefforts a more positive view would be expected from this group.

In this year’s KM Survey, 36% of the Professional Staff (107 individuals) gave the ADB’sKM implementation process a score of less than 40 points. In the 2009 KM Survey, 42%of the Professional Staff (108 individuals) gave the ADB’s KM implementation process ascore of less than 40 points.

Over the past five years there has been almost no change in PO’s perceptions regarding

how effective is the ADB Management is at:

• encouraging and sustaining the practice of knowledge management.

• improving ADB knowledge products.

Recommendation 4

The challenge for ADB Management is to work with Professional Staff to demonstrate the value of the KM Implementation Framework. The Professional Staff need to understand that their expertise will not be less valued, but on the contrary will be more valued as the KM implementation process continues to unfold.

Trend 5

Administrative Staff continue to be very supportive of the ADB’s KM ImplementationFramework. The AS’s perception of ADB’s KM implementation process has improvedsignificantly during the past year after remaining unchanged during 2008 and 2009.

In the 2009 KM Survey one of the recommendations was that ADB Management reviewKM initiatives directed towards Administrative Staff and establish a new program of KMinitiatives, especially in the area of ‘Enhanced Staff Learning and Development,’ to moredeeply inculcate the change process within this key knowledge group. Thisrecommendation has produced positive results (a conclusion supported by the 2010 Learning for Change Survey ); the AS’s views concerning ADB’s ability to successfully




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



7

develop and sustain a learning and sharing culture has increased by 0.56 points (7.52 – up from 6.96) – an 8% improvement.

Recommendation 5

The challenge for ADB Management is to support AS’s by encouraging the integrations of knowledge management in all work practices, continuing to develop Administrative Staff intellectual growth, and helping AS’s to manage ADB knowledge assets.

Trend 6

Most ADB Departments are now supporting the KM Implementation Framework; howeversome Departments see no need to change, while there remain a few Departments(especially those in ‘backoffice’ areas which are skeptical that any change is possible.Successful KM implementation is not guaranteed, even in those ADB Departmentscurrently registering significant improvements in their Total Scores (as revealed by the

fact that several Departments which were supportive of the ADB KM ImplementationFramework last year are now less supportive).

Recommendation 6

It is recommended that the ADB Management consider introducing special KM programs and initiatives to address Departmental resistance to change. It also is important that ADB Management examine those Departments where perceptions of the KM Implementation Framework have undergone significant negative change in order to understand the reasons why. If left unchecked, it is possible that those Departments with increasingly negative views of the ADB KM Implementation Framework may act as barriers to successful KM implementation throughout ADB.

Trend 7

Based on the first examination of responses of the ADB staff located at the Missions,there is a more positive view (mean score of 50.56) of the ADB KnowledgeImplementation Framework when compared to All ADB Staff (49.88). This is notsurprising since similar studies have revealed that groups located away from theheadquarters often believe that they are not kept ‘in the loop’ with regards toorganizational communications and knowledge sharing. Groups like the ADB Missionsare therefore often more positive than Headquarters staff regarding the benefits of a KMimplementation process.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



8

Recommendation 7

ADB Management should attempt to identify possible KM best practices at Missions with high scores and transfer to these best practices to Missions with low scores to improve the knowledge capabilities at all ADB Missions.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



9

Contents

1.0 Background 10

2.0 Enterprise Assessment Tool 11

3.0 Data Collection 12

4.0 Data Analysis 13

4.1 Data Analysis of All ADB Staff 13

4.2 Data Analysis of ADB All Staff by Function 18

4.3 Data Analysis of ADB Participants by Departments and Missions 30

4.4 Data Analysis of ADB vs. MAKE Leaders 34

4.5 MAKE Knowledge Management Implementation Model 37

5.0 Recommendations 42

Appendix 1: MAKE Framework 48




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



10

1.0 Background

Teleos has conducted five previous electronic surveys of ADB staff to determine theirperceptions regarding the ADB Knowledge Management (KM) ImplementationFramework:

• The first electronic survey was conducted in May 2005.

• The second electronic survey was conducted in July-August 2006.

• The third electronic survey was conducted in September-October 2007.

• The fourth electronic survey was conducted in October-November 2008.

• The fifth electronic survey was conducted in September-October 2009.

This Report compares the 2010 data findings against the 2005-2009 results andhighlights KM trends in ADB. The findings were benchmarked against the eight

recognized Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE) knowledge performancedimensions to determine ‘high-level’ Knowledge Management trends at the ADB.

The Enterprise MAKE Assessment is a diagnostic tool for rapidly assessing thecommitment and maturity of the Asian Development Bank’s knowledge strategy and KMImplementation Framework. It is based on the MAKE framework consisting of eightknowledge performance dimensions (see Section 2: Enterprise Assessment Tool andAppendix A – MAKE Framework).

A major benefit of this diagnostic tool is that through an independent, third-party study,the Asian Development Bank can benchmark how successful its knowledge strategy and

KM Implementation Framework is when compared across internal departments andagainst the world’s leading knowledge-driven enterprises. A series of Enterprise MAKEAssessments will allow the ADB to monitor the progress of implementing its knowledgestrategy over time.

The sixth electronic survey was conducted between November 9-26, 2010. This Reportcompares the 2010 data findings against the 2005-2009 results and highlights KM trendsin ADB.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



11

2.0 Enterprise Assessment Tool

Teleos has created a customized Enterprise MAKE Assessment tool for use by ADB staff.The Knowledge Management Center (KM Center) re-formatted the questions to “ADBlanguage/customs” for the second electronic survey (2006) in order to increase the

response rate and detail of responses. In the 2007 electronic survey, the questions werefurther refined to increase response rate and detail. The same question set has beenused since then (2007-2010 electronic surveys) to facilitate the comparability of theresults. Each participant was asked in absolute confidence to rate the AsianDevelopment Bank’s knowledge capabilities on a scale of 1 (poor) to 10 (excellent)against the eight MAKE knowledge performance criteria listed below:

D1. Ability to create and sustain an enterprise knowledge-driven culture.

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “How well does yourdepartment embrace and perform in a knowledge-driven culture, such as conducting

regular meetings and brainstorming sessions, sharing documents to staff within andamong departments, etc.?”

D2. Ability to develop knowledge workers through senior management leadership.

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “How effective is theManagement in encouraging and sustaining the practice of knowledge management,such as incorporating KM as an activity in PDP, implementing incentivemechanisms, etc.?”

D3. Ability to develop and deliver knowledge-based projects/services.

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “What is your view ofADB knowledge products (publications, newsletters) in terms of value added,accessibility, relevance, quality, etc.?”

D4. Ability to manage and maximize the value of enterprise intellectual capital.

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “How effective is ADBin developing staff intellectual growth and managing knowledge assets?”

D5. Ability to create and sustain an enterprise-wide collaborative knowledge-sharing environment.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



12

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “How ADB valuesstaff’s knowledge contributions in sustaining a knowledge-driven environmentthrough development of knowledge databases, participation in communities ofpractices, etc.?”

D6. Ability to create and sustain a learning organization.

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “How successful isADB in developing and sustaining a learning and sharing culture?”

D7. Ability to manage client knowledge to create value and enterprise intellectual capital.

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “How successful isADB in working with external stakeholders (i.e., DMCs and external networks) inknowledge-sharing and development activities?”

D8. Ability to transform ADB knowledge to reduce poverty and improve clients' standard of living.

In the 2010 electronic survey the question to ADB staff read: “How successful isADB in adopting, incorporating, and applying lessons learned and experiences in itsdaily operations and sharing them within ADB and other stakeholders?”

As noted above, the question set for the 2007 electronic survey was refined (except forQuestion D6) by the KM Center to gain more accurate responses from the participants.However, by modifying the question set an additional degree of uncertainty (statisticalerror) was introduced. The question set for the 2007-2010 electronic surveys are thesame and are not subject to the same possible degree of uncertainty noted between the2005 and 2006 surveys and the 2007-2010 surveys. This will be discussed in the DataAnalysis section.

3.0 Data Collection

The 2005 e-survey was conducted using Teleos’ secure Web site. For the 2006-2010 KMSurveys, the Knowledge Management Center and Teleos agreed to use ADB’s intranet toencourage greater participation based on familiarity of the ADB intranet and assurance ofsecurity and confidentiality.

By the end of this year’s survey period (November 2010), a total of 637 ADB staff had




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



13

completed the 2010 KM Survey. The response rates for the six KM Surveys are:

2010 Survey – 637 participants


2008 Survey – 203 participants2007 Survey – 132 participants



Participation in the 2010 KM Survey was 23% higher than for the 2009 KM Survey. Theimproved response rate is a very encouraging indicator that ADB staff are aware of theKM Implementation Framework and that it is having a greater effect on individual staffactivities. The improved response rate also has had the benefit of providing a more

statistically valid set of data.

4.0 Data Analysis

4.1 Data Analysis of All ADB Staff

A total of 637 complete and useable 2010 KM Survey forms were received. Incomparison, a total of 518 useable 2009 KM Survey forms were received. All 2010useable forms included job title; five of the useable forms (0.8%) did not includeinformation on the department/group. All 2009 useable forms included job title; three ofthe useable forms (0.6%) did not include information on the department/group. Thesignificant increase in the number of participants in the 2010 KM survey provides greaterconfidence in this year’s results when compared to previous surveys.

Responses indicate that the ADB’s ongoing cultural transformation is viewed positivelyand the organization is considered more ‘open’ and ‘trusting.’ ADB staff appears moreconfident that participation in this annual KM Survey will result in ADB Managementvaluing their views and taking them into account during decision-making. However, itshould be noted that there still appears to be some degree of skepticism by ProfessionalStaff (see Section 4.2) and within parts of the ADB (see Section 4.3) which could affectthe outcome of the KM Implementation Framework.

Table 1 compares the results of the 2005-2010 KM Surveys for all of the participatingADB staff. As noted above, the question set in the 2006 and 2007 KM Surveys was




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



14

slightly modified to accommodate the ADB’s “language/customs.” This could slightlyaffect the comparison of average scores between the 2005 and 2006 KM Surveys and the2007 and following KM Surveys. The results of the 2007-2010 KM Surveys are fullycomparable.

The Teleos Enterprise MAKE Assessment is based on the Delphi methodology. Tominimize statistical variations for perception studies like the MAKE Assessment, it iscritical that the group of participants remain relatively constant over time. Within the ADBthere is moderate annual staff movement – individuals joining/leaving the organization, aswell as individuals changing departments and/or job functions. Significantly, the numberof respondents in this year’s study was higher (637 compared to 518 last year), which hascontributed to increased statistical variability. In the case of the 2010 KM Survey, Teleosestimates that the statistical error is ±0.27 for each of the MAKE knowledge performancedimensional averages (the statistical error for the 2009 KM Survey was ±0.30).

Analysis of All ADB Staff

Year/Dimension D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 Total

2010 (637) 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88 2009 (518) 5.96 5.88 6.23 5.67 6.14 6.05 5.88 6.00 47.812008 (203) 5.46 5.39 5.82 5.20 5.70 5.66 5.57 5.57 44.372007 (132) 6.67 5.71 6.43 5.18 5.64 5.33 6.20 5.51 46.67

2006 (125) 6.14 5.34 6.05 4.70 5.74 5.02 5.34 5.19 43.522005 (66) 4.80 6.24 5.38 4.47 4.42 4.88 4.50 4.85 39.54

Table 1: Comparison of the average of all ADB staff responses for the 2005-2010 KM Surveys for the eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions (see Section 2).

The Total Score for the 2010 KM Survey is 49.88 and indicates a positive change whencompared to the Total Score of the 2009 KM Survey. When comparing the Total Scoresin Table 1, the ADB staff in the 2010 KM Survey ranked the organization 4.3% higher as a

‘raw’ score than in the 2009 KM Survey. This overall increase is typical of an organizationin its sixth or seventh year of the KM implementation process and of ADB’s size and




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



15

complexity. ADB appears to have successfully transitioned a KM implementation barrieras indicted by the decline in Total Score between the 2007 and 2008 KM Surveys, andsubsequent increase in Total Score beginning with the 2009 KM Survey.

There has been a moderate improvement across all eight MAKE knowledge performance

dimensions:

D1. How well does your department embrace and perform in a knowledge-driven culture,such as conducting regular meetings and brainstorming sessions, sharing documents to staff within and among departments, etc.?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 5.5% (6.29 – up from 5.96).Professional Staff (PS) and Administrative Staff (AS) report a more open and trust-based culture (see Section 4.2). This is a moderate movement upwards and signalsan improvement in creating a more open, trust-based culture within ADB.

D2. How effective is the Management in encouraging and sustaining the practice of knowledge management, such as incorporating KM as an activity in PDP,implementing incentive mechanisms, etc.?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 3.2% (6.07 – up from 5.88).National Officers (NO), Professional Staff (PS) and Administrative Staff (AS) all havea more positive view (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty) and signals a slightimprovement in the ADB staff’s confidence in Management’s support andcommunication of the organization-wide KM implementation process (see Section4.2).

D3. What is your view of ADB knowledge products (publications, newsletters) in terms of value added, accessibility, relevance, quality, etc.?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 4.3% (6.50 – up from 6.23).National Officers (NO), Professional Staff (PS) and Administrative Staff (AS) all havea slightly more positive view (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty). Thisdimension has the highest ‘raw’ score for any of the eight MAKE knowledgeperformance dimensions. The slight movement upwards could be due to a numberof reasons, including a greater ability to locate ADB knowledge products, being ableto find the right ADB knowledge product when needed, the IT system’s ability toretrieve the needed ADB knowledge products, etc. Since ADB’s main ‘product’ isknowledge, the continuing improvement in this knowledge performance dimension isa positive development.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



16

D4. How effective is ADB in developing staff intellectual growth and managing knowledge assets?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 5.5% (5.98 – up from 5.67).National Officers (NO), Professional Staff (PS) and Administrative Staff (AS) all have

a slightly more positive view (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty). Based onhundreds of MAKE Assessments, this knowledge performance dimension typicallyhas the lowest organizational ‘raw’ score. This is the case for ADB as well. Thatsaid, this knowledge performance dimension has witnessed continuing improvementover the six annual studies, indicating that the ADB staff, especially theAdministrative Staff (AS), have an increasingly positive view of the organization’sdevelopment of staff intellectual capital and management of ADB’s knowledgeassets.

D5. How ADB values staff’s knowledge contributions in sustaining a knowledge-driven environment through development of knowledge databases, participation in

communities of practices, etc.?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 3.3% (6.34 – up from 6.14).National Officers (NO), Professional Staff (PS) and Administrative Staff (AS) all havea slightly more positive view (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty). This is thesecond highest ‘raw’ score for any of the eight MAKE knowledge performancedimensions, and also the highest score in this dimension over the past six annualKM Surveys. This ‘raw’ score is especially significant since this MAKE knowledgeperformance dimension was highlighted as a Critical Success Factor at the verybeginning of the KM implementation process and continues to be stressed in theEnhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009- 2011 document.

D6. How successful is ADB in developing and sustaining a learning and sharing culture?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 4.6% (6.33 – up from 6.05). Whilethe National Officers (NO) and Professional Staff (PS) have a slightly more positiveview (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty) of ADB’s organizational learningcapabilities, the Administrative Staff (AS) report a significant improvement (8%).This overall slight movement (just outside the bounds of statistical uncertainty)signals a continuing improvement in the staff’s views of ADB as a learning andcollaborative organization. ADB Staff indicate positive benefits from ongoingCommunities of Practices (CoPs) and enhanced staff learning and skillsdevelopment.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



17

D7. How successful is ADB in working with external stakeholders (i.e., DMCs and external networks) in knowledge-sharing and development activities?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 4.6% (6.15 – up from 5.88). This isa slight movement upwards, but is still below the ‘raw’ score of 6.20 recorded in the

2007 KM Survey. National Officers (NO) and Administrative Staff (AS) have aslightly more positive view (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty). TheProfessional Staff (PS) continue to have rather negative views regarding the abilityof ADB to work with external stakeholders. It would appear that there are stillbarriers to achieving timely collaboration and communication between the ADB andthe organization’s external stakeholders. Meeting the goals and objectives of the‘Pillar’ Strengthen External Knowledge Partnerships outlined in the Enhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009-2011document should remove many of the barriers preventing greater success in thisknowledge performance dimension.

D8. How successful is ADB in adopting, incorporating, and applying lessons learned and experiences in its daily operations and sharing them within ADB and other stakeholders?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 3.7% (6.22 – up from 6.00).National Officers (NO) and Administrative Staff (AS) have a slightly more positiveview (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty). The Professional Staff (PS) viewshave not changed from the 2009 KM Survey. Overall, there is a slight improvementin this dimension and signals that ADB continues make slow progress towardscreating a holistic organizational environment that supports and optimizes ADB’sknowledge capabilities.

When compared with the 2009 KM Survey, this year’s ADB KM Survey reveals that ADB,faced with many structural and human resources challenges and working within globaleconomic uncertainties, has continued to improved its knowledge capabilities in all eightMAKE knowledge performance dimensions. Several ‘barriers’ identified in last year’s KMSurvey, especially the slow progress in becoming a learning organization, appear to havebeen addressed with positive results. ADB has moved closer to becoming a learningorganization. On the other hand, there still continues to be opportunities for ABD toimprove Management’s support and communication of the organization-wide KMimplementation process

An analysis of All ADB Staff responses also reveals that there is a significant difference inviews between the more positive National Officers (NO) and Administrative Staff (AS)




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



18

compared to the more negative views of the Professional Staff (PS). This difference inviews will be examined in more detail in Section 4.2.

4.2 Data Analysis of ADB All Staff by Function

The 637 ADB staff participating in this year’s Survey (2009 KM Survey numbers inparenthesis) have the following functions:

• National Officers: 149 (121)

• Professional Staff: 294 (257)

• Administrative Staff: 194 (140)

The number of National Officers (NO) participating in the 2010 KM Survey was 23%higher than in last year’s assessment (121 NO respondents). When compared to the2009 KM Survey, the number of Professional Staff (PS) participating in this year’s

assessment increased by 14%, while the of number of responding Administrative Staff(AS) increased by 29%.

Tables 2-4 show the 2010 ADB All Staff responses by job function and compare thisyear’s results to those of the 2005-2009 KM Surveys.

The average Total Score for All ADB Staff participating in this Enterprise Assessment was49.88. The average Total Score for each of the functions was: National Officers (52.52),Professional Staff (43.00), and Administrative Staff (58.31).

NO’s and PS’s perceptions of ADB’s KM implementation Framework have become

slightly more ‘positive’ (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty); the ADBAdministrative Staff continue to be ‘enthusiastic’ about the benefits of KM with regards totheir jobs and the organization.

Of course, there continue to be ‘pockets’ of dissatisfaction with ADB’s KM implementationFramework within all three functional groups. The average Total Scores hide the fact that15% of National Officers and 36% of Professional Staff now are moderate to very‘skeptical’ regarding the benefits of KM implementation. The percentage of ‘skeptics’found in the 2009 KM Survey were NO (10%) and PS (42%).

These observations will be analyzed in greater detail in the following sections.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



19

National Officers

Table 2 compares the National Officers’ responses for the eight MAKE knowledgeperformance dimensions in the 2005-2010 KM Studies.

Analysis of National Officers’ Response


2010 All ADB Staff 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88

2010 6.63 6.50 6.76 6.28 6.70 6.58 6.50 6.57 52.52

2009 6.58 6.38 6.62 6.21 6.59 6.53 6.38 6.35 51.64 2008 5.80 5.82 6.40 5.73 6.11 6.18 6.00 5.78 47.822007 6.56 5.89 6.33 5.67 5.93 5.67 6.30 5.85 48.202006 6.41 5.82 5.94 4.82 6.29 5.41 5.71 5.47 45.872005 6.29 8.43 6.43 6.14 6.29 5.71 6.00 6.29 51.57

Table 2: Analysis of National Officers’ responses for the eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions (see Section 2.0).

The NO’s 2010 Total Score increased by 0.88 points (1.7%), and indicates no change inperceptions year-on-year (within the bounds of statistical uncertainty). The NO’s TotalScore increased by 3.82 points (8.0%) between the 2008 and 2009 KM Surveys.

In this year’s KM Survey, the National Officers’ Total Score is 2.64 points higher (5.3%)than the All ADB Staff average. In the 2009 KM Survey, the National Officers’ TotalScore was 3.83 points higher (8.0%) than the All ADB Staff Total Score.

The National Officers’ 2010 scores improved in all eight MAKE knowledge performancedimensions. Figure 1 is a visual representation comparing the NO’s views of ADB’sknowledge performance (blue line) against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-driven

organizations (outside black line). The consistency in the NO’s scores (ranging from 6.28to 6.76) reflects a holistic view of ADB’s KM implementation efforts.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



20

Figure 1: Visual representation comparing National Officers’ views of ADB’s knowledge performance (blue line) against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-driven organization (outside black line).

Analysis

An analysis of the data reveals that National Officers are ‘realistic’ in their assessment ofADB’s KM Implementation Framework and a majority of NOs are working to ensure the

success of KM initiatives. They understand that a successful ADB KM implementationprocess will take a number of years to yield substantial positive benefits for theorganization. It also requires constant managerial attention and support.

However, 15% of the National Officers (compared to 10% in the 2009 KM Survey) gavethe ADB’s KM Implementation Framework a Total Score of less than 40 points. Thisincreased “resistance to change” could be a concern if the trend were to continue. Basedon hundreds of MAKE Assessments, it is possible that managerial ‘fatigue’ is setting in.The ADB Senior Management should consider programs and initiatives to re-engage / re-energize the NO’s in the KM implementation process.

The fact that after six annual studies there remains a significant (and growing) minority ofNational Officers who do not believe in and/or fully support the ADB KM implementation




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



21

process should be addressed as soon as possible. This group of NO is large enough tosignificantly impede the successful implementation of KM within the ADB.

Professional Staff

Table 3 compares the Professional Staff’s responses for the eight MAKE knowledgeperformance dimensions in the 2005-2010 KM Surveys.

The Professional Staff’s Total Score has improved by 1.36 points (3.3%) between the2009 and 2010 KM Surveys, which represents no change in perceptions year-on-year(within the bounds of statistical uncertainty). The Professional Staff’s perceptions ofADB’s knowledge management implementation efforts are now the most positive sincethe KM Implementation Framework was announced in 2005.

In this year’s KM Survey, the Professional Staff’s Total Score is 6.88 points lower(-13.8%) than the All ADB Staff Total Score. In the 2009 KM Survey, the Professional

Staff’s Total Score was 6.17 points lower (-12.9%) than the All ADB Staff average. Thisresponse indicates no significant year-on-year change (within the bounds of statisticaluncertainty).

Analysis of Professional Staff’s Response


2010 All ADB Staff 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88

2010 5.47 5.19 5.76 5.08 5.54 5.43 5.24 5.29 43.002009 5.13 5.05 5.55 4.79 5.45 5.33 5.07 5.27 41.64 2008 4.34 4.20 4.73 3.93 4.48 4.31 4.35 4.47 34.812007 6.27 5.19 5.83 4.08 4.70 4.25 5.72 4.77 40.792006 5.57 4.80 5.46 3.80 5.16 4.14 4.52 4.35 37.802005 4.13 5.00 5.67 4.12 4.14 4.27 3.87 3.86 35.06

Table 3: Analysis of Professional Staff’s responses for the eight MAKE knowledge

performance dimensions (see Section 2.0).




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



22

The Professional Staff’s 2010 Total Score improved in all eight MAKE knowledgeperformance dimensions. Figure 2 is a visual representation comparing the PS’s views ofADB’s knowledge performance (blue line) against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-drivenorganizations (outside black line). The consistency in the PS’s scores (ranging from 5.08

to 5.76) reflects a holistic view of ADB’s KM implementation efforts (although at a muchlower level than found with NO’s and AS’s).

Figure 2: Visual representation comparing Professional Staff’s views of ADB’s knowledge

performance (blue line) against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-driven organization (outside black line).

Over the past year, PS’s perceptions of ADB’s KM Implementation Framework haveimproved in two critical MAKE knowledge performance dimensions:

D1. How well does your department embrace and perform in a knowledge-driven culture,such as conducting regular meetings and brainstorming sessions, sharing documents to staff within and among departments, etc.?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 6.6% (5.47 – up from 5.13). Inprevious KM studies the PS’s have been quite negative concerning the ADB’s




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



23

attempts to create an organizational knowledge-driven culture. This is highest scorein this dimension over the past six annual KM Surveys. This is especially significantsince this MAKE knowledge performance dimension was highlighted as a CriticalSuccess Factor at the very beginning of the KM implementation process.

D4. How effective is ADB in developing staff intellectual growth and managing knowledge assets?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 6.1% (5.08 – up from 4.79). This isthe highest score in this dimension over the past six annual KM Surveys. It signalsthat the PS’s are beginning to believe that ADB has committed itself to developingstaff intellectual growth and managing knowledge assets?

One MAKE knowledge performance dimension remains a concern:

D8. How successful is ADB in adopting, incorporating, and applying lessons learned and

experiences in its daily operations and sharing them within ADB and other stakeholders?

The ‘raw’ score for this dimension increased by 0.3% (5.29 – up from 5.27). Whilethe PS scores increased for all of the seven ‘input’ MAKE knowledge performancedimensions, the PS’s view is that there has been no change in the ADB’s ability toadopt, incorporate and apply lessons learned and experiences in its daily operationsand to share them within ADB and other stakeholders. This is in contrast to thechanges in NO’s (3.5%) and AS’s (5.3%) views on ADB’s success in this MAKEknowledge performance dimension.

Analysis

An analysis of the data reveals that during the past year the Professional Staff havebecome slightly more positive of ADB’s KM Implementation Framework. However, whentaking into account the support provided by ADB KM programs targeted at this functionalgroup, there still appears to be widespread misunderstandings and/or even opposition tothe ADB KM lmplementation Framework and implementation process. Thismisunderstanding and/or opposition is typical of key knowledge workers in the earlystages of KM implementation, but after six years of ADB KM implementation efforts amore positive view would be expected from this group.

Part of the skepticism may be due to the fact that the PO’s have achieved positions ofrespect and responsibility due to their expert knowledge. A formal organizational KM




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



24

implementation process can be perceived as a threat by allowing other staff members tohave access to the experts’ unique insights and skills. It is therefore often the case thatProfessional Staff will initially be less supportive of KM than, say, National Officers orAdministrative Staff.

At the same time, Professional Staff also recognize that a KM implementation processcan help them in their activities and enable them to improve their own skills andcompetencies. The PS scores in this year’s KM Survey would indicate that some of theskepticism is being surmounted, especially the areas such as creating a supportiveorganizational knowledge-driven culture, creation of intellectual capital, collaboration andorganizational learning.

In this year’s KM Survey, 36% of the Professional Staff (107 individuals) gave the ADB’sKM implementation process a score of less than 40 points. In the 2009 KM Survey, 42%of the Professional Staff (108 individuals) gave the ADB’s KM implementation process ascore of less than 40 points. As noted above, the PO’s views this year appear slightly

more positive.

In order to verify this fact, the percentage of Professional Staff giving the ADB KMimplementation process a score of less than 20 points was examined. An overall score ofless than 20 points would indicate major dissatisfaction and/or opposition to the ADB KMimplementation process.

In the 2010 KM study, 21 of the 294 Professional Staff (7%) participating in the KMSurvey gave the ADB’s KM implementation process a score of less than 20 points. In the2009 KM study, 23 of the 257 Professional Staff (9%) participating in the Survey gave theADB’s KM implementation process a score of less than 20 points. It appears that therestill is a core group of Professional Staff who do not believe in and/or fully support theADB KM Implementation Framework. The number of individuals in this group is still largeenough to significantly impede and/or derail the successful implementation of KM withinthe ADB.

ADB Management should continue to be concerned about the apathy among some of theProfessional Staff. The challenge for ADB Management is to work with Professional Staffto demonstrate the value of the KM Implementation Framework. The Professional Staffneed to understand that their expertise will not be less valued, but on the contrary will bemore valued as the KM implementation process continues to unfold. The ProfessionalStaff currently view the ADB’s organizational culture much more positively than in 2005when the KM Implementation Framework was announced.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



25

However, over the past five years there has been almost no change in their perceptionsregarding how effective the ADB Management is at:

• encouraging and sustaining the practice of knowledge management, such asincorporating KM as an activity in PDP, implementing incentive mechanisms, etc.

• improving ADB knowledge products (publications, newsletters) in terms of valueadded, accessibility, relevance, quality, etc.

ADB Management should continue to address these issues if the KM ImplementationFramework is to succeed.

Administrative Staff

Table 4 compares the Administrative Staff’s responses for the eight MAKE knowledgeperformance dimensions in the 2005-2010 KM Studies.

Analysis of Administrative Staff’s Response


2010 All ADB Staff 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88

2010 7.28 7.06 7.43 7.10 7.29 7.52 7.26 7.37 58.312009 6.95 6.97 7.14 6.82 7.04 6.96 6.94 7.00 55.82 2008 6.87 6.83 7.01 6.69 7.19 7.27 7.06 7.05 55.972007 7.63 6.58 7.66 6.74 7.11 6.95 7.05 6.55 56.272006 7.23 6.29 7.29 6.49 6.57 6.66 6.80 6.63 53.962005 5.15 6.42 5.48 4.70 4.61 5.27 4.70 5.06 41.39

Table 4: Analysis of Administrative Staff’s responses for the eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions (see Section 2.0).




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



26

The Administrative Staff’s Total Score increased by 2.49 points (4.5%) between the 2009and 2010 KM Surveys. The Administrative Staff’s Total Score declined by .15 points(-0.3%) between the 2008 and 2009 KM Surveys. After two consecutive annual declines,this year’s Administrative Staff’s Total Score is now the most positive since the KMImplementation Framework was announced in 2005.

The changes in the Administrative Staff’s 2010 scores in the eight MAKE knowledgeperformance dimensions indicate a moderate improvement between the 2009 and 2010KM Surveys. Figure 3 is a visual representation comparing the AS’s views of ADB’sknowledge performance (blue line) against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-drivenorganizations (outside black line). The consistency in the AS’s scores (ranging from 7.06to 7.52) reflects a holistic view of ADB’s KM implementation efforts.

Figure 3: Visual representation comparing Administrative Staff’s views of ADB’s knowledge performance (blue line) against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-driven organization (outside black line).

In this year’s electronic KM Survey, the Administrative Staff’s Total Score is 8.43 pointshigher (16.9%) than the All ADB Staff Total Score. In the 2009 KM Survey,, the

Administrative Staff’s Total Score was 8.01 points higher (16.8%) than the All ADB StaffTotal Score.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



27

Analysis

An analysis of the data reveals that Administrative Staff continue to be very supportive ofthe ADB’s KM Implementation Framework. The Administrative Staff’s perception of

ADB’s KM implementation process has improved moderately during the past year afterremaining unchanged during 2008 and 2009.

Teleos research indicates that Administrative Staff are one of the first groups to becomeaware of, and to receive benefits from, a KM implementation process. Before theintroduction of a KM implementation process, Administrative Staff often find that poorlydesigned work processes hinder their activities, leading to frustration and performanceinefficiencies. Also, before organizational KM Implementation Framework, AdministrativeStaff often believe that management does not value their views on work activities, andthat they lack opportunities for training and personal development.

The scores in this year’s KM Survey indicate that Administrative Staff continue to have avery positive view of the ADB’s KM Implementation Framework, and are, in general, verysupportive of current KM initiatives. In the recommendations section of the 2009 KMSurvey Report, one suggestion was that ADB Management review KM initiatives directedtowards Administrative Staff and establish a new program of KM initiatives, especially inthe area of ‘Enhanced Staff Learning and Development,’ to more deeply inculcate thechange process within this key knowledge group. Action on this recommendation(supported by the finding in the 2010 Learning for Change Survey ) has produced positiveresults; the AS’s views concerning ADB’s ability to successfully develop and sustain alearning and sharing culture has increased by 0.56 points (7.52 – up from 6.96) – an 8%improvement.

Summary

Figure 4 is a visual representation comparing the National Officers’ (blue line),Professional Staff’s (yellow line) and Administrative Staff’s (red line) views of ADB’sknowledge performance against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-driven organization(outside black line).

Figure 4 clearly shows that the perceptions of the National Officers are slightly lesspositive than the Administrative Staff towards ADB’s KM Implementation Framework. Onthe other hand, the views of the Professional Staff are more negative, especially in thefollowing knowledge performance dimension:




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



28

D4: Enterprise Intellectual Capital expressed as: “How effective is ADB in developing staff intellectual growth and managing knowledge assets?”

Figure 4: Visual representation comparing the National Officers’ (blue line), Professional Staff’s (yellow line) and Administrative Staff’s (red line) views of ADB’s knowledge performance against the ‘perfect’ MAKE knowledge-driven organizations (outside black line).

The long-term goal of the ADB KM Implementation Framework is to move all ADB Staff’sperceptions towards the outer (black line) boundary, which represents the ‘perfect’knowledge-driven organization. As shown in Figure 4, improvement opportunities exist inall eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions. However, ADB Management shouldemphasize programs that are designed to improve staff intellectual growth and managingknowledge assets so that all ADB staff can improve their knowledge skills, competenciesand capabilities.

ADB should be commended in its efforts to create a holistic KM ImplementationFramework. All too often organizations stress improvements in one or two MAKE

knowledge performance dimensions, which results in an unbalanced approach and oftenleads to a dysfunctional knowledge culture and collaborative knowledge-sharing




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



29

Analysis of ADB Staff by Departments

Dept/Dimension D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 Total

RMOD (1) 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 61.00OPR (2) 8.00 7.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 7.50 8.00 8.00 59.50OGC (15) 7.27 7.27 7.60 6.87 7.20 7.47 7.33 7.60 58.60COSO (27) 6.93 6.85 7.07 6.85 7.11 7.33 7.15 7.30 56.59OCO (14) 7.21 6.86 7.14 6.86 7.36 7.00 6.86 6.71 56.00SPD (21) 7.10 6.75 6.95 6.55 6.95 7.20 7.00 7.10 55.60SARD (80) 6.76 6.49 6.90 6.55 6.81 6.76 6.67 6.81 53.75DER (5) 7.20 6.00 6.60 6.20 7.20 6.60 6.60 6.60 53.00ORM (12) 6.58 6.25 7.08 6.00 6.67 6.17 6.67 6.42 51.83RSDD (63) 6.48 6.32 6.69 6.02 6.65 6.60 6.31 6.40 51.47ERD (8) 6.13 6.00 6.50 6.00 6.38 6.25 6.50 6.75 50.50SERD (136) 6.33 6.17 6.58 6.00 6.27 6.39 6.11 6.43 50.28RM (1) 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 50.00All ADB Staff (637) 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88 OAI (9) 6.78 6.11 6.33 5.89 6.22 6.00 6.11 5.67 49.11EARD (63) 6.09 5.93 6.56 5.86 6.32 6.23 5.86 6.12 48.96OSPF (2) 6.50 4.50 6.50 7.00 5.50 5.50 5.50 6.50 47.50TD (8) 5.88 6.00 6.00 5.50 6.13 5.88 5.75 5.63 46.75OCRP (1) 6.00 6.00 5.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 4.00 4.00 46.00OAS (38) 5.80 5.50 5.97 5.33 5.93 5.87 5.57 5.60 45.77OIST (3) 6.33 5.67 6.33 6.00 5.67 5.33 4.67 5.00 45.00PSOD (7) 6.00 5.20 5.60 5.20 5.40 6.00 5.80 5.80 45.00CWRD (29) 5.56 5.37 6.04 5.26 5.48 5.56 5.70 5.81 44.78OREI (7) 5.43 5.57 6.00 5.57 6.29 5.57 5.29 4.86 44.57CTL (48) 5.63 5.31 5.94 5.13 5.71 5.60 5.27 5.31 43.90OAG (5) 4.60 5.20 5.40 5.40 6.40 5.40 6.40 5.00 43.80IED (11) 5.36 5.36 5.45 5.00 5.55 5.55 5.64 5.27 43.18PARD (9) 4.88 4.88 5.13 5.75 5.88 6.25 5.13 4.75 42.63BPMS (1) 5.00 4.00 6.00 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 41.00OSEC (5) 6.40 4.60 5.20 4.20 4.00 4.40 3.80 4.20 36.80RMMR (1) 5.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 27.00

Table 5: Analysis of All ADB staff (by department) average scores for the eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions (see Section 2) arranged in descending order. The

number in parenthesis is total number of responses from the Department.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



30

environment. In the case of ADB, it is apparent from Figure 4 that the KM ImplementationFramework encompasses all eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions, resultingin a well-balanced, holistic knowledge-driven organization. It also is apparent fromFigure 4 that the National Officers, Professional Staff and Administrative Staff are

improving their knowledge capabilities at different rates. The challenge for ADBManagement is to devise KM programs and initiatives that meet the needs of these threedistinct groups of knowledge workers.

4.3 Data Analysis of ADB Participants by Departments and Missions

Data Analysis of ADB Participants by Departments

Table 5 shows the average scores of 2010 ADB KM Survey participants by Departments.It should be noted that the sampling size for some Departments was very small; therefore,the uncertainty value for each knowledge performance dimension is ±0.54.

Another way to analyze the data is to examine those Departments with the greatestdeviation from the All ADB Staff Total Score (see Table 6 which examines thoseDepartments which had a minimum of five respondents in both the 2009 and 2010 KMSurveys). The total number of 2010 KM Survey respondents who were affiliated withthese Departments was 599, representing 94% of all respondents (in the 2009 KMSurvey, respondents who were affiliated with these same Departments totaled 462,representing 89% of all respondents). The analysis of this data provides insights into theperceptions of All ABD Staff with regards to the organization’s KM ImplementationFramework.

Between the 2009 and 2010 KM Surveys, DER, ERD, OGC, OCO, PSOD, SARD andSPD had a significantly more positive view of the ADB’s KM Implementation Framework.Between the 2009 and 2010 KM Surveys, CTL, OAG, OREI, OSEC, PARD and TD had amore negative view of the ADB’s KM Implementation Framework.

It is important to remember that perceptions of the ADB KM Implementation Frameworkcan be affected by changes in personnel and leadership, reorganization of a Department,or significant changes in the number of respondents. And, Departments that are thefocus of improvement efforts often report more positive views, while Departments that arenot the focus of improvement efforts often report more negative views (the Hawthorneeffect).




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



31

Analysis of ADB Departments(Minimum of Five Responses)

2010 KM Survey 2009 KM SurveyDepartment Department(No. of Responses) Score (No. of Responses) Score Change

SPD (21) 55.60 SPD (19) 44.89 23.9%SARD (80) 53.75 SARD (56) 43.98 22.2%OGC (15) 58.60 OGC (18) 50.12 16.9%DER (5) 53.00 DER (14) 46.00 15.2%OCO (14) 56.00 OCO (16) 49.63 12.8%PSOD (7) 45.00 PSOD (7) 40.01 12.5%ERD (8) 50.50 ERD (28) 45.49 11.0%SERD (136) 50.28 SERD (29) 47.36 6.2%COSO (27) 56.59 COSO (15) 53.61 5.6%RSDD (63) 51.47 RSDD (45) 49.25 4.5%EARD (63) 48.96 EARD (23) 47.06 4.0%CWRD (29) 44.78 CWRD (78) 43.88 2.1%IED (11) 43.18 IED (21) 42.58 1.4%OAS (38) 45.77 OAS (30) 49.63 -7.8%PARD (9) 42.63 PARD (18) 47.73 -10.7%OAG (5) 43.80 OAG (8) 49.63 -11.7%TD (8) 46.75 TD (18) 53.23 -12.2%OREI (7) 44.57 OREI (7) 52.00 -14.3%CTL (48) 43.90 CTL (5) 55.60 -21.0%OSEC (5) 36.80 OSEC (7) 58.86 -37.5%

Table 6: Analysis of selected ADB Department responses for the eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions (percentage change between the 2009 and 2010 KM Surveys.

When considering action steps, the ADB Management is faced with two separateDepartmental issues:




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



32

• Departments with low perceptions of the ADB KM Implementation Framework,including CTL, IED, OAG, OSEC and PARD. Management and implementationissues should be addressed quickly to avoid negative views ‘spreading’ to otherDepartments.

• Departments with significant year-on-year declines in perceptions of the ADB KMImplementation Framework, including, CTL, OAG, OREI, OSEC, PARD and TD.Investigations should be undertaken to understand and rectify the Departmentaldeclines in support for the KM Implementation Framework.

It does appear to be the case that Departments will large numbers of National Officersand Administrative Staff, such as administrative and headquarters Departments, hadhigher KM Survey Total Scores, while those Departments will large numbers ofProfessional Staff, including development groups, had lower KM Survey Total Scores.

This year’s KM Study also reveals that while the regional development departments aretrending towards more positive views of ADB’s KM implementation process, several ofADB’s ‘backoffice’ departments, such as CTL and TD, have become more negative. Itcould be that some of the ‘backoffice’ departments perceive that they are no longergaining from the KM implementation process. It is recommended that the ADBManagement consider special KM programs and initiatives to address this situation.

It also is important that ADB Management examine those departments where perceptionsof the KM Implementation Framework have undergone significant change (positive andnegative) in order to understand the reasons why. If left unchecked, it is possible thatthose Departments with increasingly negative views of the KM ImplementationFramework may act as barriers to successful KM implementation throughout ADB.

Data Analysis of ADB Participants by Missions

Table 7 shows the average scores of 2010 ADB KM Survey participants by Missions.This is the first time that this annual KM Study has examined the Missions’ views of theADB KM Implementation Framework. It should be noted that the sampling size for someMissons was very small; therefore, the uncertainty value for each knowledge performancedimension is ±0.54.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



33

Analysis of ADB Staff by Missions

Missions/Dimension D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 Total

ARRM (1) 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.00 7.00 8.00 7.00 8.00 61.00BRM (6) 7.67 6.67 7.50 7.00 7.17 7.50 7.33 7.33 58.17TRM (1) 8.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 56.00SLRM (3) 7.33 7.33 6.00 7.33 7.33 6.67 6.67 7.00 55.67INRM (9) 6.78 6.56 6.78 6.56 6.56 6.78 6.89 6.78 53.67CARM (13) 7.23 6.38 7.15 6.00 6.38 6.46 6.54 6.08 52.23VRM (9) 6.33 6.33 6.89 6.11 6.67 6.22 6.00 6.00 50.56RM (1) 5.00 5.00 7.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 6.00 8.00 50.00All ADB Staff (637) 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88LRM (9) 5.44 5.67 6.56 6.44 6.44 6.67 6.44 5.78 49.44IRM (7) 6.29 6.29 5.57 6.00 6.00 5.86 5.86 6.29 48.14NRM (6) 6.00 5.33 6.50 5.33 6.33 6.33 5.67 5.83 47.33PRM (1) 4.00 6.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 7.00 5.00 4.00 44.00PRCM (6) 4.50 5.00 5.17 4.67 4.50 4.00 5.00 4.33 37.13

Table 7: Analysis of ADB staff (by Missions) average scores for the eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions (see Section 2.0) arranged in descending order. The number in parenthesis is total number of responses from each Mission.

Based on the responses of the ADB staff located at the Missions, there is a more positive

view (mean score of 50.56) of the ADB Knowledge Implementation Framework whencompared to All ADB Staff (49.88). This is not surprising since other studies haverevealed that groups located away from the headquarters often believe that they are notkept ‘in the loop’ with regards to organizational communications and knowledge sharing.Groups like the ADB Missions are therefore often more positive than Headquarters staffregarding the benefits of a KM implementation process.

ADB Management should attempt to identify possible KM best practices at Missions withhigh scores and transfer to these best practices to Missions with low scores to improvethe knowledge capabilities at all ADB Missions. Reasons for the low score at the PRCMshould be investigated in more detail.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



34

4.4 Data Analysis of ADB vs. MAKE Leaders

Table 8 provides an analysis of the views of the 2010 All ADB Staff score versus scoresfor the 2010 Asian Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE) Leaders and 2010Global MAKE Leaders. In the case of the Asian and Global MAKE Leaders, the scores

by knowledge performance dimension are the average of all Winners’ scores in eachdimension – not the organization with the highest Total Score.

The Asian and Global MAKE scores by knowledge performance dimension aredetermined by a MAKE expert panel consisting of business leaders (Global Fortune 500companies) and internationally recognized knowledge management / intellectual capital / innovation / organizational learning experts. The sampling error for each knowledgedimension is ±0.09.

Analysis of ADB Staff vs. MAKE Leaders

Survey/Dimension D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 Total

All ADB Staff 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88Asian MAKE Leaders 8.17 8.13 8.09 7.96 7.90 7.94 7.88 7.86 63.93Global MAKE Leaders 8.38 8.21 8.41 8.24 8.21 8.22 8.11 8.19 65.97

Table 8: Analysis of All ADB Staff responses for the eight MAKE knowledge performance

dimensions (see Section 2.0) compared to the 2010 Asian MAKE Leaders and 2009 Global MAKE Leaders in each knowledge performance dimension.

It is Teleos’ experience that when an organization’s own staff completes a KM Survey,they do not always have the objectivity or external knowledge of best practice knowledge-driven organizations. As a rule this internal group of participants tends to over estimatetheir organization’s knowledge capabilities. Therefore, the sampling error for All ADB Staffper knowledge performance dimension is ±0.18.

The All ADB Staff score indicates that ADB’s ‘strengths’ are its ability to:

• develop and deliver client knowledge-based projects/services (Dimension 3).




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



35

• ability to create an enterprise-wide collaborative knowledge-sharing environment(Dimension 5).

• ability to create an environment promoting individual and organizational learning and

sharing (Dimension 6).

These same three ADB ‘strengths’ were highlighted in the 2009 KM Survey.

Dimension 4 (“How effective is ADB in developing staff intellectual growth and managingknowledge assets”) received the lowest average score in the 2008, 2009 and 2010 KMSurveys and should be considered a continuing ‘weakness.’

ADB’s ability to create a knowledge-driven culture (Dimension 1), the effectiveness ofADB’s Management in encouraging and sustaining the practice of knowledgemanagement (Dimension 2), ADB’s ability to work with external stakeholders (Dimension

7); and ADB’s ability to adopt, incorporate and apply lessons learned and experiences inits daily operations and sharing them within ADB and other stakeholders (Dimension 8)are considered ‘foundation’ knowledge performance dimensions and are showing a trendtowards higher average scores at this point in ADB’s KM implementation process. ADBManagement should be commended for improvements in these MAKE knowledgeperformance dimensions.

2010 Asian and Global MAKE Studies

ADB was nominated and reached the Finalist stage in the 2010 Asian MAKE study. The2010 Asian MAKE panel of experts gave ADB an overall score of 47.45, compared to theAll ADB Staff score of 49.88. The 2010 Asian MAKE panel of experts indicated thatADB’s organizational knowledge capabilities had improved, especially in developing anddelivering client knowledge-based projects/services, creating an enterprise-widecollaborative knowledge-sharing environment, and organizational learning. These AsianMAKE panel of experts observations corresponds to the knowledge capability ‘strengths’highlighted by the All ADB Staff responses in this year’s KM Study.

Two non-commercial organizations were recognized as 2010 Asian MAKE Winners:Singapore Armed Forces (ranked in 1st place) and the Korea Water ResourcesCorporation (ranked in 14th place). The ADB ranked in 23rd place in this year’s AsianMAKE Study. The Singapore Armed Forces and Korea Water Resources Corporationoperate in an environment similar to that of the ADB and could serve as usefulbenchmarks. Table 9 compares ADB’s average scores to those of the two non-commercial 2010 Asian MAKE Winners.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



36

Analysis of ADB vs. Selected 2010 Asian MAKE Winners

Survey/Dimension D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 Total

All ADB Staff 6.29 6.07 6.50 5.98 6.34 6.33 6.15 6.22 49.88Singapore Armed Forces 8.67 9.00 9.00 8.50 8.67 9.00 8.33 8.50 69.67 Korea Water Resources 7.65 7.65 7.31 7.82 7.14 7.65 7.14 7.82 60.18

Table 9: Analysis of All ADB Staff responses for the eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions (see Section 2.0) compared to selected non-commercial 2010 Asian MAKE Winners in each knowledge performance dimension.

2010 Overall Asian MAKE Winner – Singapore Armed Forces (Singapore)

The Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) is part of the Singapore Ministry of Defence. TheSAF consists of the Singapore Army, the Republic of Singapore Air Force, and theRepublic of Singapore Navy. The SAF protects the interests, sovereignty and territorialintegrity of Singapore from external threats. The SAF has an active strength of around70,000 personnel and is capable of mobilizing over 300,000 reservists. The SAF has anannual budget of US $ 8.8 billion (6% of Singapore’s GDP).

The 2010 Asian MAKE panel has recognized the Singapore Armed Forces for developingknowledge workers through senior management leadership (1st place), developingknowledge- based products/services/solutions (1st place), creating an enterprise-wideknowledge-sharing environment (1st place), and organizational learning (1st place). Thisis the first time that the Singapore Armed Forces has been recognized as the OverallAsian MAKE Winner.

Korea Water Resources Corporation (S. Korea)

Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-water) is a public enterprise that was founded forthe principal purpose of improving public welfare through water supply and water quality

improvement by way of construction and management of water and wastewater systems.K-water has annual sales of US $1.5 billion (fiscal year ending December 31, 2008) andemploys over 3,900 people.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



37

The 2009 Asian MAKE panel has recognized Korea Water Resources Corporation fortransforming enterprise knowledge into stakeholder value. K-water is a two-time AsianMAKE Winner.

These 2010 Asian MAKE Winners could serve as valuable benchmarking partners as theADB seeks to improve and refine its KM strategy and implementation process.

4.5 MAKE Knowledge Management Implementation Model

Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises (MAKE) researchers have identified that anorganizational knowledge-driven strategy implementation goes through five stages:

Stage 1: Pre-implementation (up to 1 year)

Stage 2: Implementation (1-3 years)

Stage 3: Reinvigoration (4-6 years)

Stage 4: Inculcation (7-9 years)

Stage 5: Holistic (10+ years)

Based on ADB’s complex and decentralized organizational structure, non-commercialstatus and extensive use of external partners and consultants, the task of implementing aKM Strategy is significantly more difficult, which requires the addition of an extra one ortwo years to each of the MAKE KM Implementation Model stages.

The first stage involves the planning and launch of the knowledge strategy. During thenext three stages – after approximately three, six and nine years – organizationsencounter significant implementation barriers. Senior managers and key knowledgemanagement (KM) core team members move to new positions. Employees becomecomplacent – even lose interest in KM activities. There also are growing demands tomeasure the benefits of the knowledge-driven strategy.

At the end of each stage it is important to take stock of the accomplishments (andfailures). It also is important to set new goals and objectives to revitalize the KM effort.

Based on six annual KM Surveys, it would appear that ADB is in Stage 3. This view issupported by the fact that ADB’s All Staff Total Score has rebounded from a decline in the




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



38

2008 KM Survey. While the National Officers, Professional Staff and Administrative Staffaverage scores have increased, the average score for Professional Staff trails the othertwo functional groups. All these facts would indicate that ADB has made the transitionfrom the Implementation Stage to the Reinvigoration Stage.

Stage 2: Implementation

ADB should have addressed all of the following Stage 2 Implementation stage issues:

Knowledge Strategy Implementation Gaps

It is vital to understand that there can be significant gaps in ‘understanding’ between topmanagers and employees which can severely limit or in some cases destroy a knowledgestrategy implementation effort. Here are four of the most common ‘gaps.’

• Gap between the knowledge required as perceived by top managers and by

employees.

Both groups have a list of the specific knowledge required to successfully implement aknowledge strategy. However, if the lists are not synchronized, then the implementationeffort may fail.

• Gap between knowledge required as perceived by top managers and actually required.

Top managers underestimate the specific knowledge required (either available internallyor required from external sources) to successfully implement the knowledge strategy.

• Gap between the knowledge strategy required as perceived by top managers and the plan to implement a knowledge strategy.

In this scenario, the knowledge strategy plan has not been properly developed andrequired knowledge is missing.

• Gap between the plan to implement the knowledge strategy as proposed by top managers and the actual implementation effort.

Project management of the knowledge strategy implementation lacks coherence andexecution.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



39

Barriers and Pitfalls

There are four key reasons why knowledge strategies fail during Stage 2:

1. Organizational Culture

The culture category includes softer aspects related to human and organizationalbehavior. The failure factors in this category include:

• Politics: The KM project is used as an object for political maneuvering such asgaining control and authority within the organization.

• Knowledge sharing: Staff do not share knowledge within the organization due toreasons such as the lack of trust and knowledge-hoarding mentality.

• Perceived image: Staff perceive accessing other’s knowledge as a sign of

inadequacy.

• Management commitment: The management appears keen to commence the KMproject. However, when problems emerged, commitment to the KM project wasquickly withdrawn.

2. Content

The content category refers the characteristics or properties of the knowledge itself. Thefailure factors in this category include:

• Coverage: The content is developed fragmentarily from different groups of KMusers. Hence, cross-functional content can not be captured.

• Structure: The content is not structured in a format that is meaningful to the task athand. KM Users also fine the content not in a useable form.

• Relevance and currency: The content is either not contextualized or current to meetthe needs of the KM users. It can not help KM users achieve business results.

• Knowledge distillation: There is a lack of effective mechanism to distil knowledgefrom debriefs and discussions. Hence, valuable knowledge remains obscured.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



40

3. Technology

The technology category refers to aspects of KM infrastructure, tools and technology.The failure factors identified in this category include:

• Connectivity: The technical infrastructure does not support the required number ofconcurrent users or the speed of access due to bandwidth limitation.

• Usability: The KM tools have a poor level of usability. KM users find the tools toocumbersome or complicated for use.

• Over-reliance: An over-reliance of KM tools leads to the neglect of the tacit aspectsof knowledge.

• Maintenance cost: The cost of maintaining the KM tool is prohibitively high.

4. Project Management

The project management category refers to the management of the KM initiative as aproject. The failure factors in this category include:

• User involvement: There is a lack of KM user involvement in the project. Hence,besides not being able to secure user buy-in when the project is rolled out, theknowledge requirements of the users are poorly understood.

• Technical and business expertise: When the project is implemented, it lacks staffwith the required technical and business expertise to sustain the initiative.

• Conflict management : Conflict occurs among stakeholders of the KM team, butthere was no attempt to manage it.

• Rollout strategy: The KM project does not have a proper rollout strategy.Specifically, the lack of a pilot phase means that many teething problems whichcould have been mitigated at the initial stage are left unchecked.

• Project cost: The overall cost associated with the KM project is in excess of whatwas originally anticipated.

• Project evaluation: There is no systematic effort to track and measure the successof the KM project as it develops. Thus, if there are early successes, the opportunity




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



41

to publicize success stories can not be seized. Conversely, if there are failures, thereare no opportunities to correct the mistakes.

• Involvement of external consultants: The engagement of multiple externalconsultants causes the KM project to go off course and creates confusion.

Stages 3-5: Reinvigoration, Inculcation and Holistic

Based on the study of hundreds of MAKE leaders, the ADB is now in Stage 3 of theMAKE Knowledge Management Implementation Model, which is focused onReinvigoration. New knowledge goals and objectives described in Enhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009-2011 need to be completedand a new set of KM programs and initiatives developed. ADB Senior Managementshould challenge the organization to drive the KM Implementation Framework forward.New knowledge core team members should be brought in to give the implementation planadditional energy. National Officers (NOs) should begin to take an ever-increasing role in

budgeting and managing knowledge projects. The continuing problem of engagingProfessional Staff (PS) in the KM implementation process needs to be addressed if ADB’sKM Implementation Framework is to succeed.

In three or four years the ADB KM Implementation Framework effort will hit another‘barrier.’ Stage 4 is perhaps the most difficult implementation stage. It is here that anorganization either successfully embeds the knowledge-driven strategy within theenterprise, or the strategy will be ‘rejected’ and the organization will focus on a new‘miracle cure’ to drive the enterprise. The Inculcation Stage involves the NOs taking overfull responsibility of the knowledge strategy implementation process. Sometimes theknowledge core team is disbanded, but it is recommended that a small central(administrative) KM Center team continue to provide support and training. All of the majoroperational processes should have become knowledge-driven and the focus is now onbringing clients and other stakeholders onboard by aligning external operationalprocesses with the organization’s overall strategy and goals.

MAKE research reveals that for non-profit and public sector organizations it usually takesmore than 10 years of continuous culture change to firmly embed a knowledge strategywithin an organization. At this point in time the organization finally thinks ‘knowledge’ andall of its activities are built around knowledge-driven processes. Organizations reachingthis stage are often recognized as Global MAKE leaders, and tend to excel in almostanything they do.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



42

5.0 Recommendations

5.1 KM Implementation Framework Stretch Goals

Teleos has observed that organizations move through recognizable stages during a KM

implementation process (see Section 4.5). Based on this year’s ADB KM Survey as wellas the results of previous MAKE studies, it appears that the ADB has made the transitionbetween Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the five-stage MAKE Knowledge ManagementImplementation Model. Typical of this transition phase are changes in seniormanagement leadership, changes in the core KM team, perceived diminishing returnsfrom KM investments (simple knowledge processes have been improved, but morecomplex knowledge processes have not been examined), and there is a generalimpression by many managers and staff that the organization’s knowledge ‘problems’have been solved.

Successfully moving from one KM stage to another is critical to becoming a Most Admired

Knowledge Enterprise. To avoid falling into the trap of complacency that the ADB hastransformed itself into a “world-class” knowledge organization, Senior ADB Managementshould ensure the completion of all outstanding goals found in the Enhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009-2011 document, and preparea new set of KM goals for the years beginning 2012. The 2010 KM Survey reveals thatthere is still much work for ADB to do in improving its knowledge capabilities, and thatthere are significant opportunities for improvement across the entire organization.

ADB Management should ensure that the KM Implementation Framework continues tbe aligned to the organization’s current Vision, Mission and Goals. ADB Managemenshould review the Enhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan ofAction for 2009-2011 document and prepare a new KM Plan of Action (for years beginning 2012) that is aligned to Stage 3 (Reinvigoration) of the MAKE KM Implementation Model. These new KM ‘stretch’ goals should be designed to supportthe four identified pillars: (i) sharpening the knowledge focus in all ADB operations,(ii) promoting and empowering communities of practice for knowledge capture and sharing, (iii) strengthening external knowledge partnerships to develop and disseminate knowledge, and (iv) scaling up staff development programs to improve technical skills and manage knowledge. Gaining the full support of the Professional Staff continues to be a critical concern and should be addressed as a matter of urgency.

5.2 Organizational Knowledge Capabilities




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



43

Over the first three ADB KM Surveys (2005-2007), there was substantial improvement inthe eight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions. However, with the exception oforganizational learning, the 2008 KM Survey revealed a decline in organizationalknowledge capabilities, especially in knowledge-driven culture; knowledge leadership;creation, access and use of knowledge products; and successfully working with external

stakeholders.

Considerable progress has been made since the adoption of Enhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020: Plan of Action for 2009-2011. The 2010 ADB KMSurvey (supported by other surveys such as the 2010 Learning for Change Survey ),reveals that ADB, faced with many structural and human resources challenges andworking within global economic uncertainties, is improving its knowledge capabilities in alleight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions. Several ‘barriers’ identified in lastyear’s KM Survey, especially lack of progress in becoming a learning organization,appear to have been addressed with positive results. ADB has moved closer tobecoming a best practice learning organization.

ADB should be commended in its efforts to create a holistic KM ImplementationFramework. All too often organizations stress improvements in one or two MAKEknowledge performance dimensions, which results in an unbalanced approach and oftenleads to a dysfunctional knowledge culture and collaborative knowledge-sharingenvironment. In the case of ADB, its KM Implementation Framework encompasses alleight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions, resulting in a well-balanced, holisticknowledge-driven organization.

The National Officers, Professional Staff and Administrative Staff are improving their knowledge capabilities at different rates. The challenge for ADB Management is to devise new KM programs and initiatives that meet the needs of these three distinct groups of knowledge workers while at the same time moving the entire enterprise forwards towards becoming a leading knowledge-driven organization.

5.3 National Officers

The National Officers are ‘realistic’ in their assessment of ADB’s KM ImplementationFramework and a majority of NO’s are working to ensure the success of ADB KMinitiatives. They understand that a successful ADB KM implementation process will takea number of years to yield substantial positive benefits for the organization. It alsorequires constant managerial attention and support.

However, 15% of the National Officers (compared to 10% in the 2009 KM Survey) gavethe ADB’s KM Implementation Framework a Total Score of less than 40 points. This




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



44

increased “resistance to change” could be a concern if the trend were to continue. Basedon hundreds of MAKE Assessments, it is possible that managerial ‘fatigue’ is setting in.

The fact that after six annual studies there remains a significant (and growing) minority ofNational Officers who do not believe in and/or fully support the ADB KM implementation

process should be addressed as soon as possible. This group of NO’s is large enough tosignificantly impede the successful implementation of KM within the ADB.

The ADB Management should create new KM programs and initiatives to re-engage and/or re-energize the NO’s in the KM implementation process when preparing the next KM Plans of Action for the ADB KM Implementation Framework andEnhancing Knowledge Management under Strategy 2020 document.

5.4 Professional Staff

An analysis of the data reveals that during the past year the Professional Staff have

become slightly more positive of ADB’s KM Implementation Framework. However, whentaking into account the support provided by ADB programs targeted at this functionalgroup, there still appears to be widespread misunderstandings and/or even opposition tothe ADB KM Implementation Plan. These misunderstanding and/or opposition is typicalof key knowledge workers in the early stages of KM implementation, but after six years ofADB KM implementation efforts a more positive view would be expected from this group.

In this year’s KM Survey, 36% of the Professional Staff (107 individuals) gave the ADB’sKM implementation process a score of less than 40 points. In the 2009 KM Survey, 42%of the Professional Staff (108 individuals) gave the ADB’s KM implementation process ascore of less than 40 points.

Over the past five years there has been almost no change in PO’s perceptions regardinghow effective is the ADB Management is at:

• encouraging and sustaining the practice of knowledge management, such asincorporating KM as an activity in PDP, implementing incentive mechanisms, etc.

• improving ADB knowledge products (publications, newsletters) in terms of valueadded, accessibility, relevance, quality, etc.

The challenge for ADB Management is to work with Professional Staff to demonstrate the value of the KM Implementation Framework. The Professional Staff need to understand that their expertise will not be less valued, but on the




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



45

contrary will be more valued as the KM implementation process continues to unfold.

5.5 Administrative Staff

An analysis of the data reveals that Administrative Staff continue to be very supportive ofthe ADB’s KM Implementation Framework. The Administrative Staff’s perception ofADB’s KM implementation process has improved significantly during the past year afterremaining unchanged during 2008 and 2009.

In the 2009 KM Survey one of the recommendations was that ADB Management reviewKM initiatives directed towards Administrative Staff and establish a new program of KMinitiatives, especially in the area of ‘Enhanced Staff Learning and Development,’ to moredeeply inculcate the change process within this key knowledge group. Thisrecommendation has produced positive results (a conclusion supported by the 2010 Learning for Change Survey ); the AS’s views concerning ADB’s ability to successfully

develop and sustain a learning and sharing culture has increased by 0.56 points (7.52 – up from 6.96) – an 8% improvement.

The challenge for ADB Management is to support AS’s by encouraging the integrations of knowledge management in all work practices, continuing to develop Administrative Staff intellectual growth, and helping AS’s to manage ADB knowledge assets.

5.6 ADB Departments

Section 4.3 provides responses by individual ADB Departments. Most ADB Departmentsare now supporting the KM Implementation Framework; however some Departments seeno need to change, while there remain a few Departments (especially those in ‘backoffice’areas which are skeptical that any change is possible. Successful KM implementation isnot guaranteed, even in those ADB Departments currently registering significantimprovements in their Total Scores (as revealed by the fact that several Departmentswhich were supportive of the ADB KM Implementation Framework last year are now lesssupportive).

It is recommended that the ADB Management consider introducing special KM programs and initiatives to address Departmental resistance to change. It also is important that ADB Management examine those Departments where perceptions of the KM Implementation Framework have undergone significant negative change in order to understand the reasons why. If left unchecked, it is possible that those




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



46

Departments with increasingly negative views of the ADB KM Implementation Framework may act as barriers to successful KM implementation throughout ADB.

5.7 ADB Missions

Based on the responses of the ADB staff located at the Missions, there is a more positiveview (mean score of 50.56) of the ADB Knowledge Implementation Framework whencompared to All ADB Staff (49.88). This is not surprising since similar studies haverevealed that groups located away from the headquarters often believe that they are notkept ‘in the loop’ with regards to organizational communications and knowledge sharing.Groups like the ADB Missions are therefore often more positive than Headquarters staffregarding the benefits of a KM implementation process.

ADB Management should attempt to identify possible KM best practices at Missions with high scores and transfer to these best practices to Missions with low scores to improve the knowledge capabilities at all ADB Missions.

Submitted on December 15, 2010, by:

Rory ChaseManaging DirectorTeleos




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



47

Appendix 1: MAKE Framework

After reviewing various knowledge management approaches and models, such as thosedeveloped by BP, CREATE, the Knowledge Management Consortium International,

Theseus Institute, University of Kentucky and Xerox. Teleos developed a framework ofeight knowledge performance dimensions which are the visible drivers of the knowledge-driven enterprise:

• creating an enterprise knowledge-driven culture.

• developing knowledge workers through senior management leadership.

• delivering knowledge-based products/services/solutions.

• maximizing enterprise intellectual capital.

• creating an environment for collaborative knowledge sharing.

• creating a learning organization.

• delivering value based on stakeholder knowledge.

• transforming enterprise knowledge into stakeholder value.

Each of these eight knowledge performance dimensions is made up of dozens ofknowledge processes and sub-processes. Taken together, they serve as the ‘engine’ of

the knowledge-driven enterprise. The following Figure shows the relationship among theeight MAKE knowledge performance dimensions.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



48




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



49

The eight knowledge performance dimensions which form the MAKE framework arefound in all world-class enterprises. They are seen as key drivers in creating wealth inknowledge-intensive organizations. Listed below are the major processes which form thefoundation of the eight knowledge performance dimensions.

Creating an enterprise knowledge-driven culture

The key drivers of this knowledge performance dimension include:

• Developing and deploying a knowledge-driven enterprise vision and strategy.

• Determining enterprise core competencies (knowledge assets).

• Designing a knowledge-driven enterprise structure and relationships betweenenterprise units.

• Developing and managing enterprise knowledge values.

• Developing and managing enterprise knowledge behaviors.

• Developing and managing enterprise knowledge systems/processes.

• Creating and managing a knowledge-based human resources strategy.

Developing knowledge workers through senior management leadership


• Developing and deploying an enterprise management style that encourages theacquisition, sharing and application of knowledge for enterprise value creation.

• Providing financial and non-financial enterprise support for managing knowledge.

• Encouraging and supporting an enterprise knowledge strategy and approach.

• Developing and training knowledge leaders.

• Recognizing/rewarding knowledge leaders.

Perhaps the key knowledge performance attribute in this knowledge performance




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



50

dimension is the chief executive officer’s support. This support involves articulating aclear vision for the organization, including how it is going to become and then grow as aknowledge-driven enterprise.

Delivering knowledge-based products/services/solutions


• Developing and deploying an enterprise knowledge creation and innovation strategy.

• Developing and training the workforce in idea generation and innovation.

• Involving customers and suppliers in the development of knowledge-based goodsand services.

• Increasing/expanding enterprise knowledge.

• Managing the transfer of knowledge and ideas to ‘points of action.’

• Recognizing/rewarding innovators.

• Managing the production and/or service of knowledge-based goods and services.

• Measuring value created from knowledge creation and innovation.

Visionary companies create an environment of ‘discomfort’ to stimulate change andimprovement – before their customers/clients demand it of them. Best practice innovativeorganizations display the following characteristics:

• Employees are allowed free time to be creative.

• Functional barriers are removed and ‘silo’ mentalities discouraged.

• Employees are allowed to take risks and to make mistakes.

• Organizations create reward systems which encourage innovation.

• Networks and communities of practice are encouraged.

• Customers are integrated into the creative process – problems are looked at fromthe customers’ perspective.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



51

• The innovation process is under continuous review and improvement.

Maximizing enterprise intellectual capital


• Developing and deploying an enterprise intellectual capital strategy.

• Developing and training the enterprise workforce in intellectual capital concepts andtools.

• Developing tools and techniques to manage and measure intellectual capital.

• Managing and expanding intellectual capital.

• Protecting knowledge assets.

• Recognizing/rewarding employees for increasing enterprise intellectual capital.

Creating an environment for collaborative knowledge sharing


• Developing and managing the capture, categorization and use of knowledge.

• Mapping knowledge resources throughout the organization.

• Converting individual tacit into enterprise explicit knowledge.

• Creating systematic mechanisms for sharing existing internal and externalknowledge and best practices.

• Providing information technology platforms for knowledge sharing.

• Developing communities of practice.

• Effectiveness in identifying and accessing internal and external expertise.

• Establishing knowledge-based reward and recognition systems.




Tel/Fax: +44 1584 878576



52

Creating a learning organization


• Developing a knowledge-driven enterprise learning strategy.

• Developing collaboration/partnerships for accelerated learning.

• Developing and/or acquiring learning methodologies, tools and techniques.

• Converting individual tacit into enterprise explicit knowledge.

• Developing communities of practice.

• Learning by doing.

• Coaching and mentoring.

• Developing an organizational learning infrastructure, e.g., corporate intranet for theinternal and external exchange of learning experiences.

• Moving from individual learning to organizational learning.

Most knowledge enterprises understand that to grow and prosper in the 21st century, theywill have to innovate, develop new knowledge and create maximum value for theircustomers and shareholders. To establish this environment of creativity and innovation, agrowing number of firms are transforming themselves into learning organizations.

Delivering value based on stakeholder knowledge


• Developing and deploying an enterprise knowledge-driven stakeholder valuestrategy.

• Creating and managing stakeholder value profiles and maps.

• Creating stakeholder value chains.

• Developing and/or acquiring tools and techniques to collect and gain value fromstakeholder knowledge.



• Developing and managing stakeholder databases.

• Developing tools and techniques to extract value from stakeholder knowledge.

• Measuring changes in the stakeholder value chain.

The knowledge economy has changed the goal posts in terms of winning stakeholdersand retaining their loyalty. It is now possible to market to stakeholders on a global scaleand to know more about their needs, wants and desires than ever before. On the otherhand, stakeholders are becoming more discerning – they are knowledgeable about whatthey want, how much they will pay for it, and from whom they will purchase it.

Transforming enterprise knowledge into stakeholder value


• Developing and deploying an enterprise knowledge-driven strategy for increasingstakeholder value.

• Mapping and developing knowledge value chains.

• Managing and measuring knowledge value chains.

• Measuring changes in enterprise stakeholder value.

• Communicating/reporting on knowledge-based value creation.

Organizations have discovered that this knowledge performance dimension, along with‘Maximizing the Value of an Enterprise’s Intellectual Capital,’ are the most difficult tomanage at a strategic level. The concept of knowledge-based stakeholder value is hardto grasp, and tools and techniques are lacking to make it visible within the enterprise aswell as to external stakeholders.

Part of the difficulty is that most companies are still operating with industrial age financialand accounting systems. Attempting to measure and manage knowledge processes thatcreate stakeholder value – especially those activities that focus on long-term valuegeneration – are still beyond the grasp of most organizations.

Assessment of ADB's Knowledge Management Implementation Framework (2010)

Documents