Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Knowledge ...

Chris Blodgett
Analysts turn information into knowledge and <strong>the</strong>n take that knowledge and disseminate/share it with
<strong>the</strong> next decision-maker in <strong>the</strong> decision-making chain. Using <strong>the</strong> INPUT-OUTPUT analysis model
(Figure 6), staff <strong>of</strong>ficers receive information via a variety <strong>of</strong> INPUTS and based on <strong>the</strong>ir personnel
knowledge, experience and cognition fuse those inputs into something that will add value in support <strong>of</strong>
decision-making. As soon as <strong>the</strong> analysts/staff <strong>of</strong>ficers attempt to explain <strong>the</strong>ir ‘findings’ <strong>the</strong> ‘tacit’
knowledge becomes ‘explicit’ information. This OUTPUT is information (albeit richer information) that
will now be made available to <strong>the</strong> decision-making value chain as ano<strong>the</strong>r INPUT.
Figure 6: INPUT-OUTPUT Analysis: The Black Box <strong>of</strong> Knowledge Creation
In <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> any clear top-down NATO guidance with regards to KM, NATO’s intelligence
community (J2) are championing <strong>the</strong>ir own bottom-up requirements for KM and knowledge
development (KD). “The core function and objective <strong>of</strong> KD is to examine <strong>the</strong> complex operational
environment using all available sources <strong>of</strong> info, applying systems analysis techniques and considering
<strong>the</strong> inter-relationships and influences <strong>of</strong> all <strong>the</strong> PMESII (Political, Military, Economic, Social,
Informational, Infrastructural) domains to support <strong>the</strong> commander and staff with comprehensive
understanding for more effective operational planning, execution and assessment” (Three Swords
2010).
4. KM Institutional Effectiveness Framework (KM IEF)
Any KM Institutional Effectiveness Framework must address two perspectives: ‘organizational
cognition’; and, <strong>the</strong> individual ‘operational process/technical’ perspective. It is <strong>the</strong> institutional
leadership that must meld <strong>the</strong> two toge<strong>the</strong>r. The ‘organizational objectives’ perspective draws it
elements from <strong>the</strong> Canadian Forces Effectiveness Framework developed by <strong>the</strong> Canadian Defence
Academy that really espouses <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> institutional leadership, strategy/change
management and systems thinking. The ‘operational process/technical’ perspective draws some <strong>of</strong> its
elements from <strong>the</strong> integration <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> people, processes and technology domains identified in <strong>the</strong>
APQC approach to KM (O’Dell 2004). The Kaplan & Norton (K&N) Balanced Scorecard Strategy
Management System serves as an excellent integrator <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two, because it also incorporates <strong>the</strong>
same underlying foundational perspectives <strong>of</strong> employee value, internal integration and external
adaptability (K&N 2001); specifically:
Mission/Stakeholder Success,
External Stakeholder/Customer Focus,
Internal Input-Output Processes/Operational Focus, and
Learning & Growth/Employee Focus.
This KM Institutional Effectiveness Framework (Figure 7) embraces several organizational
development disciplines <strong>the</strong>reby contributing to a more holistic view <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> KM problem set. “From an
early age, we’re taught to break apart problems in order to make complex tasks and subjects easier to
deal with. But this creates a bigger problem we lose <strong>the</strong> ability to see <strong>the</strong> consequences <strong>of</strong> our
actions, and we lose a sense <strong>of</strong> connection to a larger whole” (Senge 1999).
1096