Development of a General Knowledge Management Maturity …2. Review of Knowledge Management Maturity Models (KMMM) Maturity models describe the development of an entity over time,

Development of a General Knowledge Management

Maturity Model

L.G. Pee1, H.Y. Teah2 and A. Kankanhalli3 1 School of Computing, National University of Singapore

3 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore Tel: +65-6516-4361, Fax: +65-6779-4580, E-mail: [email protected]

2 School of Computing, National University of Singapore


3 School of Computing, National University of Singapore


Abstract

As investments in Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives grow, there is an increasing need for coherent

and comprehensible principles and practices to guide KM implementation efforts. Academics and

practitioners have proposed various KM Maturity Models (KMMM) to formally capture the KM

development process by assessing the extent to which KM is explicitly defined, managed, controlled, and

effective. However, the proliferation of definitions and assumptions and lack of clear description of

assessment methods have made their selection and application difficult for practitioners and their study

complex for researchers. Based on such motivations, this paper reviews, compares, assesses and integrates

existing KMMMs to propose an General KMMM (G-KMMM), which focuses on assessing the maturity of

people, process and technology aspects of KM development in organizations. An accompanying

assessment tool is also developed to facilitate practical application. Avenues for further research and

practice are discussed.

Keywords:

Knowledge Management Maturity; KM Implementation

1. Introduction

In today’s highly volatile competitive environment, organizations are beginning to recognize the need to tap

into knowledge assets diffused around the organization to remain agile. Undoubtedly, Knowledge

Management (KM) has become one of the most sought-after capabilities by many forward-looking

organizations. Documented cases of organizations that have achieved success through KM have served not

only as a demonstration of the potential of KM but have also urged more bystanders to leap on the KM

bandwagon. As investments in various KM initiatives inflate, the call for coherent and comprehensible

principles and practices to guide KM implementation efforts has increased. To address these needs,

researchers and practitioners have proposed maturity modeling as a way of formally capturing the KM

development process by assessing the extent to which KM is explicitly defined, managed, controlled, and

effective (e.g. Klimko 2001, Kochikar 2000, Kulkarni and Freeze 2004, Kulkarni and St. Louis 2003,

Paulzen and Perc 2002). While many KM maturity models have been proposed, details on how an

organization’s KM maturity can be assessed and determined remain elusive. Specifically, among the nine

models reviewed in this paper, only three i.e., Knowledge Process Quality Model (Paulzen and Perc 2002),

Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model (Kulkarni and Freeze 2004), and KPMG’s

Knowledge Journey (KPMG 1999), have provided some details about their assessment method.

Recognizing this gap, we attempt to address the following research question in this paper: How can an

organization’s level of KM maturity be assessed?

The proliferation of many different KM Maturity Models (KMMM) adopting different definitions and

assumptions has made their selection and application difficult for practitioners and their study complex for

researchers. In addition, many of them have been criticized as ad-hoc in their development (Kulkarni and St.

Louis 2003). Hence, an objective of this paper is to review, compare, evaluate and integrate existing

KMMMs to develop a General KMMM (G-KMMM) that will provide clear definitions for important

concepts as well as provide an assessment instrument for evaluating organizations’ KM maturity level.

The expected contribution of this study is four-fold. First, as KM implementation involves significant

organizational change in process, infrastructure and culture, it is unlikely to be achieved in one giant leap.

The complexity of change involved in KM can be especially inhibiting to organizations new to KM. In this

respect, the staged G-KMMM provides a general understanding and appreciation of gradual and holistic

development of KM. It can serve as a roadmap that steers the implementation effort by providing a clear

description and indication of the way forward. Second, for organizations that have implemented some form

of KM, G-KMMM can support the ongoing development of KM by systematically analyzing their current

level of KM maturity. The assessment instrument provided along with G-KMMM can also serve as a

diagnostic instrument pinpointing aspects that necessitate improvement. It helps to determine essential

activities and their priorities and indicates how to progress to the next level of KM maturity. This

information can form part of a KM maturity profile to motivate organizational participants to improve on

KM and inform KM investment decision-making. Third, by integrating existing KMMMs and clearly

defining important concepts, G-KMMM can potentially serve as a common model facilitating

communication and improve understanding among researchers, practitioners, top management, employees,

IS managers, and business managers. Fourth, G-KMMM can serve as a basis for comparison of units within

an organization or between organizations. As the descriptions of maturity levels include the characterization

of the activities to be achieved, entities can be ranked and compared, making benchmarking possible.

This paper begins by reviewing, comparing and assessing existing models of KM maturity in Section 2.

The proposed G-KMMM is then presented in Section 3. Section 4 concludes the paper by discussing

possible avenues for future research and practice.

2. Review of Knowledge Management Maturity Models (KMMM)

Maturity models describe the development of an entity over time, with the entity being anything that is of

interest, e.g. human being, an organizational function, technology and process. In general, maturity models

have the following properties (Klimko 2001, Weerdmeester et al. 2003): i) The development of a single

entity is simplified and described with a limited number of maturity levels (usually four to six); ii) Levels

are characterized by certain requirements, which the entity has to achieve on that level; iii) Levels are

ordered sequentially, from an initial level up to an ending level (the latter is the level of perfection); iv)

During development, the entity progresses forward from one level to the next. No levels can be skipped.

In this paper, the entity of interest is KM. KM refers to the process of identifying and leveraging the

collective knowledge in an organization to help the organization compete (Alavi and Leidner 2001).

Adapting Paulk et al.’s (1993) definition of process maturity to the KM context, we define KM maturity as

the extent to which KM is explicitly defined, managed, controlled, and effective. The KM maturity model

of an organization thus describes the stages of growth that the organization can be expected to pass through

in developing KM.

In building an ideal KMMMM, researchers have specified several requirements that need to be fulfilled.

First, the model should be applicable to different objects of analysis, e.g. organization as a whole,

traditional and virtual organizational unit, or KM systems (Ehms and Langen 2002). Paulzen and Perc

(2002) suggested that one way to achieve this is to focus on processes rather than specific object of analysis.

Second, the model should consider the views of different participants on organization’s KM tasks (Ehms

and Langen 2002). Specifically, Paulzen and Perc (2002) suggest that employees need to be involved in the

assessment of KM maturity. Third, the model should provide a systematic and structured approach which

ensures transparency and reliable handling of the assessment procedure (Ehms and Langen 2002). Similarly,

Paulzen and Perc (2002) have also emphasized the importance of measurement and standardization. Fourth,

the model should provide qualitative and quantitative results (Ehms and Langen 2002). Fifth, the

underlying structure of the model should be comprehensible and allow cross references to proven

management concepts or models (Ehms and Langen 2002). Last, the model should support continuous

learning and improvement (Paulzen and Perc 2002).

In reality, it is unlikely that a single KMMM can satisfy all these requirements. One reason is that some of

the requirements may be in conflict with each other in implementation. For example, Ehms and Langen

(2002) suggested that the model should ideally be applicable to different objects of analysis (requirement 1.

This may call for higher level of flexibility in formulation of the model and consequently result in a less

systematic and structured assessment approach (requirement 3). Another example is that the ideal model

needs to consider the views of different participants (requirement 2). This is likely to increase the

complexity of the model and reduce its comprehensibility (requirement 5). Hence, the next best alternative

to an ideal model is one that strikes a balance between these requirements.

In the course of our research, we have identified nine existing KMMMs developed by researchers or

practitioners. Typically, 5 to 8 levels of KM maturity are defined, starting from the lowest level where KM

is non-existent, up to the ideal state where KM becomes embedded as a natural organizational practice.

Existing KMMMs can be further categorized into two groups, depending on whether or not they are

developed based on Software Engineering Institute’s (SEI) Capability Maturity Model (CMM). The

following subsections will first provide a brief background on CMM. The existing KMMMs will then be

discussed and assessed using the requirements of an ideal KMMM presented earlier.

2.1 Capability Maturity Model (CMM)

CMM provides software engineering organizations with guidance on how to gain control of their processes

for developing and maintaining software and how to evolve towards a culture of software engineering and

management excellence. CMM is both a reference model for determining the software process maturity of

an organization, as well as a normative model that helps software organizations in progressing along an

evolutionary path from ad-hoc, chaotic software processes to matured, disciplined software processes

(Herbsleb et al., 1997). By identifying the few issues most critical to software quality and process

improvement, software engineering organizations can focus on a limited set of goals and work aggressively

to attain them, thus achieving steady improvement in their organization-wide software process to enable

continuous and lasting gains in software process capability. The model has gained considerable acceptance

worldwide and has been regarded by many as the industry standard for defining software quality process

(Herbsleb et al. 1997, van der Pijl et al. 1997).

In the CMM, five levels of maturity are defined, with each level described by a unique set of characteristics

(see <Table 1). Apart from level 1, several different key process areas (KPA) are identified at every

maturity level. Each KPA indicates the areas that the organization should focus on in order to improve its

software process. Each KPA is further described in terms of the key practices that contribute to satisfying

its goals.

<Table 1> Maturity Levels of Capability Maturity Model (Paulk et al. 1993)

Maturity Level Characteristics Key Process Areas (KPA) 1 Initial Software process is characterized as ad hoc, or even

chaotic. Few processes are defined and success is due to individual efforts.

- Not applicable

2 Repeatable Basic project management processes are established to track cost, schedule and functionality. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes in projects with similar applications.

- Software configuration management - Software quality assurance - Software subcontract management - Software project tracking and oversight - Software project planning - Requirements management

3 Defined Software process for both management and engineering activities is documented, standardized and integrated into a standard software process for the organization. All projects use an approved, tailored version of the organization’s standard software process for developing and maintaining software.

- Peer reviews - Inter-group coordination - Software product engineering - Integrated software management - Training program - Organization process definition - Organization process focus

4 Managed Detailed measures of the software process and product quality are collected. Both the software process and products are quantitatively understood and controlled.

- Software quality management - Quantitative process management

5 Optimizing Continuous process improvement is enabled by quantitative feedback from the process and from piloting innovative ideas and technologies.

- Process change management - Technology change management - Defect prevention

In the year 2000, the CMM was incorporated into the Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI)

project, which seeks to provide a single integrated set of models for various disciplines, including systems

engineering, software engineering and Integrated Product and Process Development (IPPD). Unlike the

original CMM, CMMI characterized capability maturity in two ways, namely the Staged Representation

and the Continuous Representation.

The CMMI Staged Representation is similar to the original CMM. It offers a roadmap to achieve process

improvement one step at a time, and is useful for organizations that are looking at improving their overall

process capability. The summary components are maturity levels, which contain goals in terms of key

process areas for the organization to achieve.

On the other hand, the CMMI Continuous Representation offers a more flexible approach to process

improvement and is useful for organizations that are looking at improving specific process areas, and

wanting to have a choice of areas of implementation. The summary components are capability levels which

can then be used to generate a capability level profile that will include both an achievement profile and a

target profile.

Although CMM is meant for describing software processes, researchers have suggested that it can be

applied to KM maturity modeling. To the extent that software can be viewed as a knowledge medium, it is

held that CMM can be adapted to the KM context (Armour 2000, Paulzen and Perc 2002). However,

several differences between software management and KM need to be noted during the adaptation: Other

than domain differences, KM is less structured compared to software management. Practices within KM are

not standardized and outcomes of KM are not easily measurable. KM activities are spread throughout the

organization among a large number of knowledge workers. Hence, effectiveness of KM needs to be judged

by perceptions of its users in addition to information regarding the existence of KM systems and related

processes. As a result, KPAs in KMMM are defined somewhat differently from the CMM (Kulkarni and St.

Louis 2003).

2.2 CMM-Based KMMM

The following four CMM-based KMMM were identified: Siemens’ KMMM, Infosys’ KMMM, Paulzen

and Perc’s Knowledge Process Quality Model (KPQM), and Kulkarni and Freeze’s Knowledge

Management Capability Assessment Model (KMCA). All four models are based on the original CMM and

are thus described in Staged Representation. Like CMM, all models except KMCA identified five levels of

KM maturity which are usually named after the corresponding levels in the CMM (see <Table 2). KMCA

defines an additional level 0 to denote the complete lack of KM.

<Table 2> Maturity Levels of CMM-Based KMMM

CMM-based KM Maturity Models Level CMM

Siemens’ KMMM Infosys’ KMMM KPQM KMCA 0 Not Applicable Difficult / Not Possible 1 Initial Initial Default Initial Possible

2 Repeatable Repeatable Reactive Aware Encouraged

3 Defined Defined Aware Established Enabled / Practiced

4 Managed Managed Convinced Quantitatively Managed Managed

5 Optimizing Optimizing Sharing Optimizing Continuously Improving

Similar to CMM, each level of KM maturity is described by a set of characteristics (see <Table 3).

However, it is observed that different sets of characteristics are specified in different KMMMs. Through

careful analysis and consolidation, we identified a set of common characteristics. Each characteristic in this

common list is specified in more than two KMMMs (see <Table 4). Hence, we expect that this list of

common characteristics will be representative of the important aspects of each level of KM maturity.

<Table 3> Characteristics of Maturity Levels of CMM-Based KMMM

Level

Siemens’ KMMM KPQM Infosys’ KMMM KMCA

0 Not Applicable - Lack of identification of knowledge assets - Knowledge sharing discouraged. - General unwillingness to share knowledge - People do not seem to value knowledge sharing

1

- Lack of awareness of the need to manage knowledge - No conscious control of knowledge processes - KM unplanned and random

- Knowledge sharing is not discouraged - General willingness to share knowledge - People who understand the value of

knowledge-sharing share their knowledge - Knowledge assets are recognized / identified

- Awareness of the need to manage organizational knowledge - Value of knowledge assets recognized by organization

2

- Pilot KM projects and “pioneers” exist

- First structures defined - Processes planned and

documented - Structures to establish

awareness of KM methods in organization

- Partial technological support for KM methods

- Only routine and procedural knowledge shared

- Knowledge sharing is on need basis

- Basic knowledge-recording systems in existence

- Organization’s culture encourages all activities with respect to sharing of knowledge assets.

- Leadership / senior management communicates value of and shows commitment to knowledge sharing

- Sharing is recognized / rewarded - Explicit knowledge assets are stored by some

means - Tacit and implicit knowledge are tracked

3

- Stable and “practiced” activities that are integrated with everyday work process

- Activities support KM at individual parts of the organization

- Relevant technical systems are maintained

- Individual KM roles are defined

- Systematic structure and definition of knowledge processes

- Processes tailored to meet special requirements

- Incentive system defined - Individual roles are

defined - Systematic technological

process support exist

- Basic knowledge infrastructure established but knowledge is not integrated

- Initial understanding of KM metrics

- KM activities translated to productivity gains

- Managers recognize their role in and actively encourage knowledge-sharing

- Sharing of knowledge is practiced - Leadership / senior management sets goals with

respect to knowledge sharing - KM activities are part of normal workflow - KM systems/tools and mechanisms enable

activities with respect to knowledge sharing - Centralized repositories and knowledge

taxonomies exist

Use of metrics to measure and evaluate success Use of metrics (project/function level)

4

- Common strategy and standardized approaches towards KM.

- Organizational standards.

- Improve systematic process management.

- Incentives quantitatively managed

- Impact of technological support is evaluated quantitatively

- KM is self-sustaining; high quality and usage

- Enterprise-wide knowledge sharing systems in place

- Able to sense and respond to changes

- Employees find it easy to share knowledge assets

- Employees expect to be successful in locating knowledge assets if they exist

- Knowledge sharing formally/informally monitored and measured

- Training and instruction on KMS usage is provided

- Use change management principles in introducing KM

- KM tools are easy to use - Continuous improvement - Flexible to meet new challenges

5

- Metrics are combined with other instruments for strategic control

- Structures for self-optimization

- Technologies for process support are optimized on a regular basis

- Pilot projects are performed

- Culture of sharing is institutionalized

- Sharing is second nature - ROI-driven decision-making - Organization a knowledge

leader

- Mechanisms and tools to leverage knowledge assets are widely accepted

- Systematic effort to measure and improve knowledge-sharing

- KM tools periodically upgraded / improved - Business processes that incorporate sharing of

knowledge assets are periodically reviewed

<Table 4> Common Characteristics and Maturity Levels of CMM-Based KMMM

Description Siemens’ KMMM

KPQM Infosys’ KMMM KMCA

Lack of awareness of the need of KM

Level 1 Level 1 Level 1 Level 1

Aware of importance of KM to organization


Basic KM infrastructure in place

Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3

KM activities are stable and “practiced”

Level 3 Unspecified. Probably Level 3

Level 4 Level 3

Individual KM roles are defined

Level 3 Level 3 Level 2 (Knowledge Database administrator)Level 3 (dedicated KM

Group)

Unspecified. Probably Level 3

Management / leadership realizes their role in, and encourages KM



Level 3 Level 2

Training for KM Unspecified. Probably Level 3


Level 3 and 4 Level 4

Common organizational KM strategy



Use of metrics to govern KM

Level 4 Level 4 Level 3 (productivity gains)

Level 4 (project / functional-level)

Level 5 (organization-level)

Level 5

Continual improvement of KM practices and tools


Existing KM can be adapted flexibly to meet new challenges



Corresponding to CMM, each KMMM also identified KPAs that indicate the areas that an organization

should focus on to improve its KM process and issues that must be addressed to achieve a maturity level

(see <Table 5). Different KMMMs have specified different KPAs. Among them, people, organization,

process and technology appear to be major KPAs common across all models.

<Table 5> KPAs of CMM-Based KMMM

KMMM Key Process Areas Remarks

Infosys’ KMMM People Process Technology - Infosys does not differentiate

between the 3 KPAs at maturity level 5

- Staff and Competencies - Cooperation and Culture - Leadership and Support - Environment and

Partnerships

- Knowledge Structures and Knowledge Forms Siemens’

KMMM

- Process, Roles and Organization - Strategy and Knowledge goals

- Technology and Infrastructure

KPQM People Organization Technology

KMCA - Lessons-Learned - Expertise - Data - Structured Knowledge

- Perceptual (Behavioral) and factual (infrastructure-related) characteristics are identified for each of the 4 KPAs

The four KMMMs fulfill some requirements of an ideal KMMM. First, all four KMMMs are based on the

well-established CMM and adopt a staged structure. Each KPA, maturity level and corresponding

characteristics are clearly defined. These KMMMs also allow cross-references to proven management

concepts and models. Other than CMM, the characteristics of maturity levels imply that change

management principles and practices may be valuable in managing progression along the maturity model;

the KPAs identified suggest that concepts related to human resource, KM process and technology

management can also be fruitful sources of information. Second, these KMMMs also support continuous

learning and improvement. This is evident in that “continual improvement of KM practices and tools” and

“adapt existing KM to meet new challenges” are common characteristics cited as important across models.

Third, among the four KMMMs, KPQM adopts the process level of analysis. This suggests that KPQM can

be applied to different objects of analysis. In contrast, Siemens’ KMMM, Infosys’ KMMM and KMCA take

an organizational level view. A possible reason for this is that CMM, while based on processes, caters for

only the evaluation of whole organizations (Paulzen et al. 2002). Being based on CMM, these three

KMMMs adopted a similar view. On the other hand, KPQM is able to provide process level assessment

because other than CMM, it is also developed based the Software Process Improvement and Capability

model (SPICE or ISO/IEC15504), which is specifically designed for the assessment of management

structures in software development. Fourth, all four KMMMs take into consideration the views of different

participants on organization’s KM tasks. This is apparent in that the common characteristics describing

various maturity levels focus on different members of the organization. For example, the characteristic

“management/leadership realize their role in, and encourage KM” focuses on management, while “training

for KM” focuses on KM users who are mostly employees. Fifth, there is evidence that all four KMMMs

have proposed some formal assessment procedure. Siemens’ KMMM and Infosys’ KMMM have both been

applied successfully internally or externally as consultation, and KPQM and KMCA provide some

assessment questions for use with their models. However, the extent to which these approaches are

systematic and structured, and ensure transparent and reliable handling of the assessment procedure is

unclear because they are not documented in publicly available sources. Finally, all four KMMMs provide

some qualitative results in terms of interview responses. On the other hand, it is uncertain if quantitative

results are offered because the complete assessment procedures are unavailable. However, it seems that

quantitative results can potentially be provided with the existing models. For example, Infosys’ KMMM

suggests that productivity gains can be used as a metric governing KM.

2.3 Non-CMM-Based KMMM

In the course of our research, the following five non-CMM-based KMMMs were identified, namely KPMG

Consulting’s Knowledge Journey (KPMG 2000), Klimko’s KMMM (Klimko 2001), VISION KMMM

(Weerdmeester et al. 2003), TATA Consultancy Services’ 5iKM3 KMMM (Mohanty and Chand 2004), and

WisdomSource’s K3M (WisdomSource 2004).

2.3.1 KPMG Consulting’s Knowledge Journey

The KPMG’s Knowledge Journey is one of the few maturity models that have been empirically tested. It

has been applied to 423 organizations worldwide in a KM study (KPMG 2000), and adopted by the

Australian Bureau of Statistics as its KM assessment model (Chatwin 2002). Compared to other models

and unlike CMM-based KMMMs, the Knowledge Journey is a more flexible model that looks at four key

process areas, namely people, process, content and technology, with each area having a checklist of items

(see <Table 6). The maturity of an organization is defined by the number and the mix of items applicable to

the organization (see <Table 7). However, as the assessment of the maturity is done in a rather flexible

manner, the Knowledge Journey provides a less prescriptive KM roadmap compared to other KMMMs.

2.3.2 Klimko’s KMMM

Klimko (2001) argued that there is a need for a clear-cut roadmap for KM development to provide vision as

well as a description of the way forward. Based on the assumption that the first step in any KM

implementation would involve the exploitation of existing knowledge and knowledge creation is

considered only after that, a KMMM is proposed. The model identifies five maturity levels, namely initial,

discoverer, creator, manager and renewer (see <Table 8). Except for the initial level, Klimko described the

general expectations at each maturity level, and defined the key processes, organizational challenges and

possible pitfalls associated with the level. Unlike CMM-based KMMMs, in this model not all

characteristics need to be fulfilled in order to proceed to the next maturity level. For example, to achieve

maturity level 4, an organization needs only to achieve more than 2 characteristics from each KPA.

<Table 6> Key Process Areas of The Knowledge Journey (KPMG 2000)

Key Process Area Items People Implementing KM training/awareness (e.g. workshops or road shows)

- Appointing knowledge officers and creating knowledge centers - Incentivising and rewarding knowledge working - Building and developing “communities of practice” - Establishing formal KM networks (e.g. dedicated workers in discrete groups, communities of

KM practice)

Process - Benchmarking or auditing the current situation - Creating a KM strategy - Implementing new systems for “communities of practice” - Designing other KM processes

Content - Creating a knowledge map - Implementing knowledge policies - Measuring intellectual capital

Technology - Carrying out a knowledge system audit or assessment - Implementing ways to share best practice - Use of KM software (either dedicated or Intranet or Groupware software)

<Table 7> Maturity Levels of The Knowledge Journey (KPMG 2000)

Maturity Stage Description 1 Knowledge Chaotic 3 or fewer items from all areas combined

2 Knowledge Aware 4 or more items from at least 2 areas

3 Knowledge Focused 6 or more items from at least 3 areas

4 Knowledge Managed More than 2 items from each area

5 Knowledge Centric All items

2.3.3 VISION KMMM

VISION KMMM (V-KMMM) is targeted at KM-oriented road-mapping and research-programming

initiatives and takes on a very different approach (Weerdmeester et al. 2003). It consists of two different

dimensions of maturity – it has a research, technological development and demonstration (RTD) oriented

maturity model, as well as an organization-oriented maturity model. The RTD-oriented maturity model

assesses the maturity or evolution level of the target KM technology, while the organization-oriented

maturity model appraises the human, organizational and general technological dimensions of KM.

V-KMMM’s RTD-oriented maturity model is built upon the Information Societies Technology’s fifth

Framework Programme and consists of four phases: the extraction of technology prognoses from

predefined roadmaps, the consolidation and sorting of extracted technologies, the definition of maturity

levels, and the development of technology life cycles. On the other hand, the organization-oriented maturity

model is derived from Gallagher and Hazlett’s (1999) Knowledge Management Formula (KMf), which is a

theoretical framework that shows how KM relies on a mix between Ki (organizational knowledge

infrastructure), Kc (knowledge culture) and Kt (knowledge technology). The organization-oriented

maturity model defines four maturity levels which are presented in a quadrant (<Figure 1), which does not

appear to follow the staged approach used in most maturity models.

V-KMMM is not designed as an imperative and rigid model, but can also be used in conjunction with other

organization-oriented Maturity Models (such as Siemens’ KMMM). In this paper, the organization-oriented

maturity model is deemed more relevant since it provides a more holistic review of KM maturity by

integrating the cultural, organizational and technological aspects.

1. Kf-0: User group has no Ki, Kt and Kc to support future

generation KM

2. Kf-1: User group has predominantly Ki and no Kt and Kc to

support future generation KM

3. Kf-2: User group has predominantly Kt and Kc but no Ki to

support future generation KM

4. Kf-3: User group has Ki, Kt and Kc to support future

generation KM

<Figure 1> V-KMMM Organization-Oriented Maturity Model (Weerdmeester et al. 2003)

2.3.4 TATA Consultancy Services’ 5iKM3 KMMM

The 5iKM3 KMMM is part of the TATA Consultancy Services’ KM implementation methodology. It

identifies five states of maturity, namely initial, intent, initiative, intelligent and innovative (see <Table 8).

To sustain continuous growth, organizations need to progress step by step to attain the higher levels of

knowledge maturity as there can be no short-cut to reach the highest maturity state. This can be achieved by

systematically addressing three key foundation areas (KFA), namely people, technology and processes. The

5iKM3 acknowledges that disturbances in any of the three KFAs would result in a change in maturity state,

but the impact would differ among KFAs and depend on the current maturity state. However, no specific

details are given regarding these differences.

2.3.5 WisdomSource’s K3M

WisdomSource’s K3M takes a system perspective of KM maturity by defining the characteristics of the

KM system and measurements which must be in place in order to reach the next level of maturity

(WisdomSource 2004). K3M identified eight levels of maturity. Unlike other models, K3M did not identify

the lack of KM awareness to be the lowest level of maturity for an organization. Instead, it defines the first

maturity level as having basic infrastructure for knowledge-sharing, which can exist in the form of a web

portal or a content publishing system. K3M also differs from other maturity models in that it considers

system implementation (level 2) and measurement (level 3) in separate maturity levels.

Unlike CMM-based KMMMs, K3M skews towards technological assessment on the whole and lacks the

people and cultural dimension. This implies that the K3M may not be able to provide a comprehensive

KcKt

Ki

Ki

Kt + Kc Ki + Kt + Kc No Ki

No Ki, Kt and No Kt and Kc

view of KM maturity compared to other multidimensional KMMMs.

2.3.6 Comparison and Evaluation of Non-CMM-Based KMMM

Among these models, the V-KMMM defines 4 levels of maturity; the Knowledge Journey, 5iKM3, and

Klimko’s KMMM define 5 levels of maturity; and WisdomSource’s K3M defines 8 levels of maturity (see

<Table 8). Unlike other KMMMs, V-KMMM does not follow a progressive maturity pathway. Hence, it is

considered to be incomparable to other KMMMs in terms of maturity levels.

<Table 8> Naming of Maturity Levels of Non-CMM-Based KMMM

Level Knowledge Journey 5iKM3 Klimko’s KMMM K3M

1 Knowledge chaotic Initial Initial Standardized Infrastructure for Knowledge Sharing

2 Knowledge Aware Intent Knowledge Discoverer Top-Down Quality-Assured Information Flow

3 Knowledge Focused Initiative Knowledge Creator Top-Down Retention Measurement

4 Knowledge Managed Intelligent Knowledge Manager Organizational Learning

5 Knowledge Centric Innovative Knowledge Renewer Organizational Knowledge base / Intellectual Property Maintenance

6 Process-Driven Knowledge Sharing

7 Continual Process Improvement

8

Self-Actualized Organization

<Table 9 compares the characteristics of maturity levels of the Knowledge Journey, 5iKM3, Klimko’s

KMMM and K3M. Among them, K3M has 8 levels of maturity compared to other 5 levels of other

KMMMs. Considering that it does not identify the lack of KM awareness to be the lowest level of maturity,

K3M does not have any level corresponding to level 1 of other KMMMs. Furthermore, judging from the

content of the characteristics of each maturity level, several maturity levels of K3M sometimes reflects the

characteristics of a single maturity level of other KMMMs. Hence, maturity levels in K3M can be

considered as finer granulation of other KMMMs. Hence, in our comparison, several maturity levels of

K3M are sometimes combined and taken to be comparable to a single maturity level of other KMMMs.

We observed several common characteristics among the KMMMs. This includes the lack of awareness of

the need to manage knowledge at level 1; the awareness of the need to manage knowledge at level 2; and

having continuous improvement at level 5. However, although most non-CMM-based KMMMs have

five-staged structure similar to CMM-based KMMMs, the stages are named differently and characteristics

defining each stage differ across non-CMM-based KMMMs. Hence, extracting common characteristics to

summarize these KMMMs is less feasible and less likely to be accurate and representative.

Similar to CMM-based KMMMs, all non-CMM-based KMMMs except Klimko’s KMMM identify KPAs

that organizations should focus on in enhancing KM maturity (see <Table 10). In general, common KPAs

include people, process, and technology.

<Table 9> Characteristics of Maturity Levels of Non-CMM-Based KMMM

Level

Knowledge Journey 5iKM3 Klimko’s KMMM K3M

Lack of awareness of the need to manage knowledge

1

Does not demonstrate relationship between importance of KM and achievement of organizational goals

No formal processes for using organizational knowledge effectively for business delivery

- Does not pay specific attention to KM activities.

- KM is considered as information management

Awareness of the need to manage organizational knowledge

2

- Awareness and implementation of KM across the organization may not be uniform

- Pilot projects exists in some areas

Organization realizes the potential in harnessing its organizational knowledge for business benefits

- Focus on internals (defining, scanning, codifying and distributing knowledge)

- KM still considered information management

- Challenge is to codify and deploy discovered knowledge

- Content publishing and management system in place (level 1)

- Information is digitized and delivered from managers to staff via structured e-mail broadcasts and web portals (level 2)

- Clear defined roles and deliverables (level 2)

- Resources aware that they are accountable for achieving goals set by the management (level 2)

3

- Organization uses KM procedures and tools

- Organization recognizes that KM brings some benefits to the business

- Organizations have knowledge enabled their business processes

- Organizations are observing benefits and business impacts from KM

- Focus on eternals (management commitment, understanding business needs, innovation)

- Focus on creating knowledge that is of interest to future business needs.

- Broad-based approach to KM, technology is secondary

- Challenge is to understand future business needs and make forecasts on business environment

- Measure retention of information delivered to staff via collection tools (level 3)

4

- Has integrated framework of KM procedures and tools

- Some technical and cultural issues need to be overcome

- Has matured collaboration and sharing throughout the business processes

- KM has resulted in collective and collaborative organizational intelligence

- Institutionalized (document processes, promote sharing, manage resources, utilize sophisticated technology)

- Individuals and organizational units dedicated to KM

- KM has formal documented processes

- Knowledge processes are measurable, quantitative control is possible

- KM interfaces with quality management function

- Challenge is to integrate existing and created knowledge, and to institutionalized KM processes

- Digitizing and just-in-time delivery of information (level 4)

- Measure retention (level 4) - Maintain up-to-date repository of organizational documents (level 4)

- Gather, organize, improve and maintain individual and collective processes via secure, internal and customizable web portals (level 5)

- Capture and just-in-time delivery of up-to-date work processes organized by role (level 6)

Continuous improvement

5

- KM procedures are an integral part of organizational and individual processes

- Value of knowledge is reported to the stakeholders

KM is institutionalized

Focus on inter-organizational co-operation and exploiting common ways of knowledge creation

- Knowledge collection tools captures feedback, best practices, and lessons learned from resources on the front-line (level 7)

- Knowledge is shared, reused, analyzed and optimized (level 7)

- KM provides online virtual representation of the organization and its functional units (level 8)

- KMS forms the structural backbone for enterprise-wide innovation and

employee self-actualization (level 8) - Continuous filtering out of non-value-added work (level 8)

<Table 10> KPAs of Non-CMM-Based KMMM

KMMM Key Process Areas Remarks V-KMMM Culture Infrastructure Technology

The Knowledge

Journey People Process and

Content Technology

5iKM3 People Process Technology

K3M Process and Technology - Model focuses on technological aspects - People aspects are described from a technological

perspective

The non-CMM-based KMMMs fulfill some requirements of an ideal KMMM. First, their underlying

structures are comprehensible. Although they are not based on CMM, they follow a similar staged

progression. They are different from CMM-based KMMMs in that most of them do not require

organizations to fulfill all characteristics of all KPAs in order to achieve a maturity level. However,

considering that clear rules are specified for progression along maturity levels, their structures are still

considered comprehensible. On the other hand, although V-KMMM has more flexible rules for progression

along the maturity levels, the rules are clearly specified. Similar to CMM-based KMMMs, these KMMMs

state the characteristics of each maturity level and specify the KPAs. This allows the identification of

important aspects and hence cross references to proven management concepts or models. Second, among

the five KMMMs, continuous improvement and learning is supported in 5iKM3 and Klimko’s KMMM as a

characteristic of KM maturity level 5. Third, with regard to the object of analysis, the V-KMMM,

Knowledge Journey, 5iKM3 and Klimko’s KMMM appear to be applicable to organizations as a whole,

and traditional and virtual organizational unit but not KM systems while K3M focuses on KM systems

instead of processes. Fourth, the Knowledge Journey and Klimko’s KMMM do explicitly consider the

views of different participants on organization’s KM tasks. This is evident in that they characterized

maturity levels in terms of different members of the organization (e.g. stakeholders in level 5 of Knowledge

Journey, individuals in level 4 of Klimko’s KMMM). In contrast, V-KMMM and 5iKM3 do not specify

whether views of different participants are taken into account and K3M focuses on technology. However,

depending on the assessment approaches employed, the identification of different KPAs in these models

suggests that opinions of different participants can indeed be solicited and considered. Fifth, all KMMMs

except Klimko’s KMMM are developed for actual consulting purposes and it is hence expected that they

are accompanied by some formal approaches for assessing maturity levels. However, as detailed

assessment procedure in not available in public sources, the extent to which they provide a systematic and

structured approach which ensures transparency and reliable handling of the assessment procedure could

not be ascertained. Finally, as with CMM-based KMMM, these KMMMs appear to provide largely

qualitative results in the form of interview responses but quantitative results are also possible.

3. Proposed G-KMMM

The proposed model is a descriptive model in that it describes the essential attributes that characterize an

organization at a particular KM maturity level. It is also a normative model in that the key practices

characterize the ideal types of behavior that would be expected in an organization implementing KM.

3.1 Structure of G-KMMM

Similar to the majority of existing CMM-based and non-CMM-based KMMMs, the G- KMMM follows a

staged-structure and has three main components, namely maturity levels, KPAs and common

characteristics. Each maturity level is composed of several KPAs, and each KPA is described by a set of

common characteristics. These characteristics specify the key practices that, when collectively addressed,

help to accomplish the goals of a KPA.

Our literature review reveals that like the CMM, most existing KMMMs (both CMM-based and

non-CMM-based) identify five levels of maturity. Accordingly, the proposed KMMM adapted five levels

of maturity from CMM and named them initial, aware, defined, managed, and optimizing respectively (see

<Table 11). We renamed level 2 from “repeatable” to “aware” considering that “repeatable” is less intuitive

in the KM context and that level 2 is mainly characterized by awareness of the need to manage knowledge.

The G-KMMM dictates that organizations should progress from one maturity level to the next without

skipping any level. In practice, organizations may beneficially employ key practices described at a higher

maturity level than they are. However, until a proper foundation is laid, these practices are unlikely to attain

their full potential. As maturity levels describe the issues that predominate at a level, skipping levels can be

counter-productive because each level forms a necessary foundation from which to achieve the next. Hence,

the ability to implement practices from higher maturity levels does not imply that maturity levels can be

skipped.

The majority of the KMMMs reviewed identify people-related, process-related and technology-related

KPAs. The remaining KMMMs also refer to these aspects even if they do not explicitly mention these

KPAs. It is expected that these KPAs, when used in conjunction, can provide a comprehensive assessment

of an organization’s KM maturity. In view of the observation that most KMMMs combine people and

organization into a single KPA and to preserve parsimony, the proposed framework thus defines three

KPAs, namely people, process and technology (see <Table 11). These KPAs concur with researchers’

suggestion that KM needs to consider organizational, human (i.e. psychological and sociological) and

technological aspects in order to deliver thorough and successful business support (Quintas et al. 1997).

The people KPA includes aspects related to culture and organization’s strategies and policies; the process

KPA refers to aspects concerning KM processes; and the technology KPA relates to aspects about KM

technology and infrastructure.

<Table 11> Proposed G-KMMM

Key Process Areas Maturity Level

General Description People /

Organization Process Technology

1 Initial Little or no intention to make use of organizational knowledge

Organization and its people are not aware of the need to manage its knowledge resources

No formal processes to capture, share and reuse organizational knowledge

No specific KM technology or infrastructure in place

2 Aware Organization is aware of and has the intention to manage its organizational knowledge, but it might not know how to do so

Management aware of the need for KM

Knowledge indispensable for performing routine task is documented

Pilot KM projects are initiated (not necessarily by management)

3 Defined Organization has put in place a basic infrastructure to support KM

- Management is aware of its role in encouraging KM

- Basic training on KM are provided (e.g. awareness courses)

- Basic KM strategy is put in place- Individual KM roles are defined - Incentive systems are in place

- Processes for content and information management is formalized

- Metrics might be used to measure the increase in productivity due to KM

- Basic KM Infrastructure in place (e.g. single point of access)

- Some enterprise-level KM projects are put in place

4 Managed / Established

KM initiatives are well established in the organization

- Common strategy and standardized approaches towards KM

- KM is incorporated into the overall organizational strategy

- More advanced KM training - Organizational standards

Quantitative measurement of KM processes (i.e. use of metrics)

- Enterprise-wide KM systems are fully in place

- Usage of KM systems is at a reasonable level

- Seamless integration of technology with content architecture

5 Optimizing / Sharing

KM is deeply integrated into the organization and is continually improved upon It is an automatic component in any organizational processes

Culture of sharing is institutionalized

- KM processes are constantly reviewed and improved on

- Existing KM processes can easily be adapted to meet new business requirements

- KM procedures are an integral part of the organization

Existing KM infrastructure is continually improved upon

The comparison of common characteristics identified by CMM- and non-CMM-based KMMMs shows that

non-CMM-based KMMMs share less common characteristics among themselves than CMM-based

KMMMs. In addition, these common characteristics are similar to those identified in CMM-based

KMMMs. As a result, the common characteristics describing each KPA at each maturity level in the

proposed model correspond largely to those identified in CMM-based KMMMs as presented in <Table 4

(see <Table 11).

The proposed G-KMMM fulfills many requirements of an ideal KMMM. First, it can be applied to several

different objects of analysis, including the organization as a whole and traditional and virtual organizational

units. However, it cannot be applied to KM systems. Second, it does take into account the views of

different participants on organization’s KM tasks as the proposed assessment instrument explicitly specifies

the need to interview different participants and consult different data sources. Third, by explicating the

assessment instrument, we attempt to provide a systematic and structured approach which ensures

transparency and reliable handling of the assessment procedure. We also defined and detailed the important

concepts, structure, maturity levels, their characteristics, and key practices in an endeavor to encourage

comparison and standardization of definitions and measurement. Fourth, the results provided by the

proposed KMMM are mainly qualitative. However, quantitative results may be generated when surveys

instead of interviews are conducted to answer certain questions such as “does the KMS improve the quality

and efficiency of work?” Fifth, to the extent that it follows the CMM’s staged structure, it is considered

comprehensible. It also allows cross references to proven management concepts or models like change

management and strategy planning. Last, the proposed KMMM supports continuous learning and

improvement as evident in level 5’s characteristics which state that “KM is deeply integrated into the

organization and is continually improved upon”.

3.2 Assessment of KM Maturity

Although most existing KMMMs are developed to address practical needs and it is believed that some form

of assessment procedure exists for these KMMMs, they are rarely available in public sources. Among the

KMMMs reviewed, only the assessment instruments of Knowledge Journey, KPQM, and KMCA are

accessible. To facilitate practical application of the proposed G-KMMM, we developed an accompanying

assessment instrument.

For each KPA at each maturity level, a set of questions was developed to assess whether a subject

organization has accomplished the key practices characterizing that maturity level (see <Table 12). For the

organization to attain a certain level of maturity, its response to questions of that maturity level must be all

positive. That is, it must carry out all key practices of that maturity level. By default, all organizations are at

level 1 of the proposed KMMM.

The questions used in the assessment instrument are adapted from existing instruments as suitable. These

include the Knowledge Journey’s KM Framework Assessment Exercise, KPQM, KMCA and the KM

Assessment Tool (de Jager 1999). The KM Assessment Tool (KMAT) is a diagnostic survey that helps an

organization in determining the effectiveness of its KM practices. New questions are constructed to assess

aspects where suitable existing questions are not accessible.

Data for answering the questions in the assessment instrument can be collected in several ways. Surveys

can be administered to different organizational members to generate more quantitative data in the form of

summarized statistics. Interviews can be conducted to gather richer and more in depth opinions. Both

surveys and interviews can be used to collect data for different questions in a single assessment. In all cases,

the assessment instrument can serve as a basis for developing the survey instrument or interview guide.

<Table 12> Proposed G-KMMM Assessment Instrument

Level Question Source KPA: People

PEO2a Is organizational knowledge recognized as essential for the long term success of the organization? Knowledge Journey

PEO2b Is KM recognized as a key organizational competence? KMAT 2 PEO2c Employees are ready and willing to give advice or help on request from anyone else within the company Knowledge Journey, KMCA

PEO3a Is there any incentive-system in place to encourage the knowledge sharing among employees? - Employee’s KM contribution are taken into consideration - Rewards for team work, knowledge sharing/re-use

Knowledge Journey

PEO3b Are the incentive systems attractive enough to promote the use of KM in the organization? Developed

PEO3c Are the KM projects coordinated by the management? Developed

PEO3d Are there individual KM roles that are defined and given appropriate degree of authority? - CKO - Knowledge Officers / Workers

Developed based on Siemens’ KMMM Level 3, Infosys KMMM Level 3 Knowledge Journey

PEO3e Is there a formal KM strategy in place? Developed based on Siemens’ KMMM Level 4 PEO3f Is there a clear vision for KM? Developed

3

PEO3g Are there any KM training programs or awareness campaigns? e.g. Introductory/Specific workshops for contributors, users, facilitators, champions

Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 3

PEO4a Are there regular knowledge sharing sessions? Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 4 PEO4b Is KM incorporated into the overall organizational strategy? Knowledge Journey

PEO4c Is there a budget specially set aside for KM? Knowledge Journey 4 PEO4d Is there any form of benchmarking, measure, or

assessment of the state of KM in the organization? - Balanced scorecard approach - Having key performance indicators in place - Knowledge ROI

KMAT - Knowledge Journey - Knowledge Journey - Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 5

5 PEO5 Has the KM initiatives resulted in a knowledge sharing culture? Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 5

KPA: Process

2 PRO2 Is the knowledge that is indispensable for performing routine task documented? Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 2

PRO3a Does the KMS improve the quality and efficiency of work? Developed

3 PRO3b Is the process for collecting and sharing information formalized? - Best practices and lessons learnt are documented

KMAT (I-P4)

PRO4a Are the existing KM systems actively and effectively utilized? Knowledge Journey 4 PRO4b Are the knowledge processes measured quantitatively? Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 4

5 PRO5 Can the existing KM processes is easily adapted to meet new business requirements? Developed based on Siemens’ KMMM Level 5

KPA: Technology TEC2a Are there pilot projects that support KM? Developed based on Siemens’ KMMM Level

2

TEC2b Is there any technology and infrastructure in place which supports KM? - E.g. Intranet portal - E.g. Environments supporting virtual teamwork

Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 3.

3 TEC3 Does the system support only the business unit? Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 3 TEC4a Does the KMS support the entire organization? Developed based on Infosys’ KMMM Level 4

4 TEC4b Is the KMS tightly integrated with the business processes? Developed

5 TEC5 Are the existing systems continually improved upon (e.g. continual investments)? KPQM Level 5

4. Discussion and Conclusion

To assess the proposed G-KMMM and accompanying assessment tool, more research is needed to evaluate

them in real-life contexts in different organizations. Specifically, cross-case study of knowledge-intensive

organizations may be the most suitable methodology for this as it allows deeper understanding of the

complex and ubiquitous interactions among processes, technologies and people (Dubé and Paré 2003). In

addition, the G-KMMM can be assessed against other existing KMMMs. Another interesting avenue for

future research will be to investigate the relative importance of practices in each KPA at different stages of

maturity. Identifying and understanding these dynamics may help organizations better chart their future KM

development. Future application of the proposed G-KMMM should also be conducted in longitudinal

studies where KM development and maturity of organizations are tracked over time. This can provide both

researchers and practitioners more in-depth understanding of the growth of a knowledge organization.

The proposed KMMM adopts a staged structure. Although the continuous structure may provide a more

holistic and comprehensive overview of KM development, due to its inherent complexity, it is more

difficult to build and understand. In contrast, staged representation is better established and simpler to use

(Klimko 2001). Some may argue that defining the ultimate stage of KM maturity may be difficult and

irrelevant as KM advances or as we move on to new concepts. Our model suggests that the conditions for

attaining each level of maturity may evolve and serve more like moving targets to encourage continuous

learning and improvement rather than a definite end by themselves.

The proposed KMMM also does not recommend a distinct KM strategy to guide KM implementation

efforts. However, it is flexible enough to be applied to many levels of aggregation, including units,

departments and organizations as a whole. In addition, it is also independent of the type of KM system and

can be applied to personalization as well as codification strategies.

An organization may potentially be at different stages of maturity for each of the KPAs. While this could be

considered a complication within the model, we believe that this highlights the model’s usefulness as a

diagnostic tool for performing KM self-assessment in that it identifies the aspects that require improvement

for the organization to progress to the next level of KM maturity. It should also be noted that although a

single maturity rating for the organization can be obtained by aggregating ratings for the KPAs, the rating

distribution should also be reported to avoid loss of constructive information.

The proposed KMMM considers the similarities in the ways of implementing and developing KM.

However, there is little knowledge on what situational factors, if any, influence the choice of the way. These

may include organizational culture, local legal jurisdiction, and industry peculiarities. Hence, further

applications of the proposed model may need to consider situational conditions outside the control of

organizations and the proposed G-KMMM may need to be adapted to different organizations in different

contexts.

Considering the complex dynamics governing the activities within modern organizations, the proposed

KMMM may be criticized as artificial and an oversimplification of the phenomenon. However, we believe

that abstracting salient aspects is useful in helping us to grasp the essential elements of the phenomenon

and offer practical insights. In this instance where our aim is to describe the KM maturity process at an

appropriate level of abstraction, simplification can effectively facilitate communication and understanding.

The proposed KMMM can be a useful tool for assessing KM development and indicating possible

improvements in organizations. However, one concern is that managers may resist it as they perceive

unfavorable ratings to be threatening. Hence, for the proposed G-KMMM to accurately reflect the reality, it

is important that management do not use it as a tool for disciplining and penalizing individual units that

have under-performed. Rather, it should serve as indication of areas needing more resources and guidance

in improving KM.

5. References

[1] Alavi, M. and Leidner, D. E. (2001), Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management

Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.

[2] Armour, P. G. ("The Case for a new business model - Is software a product or a medium?"

Communications of the ACM (43), pp. 19-22.

[3] Chatwin, D. (2002). A ‘knowledge enabled’ environment: Knowledge Management at the Australian Bureau of Statistics.; Retrieved February 15, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/conferences/consultative/materials/abs_km_story_feb2002.pdf

[4] de Jager, M. (1999). The KMAT: Benchmarking Knowledge Management. Library Management, 20(7), 367-372.

[5] Ehms, K., & Langen, M. (2002). Holistic Development of Knowledge Management with KMMM. Siemens AG / Corporate Technology.

[6] Gallagher, S., & Hazlett, S. A. (1999). Using the Knowledge Management Maturity Model (KM3) as an Evaluation Tool. Conference on Knowledge Management Concepts and Controversies 10-11 February, 2000: University of Warwick, Conventry, United Kingdom.

[7] Herbsleb, J., Zubrow, D., Goldensen, D., Hayes, W., & Paulk, M. (1997). Software Quality and the Capability Maturity Model. Communications of the ACM, 40(6), 30-40.

[8] Klimko, G. (2001). Knowledge Management and Maturity Models: Building Common Understanding.

Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Knowledge Management.

[9] Kochikar, V. P. (2000). The Knowledge Management Maturity Model - A Staged Framework for Leveraging Knowledge. Infosys Technologies Ltd. Retrieved February 20, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.infy.com/knowledge_capital/knowledge/KMWorld00_B304.pdf

[10] KPMG Consulting. (1999). Knowledge Management Assessment Exercise; http://cgi.nedecon.fi/kpmg/consulting/knowledge_managment

[11] KPMG Consulting. (2000). Knowledge Management Research Report 2000.

[12] Kulkarni, U., & Freeze, R. (2004). Development and Validation of a Knowledge Management Capability Assessment Model. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems.

[13] Kulkarni, U., & St. Louis, R. (2003). Organizational Self Assessment of Knowledge Management

Maturity. Proceedings of the 9th Americas Conference on Information Systems.

[14] Mohanty, S. K., & Chand, M. (2004). 5iKM3 Knowledge Management Maturity Model for Assessing and Harnessing the Organizational Ability to Manage Knowledge. TATA Consultancy Services.

[15] Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B. and Weber, C. V. (1993). Capability Maturity Model for Software, Version 1.1. Technical Report CMU/SEI-93-TR-024, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

[16] Paulzen, O., & Perc, P. (2002). A Maturity Model for Quality Improvement in Knowledge Management. Proceedings of the 13th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS 2002).

[17] Quintas, P., Lefrere, P., Jones, G. (1997) Knowledge Management: a strategic agenda, Long Range

Planning, 30, 385-391

[18] van der Pijl, G. J., Swinkels, G. J. P., & Verrijdt, J. G. (1997). ISO9000 versus CMM: Standardization and Certification of IS development. Information & Management, 32(6), 267-274.

[19] Weerdmeester, R., Pocaterra, C., & Hefke, M. (2003). VISION Next-Generation Knowledge Management D5.2. Knowledge Management Maturity Model. Information Societies Technology (IST) Programme.

[20] WisdomSource. (2004). Knowledge Management Maturity (K3M). WisdomSource News, 2(1), 31 May 2004; http://www.wisdomsource.com/wisdomsourcenews-20040531.html

Development of a General Knowledge Management Maturity …2. Review of Knowledge Management Maturity Models (KMMM) Maturity models describe the development of an entity over time,

Documents