Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water ...

Organizational Development 

for Knowledge Management 

at Water Utilities 

Subject Area: Management and Customer Relations




©2011 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

About the Water Research Foundation 

The Water Research Foundation (formerly Awwa Research Foundation or AwwaRF) is a member-supported, 

international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health 

agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers. 

The Foundation’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve this 

mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources, treatment, 

distribution, and health effects. Funding for research is provided primarily by subscription payments from 

close to 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad. Additional 

funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and international organizations and the 

U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based 

knowledge to be developed and disseminated. 

From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundation’s staff directs and supports the efforts of 

more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These volunteers 

represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research 

studies that benefit the entire drinking water community. 

The results of research are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Web site, 

Webcasts, conferences, and periodicals. 

For its subscribers, the Foundation serves as a cooperative program in which water suppliers unite to pool 

their resources. By applying Foundation research findings, these water suppliers can save substantial costs 

and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since its inception, the Foundation 

has supplied the water community with more than $460 million in applied research value. 

More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available on the Web at 

www.WaterResearchFoundation.org. 





Prepared by: 

David H. Bennet and Alex Bennet 

Mountain Quest Institute, RR 2, Box 109, Marlinton, WV 24954 

Jointly sponsored by: 

Water Research Foundation 

6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098 

and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Published by: 


DISCLAIMER 

This study was jointly funded by the Water Research Foundation (Foundation) and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) under Cooperative Agreement No. X-83294801. The 

Foundation and USEPA assume no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in 

this publication or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of 

trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of 

the Foundation or USEPA. This report is presented solely for informational purposes. 

Copyright © 2011 

by Water Research Foundation 

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced 

or otherwise utilized without permission. 

ISBN 978-1-60573-102-5 

Printed in the U.S.A. 


CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ix 

LIST OF FIGURES xi 

FOREWORD xiii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xv 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xxiii 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 

Knowledge: What Is It and Why Is It Important? 1 

Explicit and Tacit Knowledge 1 

Surface, Shallow, and Deep Knowledge 1 

Types or Areas of Knowledge 3 

Managing Knowledge 3 

Project 4003 Research Focus 5 

Knowledge Mobilization 6 

CHAPTER 2: ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES AND 

INITIATIVES: BENEFITS AND COSTS 9 

Drinking Water Utilties Implementing KM Strategies 9 

Specific Strategies and Initiatives Under Way 9 

External Organizations Implementing KM Strategies and Initiatives 10 

Case Examples 10 

Case Studies 14 

Summary 20 

CHAPTER 3: ROLES OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 21 

Planning for KM Strategies and Initiatives 21 

Overcoming Resistance to KM Strategies and Initiatives 22 

Leadership Support and Visibility 22 

Leaders and Managers as Change Agents 23 

Trust 24 

Implementing Organizational Structures That Support KM Strategies and Initiatives 25 

Policies and Directives 25 

Recognition and Rewards Program 26 

Empowerment 27 

v 


vi | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

CHAPTER 4: CHARACTERISTICS THAT SUPPORT KNOWLEDGE SHARING 

AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS 29 

Characteristics of a Utility’s Organizational Structure That Support Successful 

Knowledge Sharing and Learning Organizations 29 

Teams and Communities 31 

Workforce Planning 31 

Culture 32 

Training and Education 32 

Recognition and Rewards 32 

Guiding Principles for Structuring the Utility 32 

Staff Roles and Responsibilities That Support Successful Knowledge Sharing 

and Learning Organizations 33 

Continuous Learning 33 

Knowledge Moments 33 

Networking 34 

CHAPTER 5: CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL 

IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN DRINKING WATER UTILITIES 35 

Critical Success Factors in Successful Implementation of KM in Water Utilitites 35 

Leadership and Management Support 35 

Lead by Example 35 

Communicate, Communicate, Communicate 36 

Employee Buy-In 36 

Bring Employees Into the Project 36 

Resource Support 37 

Good Communications 37 

A Team-Based Approach 37 

Allowing Time for Change to Occur 37 

Technology Support 38 

Developing Trust 38 

Valuing Employees 38 

Provide Training and Development 38 

Barriers To Successful Implementation of KM in Drinking Water Utilities 38 

Financial Resources 39 

Time 39 

Resistance to Change 40 

Lack of Manpower 40 

Politics 40 

Leadership and Management 40 

Public Perception 41 

Getting Buy-in for the Project 41 

Resistance to Technology 41 

Regulations and Laws 41 

Utility Culture 41 

What Does Success Look Like? 42 


Contents | vii 

CHAPTER 6: THE EFFECTS OF ALIGNMENT AND MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN 

KM AND CORE PLANNING PROCESSES 43 

Utility Core Planning Processes 43 

Aligning a KM Initiative With a Utility’s Core Planning Processes 45 

Step 1 45 

Step 2 45 

Step 3 46 

Step 4 46 

How Misalignment or an Underdeveloped Core Process Impacts the Successful 

Deployment of a KM Strategy and Its Resulting Initiatives 47 

CHAPTER 7: AN ASSESSMENT TOOL 49 

Introduction to the Instrument 49 

Individual Assessment Interpretations 50 

The Assessment Instrument as a Tool 50 

CHAPTER 8: THE KM TOOLKIT 51 

The Toolkit Process 51 

Introduction 51 

Assessing Readiness 53 

The Planning Phase 53 

The Preparing Phase 56 

The Executing Phase 61 

The Sustaining Phase 66 

The Tools 70 

The Ideas 70 

Other Resources 70 

Project Studies 70 

White Papers 84 

Case Examples 84 

Case Studies 84 

Resource Documents 84 

Bibliography, Suggested Reading, and Glossary 85 

Final Thoughts 85 

REFERENCES 87 

ABBREVIATIONS 95 

APPENDICES (AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM PACKAGED WITH PRINTED REPORT AND 

WATERRF WEBSITE) 

APPENDIX A: SURVEY RESULTS........................................................................................ A-1 

APPENDIX B: PROJECT STUDIES...................................................................................... B-1 


viii | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

APPENDIX C: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT TOOLS.................................. C-1 

APPENDIX D: ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT QUESTIONS AND 

INTERPRETATIONS.......................................................................................................... D-1 

APPENDIX E: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT INTRO AND 

PROCESS PHASES............................................................................................................. E-1 

APPENDIX F: BUSINESS CASE FOR KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT............................ F-1 

APPENDIX G: REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE FOR DRINKING WATER UTILITIES.... G-1 

APPENDIX H: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT IDEAS................................... H-1 

APPENDIX I: KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT INDEXES................................. I-1 

KM TOOLKIT (AVAILABLE ON CD-ROM PACKAGED WITH PRINTED REPORT AND 

WATERRF WEBSITE) 


TABLES 

2.1 Drinking water utility project studies in the KM Toolkit 11 

2.2 Case example of strategies and initiatives, and benefits 15 

6.1 Core planning processes support of the utility’s mission 44 

6.2 Information systems in drinking water utilities 44 

8.1 Tools (initiatives) in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit 71 

8.2 Ideas in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit 81 

ix 



FIGURES 

1.1 Characterization of organizational knowledge needs......................................................... 2 

1.2 Number of one-on-one telephone conversations on KM with drinking water utility 

personnel per state.............................................................................................................. 7 

2.1 Breakout of survey responses regarding the number of KM strategies and initiatives 

in drinking water utilities in terms of those underway, in the Planning stage, or those 

which have sparked interest.............................................................................................. 10 

5.1 Critical factors that support successful implementation of new initiatives...................... 36 

5.2 Barriers in the utility to implementing new initiatives..................................................... 39 

5.3 Areas of descriptions of a successful initiative................................................................ 42 

6.1 Relationship of IT, IM, and KM....................................................................................... 48 

8.1 Phases of the KM Toolkit process.................................................................................... 52 

xi 



FOREWORD 

The Water Research Foundation (Foundation) is a nonprofit corporation that is dedicated 

to the implementation of a research effort to help utilities respond to regulatory requirements 

and traditional high-priority concerns of the industry. The research agenda is developed through 

a process of consultation with subscribers and drinking water professionals. Under the umbrella 

of a Strategic Research Plan, the Research Advisory Council prioritizes the suggested projects 

based upon current and future needs, applicability, and past work; the recommendations are forwarded 

to the Board of Trustees for final selection. The Foundation also sponsors research projects 

through the unsolicited proposal process; the Collaborative Research, Research Applications, and 

Tailored Collaboration programs; and various joint research efforts with organizations such as the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Association of 

California Water Agencies. 

This publication is a result of one of these sponsored studies, and it is hoped that its findings 

will be applied in communities throughout the world. The following report serves not only as 

a means of communicating the results of the water industry’s centralized research program but also 

as a tool to enlist the further support of the nonmember utilities and individuals. 

Projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the Foundation’s 

staff and large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. The Foundation 

serves a planning and management function and awards contracts to other institutions such as water 

utilities, universities, and engineering firms. The funding for this research effort comes primarily 

from the Subscription Program, through which water utilities subscribe to the research program 

and make an annual payment proportionate to the volume of water they deliver and consultants and 

manufacturers subscribe based on their annual billings. The program offers a cost-effective and 

fair method for funding research in the public interest. 

A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the Foundation’s research agenda: 

resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis, toxicology, 

economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist water 

suppliers to provide the highest possible quality of water economically and reliably. The true benefits 

are realized when the results are implemented at the utility level. The Foundation’s trustees 

are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end. 

Roy L. Wolfe, Ph.D. 

Chair, Board of Trustees 


Robert C. Renner, P.E. 

Executive Director 


xiii 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The research project team wishes to thank and acknowledge the significant contributions of 

the utility Participants; Project Advisory Committee members Brownlee Bowmer, (Austin Water 

Utility), Linda Godfrey, (Consultant), Clyde Holsapple, (Professor, School of Management at the 

University of Kentucky), Beverly Ingram, (Chicago Department of Water Management), and Water 

Research Foundation project manager Susan Turnquist, without whose involvement this project 

would not have been possible. The drinking water Utilities who participated in this project are: 

Anne Arundel County, Department of Public Works, Maryland 

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, New Mexico 

Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Virginia 

Alpena Water & Wastewater Utility, Michigan 

Anchorage Water and Wastewater Utility, Alaska 

Aquarion Water Company, Massachusetts 

Asotin County Public Utility District, Washington 

Azusa Light & Water, California 

Audubon Water Company, Maine 

Augusta County Service Authority, Virginia 

Aurora Water, Colorado 

Blacksburg Christiansburg VPI Water Authority, Virginia 

Beatrice Board of Public Works, Nebraska 

Beaufort Jasper Water & Sewer, South Carolina 

Benbrook Water Authority, Texas 

Berkeley County Water & Sanitation Authority, South Carolina 

Berwick Water Department, Maine 

Bradford City Water Authority, Pennsylvania 

Brick Township Municipal Utilities Authority, New Jersey 

Bryan Municipal Utilities, Ohio 

Camrosa Water District, California 

Canyon Regional Water Authority, Texas 

Caribou Utilities District, Maine 

Castaic Lake Water Agency, California 

Celina Utilities, Ohio 

Central Coast Water Authority, California 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Utah 

Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities, Wyoming 

Citrus Heights Water District, California 

City of Akron, Ohio 

City of Albany, Oregon 

City of Amarillo, Texas 

City of American Canyon, California 

City of Arlington, Utility Division, Washington 

City of Austin, Water Utility, Texas 

City of Batavia, Illinois 

xv 


xvi | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

City of Beaumont, Water Utilities Department, Texas 

City of Boca Raton, Florida 

City of Bremerton, Washington 

City of Brentwood, California 

City of Brookfield, Wisconsin 

City of Brownsville, Utilities Department, Tennessee 

City of Cannon Beach, Oregon 

City of Carrollton, Texas 

City of Cleveland, Water Department, Ohio 

City of Clovis, California 

City of Corona, California 

City of Cottage Grove, Oregon 

City of Danville, Department of Utilities, Virginia 

City of Decatur, Texas 

City of Delmar, California 

City of Detroit Lakes, Minnesota 

City of Eastpointe, Michigan 

City of Englewood, Colorado 

City of Fairborn, Division of Water & Sewer, Ohio 

City of Flagstaff, Department of Utilities, Arizona 

City of Flint, Michigan 

City of Fridley, Minnesota 

City of Garden Grove, California 

City of Georgetown, Texas 

City of Goshen, Indiana 

City of Grand Forks, Department of Public Utilities, Virginia 

City of Hollywood, Public Utilities, Florida 

City of Issaquah, Public Works, Washington 

City of Jackson, Michigan 

City of Lake Crystal, Minnesota 

City of Lawton, Water Treatment Plant, Oklahoma 

City of Lebanon, Tennessee 

City of Libby, Montana 

City of Lompoc, California 

City of Minot, North Dakota 

City of Moline, Water Division, Illinois 

City of Mount Vernon, Ohio 

City of Oak Harbor, Washington 

City of Odessa, Texas 

City of Oneida, New York 

City of Perham, North Dakota 

City of Platteville, Water & Sewer Department, Wisconsin 

City of Portsmouth, Department of Public Utilities, Virginia 

City of Rapid City, Water Division, Michigan 

City of Redmond, Washington 

City of Rifle, Utility Department, Colorado 


Acknowledgments | xvii 

City of Roseville, Water Utility Department, California 

City of San Diego, Water Department, California 

City of San Marcos, Texas 

City of Santa Barbara, California 

City of Santa Cruz, Water Department, California 

City of Union, Department of Utilities, South Carolina 

City of University Park, Texas 

City of Vineland, Water Utility Department, New Jersey 

City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin 

City of West University Place, Texas 

City of Wheaton, Illinois 

City of Winston-Salem, Department of Utilities, North Carolina 

City of Wyoming, Department of Public Works, Michigan 

Coastside County Water District, California 

Columbus Water Works, Georgia 

Contra Costa Water District, California 

Crescenta Valley Water Department, California 

Dalton Utilities, Georgia 

DC Water and Sewer Authority, Washington, DC 

Douglasville - Douglas County Water & Sewer Authority, Georgia 

East Grand Forks, Water & Light Department, Minnesota 

El Dorado Irrigation District, California 

Elmira Water Board, New York 

Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, California 

Englewood Water District, Florida 

Eagle River Water & Sanitation District, Colorado 

Evergreen Metro District, Colorado 

Falmouth Water Department, Massachusetts 

Georgetown County, Water and Sewer District, South Carolina 

Gloucester Water Treatment Plant, Virginia 

Goleta Water District, California 

Guadalupe - Blanco River Authority, Nevada 

Harwich Water Department, Massachusetts 

Helix Water District, California 

James City Service Authority, Virginia 

Kansas City Water Services Department, Missouri 

Lakehaven Utility District, Washington 

Left Hand Water District, Colorado 

Lehigh County Authority, Pennsylvania 

Littleton Electric Light & Water Departments, Massachusetts 

Loudoun County Sanitation Authority, Virginia 

Louisville Water Company, Kentucky 

Lower Colorado River Authority, Texas 

Marina Coast Water District, California 

Marion Municipal Utilities, Indiana 

Marshfield Utilities, Wisconsin 


xviii | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

Massapequa Water District, New York 

MassDevelopment, Utilities Department, Massachusetts 

Matanuska, Susitna Borough, Alaska 

Menasha Electric & Water Utilities, Wisconsin 

Merchantville - Pennsauken Water Commission, New Jersey 

Milwaukee Water Works, Wisconsin 

Minneapolis Water Works, Minnesota 

Monroe County Water Authority, New York 

Montezuma Water Company, Colorado 

Morristown Water System, Tennessee 

Mount Werner Water & Sanitation District, Colorado 

Municipal Authority of the Borough of West View, Pennsylvania 

North East Texas Municipal Water District, Texas 

New Holstein Utilities, Wisconsin 

Newport News Waterworks, Virginia 

Niagara Falls Water Board, New York 

North Raynham Water District, Massachusetts 

North Marin Water District, California 

Oakdale Irrigation District, California 

Ogden City Public Utilities, Utah 

Okaloosa County Water & Sewer System, Florida 

Olivenhain Municipal Water District, California 

Orange Water & Sewer Authority, North Carolina 

Orlando Utilities Commission, Florida 

Owensboro Municipal Utilities, Kentucky 

Paducah Water, Kentucky 

Palm Beach County Water Utilities, Florida 

Paradise Irrigation District, California 

Pemberton Township Water Department, New Jersey 

Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Authority, Pennsylvania 

Placer County Water Agency, California 

Portland Water Bureau, Oregon 

Pueblo Board of Water Works, Colorado 

Rice Lake Utilities, Wisconsin 

Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District, California 

Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, Virginia 

Roanoke Rapids Sanitary District, North Carolina 

San Diego County Water Authority, California 

Santa Clara Valley Water District, California 

Seattle Public Utilities, Washington 

Shoreline Water District, Washington 

Silverdale Water District, Washington 

Startex-Jackson-Wellford-Duncan Water District, South Carolina 

Smyrna, Town of, Tennessee 

Soos Creek Water & Sewer District, Washington 

Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, New Jersey 


Acknowledgments | xix 

Stagecoach General Improvement District, Nevada 

Stevens Point Water & Wastewater, Wisconsin 

Stockton East Water District, California 

Suffolk County Water Authority, New York 

Tampa Bay Water, Florida 

Taylorsville- Bennion Improvement District, Utah 

Thomasville, City of, North Carolina 

Town of Framingham, Water Department, Massachusetts 

Town of Pembroke Water Works, New Hampshire 

Town of Smyrna, Tennessee 

Truckee Meadows Water Authority, Nevada 

Tualatin Valley Water District, Oregon 

Upper Sandusky Water Treatment Plant, Ohio 

Village of Chagrin Falls, Ohio 

Village of Clinton, Michigan 

Village of Forsyth, Illinois 

Village of Webster, New York 

Washington Aqueduct, Washington, DC 

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, Maryland 

Washoe County, Department of Water Resources, Nevada 

Water Authority of Western Nassau County, New York 

Waterford Township, Department of Public Works, Michigan 

Waterloo Water Works, Iowa 

West Des Moines Water Works, Iowa 

Wisconsin Rapids Water Works & Lighting Commission, Wisconsin 

Wyandotte Municipal Services, Water Department, Michigan 

Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority, Michigan 

Mountain Quest Researchers: 

David Bennet, Principal, Mountain Quest Institute, Frost, West Virginia 

Alex Bennet, Co-Principal, Mountain Quest Institute, Frost, West Virginia 

Project Study Contributors: 

Alexandria Sanitation Authority, Alexandria, Virginia 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, Charlotte, North Carolina 

City of Akron, Public Utilities Bureau, Akron, Ohio 

City of Cleveland, Water Department, Cleveland, Ohio 

City of Fairborn, Fairborn, Ohio 

City of Grand Forks, Department of Public Utilities, Grand Forks, North Dakota 

City of Moline, Water Division, Moline, Illinois 

City of Phoenix, Water Services Department, Phoenix, Arizona 

City of Salt Lake City, Department of Public Utilities, Salt Lake City, Utah 

Colorado Springs Utility, Colorado Springs, Colorado 

Columbus Water Works, Columbus, Georgia 


xx | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

Evergreen Metro District, Evergreen, Colorado 

Greenville Water System, Greenville, South Carolina 

Loudon County Sanitation Authority, Ashburn, Virginia 

Louisville Water Company, Louisville, Kentucky 

Orlando Utilities Commission, Orlando, Florida 

Rice Lake Utilities, Rice Lake, Wisconsin 

Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle, Washington 

Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, Cedar Knolls, New Jersey 

Tampa Bay Water, Tampa, Florida 

Tualatin Valley Water District, Beaverton, Oregon 

Waterford Township, Department of Public Works, Waterford, Michigan 

Workshop Participants: 

Borough of Catasauqua, Catasauqua, Pennsylvania: Gene Goldfeder 

City of Cleveland, Division of Water, Cleveland, Ohio: Arnetta Anderson, Javier Badillo, 

Hollis Crump, Sharonda Denson, Helene Downing, Gregg Faust, Saundra Foster, 

Payton Hall, Dennis Horgan, Pat Hunnicutt, Keshia Johnson, Chris Koscan, Karen 

Lisowski, Chris Nielson, Alex Margevicius, Liz Maldonado, Paula Morrision, 

Richard Papp, Rolfe Porter, Kim Savage, Joe Sika, Angela Smith 

Easton Suburban Water Authority, Easton, Pennsylvania: Erin Schulberger, Roy White 

Hellertown Borough Authority, Hellertown, Pennsylvania: Glenn Higbie 

Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Liesel Adam, Aurel Arndt, Linda 

Eberhardt, Brad Landon, Frank Leist, Emily Smith, Doug Young 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Dave 

Malloy 

Phoenix Water Services Department, Phoenix, Arizona: Madeline Goddard, Cheryl 

Guzman, Laura Kaino, Paul Kinshella, Mike Laurer, Tammy Perkins, Jane Smith 

Salisbury Township, Allentown, Pennsylvania: John Andreas 

Salt Lake City, Department of Public Utilities, Salt Lake City, Utah: Robert Bahr, Rick 

Bright, Ryan Broadhead, Jason Brown, Charles Call, Dale Christensen, Sybilla 

Dalton, Giles Demke, Peggy Garcia, Karryn Greenleaf, Linda Jennings, Arlene 

Larsen, Jim Lewis, Jeff Niermeyer, Florence Reynolds, Jeff Ruiz, Robert Sperling, 

Kurt Spjute, Mark Stanley, Justin Stoker, Shellie Turnbow, Tom Ward, Jim Williams 

South Whitehall Township, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Tom Uff 

Leadership Management Interviews: 

American Water Works Association, Washington, DC: Alan Roberson 

Austin Water Utility, Austin, Texas: Jane Burazer, George Calhoune, David Jaurez 

City of Cleveland, Division of Water, Cleveland, Ohio: Chris Nielson, Rolfe Porter, Angela 

Smith 

City of Greensboro, Water Resources Department, Greensboro, North Carolina: Allan 

Williams 

Fairfax Water, Fairfax, Virginia: Chuck Murrey 

Greenville Water System, Greenville, South Carolina: Lyndon Stovall 

George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia: Mark Houck 


Acknowledgments | xxi 

Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Liesel Adam, Aurel Arndt, Frank 

Leist 

Phoenix Water Services Department, Phoenix, Arizona: Madeline Goddard, Mike Laurer, 

Hector Ortez, Tammy Perkins, Greg Ramon 

Salt Lake City, Department of Public Utilities, Salt Lake City, Utah: Rick Bright, Giles 

Demke, Peggy Garcia, Jeff Niermeyer 

Washington Aqueduct, Washington, DC: Thomas Jacobus 

Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Utilities Division, Winston-Salem, North Carolina: David 

Saunders 

Beta-Testing Participants: 

Austin Water Utility, Austin, Texas: Rajendra Bhattarai 

City of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois: Beverly Ingram 

Crescenta Valley Water District, La Crescenta, California: Dennis Erdman 

Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, Pennsylvania: Liesel Adam 

Salt Lake City, Department of Utilities, Utah: Linda Jennings 

Tampa Bay Water, Tampa Bay, Florida: Ed Davis, Jon Kennedy 

Washington Aqueduct, Washington, DC: Patricia Gamby 

Mountain Quest Institute Development Team: 

Dawn Buchanan, Research Assistant 

Andrew Dean, Programmer & Computer Specialist 

Erica Engquist, Graphic Artist & Format Tech 

Susie Weber, Administrative Assistant 

Anja Baudler, Administrative Assistant 

Barbara Bennet, Editor 

Mohit Sambhu, Assessment Design 

Cindy Taylor, Office Assistant 

The following organizations and individuals are also acknowledged as key partners in 

this research. Through the sharing of their expertise and resources they are providing thought 

leadership on best practices for Knowledge Management: American Productivity and Quality 

Center (APQC), Water Research Foundation (WaterRF), Department of Navy (DON), Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA), IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, Learn@Well 

(Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries), Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, 

Pennsylvania, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), TECHi2, Susan Turnquist, 

Rajiv Sabherwal, Laurence Prusak, Jaap Pels, Frank Odhiambo, Brian Newman, Geoffrey 

Malafsky, Liam Fahery, David Bennet, Alex Bennet and Irma Becerra-Fernandez. 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The decisions that are made every day by every single person in your utility determine the 

performance of the utility that day! Knowledge is about making good decisions and taking the best 

actions in a given situation. While the environment can create forces that may significantly challenge 

a utility’s capacity to respond, the response is heavily dependent upon each worker taking 

the best action, doing the right thing to further the utility’s objectives. This is true for the governing 

board members all the way across the organization to the newest employee, whatever their job 

description. How well do they understand their job? Can they trace their work responsibilities to 

the purpose and vision of the utility? Do they know the effect of their actions on the rest of the utility? 

In brief, do they have the knowledge to make the best decisions and take the best actions for 

their division, department and utility? We can now see the connection from knowledge to action 

to results to performance. 

Thus knowledge can be best understood as the capability (potential or actual) to take 

effective action. When you understand a situation well enough that you can take an action that 

results in the expected outcome, you have knowledge of the situation. Knowledge is not the same 

as information. Information can be stored in manuals and information technology systems. When 

that information is used effectively it is knowledge, what can be called Knowledge (Informing). 

However, the effective use of information as knowledge can only occur when it is associated with 

other information that represents a situation or event. This process of associating information in 

such a way that it creates understanding, insight, meaning and the ability to take the right action is 

called Knowledge (Proceeding), that which is the basis for decision-making. 

MANAGING KNOWLEDGE 

Managing knowledge in an organization means ensuring that decision-makers at all levels 

have the ability and the information they need to make the best decisions and take the most 

effective actions. What works, and what doesn’t? Where can employees find and get the right 

knowledge? How does knowledge get to the right individual? How do employees become aware 

of the right knowledge, understand it, feel good about it, and become willing to use it in their 

work? The answers to these questions directly relate to the utility’s business proposition and its 

success. Knowledge Management (KM) is the name used to represent the processes and practices 

of workers as they apply and share their knowledge in the workplace. It also represents the ideas, 

principles and practices that leaders/managers take to ensure all employees have and use the best 

knowledge possible in their day-to-day work decisions and actions. 

One way to consider Knowledge Management is as the systematic process of creating, 

maintaining and nurturing an organization to make the best use of knowledge to achieve: (a) efficiency 

of operations; (b) effectiveness of operations; (c) quality of products; and (d) sustainable 

high performance. Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things; quality 

is providing the best products desired; and sustainability is creating a utility that can withstand 

the surprises and shocks that occur over time in the environment. Simply put, efficiency reduces 

cost, effectiveness produces the right products and services, quality keeps customers happy, and 

sustainability keeps the utility and its performance around for a long time. At any given time different 

utilities will put different emphasis on these measures. However, they are all dependent on 

xxiii 


xxiv | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

the actions of every employee every day. Thus the ultimate source of overall performance lies in 

the employees and the knowledge they possess and apply. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

The formal title of this project is “Organizational Development Needed to Implement a 

Knowledge Management Strategy at Water Utilities.” The overarching project objectives were: 

1. Identify the benefits and costs of implementing a knowledge management (KM) 

initiative; 

2. Investigate and identify organizational characteristics and processes (e.g., culture, 

core planning processes, communications, rewards, etc.) critical to the success of 

implementing a KM initiative; 

3. Develop an assessment tool for drinking water utilities to identify their organization’s 

readiness to plan and implement a KM strategy; and 

4. Develop a tool kit for establishing or enhancing organizational readiness to support a 

KM strategy and initiatives. 

Results of this project provide a systematic process for drinking water utilities, as business organizations, 

to facilitate the effective implementation of a KM strategy. 

The material in these chapters is based on an extensive base of research materials and 

the experience and previous research of the Principal and Co-Principal Investigators. The 4003 

research approach included a survey process, literature review, site visits, leadership and management 

interviews, workshops, focus groups, and development of project studies, case examples and 

case studies focused on KM implementation. 

The Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) approach accompanying Project 4003 implementation 

included a combination of events, publications, Internet exchanges and development of 

meta-tools (the Readiness Assessment Instrument and KM Toolkit) that will enable drinking water 

utilities to plan and implement the organizational change needed to support implementation of 

knowledge management strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities. In terms of drinking 

water utilities, KMb is the effective creation, movement and tailoring of specific knowledge from 

its source (research or specialized expertise) to its application (practitioner, utility worker) such 

that consequent actions are effective and sustainable. 

To raise awareness of KM in the drinking water utility industry, over 1,224 drinking water 

utilities across the nation were contacted via the survey process (hard mail with a cover letter 

defining KM and its significance to drinking water utilities) and follow-up telephone interactions. 

During this process, 1001 individuals were engaged in one-on-one telephone conversations of 

5–10 minutes in length concerning knowledge and Knowledge Management related to drinking 

water utilities. From this process, 33 project studies were developed representing 22 drinking 

water utilities. Simultaneously, a Blog was set up and a series of papers and other resource materials 

provided via that vehicle. In the course of this two-year project, 67 drinking water utility 

managers/leaders submitted their survey responses via the Blog page, and 6,498 pages of resource 

materials were downloaded during the course of 1,453 visits to the Blog. 

In this same time period, the Principal Investigator and Co-principal Investigator facilitated 

workshops and combination focus groups involving 66 representatives from ten geographically-dispersed 

drinking water utilities. In conjunction with these workshops, focus groups and 


Executive Summary | xxv 

site visits, the Principal Investigator interviewed 25 leaders/managers representing 12 drinking 

water utilities. The diversity of approaches used to gather information, geographical distribution of 

responders and the number of utilities participating contribute to the comprehensiveness and validity 

of results. The drinking water utilities participating in this research project are acknowledged 

at the front of this report. 

THE RESEARCH RESULTS 

During the research process it was pleasantly noted that almost every interaction met with 

interest and cooperation. It appears that Knowledge Management is gradually making itself known 

within the drinking water utility industry. KM strategies and initiatives are underway in a number 

of utilities. As a result of the Project 4003 survey process, 207 separate drinking water utilities 

provided information about their organizations and KM and KM-related strategies and projects 

underway. As indicated by this data, Knowledge Sharing, Team Decision-Making, and Knowledge 

Retention represent the largest number of KM strategies underway in these drinking water utilities. 

There are also a number of utilities doing Knowledge Base Development. Responders also 

provided information indicating KM strategies and initiatives they were planning to implement 

and interested in implementing. The largest focus in the “planning” stage is on Knowledge 

Retention, followed closely by Knowledge Base Development and Expert Locator. The largest 

focus of expressed “interested in” is on Communities of Practice and Expert Locator, followed by 

Knowledge Base Development and Knowledge Retention. 

What this data says is that more than 50 percent of the drinking water utilities responding 

to this survey question are “doing”—and therefore aware of the value of—Knowledge Sharing and 

Team Decision-Making, with still other utilities are moving down this path. The recent and current 

emphasis in the industry on Knowledge Retention is reflected in the high number of responses 

in all three areas (“doing,” “planning” and “interested in”). Further, the value of developing a 

Knowledge Base is solidly represented in all three areas, indicating a steady movement in this 

direction. Action Learning has solid representation in the “doing” and “interested in” areas, with a 

relatively low number of responders in the “planning” phase. 

The low number of responders doing Communities of Practice and Expert Locator contrasted 

to the larger number of interested responders in these areas indicates a growing awareness 

of these two KM initiatives and their potential value to drinking water utilities. 

Thirty-three project studies were collected from 22 utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South 

Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. While these project studies include a wide 

range of initiatives underway, they are all connected to knowledge and the increasing recognition 

of the importance of knowledge in drinking water utilities. For example, initiatives not only 

include development of a KM plan, knowledge sharing, retaining retiree knowledge and organizational 

learning, but also include: developing and updating manuals, professional and leadership 

development, public relations, work performance improvement, succession and talent resource 

planning, workforce planning, quality based documentation, training, communications, developing 

document repositories, process and operational improvements, and the use of social network 

analysis. In addition, 22 case examples and 5 case studies were identified to provide real-life 

implementation examples of strategies and initiatives applied in the public, private and not-forprofit 

sectors. 


xxvi | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

The sections below directly respond to core areas of this research project. They are: leadership 

and management; organization structure in support of knowledge management; and critical 

success factors, barriers, alignment and underdevelopment. 

Leadership and Management 

Leadership and Management have significant roles in Planning, Overcoming Resistance, 

and Implementing Organizational Structures in support of KM. A manager is considered the individual 

who has accountability, responsibility and authority to oversee or direct people to accomplish 

tasks or objectives. A leader is an individual who has the accountability, responsibility and 

authority to create, maintain and nurture an organization in a manner such that it achieves sustainable 

high performance. In the Planning stage the role of Leadership includes gaining and maintaining 

Governance group support, ensuring a credible business case understood by stakeholders, and 

ensuring adequate financial resources. 

Overcoming resistance is a challenge to both leadership and management. Resistance can 

come from a number of sources within the utility: from individual senior leaders, from department 

and division managers, from unions, from the governance body and from all levels of the workforce. 

Any potentially significant organizational change creates uncertainty, concern and often 

fear, all of which may result in workforce resistance. Leadership can help reduce resistance to KM 

strategies and initiatives by clearly and consistently demonstrating active interest and participation 

and their backing of the proposed changes. 

A core role of leadership is to ensure that employees have a consistent understanding of 

the vision, mission and purpose of the utility. By connecting the KM strategy or initiative directly 

to the vision and mission of the utility through anticipated improved performance, the leader may 

reduce, or at least minimize resistance from the employees. Further, by ensuring that key employees 

involved in the KM strategy are aware of its importance and contribution to the utility and by 

rewarding those employees who contribute significantly to implementation of the KM strategy, 

leaders can communicate to the entire workforce the relevance and importance of the strategy and 

thereby reduce overall workforce resistance. 

Organizational Structure in Support of KM 

Good organizational structures provide an environment within which both employees and 

managers can work together for the long-term benefit of the utility. Project 4003 survey results 

reflect a higher than average response when responders were asked how well their organizational 

structure supports sharing of information and knowledge. This pattern continued when responders 

were asked about the amount of knowledge sharing among managers and the level of trust among 

employees. However, when they were asked to assess the flexibility of organizational policies, 

the mean for the 206 responses was below the average mean for the survey, indicating that it is 

considered lower than average. The ability of the human resource department to support learning 

and knowledge sharing also had a mean well below the average, showing that the perception of 

responders was that the organizational structure supports the sharing of information and knowledge 

better than the human resource department. 

There are a number of factors that play a significant role in the structure that supports 

successful knowledge sharing and learning organizations. These are authority, responsibility and 

accountability; roles and responsibilities; technology; time and space; and policies and rules. 


Executive Summary | xxvii 

Technology plays a strong role in support of knowledge sharing by providing information 

resources, network and communication technologies; knowledge, virtual learning, and community 

collaboration systems; and team collaboration artifacts such as electronic whiteboards, displays, 

and software packages. Responders to the Project 4003 survey valued the level of information 

system integration (information consistent and accessible) in drinking water utilities at a mean of 

3.08. This represents the lowest mean in the survey, considerably below the average of overall survey 

response. The mean for responses regarding the quality of information contained in IT systems 

was also below the survey average, although better than system integration. 

The following guiding principles for structuring a utility for knowledge sharing and organizational 

learning are suggested. These are not the result of a single response but reflect areas of 

concern expressed by multiple responders. These areas have been grouped and explicated based 

on the extensive experience of the co-investigators. 

The structure needs to be compatible with the culture and both should be ecologically 

matched to the environment and the utility’s purpose, strategy, and vision. Cultures are heavily 

influenced by the interplay of structure, vision, and external environment. For example, a learning 

culture would not be compatible with a bureaucracy. 

The structure design supports the workforce in their daily decision-making and actions. In 

other words, the structure contains the informal network as much as possible and it supports the 

knowledge needs of workers, managers, and leaders. 

The structure supports the long-term needs of the workforce, including learning, professional 

development, and career management. The technology roles and responsibilities, facilities, 

and policies all need to function effectively to satisfy both short-term and long-term utility needs. 

Short-term needs such as flexibility, adaptability, surge requirements, cycling, technology opportunities, 

coherence of activities, operational procedures, and stakeholder demands often place different 

demands on the structure than long-term activities such as learning, adaptability, strategy, 

knowledge management, core competencies, career management, stakeholder satisfaction, and 

public image. 

The structure supports leader and manager needs for loose-tight control of resources. For 

example, the utility needs only loose control over self-organization, empowerment and internal 

communication, but may need tight control over financial transactions, career assignments, safetyrelated 

decision-making and strategic direction. 

Critical Success Factors, Barriers, Alignment, and Underdevelopment 

Critical success factors identified through Project 4003 research relative to implementation 

of KM strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities were identified as: leadership by 

example, good communications, employee buy-in, bringing employees into the project, resource 

support, a team-based approach, allowing time for change to occur, technology support, developing 

trust, valuing employees and providing training and development. 

Barriers to successful implementation of KM strategies and initiatives in drinking water 

utilities were identified as: financial resources, time, resistance to change, lack of manpower, politics, 

leadership and management, public perception, getting buy-in for the project, resistance to 

technology, regulations and laws, and culture. 

When responders to the Project 4003 survey were asked how they would describe a successful 

initiative, the largest numbers of these responses were focused on results. Representative of 

generic responses are: effort shows results, original objective realized, overall system improvement 


xxviii | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

and users happy with final outcome. Specific responses included: increase customer service while 

improving business practices, improves work flows and is user friendly, provides better information 

faster, provides the benefits that were targeted and then becomes a part of the daily routine for 

most employees. Other “increases” were: increased productivity, increased competitiveness, and 

increased customer satisfaction. One learner responded: Paying an employee to maintain a license 

higher than required. 

All utilities have core planning processes that are essential to effective planning and performance. 

These plans are critical to effective and efficient utility operations because they set up 

procedures and processes that when implemented create the activities and relationships that drive 

utility performance. In the Project 4003 survey, responders were largely senior leaders and managers. 

Yet out of the 207 surveys returned, the responses to each of the six core planning processes 

ranged from 177 to 202. Thus for each of the core processes there were 5–30 responders who chose 

not to enter a value for that core process, indicting either no judgment or an unfamiliarity with the 

core processes they were asked to assess. In the order of those processes more readily assessed, 

the planning processes are: Capital improvement planning, operational planning, human resource 

development, strategic business planning, information technology master planning and life cycle 

planning. This would indicate, for example, a higher level of familiarity and opinion on capital 

improvement planning than life cycle planning. Yet capital improvement planning is directly correlated 

to life cycle planning. In an uncertain and changing economic and political environment— 

where new requirements and issues emerge without adequate resources to quickly and effectively 

respond to those requirements and issues—long-term planning must often take a second seat to 

short-term needs. While this juxtaposing occurs in a large number of organizations, the aging 

infrastructure faced by a large number of drinking water utilities is rapidly bringing long-term into 

the sphere of short-term urgency. In other words, funding needs that could previously be delayed 

can no longer be delayed. 

Further, the data indicates that information technology master planning has the second 

lowest response rating with a narrow standard deviation. This indicates close agreement by the 

responders. These indicators can now be combined with the responses to the question: “The following 

statements relate to the information systems in your organization” to build a deeper understanding 

of the perception of the role of information technology (and by extension information 

technology master planning) and the mission of the utility. ITD is the acronym for Information 

Technology Department. 

• 88.6% of 193 responders agree that systems are mission critical to the organization. 

• 62.6% of 190 responders agree that ITD is heavily involved with and understands the 

business mission. 

• 54% of 189 responders agree that ITD is a solution provider for business problems. 

• 45.9% of 185 responders agree that ITD is not helpful in solving business problems. 

The last two bullets represent the same question looked at from two different directions. While 

there is a larger perception (62.6%) that ITD is involved with and understands the business mission, 

there is a lower perception (54%) of its effectiveness in handling business problems. From 

this response, it is clear that while the value of information technology is recognized as mission 

critical (88.6%), there is still some work to do in order for information technology to strongly support 

the business mission. Considering all these responses collectively, it appears that either 


Executive Summary | xxix 

1. information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently 

developed or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water 

utilities, or 

2. leaders and managers who responded to this survey instrument (representing 207 

drinking water utilities nation-wide) are not aware of or do not understand the role 

that information technology is playing in their utilities. 

In either case, it is clear that Knowledge Management can contribute to helping drinking water 

utilities engage the full potential of current and future information technology investments in terms 

of their contribution to business problems and the business mission. Thus one potential finding 

of this research is that information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently 

developed or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water 

utilities. 

THE TOOLS 

Two specific tools resulted from this research project. The first is an assessment tool used to 

evaluate a utility’s readiness to implement KM. The second is a toolkit for planning and implementing 

the organizational changes needed for a successful KM strategy or initiative in utilities. While 

these tools respond to issues, concerns and opportunities that surfaced during the 4003 research 

project, the content of these tools contains information from researched and proven knowledge 

management strategies, initiatives and approaches in both the public and private sectors. This 

material has been tailored for drinking water utility use. 

The Assessment Instrument is designed to aid drinking water utility leaders and managers 

in determining the readiness of their utility to implement KM strategies. It takes 10-15 minutes to 

fill out, and is designed to help answer the question: Is my utility ready to implement a knowledge 

management strategy? For a utility to be ready to successfully implement a KM strategy it should 

have certain characteristics and capabilities. Reflecting those characteristics and capabilities specific 

to drinking water utilities, the questions in this tool were developed from a number of research 

sources, including 25 interviews with senior utility leaders, four workshops with groups of utility 

leaders and managers, the results of the Project 4003 survey of 207 individuals from drinking 

water utilities, and the results of a literature search as well as the experience of the researchers. 

There are 40 questions in the assessment instrument that are divided into five areas, each 

area pertaining to a specific aspect of the utility. These areas are: General, Leadership, Management, 

Culture and Alignment. Because each utility is unique and possesses a wide variety of characteristics—complete 

with its own history—this instrument should be used in concert with informed 

reflective thought prior to making a readiness decision. What this assessment will do is provide key 

questions and aspects of the utility to stimulate your thinking before implementing a KM strategy. 

From the answers to the assessment questions and reflection on what you know about your utility, 

you will be able to make an informed judgment on whether to proceed with implementation of 

your KM strategy or take some preparatory steps prior to implementation of a KM strategy. 

The KM Toolkit is a virtual resource for planning and implementing the organizational 

change needed to support implementation of a KM strategy in drinking water utilities. At its core 

is an Introduction and a five-phase process: Assessing Readiness, Planning, Preparing, Executing 

and Sustaining. The Assessment Instrument discussed above is in support of the first phase of the 

process. Planning addresses ensuring leadership commitment, developing the strategy, writing 


xxx | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

the plan, selecting the team and thinking system. Preparing addresses setting objectives, connecting 

the dots, building the foundation, growing a knowledge network and becoming a change 

agent. Executing addresses leading and managing, the four organizational processes (creativity, 

problem-solving, decision-making and implementation), knowledge capture, knowledge harvesting, 

and knowledge mobilization. Sustaining addresses nurturing organizational health, embedding, 

sharing, evaluating and measuring, and learning. 

While the virtual toolkit is a stand-alone product, it also includes down-loadable resource 

documents to support second-order learning. These include 55 Tools, 15 areas of Ideas and extensive 

resource documents covering the breadth of Knowledge Management contributed by leaders 

in the field. There are also 33 project studies (drawn from drinking water utilities), 22 case 

examples (representing government, non-profit and for-profit organizations internationally), and 

5 case studies. 

These resources can serve as rich guides to a drinking water utility’s KM journey. Because 

each utility is different and has its own unique situation and context to achieve success, it is 

essential that leaders understand their organization, its goals and direction, its strengths and weaknesses 

and its structure and culture. With this understanding they can then select specific areas 

for change and identify knowledge management initiatives that can facilitate improvements. Or, 

they may decide to implement a Knowledge Management strategy to transform their utility into 

a knowledge-centric organization that utilizes information, knowledge, and collaboration to the 

maximum extent. Ultimately, it is informed, intelligent thinking, caring and mission-aligned individuals 

making the best decisions that will take your utility into the future. This approach is the 

first step toward building the utility of the future. 


CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

KNOWLEDGE: WHAT IS IT AND WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? 

The decisions that are made every day by every single person in your utility determine the 

performance of the utility that day! Knowledge is about making good decisions and taking the best 

actions in a given situation. While the environment can create forces that may significantly challenge 

a utility’s capacity to respond, the utility’s response is heavily dependent upon each worker 

taking the best action, doing the right thing to further the utility’s objectives. This is true for the 

governing board members all the way across the organization to the newest employee, whatever 

their job description. How well do they understand their job? Can they trace their work responsibilities 

to the purpose and vision of the utility? Do they know the effect of their actions on the rest 

of the utility? In brief, do they have the knowledge to make the best decisions and take the best 

actions for their division, department and utility? We can now see the connection from knowledge 

to action to results to sustainable performance. 

Thus knowledge can be best understood as the capability (potential or actual) to take effective 

action. When you understand a situation well enough so that you can take an action that results 

in the expected outcome, then you have knowledge of the situation. Knowledge is not the same as 

information. Information can be stored in manuals and information technology systems. When that 

information is used effectively it is knowledge, what can be called Knowledge (Informing). 

However, the effective use of information as knowledge can only occur when it is associated with 

other information that represents a situation or event. This process of associating information in 

such a way that it creates understanding, insight, meaning and the ability to take the right action is 

called Knowledge (Proceeding). 

Explicit and Tacit Knowledge 

There are other ways to think about knowledge that can be useful to individuals and organizations. 

For example, explicit knowledge is that which can be easily recalled from memory that 

can be described accurately in words or visual representations such that another person can comprehend 

it. Tacit knowledge is the term used to describe knowledge that cannot be pulled up in 

words, a knowing of what decision to make or how to do something that cannot be clearly voiced 

in a manner such that another person can extract or re-create that knowledge. Note that the concepts 

of explicit and tacit focus on the ability of an individual to express and explain that 

knowledge. 

Surface, Shallow, and Deep Knowledge 

Another useful way to think about knowledge is in terms of surface knowledge, shallow 

knowledge and deep knowledge. Surface knowledge answers the questions of what, when, where 

and who. It involves visible choices that require minimum understanding. Examples would be following 

personnel procedures as spelled out in a manual, or filling out a short-form tax return. 

1 


2 | Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 

Source: Bennet, David and Bennet, Alex. 2008. The depth of Knowledge: Surface, shallow or deep? In Jour. VINE: 

The Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 38, No. 4. Used with permission. 

Figure 1.1 Characterization of organizational knowledge needs. Routine decisions made in 

organizations are at the surface level. 

Much of everyday life such as light conversations and descriptions can be considered surface 

thinking and learning that creates surface knowledge. Facts, data, concepts and information memorized 

for quizzes and tests (without a deeper understanding of purpose and underlying meaning) 

would fall into this category. 

Shallow knowledge is surface knowledge with some level of meaning, with that meaning 

typically related to an individual or organization and implying some level of action. To make 

meaning requires context. Because social interactions such as conversations and dialogue help 

convey context, surface knowledge emerges and expands as employees interact in the course of 

everyday practices and processes. For example, utilities who embrace the use of teams and communities 

facilitate the mobilization of knowledge and creation of new ideas as employees interact 

in these groups. 

For deep knowledge individuals need to develop understanding and meaning, integrate it, 

and be able to shift their frame of reference as the context and situation shift. This requires a large 

amount of Knowledge (Proceeding) to know when and how to take effective action. The source of 

deep knowledge lies in an individual’s creativity, intuition, forecasting experience, pattern recognition, 

and use of theories. In other words, this is the area of the expert whose unconscious has 

learned to detect patterns and evaluate their importance in anticipating the behavior of situations 

that are too complex for the conscious mind to understand. The development of deep knowledge 

requires intense and persistent interest and dedication to a specific area of learning, knowledge and 

action. 

Routine decisions made in organizations occur at the surface level. Decisions requiring 

deep knowledge are much fewer, and tend to be more critical. See Figure 1.1. Understanding 

knowledge in terms of surface, shallow and deep can help decision-makers recognize the scope 

and depth of knowledge available to maximize problem solving, decision-making and action in 

simple, complicated and complex situations. Further, thinking about knowledge in terms of these 


Chapter 1: Introduction | 3 

three levels can help tailor knowledge capture and learning experiences to improve knowledge 

sharing and retention. For example, surface knowledge involves facts, data, concepts and other 

information that can be memorized and applied, captured and stored in technology systems for 

processing and reference. For shallow knowledge the focus is on social interactions such as conversations, 

dialogues, debates and the flow of ideas that emerges in communities and teams. At the 

deep level, the focus on learning from effortful practice and lived experience would suggest the 

need for an organizational learning strategy which might include mentoring, apprenticeships and 

leadership development programs. 

Types or Areas of Knowledge 

Another way to think about knowledge is in terms of types (or areas) of knowledge grouped 

by similarities and differences, specifically in terms of what knowledge is needed to do a particular 

type of work or take a particular action. This is useful when considering the knowledge needs for 

specific jobs, and identifying knowledge gaps in a utility. The type of knowledge used to monitor 

water quality is quite different than the type of knowledge used to develop a five-year strategic 

plan. 

The ways of thinking about knowledge introduced above are discussed in depth in the MQI 

research paper “The Depth of Knowledge: Surface, Shallow or Deep?” included in the Resource 

section of the toolkit. 

MANAGING KNOWLEDGE 

Managing knowledge in an organization means ensuring that decision-makers at all levels 

have the ability and the information they need to make the best decisions and take the most effective 

actions. What works, and what doesn’t? Where can employees find and get the right knowledge? 

How does knowledge get to the right individual? How do employees become aware of the 

right knowledge, understand it, feel good about it, and become willing to use it in their work? The 

answers to these questions directly relate to the utility’s business proposition and its success. 

Knowledge Management is the name used to represent the processes and practices of workers as 

they apply and share their knowledge in the workplace. It also represents the ideas, principles and 

practices that leaders/managers take to ensure all employees have and use the best knowledge possible 

in their day-to-day work decisions and actions. 

While a formal definition must resonate with the needs of each specific utility, Knowledge 

Management can be considered a business strategy to improve organizational performance through 

the creation, sharing, leveraging and application of the organization’s knowledge in its day-to-day 

operations. At the leadership level, the challenge is to ensure employees have the right knowledge 

needed for the present and future demands placed on their utility. To maintain utility performance, 

leaders must build and support a culture, structure, and management style that helps employees 

create, share, leverage and apply their knowledge. 

Another way to consider Knowledge Management is as the systematic process of creating, 

maintaining and nurturing an organization to make the best use of knowledge to achieve: (a) efficiency 

of operations; (b) effectiveness of operations; (c) quality of products; and (d) sustainable 

high performance. Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things; quality is 

providing the best products desired; and sustainability is creating a utility that can withstand the 



surprises and shocks that occur over time in the environment. * Simply put, efficiency reduces cost, 

effectiveness produces the right products and services, quality keeps customers happy, and sustainability 

keeps the utility and its performance around for a long time. At any given time different 

utilities will put different emphasis on these measures. However, they are all dependent on the 

actions of every employee every day. 

Thus the real source of overall performance lies in the employees and the knowledge they 

possess and apply. In most utilities there may be someone who knows just how to handle any given 

situation, but does the person with the problem know who that is? As times change, knowledge is 

lost when the past actions no longer work; much is also lost when time is spent trying to find the 

right knowledge to handle a situation. In essence, organizations often do not know what they 

know! 

Another force pressing utilities toward becoming knowledge organizations is the loss of 

senior, experienced people at all levels. Unfortunately, it is often only when the organization loses 

knowledge that it becomes aware of the importance of knowledge. Further, the realization of the 

enormous economic value of people has sparked an intense competition for people, especially 

workers who want to learn, grow and make decisions as they gain experience. The younger workers 

are attracted to knowledge oriented organizations where they are empowered—and held 

responsible. 

As the utility’s environment grows more dynamic, uncertain and complex, knowledge 

becomes of greater importance to overall performance and sustainability. The critical nature of 

water with its associated quality and health requirements, when combined with the complexity of 

the overall utility system make water utilities highly knowledge intensive. 

*Efficiency can be improved by reducing mistakes, optimizing processes, broadening worker responsibilities, 

and reducing time spent searching for documents, information or expertise. Effectiveness improves when 

employees know their job, can learn fast enough to keep up with changing work needs, and know who to 

tell, or ask, relative to the impact of their actions. When employees become aware of where, and why, the 

utility is heading in a given direction, why changes are needed and what their role is, they can take better 

actions to support those goals. Quality of products is not free and it doesn’t come from technology alone, it 

also takes knowledgeable workers who observe carefully, understanding deviations and how to create and 

maintain quality. Sustainability is more complicated and requires continuous employee and organizational 

learning, resilience and adaptability, and preparing for contingencies. It is likely that every utility is already 

using some Knowledge Management now such as teams to resolve internal issues and networks to facilitate 

communication. 

To be optimally effective means to look at the entire utility from a knowledge perspective, making KM 

a central part of overall leadership, management and day-to-day decision-making. It also means treating 

people as a major asset rather than as an expense; it means investing in them, demanding more of them, and 

at the same time supporting their professional growth. In the old days of stability and long range planning, 

senior leaders could make responsible decisions that would determine the organization’s future. Not so 

anymore. It now takes many people in the organization to understand what is going on and to handle the 

uncertainty and surprises that come along. This is why the human element, and the knowledge possessed 

by the workforce, is playing an increasingly important role in determining the organization’s future health. 

It can be said that Knowledge Management is a journey, not a destination. 



PROJECT 4003 RESEARCH FOCUS 

The formal title of this project is “Organizational Development Needed to Implement a 

Knowledge Management Strategy at Water utilities.” The overarching project objectives were: 

(1) identify the benefits and costs of implementing a knowledge management (KM) initiative; 

(2) investigate and identify organizational characteristics and processes (e.g., culture, core planning 

processes, communications, rewards, etc.) critical to the success of implementing a KM initiative; 

(3) develop an assessment tool for drinking water utilities to identify their organization’s 

readiness to plan and implement a KM strategy; and (4) develop a tool kit for establishing or 

enhancing organizational readiness to support a KM strategy and initiatives. Results of this project 

provide a systematic process for drinking water utilities, as business organizations, to facilitate the 

effective implementation of a KM strategy. 

The remaining chapters in this final report are grouped in the following way: 

• Organizations Implementing KM Strategies and Initiatives: Benefits and Costs 

(Chapter 2). 

• The Roles of Leadership and Management in Planning for, Overcoming Resistance to, 

and Successfully Implementing Organizational Structures that Support KM Strategies 

and Initiatives (written from the viewpoint of leadership and management) (Chapter 3). 

• Characteristics of Organizational Structure, Culture, and Staff Roles and 

Responsibilities that Support Successful Knowledge Sharing and Learning 

Organizations (written from the viewpoint of knowledge sharing and learning organizations) 

(Chapter 4). 

• Critical Success Factors and Barriers to Successful Implementation of Knowledge 

Management in Drinking Water utilities (Chapter 5). 

• The Effects of Alignment and Misalignment between a utility’s Core Planning 

Processes and Deployment of a Knowledge Management Strategy or Initiative 

(Chapter 6). 

• An Assessment Tool to Identify Risks, Barriers and Opportunities in Drinking Water 

utilities Relevant to Implementation of a KM Strategy (Chapter 7). 

• A Toolkit for Planning and Implementing Organizational Change Needed to Support 

Implementation of a KM Strategy in Drinking Water utilities. 

The material in these chapters is based on an extensive base of research materials and the 

experience and previous research of the Principal and Co-Principal Investigators. The 4003 

research approach included a survey process, literature review, site visits, leadership and management 

interviews, workshops, focus groups, and development of project studies, case examples and 

case studies focused on KM implementation. See the Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) 4003 

Survey Results in Appendix A. 

As included above, two specific tools resulted from this research. The first is an assessment 

tool used to evaluate a utility’s readiness to implement KM. The second is a toolkit for planning 

and implementing the organizational changes needed for a successful KM strategy or initiative in 

utilities. While the virtual toolkit is a stand-alone product, it also includes down-loadable resource 

documents to support second-order learning. These include tools, ideas and extensive resource 

documents contributed by leaders in the field of Knowledge Management. 



While these resources can serve as rich guides to a drinking water utility’s KM journey, 

because each utility is different and has its own unique situation and context to achieve success it 

is essential that leaders understand their organization, its goals and direction, its strengths and 

weaknesses, and its structure and culture. With this understanding they can then select specific 

areas for change and identify knowledge management initiatives that can facilitate improvements. 

Or, they may decide to implement a Knowledge Management strategy to transform their utility 

into a knowledge centric organization that utilizes information, knowledge, and collaboration to 

the maximum extent. Ultimately, it is informed, intelligent thinking, caring and mission-aligned 

individuals making the best decisions that will take your utility into the future. This approach is the 

first step toward building the utility of the future. 

KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION 

Knowledge mobilization (KMb) is the process of creating value or a value stream through 

the creation, assimilation, leveraging, sharing and application of knowledge. In terms of drinking 

water utilities, KMb is the effective creation, movement and tailoring of specific knowledge from 

its source (research or specialized expertise) to its application (practitioner, utility worker) such 

that consequent actions are effective and sustainable. KMb is focused on new knowledge that has 

emerged (and is emerging) through research and in other parts of the utility (or in other organizations 

with similar issues), with implementation driven by the content of that new knowledge and 

identification of stakeholder groups that “need” to apply that knowledge. The specific knowledge 

involved in WaterRF Project 4003 is knowledge about Knowledge Management and its application 

to drinking water utilities. 

KMb introduces a difference in perspective, with KM being a strategy or initiative that is 

intended to improve organizations through the effective creation, sharing, leveraging and application 

of knowledge, and KMb being a process for moving specific knowledge to action to value in 

a specific situation or location. The KMb approach taken depends on the timing, application, situation 

and needs of the utility and stakeholders it touches. 

Knowledge has the ability to mobilize people, that is, by combining shared understanding 

and a worthwhile goal, people can self-mobilize to make decisions and take action. Researchers 

and decision-makers are jointly responsible for the uptake of research knowledge and a close interaction 

is required between idea generation and idea use, between innovation and the use of innovations, 

between developing solutions, broadcasting solutions, and implementing solutions. This is 

an open feedback loop of continuous questioning and testing that requires openness and critical 

thinking by all parties. In other words, even though the KMb process starts with specific, bounded 

knowledge that needs to be shared across a specific functional area—or perhaps across a specific 

utility—because knowledge is context sensitive and situation dependent, there may be a need for 

the knowledge to be tailored to the place or situation where it is to be used. 

The KMb approach accompanying Project 4003 implementation included a combination of 

events, publications, Internet exchanges and development of meta-tools (the Readiness Assessment 

Instrument and KM Toolkit) that will enable drinking water utilities to plan and implement the 

organizational change needed to support implementation of knowledge management strategies and 

initiatives in drinking water utilities. 

To raise awareness of KM in the drinking water utility industry, over 1224 drinking water 


defining KM and its significance to drinking water utilities) and follow-up telephone interactions. 



CA 

130 

OR 

15 

WA 

46 

NV 

14 

ID 

3 

UT 

10 

MT 

5 

WY 

6 

AZ 

21 NM 

4 

CO 

29 

ND 

3 

SD 

7 

NE 

6 

TX 

51 

KS 

6 

OK 

7 

MN 

35 

IA 

18 

MO 

15 

AR 

13 

LA 

6 

WS 

26 

IL 

36 

MS 

2 

IN 

20 

MI 

33 

TN 19 

AL 

18 

KY 

19 

OH 

36 

GA 

18 

WV 

1 

SC 

14 

FL 

56 

PA 

34 

VA 

30 

NC 

24 

NH 

2 VT 7 ME 

13 

NY 

33 

M 

A 

45 

CT 16 

RI 4 

NJ 19 

DC 

DE 3 

MD 

13 

AK 

7 

HI 

3 

Source: Project 4003 Knowledge Mobilization process. 

Figure 1.2 Number of one-on-one telephone conversations on KM with drinking water utility 

personnel per state 

During this process, 1001 individuals were engaged in one-on-one telephone conversations of 

5–10 minutes in length concerning knowledge and Knowledge Management related to drinking 

water utilities. Figure 1.2 shows the number of these conversations per state. From this process, 33 

project studies were developed representing 22 drinking water utilities (see Chapter 2 and 

Appendix B for further detail). 

During these conversations, Knowledge Management was defined in terms of the pre-determined 

elevator speech, the 4003 research project was detailed, and participation in the survey process 

was requested. Periodically, 3, 4 or 5 individuals in a single utility were engaged before 

individuals were located who identified themselves as the leads for implementation of Knowledge 

Management. As a result of these conversations, an additional 552 surveys were mailed and 25 

were emailed. Since the intent of these multiple mailings was to seed the concepts of Knowledge 

Management, a second set of follow-on telephone calls were initiated where a KM lead had been 

identified. Even where individuals expressed the opinion that they did not feel capable of providing 

this information, a friendly but short conversation pursued to help promote future interest in KM. 

Simultaneously, a Blog was set up and a series of papers and other resource materials provided 

via that vehicle. These included: The Business Case for KM, Issues Faced by Drinking 

Water utilities, Regulatory Perspective for Water utilities, and other KM resources. While the Blog 

process itself was quieter than anticipated throughout this two-year project, 67 drinking water utility 

managers/leaders submitted their survey responses via the Blog page, and 6,498 pages of 

resource materials were downloaded during the course of 1,453 visits. 



In this same time period, the Principal Investigator and Co-principal Investigator facilitated 

workshops and combination focus groups each one-two days in length involving 66 representatives 

from ten geographically-dispersed drinking water utilities. In conjunction with these workshops, 

focus groups and site visits, the Principal Investigator interviewed 25 leaders/managers 

representing 12 drinking water utilities. The drinking water utilities participating in this research 

project are acknowledged at the front of this report. 

During the process of initiating the 1001 telephone conversation with drinking water utility 

personnel on knowledge and Knowledge Management, it was pleasantly noted that almost every 

call was met with interest and cooperation. It appears that Knowledge Management is gradually 

making itself known within the drinking water utility industry. When coupled with the recent 

WaterRF KM research projects, KM presentations at utility conferences and workshops, and the 

number of utility KM project studies gathered through this research (and others that surfaced near 

the end of this project not included in the KM Toolkit), it would appear that a growing number of 

drinking water utilities are taking advantage of KM to better prepare for the uncertain future ahead. 

As these organizations become more experienced with the application and benefits of KM they 

may become knowledge-centric, learning organizations who through knowledge mobilization, 

technological sophistication and collaborative leadership prepare themselves for the challenges 

ahead. 


CHAPTER 2 

ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES AND 

INITIATIVES: BENEFITS AND COSTS 

DRINKING WATER UTILTIES IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES 

Knowledge Management (KM) strategies and initiatives are underway in a large number of 

drinking water utilities. During the WaterRF 4003 survey process, 207 separate drinking water 

utilities provided information about their organizations and the KM and KM-related strategies and 

projects underway. Many of these responders also provided information indicating KM strategies 

and initiatives they were planning to implement and interested in implementing. 

Figure 2.1 shows the survey responses to the following KM strategies and initiatives: 

Action Learning, Communities of Practice, Expert Locator (Yellow Pages), Knowledge Base 

Development, Knowledge Retention, Knowledge Sharing, and Team Based Decision-Making. 

Five additional write-ins included: strategic planning, succession planning and development of 

Operations & Maintenance manuals to capture institutional knowledge for training. 

As indicated by this data, Knowledge Sharing, Team Decision-Making, and Knowledge 

Retention represent the largest number of KM strategies underway in these drinking water utilities. 

There are also a large number of utilities doing Knowledge Base Development. In contrast, the 

largest focus in the planning stage is on Knowledge Retention, followed closely by Knowledge 

Base Development and Expert Locator. The largest focus of expressed interest is on Communities 

of Practice and Expert Locator, followed by Knowledge Base Development and Knowledge 

Retention. See Appendix C for specific details. 


to this survey question are doing—and therefore they are aware of the value of—Knowledge 

Sharing and Team Decision-Making, with still other utilities following down this path. The recent 

and current emphasis in the industry on Knowledge Retention is reflected in the high number of 

responses in all three areas (doing, planning and interested in). Further, the value of developing a 

Knowledge Base is solidly represented in all three areas, indicating a steady movement in this 

direction. Action Learning has solid representation in the doing and interested in areas, with a relatively 

low number of responders in the planning phase. 

The low number of responders doing Communities of Practice and Expert Locator contrasted 

to the larger number of interested responders in these areas indicates a growing awareness 

of these two KM initiatives and their potential value to drinking water utilities. 

SPECIFIC STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES UNDER WAY 



Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. While these project studies include a wide 

range of initiatives underway, they are all connected to knowledge and the increasing recognition 

of the importance of knowledge in drinking water utilities. For example, initiatives not only include 

development of a KM plan, knowledge sharing, retaining retiree knowledge and organizational 

learning, but also include: developing and updating manuals, professional and leadership 

9 



180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Interested In 

Planning 

Doing 

Source: Project 4003 survey process. 

Figure 2.1 Breakout of survey responses regarding the number of KM strategies and 

initiatives in drinking water utilities in terms of those underway, in the Planning stage, or 

those which have sparked interest 

development, public relations, work performance improvement, succession and talent resource 

planning, workforce planning, quality based documentation, training, communications, developing 

document repositories, process and operational improvements, and the use of social network 

analysis. Table 2.1 provides the subject, estimated cost and benefits of each of these projects. It 

also includes the name of the implementing utility and the size of that utility. 

When the estimated cost column states “No cost identified,” the providing utility bundled 

costs with the day-to-day work of the utility. In other words, this aspect of KM was recognized as 

the way work needed to be done and no additional specific costs were identified for implementation. 

Additional details for these studies are included as Appendix B. Each utility has also identified 

a point of contact for additional information. 

EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS IMPLEMENTING KM STRATEGIES AND 

INITIATIVES 

Case Examples 

Twenty-one case examples were identified to provide real-life implementation examples of 

strategies and initiatives applied in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. Many of the initiatives 

implemented in these case examples demonstrate initiatives included in the Tools section of 

the KM Toolkit (see Chapter 8 and Appendix C). While costing data is not available for these 

examples, the benefits as described by the subject organizations are included in Table 2.2. More 

detail for each case example is included in the Resources section of the KM Toolkit under Case 

Examples. 


Chapter 2: Organizations Implementing KM Strategies and Initiatives: Benefits and Costs | 11 

Table 2.1 

Drinking water utility project studies in the KM Toolkit 

# Subject Utility Size Estimated cost Benefits 

1 Organizational 

Efficiency 

Through Team 

Work 

2 Development of 

Operations and 

Maintenance 

Manuals 

3 Professional 

Development 

Initiative—2007 

4 Public Relations 

Initiative—2007 

5 Work 

Performance 

Improvement 

Principles—2007 

6 Succession 

Planning 

7 Employee 

Leadership & 


8 Adopting the 

SOP and Training 

Sessions 

9 Contracted 

a Complete 

Workforce 

Planning Project 

10 Quality Based 

Documentation 

Alexandria 

Sanitation 

Authority 

City of 

Fairborn, OH 

City of 

Moline Water 

Division 

City of 


Division 

City of 


Division 

Columbus 

Water Works 

Columbus 

Water Works 

Loudon 

County 


Authority 

Tualatin 

Valley Water 

District 

Colorado 

Springs 

utility 

118 No additional costs 

were identified 

24 $40,000 is budgeted 

for first manual. It is 

assumed there will 

be similar costs for 

the other areas. 

Increase in worker flexibility and worker 

competencies which were written down 

allowing development of SOPs. 

Will capture the knowledge of senior 

employees, assist employees in the event of 

emergency operations, and provide valuable 

operations and training tools for the future. 

32 No cost identified Increased knowledge and skills will support 

continuing efforts to provide high quality 

economical water and service to our 

customers, enhance safety & efficiency of the 

workplace & keep pace with technological & 

regulatory advances in the water industry. 

32 No cost identified Improved customer service, awareness and 

satisfaction. 

32 No costs noted Improved individual and organizational work 

performance and a better work environment. 

241 No cost identified Better prepared employees; managers 

are more aware of the need to transfer 

knowledge; employees are more motivated 

and excited about personal development 

opportunities. 

241 No cost identified Better trained supervisors who recognize 

their strengths & weaknesses and know the 

value of transferring knowledge to fellow 

employees. 

185 $150,000 to develop 

SOPs $5,000– 

$10,000 per training 

session; staff 

costs are approx. 

2–4 months salary 

and benefits. 

We are seeing a more knowledgeable 

staff, are better able to perform work and 

demonstrate to our staff that we adhere to our 

values & builds trust. 

110 $189,000 Through this exercise they have identified all 

of the critical knowledge of the District. 

2000 No cost identified QBD has freed up organizational resources 

for innovation and creativity. It has reduced 

or eliminated redundancies and the need to 

“reinvent the wheel.” It has filled process 

gaps and reduced risks on the job. 

(continued) 




11 Knowledge 

Management 

through Training 

Greenville 

Water System 

Not 

identified 

$25,000 The on-site training in England gave the 

employees insight into a new concept of 

knowledge management and putting it to 

practical use simply and easily. 

12 Using Contract 

Employees to 

Supplement 

& Prepare for 

Retirements 

13 Increasing the 

Number of SOPs 

14 Converting from 

Paper utility to a 

Geodatabase 


Number of 

Interns Hired 

16 Career Ladder 

Program 

17 Rally a Team 

of Exceptional 

Employees 

18 Hired a 

Private Firm 

to Determine 

the utility’s 

Communication/ 

Knowledge 

Sharing Needs 

19 Computerization 

of all Customer 

Service Records 

20 On the Job 

Training 

City of Grand 

Forks Public 

Water utility 

City of 

Akron Public 

utilities 

Bureau 

City of 

Akron Public 

utilities 

Bureau 

City of 

Akron Public 

utilities 

Bureau 

Waterford 

Township 

Department 

of Public 

Works 

Orlando 

utilities 

Commission 

Rice Lake 

utilities 

Evergreen 

Metro 

District 

Southeast 

Morris 

County 

Municipal 

utilities 

Authority 

Table 2.1 (Continued) 

28.5 No additional costs The utility is able to recruit outside of the 

system for a very talented candidate and put 

him or her into the utility’s system. 

310 No cost identified Improved training programs and the utility 

can tweak SOP’s after a year or two. 

310 $300,000–$500,000 Better data for asset management and can 

make better decisions. This process allows 

the utility to better integrate asset information 

with other applications. 

310 $3,000–$5,000 per 

utility intern 

The ability to hire a new young employee 

with six to nine months of experience. 

53 $40,000 a year Allows the employee to advance with the 

correct licensing based on their knowledge. 

1158 No cost identified Reducing or mitigating utility risk by 

identifying key positions. The utility is not 

running the risk of the employee leaving 

without gathering critical institutional 

knowledge and documenting it. 

11 Several thousands 

of dollars. 

28 At completion 

$500,000 

Employees have the opportunity to realize 

they were not just a part of their individual 

departments; they are a team. The staff— 

including management has learned to 

communicate better. 

The utility can easily look into the future and 

see the long-term possibilities when the plan 

is completed. 

49 No cost identified Employees are able to learn while employed 

in an entry level position and are given the 

opportunity for career advancement. 

(continued) 




21 Retiree Program City of 

Phoenix 

Water 

Services 

Department 

22 Develop 

Organizational 

Learning System 

23 Louisville 

Water Company 

207 System 

Certification 

Process: 



24 LWC System 


Review Process 

25 LWC Process 

& Operational 

Improvements 

26 LWC Talent 

Resource 

Planning/ 

Succession 


27 LWC Individual 


Plans (IDP’s) 

28 Implementation 

of OPCON– 


Keeper Software 

29 Directions 

Program 

Seattle Public 

utilities 

Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

City of 

Cleveland 

Department 

of utilities, 

Division of 


Seattle Public 

utilities 


1400 $200 Employees get an opportunity to receive 

hands-on, one-on-one training from 

experienced retires; the facility does not 

have to allocate remaining experienced staff 

to provide this training. The use of retirees 

allows the Department to pass on critical 

knowledge and skills without adding to the 

workloads of the remaining supervisors and 

subject matter experts. 

1300 No cost identified This initiative draws out natural leaders, early 

adopters and enthusiastic learners. It fosters 

and supports more learning in the department, 

providing the opportunity for developing 

back-up expertise across functional areas. 

450 No cost identified This System Certification Process enables 

the institution to better plan in the areas of 

succession management, knowledge sharing 

and retention, and cross-train. 

450 No cost identified This system certification process allows LWC 

to bring consistency in the documentation 

of work processes, standard operating 

procedures, operating plans, relationship 

charts and flowcharts. 

450 No cost identified See summary of 2007 success, an attachment 

to this project study 

450 No cost identified The implementation of this process improves 

knowledge of bench strength and gaps, 

training needs to be addressed and candid 

conversations with employees on their career 

development and growth within the company. 

450 No cost identified Employees achieve their learning objectives 

and are better prepared to perform their 

current jobs or to take on new responsibilities. 

1150 Monthly 

software program 

subscription fee 

The organization uses this software program 

as a means to support training, succession 

planning, continuous improvement and 

organizational sustainability. 

1300 $175,000 Mentoring has been consistently the highest 

rated activity in the Directions Program. 

This training has been found to be useful to 

individuals. 

(continued) 





30 Cross-utility 

Partnership for 

Safe Drinking 


31 Social Network 

Analysis 

32 Real Estate 

Manager 

33 Sharepoint for 

Sharing Plant 

Operations 

Salt Lake 

City 

Department 

of Public 

utilities 

Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg 

utilities 

Tampa Bay 


City of 

Cleveland, 

Department 

of utilities, 

Division of 


381 No cost identified Through this program water consumers are 

assured that their water provider is committed 

to providing the best quality water possible 

and that each treatment facility has gone 

through a rigorous effort to optimize water 

treatment processes. 

800 Less than $5,000 The SNA tool helps the organizations to 

identify how information is processed 

and stored. It also enables the utilities to 

successfully revitalize and expand their water 

reuse program. 

135 Approx. $50,000 This application provides Operations/ 

Maintenance feedback on use of our property 

to guide future acquisitions (i.e., existing 

easement widths for comparative facilities) 

and better enforce our existing land rights 

(against encroachment) as well as perform our 

real estate obligations (mowing, maintenance 

of appearance, etc.) more efficiently. 

1150 Program was 

bundled in 

Microsoft package 

One of the benefits that have been seen by the 

usage of this program is the calendar that lets 

the user know when chemical deliveries are 

and who is working. In addition this program 

provides easy access to the Documents such 

as; Standard Operator Procedures, work aides 

and safety issues. This program allows for the 

utility to have the critical information needed 

at their fingertips 

Case Studies 

In addition, five case studies are provided as part of the KM Toolkit. These are: The 

Department of the Navy; Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing 

Countries); NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) (one on Web-Based 

Collaborative Decision Support and one on KM at NASA-Kennedy Space Center); and Singapore 

Water Strategies. 

The Department of the Navy: The DON Moves Into the Knowledge World 

The Department of the Navy (DON) became aware of the need to implement knowledge 

management strategies to optimize strategic and tactical decision making, resulting in more effective 

and efficient mission performance. The DON’s vision for the future was to obtain Knowledge 

Superiority, a sustainable competitive advantage over potential enemies, by sharing knowledge 

through an interactive network system. The institution considers knowledge management as a 

process for optimizing the effective application of intellectual individual, team-based and corporate 

capital to achieve organizational objectives. Thus, they developed a knowledge management 



Table 2.2 

Case example of strategies and initiatives, and benefits 

# Organization Representative Initiatives Benefits Identified by Organization 

1 ReVisions (Small 

behavior health care 

organization of about 

50 employees) 

Knowledge audit 

Interviews 

Knowledge map 

Able to design a more effective system to meet 

the needs of its employees 

Sources of expertise located and mapped 

Information and knowledge gaps identified 

Uncovered efficiency and effectiveness issues 

and provided information and knowledge 

needed to mitigate those issues 

2 Mitre Corporation Knowledge audit Reduction in number of administrative 

personnel needed to process requests from 

KM system 

Improved staff productivity 

Increase in the knowledge base 

Sharing of expertise 

Identification of knowledge gaps 

3 Hill and Knowlton Knowledge sharing system [Identifies barriers to successful 

implementation] 

4 Chrysler Corporation Communities of practice 

Social networking 

“Engineering Book of Knowledge” 

Cycle time has been reduced by half 

5 Natural Resources 

Canada (Leading 

government 

organization for shaping 

the contributions of 

natural resources 

to the Canadian 

economy, society and 

environment) 

6 Shell Exploration & 

Production (SHELL 

HP) 

Describe, measure and manage 

knowledge services 

Knowledge sharing 

Knowledge flow 

Staff competence maps to locate 

expertise 

Communities of practice 

After action reviews 

Peer assists 

Discipline portals 

Workplace learning 

Formalizing the role of technical 

experts 

Simplified coaching and mentoring 

Better decisions and actions including the 

ability to: 

Better respond to natural resources knowledge 

markets 

Evaluate and improve system performance 

Diagnose and fix system problems 

Establish priorities for system outputs and 

outcomes 

Identify the risks of and opportunities for 

system development options 

Allocate resource to adapt programs to better 

serve customers and other Canadians 

KM a critical enabler for all activities of the 

organization 

7 The U.S. Army After action review Mission critical continuous learning cycle 

Culture of learning 

(continued) 




8 National Water 

Resources Institute 

(NWRI) Nigeria 

9 The Socio Economic 

Unit Foundation(SEUF) 

India (Professional 

non-governmental 

organization working 

with communities 

in India to promote 

sustainable socio 

economic development) 

10 Institute of Water and 

Sanitation Development 

(IWSD) Zimbabwe 

KM workshop 

KM plans 


KM workshop 

KM plan 

Case studies 

Regular process reporting 

Diary writing 

KM workshop 

KM plans 


Expertise locator 

11 TREND Ghana KM workshop 

KM plan 

Development of knowledge 

products 

Quarterly sharing event 

12 AMRED Kenya KM workshop 

KM champions 

KM scan 

(Social network analysis) 

13 Federal Aviation 

Administration 

14 Defense Information 

Agency 


Developing a Knowledge Services 

Network (KSN) 

Pilot project 

Embedded facilitators 

Knowledge-Based Organization 

Knowledge Lab 

Social network analysis 

Critical discourse 

Collaboration for success 

Mentoring 

Storytelling 

Other pilot programs 

Knowledge organized in utilizable forms 

Knowledge sharing became central 

Documentation and dissemination of knowledge 

was underway to the various stakeholders 

ALSO, structural changes: 

Institutionalized services to key stakeholders 

Developed strategies to reactivate 

and strengthen documentation and 

disseminations services 

Expanded outreach training system to other 

sectors 

Reorganized their consultancy unit 

Sharing of information and knowledge 

transiting SEUF from an implementer to a 

resource organization 

Improvement in knowledge creation and flow 

Consultancy became a major activity 

Mitigation of knowledge loss 

New innovative ideas 

KM an aspect of all TREND activities 

approached from angles of information 

and communication technology, human 

resource management, office and workplace 

institution and organization set-up 

Key tool for internal communication 

Managers have adjusted their management 

styles 

KM part of everyday work 

Transforming into a learning and sharing 


Virtual work environment 

Business functions extended to anytime and 

anywhere 

Adoption rate reduced from months to weeks 

Offers executives and project managers 

benefits of new and best practices for their 

organizations 

(continued) 




15 U.S. Army Team 

Command, Control, 

Communications, 

Common approach for capture of 

tacit knowledge 

Locate an expert/Ask the expert 

“Knowledge capture is essential to our mission” 

Computers, Intelligence, Communities of Practice 

Surveillance 

Reconnaissance 

Knowledge harvesting 

Key learnings document 

(TEAM C4ISR) 

16 Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) 


Lessons learned repository 

Taxonomy development 

Knowledge mapping process 


Best practices manuals 

Succession planning 

17 U.S. AID Knowledge sharing 

After action reviews 

Communities 

Knowledge coordinators 

18 USDA/Foreign 

Agricultural Service 

19 Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) 

Knowledge-Centric Organization 

Communication software 


Success stories 

Customer relationship management 

Case studies 

Wikis 

Blogs 

eTraining 

eLearning environment 

20 IBM Social computing 

Blogging 

Social web applications 

Social networking 


Strong networks supporting knowledge 

redundancy and communities of practice 

Integration of lessons learned across agency 

Consistent collection, indexing, and access of 

lessons learned 

Identification of core competencies needed for 

the future 

Full and effective utilization of division 

resources 

Improved communication 

Inspectors able to spend more time in the field 

while simultaneously producing statewide 

consistent records 

Facilitated the statewide adoption of project 

management tools and practices 

Documented who, what, when, where and 

why of required Federal Highway Agency 

processes 

Effective during tsunami reconstruction, flood 

response, and hurricane responses 

Innovation in developing solutions 

Data available sooner and easier to maintain 

and share 

Simplified and improved user support 

Significantly improved security, performance 

and efficiency 

Up-to-date contact information 

More tangible knowledge built on potentially 

“real-time” market intelligence 

Easy generation and distribution of success 

stories 

Reduction of manual methods of information 

entry and communication 

Communications managed strategically 

Improved measuring capabilities 

Expanded access to free and for-fee courseware, 

electronic books and virtual tutoring 

Expanded area of outreach and awareness 

Empowered employees as global professionals, 

innovators and citizens 

Increased creativity and innovation 

(continued) 





21 National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration (NASA) 


Collaborative decision support 

model 

22 U.S. Forest Service Lessons learned 

Organizational learning 

Benchmarking 


Systematic problem solving 

Source: Project 4003 Research. 

Mission critical 

More effective communications at all levels 

Improved decision support 

Increased knowledge and insights 

Helps people think more clearly about how to 

perform their work 

Helps contain unexpected events, conditions 

and circumstances 

Ensures safer and more effective day-to-day 

outcomes that have the potential to escalate 

beyond control 

implementation framework built around five balanced concepts: technology, content, process, culture 

and learning. 

Another core element was the development of a Knowledge Management Community of 

Practice (CoP) which now includes more than 50 participating organizations and gets its support 

through the web and actively exchanges ideas and best practices virtually. 

The overarching message of this case study is that: “There is something here of value. 

Knowledge management offers an opportunity for us to do what we do better.” The outcomes of 

this approach were described in terms of: 

• An integrated, results-oriented Navy and Marine Corps team characterized by strategic 

leadership, ubiquitous communication, and invisible technology; 

• An effective, flexible, and sustainable Department of the Navy enterprise-wide information 

and technology environment that enables our people to make and implement 

efficient and agile business decision; and 

• A Knowledge-Centric culture where trust and respect facilitate information sharing 

and organizational learning. 

Specific initiatives and their benefits are also discussed in this case study. 

Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries): Design and 

Practical Experiences With the Learn@WELL Knowledge Management Module 

This case study introduces knowledge management and describes how it is being implemented 

to partners in Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries) 

through the Learn@WELL knowledge management distance-learning module. This module is a 

value chain model and is also known as knowledge lifecycle, which is driven by the operational 

goals flowing from an organization’s mission and vision. These goals can be accomplished by 

creating, sharing, applying and evaluating knowledge. 

Learn@WELL intended to strengthen its network system by implementing the knowledge 

management module in small steps through the application of different tools, such as communities 



of practice, personal mapping, a knowledge management scan and developing a knowledge management 

plan by internal and external information sharing. 

One of the benefits accrued is the strengthening of networks through capacity building 

resulting in the provision of improved services. Further, their KM approach has facilitated identification 

of processes that need improvement to achieve organizational goals. Important signs of 

progress are identified as: an awareness that KM is more than knowledge sharing, that KM differs 

from IM, that KM may entail IT and, most important, that KM starts in the personal realm. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): A Case Study of Web-Based 

Collaborative Decision Support at NASA 

NASA is a knowledge intensive organization, dedicated to the mission of human space 

flight, space science, Earth observation and aeronautics research. In this article the design, progression, 

implementation, application, value and future vision of Postdoc, a web-based collaborative 

knowledge management platform system developed by NASA and written in the language Perl, is 

described. It is currently also being used by other parts of the Federal Government including the 

Department of Defense and The Naval Research Laboratory. The platform enables NASA and 

various other organizations to share mission-critical information in real time based on inputs from 

virtually networked national and international expert teams in multiple domains and thus produce 

efficient decisions. It is also an effective means for organizing, storing and retrieving data and 

information of all types. 

Postdoc has demonstrated the ability to serve as the foundation to build NASA’s collaborative 

information management capability by strengthening functionalities for knowledge sharing, 

and serving as the infrastructure for integration of other virtual collaborative interfaces. It allows 

users to tailor their documentation systems to their processes and work habits within their time 

constraints. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): Knowledge Management 

at NASA-Kennedy Space Center 

Kennedy Space Center (KSC) implemented technical and socio-structural knowledge management 

initiatives by instituting a knowledge management working group which consisted of 

contacts and consultant experts across the Center, reporting to the Human Resource Development 

board. They focused on gaining an understanding of the needs of the organization for competency 

management and on tacit knowledge capture and dissemination. 

The knowledge management working group also developed “Expert Seeker” a Centerwide 

expertise locator system which can be accessed via/through NASA’s intranet. KSC’s vision 

for the future of Knowledge Management is to share and retain organizational knowledge through 

technology, such as web-based chats between individuals within or outside the agency, in an 

increasingly demanding environment. 

Assessing the impact of Expert Seeker, a member of the KSC Knowledge Management 

Working Group said, “This tool will allow the organization to share resources, do away with functional 

silos, and allow employees to cross organizational lines.” 



Singapore Water Strategies: A Case Study on Integrating Technological Innovation 

and Community Engagement 

Singapore’s Water Agency Public Utilities Board has become a world leader in terms of 

water supply and wastewater management. They oversee four national taps: local catchment water, 

imported water, NEWater (water reclamation) and desalinated water. NEWater is an example of 

Singapore’s continuous investment in research and technology. It is mainly used for wafer manufacturing 

industries and air-conditioning cooling towers in commercial buildings, however, there 

is an ongoing effort to educate the population of Singapore to accept NEWater as safe for drinking. 

It has created a highly successful program to make all citizens aware and appreciative of the 

importance of drinking water, its availability, processing and quality. 

The ultimate goal of Singapore’s approach is to achieve self-sufficiency in water. By 2011, 

together with water from its reservoirs, desalination, and recycling plant, Singapore expects to no 

longer be considered water-stressed. 

SUMMARY 

It is clear from the benefits and costs collected for project studies internal to the drinking 

water utility industry, and the external case examples and studies and the indicated benefits, that 

there is a wide diversity of benefits and costs highly dependent on context and situation. The 

Readiness Assessment Instrument and KM Toolkit developed during the 4003 Project research 

study is provided to enable leaders, managers and knowledge workers to make an informed decision 

regarding implementation of KM strategies and initiatives in their utility. 


CHAPTER 3 

ROLES OF LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT 

This chapter discusses the roles of leadership and management in planning for, overcoming 

resistance to, and successfully implementing organizational structures that support KM strategies 

and initiatives. Organizational structures consist of policies, procedures, rewards and development 

processes. The distinction between KM strategies and KM initiatives is significant in that KM 

strategies imply that the effort will encompass the entire utility while KM initiatives address specific 

subsets of a utility such as a department or a division. KM initiatives are typically easier to 

implement because they encompass a smaller group of individuals, usually of a common culture 

who are used to sharing information and knowledge. KM strategies generally include several KM 

initiatives. Senior leadership (taken to mean the general manager) could have a significant role in 

a KM strategy, whereas a KM initiative may emphasize the role of the senior manager in charge of 

the department or division. 

Leadership roles are described in each of the following categories: Planning, Overcoming 

Resistance, and Implementing Organizational Structures. 

PLANNING FOR KM STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES 

In planning for KM strategies, senior leadership and his/her direct reports, play a significant 

role in a number of areas. These areas include: 

• Gaining and maintaining governance group support. This is critical to program success. 

These individuals may be interested in observing and following the progress of 

the KM strategy and must be kept current. 

• Ensuring a credible business case. Another role of senior leadership is to ensure that a 

credible business case has been made for the KM strategy and in some cases key individuals 

in the utilities external environment are aware of the strategy and the contribution 

it will make to the utilities future. 

• Ensuring adequate financial resources. Another role of senior leadership during the 

planning stage would be to ensure adequate financial resources are made available to 

ensure successful implementation of the KM strategy. 

The personal interests of senior leadership (the general manager and all direct reports) will 

substantially contribute to the Planning stage of the KM strategy. Since the entire utility will likely 

be affected by the KM strategy, the senior leadership’s involvement early in the planning stage will 

ensure that they have the opportunity to contribute their experience, bring up their concerns, 

develop a good understanding of the purpose and intent of the KM strategy and give them a sense 

of ownership that will carry over to the implementation phase. 

Early in the Planning phase, the senior leader could bring his/her senior management staff 

together to ensure that they understand the purpose and organizational benefit of the KM strategy 

and that the management staff will provide personal and visible support to the KM team. When 

senior leaders take an active interest in the KM strategy, the managers who report to them will 

most likely cooperate and support the KM implementation team. 

21 



OVERCOMING RESISTANCE TO KM STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES 

Resistance can come from a number of sources within the utility: from individual senior 

leaders, from department and division managers, from unions, from the governance body and from 

all levels of the workforce. Any potentially significant organizational change creates uncertainty, 

concern and often fear, all of which may result in workforce resistance. Overcoming such resistance 

is a challenge to both leadership and management. 

A core role of leadership is to ensure employees have a consistent understanding of the 

vision, mission and purpose of the utility. By connecting the KM strategy or initiative directly to 

the vision and mission of the utility through the anticipated improved performance, the leader may 

reduce, or at least minimize resistance from the employees. Further, by ensuring that key employees 

involved in the KM strategy are aware of its importance and contribution to the utility and by 

rewarding those employees who contribute substantially to implementation of the KM strategy, 

leaders can communicate to the entire workforce the relevance and importance of the strategy and 

thereby reduce overall workforce resistance. 

Leadership Support and Visibility 

Leadership can help reduce resistance to KM strategies and initiatives by clearly demonstrating 

interest and their backing of the proposed changes. Talking with employees and explaining 

the purpose and benefit of KM strategies and initiatives demonstrates leadership commitment to 

project success and lets the workforce know that the strategies and initiatives are not short-lived, 

but are serious programs to enhance the utilities performance. Recognizing that people do not 

change easily or quickly, implementation of KM strategies and initiatives requires continued leadership 

interest, oversight, presence, and sometimes active involvement, coupled with the repeated 

message that KM is essential to the future of the utility. 

Potential approaches to ensuring that leaders of large and some small utilities achieve visibility 

are included in the Ideas section of the KM Toolkit and include: 

• Develop a short video, beginning with a two-minute opening by the senior leader of 

the organization, and featuring project leaders talking about their early successes. 

Have the senior leader hand-write notes to accompany copies of the video to managers 

throughout the organization, asking them to ensure that every employee has the 

opportunity to see and discuss the video with their supervisors. 

• Develop pass-it-down training, beginning at the very top of the organization. The 

concept of pass-it-down training is that leaders at all levels have the opportunity to 

impress on workers and teams the importance and significance of Knowledge 

Management and the specific initiative or strategy that is being implemented. This 

process has the added benefit of ensuring that organizational leadership fully understands 

the new initiative or strategy and how it will operate. Teaching and facilitation 

are forms of learning and leading. 

• Hold a Town Hall, featuring senior leadership, virtually supported (television, video) 

to facilitate geographically dispersed organizations and stakeholders, with live connectivity 

via telephone and computers. Much like a telethon, this event will offer the 

opportunity for workers at all levels to interact with senior leadership, voicing their 

concerns and ideas and receiving an immediate response, even if that response is: “We 


Chapter 3: Roles of Leadership and Management | 23 

need to think more about that.” This process, called Event Intermediation, ensures a 

point in time where all senior leaders, managers and employees understand the importance 

of the KM initiative or strategy and have an awareness of their areas of responsibility 

to help ensure success. Event Intermediation is included as a Tool in the KM 

Toolkit. 

• Capture quotes from leaders, managers and champions and embed these in presentations, 

both internal and external, at every level of the organization. 

• Hold a Knowledge Fair where every functional and organizational area is featured 

showing how they are contributing to achieving the KM vision. Have senior leadership 

open the fair, and include enjoyable, memorable events centered around the way 

the organization needs to work, with members of the organization participating in the 

presentation. (Remember, emotion aids memory.) Create a groundswell of sharing 

and understanding by opening the fair to employees and the larger stakeholder group. 

• Develop a virtual CD or portal-based reference tool about the knowledge fair, town 

hall, or other large group event capturing people talking about their projects and contributions 

and leaders talking about their organizational, all focused on their contribution 

to achieving a knowledge centric organization. Make this easily available to 

employees and stakeholders. 

Leaders and Managers as Change Agents 

Every leader and manager working to improve the way their utility achieves its mission 

takes on the role of a change agent. Because knowledge—and by extension KM—is at the core of 

every individual’s contribution to the mission of the utility, implementation of a KM strategy or 

initiative is no exception. Further, an organization cannot change in a vacuum. This means that as 

changes occur within a utility, other parts of the utility and its stakeholders need to be changing as 

well. This also means that as the environment changes, the state-of-the-art changes, or another utility 

discovers a better way of doing things. Leadership must be willing to consider, evaluate and, as 

appropriate, embrace these changes. 

While leadership visibility is critical, more is required of a change agent. Beyond being 

aware of the desired changes, employees have to understand them, believe they are necessary for 

the health of the utility, feel good about them, take ownership of them, feel empowered to do them 

and recognize the impact of doing them. 

In the Project 4003 survey, 163 responders (78.8%) of 207 responders said yes, their 

employees were learning fast enough to keep up with the changes needed by their utility. Five 

other responders said both yes and no, indicating that the answer was dependent on the experience 

and desires of the employee, and the time/resources allowed. In the space offered for comments, 

79 responders added comments. The largest portion of these comments (30.3%) focused on training. 

Half of these praised their organization’s training program; the other half called out specific 

training needs. The next largest portion were comments about the difficulty of change (19%). 

Other areas of comment were technology (ranging from “not keeping pace” to “new technology is 

slow to take hold within department” to “technological advance is too fast for some baby boomers”); 

knowledge retention (“new hires are slow in retaining information and practices shared with 

them by more senior members”); and communication (“need to disseminate information” to 

“roundtable discussions, conferences, quarterly discussions in-house between employees and 

management”). 



Similarly, the mean for the level of employee learning was 3.60 with a low standard deviation. 

However, only 139 of the 207 responders participated in assessing this question, the lowest 

response for any question. This could indicate either a lack of knowledge or a hesitance to make a 

judgment in this area. Either response from a leader/manager indicates the need to pay more attention 

to this area. 

In utilities that have historically created silos in which managers govern their own areas 

with minimum cooperation and/or communication between departments, the role of senior leadership 

becomes one of breaking down the silos and getting managers to cooperate and collaborate to 

ensure uniform and maximum effectiveness of the KM strategies. Where managers are reluctant to 

allow their workers to participate in support of KM strategies or initiatives, the leadership role 

becomes one of stepping in and communicating to managers the priority and importance of the 

KM strategy relative to long-term utility performance. Many KM strategies require knowledge 

sharing among multiple parts of the utility. This can only happen if the utility’s managers support 

their workers in collaborating and working together to share knowledge to ensure effective 

performance. 

Managers can reduce resistance to KM strategies or initiatives by discussing them with 

their employees during staff meetings and taking other opportunities to communicate the importance, 

purpose and expected payoff. By creating conversations and dialogues with their employees, 

managers have an opportunity to communicate the value of the strategies and initiatives while 

at the same time explaining their long-term contribution to the health of the utility. To the degree 

that the employees understand the values of the strategies and initiatives and their own roles in the 

implementation process, they will be more cooperative and are more likely to contribute to 

the overall success of the KM effort. The more that employees understand, accept and believe in 

the value of KM, the less resistive they will be and the more they will participate in and contribute 

to KM efforts. 

Trust 

If there is a low level of trust between managers and the workforce or if the employees have 

seen previous “programs” start and then die a slow death, both leaders and managers face a challenging 

situation. One approach is to have both leaders and managers create teams among their 

employees with specific action items in support of the KM strategy or initiatives. By participating 

in these teams and encouraging open communication and collaboration on the importance of the 

success of the KM strategy or initiative, the managers and leaders can open the door to effective 

dialogue and an improved understanding and communication that can reduce resistance to change 

and enhance the success of the KM strategy or initiative. 

• Develop a leadership-supported “My Story” program (the sharing of stories by utility 

members on who they are and what they offer the team), and an “Encouragement 

List” (three positive things about each member of the utility that affirm that individual’s 

worth as a knowledge source and contribution to the utility). These are used to 

introduce individuals during meetings, provide examples where appropriate, and 

design knowledge sharing events such as lunchtime exchanges. 

• Develop and facilitate a “Care to Share” Blog on anything utility members care to 

share with each other about hobbies, interests, trips, photos, etc. 



• Support social networking. Social capital is developed through trust, dialogue, collaboration 

and reciprocity. The way in which social networks are created reveals the 

ways in which social capital is realized, such as friendship (one to few) or virtual communities 

(one to many). Trust is built over time from personal experience (I know 

you), shared experience (we both worked on the same project), transfer of trust 

(I know someone who knows you) and shared values (we operate by the same rules). 

These social networks can be a primary way of doing business, especially if senior 

leadership and management set the example and the tone. 

Consistency of the behaviors of leadership and management is important in building trust, 

as is making sure that there is follow-through between what an individual says they will do and 

what they do. As noted above, trust is built over time, between two individuals who are always 

honest with each other, are supportive of others and follow-through on their promises. Trust takes 

considerable time to create and can be broken in a single incident, misunderstanding or by a simple 

mistake. For person “A” to share their knowledge with person “B,” person A must believe that B 

will not misuse that knowledge, will not use that knowledge against “A” and, if A needs some 

knowledge that B has, B will reciprocate the knowledge sharing. 

The good news from the Project 4003 survey response is that the mean for the level of trust 

among employees on a five-point Likert scale was 3.69 with a median of 4. This is one of the 

higher means in the survey. In other words, while there is a disparity in responses ranging from 

very poor to very well, the leaders and managers felt more positive about the level of trust among 

employees than other areas assessed such as level of process discipline (3.24 mean) and the level 

of information system integration (information is consistent and accessible) (3.08 mean). 

IMPLEMENTING ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES THAT SUPPORT KM 

STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES 

As introduced in Chapter 4, in the Project 4003 survey process, leaders and managers were 

asked: How well does your organizational structure support the sharing of information and knowledge? 

Two hundred three responders to this question covered the sphere from very poorly to very 

well with a median value of 3 (okay) and a mean of 3.59. 

Policies and Directives 

Leadership roles relative to implementing organizational structures that support KM strategies 

and initiatives begin with ensuring that before initiating a KM strategy or initiative the current 

policies are not contradictory or adverse to the fundamental tenets of Knowledge Management that 

is, the creation, sharing, leveraging and application of knowledge. Where conflict arises between 

policies, or where historical policies are detrimental to KM strategies or initiatives, leadership 

needs to have these policies reviewed and updated or make a conscious choice to allow KM strategies 

or initiatives to work around these policies as needed. 

In the Project 4003 survey response, when asked to assess the flexibility of organizational 

policies, the mean for 206 responses was 3.26. The mean of the means—which provides the average 

response for this survey—is 3.44. This indicates that the flexibility of organizational policies 

is considered lower than average. 



From another perspective, leadership could consider creating new policies which would 

enhance widespread knowledge sharing, communication and the creation of new ideas within and 

across the utility. For example, creating physical spaces where employees could hear ideas and 

solve problems together in an informal, comfortable environment is likely to considerably enhance 

the sharing of information and knowledge. Encouraging dialogue during briefings or staff meetings 

and requiring employees who attend conferences to brief all interested coworkers upon their 

return are easily implemented policies that provide a large payoff. 

Another example is developing proactive but practical succession planning policies and 

procedures that result in smooth transitions and minimum loss of expertise when experienced 

employees retire or leave the utility. 

Leaders and managers can also provide resources such as training and technology that help 

employees transfer and share information throughout their organization. During briefings and staff 

meetings, they can also discuss the importance of creating a knowledge centric utility in which 

knowledge forms an important and central feature in their overall operation and performance. (See 

the Planning phase of the KM Toolkit for examples of implementing KM strategies.) 

Recognition and Rewards Program 

Just as there is inevitable resistance to change in every utility, there are also dedicated 

employees who have already identified the need for KM and are either in the process of implementing 

KM initiatives or seriously considering implementation. While they may not recognize 

that these initiatives fall under the rubric of KM, nonetheless they will have already recognized the 

value of knowledge and how it can improve their scope of work. It is these forward-thinking individuals 

who need to be recognized and rewarded, and their successes shared across the utility. 

Ideas for recognition and rewards programs in the KM Toolkit include: 

• Knowledge in Action Award. An annual award given out to those individuals who 

have leveraged the utility knowledge infrastructure, knowledge assets, expertise 

directory or best practices to deliver meaningful value to their project or business unit. 

Nominations for these awards can be submitted by anyone in the utility who can tell 

a story about how utility knowledge has been leveraged, either about themselves or 

others. Provides opportunity to simultaneously acknowledge sources of leveraged 

knowledge. 

• Not Invented Here Award. Create a new award that promotes desired behaviors. For 

example, Texas Instruments created the NIHBIDIA Award (Not Invented Here But I 

Did It Anyway). These are awarded annually by senior leadership. 

• Peer Recognition. Meaningful recognition can come from peers as well as leadership. 

utility employees at all levels should be encouraged to acknowledge individual 

and organizational contributions on a personal level. If knowledge culled from the 

knowledgebase is useful to an employee’s work, that employee should reach out to the 

contributor and personally acknowledge the contribution. This doesn’t need to be formal. 

A simple phone call or email expressing appreciation works. 

• Peer Nomination for Awards. Peer nomination for rewards can be especially valued. 

An example is a team of individuals contributing lessons learned on a particular project 

to the utility knowledgebase. A second team utilizes these lessons on a similar 

project, resulting in improved decision-making capability and improved results. The 



Empowerment 

second team then nominates the first team for some kind of reward and recognition 

based on these results. 

• Recognition by the Project Leader. The project leader should continuously promote 

and publicize individual and group or team contributions to organizational goals. 

Contributors can be recognized in newsletters, on web sites, at staff meeting, during 

special luncheons, and so forth. 

• Recognition by Senior Leadership. Another mechanism for project leaders to recognize 

contributors is to inform senior leadership of success stories. This information 

should be accompanied by a request for a personal note of appreciation from senior 

leadership to the individuals or groups/teams commending their work and acknowledging 

how their contribution has made a difference to the mission of the utility. 

• Utility Shared Knowledge Award. Develop an incentive program for the quarterly 

and yearly awarding of incentive awards (certificates, coins, small statues) for the 

shared knowledge voted by organizational members to be the most helpful to the 

organization. 

Empowered employees make empowered decisions in their day-to-day work. Knowledge 

that is essential to the success of the utility resides in people at all levels. Further, since knowledge 

needs shift and change in response to new demands and ideas from the environment, no single 

individual or group of individuals can have all the knowledge necessary to run a utility. For leaders 

and the utility to take advantage of worker’s knowledge and experience for organizational improvement, 

the context, direction and authority to make local decisions should be at the point of action 

where the best knowledge resides. 

If the utility’s workforce has not been empowered in the past, and hence may not understand 

what knowledge sharing means among employees, it falls on the leaders and managers to 

begin a process of working with their employees and sharing their knowledge of the relevant 

aspects of the utility. Knowledge represents the initial step toward creating an empowered workforce 

that can develop and implement the knowledge needed to ensure effective actions are taken 

on a daily basis throughout the utility. Overcoming the resistance of an un-empowered workforce 

cannot happen quickly or easily. Leadership and management must be patient, consistent, and 

dedicated to working with employees to change the culture from one that is un-empowered to one 

that is empowered. 

As shown above, there are many actions that leadership and management can take to support 

the planning for, overcoming resistance to and successfully implementing organizational 

structure that support KM strategies and initiatives. Many more ideas are included in the KM 

Toolkit. Good organizational structures provide an environment within which both employees and 

managers can work together for the long-term benefit of the utility. 



CHAPTER 4 

CHARACTERISTICS THAT SUPPORT KNOWLEDGE SHARING 

AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS 

This chapter discusses the characteristics of organizational structure and staff roles and 

responsibilities that support successful knowledge sharing and learning organizations. 

Question 8 of the Project 4003 survey asked: How well does your organizational structure 

support sharing of information and knowledge? On a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 1 representing 

“very poorly” and 5 representing “very well,” the mean of the 203 responses to this question was 

3.59 and the median was 4. This was among the higher scoring answers to the questions involving 

characteristics of the utilities. For example, the amount of knowledge sharing among managers has 

a mean of 3.70, the level of trust among employees has a mean of 3.69, and the level of employee 

learning has a mean of 3.59. All the rest of the questions relating to utility characteristics are lower 

than 3.59, some considerably lower. The level of communication between departments has a mean 

of 3.46. 

In contrast, the ability of the human resource department to support learning and knowledge 

sharing has a mean of 3.22, well below the mean of the means (the average mean for survey 

response) of 3.44. This shows the perception that the organizational structure supports the sharing 

of information and knowledge better than the human resource department. 

In answer to the question, Are your employees learning fast enough to keep up with the 

changes needed by your organization? 159 responders said yes and 48 responders said no. This 

would indicate that roughly three out of four utilities felt that their employees are learning fast 

enough to keep up with the changes. The starting point for further discussion is the first part of the 

questions implied by the title of this chapter. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF A UTILITY’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 

THAT SUPPORT SUCCESSFUL KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND LEARNING 

ORGANIZATIONS 

There are a number of factors that play a significant role in the structure that supports successful 

knowledge sharing and learning organizations. The first factor is authority, responsibility 

and accountability. For example, in teams all team members carry equal responsibility for results, 

although the team leader has more responsibility for the team’s performance than team members. 

Decisions are made by the team, not by the team leader acting alone. Leaders and their teams can 

be held accountable for long-term results, and for creating a local culture and atmosphere in which 

the workforce can be empowered, collaborative, and self-organizing. 

The second factor is roles and responsibilities. In a knowledge organization leaders take on 

new roles and responsibilities. It is their role as gardener (not decision-maker) to give up some 

degree of authority while retaining responsibility, admitting that they may not know more than 

their knowledge workers about any given problem, and trusting in their people to think and do the 

right things. Leaders are available for advice; for integrating the efforts of their knowledge workers 

when needed; for nurturing an atmosphere of trust, collaboration, confidence, and integrity; for 

listening and being a sounding board; and for overriding their knowledge workers only when they 

believe that a fatal mistake is about to be made. Leaders are accountable for getting results and 

supporting their knowledge workers. 

29 



The third factor is technology. Technology plays a strong role in support of knowledge 

sharing by providing information resources, network and communication technologies; knowledge, 

virtual learning, and community collaboration systems; and team collaboration artifacts such 

as electronic whiteboards, displays, and software packages. Video conferencing and the use of an 

Intranet and the Internet greatly affect how information and knowledge are created and shared. 

Coupled with good information management, technology helps create and support the flow of 

information (and knowledge) across the utility. 

On Likert scale from 1 (very poorly) to 5 (very well), 205 responders to the Project 4003 

survey valued the level of information system integration (information consistent and accessible) 

at a mean of 3.08. This represents the lowest mean in the survey, and is considerably below the 

mean of the means (the average of the overall survey response) of 3.44. Further, the mean was 3.35 

for the quality of information contained in IT systems. See the discussion of the relationship 

between information technology, information management and KM at the end of Chapter 6. 

As technology changes the way that work gets done, it influences the culture. While ideally 

technology in the future would be invisible, currently it is this interrelationship between workers, 

software, and hardware that changes work processes and thereby knowledge worker behavior. 

The fourth factor is time and space. Time can be an ally or an enemy, depending on the 

utility’s understanding of it and the resources available to respond to emergent opportunities and 

threats. One aspect of time is as a boundary condition for focused sharing and interactions. For 

example, in Relationship Network Management employees manage their interactions to sustain 

trust and respect in their relations, thereby ensuring future access to their network, a necessity for 

quick response. Ideas flow across organizations in a nonlinear fashion, and the path cannot always 

be traced by cause-and-effect relationships. Space represents part of the context within which 

knowledge is shared. For example, spatial surroundings play a large role in the efficiency and 

effectiveness of teams as they meet to create ideas or solve problems. 

The fifth factor is policies and rules. While some rules may be required, free knowledge 

flows and creativity respond better to directives in the form of guidance. Some generic ideas that 

foster the nature and spirit of knowledge sharing are: 

• Everyone has access to anyone in the utility. 

• No one can say “no” to a new idea except a senior leader. 

• All prioritized e-mails and phone calls are answered within 24 hours. 

• If time is short and no one is available, make the decision and explain later. 

• Use a team and personal network for all difficult decision. 

• Everyone knows the size of their action space (boundaries of their influence); everyone 

tries to earn a larger space. 

• At staff meetings, leaders take the time to ensure employees understand the line-ofsight 

question, the direction and values of the utility. (Line-of-sight refers to the clear 

connection between what an employee does every day and how it contributes to the 

mission and purpose of the utility.) 

• Context and potential consequences are always addressed before any significant action 

is taken. 

• Real-time lessons learned and after action reports are prepared and disseminated. 

• Employees have assignment and careers, not jobs, and, where possible, are regularly 

reassigned. Thus, they work for the utility, not a given individual. 

• All employees have a responsibility to monitor the external environment for threats 

and opportunities and to report them ASAP to the appropriate, accessible person. 


Chapter 4: Characteristics That Support Knowledge Sharing and Learning Organizations | 31 

• Career development is the joint responsibility of the utility and every employee. 

• A teams’ responsibility transfers directly to every team member. 

• Trust and integrity are not useful characteristics, they are conditions of employment. 

Teams and Communities 

The knowledge network is the weaving together of people, whether through teams, communities 

of practice, one-on-one relationships or through virtual social networking. For example, 

IBM has embraced the blogosphere, encouraging employees to participate in blogging, social web 

applications (such as wikis) and networking, all emerging as important areas for engagement and 

learning. 

Task teams at various levels of the utility’s structure are a natural way that work gets done. 

The structure of an organization encourages individuals with similar skills or similar focus areas to 

work closely together. There are ten items that determine the capability of a team to do its job. 

These key success factors are: team leadership, shared vision/approach, team collaboration, empowerment, 

technology support, team learning, enterprise partnering, feedback, team co-location and 

team size. 

Communities of Practice are made up of people who actually work (practice) in a specific 

domain of knowledge. CoPs bring people together who face many of the same issues and opportunities. 

These communities are particularly effective in large organizations (where people do not 

regularly interact) and across organizations (where the sharing of ideas and lessons learned can 

prove extremely valuable). Communities can also be effectively employed for cross-utility collaboration. 

While the focus of CoPs is on value added, mutual exchange and continuous learning, 

participants often brainstorm and seek solutions to specific issues and problems forwarded by 

community members. Thus, participation and reliance on CoPs increases over time. This powerful 

form of community can prove a continuing source of ideas and energy for long-term KM 

implementation. 

Communities of Interest (CoI) are groups of people who have a common interest in an area 

of knowledge. They are a community of learners who exchange ideas, develop relationships and 

work towards furthering their knowledge and the application of the area of interest. A CoI can be 

used in support of a CoP. 

Workforce Planning 

Because knowledge resides in people, workforce planning becomes paramount to utility 

sustainability. For example, a Workforce Strategic Plan could include developing strategies and 

specific plans for hiring, training, and professional development, with the goal to promote integrative 

competencies such as Information Literacy, Communications Skills, Facilitation and Systems 

Thinking alongside functional competencies. A second example would be to conduct a gap analysis 

of the skill sets of the current utility and the desired utility, addressing the competencies necessary 

to achieve projected missions and strategies and initiatives to help attract new personnel and 

sustain the capabilities to accomplish its mission. Future skills would also be embedded in 

on-going short and long-term education, training and learning initiatives. A third example would 

be to develop a career path guide to provide individual guidance to employees in meeting the continuing 

challenges of technological change. Knowledge Retention and Succession Planning are 

integrally connected to Workforce Planning. 



Culture 

Culture is the way work gets done. Major characteristics of the culture would be flow, collaboration, 

creativity, empowerment, communication and networking, adaptability, an action orientation 

and leadership serving as role models. 

A major detriment of effective communication and knowledge sharing is the degree of trust 

throughout the workforce, trust of the utility as a whole and of its leadership and management. 

Trust is a cumulative belief that another individual (or the organization) will live up to employee 

expectations. In order for an individual to share their knowledge with another individual they must 

believe that this knowledge will not be misused or used against them, and that this sharing will be 

reciprocated. Distrust is as much a communications issue as an attitudinal problem. When people 

do not have good communication they cannot clearly signal their intentions or expectations. Rather 

than treating communication as a transfer of information, it is better to ensure that communication 

is the sharing of understanding. 

Training and Education 

While some functional training can be mandated, it is not enough for employees to stay 

viable in a rapidly changing environment. Since training and education dollars are limited, one 

approach is to issue continuous learning guidance for the entire workforce, placing increased 

responsibility on employees to remain current and expand by taking advantage of new ways of 

learning. Distributed learning technologies, experiential learning, and other nontraditional 

approaches to education and training are rapidly supplementing the traditional classroom student/ 

instructor approach. With these new approaches, knowledge workers have the ability to take 

responsibility for, and direct their own learning and development in a variety of ways and on a 

continual basis throughout their careers. The guidance sets the expectation that all knowledge 

workers participate in a set figure (such as 40 hours) of continuous learning activities (using organizational 

toolkits, attending conference, etc.) each year in addition to the minimum competencies 

established in their career field and required for specific workforce assignments. 

Recognition and Rewards 

A solid recognition and rewards program combines senior leadership recognition, staff 

management recognition and peer recognition. Ideas for recognition and rewards are discussed in 

Chapter 7 and included in the Resources section of the KM Toolkit. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR STRUCTURING THE UTILITY 

The following guiding principles are proposed for structuring a utility for knowledge sharing 

and organizational learning. 

The structure needs to be compatible with the culture and both should be ecologically 

matched to the environment and the utility’s purpose, strategy, and vision. Cultures are heavily 

influenced by the interplay of structure, vision, and external environment. For example, a learning 

culture is often difficult to create in a bureaucratic-type organization. 


Chapter 4: Characteristics That Support Knowledge Sharing and Learning Organizations | 33 

The structure design supports the workforce in their daily decision-making and actions. In 

other words, the structure contains the informal network as much as possible and it supports the 

knowledge needs of workers, managers, and leaders. 

The structure supports the long-term needs of the workforce, including learning professional 

development, and career management. The technology roles and responsibilities, facilities, 

and policies all need to function effectively to satisfy both short-term and long-tem utility 

needs. Short-term needs such as flexibility, adaptability, surge requirements, cycling, technology 

opportunities, coherence of activities, operational procedures, and stakeholder demands often 

place different demands on the structure than long-term activities such as learning, adaptability, 

strategy, knowledge management, core competencies, career management, stakeholder satisfaction, 

and public image. 

The structure supports leader and manager needs for loose-tight control of resources. For 

example, the utility needs only loose control over self-organization, empowerment and internal 

communication, but may need tight control over financial transactions, career assignments, safetyrelated 

decision-making and strategic direction. In the Project 4003 survey response to level of 

management control, the mean was 3.57 with a median of 4. 

STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES THAT SUPPORT SUCCESSFUL 

KNOWLEDGE SHARING AND LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS 

Continuous Learning 

Individuals in staff roles have high visibility. Not only can they set expectations and validate 

those expectations by personal example, but they are also in a position to encourage and provide 

opportunities for learning. In addition, while employees cannot be ordered to learn, the 

environment can be set to facilitate individual learning. For example, staff management can make 

continuous learning a bullet in every individual’s performance appraisal. Each employee would 

then develop their personal continuous learning plan in concert with their manager and team leaders, 

self-certifying completion of this plan during performance appraisals. 

Staff managers/supervisors can also facilitate and support rotational assignments, allowing 

individuals to build viable networks based on relationships across the organization (and beyond 

the organization in their field of expertise wherever possible). 

Knowledge Moments 

A core staff role and responsibility is the nurturing of knowledge moments. Knowledge 

moments are the daily experiences and interactions cross the utility and among individuals within 

the utility and its larger stakeholder community as people read, write, converse and think during 

their workday—and often in reflection and mental chatter outside of the workday. Knowledge 

moments happen at the intersection of people, places, processes and purpose, with every knowledge 

moment offering a learning experience to those involved. Because knowledge is defined as 

the capacity to take effective action, knowledge moments refer to exchanges that provide the 

potential for, or lead to, effective action. Similar to the butterfly concept in chaos theory, there is 

the potential for success or failure based on knowledge moments which cannot always be specifically 

identified or tied directly to that success or failure. 



Since a sustainable utility is co-evolving with its environment, the quantity and quality of 

both planned and spontaneous exchanges among people within the utility’s stakeholder community 

affects both the quality of the utility’s work products and the stakeholder’s perceived quality 

of the utility’s work products. Questions for staff members to ask are: How can the utility increase 

the quantity and quality of knowledge moments for its employees? How can the utility increase the 

quantity and quality of knowledge moments with the larger stakeholder community? 

Knowledge moments can be facilitated by spaces, processes and events. For example, 

development of Ba spaces in the utility can facilitate knowledge moments. Ba spaces are areas 

where people can informally congregate, similar to the historical water cooler example. They build 

the level of trust among employees, the level of knowledge sharing, and the level of employee 

learning. Shell HP developed an Ask, Learn, Share Model to facilitate knowledge moments. Ask 

before any business activity: What do we already know? Learn during any business activity. 

Share after any business activity. Events would include informal knowledge sharing that takes the 

form of lunches or fireside chats or formal events such as a round table, symposium, town hall or 

knowledge fair. Another example of nurturing knowledge moments would be development of a 

coaching or mentoring program that paired senior leaders and managers with newer employees. 

Networking 

Networking is becoming the life blood of many organizations. The informal networks, the 

practical decision and actions, and the common sense in doing a job end up driving the day-to-day 

operation in most utilities. Staff managers can develop their own networks to confer with colleagues 

and keep better informed about their utility or with regard to their specialty of expertise. 

They can also encourage and assist employees to recognize the value of, and create their own personal 

networks to improve their knowledge and performance. 

Although there is room for growth, knowledge sharing does occur among drinking water 

utility managers. Recall that in the Project 4003 survey response, on a Likert scale from 1 (very 

poor) to 5 (very well), the mean of 207 responders was 3.68 when asked to assess the amount of 

knowledge sharing among managers. Similarly, the mean for the level of trust among employees 

was 3.69. However, for the level of communication between departments the mean was 3.46, indicating 

a wider knowledge sharing gap between departments than between managers, or between 

employees. 

Another role of staff managers is the assignment of individuals to teams. For teams to work 

effectively they require a higher-level champion and, most importantly, the freedom to selforganize 

and decide how to do their work. Staff managers are facilitators for successful teams. 

They sign the clear, one-page, written charter that provides resources, authority, timeliness, and 

objectives that are critical to team success and support the scheduling of team interactions. They 

are the first line-of-report for team findings. 

Teams also need space and technology to make them efficient. All of these cost time and 

money. Thus team success depends as much on staff management support and structural systems 

as it does on its members. 

Communities of practice (discussed above) and interest are built on the tradition of professionals 

joining together to share skills and resources and are vibrant learning centers and rich 

marketplaces for knowledge sharing. While communities may be either formal or informal, management 

approval and technology infrastructure support are required. Staff managers can also 

serve as champions for communities of practice in their areas of expertise. 


CHAPTER 5 

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL 

IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN DRINKING WATER UTILITIES 

This chapter addresses critical success factors (CSFs) and barriers to the successful implementation 

of knowledge management in drinking water utilities. The results described below were 

pulled from surveys, focus groups, personal interviews with senior leaders and managers of drinking 

water utilities, and the literature on organizational development, culture, and knowledge 

management. 

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN 

WATER UTILITITES 

Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the critical factors in your organization 

that support successful implementation of new initiatives? There were 290 responses from 

207 responders. Figure 5.1 shows the general areas of responses. The largest number of these 

responses (17.9%) were focused on support: from leadership, management, staff, directors, the 

water board, the commission, the city council, the city manager, the community, and support from 

employees and other departments. Several of these coupled commitment with support. 

The results displayed in Figure 5.1 were combined with the results from the leadership and 

management interviews, workshops and focus groups. The barriers most often cited are described 

below. 

Leadership and Management Support 

Leadership and management support of the KM project is critical to motivating staff personnel 

and letting the employees know that the project has the full backing of senior leadership and 

management. Leadership and management support not only applies to the planning phase and 

beginning of the KM project, but support must be consistent throughout project implementation. 

Ideally, the governing board will also have given its support, particularly if the project is a KM 

strategy impacting the entire utility. Management commitment throughout the project ensures that 

the project is recognized as a significant effort to improve the utility’s performance. 

Lead by Example 

Leading by example can substantially enhance the effectiveness of the KM project. As 

leaders and managers create the KM initiative and develop the project for implementation, their 

actions, communications and behavior should reflect and be consistent with the intentions of the 

KM project. For example, if employees see leaders and senior managers sharing information and 

knowledge and openly asking questions and considering new ideas and ways of improving the 

utility’s performance, they are less likely to resist changes and more likely to adopt similar 

behavior. 

35 



Support 

Leadership 

Buy-In 

Employees 

Money 

Communication 

Other 

Teams 

Time 

Technology 

Planning 

Change 

Training 

Resources 

Results 

Laws and Regulations 

Implementation 

0 20 40 60 

Source: Project 4003 survey response. 

Figure 5.1 Critical factors that support successful implementation of new initiatives 

Communicate, Communicate, Communicate 

Communicating to the workforce the reasons why change is necessary is one way of breaking 

down barriers to a KM project. If the workforce understands the nature and value of the project 

in terms of its impact on improving organizational performance and helping them with their own 

day-to-day decisions and actions, they will be more cooperative and supportive of the project. 

Employee Buy-In 

Employee buy-in plays a major role in influencing the success of a KM project. The project 

must be planned taking into account employee skill levels, their capability to work together, and 

the amount of trust they have with each other as well as with management, and their willingness to 

change, learn and adapt new practices, including ways of implementing their own work responsibilities. 

Employees who are empowered and willing to try new ideas are typically very supportive 

of KM projects. For a KM strategy that touches all levels of employees and employees from all 

aspects or departments of the organization, ensuring participation in some way in the implementation 

of the KM strategy is one means of obtaining employee buy-in. 

Bring Employees Into the Project 

By keeping employees aware of intent, progress and direction of the KM project, employees 

will have opportunities to get their questions answered and become actively involved in supporting 

pertinent aspects of the project. These actions gain employee awareness, understanding 


Chapter 5: Critical Success Factors and Barriers to Successful Implementation of KM | 37 

and acceptance of the project, thereby gaining their cooperation and reducing their resistance to the 

project implementation. 

Resource Support 

The financial resources must be available to implement new KM initiatives. Examples of 

financial needs could include new technology, travel for individuals implementing the project, or 

bringing outside experts in as advisers. Where capital projects are concerned, the utility’s 

Commission would likely have to approve the financial investment. To ensure the cost-effectiveness 

of a KM initiative, a business case that addresses return on investments, sources of funding 

and a well-defined purpose should be developed and approved by the supervisor or manager, the 

governor’s body or senior leadership of the utility. 

Good Communications 

Good communications is essential to project success. The sharing of information between 

executive and operational branches and the encouragement of open conversations, questions and 

suggestions allows employee participation and engages cooperation and collaboration. As elements 

of the project are implemented and necessary redirection occurs, good communications 

keeps all employees fully aware of progress and minimizes the danger of surprises or misunderstandings. 

New initiatives and desired results need to be clearly stated and understood by employees, 

if they are not, the employees may well resist changes. 

A Team-Based Approach 

A team-based approach encourages local groups and teams to take on responsibilities and 

provides the opportunity for open and honest communication among small groups. Teams involved 

in implementing new initiatives develop ownership, a broad perspective of the utility and an understanding 

of the expected performance to be achieved by the KM project. At the same time, teams 

also result in effective decisions because they create a broader (systems) perspective on the utility 

and its needs. As teams develop ownership of a project due to their responsibilities in its implementation, 

they also communicate to many employees on an individual basis the reasons why the 

project is important. The project then becomes not one of management decree, but one of widespread 

acceptance and implementation. 

Allowing Time for Change to Occur 

Organizations do not change quickly. Typically, it may take from two to five years for a 

significant change to occur in the organizational culture or ways of doing business. Thus any major 

KM effort may take time and patience to achieve successful implementation of a new organizational 

structure. A second aspect of time is to ensure that utility employees are provided the time 

to implement the KM strategy or initiative. Another consideration is the need to take time to work 

with the governance body and with the senior leadership and management team of the utility to 

ensure their understanding and backing of the KM strategy or initiative. In addition, key individuals 

within the utility who are involved in implementing the KM project must be allowed to take the 

necessary time for its implementation. 



Technology Support 

Many KM strategies or initiatives require the use of technology to efficiently provide the 

information needed for effective Knowledge Management. Examples would be yellow pages, 

expert locators, internal communications networks and groupware in support of teams. Whatever 

technology is used needs to be user friendly, flexible, cost-effective and capable of being upgraded 

to beat anticipated utility needs in the future. Without the available technology, some KM projects 

would have great difficulty in enhancing utility performance. 

Developing Trust 

This refers to developing trust vertically and horizontally throughout the utility, having an 

open mind and participating in a dialogue with others. It means a willingness to share one’s knowledge. 

The creation of new ideas is enhanced where trust exists between individuals or among 

groups. Further, trust can be developed by creating teams and interactive workgroups and providing 

development programs to ensure employees are competent and capable of doing their jobs 

without direct oversight. 

Valuing Employees 

Valuing employees includes ensuring that employees feel valued and recognize that they 

are contributing to the overall performance of the organization. This provides a sense of ownership 

to the employee, which in turn heightens their interest in the overall utility performance and makes 

them much more willing to participate in KM projects. When employees feel secure with their own 

performance and about their relationship with the utility, they are much more willing to work with 

an organizational change effort. 

Provide Training and Development 

Providing necessary training and development, particularly where technology or special 

skills are needed in the implementation of the KM project, is essential to the successful implementation 

of new practices and procedures. If the technology is to be used effectively by utility employees, 

it must be carefully brought into the culture and practices of the utility. Even when technology 

is working perfectly and is easy to use, employees may not be willing to use it unless they are made 

fully aware of its advantages and the benefits provided to their own work as well as overall utility 


BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN DRINKING WATER 

UTILITIES 

Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the barriers in your organization to 

implementing new initiatives? There were 263 responses from 207 responders. In a next question, 

survey participants were asked: What are the barriers outside your organization to implementing 

new initiatives? There were 208 responses from 207 responders. Figure 5.2 shows the general 

areas of responses. The largest number of these total responses (22.3%) were focused on money; 

for example, limited resources, budget constraints, pressure to reduce costs, unfunded mandates. 



Outside Agencies 

Economy 

Vision 

Resources/Water 

Public Perception 

Rates 

Problem Solving 

Rewards 

New Hires 

Initiative 

Training 


Size 

Workload 

Planning 

Silos 


General 

Culture 

Regs & Laws 

Technology 

Buy-In 

Leadership & Management 

Politics 

Manpower 

Change 

Time 

Money 

Inside Barriers 

Outside Barriers 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 


Figure 5.2 Barriers in the utility to implementing new initiatives 

While money is more vocally expressed as an inside constraint, the words and descriptions are 

similar for both sets of data. 

As can be seen in Figure 5.2, politics, time and regulations & laws follow as a group. Next 

is change, leadership & management, manpower and public perception, followed closely by rates. 

The barriers most often cited are described below. 

Financial Resources 

Financial resources often represent a significant barrier to KM projects. Obtaining board 

approval to spend appropriate funds for projects that would improve utility performance can sometimes 

be quite difficult. Further, with growing infrastructure needs in a down-turned economy 

coupled with the public perception that water is a right not a product to be purchased, it is difficult 

to move beyond imposed financial restraints. Yet drinking water is a critical resource that is becoming 

increasingly scarce. 

Time 

Time may represent a significant barrier to implementing KM programs in the sense that 

employees simply may not have the available time for the implementation process. As one respondent 

noted, “Everyone is so busy doing their job that carving out time for this activity can be 



difficult.” Another individual noted that, “Most staff are very busy and the related time constraints 

can limit the ability for employees to embrace and/or properly evaluate new initiatives.” 

This was reflected in the Project 4003 survey results. On a Likert scale where 1 is very low 

and 5 is very high, the statement “Number of new ideas implemented annually” evoked a 3.22 

mean from 207 responders. This is considerably below the mean of means (the average for this 

survey response) of 3.44. In contrast, the question “How well does your organization accept and 

implement new initiatives?” had a mean of 3.49 from 198 responders. 

Resistance to Change 

Employee resistant to change can present a challenge to the implementation of new projects 

such as KM strategies or initiatives. Some employees are stuck in their old ways and have 

difficulty learning new practices or ways of interacting with other employees. This frequently 

shows up as a lack of enthusiasm in changing the way things are done in a given situation or 

utility. 

As one responder noted, “A high percentage of employees with greater than 15 years experience 

find it hard to change their old ways of thinking.” Other aspects of resistance would include 

concern or fear over new technologies, protecting one’s turf, conservative personalities and a 

strong belief that the old way of doing business is still sufficient. 

Lack of Manpower 

It may be difficult for a utility to identify the people who could be put on new initiatives for 

implementation without serious impact on the normal operation of the utility. This may be particular 

true for small utilities which are already stretched thin. Another aspect is the inability of management 

to staff individual assignments at the necessary levels to ensure effective KM 


Politics 

Another barrier to implementing KM initiatives may be political opposition from the utility’s 

governance group or, in some cases, the utility’s customer base. Resistance can also come 

from labor unions, bureaucratic inertia or even senior managers concerned with maintaining their 

silos or personal control. utilities embedding stovepipes or silos may run into resistance from manager’s 

intent on protecting their turf. Stovepipes are where each department operates independently 

with little cooperation among departments. 


In situations where leadership has a track record of creating new management initiatives 

that turn out to be the “flavor of the month,” a mindset has been accepted by employees that every 

new initiative will turn out this way. As this pattern continues, employees become very reluctant to 

support any new initiative. Where senior managers and leaders do not have a common vision for 

the utility—reflected through different perspectives and ineffective communication throughout the 

organization—employees again feel like the initiative is bogus and will never amount to much. 

Where there is a lack of trust between managers and employees, resistance to anything new and 



different often occurs. Further, when management does not have a broad visionary view of what 

the utility needs and is perceived by employees as benefiting one division versus the overarching 

utility, employee response to the new project will be less than supportive. 


If the public customers or governance body do not understand the nature, purpose and 

value of knowledge and Knowledge Management to the performance and sustainability of the utility, 

they may misinterpret the project and consider it a waste of time and money. To minimize the 

potential effect of such external misunderstanding, utility leaders and managers need to carefully 

monitor employee and stakeholder reactions and make sure that all interested parties understand 

the purpose and payoff of the KM strategy. 

Getting Buy-in for the Project 

For a KM project to be successful it must have a certain level of cooperation from many 

different individuals within the utility. Where employees are complacent, cannot have ownership, 

are concerned about potential accountability, it may be very challenging to overcome such resistance. 

In some organizations principal resistance comes from first line managers or supervisors 

who feel a potential loss of control even though they maintain responsibility and accountability. 

Resistance to Technology 

Technology may represent a significant barrier to new projects in that it takes financial 

resources, may increase the complexity of the current systems through growth, and may concern 

many employees who lack the technical expertise and understanding of what the new technology 

may bring. Some employees may perceive new technology as another means of exercising control 

over them. 

Regulations and Laws 

Union contracts, city policies, regulations and the lack of flexibility in some laws and regulations 

may be seen via employees as additional restrictions and constraints on their freedom to get 

the job done. Further, these regulations and laws may be perceived as making it difficult to create 

and implement new KM strategies or initiatives. 

Utility Culture 

The culture of the utility, having been created over decades, may resist new initiatives that 

substantially change the relationships between managers and supervisors and employees, and even 

among employees themselves. Culture is frequently referred to as “the way the work gets done.” 

When initiatives are proposed that may considerably change how that work gets done, they can 

cause serious concerns, and perhaps even opposition to new ideas. Employees often develop a 

focused mindset and limited perspective of their organization, their work environment and their 

place within that environment to the extent that any potential shifting or changing causes them to 

have serious concerns. These concerns can easily create opposition to new projects, especially 




Figure 5.3 Areas of descriptions of a successful initiative 

when those projects impact them individually and very personally in terms of how they think, 

behave and relate to their fellow employees. 

WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE? 

Finally, Project 4003 survey participants were asked: How would you describe a successful 

initiative in your organization? There were 290 responses from 207 responders. The largest number 

of these responses (15.2%) were focused on results. Representative of generic responses are: 

efforts show results, original objective realized, overall system improvement and users happy with 

final outcome. Specific responses included: increase customer service while improving business 

practices, improves work flows and is user friendly, provides better information faster, provides 

the benefits that were targeted and then becomes a part of the daily routine for most employees. 

Other “increases” were: increased productivity, increased competitiveness, and increased customer 

satisfaction. One learner responded: Paying an employee to maintain a license higher than required. 

See Figure 5.3. 


CHAPTER 6 

THE EFFECTS OF ALIGNMENT AND MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN 

KM AND CORE PLANNING PROCESSES 

This chapter investigates the effects of alignment and misalignment between a utility’s core 

planning processes and deployment of a KM strategy or initiative. It will also address the possible 

impact of an underdeveloped process on KM strategies and initiatives. 

UTILITY CORE PLANNING PROCESSES 

All utilities have core planning processes that are essential to effective planning and performance. 

Examples of utility planning processes would include strategic business planning, operational 

planning, capital improvement planning, human resource development, life cycle planning 

and information technology master planning. These plans are critical to effective and efficient utility 

operations because they set up procedures and processes that when implemented create the 

activities and relationships that drive utility performance. 

In the 4003 survey process, drinking water utilities were asked: How well do the following 

core processes support your organization’s mission? A five-point Likert scale was used with the 

variables defined as (1) very poorly, (2) poorly, (3) okay, (4) well, and (5) very well. The results 

are provided in Table 6.1. 

There are a number of observations that can be made regarding this response. 

First, note that there is a range from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) in response to each core 

planning process and its support of the utility’s mission. Thus the standard deviations are quite 

high for each set of responses. 

Second, note that the median is 4 (high) for strategic business planning, operational planning, 

and capital improvement planning, indicating that the majority of responses are 4 (high) or 5 

(very high). These three processes are historically those that fall under the direct purview of leaders 

and managers. 

Third, note that out of the 207 survey responders, the number of responses to each of the 

six core planning processes ranges from 177 to 202. The instructions on the survey read: “This 

survey looks at your organization as a whole ... should be filled out by a senior manager.” Thus for 

each of the core processes there were 5–30 responders who chose not to enter a value for that core 

process, indicating either no judgment or an unfamiliarity with the core processes they were asked 

to assess. In the order of those processes more readily assessed, the planning processes are: Capital 

improvement planning, operational planning, human resource development, strategic business 

planning, information technology master planning and life cycle planning. This would indicate, for 

example, a higher level of familiarity and opinion on capital improvement planning than life cycle 

planning. Yet capital improvement planning is directly correlated to life cycle planning. In an 

uncertain and changing economic and political environment—where new requirements and issues 

emerge without adequate resources to quickly and effectively respond to those requirements and 

issues—long-term planning must often take a second seat to short-term needs. While this juxtaposing 

occurs in a large number of organizations, the aging infrastructure faced by a large number of 

drinking water utilities is rapidly bringing long-term into the sphere of short-term urgency. In other 

words, funding needs that could previously be delayed can no longer be delayed. 

43 



Table 6.1 

Core planning processes support of the utility’s mission 

6 Items N Mean Min Max SD Median 

Q6A Strategic business planning 187 3.60 1 5 .851 4.00 

Q6B Operational planning 199 3.79 1 5 .740 4.00 

Q6C Capital improvement planning 202 3.94 1 5 .818 4.00 

Q6D Human resource development 196 3.18 1 5 .800 3.00 

Q6E Life cycle planning 177 3.09 1 5 .861 3.00 

Q6F Information technology master planning 185 3.19 1 5 .975 3.00 


Table 6.2 

Information systems in drinking water utilities 

Statement N Yes No N/A 

(A) Systems are considered mission critical to the organization 193 171 22 14 

(B) The Information Technology Department (ITD) is heavily involved 190 * 119 69 17 

with and understands the business mission 

(C) ITD is viewed as a solution provider for business problems 189 * 102 86 18 

(D) ITD is viewed as the technical help desk, and not helpful in solving 185 * 85 100 22 

business problems 


*Two responses for B above were “both yes and no,” one response for C was “sometimes,” and one response for D 

was “neither.” 

The data for Q6F in Table 6.1 indicates that information technology master planning has 

the second lowest response rate, the second lowest mean (by .01), the lowest standard deviation 

and the median falls in the 3.0 range (medium). These indicators can now be combined with the 

responses to question 10: “The following statements relate to the information systems in your 

organization” to build a deeper understanding of the perception of the role of information technology 

(and by extension information technology master planning) and the mission of the utility. See 

Table 6.2. 

Note that while the data presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2 is from the same group of utility 

leaders/managers, only 185 responders provided an opinion on the strength of information technology 

master planning and the organization’s mission. In contrast, the statements labeled A, B 

and C in Table 6.2 drew a larger number of responses. Here are some key percentages: 

• 88.6% of 193 responders agree that systems are mission critical to the organization. 

• 62.6% of 190 responders agree that ITD is heavily involved with and understands the 


• 54% of 189 responders agree that ITD is a solution provider for business problems. 

• 45.9% of 185 responders agree that ITD is not helpful in solving business problems. 

The last two bullets above represent the same question looked at from two different directions. 

While there is a larger perception (62.6%) that ITD is involved with and understands the 


Chapter 6: The Effects of Alignment and Misalignment Between KM and Core Planning Processes | 45 

business mission, there is a lower perception (54%) of its effectiveness in handling business problems. 

From this response, it is clear that while the value of information technology is recognized 

as mission critical (88.6%), there is still some work to do in order for information technology to 

strongly support the business mission. When these indicators are considered with the patterns created 

from responses to the data presented in Table 6.2, there are two potential findings. Either 

(1) information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently developed or 

effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water utilities, or (2) leaders and 

managers who responded to this survey instrument (representing 207 drinking water utilities 

nation-wide) are not aware of or do not understand the role that information technology is playing 

in their utilities. In either case, it is clear that Knowledge Management can contribute to helping 

drinking water utilities engage the full potential of current and future information technology 

investments in terms of their contribution to business problems and the business mission. 

While the option of writing in additional planning processes considered as core was provided 

in the survey, no additional processes were called out by responders. 

ALIGNING A KM INITIATIVE WITH A UTILITY’S CORE PLANNING PROCESSES 

We first consider the situation where the utilities core planning process is well designed and 

implemented and a KM initiative should be aligned with the core planning process. 

If a utility’s core planning process is working well, the question becomes: How can a KM 

initiative best support the core planning process? Planning processes by their very nature, layout 

and anticipated sequence of actions must consider the relationships necessary for effective implementation 

to ensure the utility’s effective performance. These actions, activities and relationships 

impact a large number of stakeholders within the utility and perhaps even customers. While implementation 

of the core planning processes is intended to support utility objectives, the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the utility from a Knowledge Management perspective may not have been 

considered. When this occurs, a KM initiative—if properly designed to support core planning and 

implementation processes—may significantly improve utility performance. The following steps 

briefly outline a sequence of activities to consider when designing a KM initiative in support of the 

development and implementation of a core planning process. 

Step 1 

Ensure that the planning process and its anticipated implementation is of high quality 

through best practice analysis, benchmarking or past assessments of the process outcome. Look 

carefully for those aspects of the process that are most sensitive to the availability and quality of 

information and knowledge and the potential for knowledge loss through retirements etc. In addition, 

look at the first and second order effects of the process activities on the surrounding stakeholders 

to see if relationships are effective and accurate and timely information and knowledge is 

shared with these stakeholders. 

Step 2 

Identify aspects of the core planning process that require additional knowledge, information 

and experience for successful implementation. This may include areas where the process 



impacts stakeholders and governance bodies, as well as critical areas of the utility’s performance 

capability. 

Step 3 

From one and two above identify the technology, information, knowledge and relationships 

needed by individuals who are implementing the process or are affected by the process 

implementation. These first three steps form the basis for designing the KM initiative needed by 

the planning process and its implementation. 

Step 4 

Depending on the specific nature of the core planning process, the development of a KM 

initiative should consider the following possibilities: 

• Consider any training needed by all parties affected by the process. 

• Suggest activities and mechanisms that will support and enhance knowledge sharing 

as required. 

• Consider the core process design from an information perspective and suggest KM 

tools that would improve the availability, selection and accuracy of required 

information. 

• Ensure that the technology and the core process relationships will result in lessons 

learned as the process unfolds. 

• Consider spaces where individuals can meet and share knowledge as they implement 

the core planning process. This will encourage knowledge sharing and a collaboration 

approach to joint activities that will leverage knowledge effectiveness. 

• Where appropriate, identify a process manager who can oversee its effective implementation 

and ensure that teamwork and the coordination of effort is developed among 

participants in the process and stakeholders impacted by the process. 

• If possible, develop assessment criteria that can monitor the progress and the effectiveness 

of the core process to enable changes and adjustments as the process unfolds. 

This will allow the process to adjust to the changing needs of the utility without imposing 

an evaluation of individual participants. 

In summary, a KM initiative is aligned with a planning process and its implementation if it 

supports every knowledge aspect of the process and thereby ensures that the most effective decisions 

and actions are taken and that maximum learning occurs. Depending on the specific planning 

process involved, a KM initiative may include competency assessments (360 evaluations), leadership 

development and opportunities, special training in specific areas, briefings that provide a 

systems perspective of the overall process and its relationship with the rest of the utility personnel 

and a careful assessment of the effectiveness of all aspects of the process in supporting the mission 

and vision of the utility. 


Chapter 6: The Effects of Alignment and Misalignment Between KM and Core Planning Processes | 47 

HOW MISALIGNMENT OR AN UNDERDEVELOPED CORE PROCESS IMPACTS 

THE SUCCESSFUL DEPLOYMENT OF A KM STRATEGY AND ITS RESULTING 

INITIATIVES 

Core processes of drinking water utilities are usually aligned with the overall operation of 

the utility. When this occurs, a knowledge management strategy or initiative should be designed 

and implemented in a manner that maximizes the effectiveness of the core process and also 

improves the creation, sharing, leveraging and application of knowledge throughout the utility, or 

in the case of an initiative throughout a subset of the utility. 

If the drinking water utility’s core process is underdeveloped, action can be taken to bring 

the process up to expectations prior to designing a KM project that supports the process. During 

this pre-implementation phase it may be necessary to consider both the core process and the KM 

strategy or initiative desired and make trade-offs between the two to ensure optimizing their combination 

for the benefit of the utility. 

When a drinking water utility’s core process is misaligned with its needs and operational 

effectiveness, the process should then be reviewed and upgraded to ensure consistency in the 

alignment with the utility’s needs. After this has been implemented, the knowledge management 

strategy or initiative can then be designed to optimize knowledge effectiveness. 

One exception to the above paragraph arises when the drinking water utility has little or no 

influence over the core process. An example could be the Human Resource Development process, 

which is sometimes part of the city management organization where the process serves not only 

the utility, but also the parks, police, and fire department. Under these conditions, the utility may 

have little or no influence over the policies and practices of this particular core process. When this 

occurs, the KM strategy or initiative must be designed carefully so that it does not interfere with 

the core planning processes while, at the same time, maximizing its own goals and objectives relative 

to overall utility performance. This may require specific tools (see the toolkit) that can enhance 

the utility’s performance without impacting the human resource process. For example mentoring 

programs, teambuilding, creating spaces for conversations and dialogue, sending individuals to 

specific learning courses, and procuring technology which can store, select and make information 

available to workers throughout the utility, may support the utility’s KM needs, while at the same 

time being consistent with the HR processes and practices. 

As indicated by the data presented in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, one potential finding is that information 

technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently developed or effectively 

embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water utilities. There is a close 

relationship between information technology (IT), information management (IM) and Knowledge 

Management. 

Information management deals with the classification, storage, and availability of information. 

Recall that information consists of data, facts and descriptions that can be written down, 

stored and transferred through technology or human interaction. In contrast, Knowledge 

Management is concerned primarily with knowledge—the understanding, insight, and interpretations 

developed and used to solve problems, make decisions and anticipate the results of our 

actions. Since knowledge exists only in the minds of humans, Knowledge Management is primarily 

concerned with people and their ability to take effective action. To do this, of course, they need 

information as well as knowledge. (Recall the discussion of Knowledge (Informing) in Chapter 1.) 

Technology deals with data and information; humans deal with data, information and knowledge. 



Human Capital Social Capital Corporate Capital 

The Essence of 

Knowledge Management 

Enabler Enabler 

Technology 

Innovation 

Successes 

Lessons Learned 

Capability 

Capacity 

Relationships 

Connectivity 

Data 

Info 

Mapping 

Software 

Hardware 


Information Management 


Information Technology 

Enabler 

Incentives 

Education 

Training 

IPTs 

Physical 

Assets 

Infrastructure 

Source: Department of the Navy, 1999. 

Figure 6.1 Relationship of IT, IM, and KM 

Figure 6.1 is a graphic produced by the Department of the Navy which is a four-tiered 

depiction of the roles and connectivity of infrastructure, IT, IM and KM in a knowledge-centric 

organization. The intent of the graphic was to remind knowledge workers with the Department that 

the role of IT is in support of the infrastructure; that IT in and of itself exists to facilitate the management 

of information; and that the management of information is in support of decision-makers, 

that is, people. KM is not effective without IM, which must be supported by good IT, which is 

embedded in the infrastructure. This is a picture of a healthy partnership of IT, IM and KM aligned 

in support of the organization mission. A DON case study is included in the KM Toolkit. 

A rough estimate of the amount of knowledge management that involves information technology 

is about 20 percent. This focus is based on the amount of knowledge users can create from 

the information that is stored, transferred, organized, and mined by information technology. This 

percent is, of course, a judgment. While the major source of knowledge creation, sharing, leveraging 

and application lies in the human mind—and depends on the willingness and capability of 

individual workers to share their experience and knowledge—information technology is an enabler. 

IT and information management are used to support the decision-makers who must create knowledge 

from the information stored in and accessed from technology systems. Thus good IT and 

information management are critical in today’s virtual, fast-paced environment. 


CHAPTER 7 

AN ASSESSMENT TOOL 

INTRODUCTION TO THE INSTRUMENT 

The Assessment Instrument is designed to aid drinking water utility leaders and managers 

in determining the readiness of their utility to implement KM strategies. It takes 10–15 minutes to 

fill out, and is designed to help answer the question: Is my utility ready to implement a knowledge 

management strategy? A knowledge management (KM) strategy is a program to implement KM 

throughout the entire utility as compared to implementing a KM initiative that would impact a 

department, division or some subset of the utility. 

For a utility to be ready to successfully implement a KM strategy it should have certain 

characteristics and capabilities. Reflecting those characteristics and capabilities specific to drinking 

water utilities, the questions in this tool were developed from a number of research sources. 

These include 23 interviews with senior utility leaders, four workshops with groups of utility leaders 

and managers, the results of the Project 4003 survey of 207 individuals from drinking water 

utilities, and the results of a literature search as well as the experience of the researchers. 

There are 40 questions in the assessment instrument that are divided into five areas, each 

area pertaining to a specific aspect of the utility. These areas are: General, Leadership, Management, 

Culture and Alignment. A list of the assessment questions is provided in Appendix D. Each statement 

or question asks for a response based upon a five-point Likert scale in one of the following 

ways: 

1..........very low; 

2......... low; 

3......... medium; 

4......... high; and 

5..........very high. 

High scores indicate the utility’s readiness to implement a knowledge management strategy. Low 

scores may or may not impact the utility’s readiness dependent upon the specific nature of the 

question as well as the specific KM strategy to be implemented. Low scores may also be used to 

identify areas in which the utility may want to improve via its knowledge management strategy or 

perhaps prior to commencing a full KM strategy implementation. 

It is assumed that a specific KM strategy has been selected or is being contemplated. 

Because each utility is unique and possesses a wide variety of characteristics—complete with its 

own history—this instrument should be used in concert with informed reflective thought prior to 

making a readiness decision. What this assessment will do is provide key questions and aspects of 

the utility to stimulate your thinking before implementing a KM strategy. From the answers to the 

assessment questions and reflection on what you know about your utility, you will be able to make 

an informed judgment on whether to proceed with implementation of your KM strategy, or take 

some preparatory steps prior to implementation of a KM strategy. 

49 



INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT INTERPRETATIONS 

It is suggested that several managers in the utility take the Assessment Instrument, then use 

a team dialogue approach to arrive at a common understanding of your utility’s readiness to implement 

a KM strategy. 

When the Assessment Instrument has been completed by each individual, an assessment 

scoring sheet will appear. The total score provided at the top is intended as a general guideline. It 

is one indicator, but not sufficient, to determine the utility’s readiness to implement a KM strategy. 

Other factors that may play a significant role in determining readiness include the specific KM 

strategy being considered; the history, culture, size, vision and current situation of the utility; the 

external environment (customers, government regulations, local community, Unions, political 

issues) within which the utility operates; and the nature and number of the items scored at level 1 

or 2. 

Just below a discussion of your overall score appears a bar chart that maps out the items 

scored at each of the five levels of the Likert scale. This represents the items at levels 1, 2 and 3 

that may require additional reflection, and the items at levels 4 and 5 that may assist in your implementation 

strategy. Finally, the assessment scoring sheet will provide ideas and suggested areas for 

reflective thought related to each of the 1, 2 or 3 levels selected. 

For additional information on the assessment scoring and evaluation, the generic template 

used to support the assessment scoring sheet in the toolkit is included in Appendix D. 

THE ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT AS A TOOL 

While the Assessment Instrument is developed to assist in determining a utility’s readiness 

to implement a KM strategy, the final determination of readiness lies with the utility’s leadership. 

They are the experts who know the intended KM strategy, the management and leadership styles, 

the history and organizational structure of the utility, the utility’s ability to learn and change, and 

the environment within which the utility operates. 


CHAPTER 8 

THE KM TOOLKIT 

The KM Toolkit is a virtual resource for planning and implementing the organizational 

change needed to support implementation of a KM strategy in drinking water utilities. A brief 

overview of the KM Toolkit content is below. Note that in the virtual KM Toolkit terms and tools 

include additional explanation and examples. This detailed information, and the supporting 

resources that are shown below in each phase of the toolkit process, are provided in the virtual KM 

Toolkit. 

THE TOOLKIT PROCESS 

Following an introduction focused on knowledge, Knowledge Management (KM) and the 

business case for KM in drinking water utilities, the Toolkit Process has five phases: Assessing 

Readiness, Planning, Preparing, Executing and Sustaining. Figure 8.1 provides the main topics 

addressed in each phase of the toolkit. The Introduction and phases of the process as appearing in 

the Toolkit are Appendix E. 

Introduction 

Knowledge and Knowledge Management 

The discussion of knowledge and Knowledge Management in the KM Toolkit reflects the 

information forwarded in Chapter 1 of this report. Further, KM is introduced from the viewpoint 

of information (connecting information and people), the decision-maker (facilitating understanding) 

and the organization (nurturing a knowledge sharing culture). Examples of KM initiatives 

(tools) are linked to each of these areas. 

The Need for KM in the Drinking Water Utilities 

A short description of KM is provided at the beginning of this section in order to help utility 

employees describe to others why KM is important in drinking water utilities. Specifically, this 

is the reference to KM as a set of ideas, principles and practices that make knowledge available to 

decision-makers at every level of the organization, and help encourage workers to learn, then take 

the initiative and guide their actions to meet utility goals and objectives. At a top-level need is 

introduced in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. Efficiency can be improved by 

reducing mistakes, optimizing processes, broadening worker responsibilities, and reducing time 

spent searching for documents, information or expertise. Effectiveness improves when employees 

know their job, can learn fast enough to keep up with changing work needs, and know who to tell, 

or ask, relative to the impact of their actions. To be optimally effective means to look at the entire 

utility from a knowledge perspective, making KM a central part of overall leadership, management 

and day-to-day decision-making. (A paper on the “Business Case for KM” which is included in the 

Toolkit is Appendix F.) 

51 



Assessing 

Readiness 

Planning Preparing Executing Sustaining 

• Introduction 

to the 

Instrument 

• The 

Readiness 

Assessment 

Instrument 

• Individual 

Assessment 

Interpretations 

• Ensuring 

Leadership 

Commitment 

• Developing 

the Strategy 

• Writing the 

Plan 

• Selecting the 

Team 

• Thinking 

Systems 

• Setting 

Objectives 

• Connecting 

the Dots 

• Building the 

Foundation 

• Growing 


Network 

• Becoming a 

change 

agent 

• Leading and 

Managing 

• The Four 

Organization 

Processes 

• Knowledge 

Capture 


Harvesting 


Mobilization 

• Nurturing 

Organization 

Health 

• Embedding 

• Sharing 

• Evaluating 

and 

Measuring 

• Learning 

Source: Project 4003 KM Toolkit. 

Figure 8.1 Phases of the KM Toolkit process 

As finding or sustaining high-quality water resources becomes increasingly difficult and 

drinking water is recognized world-wide as a scarce resource, emerging research in water treatment 

and wastewater and solid waste treatment will offer new opportunities. New processes and 

procedures will focus on improved efficiency and effectiveness in terms of the services and products 

provided, customer perceptions and needs, and environmental requirements. (A paper on 

“Regulatory Perspectives for Drinking Water Utilities” which is included in the Toolkit is 

Appendix G.) 

Toolkit Resources and Related WaterRF Research 

The large number of resources available in the Toolkit and their contributors are introducing 

and linked from this section. Specifically, these resources take the form of white papers, published 

articles, research studies, case studies, case examples, project studies (internal drinking 

water utility examples), tools, and idea sheets. Several generic resources are introduced: 

(1) “Knowledge and Information Management in the Water and Sanitation Sector: A Hard Nut to 

Crack” published by the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre in June 2006 (used with 

permission) and (2) Public Sector Information Technology and Knowledge Management” written 

by Susan Turnquist, Project Manager, WaterRF (used with permission). 


Chapter 8: The KM Toolkit | 53 

Further, the WaterRF research studies related to Knowledge Management are introduced 

and direct links (for more information) made to the WaterRF home page. 

Resources Linked From the Introduction 

Resources linked in support of this discussion are: 

• Tools: Community of Interest, Community of Practice, Event Intermediation, 

Taxonomy 

• Ideas: Communications Publications, Recognition and Rewards 

• Strategy: Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO) 

• Depth Resources: The Current State of KM (MQI paper), The Depth of Knowledge 

(MQI paper), Information Literacy (MQI paper), Relationship Network Management 

(MQI paper) 

• White Papers: The Business Case for KM, Regulatory Perspectives for the Water 

utilities 

• Project Studies 11 and 23. 

Assessing Readiness 

Details of the section on Assessing Readiness and the linked Readiness Assessment 

Instrument are included in Chapter 7. 

The Planning Phase 

The planning phase offers the opportunity to focus on a course of action to move forward 

prior to taking any action. As this phase begins, several leaders within the organization have recognized 

the value of and need for implementation of a knowledge management initiative or 

strategy. 

Ensuring Leadership Commitment 

Leadership must be actively involved for any KM strategy to be successful. When a 

respected senior leader clearly demonstrates commitment to a vision through words and consistent 

and continuous personal actions, members of the senior leader’s relationship network, peers and 

subordinates, quickly follow suit. As leaders begin to communicate, collaborate and reward successes, 

those successes spread across the organization. 

Recognizing that people do not change easily or quickly, implementation requires continued 

leadership interest, oversight, presence, and sometimes active involvement, coupled with the 

repeated message that KM is necessary. Many KM initiatives require a change in culture—a change 

that employees must actively support. 



Developing the Strategy 

With the feedback from the Readiness Assessment Instrument, the utility’s strengths and 

potential gaps in terms of readiness to implement a KM strategy or initiative have been identified. 

Six overarching KM strategies are introduced: 

• Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO) 

• Increasing Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge 

• Developing Knowledge Leaders 

• Implementing eLearning 

• Knowledge Retention 

• Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing Culture 

A descriptive write-up is provided regarding each of these strategies as an idea generator to introduce 

and explore some possibility that may be relevant to a utility. Each of these write-ups includes 

related tools and case examples and project studies where they are applicable. 

Several approaches to implementing KM initiatives are presented: (1) implement a pilot 

project; (2) start with quick wins and low-hanging fruit (short bursts); or (3) full-scale implementation. 

An advantage of holding a pilot project is its potential contribution to learning; the disadvantage 

is that often what is learned is not easily transferable, and the learning process must be repeated 

when larger implementation occurs. An advantage of the short bursts approach is that when benefits 

are seen, it is easier to build support to implement in a larger fashion; a disadvantage is that 

larger underlying problems are not being addressed. An advantage of full-scale implementation is 

the demonstrated commitment to this course of action, which helps ensure success; a disadvantage 

would be if this was premature and the organization was not yet prepared to move down this road. 

Writing the Plan 

The first step of the planning process is a feasibility review. Ensure that the following five 

statements are true: 

• The strategic goal, mission and purpose of the utility are clear and understood by 

people within the utility. 

• The planned project is aligned or consistent with the core utility processes such as 

strategic business planning, the operational planning process, capital improvement 

planning, and information technology master planning. 

• The planned project is consistent with the organization’s strategic focus. 

• Resources (time, people, funding) are available to take the project to completion. 

• The project is important to the utility and, if at all possible, will be completed. 

• The project is economically feasible. 

• The project will provide clear improvements, benefits and outcomes. 

• Enough data and information are available to make a sound decision. 

The number of elements required for planning a project is highly dependent on the complexity of 

the initiative or strategy. For example, defining scope, identifying tools, developing schedule, budgeting, 

manpower, risk planning, etc.—all the elements that go into planning any other successful 



project—will depend heavily upon the content and context of the initiative or strategy, as well as 

the specific utility. 

A written plan should be developed which outlines the various stages and activities of the 

project. Planners usually start with a vision of the desired project outcomes and determine, at a 

high level, the characteristics and macro elements of the project required to achieve these outcomes. 

For example, if the desired initiative is knowledge retention, then macro elements of the 

project might involve: (1) a fast-track KM approach for those who are leaving in 30 days, (2) a 

series of tools and activities for those who are retiring in six months; and (3) a strategic approach 

to ensure that knowledge is continuously flowing up and down, and across the organization, and 

that there are mandated pre-retirement actions. 

These major elements are broken down into smaller pieces which lend themselves to scheduling 

and costing and specific activities. This is the process of decomposition. The plan identifies 

all the things that must be accomplished during the life of the project. For example, in the above 

example, (1) would undoubtedly include an exit interview, (2) might include a knowledge audit 

and development of a KM desk guide for every position, while (3) would include development of 

communities of practice, use of shared space and the nurturing of storytelling. 

The way a KM plan is implemented is as important as what is being implemented. One of 

the reasons is that it is focused on knowledge, and knowledge is very personal—it resides within 

people. Thus, while information technology and information management are necessary, they are 

not sufficient for success. The KM Plan is focused on people: helping people create, share, leverage 

and apply their information and knowledge in support of utility objectives. 

Selecting the Team 

The effectiveness of any KM strategy or initiative is highly dependent on the energy, dedication, 

collaboration and coherence of the efforts of all major stakeholders that play a role in its 

implementation. Thus it is important for the implementation team to not only have the right mix of 

people in terms of expertise, capability and organizational connectivity, but to equally consider 

attitudes, networking skills and commitment to success. At the core of all successful change strategies 

are integrators, those trusted individuals who connect people, information and knowledge. 

Team members should be from different parts of the utility, have backgrounds representing 

the areas of the utility that the initiative will impact, and understand and feel good about the purpose 

and implementation of the task. The team should be heavily involved with developing the 

strategy and implementing the plan. This allows them to have ownership of the initiative and to 

develop a common perspective and understanding of their objectives, issues and contributions to 

the utility’s performance. If the KM program is relatively large, their task could be written in a 

one-page agreement, signed by senior leadership and by every team member. This agreement 

would state the objectives, resources and authorities of the team. 

Thinking Systems 

Every organization—and every individual within that organization—is a complex adaptive 

system co-evolving with its environment. What we struggle to achieve is to become intelligent 

complex adaptive systems, organizations where the decisions that are made every day at 

every level help the organization achieve its mission. A top-level systems perspective encourages 



individual managers and teams to develop and implement balanced decisions that optimize the 

entire system instead of one part of the system. 

Systems thinking provides an approach for managing complicated situations by helping 

decision-makers recognize and understand cause-and-effect relationships among organizational 

parameters. For example, identifying the boundaries of a problem or issue helps focus corrective 

actions, while understanding the connections among parts of the system might tell you that multiple 

actions are required to correct a situation. 

In terms of implementing a KM initiative or strategy, by understanding the interrelationships 

of, for example, a technology system storing guidance documents (information) and an 

expert who has a reputation for trouble-shooting (knowledge), both can be used to achieve optimum 

performance. For periodic issues handled in a repeatable manner, the technology system can 

support a training requirement to spread this ability across the utility. However, when situations 

arise that have different parameters than previously experienced, it’s time to consult an expert with 

the appropriate knowledge. By developing an expertise locator, even the largest organizations can 

have quick access to the knowledge that is needed. 

Taking a systems perspective also means deciding on what is going to be measured and 

how it is going to be measured prior to project start-up. 

Resources Linked From the Planning Phase 


• Tools: Community of Practice, KM Desk Guide, KM Plan, Knowledge Audit, 

Interviewing, Shared Space, Storytelling 

• Ideas: Leadership Commitment, Recognition and Rewards 

• Strategies: Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO), Increasing 

Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge, Developing Knowledge Leaders, 

Implementing eLearning, Knowledge Retention and Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing 

Culture 

• Depth Resources: Developing a Model for Team Learning and Success (MQI monogram), 

The DON Metrics Guide, A New Change Model (MQI paper), Turnquist paper 

KM and IM in the Water Sector (Turnquist paper), Thinking About Systems and 

Complexity (MQI paper) 

• White Papers: The Business Case for KM in the Industry, 4003 Research Report #2 

(opportunities and initiatives for success), 4003 Research Report #3 barriers), 4003 

Research Report #4 (critical success factors) 

• Project Studies 24 

• Case Examples 8, 13 

• Case Studies: KM at NASA-Kennedy Space Center, DON Case Study, Learn@ 

WELL, Singapore Case Study 

The Preparing Phase 

After completion of the planning stage of a KM strategy or initiative, attention should be 

focused on preparing the utility and the project team and individuals for implementation. A plan 

cannot succeed just because someone orders it to be done. Careful consideration needs to be given 



to the current state of the utility, its culture, workload, competencies and outside demands on its 

time. Also, it is useful to get some key workers involved so that the purpose, nature and value of 

the project is made visible in a way that gives the utility time to digest and understand its goals and 

impacts. 

Setting Objectives 

The project requirements must be made explicit for all personnel involved in the project. 

Project objectives are often defined in terms of being SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, 

Realistic (and Relevant) and Time-based. While this approach works well for complicated systems 

such as building information systems or developing KM Desk Guides, parts of SMART may 

have to be dropped or modified in a KM project where the desired outcome is an emergent phenomenon 

of a complex system (a community or team). 

Closely linked to setting objectives are setting targets and developing milestones. Set targets 

which create direction and opportunities for high performance. These targets are sometimes 

referred to as “stretch” goals. They are challenging but not so challenging that they are viewed as 

non-achievable. Develop milestones to evaluate performance by comparing planned results at a 

point in time to actual results. Milestones are usually significant events in the project, such as 

completion of on-time deliverables or successful completion of phases of the project. Milestone 

deviations should be monitored and carefully managed throughout the life of the project. There is 

little point of being informed of a major cost overrun at the end of a project, or of ignoring a counter 

intuitive result that creates unintended and harmful consequences to the project outcome. While 

knowledge projects are usually aimed at long-term results and may be difficult to evaluate in the 

short-term, activity toward the anticipated outcome and emergent indicators can be reviewed and 

assessed. 

Connecting the Dots 

Any forward movement requires both a starting point and a direction in which to move. A 

good way to understand the knowledge currently available in the utility is through conducting a 

knowledge audit and creating a knowledge map. A knowledge audit moves beyond identifying and 

mapping knowledge sources to evaluating the state of an organization’s technology, how well the 

organization’s processes support knowledge sharing, and the work styles and culture of the people 

within the organization. What is learned from the knowledge audit can now be compared to what 

knowledge is needed in order to identify knowledge gaps. These gaps could be related to current 

knowledge, or potential gaps as identified employees move toward retirement or as demands of the 

environment change. 

But having the required information available is not enough. People have to know about it 

in order to use it. The flow of data, information and knowledge across the utility enables effective 

decision-making and facilitates the connections and continuity that maintain utility unity and 

coherence. A method for assessing the effective flow of information through communication and 

collaboration is social network analysis. Interviews and surveys are used to ask such questions as: 

From whom do you seek work-related information? Is this person accessible to you? Does this 

person respond in time to help resolve your problem? To whom do you give work-related information? 

From the answers to these and similar questions a map is created that connects people who 

receive information with people who provide the information. This process allows the utility to 



assess its ability to create and share knowledge through connections, and identifies areas to improve 

these abilities. For example, the map resulting from social network analysis identifies those who 

are central to the knowledge sharing process. Then the following questions are asked: Should this 

individual be rewarded for the important role they are playing or is this individual hoarding information 

and bottlenecking knowledge sharing and creation? What happens if this individual leaves? 

As an example of the knowledge audit approach through one-on-one interviewing, the 

Lehigh County Authority conducted an audit of staff-level managers. The audit allowed them to 

determine critical knowledge areas and current knowledge and skill sets, and then identify current 

and future gaps. They also identified the consequences of failure, that is, their inability to complete 

any of the individual areas of responsibility identified due to lack of knowledge. 

Another process of connecting the dots is that of identifying strategies and initiatives 

underway or recently completed that are similar to the KM strategies and initiatives proposed. 

Because knowledge is at the core of what individuals and utilities do—and because there are many 

committed people that are already moving in similar directions (no matter what they call it)—the 

utility can gain greater advantage by the linking and melding of similar strategies and initiatives. 

Leveraging is a goal of knowledge management. The similarities and differences of these strategies 

and initiatives—and how they complement each other—should be identified and broadly 

shared to ensure full leveraging of all activities underway. 

Building the Foundation 

The document repository is the place where much of the information available to the utility 

decision-makers resides. Because the flow of information throughout the utility is the life blood of 

the organization, it is critical to ensure an integrated, connected, well-organized, and easily searchable 

information system that supports access to information when it is needed. The KnowledgeBase 

roadmap provides a framework for building the knowledge base in a specific area of knowledge 

(for a specific community). The knowledge taxonomy, a structured set of names and descriptions 

agreed-upon by the utility, is necessary to organize information and knowledge in a consistent way. 

The knowledge taxonomy is built on the knowledge ontology, a conceptual framework that 

expresses a classification scheme. Together, development of a taxonomy and ontology help ensure 

a common language and understanding across the utility while also supporting ease of access to 

needed information. 

As a utility recognizes the value of its knowledge in responding to an uncertain future, the 

organization’s culture becomes a core area of focus. Culture—how the work gets done—is the 

source of energy, or apathy, and a major determinant of performance. Culture is a set of norms in 

the workplace that often include unstated assumptions about people, relationships and knowledge. 

These assumptions develop over time from internal and external events and all of the interactions 

among the workforce. 

Because KM is about people, it cannot be done to people, but rather with them and in support 

of them as they support the mission of the utility. For example, individuals cannot be ordered 

to share knowledge; however, an environment that supports knowledge sharing can be nurtured. A 

knowledge sharing culture might emerge from (1) the clear linking between sharing knowledge 

and accomplishing the mission of the utility, (2) the expectation of knowledge sharing, and example 

set by senior leadership, (3) the underlying recognition that knowledge sharing is the right 

thing to do and will benefit them and their utility, (4) alignment of utility rewards and recognition 

programs with knowledge sharing, and (5) an organizational structure that facilitates knowledge 



sharing. As the number of individuals practicing a principle grows, the more that principle will 

become a part of the organization’s workplace culture. 

A major determinant of effective communication and sharing is the degree of trust throughout 

the workforce, trust of the utility as a whole and of its leadership and management. Trust is a 

cumulative belief that another individual (or the organization) will live up to our expectations. In 

order for an individual to share their knowledge with another individual, they must believe that this 

knowledge will not be misused or used against them, and that this sharing will be reciprocated. 

Distrust is as much a communications issue as an attitudinal problem. When people do not have 

good communication they cannot clearly signal their intentions or expectations. Rather than treating 

communication as a transfer of information, it is better to ensure that communication is the 

sharing of understanding. Virtual signaling has been found to be of critical importance in email and 

other virtual forums where body language cannot play the large role it does in face-to-face 

interactions. 

Growing a Knowledge Network 

The knowledge network is the weaving together of people, whether through teams, communities 

of practice, one-on-one relationships or through virtual social networking. Blogging and 

social web applications such as wikis are emerging as important areas for engagement and 

learning. 

Task teams at various levels of the utility’s structure are a natural way that work gets done. 

The very structure of an organization encourages individuals with similar skills or similar focus 

areas to work closely together. When necessary, an integrated product team crosses functional area 

lines to ensure a project is successfully implemented from cradle to grave. There are ten items that 

determine the capability of a team to do its job. These key success factors are: team leadership, 

shared vision/approach, team collaboration, empowerment, technology support, team learning, 

enterprise partnering, feedback, team collocation and team size. 

Although the team leader has more responsibility for team performance than the team 

members, all team members carry equal responsibility for results. Decisions are made by the team, 

not by the team leader acting alone. A team’s accountability is primarily for effectiveness (getting 

the desired results), and secondarily for efficiency (doing things at the least cost), although, as 

always, funds are limited and efficiency is important. However, when working in a complex environment, 

doing the right things often means losing some efficiency. For example, such things as 

learning, networking, keeping information systems up-to-date on what is learned, sharing knowledge 

with others (such as participating in communities), trying new ways of supporting customers, 

and spending time thinking about a complex situation to ensure the best decisions may all be considered 

inefficient in a bureaucratic organization. Yet without these activities, the utility will not be 

able to function, let alone excel, in a changing and uncertain environment. Efficiency and effectiveness 

are independent only in a stable environment, where the products, services and customer 

desires do not change considerably and there are no surprises. 

Communities of practice (CoPs) are comprised of people who actually work (practice) in a 

specific area of knowledge. CoPs bring people together who face many of the same issues and 

opportunities. These communities are particularly effective in large organizations (where people 

do not regularly interact) and across organizations (where the sharing of ideas and lessons learned 

can prove extremely valuable). Communities can also be effectively employed for cross-utility 

collaboration. While the focus of communities is on value added, mutual exchange and continuous 



learning, participants often brainstorm and seek solutions to specific issues and problems forwarded 

by community members. Thus, participation and reliance on CoPs increases over time. 

This powerful form of community can prove a continuing source of ideas and energy for long-term 

KM implementation. 

Every decision an individual makes is a result of life experiences and conversations and the 

learning that results from those experiences and conversations. Thus the networks we belong to 

help define who we are, contributing to our self-confidence, purpose and identity. They also provide 

a source for getting one or more opinions in a trusted environment, whether this is achieved 

through consulting a boss or employee, or a trusted and knowledgeable member of a team or community. 

The active relationship networks that crisscross organizations increase awareness, provide 

redundancies, and affect organizational responsiveness in terms of agility and flexibility. An organization 

can react faster when information around key areas of concern is flowing freely. An active 

relationship network also provides a monitoring and scanning system for problems and opportunities. 

It is easy to see how important everyday conversations can become to both individuals and 

their organizations. The good news is that each individual manages their own relationship network 

of people. If an individual’s networking is effective—based on interdependency, trust, a common 

framework, openness, the flow of information and knowledge, and equitability—that individual’s 

decisions will be more effective. 

Becoming a Change Agent 

Everyone working in their utility to improve the way it achieves its mission can be considered 

a change agent. Since knowledge—and by extension KM—is at the core of every individual’s 

contribution to the mission of the utility, implementation of a KM strategy or initiative is no exception. 

Further, an organization cannot change in a vacuum. This means that as changes occur within 

a utility, other parts of the utility and its stakeholders need to be changing as well. This also means 

that as the environment changes, the state-of-the-art changes, or another utility discovers a better 

way of doing things, your utility must be willing to consider, evaluate and, as appropriate, embrace 

these changes. 

While the easiest approach might be to order change to occur, this does not work in a complex 

organization such as a utility. In order for organizations to change, people must change. When 

people change they move through the following cognitive processes: 

• Awareness (aware of the needed action) 

• Understanding (understand its meaning and the expected result) 

• Believing (believe that the action is real and will work) 

• Feeling good (feel good about taking the action) 

• Ownership (feel a personal responsibility for taking action) 

• Empowerment (feel they have the right, knowledge and freedom to take action) 

• Impact (know that taking this action will make a difference) 

While this sounds difficult (and often it is), it can also occur within an instant. For example, if you 

are a trouble-shooter in a drinking water utility and a water main breaks in front of you, there is no 

doubt you move through this process and take some action within seconds, even if that action is to 

hit an emergency button call for assistance. Thus the intent of a KM strategy or initiative is to 



embed that same response in terms of knowledge creation, knowledge sharing and knowledge 

retention. 

An important part of the change approach in KM is to overcome barriers before they 

become barriers. One approach is to use a team or community to identify potential barriers, then 

brainstorm ways to remove these barriers or negate their impact on the success of the KM strategy 

or initiative being planned. Equally important is to identify and recognize what is working well. 

Built on the precept that what we focus on becomes our reality, an Appreciative Inquiry approach 

helps empower the workforce and facilitate receptivity to new ideas. 

Resources Linked From the Planning Phase 


• Tools: Appreciative Inquiry, Blog, Brainstorming, Brain Writing, Collaborative 

Problem Solving, Community of Interest, Community of Practice, Document 

Repository, Event Intermediation, Interviewing, KM Desk Guide, Knowledge Audit, 

Knowledge Base Roadmap, Knowledge Map, Knowledge Ontology, Knowledge 

Taxonomy, Lessons Learned, Relationship Building, Shared Space, Social Network 

Analysis, Storytelling, Wiki, The World Cafe 

• Ideas: Community Outreach, Cross-utility Collaboration, Media Productions, 

Stakeholder Engagement, Technology Related Tools 

• Strategies: Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO), Increasing 

Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge, Developing Knowledge Leaders, 

Implementing eLearning, Knowledge Retention and Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing 

Culture 

• Depth Resources: Building and Sustaining CoPs (APQC study), The Change Agent’s 

Strategy (MQI paper), Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture (APQC study), DON 

tool ABC’s for CoP Quick Start (DON Tool), The Eleven Deadliest Sins of KM 

(Fahen-Prusak paper), From Stories to Strategy (MQI paper), Guide to Virtual CoPs 

(FAA pamphlet), Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, A Model for Team 

Learning and Success (MQI monogram), A New Change Model (MQIpaper), 

Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies (TECHi2 paper), 

Relationship Network Management (MQIpaper), Systems and Complexity Thinking 

(MQI paper), Virtual Collaboration (APQC study) 

• White Papers: 4003 White Paper #3 (barriers) 

• Project Studies 1, 5, 9, 23 

• Case Examples 1, 2, 10, 16, 18, 20, 22 

• Case Studies: The DON Case Study, Learn@WELL Case Study, Singapore Case 

Study 

The Executing Phase 

Start-up of the KM project usually means the beginning of execution or implementation of 

the project plan. If the planning has been thorough, the project team is in place and networks have 

been identified or established. Start-up is the time to set in motion project activities such as allocating 

resources, contract administration, distributing information and communicating the project 



plan to stakeholders and the project team, which must be managed, motivated, informed, encouraged, 

empowered and supported. After start-up, the project moves into an expansion and growth 

phase where the processes and approaches needed to sustain the project are established, and implementation 

gets under way. 

Leading and Managing 

With the emergence of knowledge leadership over the past several decades, new relationships 

between leaders, followers, and knowledge have also emerged. In the past knowledge was 

held tightly at the higher levels of an organization and used to maintain control. Today knowledge 

that is essential to the success of the utility resides in people at all levels. Further, because knowledge 

needs shift and change in response to new demands and ideas from the environment, no single 

individual or group of individuals can have all the knowledge necessary to run a utility. In this 

new world, there is some shift in authority from upper and middle management and leadership to 

the workforce, which essentially means that management and leadership give employees more 

freedom while still maintaining responsibility—something that is difficult for some line managers 

and supervisors to do! Yet, for leaders and the utility to take advantage of worker’s knowledge and 

experience for organizational improvement, the context, direction and authority to make local 

decisions should be at the point of action where the best knowledge resides. 

Thus the role of leaders is much that of a gardener. Leaders are available for advice; for 

integrating the efforts of knowledge workers; for nurturing an atmosphere of trust, collaboration, 

confidence and integrity; for listening and being a sounding board; and for overriding knowledge 

workers (only) when they believe that a fatal mistake is about to be made. Mistakes will happen. 

They are a necessary part of living in a turbulent environment, and having the freedom to make 

mistakes is the price for creativity, agility, learning, and optimum complexity. What is critical is 

that knowledge workers learn from all mistakes. Leaders recognize that there are some areas and 

times, when workers must follow exact procedures and deviating from the rules cannot be allowed. 

A clear example is safety procedures or high risk areas. Thus modern leaders have to work with 

their utilities under both conditions, perhaps at the same time, encouraging new ideas and exploration 

to improve efficiency or effectiveness in one area of operations while ensuring rigid discipline 

and training in another. 

In addition to providing resources and guidance to their team, a primary job of the project 

(team) leader is to monitor and assess project progress. Information on progress must be evaluated, 

comprehended and acted upon. Variations should be investigated, and adjustments made when 

necessary, while keeping the entire project team informed. While an in-depth treatment of project 

management actions is beyond the scope of this project, included here is a quick synopsis of management 

actions during the expansion and growth phase and sustainability phase. 

• Check the progress of activities against the plan and make adjustments where necessary, 

ensuring that all stakeholders are informed of any changes and, where possible, 

included in the decision-making process. 

• Review performance regularly and at the pre-planned review points, and confirm the 

validity and relevance of the remainder of the plan. 

• Adjust the plan if necessary in light of performance, changing circumstances, and new 

information, but remaining on track and within the original terms of reference. 

• Use transparent, pre-agreed assessment measures when judging performance. 



• Identify, agree and delegate new actions as appropriate. 

• Inform team members and those in authority about developments, clearly, concisely 

and in writing. 

• Plan and execute team review meetings. 

• Stick to established monitoring systems. 

• Probe the apparent situations to get at the real facts and figures. 

• Analyze causes and learn from mistakes. 

• Identify reliable advisors and experts on the team and use them. 

• Keep talking to people, and make time available to all. 

• Share everything possible with all team members. 

The Four Organizational Processes 

In every organization there are four processes that are used continuously, although often 

they are used unconsciously, invisible or merged together depending on the problem and experience 

of the individuals involved. Together, these four processes—creativity, problem-solving, 

decision-making and implementation—constitute a procedure for ensuring that all aspects of a 

situation are taken into account. Knowledge is at the heart of all four of these processes, and 

undoubtedly all four will play a role in planning and preparing for, executing and sustaining KM 

strategies and initiatives. 

Creativity is both an art and a science. The creative process typically has four stages. 

• Stage one is the problem, situation, or opportunity identification where a thorough 

discussion of the issues and objectives occurs among interested/responsible organizational 

employees to ensure common understanding of the desired effort. 

• Stage two is gathering relevant information needed to focus potential new ideas and 

to provide stimulation for idea generation. 

• Stage three is the actual generation of ideas via brainstorming or some other 

technique. 

• Stage four is the discussion; evaluation and prioritization of ideas to determine which 

ones are the best. 

Each of these stages is built upon the collaboration and interactions among individuals and the 

exchange of ideas. Further, creativity is part of the learning process. Each assumption leads to an 

entirely different set of ideas that are acceptable for consideration. A useful technique to aid thinking 

out of the box is to first surface the basic assumptions of individuals and teams that may underlie 

an initial response, and then change that set of assumptions and follow the consequences. This 

frees up the mind to generate more and different ideas. 

Problem-solving is one of the most important processes in the organization. Taking inputs 

from the creative process as needed, the problem-solving process provides the links between ideas, 

problems, and decisions. The output of the problem-solving team or community is a solution set of 

alternatives that provide ways to achieve a desired situation or problem solution. There is no one 

process for solving problems, and rarely is there a single solution. When people, organizations, and 

complex relationships exist, it is often impossible to identify causes. Before a team can solve a 

problem, it must first agree on exactly what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Since for the 



most complex problems there is rarely enough right information or time to provide a definitive, 

clean solution, finding solutions to complex problems becomes a creative act. 

Decision-making refers to the selection of one or more alternatives generated by the 

problem-solving process. Some key points to note concerning decisions are: 

1. No decision is a decision. 

2. All complex decisions involve values and judgments. 

3. No one can predict the future. 

4. Every decision is a guess about the future. 

5. The quality of a decision cannot be measured by its outcome. 

There are many ways to make decisions and just as many processes. But no matter what process is 

used, there are some questions that should be considered before starting to make a decision. First, 

who should make the decision? Then, if it is determined that a team should make the decision, how 

will the outcome be measured? What is the type and degree of team interaction needed during team 

decision-making discussions? Will the decision require creative thinking or analysis and logic? Do 

all team members need to be present? Should outside experts participate in the process? Is facilitation 

needed? Finally, what is the sequence of thinking that the team will go through to arrive at a 

decision? As the environment becomes more complex, decision-makers at the point of action 

(residing at all levels throughout the organization) must increasingly rely on their intuition and 

judgment. 

Implementation is the act of taking good decisions and turning them into actions and 

changes that solve problems, satisfy customers, take advantage of new opportunities, and enhance 

the image and value of the utility. Implementation is the most situation-dependent of the major 

processes. The details of the actions required to achieve the desired results cannot be generalized. 

However, there are a few points to remember. When individuals who have responsibility for implementation 

are aligned with the decision, implementation becomes much more effective. Ultimately, 

implementation is built on relationships and an understanding of the objectives and the environment. 

Efficiency and clarity of communication, coupled with openness and a sincere concern to 

share understanding and get participation, will help ensure success. The paragraphs that are covered 

in this section on execution are specifically concerned with the implementation of KM strategies 

and initiatives. 

Knowledge Capture 

What we refer to as knowledge capture is actually the capturing of information that can 

then be used by decision-makers to create knowledge. Information can be captured in many ways. 

For example, every time utility workers develop white papers, research papers and reports, they 

are capturing their knowledge in the form of information which others can read and hopefully 

understand. A large part of how well this information is understood is based on context and a common 

language. These documents are then stored in information systems (with contact information 

for the originators), and connected to similar and complementary information that can help build 

a deeper understanding of when and how to use this information in future situations. 

An approach to capturing lessons learned is after action reviews, real-time communication 

vehicles that share understanding across the implementation team while also serving as lessons 

learned for those who later read them, and assessment instruments for those who later analyze 



them. After action reviews are held immediately after an event has occurred while the details are 

fresh in the minds of participants. The actual outcome of the event is compared with the intended 

outcome to discover what went right and why, and what went wrong and why in a candid, open 

discussion. There must be sufficient detail and clarity to ensure everyone understands what did and 

did not occur (and why) so that lessons can be understood and applied to future actions. Many 

organizations also hold pre-event and during-event reviews. The pre-action review brings an 

implementation team together to focus on the direction ahead, how progress will be assessed, and 

sharing lessons learned from previous projects or related events. The during-action review provides 

the opportunity to assess progress and adjust actions underway accordingly. 

The learning history is a structured process for gathering information related to a project, 

mission or initiative. It is a retrospective history of significant events in an organization’s recent 

past described in the words of people who took part in those events. Researched through a series 

of debriefings or reflective interviews, the learning history uses feedback from employees at all 

levels to help an organizational evaluate its progress and provide information for future 

decisions. 

The KM desk guide is a document residing on the desk (or virtually within the system supporting 

that desk) that contains the specific information needed to successfully accomplish the job 

of the individual who works from that desk. Each desk guide is updated annually, as changes 

occur, or as an individual is preparing to leave a position to ensure ease of job transition. The KM 

desk guide also serves as a resource for temporary employees and development of an expertise 

locator. 

Knowledge Harvesting 

Best practices and lessons learned have no intrinsic value. Their benefits come from ensuring 

that they are effectively transferred and applied. The harvesting of information by decisionmakers 

that can create the knowledge needed to make the best decisions is achieved through good 

information systems, the flow of information and knowledge across the utility, and the decisionmaker’s 

competency. Good information systems means systems and processes that ensure the 

value, relevancy, currency and credibility of information and the ability to access what is needed. 

The flow of information and knowledge across an organization is enabled by the interactions 

among people, whether that is through formal work structures, teams and communities, through 

information relationship networks, or through casual conversations and discussions, all creating 

knowledge moments. 

Resources Linked From the Executing Phase 

• Tools: After Action Reviews, Brainstorming, Brain Writing, Causal Loop Diagram, 

Collaborative Problem Solving, Community of Practice, Concept Mapping, Dialogue, 

Expertise Locator, Facilitation, Force Field Analysis, Interviewing, Interviewing 

Profiling Tool, Knowledge Base Development, KM Desk Guide, Knowledge 

Moments, Knowledge Taxonomy, Ladder of Inference, Leave a Legacy, Lessons 

Learned, Peer View Process, Prioritization Matrix, Shared Space, Sleep On It, 

Storytelling, The World Café (See the Tools section under Resources in the Toolkit.) 

• Ideas: Group Learning, Knowledge sharing, Technology-Related Tools 



• Depth Resources: Collaborative Leadership (MQI paper), The Depth of Knowledge 

(MQI paper), Influence of Knowledge on Leadership (MQI research paper), 

Information Literacy (MQI paper), Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, A 

Model for Team Learning and Success (MQI monogram), Relationship Network 

Management, Retaining Valuable Knowledge (APQC study), A Systems Approach to 

Capturing Knowledge (MQI chart), Thinking Systems and Complexity (MQI paper) 

• White Papers: Knowledge Mobilization 

• Project Studies 1,2, 7, 8 

• Case Examples 15, 21 

• Case Studies: DON Case Study, NASA-Kennedy Space Center KM Case Study, 

NASA Web-Based Collaborative Decision Support 

The Sustaining Phase 

The strategy or initiative is underway. While measures have been determined early in the 

Planning stage, now is where they will tell the story. Thus a discussion of measures is included in 

this section. A classic and continuing challenge to management is to follow through on a strategy, 

program or project. Too often they start with a big bang and gradually fade into the distance as 

other demands (and perhaps opposition) slow down momentum. From experiences like these, 

many workers take a cautious or even cynical view of new efforts to “improve” the utility. This 

makes it even more important that any new program or strategy is designed to be sustainable for 

as long as it contributes to the health and performance of the utility. To be sustainable, a program 

has to validate its contribution to utility performance. But that is not enough. The program needs 

to be able to adapt to the needs of the organization and have other characteristics addressed below. 

A major contribution offered by Knowledge Management is its ability to help the entire utility 

adapt and maintain high performance by supporting several of the below listed organizational 

characteristics. 

Nurturing Organizational Health 

Organizational health is the capacity to maintain high performance in a changing, uncertain, 

complex and anxiety-producing environment. An organization is considered healthy when it 

has the internal capacity and capability to deal with this new reality over time. Because organizational 

performance is the sum of every decision and action every day in the organization, the 

healthier the organization, the higher the quality of decision-making and consequent actions. Eight 

factors that considerably influence the capacity of an organization to sustain high performance in 

this environment are provided below with descriptions. 

• Continuous learning (workers and organizations always gaining knowledge and 

adapting behavior) 

• Quick response (the organization is capable of reacting/responding quickly when 

needed.) 

• Robustness (the capacity to operate in a broad range of environments) 

• Resiliency (the ability to recover readily, to resume its original performance) 

• Flexibility (capable of being changed, or flexed, susceptible to influence or persuasion, 

tractable) 



• Adaptability (the ability to change to fit a specific need or situation; an alteration or 

adjustment in structure or habits) 

• Stakeholder satisfaction (providing value that satisfies stakeholders—customers, 

governance boards, regulatory agencies, local communities and employees) 

• Alignment (the capacity of an organization to simultaneously maintain organizational 

cohesion and worker empowerment). 

In a 2005 study involving participants from 24 Federal government organizations, two 

hundred senior executives surveyed felt that stakeholder satisfaction, resilience and robustness 

were strengths of their organizations. On the other hand, alignment, adaptability, quick response 

and flexibility were seen as organizational capabilities that were below average. This meant that 

their organizations were controlling without good cohesion, structurally difficult to change, perhaps 

slow to respond and not very flexible—characteristics typical of a bureaucracy. Rightfully so, 

there was significant concern expressed regarding their ability to deal with an environment that is 

rapidly becoming more dynamic, uncertain and complex. Drinking water utilities are facing these 

same issues. 

When a utility recognizes the value knowledge and knowledge sharing contribute to organizational 

sustainability—a focus on the value of people and their interactions—they are building 

the foundation for sustainability. When aligned and focused on stakeholder satisfaction, this means 

that the best knowledge is available to decision-makers at all levels of the organization every day. 

Embedding 

All the steps taken in the start-up and the growth and expansion phase to ensure project 

expectations are being fulfilled and are firmly in place during the sustainability phase. The implementation 

team understands expectations and is a cohesive connected body, empowered and making 

decisions at the point of action. The ultimate goal is for the implementation team to move into 

a supporting role as the strategy or initiative becomes embedded in the everyday life of the 

utility. 

Stories and storytelling are a powerful tool for sustaining change. The construction of fictional 

examples (or of true experiences) to illustrate a point can be used to effectively transfer 

knowledge. When well-constructed, stories can convey a high level of complex meaning and values. 

A variety of story forms exist naturally throughout every organization, including scenarios— 

the articulation of possible future states, constructed within the imaginative limits of the author, 

and anecdotes—brief sequences captured in the field or arising from brainstorming sessions. While 

scenarios provide awareness of alternatives, they can also be used as planning tools for possible 

future situations. Anecdotes can be used to reinforce positive behavior; leaders can seek out and 

disseminate true anecdotes that embody the values desired in the organization. Healthy organizations 

are filled with anecdotes. 

Open communications across a utility play a large role in facilitating knowledge sharing. 

For examples see ideas for building shared understanding. In addition to interactions through 

teams, communities and meetings, best practices and lessons learned can be communicated across 

the utility in regular communications publications, some of which could be made available to 

stakeholders. Specific ways to engage stakeholders include community meeting, focus groups and 

town halls. 



Sharing 

Knowledge sharing is not merely a transfer of information; it is bringing people together to 

interact and exchange different experiences and share understanding. Any time two or more utility 

employees engage dialogue this is occurring. Through dialogue an individual’s context can be 

conveyed, allowing each participant to gain the explicit knowledge shared by the other and to create 

new knowledge through a mutual learning process. For example, mentoring—a relationship 

between an experienced utility and a younger professional—can facilitate the sharing of shallow 

and deep knowledge. 

Knowledge is one of those rare things you can give away and still have. In the past, knowledge 

was used in organizations to control others and maintain power. Today, knowledge hoarders 

have limited value to their organizations and often create cultural barriers to learning. Wherever 

possible, it is best to develop and share as much knowledge as possible so that others can act independently 

and develop their own internally and situation-driven behavior. Through reciprocal 

sharing, innovation springs into being. 

While a necessary first step, simply having access to knowledge does not constitute sharing. 

For example, many organizations make information available through technology systems, 

but fail to incorporate knowledge maps or guides for users so they can find what they need and put 

it to use. Yet, as The World Bank discovered, knowledge sharing has become a strategic necessity 

to survival. A growing number of organizations are recognizing the need for collaboration across 

organizational boundaries. 

Ideally, knowledge sharing emerges as part of the culture. Some examples that facilitate 

knowledge sharing are: the support and use of teams and communities as part of the everyday work 

process, the example of openness and integrity set by senior leadership; and an awards program 

that rewards knowledge sharing. 

Evaluating and Measuring 

While there is a need to measure expenses, schedule, scope, and quality, there are also subjective 

measures for things like your team’s relationship with stakeholders, knowledge sharing, 

innovative ideas emerging, etc. Any measure is appropriate if it helps ensure the project is on track 

with its strategic intent. When picking metrics, ensure that you are measuring for the future. 

Because what gets measured is what gets attention, it is important to think forward to the desired 

end state and identify performance measures that move beyond specific goals to serving as part of 

the implementation change strategy. The knowledge centric organization model designed by the 

Department of the Navy uses three types of metrics to assess different levels of KM impact, namely 

outcome (enterprise or overall value), output (project or task), and system (technology tool). 

The perspectives of the customer, department, organization, and individual are critical to 

the project’s success and, as appropriate, need to be incorporated into its evolution. The implication 

for KM metrics is that it is important to identify who is likely to use the performance measurement 

information. Potential users include strategic decision makers, special project decision makers, 

funding and approval stakeholders, government agencies involved in approval or regulation, or 

customers. Measures should be in terms that are familiar to the stakeholder, there may be several 

different metrics that need to be captured for an initiative. There is no one “right” set of measures 

for KM, and most initiatives will require a combination of measurement types and classes to reflect 

the overall mission and strategy of the utility and effectively communicate with key individuals. 



Learning 

If there was one core competency of an organization—and the people within the organization—that 

could be culled out from others to ensure success, it is learning. Learning is the process 

that creates new meaning from experience and new capabilities for action. Strangely enough, 

while learning is critical to the life of individuals and the utility, few people have ever focused on 

learning how to learn. 

Knowledge is the result of learning. To become a knowledge utility means to become a 

learning utility. To put learning in perspective, consider several closely related concepts: training, 

education, and what might be called acquiring deep knowledge. All of these are forms of learning, 

each emphasizing a different goal with varying processes used for each. Training deals with developing 

skills and abilities that do not require abstract concepts or a great deal of experience. Training 

usually has a narrow focus, and results that achieve a specific capability. Education is usually 

thought of as a process of learning about things that provide the learner with a broad, balanced 

perspective on the world and the ability to understand and deal with many areas of life. Deep learning 

refers to the acquisition and understanding of highly abstract and complex concepts, systems 

and information. For example, a deep knowledge of calculus would be the ability to solve calculus 

problems which would include understanding the foundations of the theory, its limitations, and 

domain of application. Deep knowledge is created by study, reflection, assimilation, practice, 

problem-solving, and “living with the subject.” 

People learn best by doing. Action learning is a task-oriented group process that is useful 

for approaching narrowly focused issues. Individual learning can be facilitated through the use of 

new technologies include podcasts, Wikipedia, and a school in Second Life (see Appendix H, 

under Individual Learning.) Group learning approaches include retreats, brown bag lunches, 

speaker series and workshops. 

Continuous learning (the creation of new ideas) and the ability to effectively (and often 

quickly) act on those ideas are paramount in any organization involved in knowledge work. 

Continuous learning is a daily routine for knowledge workers as new challenges require new ideas, 

solutions and approaches. 

Resources Linked From the Sustaining Phase 

• Tools: Action Learning, After Action Reviews, Mentoring, Learning How to Learn, 

Storytelling 

• Ideas: Communications Publications, Community Outreach, Group Learning, 

Individual Learning, Knowledge Sharing, Cross-utility Collaboration, Media 

Productions, Recognition and Rewards, Stakeholder Engagement 

• Depth Resources: Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture (APQC report), DON 

Metrics Guide, Learning and Knowledge Management (MQI paper), Regulatory 

Perspectives for Drinking Water utilities (MQI report) 

• White Papers: The Business Case for KM, 

• Project Studies 3, 4, 24 

• Case Examples 5, 6, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 

• Case Studies: DON Case Study 



THE TOOLS 

Tools are practices and processes to support implementation of KM in drinking water utilities. 

Each tool can be considered separately as an initiative, or a set of tools can be used in support 

of a KM strategy. These tools can also support other utility strategies. 

While many of the tools have been linked directly from the phases of the KM Toolkit, others 

are cross-linked from the strategies, ideas pages, and other tools. There are 55 tools, most of 

which could be considered as KM initiatives. Table 8.1 lists each tool, a description of the tool, 

what it supports and what it is connected to in the virtual KM Toolkit. For ease of use, each tool is 

also rated in terms of level of effort, size of utility, and scope of work. 

The level of effort is the relative amount of investment in terms of time, people, and funds 

needed to implement an initiative. Level of effort is indicated as low, medium or high. The size of 

utility appropriate for each tool is indicated as small, medium, large or scalable. Small is 0–50 

people, medium is 50–300 people, and large is greater than 300 employees. The term “scalable” 

indicates that the tool can be effectively used in all sizes of utilities. The scope of work indicates 

the range of situations, issues, problems that this tool (initiative) can address. This is expressed in 

terms of narrow, medium and wide. Two additional indicators that periodically appear in relationship 

to specific tools are “C 2 ” and “NA.” C 2 means that the initiative is very context and content 

sensitive, and is difficult to categorize. NA represents “not applicable.” 

The detailed Tools that are part of the KM Toolkit are in Appendix C. 

THE IDEAS 

Ideas pages are resource lists that include a variety of concepts and approaches that can 

support the application of KM practices in drinking water utilities. Each concept or approach 

includes a short description. In the virtual toolkit, Ideas pages also include links to Tools, Project 

Studies, Case Examples and Case Studies as appropriate. The Ideas pages were developed to build 

the catalogue of choices and stimulate the imagination. 

Table 8.2 lists the areas in which the Ideas are organized and a descriptor of the ideas in 

each area. 

The KM Toolkit Ideas pages are in Appendix H. 

OTHER RESOURCES 

In addition to the Tools and Ideas introduced above, the KM Toolkit includes Project 

Studies, White Papers, Case Examples, Case Studies and other Resource Documents. KM Toolkit 

indexes are listed in Appendix I. 

Project Studies 

Project Studies are short studies contributed by drinking water utilities nationwide specifically 

for Project 4003. These Project Studies are examples of KM initiatives that are either in the 

process of implementation or have been applied. (See Chapter 2 and Appendix B.) 



Table 8.1 

Tools (initiatives) in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit 

Tool Description Supports Sends to 

Level of effort/ 

size of utility/ 

scope of work 

Action 

learning 

Low/scalable/wide 

Affinity 

diagram 

After action 

review 

Appreciative 

inquiry 

Ba spaces 

A process involving 

a small group of 

people learning 

as they solve real 

problems. 

A process for 

categorizing utility 

knowledge needs in 

a diagram format to 

exhibit differences 

and relationships. 

A group process 

for assessing the 

effectiveness of 

events or the way 

situations were 

handled. 

An approach 

to accelerating 

receptivity to new 

ideas, behavior 

change, and the 

adoption of best 

practices. 

Collaborative 

spaces designed into 

the workplace to 

facilitate knowledge 

moments. 

• Problem solving 

• Individual and 

group learning 

• Team collaboration 

• Group Learning 

• Knowledge Audit 

• Knowledge sharing 

• Learning 

• Assessment 


retention 

• Innovation 

• Organizational 

learning 

• Culture change 


retention 


• Learning 

• Team building 

• After Action Review 

• Collaborative Problem 

Solving Forum 


• Individual Learning 

• Learning History 

Case Examples #6,7 


• Knowledge Base Roadmap 

• Knowledge Mapping, 

• Knowledge Ontology 

• Knowledge Taxonomy 

Case Examples #16,19, MQI 

paper Systems Thinking 

• Action Learning 


• Key Learning Document 

• Knowledge Sharing 


• Lessons Learned 

• Peer View 

• Process 

• Sample Report 

Project Study #23, Case 

Examples #6,7,17 


• Best practices 

• Recognition and Rewards 

• Relationship Building 

• Success Stories 

Project Study #5, MQI paper 

on Relationship Network 


• Dialogue 

• Knowledge Moments 


• Shared Space 

• Case Examples #10,12,21, 

MQI paper on Relationship 

Network Management 

Low/scalable/narrow 

Med/scalable/wide 



(continued) 





identifying good 

practice in external 

organizations, 

learning from them, 

and adapting to your 

utility. 

Best practices A systematic process 

for transferring best 

practices between 

groups within the 

utility or across 

utilities. 

Blog 

Benchmarking 

Brainstorming 

A conversational 

web site maintained 

by an individual. 


enhancing the 

creation and flow of 

new ideas. 



Learning 

• Process 

Improvement 

• Culture Change 


learning 

• Utility operations 

• Utility performance 

and sustainability 


• Learning 


• Relationship 

building 

• Innovation 

• Consensus building 


• Teambuilding 

• Relationship 

building 


• Appreciative Inquiry 

• Best Practices 

• Case Study 

• Interviewing 



• Resources 


Project Studies #3,11, Case 

Examples #22, APQC 

benchmarking studies, MQI 

paper CONTEXT 


Solving Forum 

• Community of Interest 

• Community of Practice 

• Facilitation 

• Interview Process 




• Resources Success Stories 

• Technology Related Tools 

Project Study #21,25, Case 

Example #16, APQC Best 

Practice Studies in Resources 

• Building Trust 

• Dialogue 



• Wiki 


• Brain Writing 


Solving Forum 

• Concept Mapping 


• Sleep On It 


Examples #4,15 



scope of work 

Med/scalable/C 2 C 2 

= context/content 

dependent 

C 2 /C 2 /C 2 C 2 = 

context/content 

dependent 


Low/scalable/C 2 C 2 


dependent 

(continued) 




Brain writing A process to help • Collaboration • Brainstorming 

groups collaborate • Problem solving • Collaborative Problem 

when dealing with • Conflict resolution Solving Forum 

sensitive idea or • Group learning 

issue. 

Case study 

Causal loop 

diagram 

Collaborative 

problem 

solving forum 


plan 

An approach 

to learning and 

decision-making 

grounded by real-life 

situations. 


representing the 

cause and effect 

relationships among 

variables. 

An approach for 

creating and sharing 

knowledge about 

practices. 

A method for linking 

messages to target 

audiences and 

indicating the timely 

communication 

of important 




• Learning 

assessment 



• Learning 

• Collaboration 


• Process 

improvement 

• Workforce learning 


• Learning 


• Benchmarking 

• Storytelling 

Case Examples #9,16, 


Solving Forum 


• Force Field Analysis 

Case Examples # 4,5, DON 

Case Study 



• Brainstorming 

• Causal Loop Diagram 

• Group learning 


• Force Field Analysis 

• Ladder of Inference 

• Prioritization Matrix 

• Sleep on It 

• Storyboard 



Solving Forum 

• Communications 

Publications 



• Leadership Commitment 

• Visibility 

• Media Productions 

• Social Network Analysis 

Project Studies #3,5, Case 

Examples #16,18,21 



scope of work 




dependent 

Med/scalable/narrow 


Low/scalable/C 2 C 2 


dependent 

(continued) 




Community 

of practice 

Community 

of interest 

Concept 

mapping 

Dialogue 

Document 

repositories 

A group of 

individuals who 

work in a common 

area of knowledge. 

A group of 

individuals who 

communicate with 

each other within 

a common area of 

knowledge. 

A technique for 

mapping the 


different concepts. 

A small group of 

people seeking 

a common 

understanding 

through a specific 

process called 

dialogue. 

A technology for 

storing, tracking, and 

managing formatted 

information objects. 



• Learning 


retention 


• Learning 

• Cross Training 


retention 


• Idea generation 

• Learning 


• Knowledge creation 


organizational 

learning 

• Group collaboration 

• Creating shared/ 

common 

understanding 

• Expertise location 




scope of work 


Med/large/wide 


• Community of Interest 

• Cross-utility 


• Expertise Locator 



• Reference Materials for 

Knowledge Sharing 



Examples #4,6,15,16,17,18, 

DON Case Study, Learn @ 

WELL Case Study, APQC 

Building and Sustaining CoPs, 

APQC Virtual Collaboration, 

DON ABC’s for CoP Quick 

Start, FAA Guide to Virtual 

CoPs 


Med/large/wide 


• Stakeholder Engagement 

APQC Virtual Collaboration, 


Singapore Case Study 



• Causal Loops 


• Blog 


Solving Forum 


• World Café 

Case Examples #11,13,21 






TECHi2 Paper on Taxonomy 

and Ontology, Project Studies 

#2,10,13,14,19,24,28.32, Case 

Examples #2, 16 


High/scalable/wide 

(continued) 




Engaging 

golden 

expertise 

Event 

intermediation 

Expertise 

locator 

Facilitation 

Force field 

analysis 

Interviewing 

A program or 

series of actions for 

engaging employees 

who have retires 

or external experts 

who are no longer 

fully engaged in the 

workplace. 

An event for which 

the planning process 

and actual event are 

strategically used to 

bring about largescale 

change across a 

utility and its larger 

stakeholder group. 

A system for 

connecting 

knowledge seekers 

with knowledge 

holders to facilitate 

knowledge 

exchange. 

A process of leading 

and collaboratively 

working with a 

group of individuals 

to achieve a specific 

objective by 

maximizing group 

synergy. 

A mechanism 

for assessing and 

dealing with the 

various forces that 

aid or hinder the 

implementation of a 

program or project. 

A one-on-one 

process for 

gathering first-hand 




retention 

• utility performance 


learning 

• Employee 

development 

• Change 

management 

• Knowledge flows 


• Customer relations 


• Decision-making 


• Problem-solving 


• Leadership 

development 


• Decision support 

• Collaboration and 

knowledge sharing 



retention 

• Information 

gathering 



• Leave a Legacy 

MQI Graphic Systems 

Approach, Project Study #12, 



• Community Outreach 


DON Case Study, Singapore 

Case Study, MQI paper on 

Systems and Complexity 

• Document Repository 

• Engaging Golden Expertise 


Examples #6,10,15,16, Case 

Stud; NASA Kennedy Space 

Center 

• Dialogue 



• Brain Writing 

• Causal Loop Diagram 


• Interviewing Profiling Tool 

• Key Learning’s Document 

• KM Desk Guide 

• KM Plan 





scope of work 


Med-high/ 

med-large/wide 


Low/scalable/med 




dependent 

(continued) 




Interviewing 

profiling tool 

Key leanings 

document 


audit 


base roadmap 


blueprint 


management 

desk guide 

Provides pertinent 

questions to 

interview key 

personnel. 

Short summaries of 

specific actions and 

results in context. 

An inquiry into 

what knowledge an 

organization has, 

who has it and how 

it flows throughout 

the organization. 

A framework 

for building a 

knowledge base in 

a specific area of 

knowledge. 

A template for 

recording KSI 

(knowledge, skill, 

information) 

requirements. 

An information 

resource specifically 

tied to job activity. 



retention 



retention 



assessment 

• Strategic planning 

• Succession 

planning 




retention 


learning 


• Communities of 

practice 

• Knowledge reuse 


retention 


acquisition 


• Learning 


retention 

• New hires 

• Job transition 


• Resource 

management 

• Dialogue 


• Knowledge Desk Guide 



• Dialogue 


• Knowledge Desk Guide 


Case Examples#6,15 

• Communities of practice 

Interviewing Profiling Tool 

• Knowledge Blueprint 

• Knowledge Mapping 



Examples #1,2, 




• Knowledge Blueprint 




• Picture Map 



Case Example #2 





• KM Plan 



• Sample Desk Guide 

Templates (1) and (2) 




scope of work 



dependent 



dependent 


High/med-large/ 

wide 



(continued) 





management 

plan 

KM plan 

sample plan 


mapping 


moments 


ontology 

A plan to implement 

a knowledge 

management 

initiative or strategy 

within a Drinking 

Water utility. 


• Knowledge creation 


planning 

• Creating a 

knowledge centric 


• Additional Assessment 

Tools 



• Leadership Commitment 

• Visibility 


• Sample KM Plan 



Examples #5,8,9,10,11,12,18, 

DON Metrics Guide, Learn@ 

WELL Case Study, Singapore 

Case Study 

(See KM Plan) • (See KM Plan) • KM Desk Guide 




indentifying 

and illustrating 

the location of 

knowledge within an 


A new frame 

of reference for 

creating and 

supporting situations 

that connect people 

and their knowledge. 

The conceptual 

framework 

that expresses 

a classification 

scheme. 


• Knowledge audit 

• Knowledge flows 

• Strategic planning 


Planning 




learning 


• Search and retrieval 


• Expertise Locator 


• Sample Questions 


Learn@WELL, Case Study, 



• Ba Space 

• Community Outreach 



• Peer View Process 

• Shared Spaces 


• The World Café 

Case Example #6, Singapore 

Case Study, MQI paper on 

Systems and Complexity 


• Folksonomies 


• Knowledge Base 


• Taxonomy 

Case Example #14, TECHi2 

paper on Ontologies and 

Taxonomies 



scope of work 

Med/scalble/wide 

(See KM plan) 



Med/scalable/ 

narrow*foundational 

for knowledge 

taxonomy 

(continued) 





taxonomy 

Ladder of 

inference 

Learning 

history 

Learning how 

to learn 

Leave a 

legacy 

Lessons 

learned 

A structured set 

of names and 

descriptions used to 

organize information 

and knowledge in a 

consistent way. 

An approach 

for checking the 

assumptions related 

to our mental 

processes. 

A structured process 

for gathering 

information related 

to a strategy, project 

or initiative. 


investigating your 

own capabilities 

of learning and 

optimizing the 

situations in which 

you best learn. 

A process to capture 

tacit knowledge. 

A systematic 

collection, capturing, 

and mobilizing 

approach for 

ensuring the 

organization learns 

from its successes 

and mistakes. 



• Search and retrieval 



• Learning 




retention 



learning 

• Individual learning 

• Decision-maker 

efficiency and 

effectiveness 

• Group learning 


learning 

• Knowledge capture 



retention 


learning 


retention 


• Folksonomies 


• Ontology 


TECHi2 paper on Ontologies 

and Taxonomies 


Solving Forum 











• Dialogue 






paper Surface, Shallow and 

Deep Knowledge 



• KM Plan 





• Publications 

• Communities of Interest 

• Communities of Practice 



• Sample Lessons Learned 

Report 


Case Examples #7,12,16,4003 

paper on Knowledge 

Mobilization 



scope of work 





dependent 



Large/scalable/wide 

(continued) 




Mentoring A learning • Individual learning • Dialogue 

relationship between • Succession • Individual Learning 

an experienced planning 


employee and a • Knowledge sharing Project Studies #23,29, Case 

newer, high-potential • Knowledge Examples #2,6, MQI paper 

employee. 

retention 



Peer view 

process 

Picture map 

Prioritization 

matrix 

Relationship 

building 


building familiarity 

with (and trust of) 

the expertise of 

others. 

A map for clarifying 

a process. 

A process for setting 

priorities for tasks or 

issues. 

Processes 

for building 

relationships within 

utilities at all levels 

and areas throughout 

the organization. 

Shared spaces A concept 

that promotes 

environments for 

nurturing knowledge 

sharing. 



• Building trust 


• Learning 


• Learning 


• Individual learning 



• Creativity 



• Dialogue 









Example #19 





• Ba Spaces 


• Dialogue 


• Shared Spaces 

MQI Paper Relationship 

Network Management, Project 

Study #29, Case Example #9, 


• Ba Spaces 







MQI paper on Relationship 

Network Management, Case 

Examples #3,20,22, Learn@ 

WELL Case Study 



scope of work 






Med/med-large/wide 

(continued) 




Sleep on it An approach for • Individual learning • Brainstorming 

improving problem • Problem solving • Collaborative Problem 

solving and 

Solving Forum 

innovation. 


Social 

network 

analysis 

Storyboards 

Storytelling 

Success 

stories 


mapping the 


people, teams, or 

across organizations. 

An approach 

to sequentially 

visualizing an event, 

process or series of 

activities before they 

occur. 

A tried and 

true process 

for effectively 

transferring 

knowledge. 

A strong 

methodology of 

communicating best 

practices across 

utility stakeholders. 




learning 

• Improved 

communications 

• Information flows 

• Learning 



retention 


• Culture change 


organizational 

learning 


• Learning 






APQC’s study on Virtual 

Collaboration, MQI’s paper 




• Picture Map 



Examples #6,9 


Solving Forum 

• Communities of Practice 



• Picture map 




MQI paper CONTEXT, MQI 

paper Storytelling, MQI paper 

From Stories to Strategies, 





• Communications Plan 


Publications 




Example #18 



scope of work 

Low/NA/narrow 





(continued) 




The world 

café 

Wiki 


building knowledge 

about a focused need 

or opportunity. 

A web site or group 

of web pages used 

for collaboration. 



• Idea generation 




• Group and 

individual learning 

• Dialogue 



paper on Relationship 

Network Management 

• Blog 





scope of work 

Med/med-large/C 2 

C 2 = context/content 

dependent 

Med/med-large/wide 


Definitions: 

• Level of effort [low, med, high] = Relative amount of investment (time, people, funds) needed to implement this 

initiative. 

• Size of utility [small, med, large, scalable] = small is 0–50, med is 50–300, large is greater than 300 employees. 

Scalable means that the tool can be used with all sizes of utilities. 

• Scope of work [narrow, med, wide] = Range of situations, issues, problems that this initiative can address. 

• C 2 means that the initiative is very context and content sensitive and is difficult to categorize. 

• NA is not applicable. 

Table 8.2 

Ideas in the drinking water utility KM Toolkit 

Idea area 

Descriptors of ideas 

Additional assessment tools 

Action Assessment and Learning 

Benchmarking 

Case Studies 

Cost Benefit Analysis 

Inquiry Groups 

Inventories 

Surveys 

Building trust 

“My Story” Program 

“Care to Share” Blog 

Social Networking 

Consistency of Behavior 

(continued) 



Communications publications 

Community outreach 

Cross-utility collaboration 

Group learning 

Individual learning 



Background Papers 

Book Review 

Issues Brief 

Brochures 

Editorial 

Fact Sheet 

Flyers 

Guidelines 

Information Packets 

Interpretative Materials 

Manuals 

One-Pager 

Policy Updates 

Posters 

Presentations 

Press Releases 

Public Service Announcements 

Contest 

Demonstration 

Exhibit 

Festival 

Tours 

Inter-utility Communities of Practice 

Conference 

Regional Network 

Retreat 

Seminars 

Speaker Series 

Stand-Down 

Workshops 

Professional Development Day 

Podcast 

Second Life 

Wikipedia 

Book Learning—The Active Way 

Ask, Learn, Share Model 

Best Practices Celebration and Sharing Day 

Case Study 

Communities of Practice 

Informal Events 

Professional Associations 

Round Table 

Social Networking 

Symposium 

(continued) 



Leadership commitment visibility 

Media productions 

Recognition and rewards 

Reference materials for building shared 

understanding 

Stakeholder engagement 

Technology related tools 



Short Video 

Pass-It-Down Training 

Town Hall 

Use Quotes 

Knowledge Fair 

Virtual CD 

Documentary 

DVD 

Graphics 

Movies 

Radio Program 

Story Pitches 

Television Shows 

Theatre 

Training Videos 

Knowledge in Action Award 

Not Invented Here Award 

Peer Recognition 

Peer Nomination for Awards 

Recognition by the Project Leader 

Recognition by Senior Leadership 

Utility Shared Knowledge Award 

Acronym List 

Bibliography 

Glossary 

Lexicon 

Resource Catalog 

Thesaurus 

Community Meeting 

Focus Group 

Forum 

Stakeholder Resource Kit 

Symposium 

Town Hall 

Collaborative Decision Support Systems 

Folksonomy 

Multiple Search Technologies 

Social Bookmarking 

You Tube 

Video Teleconferencing 



White Papers 

White Papers are research documents that address specific issues in drinking water utilities 

related to KM and knowledge mobilization. Developed from the results of the Project 4003 extensive 

data collection process, 4003 White Papers describe: The Role of Human Resources (#1), 

Opportunities and Initiatives (#2), Barriers to KM Initiatives (#3), and Critical Success Factors of 

KM Initiatives(#4). These have been used in support of Chapter 5 in this report, are part of the data 

in the survey results at Appendix A, and are available in the virtual KM Toolkit. 

White Papers also include the KM Strategies and Detail Papers on context, integrative 

product teams, management actions and optimum complexity, as well as longer papers on: 

• The WaterRF 4003 Knowledge Mobilization Program 

• The Business Case for KM in the Drinking Water Industry 

• The Current State of KM 

• Issues Faced by Drinking Water utilities 

• Regulatory Perspectives for the Water utilities 

White Papers are available in the Resources section of the KM Toolkit. 

Case Examples 

Case Examples are KM strategies and initiatives occurring in organizations external to the 

U.S. drinking water utility sector. These provide real-life implementation examples of strategies 

and initiatives applied in the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. (See Chapter 2 and the KM 

Toolkit.) 

Case Studies 

Case Studies include several organizations well-known for their successful implementation 

of KM; specifically, the U.S. Department of the Navy (DON) and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA). Both of these organizations are MAKE (Most Admired Knowledge 

Enterprise) award winners. This section also includes a Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental 

Health in Developing Countries) study and a case study on Integrating Technological Innovation 

and Community Engagement in Singapore. Collectively, these studies describe technical and 

socio-structural knowledge strategies and initiatives that enhance organizational learning and 

knowledge sharing. (See Chapter 2 and the KM Toolkit.) 

Resource Documents 

Resource Documents are extensive reference materials that can help a utility implement 

KM strategies and initiatives and enhance organizational learning. These include APQC (American 

Productivity & Quality Center) benchmarking and best practices studies, MQI (Mountain Quest 

Institute) research papers and publications, and resources contributed by IRC International Water 

and Sanitation Centre, FAA (Federal Aviation Administration), TECHi2 and the U.S. Department 

of Navy. Also included in a Workforce Plan developed by the Lehigh County Authority and several 

papers contributed by other KM thought leaders. 



Bibliography, Suggested Reading, and Glossary 

The KM Toolkit also includes a Bibliography, Suggested Reading and a Glossary. The 

Bibliography is a systematic list of books and other works such as articles used to prepare the toolkit. 

Suggested Reading is a short list of books and articles suggested for reading to further understand 

KM. The Glossary provides detailed definitions for knowledge and terms related to knowledge 

for those who wish to reflect deeply on these terms. Note that each tool is defined and described 

individually under Tools. 

FINAL THOUGHTS 

In summary, the KM Toolkit has been developed to aid drinking water utility leaders and 

managers who desire to implement KM strategies in their utilities. In addition to the Assessment 

Instrument, and detailed procedures for Planning→Preparing→Executing→Sustaining a KM 

strategy is provided, together with tools, many additional Ideas, and examples of drinking water 

utility projects and external case studies. 

Implementing a KM strategy is different than most other organizational projects because it 

includes employees, their culture, perspectives, behaviors, how they relate to each other and their 

utility, the structure of the utility, and management and leadership styles and responsibilities. In 

addition to the complexity of these aspects of a KM strategy, KM often represents a sea-change in 

the self-image and operation of the utility. 

Perhaps the single largest difference between a KM strategy project and other projects is 

that KM cannot be forced on an organization by historic leadership and management control. KM 

projects succeed when employees and managers create an environment within the utility in which 

knowledge creation, sharing, leveraging and application occurs naturally. 



REFERENCES 

Al-Ali, Nermien. 2003. Comprehensive Intellectual Capital Management: Step-by-Step. John 

Wiley and Sons. 

Albert, Steven, and Bradley, Keith. 1997. Managing Knowledge: Experts, Agencies and 

Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Albrecht, Karl. 2006. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success. Jossey-Bass. 

Allee, Verna. 1997. The Knowledge Evolution: Expanding Organizational Intelligence. 

Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Amidon, D. 1997. Innovation Strategy for the Knowledge Economy. Boston: 


AMSA and AMWA (Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and Association of 

Metropolitan Water Agencies). 2004. The Changing Workforce…Crisis and Opportunity. 

AMSA and AMWA. 

APQC (American Productivity Quality Center). Retaining Valuable Knowledge: Proactive 

Strategies to Deal With a Shifting Workforce. APQC. 

APQC (American Productivity Quality Center), Carlin, Stephanie, and Womack, Alexandria. 

1999. Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture. Edited by Susan Elliott. APQC. 

APQC (American Productivity Quality Center). 2001. Building and Sustaining Communities of 

Practice: Continuing Success in Knowledge Management. Edited by Paige Leavitt. APQC. 

APQC (American Productivity Quality Center), Lemons, Darcy, O’Kane, Mike, Lopez, Kimberley, 

and Hubert, Cindy. 2004. Virtual Collaboration: Enabling Project Teams and Communities. 

Edited by Paige Leavitt. APQC. 

Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for Action: A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational 

Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Baker, Wayne. 2000. Achieving Success Through Social Capital: Tapping the Hidden Resources in 

Your Personal and Business Networks. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Barquin, Ramon C., Bennet, Alex, and Remez, Shereen G. 2001. Building Knowledge Management 

Environments for Electronic Government. Vienna, Va.: ManagementConcepts. 

Bennet, Alex. 2006. Hierarchy as a Learning Platform. VINE, 36(3). 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2004. Organizational Survival in the New World: The Intelligent 

Complex Adaptive System. Boston: Elsevier. 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2006. Learning as Associative Patterning. VINE, 36(4). 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2007. Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences and 

Humanities: Moving From Research to Action. Frost, W.V.: MQI Press. 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. A New Change Model: Factors for Initiating and 

Implementing Personal Action Learning. VINE, 38(4). 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. eLearning as Energetic Learning. VINE, 38(2). 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. Exploring Concepts, Interpretations and Meaning. Icfai 

University Press. 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. The Decision-Making Process for Complex Situations in 

a Complex Environment. In Handbook on Decision Support Systems. New York: 

Springer-Verlag. 

Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. The Fallacy of Knowledge Reuse: Building Sustainable 

Knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management (Knowledge Cities). 

87 



Bennet, Alex, and Bennet, David. 2008. The Learning Organization: Moving From Knowledge to 

Wisdom, From Ordinary Consciousness to Extraordinary Consciousness. VINE, 38(1). 

Bennet, David. 1998. IPT Learning Campus: Gaining Acquisition Results Through IPTs [Online]. 

Alexandria, Va.: Dynamic Systems. Available: . 

Bennet, David. 2006. Expanding the Knowledge Paradigm. VINE, 36(2). 

Bennet, David, and Bennet, Alex. 2008. Engaging Tacit Knowledge in Support of Organizational 

Learning. VINE, 38(1). 

Bennet, David, and Bennet, Alex. 2008. The Depth of Knowledge: Surface, Shallow or Deep? 

VINE, 38(4). 

Berkman, E. 2000. Don’t Lose Your Mind, Share [Online]. CIO Magazine. Available: . 

Bohm, D. 1994. Thought as a System. New York: Routledge. 

Brown, J.S., Denning, S., Groh, K., and Prusak, L. 2005. Storytelling in Organizations: Why 

Storytelling Is Transforming 21st Century Organizations and Management. Boston: 


Brown, Juanita, Isaacs, David, and the World Café Community. 2005. The World Café: Shaping 

Our Futures Through Conversations That Matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 

Buckman, Robert H. 2004. Building a Knowledge-Driven Organization. McGraw-Hill. 

Bukowitz, W., and Williams, R. 1999. The Knowledge Management Fieldbook. London: Prentice 

Hall. 

Burden, Paul. 2000. Knowledge Management: The Bibliography. Assist Monograph Series. 

Burstein, F., and Holsapple, C.W. 2007. The Handbook on Decision Support Systems. 


Buzan, T. 1995. The MindMap Book. 2nd ed. London: BBC Books. 

Cassady, M. 1990. Storytelling Step by Step. San Jose, Calif.: Resource Publications. 

Cavaleri, Steven, Seivert, Sharon, and Lee, Lee W. 2005. Knowledge Leadership: The Art and 

Science of the Knowledge-Based Organization. KMCI Press. 

Cohen, Don, and Prusak, Laurence. 2001. In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes 

Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Collison, C., and Parcell, G. 2001. Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management From 

Leading and Learning Organizations. Capstone Publishing (Wiley). 

Conway, Susan, and Sligar, Char. 2002. Knowledge Management: Unlocking Knowledge Assets. 

Solutions From Microsoft. Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Press. 

Cope, Mick. 2000. Know Your Value? Value What You Know. Prentice Hall. 

Cortada, J. 1998. Rise of the Knowledge Worker. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Cortada, James W., and Woods, John A. 1999. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 1999–2000. 


Cortada, James W., and Woods, John A. 2000. The Knowledge Management Yearbook 2000–2001. 


Cross, R., and Israelit, S. 2000. Strategic Learning in a Knowledge Economy: Individual, Collective, 

and Organizational Learning Process. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Cross, R., and Prusack, L. 2002. The People That Make Organizations Stop—Or Go. Harvard 

Business Review, 80(6):104–112. 

Cross, R., Nohria, N., and Parker, A. 2002. Six Myths About Informal Networks—And How to 

Overcome Them. Sloan Management Review, 43(3):67–76. 


References | 89 

Cross, R.S., Borgatti, S., and Parker, A. 2002. Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social 

Network Analysis to Support Human Networks. California Management Review, 

44(2):25–46. 

Cross, Rob, and Parker, Andrew. 2004. The Hidden Power of Social Networks: Understanding 

How Work Really Gets Done in Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Crotty, Pat, and AWWA (American Water Works Association). 2004. Selection and Definition of 

Performance Indicators for Water and Wastewater Utilities. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF and 

AWWA. 

Davenport, Thomas O. 1999. Human Capital: What It Is and Why People Invest It. San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Davenport, Thomas, and Prusak, Laurence. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations 

Manage What They Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Davenport, Thomas, Prusak, Laurence, and Wilson, H. James. 2003. What’s the Big Idea? Creating 

and Capitalizing on the Best Management Thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School 

Press. 

Davis, B.G. 1993. Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

DeLong, David. 2004. Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce. New York: 

Oxford University Press. 

Denning, S. 2001. The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era 

Organizations. Woburn, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Department of Navy. 1999. Relationship of IT, IM and KM. Presentation by Alex Bennet, Deputy 

CIO and Chief Knowledge Officer of U.S. Department of Navy. 

Devlin, Keith. 1999. Infosense: Turning Information Into Knowledge. New York: W.H. Freeman 

and Company. 

Dixon, Nancy M. 2000. Common Knowledge: How Companies Thrive by Sharing What They 

Know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Douglas, Lloyd C. 1935. Green Light. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 

Dvir, R. 2006. Knowledge City: Seen as a Collage of Human Knowledge Moments. In Knowledge 

Cities: Approaches, Experiences, and Perspectives. Edited by F.J. Carillo. Oxford: 

Butterworth‐Heinemann Elsevier. 

Edvinsson, Leif, and Malone, Michael S. 1997. Intellectual Capital: Realizing Your Company’s 

True Value by Finding Its Hidden Roots. HarperBusiness. 

Fahey, Liam, and Prusack, Laurence. 1998. The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management. 

California Management Review, 40(3). 

Federal Aviation Administration. Knowledge Communities: A Guide to Virtual Communities of 

Practice. 

Funes, Mariana, and Johnson, Nancy. 1998. Honing Your Knowledge Skills. 


Gilley, Jerry W., and Maycunich, Ann. 2000. Organizational Learning, Performance and Change: 

An Introduction to Strategic Human Resource Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus 

Publishing. 

Gladwell, M. 2000. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston: 

Little, Brown and Company. 

Hammond, S.A., and Hall, J. 1996. [Online]. Available: . [cited 

September 2006] 



Harkins, Phil, Carter, Louis, L., and Timmins, Amy J. 2000. Linkage, Inc.’s Best Practices in 

Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning Handbook. Lexington, Mass.: 

Linkage. 

Harrington-Mackin, D. 1994. The Team Building Tool Kit: Tips, Tactics, and Rules for Effective 

Workplace Teams. New York: AMACOM. 

Harvard Business Review. 1987–1998. Harvard Business Review on Knowledge Management. 

Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Hilgard, E.R., and Bower, G.H. 1966. Theories of Learning. New York: Appleton- 

Century-Crofts. 

Holsapple, C.W. 2003. Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters. 


Holsapple, C.W. 2003. Handbook on Knowledge Management 2: Knowledge Directions. 


Horibe, Frances. 1999. Managing Knowledge Workers: New Skills and Attitudes to Unlock the 

Intellectual Capital in Your Organization. John Wiley and Sons. 

Housel, Thomas, and Bell, Arthur H. 2001. Measuring and Managing Knowledge. McGraw-Hill. 

IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre. 2006. Knowledge and Information Management in 

the Water and Sanitation Sector: A Hard Nut to Crack. Edited by Bill McCann. 

Isaacs, W. 1999. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together: A Pioneering Approach to 

Communicating in Business and in Life. New York: Doubleday. 

Knowles, Malcolm S. 1990. The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, Texas: Gulf 

Publishing Company. 

Koenig, Michael E.D., and Srikantaiah, T. Kanti. 2004. Knowledge Management Lessons Learned: 

What Works and What Doesn’t. American Society for Information Science and Technology. 

Kofman, Fred, and Senge, Peter, Kanter, Rosabeth, and Handy, Charles. 1995. Learning 

Organizations: Developing Cultures for Tomorrow’s Workplace. Edited by Sarita Chawla 

and John Renesch. Portland, Ore.: Productivity Press. 

Kolb, D. 1984. Experiencial Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 

Prentice Hall. 

Lank, Elizabeth. 2006. Collaborative Advantage: How Organizations Win by Working Together. 

Palgrave Macmillan. 

Learn@Well (Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries). Design and Practical 

Experiences With the Learn@WELL Knowledge Management Module. 

Lehigh County Authority. 2007. Workforce Plan. 

Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of 

Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Lesser, Eric. 2000. Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications. Boston: 


Lesser, Eric, and Prusak, Laurence. 2004. Creating Value With Knowledge: Insights From the IBM 

Institute for Business Value. Oxford University Press. 

Lesser, Eric L., Fontaine, Michael A., and Slusher, Jason A. 2000. Knowledge and Communities. 

Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Lewin, K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper. 

Liebowitz, Jay. 1999. Knowledge Management Handbook. CRC Press. 

Liebowitz, Jay. 2004. Addressing the Human Capital Crisis in the Federal Government: A 

Knowledge Management Perspective. Butterworth-Heinemann. 



Malafsky, Geoffrey P. 2003. Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets. In 

Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters. Edited by C.W. Holsapple. 

Lexington, Ky.: Springer-Verlag. 

Malafsky, Geoffrey P., and Newman, Brian D. Organizing Knowledge With Ontologies and 

Taxonomies. Fairfax, Va.: TECHi2. 

Marquardt, M.J. 1999 Acting Learning in Action: Transforming Problems and People for World- 

Class Organizational Learning. Palo Alto, Calif.: Davies-Black Publishing. 

McMaster, Michael D. 1996. The Intelligence Advantage Organizing for Complexity. 


Mezirow, J. 2000. Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Morey, Daryl, Maybury, Mark, and Thuraisingham, Bhavani. 2000. Knowledge Management: 

Classic and Contemporary Works. The MIT Press. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Becerra-Fernandez, Irma, and Sabherwal, 

Rajiv. 2005. Knowledge Management at NASA-Kennedy Space Center. International 

Journal of Knowledge and Learning, 1(1/2). 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), Becerra-Fernandez, Irma, Del Alto, 

Martha, and Stewart, Helen. 2006. A Case Study of Web-Based Collaborative Decision 

Support at NASA. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 2(3):49–63. 

Nilson, Carolyn. 1993. Team Games for Trainers. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Nonaka, Ikujiro, and Takeuchi, Hirotaka. 1995. The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese 

Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Novak, J.D. 1991. Clarify With Concept Maps: A Tool for Students and Teachers Alike. The 

Science Teacher, 58(7):45–49. 

Oce Business Services. Document Process Management: The Case for an Integrated Lifecycle 

Approach. White Paper [Online]. Available: . 

O’Dell, Carla, Grayson Jr., C. Jackson, and Essaides, Nilly. 1998. If Only We Knew What We 

Know. New York: Free Press. 

Pels, Jaap, and Odhiambo, Frank. 2005. Design of and Practical Experiences With the Learn@ 

Well Knowledge Management Module. KM4D Journal, 1(2):4–18. 

Pollock, Neal. 2002. Knowledge Management and Information Technology (Know-IT 

Encyclopedia). Fort Belvoir, Va.: DAU Press. 

Porter, Dan, Bennet, Alex, Turner, Ron, and Wennergren, Dave. 2002. The Power of Team: The 

Making of a CIO. Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer (DON CIO). 

Prusak, Laurence. 1997. Knowledge in Organizations. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Quality Leadership Center, Inc. 1996. BPR Online Learning Center [Online]. Available: . 

Radhakrishna, R.B. 2002. Writing Success Stories for Program Enhancement and Accountability 

[Online]. Available: . [cited August 2008] 

Ruggles, R. 1997. Knowledge Management Tools. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Ruggles, Rudy, and Holtshouse, Dan. 1999. The Knowledge Advantage. Capstone US. 

Rumizen, M., and Woods, John A. 2002. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Knowledge Management. 

CWL Publishing Enterprises. 

Schrage, M. 1990. Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration. New York: Random 

House. 



Schrage, M. 2000. Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Boston: 

Harvard Business School Press. 

Schwartz, David G., Divitini, Monica, and Brasethvik, Terje. 2000. Internet-Based Organizational 

Memory and Knowledge Management. Idea Group Publishing. 

Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., and Smith, B. 1994. The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: 

Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. 

Senge, Peter. 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New 

York: Doubleday. 

Skyrme, David J. 1999. Knowledge Networking: Creating the Collaborative Enterprise. 


Smigiel, David M., Sulewski, John G., and Moss, Michael A. 2005. A Knowledge Management 

Approach to Drinking Water Utility Business. Denver, Colo.: AwwaRF. 

Srivastva, S., and Cooperrider, D.L. 1990. Appreciative Management and Leadership. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Stankosky, Michael. 2005. Creating the Discipline of Knowledge Management: The Latest in 

University Research. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Sutton, M.J.D. 1996. Document Management for the Enterprise: Principles, Techniques, and 

Applications. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 

Sveiby, Karl Erick. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth: Managing and Measuring Knowledge- 

Based Assets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 

Tellis, W. 1997. Application of a Case Study Methodology [Online]. The Qualitative Report, 3(3), 

September. Available: . 

Thurbin, Patrick. 1995. Leveraging Knowledge: The 17 Day Program for a Learning Organization. 

London: Pitman Publishing. 

Tiwana, Amrit. 2000. The Knowledge Management Toolkit: Practical Techniques for Building a 

Knowledge Management System. Prentice Hall PTR. 

Tobin, Daniel R. 1998. The Knowledge-Enabled Organization: Moving From “Training” to 

“Learning” to Meet Business Goals. AMACOM. 

Turner, Colin. 2000. The Information E-conomy: Business Strategies for Competing in the Digital 

Age. Kogan Page Limited. 

Turnquist, Susan. 2005. Public Sector Information Technology and Knowledge Management. 

Unpublished. University of Colorado–Denver. 

United Nations World Water Assessment Programme. 2006. Water—A Shared Responsibility. The 

United Nations World Water Development Report 2. United Nations Educational, Scientific 

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and Berghahn Books. 

Vicente, Kim. 2004. The Human Factor. New York: Routledge. 

Visscher, Jan Teun, Pels, Jaap, Markowski, Viktor, and Graaf, Sascha de. 2006. Knowledge and 

Information Management in the Water and Sanitation Sector: A Hard Nut to Crack. IRC 

International Water and Sanitation Centre. 

Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., and Nonaka, I. 2000. Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the 

Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. Oxford University Press. 

Von Oech, R. 1998. A Kick in the Seat of the Pants: Using Your Explorer, Artist, Judge, and 

Warrior To Be More Creative. New York: Harper Perennial. 

Waitley, D. 1995. Empires of the Mind: Lessons to Lead and Succeed in a Knowledge-Based 

World. New York: Quill. 



Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York: Cambridge 


Wenger, E., and Snyder, W. 2000. Learning in Communities. LineZine [Online]. Available: . 

Westerhoff, Gary P., Gale, Diana, Gilbert, Jerome B., Haskins, Scott A., and Reiter, Paul D. 2003. 

The Evolving Water Utility: Pathways to Higher Performance. Edited by Nancy Zeilig. 

Denver, Colo.: AWWA. 

Wiig, Karl. 1993. Knowledge Management Foundations: Thinking About Thinking—How People 

and Organizations Create, Represent, and Use Knowledge. Arlington, Texas: Schema 

Press. 

Wiig, Karl. 1994. Knowledge Management: The Central Management Focus for Intelligent-Acting 

Organizations. Arlington, Texas: Schema Press. 

Wiig, Karl. 1995. Knowledge Management Methods: Practical Approaches to Managing 

Knowledge. Arlington, Texas: Schema Press. 

Wiig, Karl. 2004. People Focused Knowledge Management: How Effective Decision-Making 

Leads to Corporate Success. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Wills, Gordon. 1998. The Knowledge Game: The Revolution in Learning and Communication in 

the Workplace. Cassell. 

Zack, M. 1999. Knowledge and Strategy. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. 



ABBREVIATIONS 

AAL 

AAR 

APQC 

AwwaRF 

C 2 

CALL 

Co. 

CoI 

CoP 

CSF 

DIA 

DON 

FAA 

FAS 

HR 

HRO 

IBM 

IDP 

IM 

IRC 

IT 

ITD 

IWSD 

KCO 

KM 

KMb 

KMO 

KSC 

KSI 

KSN 

LLC 

LOCC 

LWC 

action learning while assessing 

after-action review 

American Productivity Quality Center 

Awwa Research Foundation (now Water Research Foundation) 

context/content dependent 

Center for Army Lessons Learned 

county 

Community of Interest 

Community of Practice 

critical success factor 

Defense Information Agency 

Department of Navy 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Foreign Agriculture Services 

Human Resources 

high reliability organizing 

International Business Machines 

individual development plan 

information management 

International Water and Sanitation Centre 

information technology 

Information Technology Division 

Institute of Water and Sanitation Development 

Knowledge Centric Organization 

knowledge management 

knowledge mobilization 

Knowledge Management Officer 

Kennedy Space Center 

Knowledge, Skill and Information 

Knowledge Services Network 

Lessons Learned Center 

Library of Congress Classification 

Louisville Water Company 

95 



MAKE 

MQI 

NA 

NASA 

NIHBIDIA 

NRCan 

NWRI 

OPCON 

OPM 

PUB 

QBD 

RTM 

SEUF 

SHELL HP 

SMART 

SOP 

SSIC 

TEAM C4ISR 

TREND 

U.S. 

USDA 

VDOT 

WaterRF 

Most Admired Knowledge Enterprises 

Mountain Quest Institute 

not applicable 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

not invented here but I did it anyway 

Natural Resources Canada 

National Water Resources Institute (Nigeria) 

Operation Control 

Office of Personnel Management 

Public Utilities Board 

quality by design 

requirements traceability matrix 

The Socio Economic Unit Foundation (India) 

Shell Exploration and Production 

specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-based 

standard operating procedure 

Standard Subject Identification Code 

U.S Army Team Command, Control, Communications, Computers, 

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance 

Training, Research and Networking for Development 

United States 

United States Department of Agriculture 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

Water Research Foundation (formerly Awwa Research Foundation) 


Appendix A 

WaterRF 4003 Survey Results 

A-1 


PART 1 

INTRODUCTION 

BACKGROUND 

The formal title of WaterRF 4003 is “Organizational Development Needed to Implement 

a Knowledge Management Strategy at Water Utilities.” The overarching project objectives 

were: 

(1) Identify the benefits and costs of implementing a knowledge management (KM) 

initiative; 

(2) Investigate and identify organizational characteristics and processes (e.g., culture, core 

planning processes, communications, rewards, etc.) critical to the success of 

implementing a KM initiative; 

(3) Develop an assessment tool for drinking water utilities to identify their organization’s 

readiness to plan and implement a KM strategy; and 

(4) Develop a tool kit for establishing or enhancing organizational readiness to support a KM 

strategy and initiatives. 

The 4003 research approach included a survey process, literature review, site visits, 

leadership and management interviews, workshops, focus groups, and development of project 

studies, case examples and case studies focused on KM implementation. Two specific tools 

resulted from this research. The first is a Readiness Assessment Instrument used to evaluate a 

Utility’s readiness to implement KM. The second is the KM Toolkit for planning and 

implementing the organizational changes needed for a successful KM strategy or initiative in 

utilities. While the virtual toolkit serves as a stand-alone product focused on implementation of 

KM strategies and initiatives, it also includes down-loadable resource documents to support 

second-order learning, for example, Tool, Ideas and extensive resource documents contributed 

by leaders in the field of Knowledge Management. 

THE KNOWLEDGE MOBILIZATION APPROACH 

Knowledge mobilization (KMb) is the process of creating value or a value stream 

through the creation, assimilation, leveraging, sharing and application of knowledge. In terms of 

drinking water utilities, KMb is the effective creation, movement and tailoring of specific 

knowledge from its source (research or specialized expertise) to its application (practitioner, 

utility worker) such that consequent actions are effective and sustainable. KMb is focused on 

new knowledge that has emerged (and is emerging) through research and in other parts of the 

Utility (or in other organizations with similar issues), with implementation driven by the content 

of that new knowledge and identification of stakeholder groups that “need” to apply that 

knowledge. The specific knowledge involved in WaterRF Project 4003 that is being mobilized 

is knowledge about Knowledge Management and its application to drinking water utilities. 

KMb introduces a difference in perspective, with KM being a strategy or initiative that is 

intended to improve organizations through the effective creation, sharing, leveraging and 

application of knowledge, and KMb being a process for moving specific knowledge to action to 

A-2 


value in a specific situation or location. The KMb approach taken depends on the timing, 

application, situation and needs of the Utility and stakeholders it touches. 

The KMb approach accompanying Project 4003 implementation included a combination 

of events, publications, Internet exchanges and development of meta-tools (the Readiness 

Assessment Instrument and KM Toolkit) that will enable drinking water utilities to plan and 

implement the organizational change needed to support implementation of knowledge 

management strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities. 

To raise awareness of KM in the drinking water utility industry, over 1224 drinking water 


defining KM and its significance to drinking water utilities) and follow-up telephone 

interactions. During this process, 1001 individuals were engaged in one-on-one telephone 

conversations of 5-10 minutes in length concerning knowledge and Knowledge Management 

related to drinking water utilities. Figure A.1 shows the number of these conversations per state. 

From this process, 33 project studies were developed representing 22 drinking water utilities. 

These are available in the KM Toolkit. 

During these conversations, Knowledge Management was defined in terms of the predetermined 

elevator speech, the 4003 research project was detailed, and participation in the 

survey process was requested. Periodically, 3, 4 or 5 individuals in a single Utility were engaged 

CA 

130 

OR 

15 

WA 

46 

NV 

14 

ID 

3 

UT 

10 

MT 

5 

WY 

6 

AZ 

21 NM 

4 

CO 

29 

ND 

3 

SD 

7 

NE 

6 

TX 

51 

KS 

6 

OK 

7 

MN 

35 

IA 

18 

MO 

15 

AR 

13 

LA 

6 

WS 

26 

IL 

36 

MS 

2 

IN 

20 

MI 

33 

KY 

TN 19 

AL 

18 

OH 

36 

GA 

18 

WV 

1 

SC 

14 

FL 

56 

PA 

34 

V 

A 

NC 

24 

2 

NY 

33 

NH 

7 ME 

13 

M 

A 

45 

CT 

16 

NJ 19 

D 

DE 3 

MD 

13 

AK 

7 

HI 

3 

Figure A.1 Number of one-on-one telephone conversations on KM with drinking water 

Utility personnel per state 

A-3 


efore individuals were located who identified themselves as the leads for implementation of 

Knowledge Management. As a result of these conversations, an additional 552 surveys were 

mailed and 25 were emailed. Since the intent of these multiple mailings was to seed the concepts 

of Knowledge Management, a second set of follow-on telephone calls were initiated where a KM 

lead had been identified. Even where individuals expressed the opinion that they did not feel 

capable of providing this information, a friendly but short conversation pursued to help promote 

future interest in KM. The survey 

Simultaneously, a Blog was set up and a series of papers and other resource materials 

provided via that vehicle. These included: The Business Case for KM, Issues Faced by 

Drinking Water Utilities, Regulatory Perspective for Water Utilities, and other KM resources. 

While the Blog process itself was quieter than anticipated throughout this two-year project, 67 

drinking water utility managers/leaders submitted their survey responses via the Blog page, and 

6,498 pages of resource materials were downloaded during the course of 1,453 visits. 

In this same time period, the Principal Investigator and Co-principal Investigator 

facilitated workshops and combination focus groups each one-two days in length involving 66 

representatives from ten geographically-dispersed drinking water utilities. In conjunction with 

these workshops, focus groups and site visits, the Principal Investigator interviewed 25 

leaders/managers representing 12 drinking water utilities. The drinking water utilities 

participating in this research project are acknowledged in the formal report and in the KM 

Toolkit. 

During the process of initiating the 1001 telephone conversation with drinking water 

Utility personnel on knowledge and Knowledge Management, it was pleasantly noted that almost 

every call was met with interest and cooperation. It appears that Knowledge Management is 

gradually making itself known within the drinking water utility industry. When coupled with the 

recent WaterRF KM research projects, KM presentations at Utility conferences and workshops, 

and the number of Utility KM project studies gathered through this research (and others that 

surfaced near the end of this project not included in the KM Toolkit), it would appear that a 

growing number of drinking water utilities are taking advantage of KM to better prepare for the 

uncertain future ahead. As these organizations become more experienced with the application 

and benefits of KM they may become knowledge-centric, learning organizations who through 

knowledge mobilization, technological sophistication and collaborative leadership prepare 

themselves for the challenges ahead. 

A-4 


PART 2 

THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT 

The questionnaire has 15 questions, although Q1, Q2, Q6 and Q10 have multiple parts. 

Six of the questions (Q1, Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8 and Q9) are built on five-point Likert scale. For the 

multiple parts of Q1 the scale is as follows: 1 (very low), 2 (low), 3 (medium), 4 (high) and 5 

(very high). Response is forced. A single question is asked—How would you characterize your 

organization?—and followed by a list of 12 expressions as follows: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of trust among employees 

Level of employee learning 

Level of employee empowerment 

Level of management control 

Use of teams within the organization 

Amount of knowledge sharing among managers 

Number of new ideas implemented annually 

Level of communication between departments 

Flexibility of organizational policies 

Level of process discipline 

Quality of information contained in IT systems 

Level of information system integration (information is consistent and accessible) 

For Q5 through Q9, the five-point Likert scale is as follows: 1 (very poorly), 2 (poorly), 

3 (okay), 4 (well) and 5 (very well). The alternative of “don’t know” is offered. The questions 

are as follows: 

Q5 How well does your organization accept and implement new initiatives? 

Q6 How well do the following core processes support your organization’s mission? 

Strategic business planning 

Operational planning 

Capital improvement planning 

Human resource development 

Life cycle planning 

Information technology master planning 

Q7 How well do employees share information and knowledge? 

Q8 How well does your organizational structure support sharing of information and 

knowledge? 

Q9 How well does your human resource department support learning and knowledge 

sharing? 

Q2 asked the survey participant to place a D (doing), N (planning to do) or I (interested in 

doing) next to each of seven KM initiatives. These were: Communities of Practice, Knowledge 

Base Development, Yellow Page Library/Expert Locator, Team-Based Decision-making, Action 

Learning, Knowledge Sharing, and Knowledge Retention of Individuals Who Are Retiring. A 

blank space labeled “Other” was at the bottom of the list. 

A-5 


Q3 and Q7 were dichotomous, requesting yes or no. Q3 asking “Are your employees 

learning fast enough to keep up with changes needed by your organization?” asked for an 

explanation of response. Q10 made four statements regarding technology systems and the 

Information Technology Depart in particular and asked for a yes or no agreement. 

Q4, Q11, Q12, Q13 and Q14 were open-ended questions as follows: 

Q4 Briefly list the opportunities and initiatives that would make your organization more 

successful. 

Q11 What are the barriers in your organization to implementing new initiatives? 

Q12 What are the barriers outside your organization to implementing new initiatives? 

Q13 What are the critical factors in your organization that support successful 

implementation of new initiative? 

Q14 How would you describe a successful initiative in your organization? 

Q15 was also an open-ended question for those drinking water utilities who had 

implemented KM strategies or initiatives. Specifically it asked: If your utility has implemented 

or is implementing a knowledge management strategy or initiative, please fill in the reverse page 

(km Strategies or Initiatives) for each strategy and initiative (successful or unsuccessful) that you 

are willing to share. The reverse page is as follows: 

Is your utility implementing (Y/N) or has your utility implemented (Y/N) KM strategies 

or initiatives? 

If you answer yes above, please provide the following for each strategy or initiative: 

(A) What are/were the critical success factors (how was success measured)? 

(B) What problems or issues made implementation difficult? If the strategy or initiative 

failed, what were the barriers that could not be overcome? 

(C) What are/were the financial costs involved in implementing this strategy or 

initiatives? 

(D) From what you are learning/have learned, what might you do differently? 

(E) How is/was this strategy or initiative aligned with utility business processes (strategic 

business planning, operational planning, capital improvement planning, human 

resource development, life cycle planning, information technology master planning)? 

(F) What benefits is the utility seeing from implementation of this strategy or initiative? 

If this strategy or initiative failed, would you be willing to try it again with additional 

knowledge management expertise? 

A-6 


PART 3 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

There were 207 survey respondents representing the following states (with multiple 

responses in parenthesis) : Alaska (3), Arizona (1), California (34), Colorado (9), D.C. (2), 

Florida (8), Georgia (3), Illinois (4), Indiana (2), Iowa (2), Kentucky (3), Maine (3), Maryland 

(2), Massachusetts (8), Michigan (10), Minnesota (5), Missouri (1), Montana (1), Nebraska (1), 

Nevada (4), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (6), New Mexico (1), New York (8), North 

Carolina (4), North Dakota (3), Ohio (8), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (5), Pennsylvania (4), South 

Carolina (5), Tennessee (4), Texas (16), Utah (3), Virginia (10), Washington (11), Wisconsin (9) 

and Wyoming (1). 

The majority of responders (193, or 93%) work in public utilities. Five work in private 

utilities and 6 fall in the other category, that is, Special District, Agency of State, Municipal 

Owned (2), Not for State Authority, and State Formed Public Entity. 

Figure A.2 shows the distribution of responders in terms of size of utilities that they 

represent. 

Figure A.2 Responder distribution in terms of size of utility. 

The note on the front of the survey stated: This survey looks at your organization as a 

whole ... should be filled out by a senior manager. This largely occurred. See Figure A.3 below. 

25 

8 

34 

91 

Director/General Manager 

Asst. Director 

Manager 

Superintendent 

Supervisor 

Other 

42 

7 

Figure A.3 Roles/positions of Project 4003 survey responders 

A-7 


The “Other” category included individuals with the following positions: IT Project Coordinator, 

U.S. Program Policy Coordinator, Utilities Administration, CEO, Vice President, Deputy 

Operating Officer, Assistant Commissioner, CFO/Operations, Public Works Foreman, Vice 

President of Customer Relations, Employee and Financial Service, Operator. 

A-8 


PART 4 

DATA REDUCTION 

At the end of the data collection process all survey responses—and the periodic reports 

based on those responses—have now been combined. While responses from each question will 

be presented in Part 4, the organization of this part is by question. Part 5 will take a systems 

approach to the data. 

Question 1: How would you characterize your organization? 

A Likert scale was used with the variable defined as: 1 (very low); 2 (low); 3 (medium); 

4 (high); and 5 (very high). The 12 items to be scaled are shown in the following table: 

Table A.1 below provides the valid number of responses (N), the mean, minimum (Min), 

maximum (Max), and standard deviation (SD) for 1 (A) through 1 (L). 


Q1A Level of trust among employees 207 3.69 1 5 .710 4.00 

Q1B Level of employee learning 139 3.60 2 5 .723 4.00 

Q1C Level of employee empowerment 207 3.52 1 5 .708 4.00 

Q1D Level of management control 206 3.57 1 5 .733 4.00 

Q1E Use of teams within the organization 207 3.47 1 5 .851 4.00 

Q1F Amount of knowledge sharing among managers 207 3.68 1 5 .904 4.00 

Q1G Number of new ideas implemented annually 207 3.22 1 5 .835 3.00 

Q1H Level of communication between departments 206 3.46 1 5 .812 4.00 

Q1I Flexibility of organizational policies 206 3.26 1 5 .773 3.00 

Q1J Level of process discipline 203 3.24 1 5 .824 3.00 

Q1K Quality of information contained in IT systems 206 3.35 1 5 .822 3.00 

Q1L Level of information system integration 205 3.08 1 5 .880 3.00 

(information is consistent and accessible) 

Table A.1: Response to Question 1 

It is notable that (a), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (j), (k), and (l) span the full range of possible 

response, from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). 

The distribution of responses is shown below. 

Q1-A 

Q1-B 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

107 

72 

22 

1 5 

very low low medium high very high 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

59 

62 

14 

5 

0 


A-9 


Q1-C 

Q1-D 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

101 

82 

12 

11 

1 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

91 

87 

20 

1 

7 


Q1-E 

Q1-F 

100 

90 

100 

91 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

70 

27 

19 

1 


80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

58 

37 

19 

2 


Q1-G 

Q1-H 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

101 

54 

36 

15 

1 


100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

91 

81 

16 

14 

4 


Q1-I 

Q1-J 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

100 

71 

25 

3 

7 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

96 

63 

30 

11 

3 


Q1-K 

Q1-L 

100 

80 

60 

40 

28 

78 

88 

100 

80 

60 

40 

42 

94 

53 

20 

0 

9 

3 


20 

0 

7 

9 


A-10 


Question 2: Which (if any) of the below is your organization currently doing, planning to 

do, or interested in? 

Respondents were asked to place a D (Doing), N (Planning to Do) or I (Interested in 

doing) next to each of seven items (see below). The 207 responses received this reporting period 

showed the following results: 

D N I Responses 

Communities of Practice 25 17 58 100 

Knowledge Base Development 53 27 49 129 

Yellow Page Library/Expert Locator 6 25 54 85 

Team-Based Decision-making 109 20 26 155 

Action Learning 60 9 39 108 

Knowledge Sharing 117 18 26 162 

Knowledge Retention of Individuals 84 33 46 163 

Who are Retiring 


In the “other” category included at the end of the list there was five entries: “Strategic 

planning”, “Succession Planning” and O&M manuals capture institutional knowledge for 

training. 

Question 3: Are your employees learning fast enough to keep up with changes needed by 

your organization? 

Of the 207 responders, 163 (78.7%) said yes and 38 (18.4%) said no. Five responders 

answered both yes and no. Comments made by these responders are as follows. Note that the 

size of utility follows the comment. 

Not in all areas- due to lack of resources, some learning retention efforts are lagging. 

Examples are: GIS mapping; field verification; assembly and access to record 

documents; specifications; basis of design documents. However as time/resources allow, 

progress is being made in each area. 130 

Depends on the Dept. Some train continuously, some very little. 200 

Depends on Employee. Depends on how “need” is defined. 150 

In some cases yes, in some no, depends on experience and desire of individual. 379 

In addition, one participant responded: N/A (Not applicable). 

Additional comments have been organized in the following generic areas (largest to 

smallest group): training, change, technology, time, teamwork, knowledge retention, 

communication and other. 

Training 

Even though we are small, employees attend 

training seminars, contact others in their 

field, read, in-house meetings 

 

 

We try to keep up through education. 

High level of participation in continuing 

education programs and current technology 

 

 

 

Certification of staff is an issue. 

Training and development are focused on 

core competencies 

Certification requirements/ programs 

A-11 


Change 

 

 

Employees have to be certified in water and 

wastewater and training to renew or expand 

certification 

All employees are certified water operators 

and attend a minimum of annual training 

Employees gaining certification and crosstraining 

Being certified they all need continuing 

education credits. We encourage training 

Generally as licenses are upgraded 

Yearly budget covers cost of training and 

education 

More and better training tools needed for 

staff. 

City administration does not provide level of 

support for employee development, “On the 

job training” is the norm- so it is difficult for 

employees to keep up with changes. 

City and utility do not allow sufficient 

training money in the operating budget. 

Constant training 

Our dept is constantly monitoring regulatory 

and /or legislative requirements and 

provides training in advance of effective 

dates. We also monitor new technology and 

provide timely training in new technology/ 

systems/ processes as required in a timely 

manner. 

In house training is helping educate the 

employees 

As changes are made training sessions are 

implemented 

There is not enough time to pause and train 

the organization on all the changes that are 

needed. 

Primary concern is how quickly we can train 

new operators on all the procedures they 

need to know and use. 

Management’s responsibility—has not 

provided any fundamental supervisory 

training in over 12 years, for example. 

Lack of training opportunities in area. 

There is currently so much turnover in 

employees due to draw from the public 

sector that we cannot adequately train. 

There are pockets of resistance to change 

but overall most employees are committed 

to “keeping up” especially when they 

understand the need and are involved in new 

solutions. 

Filter plant personnel abreast of 

developments other departments less so. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time 

 

 

I would say \’yes and no.’\ In certain 

pockets of the department a tremendous 

amount of learning is taking place. In other 

places, change is adapted to more slowly. In 

general, I would say that there is not enough 

true \’learning’\ taking place. We are very 

focused on outcomes and decisions and do a 

good job; but we could spend more time on 

reflection and inquiry as well. 

Attempting to change mindset of employees 

based on ~25 yrs of dictatorship. 

Many stuck with 80’s policies/ procedures 

Hard to implement things like asset 

management or empower folks; hard to 

change existing, comfortable behaviors. 

But still change resistant. 

Change comes very slowly. Too much legal 

involvement. 

Pace is too rapid. 

Rapid changes in system capacity as well as 

regulations make keeping up a challenge. 

Too much too quick 

Rapid workforce changes and restructuring 

difficult to keep up with. 

Only one person retiring in next 10 years, so 

everyone is young and very willing to learn 

new info 

However, potential changes forthcoming 

that could put us behind the curve 

Change, regulatory, and workload 

Process takes approximately 3 years from 

concept, approval to implementation. 

Employees are integral to process. 

In general, yes. But this is a challenge due 

to time and money constraints. 

Team work 

Because of our small size and our lack of 

specialization and the close collaborative 

way in which we make decisions, it’s almost 

inappropriate to apply these group 

techniques. Not impossible, but almost 

joke: we teach each other stuff. We work 

together if it takes more than one person. 

We have required educational credits. We 

ask each other questions. We bring up 

whatever’s on our minds. It works well- but 

the simple addition of more personnel would 

make the system stop working. So- all in all, 

we know little about solving the challenges 

you mention, because their largely absent. 

In certain areas where team based/skill 

based compensation is utilized. 

A-12 


Technology 

Implemented SAP in 2007- focus has been 

on learning the SAP, enhancing process 

oriented workflows and utilizing the system 

to maximum capacity. 

New technology is slow to take holder 

within departments. 

Technological advancement is too fast for 

some baby boomers with little computer 

experience. 

Maintenance section is not keeping pace 

with electronic based equipment and 

controls. 

We seem to keep ahead of requirements 

from regulators. 

Keeping up in most instances. 

In a perfect world, our efforts would result 

in keeping pace at all levels; where we don’t 

“keep up” is in the area of 

succession/transfer of information. 

Knowledge Retention 

The key is retention of these individuals. 

Younger, new hires are slow in retaining 

information and practices shared with them 

by more senior members in our water 

service environment. 


Roundtable discussions, conferences, 

quarterly discussions in-house between 

employees and management. 

Other 

 

We are committed as an org to R&D and 

participate broadly in group and individual 

capacities with EPA, FDEP and peer 

agencies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Middle management has a strong sense of 

“ownership” and staying current is self 

motivated. 

Active participation by workers in Awwa 

certification programs at all levels in org. 

CCWD emphasizes need to disseminate 

information. Vehicles include town hall 

meetings, team meetings, intranet, 

newsletters, etc. 

Employees do many jobs. 

Hire people with skill sets in areas of 

management 

The overall quality of operators on the 

western slope of Colorado is below average. 

Many fail basic state license exam. 

Business structures and processes that 

support continuous improvement are not 

what they should be. 

Age related reluctance 

We are in fireman mode 

General 

But could always improve. 

We are doing well, but it could be better. 

Barely 

Just barely 

Some better than others. 

Not in all cases 

Some are, but several aren’t. 

Some are but some aren’t/ or can’t 

Some progress –difficult question to answer 

yes or no. some function yes, some no. 

Retirements are happening faster than the 

process of capturing institutional 

knowledge. We are catching up utilizing 

technology such as GIS, CMMS, & SOP’s. 

Generally 

A-13 


Question 4: Briefly list the opportunities and initiatives that would make your 

organization more successful. 

Of the 207 survey participants, 157 contributed to the comments below. The general 

areas of grouping (largest to smallest number) are: results, implemented, cost-effective, planned, 

goals, employee buy-in, supported, accepted, ideas, timely, teams, benefits, identify problem, 

understood/communicated, analyze, measurable, meets needs, leadership and other. 

Money 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenue stream increases. 

More dollars for infrastructure 

Funding 

Large capital investments 

Gain more ability to integrate with city-wide 

financials 

Consolidated grant info, who to see when 

applying for grants 

Skill bases pay. 

More realistic pay scale 

Clear accountability of work group cost 

relationship to total cost of service 

Incentive pay 

Bonuses for employees 

More money for GIS implementation 

More money 

Money to implement any initiatives 


More sharing with other city departments 

Communication between departments 

Improved coordination between our 

engineering dept and operations dept. 

Forums where operators, supervisors, 

customer service can discuss field and 

advancements in technology 

Additional peer level meeting between staff 

from different depts. And different agencies 

Better communication among the 

construction crew employees with the 

employee groups 

Information sharing 

Networking with others 

More interaction among ‘line staff’ and 

management 

Improving communication regarding our 

strategic plan, (the mission, vision and 

values contained there in) and the 

accomplishments we are making. 

More sharing of information from bottom to 

top and vice versa 

Sharing of bigger picture objectives within 

the organization help to increase 

communication on all levels 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More all employee meetings 

More communication with other water 

treatment plants and systems 

More public outreach 

Adequate staff recreation; public 

information meetings using line employees. 

Very open communication 

Increased communication methods need to 

be developed- one that is easy to implement 

as well as effective in roll out 

More open communication and knowledge 

sharing practices 

Broad bases communication plan with 

stakeholders 

Willingness to share information 

Sharing long term strategies 

Use of common terminology 

We are a small municipality so we normally 

have to work together on a daily basis 

Planning 

We are just starting a conscious process to 

develop a \’organizational learning system’\ 

to foster and support more learning in the 

dept. We are also looking for ways to 

increase accountability in decision making 

and to push decision- making down into the 


Stronger planning processes that are well 

integrated into decision making 

Managers plan for future 

Better planning 

Process planning 

True succession and work force planning 

Succession planning 

Better succession planning transfer 

knowledge from retiring employees to their 

replacements 

Strategic focus 

Better strategic planning process and 

implementation discipline 

Strategic thinking/management—3 year into 

5 year plan 

KM strategic planning 

Long term goals 

A-14 


Short term objectives 

Infrastructure—30 year infrastructure plan 

10 year fiscal plan 

HR—5 year plan underway 

Acquisition—3 year plan underway 

Culture—3 year into 10 year plan 

Project development 

Capital planning 

Leadership/management 

Managing Board of Directors 

More trust with elected leaders 

A unified commission that understands roles 

and does not attempt to micromanage 

Improve leadership qualities at all levels 

Have council & Mayor get along so that our 

needed equipment gets purchased 

Leadership development 

Better crisis management 

Data management 

Make joint leadership decisions 

Additional organization development 

personnel 

Adherence to a process for decision making 

More flexibility in the implementation of 

new initiatives 

Get organization working back at one 

location. This would allow water supervisors 

to utilize support staff. 

Upper management & Board were more 

flexible 

Forward thinking 

Initiatives need to be taken by leadership 

and employees 

Management encouragement 

Empowerment 

Duties of water & distribution 

superintendents should be split between two 

managers 

Very capable department manager 

Better management and control of field 

activities 

Have a key leadership 

Management that is accessible to all 

appropriate parties 

Change 

 

 

 

We are a component unit of the city must be 

mindful of political and public perceptions 

when attempting to implement changes. 

For some- change is always a difficult 

process; however, most management level 

personnel are willing to learn and change. 

Better performance measures 

 

 

 

 

More global view of overall mission 

Willingness to change for the better 

Age related reluctance issues need to instill 

in older employees the value of attitude and 

enthusiasm 

Proactive vs. reactive 

Team work 

I have encouraged team based decision 

making which keeps employees involved 

and informed. They in turn have responded 

with more flexibility in job duties and 

activities 

Collaborative problem solving; formal group 

of people dedicated to understanding and 

documenting business process- understand 

our data flows and how they intersect with 

business processes. 

All of it was created with employee work 

teams. We are considering a brand/rebrand 

effort. Employees and staff to develop the 

brand and live it will improve our credibility 

and performance. 

Better development of team- based 

initiatives, commitment to vision of need 

and benefit. 

Increased team building and positive attitude 

enhancement. 

More focus on employee motivation, and 

team approach. 

Cross utilization of personnel information 

exchange among managers team based units. 

Emphasis on safety and preventative 

maintenance. 

Team building within the management team 

and with the labor union 

More cross-functional teams 

Team based decision making is something 

that would save time, eliminate 

misunderstandings and create better 

employee buy-in 

More team mentality 

Training 

Offer more training in the area of customer 

service. 

Encourage employees to seek more formal 

education in their respective fields. 

Implement some standardized training in 

each department for basic knowledge base 

required for each job. 

Invest time and money in outside training 

and education sources. Instituted cross 

training program between various 

responsibility areas. 

A-15 


Relevant and affordable training 

Computer classes, and cross training. 

More cross training (2) 

Cross training of employees. Improved 

training. 

Planned regular professional development 

cross training. 

Greater cross-training and sharing of 

resources 

Management training 

More and better training (2) 

EID training academy 

In house training goals and standards 

Standardized training, especially for new 

hires and new supervisors. 

Training (3) 

Succession training 

Training opportunities 

In-house training program to enhance and 

improve skill in current employees 

More online videos 

CEU training 

Professional development 

Treatment & distribution certification for all 

operators 

Mentoring in an unofficial capacity 

In-house training for CEU’s and water 

distribution/ treatment certification 

Education of public and employees 

Management training 

Employee education and re-training 

Professional development 

Additional opportunities/initiatives would 

include: OP certification, interpersonal 

skills, and technical training 

More cross-training, especially 

administrative 

Maintenance and I&C training and 

certification similar to operators. 

Mechanical training at hi/vo-tech schools 

especially urban areas 

Leadership training for the future leaders of 

the organization 

Training sessions in areas closer to home. 

Cost to send employees to east slope of 

Colorado and time makes difficult 

Some form of sabbatical/ work exchange 

Use of process mapping documents to 

support training 

New and Retiring Employees 

Greater pool of applicants for new positions 

Better retention and hiring process 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Staffing (aging workforce) 

Higher skill based employees upon initial 

higher 

More turnover or ability to hire new 

employees 

Better prepared to hire additional employees 

when we lose one to retirement 

Need better skills in new hires 

Apprenticeship program—early involvement 

(high school) of workforce 

Recruitment of certified operators 

Higher level of knowledge 

Knowledge retention from retirees 

Technology 

GIS integration with rest of city and/or 

county 

Having our business systems 

(billing/customer info) fully integrated into 

GIS. Expanded use of GIS info. At all levels 

of organization. 

Maintenance management system. GIS 


We have all the initiatives underway that our 

utility business needs right now, and several 

more to roll out if we had staff time to do 

them- GPS, GIS, automated meter readingboth 

electrical and water, full replacement of 

utility billing, C/S, financials, inventory, and 

work management 

Streamline software applications to 

eliminate duplicate multiple keystrokes. 

Borrow electric business and regulatory 

models for use in the water utilities business. 

Better documentation- SOP’s 

Integrated work management/work order 

system that interfaces with 

finance/accounting/customer service 

systems. 

More computerization and improved 

technological processes. 

Better electronic data storage and sharing. 

Better documentation management 

Upgrade meter reading, AMR system and 

customer service 

Completion of data sets to support physical 

facility management, adequate resources use 

CMMS system for analysis. 

Development of intranet dashboards, etc. 

SCADA- more information, better control of 

less day to day costs. 

Better IT/ asset management systems 

Need for an executive development program 

A-16 


Department aide information technology 

solutions. 

More consistent use of technology 

We have adopted the Malcolm Baldridge 

National Quality Program as our overall 

framework. We use the Carver Policy 

Governance model to establish district- wide 

objectives 

Enhancing/ using SAP to continue 

improving efficiency 

Asset management Mobile Technology 

CIS 

GIS 

CMMS 

Utility billing and financial accounting 

software 

AMR meter reading 

SCADA improvements 

Leveraging technology to free up operators 

for more maintenance 

SCADA integration 

Billing/ customer service/ maintenance work 

order integration with accounting software 

Software integration 

Update software and hardware computer 

systems 

Update SCADA systems 

Centralized and easy to access info 

Asset management 

Installation of distribution system early 

warning systems 

Modernization of customer service function 

(remote meter reads, new billing system) 

Programs and processes that support 

customer centered decision making 

Online bill pay 

Paperless facility Attribute Data Base 

Integrate structured operational and business 

processes based on best of class procedures 

IT adopting 5 year ERP/ EAM path 

Buy-in of new technology implementation 

(learning) by operations level personnel 

IT integration of systems 

Better integration of IT systems 

Asset & maintenance management software 

implementation 

GIS mapping. Automated customer service 

and complaint tracking. More AMR 

(automated meter reading) 

Central repository for knowledge capture 

Policies and procedures 

Gradual implementation of new/modern 

procedures 

Clear guidelines, regulations, and policies 

Policies 

Less regulation 

Florida specific operator training manuals. 

Everyone uses California manuals. 

Greater use of SOP’s—need to develop 

them and then use them 

Using more “best practices” or standards vs. 

our own “home grown” way of doing things 

Less regulation continuously passed by state 

to cities 

Central resource for policies and procedures 

Aging infrastructure 

Too departmental or too task specific 

Get rid of Civil Service 

Full implementation of asset management 

Committed security 

Increased focus on customer service by both 

our business and field operations 

Knowledge of and use of industry BMP’s 

Employees 

Better employee buy-in 

Involvement at every level of staff 

Good number of above average employees 

Awards/ rewards program 

Employee recognition programs 

Good work ethic 

Individual opportunities 

Faster rate of advancement 

APWA self assessment and accreditation 

Slower customer service growth or faster 

employee growth 

Strong analytical and problem solving skills 

combined with a larger view of the range of 

possible solutions 

More employee involvement in decision 

making process 

Self represented employee group with no 

unions. 

Misc 

Establishing core values 

Better alignment of mission & vision 

More hours in the day 

Time 

Creating a strategic HR function within the 


We have two current initiatives that we 

believe will help/ public relations 

Annual incentive for OEPA licensure 

A-17 


Stay on pace with rate making projects and 

applications 

Examples 

Expansion of water treatment capacity 

 

Conversion from gaseous chlorine 

disinfection to use of alternative energies 

Question 5: How well does your organization accept and implement new initiatives? 

Similar to question 1, a five-point Likert scale was used with the variables defined as: 1 

(very poorly); 2 (poorly); 3 (okay); 4 (well); and 5 (very well). The option of “don’t know” was 

also available. This same format was used with questions 6 through 9 below. 

There were 198 responses with a mean of 3.49, a standard deviation of .731, a minimum 

of 1, a maximum of 5, and a median value of 3.25. The distribution is shown below. 

Q5 

100 

80 

87 85 

60 

40 

20 

0 

12 

13 

1 


Question 6: How well do the following core processes support your organization’s mission? 

The five-point Likert scale described in Question 5 was used. The specific core 

processes chosen were: (A) strategic business planning, (B) operational planning, (C) capital 

improvement planning, (D) human resource development, (E) life cycle planning, and (F) 

information technology master planning. An “Other” category was also provided for write-ins. 

Table A.3 below provides the number of responses (N), the mean, minimum (Min), maximum 

(Max), and standard deviation (SD) for 1 (A) through 1 (L). 









A-18 


The distribution curves of Q6A through Q6F are shown below. 

Q6A 

Q6B 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

75 

69 

27 

15 

1 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

110 

55 

28 

2 4 


Q6C 

Q6D 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

99 

51 

43 

1 

8 


120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

107 

47 

28 

11 

3 


Q6E 

Q6F 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

81 

46 

38 

4 

8 


80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

75 

49 

37 

18 

6 


A-19 


Question 7: How well do employees share information and knowledge? 

The five-point Likert scale described in Question 5 was used. There were 203 responses 

with a mean of 3.51, a standard deviation of .706, a minimum of 1, a maximum of 5, and a 

median value of 3.00. The distribution curve is shown below. 

Q7 

100 

80 

60 

86 

92 

40 

20 

0 

13 

12 

0 


Question 8: How well does your organizational structure support sharing of information 

and knowledge? 




Q8 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

99 

69 

14 

19 

2 


A-20 


Question 9: How well does your human resource department support learning and 

knowledge sharing? 




Q9 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

71 

57 

31 

16 

8 


Question 10: The following statements relate to the information systems in your 

organization: 

The four statements below were provided with the option to choose “Yes” or “No” beside 

each statement. N refers to the number of responses; N/A refers to a write-in response of not 

applicable. 



(B) The Information Technology Department (ITD) is heavily 190* 119 69 17 

Involved with and understands the business mission 

(C) ITD is viewed as a solution provider for business problems 189* 102 86 18 

(D) ITD is viewed as the technical help desk, and not helpful in 185* 85 100 22 

Solving business problems 

*Two responses for B above was “both yes and no” and one response for C was “sometimes” and one response for 

D was “neither”. 


Q11 What are the barriers in your organization to implementing new initiatives? 

There were 185 responders who contributed 263 thoughts. In order of the number of 

contributions in each area, the general grouping areas are: money, time, change, manpower, 

politics, leadership and management, regulations and laws, technology, culture, buy-in, 

A-21 


knowledge, silos, planning, workload, size, communication, training, initiative, new hires 

rewards, problem-solving. 

Money 

Money (25) 

Financial (2) 

Funding (13) 

Budget (3) 

Centralized budget system 

Lack of resources (funding) 

Funding new young employees 

Being part of a financially strapped 

government 

Government budgets 

Low to poor budget problems 

Budget constraints 

Budget support from council 

Capital investment 

Funding from other city departments 

Budget availability; can’t have every new 

toy 

Dollars 

Cost (13) 

Costs of systems 

Very small system, very few barriers, cost is 

a major issue. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cost of living in work area 

Obtaining Board approval to spend 

appropriate funds for these valve added 

initiatives. 

We are good at documenting needs of 

utilities with studies and plans and 

schedules, but rarely have the funds 

necessary for implementation. 

Limited resources 

Mission funding 

Pressure to reduce costs/ not increase rates 

can stifle “out of box” thinking 

Politics 

Politics (2) 

Political (2) 

Governance (2) 

Political involvement in operational matters 

Lack of support from other county govt. 

dept. with less goals and objectives 

Inertia (bureaucracy) 

Higher management support 

Union structure 

 

 

Union contract 

Labor relations- Union leadership 

Labor union 

Time 

Time (25) 

Balancing time associated with operational 

problems and business situations 

Having time available to do the 


Managements time is dedicated to other 

ongoing projects 

Time spent on development of new 

initiatives 

Time constraints 

Need to focus on regulating compliance, 

doesn’t give us flexibility or time for new 


Getting employees to think of them. 

Everyone is so busy doing their job that 

carving out time for this activity can be 

difficult. 

Time involved in purchasing, contracts, and 

employee training. 

Time to educate 

Time management, especially for training 

new employees 

Mostly time constraints 

System growth and increasing workloads 

lead to decreased time availability for “new” 

ideas 

Most staff are very busy and the related time 

constraints can limit the ability for 

employees to embrace and /or properly 

evaluate new initiatives 

Time to use functional teams to get buy-in 

and understanding to create tipping point 

Time (many initiatives underway 

simultaneously) 

Buy In 

Complacency among the employees 

High implementation and maintenance effort 

Ownership 

Accountability 

Buy in (2) 

Employee buy in 

Buy in at lower levels 

Lack of feeling part of the solution on part 

of some. 

Organizational buy in 

Change 

Resistance to change (7) 

A-22 


Long term managers and supervisors not 

interested in change 

Resistance to change at some levels 

Employees “stuck in their ways”, we’ve 

never done it like that before 

Change is hard to do 

Lack of enthusiasm in changing the way we 

do things on a proactive basis 

After a while as a manager stop beating my 

head against a wall trying to change 

attitudes 

A willingness to change 

Employees do not like change 

We are all humans and we naturally resist 

change 

The normal “it’s not the way we have done 

it before” reaction. But that is getting better 

as the long serving employees retire and 

fresh thinking enters the workplace 

Some old habits are still affecting the 

operations 

Exposure to new ways of doing business 

high percentage of employees with greater 

than 15 years experience hard to change old 

way of thinking 

Nature of many people do not want to 

change 

Resistance to new technologies 

Knowledge of new systems and processes, 

ability to change. 

Change is difficult to implement with 

seasoned employees. 

Protection of turf 

Stodginess 

Habit of older employees 

Unidirectional thinking 

Conservative personalities 

Lots of folks who have been here a long 

time. 

People who are stuck in believing the old 

way of doing business is still sufficient. 

Leadership and management 

Leadership 

Leadership issues 

Leadership in coordinating all IT uses in 

different departments 

Historic track record of new management 

initiatives turning out to be “flavors of the 

month” 

Lack of performance management 

Upper management 

New management practices 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lack of a common vision at the senior 

manager level that results in ineffective 

communication to the organization 

increase level of risk taking. We have 

traditionally been a “risk avoidance” 

company. This is changing with new 

CEO/President 

Getting management to understand what we 

are doing. 

Status quo. Younger middle management 

less committed. 

Lack of a visionary view that assesses utility 

wide needs vs. divisional needs. 

Champions to lead the them 

Lack of trust between managers and 

employees. 

Manpower 

Lack of ability to hire externally 

Level of staffing 

People as in numbers 

People to put on new initiatives for 


Lack of resources- staffing (3) 

We only have 10 employees so I don’t have 

too much trouble breaking down any 

barriers 

Personnel available 

Available staffing 

Human resources 

Manpower (4) 

Having the staff necessary to accomplish the 

initiative without taking away from another 

critical areas 

Vacancies level 

Staff (2) 

Need more personnel 

Lack of in- house staff 

Inability to staff at necessary levels 

Not creating and involving the appropriate 

members on the stakeholder team. 

At times available resources, to include 

manpower. 


Skill base of ‘line’ employees 

Lack of basis of knowledge to expand what 

is needed in need to know area.- what I 

really need is a college graduate with a 

wealth of basic knowledge instead of having 

to deal with the “anybody off the can do this 

job” attitude of the old boys. Granted 

mechanical skills are there with the old boys 

but the thirst for knowledge in not. 

A-23 


Education level of many employees is low 

(high school degree or less) 

Some lack of knowledge/ understanding 

Lack of outside knowledge 

Staff/skill deficiencies 

Technology 

A formality has been added to ensure IT 

system resources and this can be perceived 

by the business as a hindrance to achieving 

deadlines 

IT holding back or not keeping up with new 

systems…support wise 

Pace too slow to upgrade to newer 

technology 

Compatible data transfers from different 

organization functions 

Complexity of current systems 

Lack of measurement tools and processes 

The ITD for county is overworked; have to 

use the plant instrument tech for most 

SCADA problems including PC repair 

We are one of several city departments and 

IT is very concerned with standardized 

business solutions and systems 

Most IT and many other functions are 

contracted by outside providers 

Lack of technical expertise and 

understanding on the part of some. 

Workload 

Consistent work load 

Current workload 

Heavy workload 

The current CIP # of projects has not 

allowed for a respite to gather knowledge/ 

store/ and access it from previous projects. 

Size 

Small utility (2) 

The size and complexity of the organization: 

1,300 employees and 4 distinct lines of 

business (water, drainage, wastewater, and 

solid waste) 

Regulations and laws 

Union contracts 

Limited by Nevada Revised Statutes and 

other ordinances 

City policies 

Regulations and Union contracts 

Typical Union issues 

Being part of a public work dept (must 

follow rules) 

 

 

Lack of flexibility in laws/ regulations 

affecting part time/flex time staffing options. 

Internal procurement procedures 

Planning 

Lack of scenario planning 

Lack of long term focus 

Planning 

Number of projects planned 


Depends on initiative most are carried out 

easily 

Difficulty to measure outcome; success and 

failure 

Problem solving 

Have good solid base to start from and then 

have good problem solving techniques 

Training 

Training of employee 

Lack of training and education in the basics 

involved in each dept.- in the past, virtually 

all training was informed and on-the-job. 

Many employees did not get the exposure 

needed to develop skills. 

Rewards 

New ideas not appropriately rewarded 

Silos 

 

 

 

 

Silos that block open communications 

Stove pipe organization 

Silo’s, silo’s, silo’s 

Silos of expertise and OPS isolated. 


Poor communication between departments 

Physical separation of our employees leads 

to barriers of communication. We are spread 

over 3 offices, approx. 35 miles apart. 

New hires 

Finding qualified candidates for new 

positions. 

Culture 

Culture 

Often more “feel good” than practical 

Thick headedness 

Attitude 

Age related 

Employee mindset 

A-24 


General 

 

 

We really do not have any barriers, with our 

Water Services Manager supports all new 


SGID has always been on the leading edge 

of new initiatives 

 

 

 

Very few barriers 

Not a lot of barriers 

None that I know of we have good control 

of our processes 

Q12 What are the barriers outside your organization to implementing new initiatives? 

Of the 207 survey participants, 168 responders provided 208 responses. One of those 

answers was “few,” one of those answers was “none,” and one wrote “n/a”. Other responders 

wrote: 

 

 

 

 

 

Very few barriers if any 

I don’t think this is a major problem 

We have good external support 

None that I know of we have good control processes 

I don’t see any 

In order of largest to smallest number, the general groupings are: 

Money 

Money (5) 

Money, doing more with less 

Dollars 

Limited funding (2) 

Funding (4) 

Funding limitations 

Unfunded mandates 

Super funding from state and federal sources 

Limited revenue source 

Fiscal constraints 

State budget cuts 

Penny pinchers not allowing us the 

equipment 

Financial constraints 

Financially strapped local govt. 

Budget 

Cost (3) 

Cost of living in the DC Metro area 

Bottom line cost of doing business by our 

member agencies 

Cost of technology 

Culture which is cost conscious 

High cost of living 

Cost of infrastructure renewal 

Politics 

Political pressures 

Politics (5) 

Political (5) 

City politics 

Political climate, not business friendly at 

state or local level. 

Old local politics 

Government 

Inflexibility and “old think” by governing 

body (county council) 

Political short sightedness 

Political boundary 

Board has been a serious impediment to 

progress 

Political obstacles 

Lack of support from other county govt 

departments with less goal and objectives 

County councils/ political process of support 

Status quo of the govt structure 

Council approval 

Municipal Government mentality 

Parochial attitudes of local municipal 

officials 

Member governments that we serve with 

whole save water 

Special interest groups (in some cases) 

Local and federal legislature 

Elected officials; other departments; lack of 

knowledge of total water operation by 

others. 

A-25 


Mayor/ council with limited vision or 

understanding. 

Council commitment 

Too many unnecessary bureaucratic road 

blocks 

Unions, bureaucratic city processes 

Political pressure to avoid any additional 

staff. 

Technology 

Available technology not currently available 

to meet goals/ objectives of executive 

management. 

The knowledge in the IT department is held 

by one individual, the manager. When this 

person is not available it causes a huge 

problem. 

Regulations and laws 

Regulatory actions 

Regulators (2) 

Regulations (4) 

Regulatory agencies- civil service 

State law (2) 

Regulatory constraints 

Responses from regulatory agencies 

Civil service Union contracts 

Regulatory agency interference 

New laws passed by the legislature who do 

not understand public utilities but think they 

do 

Being part of public works dept (must 

follow rules) 

Regulatory framework becomes more 

complex 

Regulatory agencies 

Regulatory bureaucracy (state and fed 

limits) 

Complying with state and federal 

regulations 

State regulations and ordinances 

Regulatory guidelines 

Regulatory regulations 

Increasing regulatory parameters 

There aren’t many. Sometimes regulations 

affect the speed at which we can implement 

things. 

State regulatory agency bureaucracy 

Governmental regulations 

Water management regulations in conflict. 

Regulation agency timelines 

Existing laws. 

Civil service law in New York State is very 

restrictive with respect to job description 

and hiring practices. 

State laws which restrict flexibility in 

staffing options. 

Regulatory requirements 

More regulation and reporting requirements 

New hires 

Lack of skilled or journey level work force 

in this area 

Staffing 

Competition for hard to fill jobs from 

competing utilities. 

Pool of potential applicants. 


Rate increases (2) 

rates 

Strong push not to change rates even if 

better for the long run. 

Elevated rates 

Rate increases (keep them reasonable) 

Concern over higher rates. 

Public resistance to any increases in utility 

rates. 

Customers wanting money to be low on 

bills. 

Customer unwillingness to support 

initiatives through higher rates. 

Obtaining funding support for water rates 

and special property taxes from the public 

and water retailers. 

Rates/budget pressures from our customers 

impacts resources that could help us develop 

knowledge data. 

Few- are looked upon within community 

and region as a leader in initiatives and as 

long as customer service remains high and 

rates remain competitive- barriers are rarely 

encountered. 

Public perception 

Customer acceptance of changes 

Public 

Public support for new programs, don’t care 

attitude 

Strong influence by minority public group 

that dampens creativity and flexibility in the 

operation of the organization 

Public perception (3) 

Public not understanding benefits of 

innovative initiatives 

A-26 


Public opinion of “waste” 

Public health concerns 

Customer satisfaction 

Public perception 

Public perceptive 

Perception of rate payers 

Public awareness and understanding 

Public or customer resistance, primarily 

because of lack of understanding. 

Complex customer relationships 

Skeptical public 

Public acceptance 

Desire to implement total water 

management with cities understanding by 

customers of complexity and costs. 

Perception of public money being misused 

Resources/ water 

Resources are limited 

Limited training resources 

Available resources to implement projects 

Starting to see some lack of knowledge/ 

resources on an employee front 

Resources 

Water source and availability/ treat ability. 

Turf issues with other agencies 

We are looking at additional water resources 

(some are in neighboring state)- 

regional/state politics and turf protection 

(adjacent systems aggressively pursuing 

customers). 

Time 

Time (4) 

Finding the time and identifying the 

necessary resources 

Long commutes so no extra “time” given 

after work 

Vision 

 

Vision 

Leadership 

Nonperforming consultants 

Lack of leadership 

County supervisors 

Support of county administrationsupervisors 

and manager 

Consultant engineering 

Authority 

Lack of flexibility in centralized city HR 

department 

IT, HR 

 

 

 

 

Micromanagement without appreciation of 

business problems. 

Lack of an approved sphere of influence. 

Understanding of what we are trying to do 

and interests vested in the status quo. 

There are no barriers outside our 

organization. (some employees may have a 

lack of trust when new initiatives are 

proposed) 

Economy 

Economic fears of what the future may hold. 

Have to plan long term but the economy 

may not support initiatives 

Growth driving utilities and other 

infrastructure rather than have growth and 

infrastructure development occur in a 

coordinated manner 

High poverty level 

Loss of industry and increased utility bills 

Economy 

Outside agencies 

Other agencies that lack vision 

Working with other agencies 

Support from outside sources (legal, 

vendors, etc.) 

Close tie between general city operations 

and utility ops. 

Centralized city functions. 


Understanding the initiatives 

Greeting good contractors 

Communication and help from other 

departments 


Education/training 

Education 

Training harder to get locally and travel to 

lower 48 is expensive 

Weeding through seminar/training literature 

for relevant, useful training. Often, quality 

of training is dependent on the instructor, so 

we have had training of inconsistent quality 

Education of political authority 

Convincing and educating our volunteer 

Board representatives to the long range 

advantages associated with these initiatives. 

Change 

 

Resistance to change 

A-27 


How people become entrenched in doing 

things “the same way”. 

Environment 

Environmental constraints on a significant 

barrier 

Physical constraints/ loss of population 

Geo-political environment 

Other 

 

 

 

 

We are a public entity 

Usually done by a group of knowledgeable 

people 

Paperwork 

Planning 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bidding implementation 

Accessibility due to geographical location 

Weather 

Too many outside initiatives 

Limited interest from “peer” organizations 

Regional partnerships need to be expanded 

Fractured service arrangements throughout 

region 

Inter-jurisdictional agreements 

Cooperation with other organizations 

We are being helped by implementing of a 

county wide GIS program 

Reduced staffing available for any in-house 


Q13 What are the critical factors in your organization that support successful 

implementation of new initiatives? 

Of the 207 survey participants, 183 provided 290 responses. These fall in the general 

areas of (largest number to smallest number): support, leadership, buy-in, employees, money, 

communication, teams, time, technology, planning, change, training, resources, results, laws and 

regulations, implementation and other. 

Money 

Money (5) 

Save money 

Financial support 

Finance 

Finances 

Financing 

Paying for 

Funding(4) 

budget 

Strong finances to fund 

Return on investments 

Grants 

Have the resources financial and human to 

implement new initiatives 

Cost factor 

Low cost 

Well defined purpose, supported with cost 

or operational benefits 

Cost to benefit studies 

Costs 

Cost effective 

Source of funding 

Capital investments 

Utility commission that is willing to invest 

money in needed capital projects 

 

Keep costs low, anything to save future 

dollars 

Support 

Management support (9) 

Management support/ input 

Strong supportive management team 

Dept head and management support 

Trust competence; management support 

Management support and leadership is 

critical to motivating staff 

Upper management supports new ideas 

when money, time and personnel can 

feasibly be allocated 

Support from senior management 

Upper management alignment 

Upper management support 

Management commitment 

Supportive Board 

A Board of water commissioners with an 

open mind 

Water Board/ council 

Convincing elected officials 

Supportive utilities commission 

Board of Directors 

Board of Commissioner sign-on 

Top down support of implementation 

A-28 


Department director support 

Dedicated board and supervisors 

Board approval 

Board of Trustees that believe in 

advancement and the ideas put forth by staff 

Progressive and practical Board of 

Commissioners 

Strong Board support 

Support from Board 

Board of Directors elected 

Supportive Board of Directors 

City council approval 

City manager and City council support 

Strong support from Mayor 

Support of Mayor and public works Director 

Political and community support 

Support for the Board and GM 

Support from City Council and down 

through the organization 

Commission and leadership support 

Staff support/ input 

Employee support 

Diversity and commitment of staff 

Employees all support quality and quantity 

improvement programs 

When you can get management/ council & 

public support 

Community support 

Need support from other departments 

Support from bargaining units and upper 

management 

Openness to employee development 

Buy-in 

Buy-in 

Employee and administrative buy-in 

Employee involvement 

Employee buy-in (6) 

Employee cooperation 

All parties in favor 

Staff buy-in (2) 

Top down buy-in of objectives 

Empowerment of employees (2) 

Management buy-in (4) 

Management buy-in or driving change 

Employee willingness to try new ideas 

Buy-in from political powers 

Buy-in from utility commission and 

employees 

Employee buy-in both management and 

Union 

Buy-in by employees, 1 st through 

involvement with the development of the 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

initiative(s), and having all levels of 

employees involved with the 

implementation and review of the 

effectiveness of the new initiative(s) 

Employees buy-in—if they see it as valuable 

to them, they will be more helpful in 


Buy-in by all involved 

Enjoy ownership/ empowerment 

First, assuring buy-in; and second assuring 

long-term commitment 

Acceptance by employees and upper 

management 

Middle management acceptance of 

initiatives and means to support initiative 

Leadership buy-in 

Leadership 

Leadership (5) 

Solid leadership 

Leadership philosophy 

Strong leadership at the dept Director level 

Relatively new management leaders willing 

to try new things 

Leadership; community trust and support 

Experienced leadership 

Management that listens to and foster the 

growth of new ideas and initiatives 

New and enthusiastic upper management 

Management leadership 

Forward thinking younger middle 

management 

Leadership from the top 

Management staff 

Management staff is change oriented 

Management thinking outside the box 

Supervisory acceptance 

Disciplined and technically proficient front 

line supervisors 

Distribution supervisor help 

Quality and experience leadership in 

management and historical performance of 

the organization 

Management’s ability to implement new 

ideas 

Slowly building a core of management and 

supervisors with vision for new initiative 

New leadership in place and reviewing 

organization structure and function 

Motivated managers 

Strategic management system 

Strategic systems mgmt. office 

Visionary, charismatic leader 

Key leaders 

A-29 


Willing leaders 

Management that is interested in process 

improvement and change 

Management commitment 


Good communication (3) 

Good staff communication 

Good communication/ justification 

Communication; willingness to openly 

discuss; respect 

Communication (9) 

Board that is not stuck in the mud or the 

past; task forces and ability to have open and 

honest communications with out the threat 

of repercussion 

Knowledgeable City council 

Commissioners being informed about 

initiatives and willing to try 

Sharing of information between executive 

and operational branches 

Open collaborative communication 

Good lines of communication 

Communication- personal, written, and 

electronic 

Good information 

Understanding goals 

Communication structure 

Need for all information of different 

departments to be available to all 

Team 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Team- based approach 

Progressive and active management team 

Openness of top leadership team 

Motivated team oriented approach 

We work as team when implementing new 


Team leadership/ champion 

Team development 

High performing work teams 

Inclusivity (teams) 

Team work and collaborative culture 

Teamwork at all levels 

Team building 

Management team input 

Planned regular professional development; 

cross training and cross utilization of 

personnel information exchange among 

managers team based units; emphasis on 

safety and preventative maintenance. 

Training 

Line employees understanding what and 

how the technology works 

Training 

Everyone understanding proper training is 

essential tools 

Availability of training 

The need to better train staff 

Time 

Time (5) 

Timely response from Township 

Professionals 

Providing time 

Creation of sense of urgency 

Time to study proposed changes 

Planning 

Planning (2) 

Solid analysis and good strategy 

Planning between managers 

Strategic planning 

Long term planning on acquiring strategic 

water resources 

Technology 

Technology SOP’s trainers 

Technical knowledge 

Ease of use 

New technology 

IT dept 

Top-down management embraces new 

technologies and /or processes or procedures 

Introduction to new / modern procedures 

tools 

Changes 

Change leadership team 

Openness to change of EE’s 

Desire to improve; move from fire fighting 

and reactionary maintenance to a proactive/ 

preventative maintenance 

New initiatives and desired results—must be 

clearly stated to employees—if not—they 

will resist changes 

Work within silos—this way new ideas get 

introduced, but they are not well defined 

from an enterprise view. 

Resources 

Resources (2) 

Sufficient resources 

Sustainable resources 

A-30 


Employees 

Employee skill levels 

Motivated staff 

Customer service attitude 

High skill level 

Great staff 

People (3) 

Retirees 

Age of employees in the field 

Strong work ethic 

Large work force 

Cooperative spirit 

The recognition that we need to work 

efficiently to best serve our internal and 

external customers 

Operators motivation 

Very dedicated and enthusiastic staff 

Outstanding employees 

Hard working, creative, dedicated people 

Excellent talent 

Progressive thinkers 

Past experience 

Desire to lead industry, empowerment 

Personal pride 

Courteous and respectful of each other 

Trust (2) 

Employee skills and abilities 

Risk takers 

Smart, dedicated staff 

Dedicated, knowledgeable, and hard 

working people that want to do their job 

right 

Employees want to make the best decisions 

possible 

Available manpower 

Laws and regulations 

New laws 

Recognition by regulators as necessary 

expenditures 

Regulatory driven 


Strategic implementation 

Follow through 

Results 

 

 

 

Other 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Short-term results 

Lead to longer term successes 

Recognition of successes 

Unknown 

Perseverance 

Good knowledge of action taken 

Proper equipment 

System is capable of new initiative 

Measuring performance to better manage for 

results 

Have the correct information- have 

alternatives available- complete 

understanding of initiatives by all involved. 

Exposure to new and better implemented 

ideas from other suppliers 

Proper rates 

Large enough to have achieved economies 

of scale rate structure- low in comparison to 

surrounding utilities. 

Small size 

Input 

Consistency and competence 

Staying competitive with privatizers 

Setting goals even though county govt. 

doesn’t 

Well structured/ well defined program 

Prop 218 faces vote on Clean Water & 

passage by voters of existing fees 

It is a combination of keeping up with the 

industry trends and reacting to a specific 

incident 

Study; explain; have buy-in; implement; 

resolve problem (troubleshooting) 

Process 

Vision 

The mission to produce an effective and cost 

efficient utility 

Need or urgency 

Outside help 

Efficiency and improvements 

A-31 


Q14 How would you describe a successful initiative in your organization? 

Of the 207 survey participants, 175 provided 290 responses. These responses included: 

two “n/a,” one “unknown,” one “not sure,” and one “I don’t understand the question—sorry.” In 

order of largest to smallest number, the general categories of response are: results, implemented, 

cost effective, planned, goals, employee buy-in, supported, accepted, ideas, timely, teams, 

benefits, identify problem, understood/communicated, analyze, measurable, meets needs, 

leadership and other. 

Identify problem 

Management and employees identifying a 

problem, developing solution (options) 

When an issue is identified 

Well defined purpose 

Proposed by everyone 

A new process is introduced 

Visional 

Research 

Leadership 

Field of dreams approach- you must pilot 

Need initiative manager (driving force) 

Championed by executive and senior staff 

Cost effective 

Money dedicated 

Within budget (3) 

Budget 

New way to generate revenue 

Money is budgeted 

Properly funded 

Money 

Funding (3) 

Saves money (2) 

Under budget 

Financially supported 

An adequate resources to implement and 

maintain the initiatives 

One that gets adequately funded 

Within budget 

Keep cost low 

Cost effective (2) 

One that improves work processes in a cost 

efficient manner. 

For an initiative to be successful, it typically 

comes with little or no actual costs, such as 

team-based decision making. 

Cost or operational benefits 

Reduces cost or maintains cost while 

improving service 

To do more at lower cost 

Accepted 

approved by the Board (2) 

accepted by the Agency’s customers, Board 

of Directors, staff and the management team 

approved by employees 

Board agree to amending the policy of the 

District 

Embraced by entire organization 

Acceptance by all included 

More than one section of the department is 

involved 

A collaborative process 

Approval by all involved 

One that has general acceptance 

Accepted 

Easy acceptance 

Acceptance 

Agreement 

Gets approved 

Consensus driven 

Employee buy-in 

organization buy-in 

employee buy-in (2) 

getting employees to get on board and take 

the bull by the horns and be proactive in 

infrastructure maintenance 

employees have ownership 

Buy-in throughout the employee population 

Buy-in from all levels of the organization 

Buy in from all parties 

Board buy-in 

Input from all levels of management and 

labor 

Wide involvement 

Employee involvement 

Endorsement by staff 

Reviewed by staff 

Reviewed and evolved by the employees 

An initiative that has employee involvement 

Receives input from operating personnel 

Employee buy-in with smooth 


A-32 


Owned enthusiastically by grass root 

employees and staff 

Some type of initiative that people are eager 

to try and experience results 

Discussed at manager and local level 

One that involves a broad range of people, 

and is created with enthusiasm and 

intelligence, lasts as long as needed. 

Supported 

staff supports (2) 

support of elected officials 

supported at all levels (2) 

supports organizations mission statement 

institutionalized in the organization 

pushed from top down 

Support by Union/ Management 

Strongly supported by the City council 

Management support 

Supported 

One which has top- down support 

Has to start from top- so all initiatives are 

allowed in departments by departmental 

heads but major one have to start at top. 

Management and Board support 

Supported from those above and below 

Support from other departments involved in 

the initiative 

One that is implemented with support of the 


With the full support of the organization/ 

stakeholders; receives continued 

commitment from all who are part of it, and 

realizes a benefit. 

Successful initiatives can start at the top, 

middle, or bottom, but the hallmark of a 

success is when all levels respond to an 

issue in the same way. 

Bringing it to the water and light 

Commission for their review and support 

and then getting it done. 

Supported by leadership 

Training 

Excellent training 

Training is implemented 

Provides training needed 

Teams/ employees 

Successful initiative requires team work 

A team effort that starts with an idea and is 

worked on 

Team communication 

Enhance satisfaction of our employees 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improves job satisfaction 

Work required by all three work groups and 

Board with the implementation of a 4X10 

week for energy and conservative purposes 

Employee participation 

Employees are involved from the ground 

level 

Fully engaged staff—teams involved 

Employees share in reward either through 

financial incentives or eased workloads/ 

automated processes 

Implemented 

Implement(2) 

implement tasks 

implemented (4) 

implemental 

initiation 

implemented by staff 

implementation (4) 

cross sectional group of competent and 

cooperative employees for the 

implementation team 

easily implemented 

executed 

successfully managed 

Up and running 

One that reaches a point where a final 

decision is made to implement of not 

implement 

Implemented by all parties involved 

Effective implementation 

Once it has been implemented for at least a 

year 

Implementation of long range planning 

efforts. 

Process is moved from test to fully 

implemented 

Initiative developed and implemented 

Successfully implemented in a reasonable 

time 

Timely 

Timely (6) 

Done on time 

Save manual time 

efficiency 

Efficiency improvement 

Efficient (2) 

Time 

Completed on time 

Accomplished within a specific time frame 

On schedule 

A-33 


Time specific and did not develop scope 

creep 

Completed on time 

Planned 

Well thought out 

Develop strategies to overcome gaps 

Develop tasks to implement strategies 

Planned (4) 

plan 

Well planned (3) 

Well planned and presented 

Well planned in advance 

planning 

Properly planned project from start to finish 

Planned and scheduled 

Planned change at the department level that 

proceeds through upper management 

Strategic work plan 

Work group to develop plan 

Test plan 

Educate employees and management on 

plan 

One that is well thought out and planned, 

because of an upcoming need. 

Group planning sessions 

Goals 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accomplishes the task at hand with the least 

amount of negative impact 

Completion of objectives 

Achieves the goals desired with minimum ill 

side effects 

Identifies needs and meets those needs 

Identify gaps to achieving the goal 

Define initiative goal 

Accomplished 

Management and employees understanding 

same goal 

Met all requirements 

Created more efficiency/ effectiveness to the 

mission objectives 

Goal oriented 

One that better helps us meet our mission 

One that met its performance objectives 

without mid-course correction 

Meet intended goals/ objectives 

Meets mission goals 

Achieves the goal established 

Meeting or exceeding desired goals 

All employees meet established goals 

One with goals for timelines of 


 

 

 

 

One which can actually be accomplished 

and meets original goals 

One that gets fully implemented and 

achieves goals 

One that accomplished something 

One that accomplishes goals and objectives 

that were set for the initiative to achieve. 

Meets needs 

A successful initiative in DC, Washington is 

one that meets the needs of both customers 

and employees. 

Adapting and improving policy in response 

to customer needs. 

To look into new ideas- future growthexpands 

departments to meet the needs of 

the public. 

Results 

Increase customer service while improving 

business practices 

Improves work flows and is user friendly 

Measure and analyze results 

Provides the benefits that were targeted and 

then becomes a part of the daily routine for 

most employees 

Provides better information faster 

Benefits customers 

If it got done 100% 

Reduces- OT, complaints, man hours/ 

project 

New law 

Completed with all employees satisfied with 

results 

Feed back and improve on a continuous 

basis 

Users are happy with final outcome 

Water protection 

Efforts show results 

Original objective realized 

Overall system improvement 

Completed with few problems 

Review and adjust 

Paying an employee to maintain a license 

higher than required 

One that provides the result intended 

Increased productivity 

One that produced an outcome/result 

positively affecting our customers 

Increased competitiveness 

Results in increased skill levels of team 

Ensuring that the initiative meets the criteria 

for success (established prior to 

implementation) 

A-34 


One that happened seamlessly, without drop 

in employee morale 

Outcome positive and tangible 

Perceived benefits realized 

Initiate “changes” as trial basis. Then make 

permanent after a break-in period 

Try something small and illustrate positive 

results 

One that improves the quality of our service 

to our customers 

Follow up on details 

Indicate positive movement 

Outcome, results and adaptation 

One that goes through a successful analysis 

Project is evaluated and deemed successful 

Poof of concepts as there is no visionary 

capability in the SR. positions; no risk takers 

Feedback from outside entities, employers, 

customers and Board representatives are all 

indicators to success of an initiative action. 

Enhances service 

Increases customer satisfaction 

Changed work practices 

Efficient, energy efficient 

It leads to a change in outcome, such as 

improved performance (capital or 

operating); better service delivery to our 

customers, or work process improvements of 

efficiencies. 

Benefits our customers, community, and/ or 

employees 

To the level of quality expected by the 

sponsor and has impact it was intended to 

have (or better) 

Benefits 

Benefits organization 

Trained and operated personnel 

An opportunity is identified to improve 

quality or service and implemented to that 

end 

Improves some process or outcome 

An initiative that provides improved 

productivity 

Improves customer service 

Enhances the satisfaction of our customers 

Understood/communicated 

Understood 

One that everybody understands 

Makes sense to the community 

Board and community are kept informed 

Communicated 


Measurable 

One that was measurable 

Measurable results 

Tested 

Analyze 

Analyze present situation 

Well crafted 

The result of solid problem analysis 

(including problem definition), good range 

of alternatives considered and appropriate 

evaluation criteria used in the decision 

making. 

Thoughtfully conceived 

well engineered 

Other 

Developed using key staff 

One in which everyone felt that an issue was 

addressed to some satisfaction 

To have a positive outlook and good feeling 

on what’s taken place 

If Board would be more forward thinking 

and less willing to maintain the status quo 

One that uses an innovative approach to 

common everyday problems. Being able to 

solve or deal with a common problem in a 

very uncommon way 

One that engenders workforce productivity, 

loyalty, and retention and improves 

recruitment and hiring. 

Most new initiatives are coming from 

outside agencies 

Involves thinking “out of the box” by 

employees at all levels 

Specifics 

Our $36 million AMR project is a good 

example. This initiative includes a very 

effective steering committee. 

Redefining well head protection area 

SAP system implementation 

When we have morning meetings we ask 

our employees what are they doing today 

and they respond with their daily tasks. 

Our maintenance operations have improved 

by taking more of an integrated team 

approach than a shop-centric approach by 

trade. 

Upgrade of SCADA in 2006- moved 

companies and software, only accomplished 

with help of new instrument tech. 

Development and implementation of a new 

customer service information and billing 

system w/IVR- work order capabilitydeveloped 

in-house. 

A-35 


The migration of long-tenured employees 

from doing tasks the “old way” to doing 

tasks utilizing available technology. 

Our current master plan was a very 

successful collaboration of all staff and good 

consultants 

Development of better maintenance 

management systems 

Get funding to a new regional wastewater 

plant by using “Water is Life” campaign 

ideas 

Drinking water treatment plant efficiency 

enhancement project…water and power 

efficiency gaining; required partnership with 

retail contractors 

2007, large gate valve survey program 

ensure valves were operable for a recent 

emergency. 

Implemented new customer service billing 

system for 210,000 electric customers/ 

125,000 water connections. 

Automatic meter reading implementation; 

integrated water management plan 

Basic training in our distribution system 

maintenance dept., a few years ago, we 

started budgeting to send two people per 

 

year to a licensing course. Slow progress 

with 15 or 16 people in the dept. This year 

we brought the instructor on site, are in 

process of training everyone. 

We have successfully gone to a 4x10 work 

week, with Fridays off and have rotated 

crews in on the Fridays to have coverage. It 

gives the employees 3 out of 4 Fridays off; 

has given our organization 50 hours of 

coverage for a 40 hour work week, and has 

saved our utilities between 15% and 20% in 

energy costs including fuel for department 

vehicles, heating/air conditioning of 

buildings, and similar savings for personnel 

vehicles used in commuting 

Q15 An overview of Project Studies collected is included in Part 5. 

A-36 


PART 5 

RESULTS 

ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 

In the Project 4003 survey participants were asked: How well does your organizational 

structure support sharing of information and knowledge? On a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with 1 

representing “very poorly” and 5 representing “very well,” the mean of the 203 responses to this 

question was 3.59 and the median was 4. This was among the higher scoring answers to the 

questions involving characteristics of the utilities. For example, the amount of knowledge 

sharing among managers has a mean of 3.70, the level of trust among employees has a mean of 

3.69, and the level of employee learning has a mean of 3.59. All the rest of the questions relating 

to Utility characteristics are lower than 3.59, some considerably lower. The level of 

communication between departments has a mean of 3.46. 

In contrast, the ability of the human resource department to support learning and 

knowledge sharing has a mean of 3.22, well below the mean of the means (the average mean for 

survey response) of 3.44. This shows the perception that the organizational structure supports 

the sharing of information and knowledge better than the human resource department. 

KNOWLEDGE SHARING 

The good news from the Project 4003 survey response is that the mean for the level of 

trust among employees on a five-point Likert scale was 3.69 with a median of 4. This is one of 

the higher means in the survey. In other words, while there is a disparity in responses ranging 

from very poor to very well, the leaders and managers felt more positive about the level of trust 

among employees than other areas assessed such as level of process discipline (3.24 mean) and 

the level of information system integration(information is consistent and accessible) (3.08 mean). 

In the Project 4003 survey response, when asked to assess the flexibility of organizational 

policies, the mean for 206 responses was 3.26. The mean of the means—which provides the 

average response for this survey—is 3.44. This means that the flexibility of organizational 

policies is considered lower than average. 

On Likert scale from 1 (very poorly) to 5 (very well), 205 responders to the Project 4003 

survey valued the level of information system integration (information consistent and accessible) 

at a mean of 3.08. This represents the lowest mean in the survey, and is considerably below the 

mean of the means of 3.44. Further, the mean was 3.35 for the quality of information contained 

in IT systems. See the discussion of the relationship between information technology, 

information management and KM at the end of Chapter 6. 

Although there is room for growth, knowledge sharing does occur among drinking water 

Utility managers. Recall that in the Project 4003 survey response, on a Likert scale the mean of 

207 responders was 3.68 when asked to assess the amount of knowledge sharing among 

managers. However, for the level of communication between departments the mean was 3.46, 

indicating a wider knowledge sharing gap between departments than between managers, or 

between employees. 

Appendix A 37 


CORE PLANNING PROCESSES 

In the 4003 survey process, drinking water utilities were asked: How well do the 

following core processes support your organization’s mission? The results are provided in Table 

A.5 below. 

Table A.5 

Core planning processes support of the Utility’s mission. 








Source: Project 4003 survey process 

There are a number of observations that can be made regarding this response. 

First, note that there is a range from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) in response to each core 

planning process and its support of the Utility’s mission. Thus the standard deviations are quite 

broad for each set of responses. 

Second, note that the median is 4 (high) for strategic business planning, operational 

planning, and capital improvement planning, indicating that the majority of responses are 4 

(high) or 5 (very high). These three processes are historically those that fall under the direct 

purview of leaders and managers. 

Third, note that out of the 207 survey responders, the number of responses to each of the 

six core planning processes ranges from 177 to 202. The instructions on the survey read: “This 

survey looks at your organization as a whole ... should be filled out by a senior manager.” Thus 

for each of the core processes there were 5-30 responders who chose not to enter a value for that 

core process, indicating either no judgment or an unfamiliarity with the core processes they were 

asked to assess. In the order of those processes more readily assessed, the planning processes 

are: Capital improvement planning, operational planning, human resource development, 

strategic business planning, information technology master planning and life cycle planning. 

This would indicate, for example, a higher level of familiarity and opinion on capital 

improvement planning than life cycle planning. Yet capital improvement planning is directly 

correlated to life cycle planning. In an uncertain and changing economic and political 

environment—where new requirements and issues emerge without adequate resources to quickly 

and effectively respond to those requirements and issues—long-term planning must often take a 

second seat to short-term needs. While this juxtaposing occurs in a large number of 

organizations, the aging infrastructure faced by a large number of drinking water utilities is 

rapidly bringing long-term into the sphere of short-term urgency. In other words, funding needs 

that could previously be delayed can no longer be delayed. 

The data for Q6F in Table A.5 indicates that information technology master planning has 

the second lowest response rate, the second lowest mean (by .01), the broadest standard 

Appendix A 38 


deviation and the median falls in the 3.0 range (medium). These indicators can now be 

combined with the responses to question 10: “The following statements relate to the information 

systems in your organization” to build a deeper understanding of the perception of the role of 

information technology (and by extension information technology master planning) and the 

mission of the Utility. See Table A.6 below. 

Table A.6 

Information systems in drinking water utilities. 



(B) The Information Technology Department (ITD) is heavily 190* 119 69 17 

involved with and understands the business mission 

(C) ITD is viewed as a solution provider for business problems 189* 102 86 18 

(D) ITD is viewed as the technical help desk, and not helpful in 185* 85 100 22 

solving business problems 

*Two responses for B above were “both yes and no”, one response for C was “sometimes”, and one response for D 

was “neither”. 


Note that while the data presented in Tables A.5 and A.6 is from the same group of Utility 

leaders/managers, only 185 responders provided an opinion on the strength of information 

technology master planning and the organization’s mission. In contrast, the statements labeled 

A, B and C in Table A.6 drew a larger number of responses. Here are some key percentages: 

 

 

 

 

88.6% of 193 responders agree that systems are mission critical to the organization. 

62.6% of 190 responders agree that ITD is heavily involved with and understands the 


54% of 189 responders agree that ITD is a solution provider for business problems. 

45.9% of 185 responders agree that ITD is not helpful in solving business problems. 

The last two bullets above represent the same question looked at from two different directions. 

While there is a larger perception (62.6%) that ITD is involved with and understands the 

business mission, there is a lower perception (54%) of its effectiveness in handling business 

problems. From this response, it is clear that while the value of information technology is 

recognized as mission critical (88.6%), there is still some work to do in order for information 

technology to strongly support the business mission. When these indicators are considered with 

the patterns created from responses to the data presented in Table A.6, there are two potential 

findings. Either (1) information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been 

sufficiently developed or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking 

water utilities, or (2) leaders and managers who responded to this survey instrument 

(representing 207 drinking water utilities nation-wide) are not aware of or do not understand the 

role that information technology is playing in their utilities. In either case, it is clear that 

Knowledge Management can contribute to helping drinking water utilities engage the full 

Appendix A 39 


potential of current and future information technology investments in terms of their contribution 

to business problems and the business mission. 

While the option of writing in additional planning processes considered as core was 

provided in the survey, no additional processes were chosen by responders. 

As indicated by the data presented in Tables A.5 and A.6 above, one potential finding is 

that information technology—and more specifically, ITD—has not been sufficiently developed 

or effectively embedded in support of the business needs of drinking water utilities. There is a 

close relationship between information technology (IT), information management (IM) and 

Knowledge Management. 

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN 

WATER UTILITITES 

Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the critical factors in your 

organization that support successful implementation of new initiatives? There were 290 

responses from 207 responders. Figure A.4 shows the general areas of responses. The largest 

number of these responses (17.9%) were focused on support: from leadership, management, 

staff, directors, the water board, the commission, the city council, the city manager, the 

community, and support from employees and other departments. Several of these coupled 

commitment with support. 

Support 

Leadership 

Buy-In 

Employees 

Money 


Other 

Teams 

Time 

Technology 

Planning 

Change 

Training 

Resources 

Results 

Laws and Regulations 


0 20 40 60 

Source: Project 4003 survey response 

Figure A.4 Critical factors that support successful implementation of new initiatives 

Appendix A 40 


The results displayed in Figure A.4 were combined with the results from the leadership 

and management interviews, workshops and focus groups. The barriers most often cited are 

described below. 

Leadership and Management Support 

Leadership and management support of the KM project is critical to motivating staff 

personnel and letting the employees know that the project has the full backing of senior 

leadership and management. Leadership and management support not only applies to the 

planning phase and beginning of the KM project, but support must be consistent throughout 

project implementation. Ideally, the governing board will also have given its support, 

particularly if the project is a KM strategy impacting the entire utility. Management 

commitment throughout the project ensures that the project is recognized as a significant effort to 

improve the Utility’s performance. 

Lead by Example 

Leading by example can significantly enhance the effectiveness of the KM project. As 

leaders and managers create the KM initiative and develop the project for implementation, their 

actions, communications and behavior should reflect and be consistent with the intentions of the 

KM project. For example, if employees see leaders and senior managers sharing information and 

knowledge and openly asking questions and considering new ideas and ways of improving the 

Utility’s performance, they are less likely to resist changes and more likely to adopt similar 

behavior. 

Communicate, Communicate, Communicate 

Communicating to the workforce the reasons why change is necessary is one way of 

breaking down barriers to a KM project. If the workforce understands the nature and value of 

the project in terms of its impact on improving organizational performance and helping them 

with their own day-to-day decisions and actions, they will be more cooperative and supportive of 

the project. 

Employee Buy-In 

Employee buy-in plays a major role in influencing the success of a KM project. The 

project must be planned taking into account employee skill levels, their capability to work 

together, the amount of trust they have with each other as well as with management, and their 

willingness to change, learn and adapt new practices, including ways of implementing their own 

work responsibilities. Employees who are empowered and willing to try new ideas are typically 

very supportive of KM projects. For a KM strategy that touches all levels of employees and 

employees from all aspects or departments of the organization, ensuring participation in some 

way in the implementation of the KM strategy is one means of obtaining employee buy-in. 

Appendix A 41 


Bring Employees into the Project 

By keeping employees aware of intent, progress and direction of the KM project, 

employees will have opportunities to get their questions answered and become actively involved 

in supporting pertinent aspects of the project. These actions gain employee awareness, 

understanding and acceptance of the project, thereby gaining their cooperation and reducing their 

resistance to the project implementation. 

Resource Support 

The financial resources must be available to implement new KM initiatives. Examples of 

financial needs could include new technology, travel for individuals implementing the project, or 

bringing outside experts in as advisers. Where capital projects are concerned, the Utility’s 

Commission would likely have to approve the financial investment. To ensure the costeffectiveness 

of a KM initiative, a business case that addresses return on investments, sources of 

funding and a well-defined purpose should be developed and approved by you, the governor's 

body or senior leadership of the Utility. 

Good Communications 

Good communications is essential to project success. The sharing of information 

between executive and operational branches and the encouragement of open conversations, 

questions and suggestions allows employee participation and engages cooperation and 

collaboration. As elements of the project are implemented and necessary redirection occurs, 

good communications keeps all employees fully aware of progress and minimizes the danger of 

surprises or misunderstandings. New initiatives and desired results need to be clearly stated and 

understood by employees, if they are not, the employees may well resist changes. 

A Team-Based Approach 

A team-based approach encourages local groups and teams to take on responsibilities and 

provides the opportunity for open and honest communication among small groups. Teams 

involved in implementing new initiatives develop ownership, a broad perspective of the Utility 

and an understanding of the expected performance to be achieved by the KM project. At the 

same time, teams also result in effective decisions since they create a broader (systems) 

perspective on the Utility and its needs. As teams develop ownership of a project due to their 

responsibilities in its implementation, they also communicate to many employees on an 

individual basis the reasons why the project is important. The project then becomes not one of 

management decree, but one of widespread acceptance and implementation. 

Allowing Time for Change to Occur 

Organizations do not change quickly. Typically, it may take from two to five years for a 

significant change to occur in the organizational culture or ways of doing business. Thus any 

major KM effort may take time and patience to achieve successful implementation of a new 

organizational structure. A second aspect of time is to ensure that Utility employees are 

Appendix A 42 


provided the time to implement the KM strategy or initiative. Another consideration is the need 

to take time to work with the governance body and with the senior leadership and management 

team of the Utility to ensure their understanding and backing of the KM strategy or initiative. In 

addition, key individuals within the Utility who are involved in implementing the KM project 

must be allowed to take the necessary time for its implementation. 

. 

Technology Support 

Many KM strategies or initiatives require the use of technology to efficiently provide the 

information needed for effective Knowledge Management. Examples would be yellow pages, 

expert locators, internal communications networks and groupware in support of teams. 

Whatever technology is used needs to be user friendly, flexible, cost-effective and capable of 

being upgraded to beat anticipated Utility needs in the future. Without the available technology, 

some KM projects would have great difficulty in enhancing Utility performance. 

Developing Trust 

This refers to developing trust vertically and horizontally throughout the utility, having 

an open mind and participating in a dialogue with others. It means a willingness to share one's 

knowledge. The creation of new ideas is enhanced where trust exists between individuals or 

among groups. Further, trust can be developed by creating teams and interactive workgroups 

and providing development programs to ensure employees are competent and capable of doing 

their jobs without direct oversight. 

Valuing Employees 

Valuing employees includes ensuring that employees feel valued and recognize that they 

are contributing to the overall performance of the organization. This provides a sense of 

ownership to the employee, which in turn heightens their interest in the overall Utility 

performance and makes them much more willing to participate in KM projects. When 

employees feel secure with their own performance and about their relationship with the Utility, 

they are much more willing to work with an organizational change effort. 

Provide Training and Development 

Providing necessary training and development, particularly where technology or special 

skills are needed in the limitation of the KM project, is essential to the successful implementation 

of new practices and procedures. If the technology is to be used effectively by Utility 

employees, it must be carefully brought into the culture and practices of the Utility. Even when 

technology is working perfectly and is easy to use, employees may not be willing to use it unless 

they are made fully aware of its advantages and the benefits provided to their own work as well 

as overall Utility performance. 

Appendix A 43 


SUCCESS FROM ANOTHER VIEWPOINT 

Project 4003 survey participants were asked: How would you describe a successful 

initiative in your organization? There were 290 responses from 207 responders. The largest 

number of these responses (15.2%) were focused on results. Representative of generic responses 

are: efforts show results, original objective realized, overall system improvement and users 

happy with final outcome. Specific responses included: increase customer service while 

improving business practices, improves work flows and is user friendly, provides better 

information faster, provides the benefits that were targeted and then become a part of the daily 

routine for most employees. Other “increases” were: increased productivity, increased 

competitiveness, and increased customer satisfaction. One learner responded: Paying an 

employee to maintain a license higher than required. 

Figure A.5 below shows the other descriptive areas used to describe a successful KM 

initiativee in a drinking water Utility. 


Figure A.5 Descriptive areas of successful KM initiatives 

BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF KM IN WATER UTILITIES 

Project 4003 survey participants were asked: What are the barriers in your organization 

to implementing new initiatives? There were 263 responses from 207 responders. In the next 

question, survey participants were asked: What are the barriers outside your organization to 

implementing new initiatives? There were 208 responses from 207 responders. Figure A.6 

shows the general areas of responses. The largest number of these total responses (22.3%) were 

focused on money; for example, limited resources, budget constraints, pressure to reduce costs, 

Appendix A 44 


unfunded mandates. While money is more vocally expressed as an inside constraint, the words 

and descriptions are similar for both sets of data. 

As can be seen in Figure A.6, politics, time and regulations & laws follow as a group. 

Next is change, leadership & management, manpower and public perception, followed closely by 

rates. 

The barriers most often cited are described below. 

Outside Agencies 

Economy 

Vision 

Resources/Water 



Problem Solving 

Rewards 

New Hires 


Training 


Size 

Workload 

Planning 

Silos 


General 

Culture 

Regs & Laws 

Technology 

Buy‐In 

Leadership & Management 

Politics 

Manpower 

Change 

Time 

Money 

INSIDE BARRIERS 

OUTSIDE BARRIERS 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 


Figure A.6 Barriers in the Utility to implementing new initiatives 

Financial Resources 

Financial resources often represent a significant barrier to KM projects. Obtaining board 

approval to spend appropriate funds for projects that would improve Utility performance can 

sometimes be quite difficult. Further, with growing infrastructure needs in a down-turned 

economy coupled with the public perception that water is a right not a product to be purchased, it 

is difficult to move beyond imposed financial restraints. Yet drinking water is a critical resource 

that is becoming increasingly scarce. 

Time 

Time may represent a significant barrier to implementing KM programs in the sense that 

employees simply may not have the available time for the implementation process. As one 

respondent noted, "Everyone is so busy doing their job that carving out time for this activity can 

be difficult." Another individual noted that, "Most staff are very busy and the related time 

Appendix A 45 


constraints can limit the ability for employees to embrace and/or properly evaluate new 

initiatives." 

This was reflected in the Project 4003 survey results. On a Likert scale where 1 is very 

low and 5 is very high, the statement “Number of new ideas implemented annually” evoked a 

3.22 mean from 207 responders. This is significantly below the mean of means (the average for 

this survey response) of 3.44. In contrast, the question “How well does your organization accept 

and implement new initiatives?” had a mean of 3.49 from 198 responders. 

Resistance to Change 

Employee resistant to change can present a challenge to the implementation of new 

projects such as KM strategies or initiatives. Some employees are stuck in their old ways and 

have difficulty learning new practices or ways of interacting with other employees. This 

frequently shows up as a lack of enthusiasm in changing the way things are done in a given 

situation or Utility. 

As one responder noted, "A high percentage of employees with greater than 15 years 

experience find it hard to change their old ways of thinking." Other aspects of resistance would 

include concern or fear over new technologies, protecting one's turf, conservative personalities 

and a strong belief that the old way of doing business is still sufficient. 

Lack of Manpower 

It may be difficult for a Utility to identify the people who could be put on new initiatives 

for implementation without serious impact on the normal operation of the Utility. This may be 

particular true for small utilities which are already stretched thin. Another aspect is the inability 

of management to staff individual assignments at the necessary levels to ensure effective KM 


Politics 

Another barrier to implementing KM initiatives may be political opposition from the 

Utility's governance group or, in some cases, the Utility’s customer base. Resistance can also 

come from labor unions, bureaucratic inertia or even senior managers concerned with 

maintaining their silos or personal control. Utilities embedding stovepipes or silos may run into 

resistance from managers intent on protecting their turf. 


In situations where leadership has a track record of creating new management initiatives 

that turn out to be the “flavor of the month” a mindset has been accepted by employees that 

every new initiative will turn out this way. As this pattern continues, employees become very 

reluctant to support any new initiative. Where senior managers and leaders do not have a 

common vision for the Utility--reflected through different perspectives and ineffective 

communication throughout the organization—employees again feel like the initiative is bogus 

and will never amount to much. Where there is lack of trust between managers and employees, 

resistance to anything new and different often occurs. Further, when management does not have 

Appendix A 46 


a broad visionary view of what the Utility needs and is perceived by employees as benefiting one 

division versus the overarching Utility, employee response to the new project will be less than 

supportive. 


If the public customers or governance body do not understand the nature, purpose and 

value of knowledge and Knowledge Management to the performance and sustainability of the 

Utility, they may misinterpret the project and consider it a waste of time and money. To 

minimize the potential effect of such external misunderstanding, Utility leaders and managers 

need to carefully monitor employee and stakeholder reactions and make sure that all interested 

parties understand the purpose and payoff of the KM strategy. 

Getting Buy-in for the Project 

For a KM project to be successful it must have a certain level of cooperation from many 

different individuals within the Utility. Where employees are complacent, cannot have 

ownership, are concerned about potential accountability, it may be very challenging to overcome 

such resistance. In some organizations to principal resistance comes from first line managers or 

supervisors and feel a potential loss of control even though they maintain responsibility and 

accountability. 

Resistance to Technology 

Technology may represent a significant barrier to new projects in that it takes financial 

resources, may increase the complexity of the current systems through growth, and may concern 

many employees who lack the technical expertise and understanding of what the new technology 

may bring. Some employees may perceive new technology as another means of exercising 

control over them. 

Regulations and Laws 

Union contracts, city policies, regulations and the lack of flexibility in some laws and 

regulations may be seen via employees as additional restrictions and constraints on their freedom 

to get the job done. Further, these regulations and laws may be perceived as making it difficult 

to create and implement new KM strategies or initiatives. 

Utility Culture 

The culture of the Utility, having been created over decades, may resist new initiatives 

that significantly change the relationships between managers and supervisors and employees, and 

even among employees themselves. Culture is frequently referred to as "the way the work gets 

done." When initiatives are proposed that may significantly change how that work gets done, 

they can cause serious concerns, and perhaps even opposition to new ideas. Employees often 

develop a focused mindset and limited perspective of their organization, their work environment 

and their place within that environment to the extent that any potential shifting or changing 

Appendix A 47 


causes them to have serious concerns. These concerns can easily create opposition to new 

projects, especially when those projects impact them individually and very personally in terms of 

how they think, behave and relate to their fellow employees 

KM STRATEGIES AND INIATIVES IN DRINKING WATER UTILITIES 

Knowledge Management (KM) strategies and initiatives are underway in a large number of 

drinking water utilities. During the WaterRF 4003 survey process, 207 separate drinking water 

utilities provided information about their organizations and the KM and KM-related strategies 

and projects underway. Many of these responders also provided information indicating KM 

strategies and initiatives they were planning to implement and interested in implementing. 

Figure A.7 below shows the survey responses to the following KM strategies and 

initiatives: Action Learning, Communities of Practice, Expert Locator (Yellow Pages), 

Knowledge Base Development, Knowledge Retention, Knowledge Sharing, and Team Based 

Decision-Making. Five additional write-ins included: strategic planning, succession planning 

and development of Operations & Maintenance manuals to capture institutional knowledge for 

training. 

180 

160 

140 

120 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

Interested In 

Planning 

Doing 


Figure A.7 Breakout of survey responses regarding the number of KM strategies and 

initiatives in drinking water utilities in terms of those underway, in the Planning stage, or 

those which have sparked interest. 

As indicated by this data, Knowledge Sharing, Team Decision-Making, and Knowledge 

Retention represent the largest number of KM strategies underway in these drinking water 

utilities. There are also a large number of utilities doing Knowledge Base Development. In 

contrast, the largest focus in the planning stage is on Knowledge Retention, followed closely by 

Knowledge Base Development and Expert Locator. The largest focus of expressed interest is on 

Communities of Practice and Expert Locator, followed by Knowledge Base Development and 

Knowledge Retention. 

Appendix A 48 



to this survey question are doing—and therefore they are aware of the value of—Knowledge 

Sharing and Team Decision-Making, with still other utilities following down this path. The 

recent and current emphasis in the industry on Knowledge Retention is reflected in the high 

number of responses in all three areas (doing, planning and interested in). Further, the value of 

developing a Knowledge Base is solidly represented in all three areas, indicating a steady 

movement in this direction. Action Learning has solid representation in the doing and interested 

in areas, with a relatively low number of responders in the planning phase. 

The low number of responders doing Communities of Practice and Expert Locator 

contrasted to the larger number of interested responders in these areas indicates a growing 

awareness of these two KM initiatives and their potential value to drinking water utilities. 

SPECIFIC STRATEGIES AND INITIATIVES UNDERWAY 



Carolina, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. While these project studies include a 

wide range of initiatives underway, they are all connected to knowledge and the increasing 

recognition of the importance of knowledge in drinking water utilities. For example, initiatives 

not only include development of a KM plan, knowledge sharing, retaining retiree knowledge and 

organizational learning, but also include: developing and updating manuals, professional and 

leadership development, public relations, work performance improvement, succession and talent 

resource planning, workforce planning, quality based documentation, training, communications, 

developing document repositories, process and operational improvements, and the use of social 

network analysis. Table A.7 provides the subject, estimated cost and benefits of each of these 

projects. It also includes the name of the implementing Utility and the size of that Utility. 

Table A.7 

Drinking water Utility project studies in the KM Toolkit 

# Subject Utility Size Estimated Cost Benefits 

1 Organizational 

Efficiency 

Through Team 

Work 

Alexandria 


Authority 

118 No additional costs 

were identified 

2 Development of 

Operations and 

Maintenance 

Manuals 

City of 

Fairborn, 

OH 

24 $40,000 is 

budgeted for first 

manual. It is 

assumed there will 

be similar costs for 

the other areas. 

Increase in worker flexibility and worker 

competencies which were written down 

allowing development of SOP’s. 

Will capture the knowledge of senior 

employees, assist employees in the event of 

emergency operations, and provide valuable 

operations and training tools for the future. 

Appendix A 49 



3 Professional 


Initiative - 2007 

4 Public Relations 

Initiative - 2007 

5 Work 

Performance 

Improvement 

Principles - 2007 

6 Succession 

Planning 

7 Employee 

Leadership & 


8 Adopting the 

SOP and 

Training 

Sessions 

9 Contracted a 

Complete 


Planning Project 

10 Quality Based 

Documentation 



through Training 

12 Using Contract 

Employees to 

Supplement & 

Prepare for 

Retirements 

City of 

Moline 


Division 

City of 

Moline 


Division 

City of 

Moline 


Division 

Columbus 


Works 

Columbus 


Works 

Loudon 

County 


Authority 

Tualatin 

Valley 


District 

Colorado 

Springs 

Utility 

Greenville 


System 

City of 

Grand Forks 

Public 


Utility 

32 No cost identified Increased knowledge and skills will support 

continuing efforts to provide high quality 

economical water and service to our 

customers, enhance safety & efficiency of 

the workplace & keep pace with 

technological & regulatory advances in the 

water industry. 

32 No cost identified Improved customer service, awareness and 

satisfaction. 

32 No costs noted Improved individual and organizational 

work performance and a better work 

environment. 

241 No cost identified Better prepared employees; managers are 

more aware of the need to transfer 

knowledge; employees are more motivated 

and excited about personal development 

opportunities. 

241 No cost identified Better trained supervisors who recognize 

their strengths & weaknesses and know the 

value of transferring knowledge to fellow 

185 $150,000 to 

develop SOP’s 

$5,000-$10,000 per 

training session; 

staff costs are 

approx. 2-4 months 

salary and benefits. 

employees. 

We are seeing a more knowledgeable staff, 

are better able to perform work and 

demonstrate to our staff that we adhere to 

our values & builds trust. 

110 $189,000 Through this exercise they have identified 

all of the critical knowledge of the District. 

2000 No cost identified QBD has freed up organizational resources 

for innovation and creativity. It has reduced 

or eliminated redundancies and the need to 

“reinvent the wheel”. It has filled process 

gaps and reduced risks on the job. 

Not 

ident 

ified 

$25,000 The on-site training in England gave the 

employees insight into a new concept of 

knowledge management and putting it to 


28.5 No additional costs The Utility is able to recruit outside of the 

system for a very talented candidate and put 

him or her into the Utility's system. 

Appendix A 50 




Number of 

SOP’s 

14 Converting from 

Paper Utility to a 



Number of 

Interns Hired 

16 Career Ladder 

Program 

17 Rally a Team of 

Exceptional 

Employees 

18 Hired a Private 

Firm to 

Determine the 

Utility’s 

Communication/ 


Sharing Needs 

19 Computerization 

of all Customer 

Service Records 

20 On the Job 

Training 

City of 

Akron 

Public 

Utilities 

Bureau 

City of 

Akron 

Public 

Utilities 

Bureau 

City of 

Akron 

Public 

Utilities 

Bureau 

Waterford 

Township 

Department 

of Public 

Works 

Orlando 

Utilities 

Commission 

Rice Lake 

Utilities 

Evergreen 

Metro 

District 

Southeast 

Morris 

County 

Municipal 

Utilities 

Authority 

21 Retiree Program City of 

Phoenix 


Services 

Department 

310 No cost identified Improved training programs and the Utility 

can tweak SOP’s after a year or two. 

310 $300,000- 

$500,000 

310 $3,000- $5,000 per 

Utility intern 

Better data for asset management and can 

make better decisions. This process allows 

the Utility to better integrate asset 

information with other applications. 

The ability to hire a new young employee 

with six to nine months of experience. 

53 $40,000 a year Allows the employee to advance with the 

correct licensing based on their knowledge. 

1158 No cost identified Reducing or mitigating Utility risk by 

identifying key positions. The Utility is not 

running the risk of the employee leaving 

without gathering critical institutional 

knowledge and documenting it. 

11 Several thousands 

of dollars. 

28 At completion 

$500,000 

Employees have the opportunity to realize 

they were not just a part of their individual 

departments; they are a team. The staff— 

including management has learned to 

communicate better. 

The Utility can easily look into the future 

and see the long-term possibilities when the 

plan is completed. 

49 No cost identified Employees are able to learn while employed 

in an entry level position and are given the 

opportunity for career advancement. 

1400 $200 Employees get an opportunity to receive 

hands-on, one-on-one training from 

experienced retires; the facility does not 

have to allocate remaining experienced staff 

to provide this training. The use of retirees 

allows the Department to pass on critical 

knowledge and skills without adding to the 

workloads of the remaining supervisors and 

subject matter experts. 

Appendix A 51 



22 Develop 

Organizational 

Learning System 

Seattle 

Public 

Utilities 

1300 No cost identified This initiative draws out natural leaders, 

early adopters and enthusiastic learners. It 

fosters and supports more learning in the 

department, providing the opportunity for 

developing back-up expertise across 

23 Louisville Water 

Company 207 

System 


Process: 



24 LWC System 


Review Process 

25 LWC Process & 

Operational 

Improvements 

26 LWC Talent 

Resource 

Planning/Success 

ion Management 

27 LWC Individual 


Plans (IDP's) 

28 Implementation 

of OPCON – 



29 Directions 

Program 

30 Cross-Utility 

Partnership for 

Safe Drinking 


Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

Louisville 


Company 

City of 

Cleveland 

Department 

of Utilities, 

Division of 


Seattle 

Public 

Utilities 

Salt Lake 

City 

Department 

of Public 

Utilities 

functional areas. 

450 No cost identified This System Certification Process enables 

the institution to better plan in the areas of 

succession management, knowledge sharing 

and retention, and cross-train. 

450 No cost identified This system certification process allows 

LWC to bring consistency in the 

documentation of work processes, standard 

operating procedures, operating plans, 

relationship charts and flowcharts. 

450 No cost identified See summary of 2007 success, an 

attachment to this project study 

450 No cost identified The implementation of this process 

improves knowledge of bench strength and 

gaps, training needs to be addressed and 

candid conversations with employees on 

their career development and growth within 

the company. 

450 No cost identified Employees achieve their learning objectives 

and are better prepared to perform their 

current jobs or to take on new 

1150 Monthly software 

program 

subscription fee 

responsibilities. 

The organization uses this software program 

as a means to support training, succession 

planning, continuous improvement and 

organizational sustainability. 

1300 $175,000 Mentoring has been consistently the highest 

rated activity in the Directions Program. 

This training has been found to be useful to 

individuals. 

381 No cost identified Through this program water consumers are 

assured that their water provider is 

committed to providing the best quality 

water possible and that each treatment 

facility has gone through a rigorous effort to 

optimize water treatment processes. 

Appendix A 52 



31 Social Network 

Analysis 

32 Real Estate 

Manager 

33 Sharepoint for 

Sharing Plant 

Operations 

Charlotte- 

Mecklenburg 

Utilities 

Tampa Bay 


City of 

Cleveland, 

Department 

of Utilities, 

Division of 



800 Less than $5,000 The SNA tool helps the organizations to 

identify how information is processed and 

stored. It also enables the Utilities to 

successfully revitalize and expand their 

water reuse program. 

135 Approx. $50,000 This application provides 

Operations/Maintenance feedback on use of 

our property to guide future acquisitions 

(i.e., existing easement widths for 

comparative facilities) and better enforce 

our existing land rights (against 

encroachment) as well as perform our real 

estate obligations (mowing, maintenance of 

appearance, etc.) more efficiently. 

1150 Program was 

bundled in 

Microsoft package 

One of the benefits that have been seen by 

the usage of this program is the calendar 

that lets the user know when chemical 

deliveries are and who is working. In 

addition this program provides easy access 

to the Documents such as; Standard 

Operator Procedures, work aides and safety 

issues. This program allows for the Utility 

to have the critical information needed at 

their fingertips 

Appendix A 53 


Appendix B 

WaterRF 4003 Project Studies 


Project Study # 1 

Organizational Efficiency through Team Work 

Project Description: This authority-wide effort ran from 1999 through 2006, resulting in a move 

from almost complete manual labor to the use of complex technology and automation. The 

effort was strongly supported by the Utility’s Board of Directors, and employees were involved 

from the onset of the project. 

At the core of the effort was workforce restructuring. Two core divisions—each with two 

distinct “teams” formed of generalists and specialists—was created: Clean rivers (with 

responsibility for the liquid treatment processes) and Green Fields (with responsibility for the 

solids treatment processes). Because of the mixture of generalists and specialists, each team 

is self-sufficient on 80-85 percent of their day-to-day tasks. Additionally, a central maintenance 

team was created (Technical Services) for those items covering more than one team. Further, 

in 2007, as a result of the retirement of the Personnel Director, the utility was able to combine 

business service functions (fiscal and personnel) under one umbrella division, enhancing the 

ability to cross-train functionally. The results of this restructuring were: (1) A 7 percent 

reduction in budget; (2) perfect compliance with permit liquid and solids effluence limits; and (3) 

Class A certification of biosolids by the state and EPA. 

The actions supporting this effort included the use of teams to enable team building 

skills, communication, developing new job descriptions and capturing field and employee 

knowledge in a written, usable format to create a complete training program for both generalists 

and specialists. A program was developed that allowed for flexibility in an employee’s choice of 

future career growth, choosing to be either a generalist (with pay commensurate with the 

amount of skills gained in various areas) or a specialist (focusing training on one particular skill 

set). This approach decreased the number of operators per shift by 50 percent. Employee 

efforts were recognized by an 11 percent increase in the salary structure. 

Size of Utility: 118 employees 

Critical Success Factors: ASA is in the process of defining these factors. 

Cost: No additional costs were identified. 

Alignment: This approach was aligned with human resource planning and strategic planning. 

This merging of business service functions was a long-term goal previously unfulfilled. 

Benefits: In addition to overarching organizational benefits described above, there was an 

increase in worker flexibility and worker competencies which were written down allowing 

development of Standard Operating Procedures. 

Compiled April 2007 

_____________________________ 

POC: 

Karen Pallansch 

Alexandria Sanitation Authority 



Development of Operations and Maintenance Manuals 

Project Description: The goal was to develop operations and maintenance manuals for each of 

three areas: water distribution, water treatment and sewage collection. 


Critical Success Factors: Ending up with documents that capture current knowledge which will 

be used on a regular basis and can be updated as needed. 

Barriers: Cost. Initial attempt was made to do this in-house, but there were time and writing 

expertise issues. The utility could only afford to do one area (water treatment) in 2007. 

Cost: $40,000 is budgeted for the first manual. It is assumed there will be similar costs for the 

other two areas. 

Alignment: These manuals will help provide tools for succession planning as well as good 

reference documents for operations personnel. 

Benefits: Will help capture the knowledge of senior employees, assist employees in the event 

of emergency operations, and provide valuable operations and training tools for the future. 


_________________________________ 

POC: 

Karen Hawkins 

City of Fairborn, Ohio 



Professional Development Initiative—2007 

Project Description: The goal of this initiative is to promote further development of the technical 

knowledge and skills of Water Division employees. Each Section Manager is responsible to 

identify, attend and/or conduct appropriate developmental activities for themselves and 

employees in their section, with the General Manager providing general oversight and guidance. 

A number of formal and informal developmental activities will be used to develop 

employee knowledge and skills, in support of this initiative. These activities include: attending 

conferences, teleconferences and workshops; viewing DVDs, video tapes, power points and 

other AV materials; reading guidance manuals, books, research papers, articles and other 

printed materials; attending safety training; participating in tailgate and brainstorming sessions; 

and attending MSO sponsored training. 


Critical Success Factors: (1) Managers scheduling formal and informal developmental activities 

on a routine basis for their employees. (2) Developmental activities focusing on specific 

concerns and goals of each respective session. 

Cost: Funds have been budgeted in each section of the Water Division’s 2007 for expenditures 

associated with formal professional development activities and purchase of needed materials. 

Benefits: Increased knowledge and skills will support continuing efforts to provide high quality 

economical water and service to customers, enhance the safety and efficiency of the workplace 

and help keep pace with technological and regulatory advances in the water industry. 


____________________ 

POC: 

Greg Swanson 

City of Moline Water Division 



Public Relations Initiative—2007 

Project Description: The goal of this initiative is to promote positive relations between the Water 

Division and their internal and external customers. The intent is to build knowledge about and 

appreciation of Moline’s public water supply and its employees. Formal and informal public 

relations activities are planned, including: 

• Conducting plant tours for schools, 

• Civic organizations and other interested groups; 

• Periodic press releases and media interactions to educate the public; 

• Orchestrating an essay and art contest; 

• Making available an annual water quality report; and 

• Organizing in-house work sessions for improving communication skills. 


Critical Success Factors: Section Managers promoting further development of good public 

relations techniques among the employees in their section. 

Cost: No costs identified 

Benefits: Improved customer service, awareness and satisfaction. 


_________________________ 

POC: 

Greg Swanson 




Work Performance Improvement Principles—2007 

Project Description: In 2005 the Water Division developed work performance improvement 

principles and techniques through a brainstorming session. Participants shared techniques they 

had found to be effective in their own work experience. The principles were adopted by the 

organization were in the areas of effective communications, safety, courtesy and respect, high 

quality, and accountability. The exact principles and actions submitted by the City of Moline 

Water Division are listed below. During the brainstorming, techniques to accomplish each 

principle were also discussed. 

• We should make every effort to communicate with others in a clear, concise, direct, 

honest and attentive manner. 

• We should create a healthy, safe, and injury-free work environment. 

• We should extend to others the same courtesy and respect that we would like to 

receive ourselves. 

• We should each strive to be a professional and productive team player with good 

interpersonal skills. 

• We should understand the goals and mission of the organization. We should also 

understand what our individual role and responsibilities are within the organizations and 

we should accept and act on those responsibilities in an efficient manner. 

Challenge: Putting these principles and techniques into practice during daily work activities. 


Critical Success Factors: Individuals can make positive permanent changes in their work 

performance by selecting a specific improvement area(s) and consciously applying 

improvement techniques for a period of time. Such an approach will ultimately allow these 

efforts to be transformed into good habits in a systematic manner. As the number of individuals 

practicing a given performance improvement principle grows, the more that principle will 

become a part of the organization’s workplace culture. 

Cost: No costs noted. 

Benefits: Improved individual and organizational work performance and a better work 

environment. 


_________________________ 

POC: 

Greg Swanson 




Succession Planning 

Project Description: Program implemented in October 2005 and is programmed to run through 

2008. Started with a pilot program of seventeen individuals; the criterion used to select these 

individuals included current position and experience, job performance, education, community 

involvement and potential future leadership opportunities. 


Critical Success Factors: A critical success is the attendance of the employees at Water Board 

Meetings, Columbus Consolidated Government meetings, and Muscogee County School 

District meetings. In addition they are required to have at least 15 hours of volunteer or 

community participation. Other critical success components are: performance in current 

position; participate in extracurricular education and training opportunities; maintain active 

membership in an approved community/ leadership organization; leadership experience and 

opportunities; and be active participant in the review of the succession plan progress. 

Cost: Leadership and training requirements that consists of the University fees and the 

individual’s commitment of time and travel. 

Alignment: It involves providing training, competency assessments (360 evaluations), 

leadership opportunities and mentoring. 

Benefits: Better prepared employees; managers are more aware of the need to transfer 

knowledge; employees are more motivated and excited about personal development 

opportunities. Participation in the succession planning program does not “guarantee” a 

promotion or a different job in the future rather it is an opportunity to develop key job related 

skills, competencies and technical knowledge which will offer present and future value to CWW 

and for individual participants. 

Compiled October 2007 

_____________________________ 

POC: 

Gwendolyn Hargrove Ruff 

Columbus Water Works 



Employee Leadership and Development 

Project Description: The Employee Leadership and Development Program will identify 

approximately 20 mid- to upper- level supervisors who will participate in an 18-month 

supervisory training program. The program consists of a minimum of 9 full-day classes 

designed to correlate with the identified competencies. Participants will be advised of their 

responsibility to actively participate in the program as part of their Individual Development Plan 

as established by their immediate supervisor. Leaders must master a number of competencies 

to effectively conduct their job. The first responsibility of the supervisor is to recognize his/her 

strengths and weaknesses, and work to build those areas where deficiencies lie. 


Critical Success Factors: A critical success factor is recognizing supervisory competencies. 

Examples of these are: strategic skills, energy and drive, operating skills, courage (conflict 

resolution; making tough calls that will affect people’s lives), organizational positioning skills, 

and personal and interpersonal skills. Establishing benchmarks that focus on what can be 

learned from experience by: providing information of potential career blocks—certain flaws or 

behaviors that may lead to derailment and linking lessons and experiences together to guide 

further development. 

Costs: University fees for training courses and the individuals commitment of time and travel. 

Alignment: Specifically aligned with strategic planning. 

Benefits: Better trained supervisors who recognize their strengths and weaknesses and know 

the value of transferring knowledge to fellow employees. . It provides the practicing leader with 

a benchmark on how he or she is doing when compared with a similar norm group. Through 

benchmark analysis this program will determine how successful executives develop and why 

they sometimes fail to develop. 


__________________________ 

POC: 

Gwendolyn Hargrove Ruff 

Columbus Water Works 



Adopting the SOP and Training Sessions 

Project Description: The adoption of the SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) for paper— 

based knowledge management including more training sessions. 


Critical Success Factors: For training sessions, success has not been measured. For paper— 

based knowledge management, success is the adoption of the SOP. 

Cost: One department is implementing standing operation procedures for operating each of its 

small community water and wastewater facilities. So far it has a cost about $150,000 to develop 

SOPs (7-10 pages each) for about 20 facilities. Regarding training sessions run about $5,000 

to $10,000 per session, not including employee time. Regarding staff, early costs are approx. 2- 

4 months salary and benefits. 

Alignment: Doing this helps assure that we can meet our mission and conforms to one of our 

values (employees are our most important resource). 

Benefits: We are seeing a more knowledgeable staff (from training sessions), are better able to 

perform work (capturing more knowledge from retiring employees or employees who change job 

functions), and demonstrates to our staff that we adhere to our values and builds trust. 


_____________________________ 

POC: 

Todd Danielson 

Loudon County Sanitation Authority 



Contracted a Complete Workforce Planning Project 

Project Description: Contracted a complete workforce planning project that includes knowledge 

management. The project will take approx. one and a half years to complete. 


Critical Success Factors: Since the project is still in the process and they do not yet have 

measurements, but will be determining how they measure success soon. 

Cost: The project will cost $189,000. 

Alignment: When planning a business process, we include the stakeholders to ensure that we 

are not overlooking critical knowledge. This is part of our organization structure. 

Benefits: Through this exercise they have identified all of the critical knowledge of the District 

and have discovered that the majority of it is well documented. Identified gaps are being 

addressed. 

Attachment provided: Presentation in Power Point titled Tualatin Valley Water District, 

Workforce Planning Project 


_____________________ 

POC: 

Debbie Erickson 

Tualatin Valley Water District 





57,000 

Service 

Connections 

11,264 

CWS 

Customers 

754 Miles of 

Pipe/24 

Reservoirs 

45 sq. mi. 

110 

employees 


Our Mission Drives Our Performance 

Mission Statement 

To provide our community quality 

water and customer service 

Strong Elected Official and 

Top Management Support 

• During the 2006-07 goal planning process, General 

Manager proposed the District undertake a workforce 

planning study. 

• Board agreed and it became a task for the following 

year. 


Board Goals & TVWD Demographics Drove 


• 36% of our workforce is 50 or older. 

• Average age of our employees is 44. 

• Board Goal is to have employees trained and 

qualified to compete for job openings. 

• Average tenure of employees is 10 years. 

20 

15 

New Hires 

10 

5 

Retirements 

0 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

TVWD Employee Turnover 

Quit 


We have positioned the District to meet the 

mission of Customer Service and retain 

employees 

• Hire the right people 

• Compensate well 

• Foster accountability 

• Show employees we care about them 

• Implement work force planning project 

Beginning the Workforce Planning Project 

• TVWD Management Team served as internal task force and 

met regularly with consultant setting workforce rules. 

• Management Team and came up with a communication plan 

for all employees. 

• Employees need to feel safe participating in the project. 

• Employees need to feel safe if they do not participate in the 

project. 


Message to Employees 

The future of the District holds an aging and shrinking 

workforce. Most of the Management Team will be 

retired when most of this comes about. We could 

say: “not my job, I won’t be here anyway”. 

The prudent thing to do is to prepare our District for the 

future and with this Workforce Planning Project we 

are able to provide continuity of leadership for their 

future. 

We presented the entire Workforce Planning Project to 

all employees and made it available to everyone. 

Workforce Planning Project Objectives 

• Standardize tools and methods we use to evaluate 

candidates for workforce development. 

• Understand future staffing expectations and develop a 

plan to meet them. 

• Develop and implement processes to capture 

institutional knowledge. 


Beginning the Process 

Determined who is eligible to retire now and who is 

eligible in the next five years. 

Produced work catalogs of each job description. 

• These catalogs identified how difficult and how 

critical the work is. 

• Identified what jobs have critical knowledge that 

needs to be captured. 

• Identified what is documented and where this 

information resides. 

Tier 1 

25% or more of work is both high risk and high difficulty 

(regardless of retirement eligibility), or 

Position is eligible for retirement within one year and 25% 

or more of work is either high risk or high difficulty 

Tier 2 

25% or more of work is both high risk or high difficulty 

(regardless of retirement eligibility) 

Position is eligible for retirement within five years and 25% 

or more of work is either high risk or high difficulty 

Tier 3 

All other positions 

Prioritizing the Workforce 


Self Nomination 

• We asked employees to self nominate if they were 

interested in the project. 

• We had 100 employees and 30 signed up to 

participate. 

• Nomination and acceptance did not mean that an 

employee was the heir apparent to the job. 

Process to Identify Workforce Development 

Participants 

• Identified the talent, skills, knowledge that defined 

the job. 

• Identified the participants talents. 

• Matched the talents with the TVWD leadership jobs. 

• Designed the individual development plan for the 

selected individuals. 


Project Phases 

• Each participant was assigned to a phase of the 

project based on their match and job interest. 

• Factors that are not considered: age, gender or their 

proximity to retirement. 

• Phase I is considered the fast track for training and 

mentoring. 

• If there are budget restraints or the manager can only 

allow one person to cross train, etc. phase I 

candidates will take precedence. 

• A candidate will only be ruled out if they do not have 

satisfactory performance in their current job. 

Self-Nominate 

Create Individual 

Development Plans 

Identify Workforce 


Candidates 

Ongoing Process by 

TVWD Staff 

Interest Interview 

Leadership 

Assessment 

StrengthsFinder 


TVWD Expected Outcomes 

1. Raise awareness of the need for job preparedness. 

2. Employees take the initiative themselves to prepare for advancement. 

3. Employees are engaged in targeted training of their own initiative. 

4. Employees know the training required for a position. 

5. Employees know we care about them as well as the District’s future. 

6. All institutional knowledge is documented. 

7. There are clear back ups for key roles providing depth and flexibility to 

cover the work. 

8. We possess a “deep” candidate pool for job openings. 

Workforce Planning Outcomes 

• Institutional knowledge is captured. 

• Plan is in place to develop and retain employees. 

• Maintain continuity of leadership. 

• Successfully maintain a viable organization. 



Quality Based Documentation 

Project Description: Colorado Springs Utility (CSU) was faced with a situation where there was 

no single, structured approach to capture documentation. Departing employees were taking 

tacit knowledge with them. New employees were not sure what they needed to know, or where 

to get information. The opportunity was to capture institutional knowledge leveraging various IT 

systems including GIS, work management and a formal Document Repository known as QBD 

(Quality Based Documentation.) These approaches to formalizing knowledge would ease the 

transition in training for new employees, and help streamline and standardize the organization. 

CSU began with defining the resource requirements needed in order to develop a place 

for “one-stop shopping” within the utility. Initially, the effort to produce standard documentation 

was seen by employees as “not part of my job”, and an “unfunded mandate.” As a result, the 

organization decided to go where energy and interest existed, instead of trying to immediately 

implement a comprehensive program. CSU started with a pilot phase. Eventually, the 

documentation process became the norm, and was expanded to other parts of the organization. 

CSU uses a distributed method to select process owners; tying the subject matter expert to the 

process ensured better quality. Documents must be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis, 

and version control is in place. 


Critical Success factors: CSU found that the pilot and subsequent expanded effort required top 

level support but did not require a formal mandate in the organization. If there was not support 

from certain members, those members were not included in the effort. CSU found that tenacity 

was a key to success, as well as establishing ground rules to provide a stable foundation. QBD 

is tied to individual performance objectives to highlight the importance of this activity. The 

overall “Quality Plan” is part of CSU’s administrative regulations to allow for”enforcement” if 

needed. CSU has developed in-house experts in areas such as flow charting and process 

writing to provide assistance. 

CSU began its effort in 1999. In the first year, 3 documents were produced. Currently, 

there are over 3,000. The amount of documentation produced and used is tracked as a 

measure of success. Oversight of the process is provided by the Quality Manager. 

Cost: CSU utilized in-house Lotus Notes developers to create the database in which the 

process documents are developed, approved and used. CSU needed to increase data storage 

capacity, so purchase of disc drives would be a cost. 

Alignment: All key business processes reside in the document control system. CSU has 

included the PPM (Personnel Policies Manual) in this system, along with the strategic planning 

process, capitalization policy, and performance management process. This approach allows for 

one-stop-shopping for employees looking for information about the company and the work they 

do. A recent initiative to develop a Utilities Master Plan is being formatted to go into the 

document control system once completed the end of this year. 

Benefits: The results provide a level of confidence in CSU processes to the City Auditor. Since 

the current processes have been defined, CSU now has a baseline of information for effective 


process improvement, which has been extremely useful for ongoing continuous improvement 


Significantly, having QBD has freed up organizational resources (time and energy) for 

innovation and creativity. It has reduced or eliminated redundancies and the need to “reinvent 

the wheel.” It has filled process gaps and reduced risks on the job. 

Attachments provided: (1) Parent Document, (2) T101- Standard Template, (3) F01- 

Standard Template Checklist, (4) I03- Level 2 Document Process, (5) I05- Editing Process 

Tools, (6) C01- Flowcharts. 

Compiled 2008 

__________________________ 

POC: 

Leah Ash 

Colorado Springs Utilities 


CONTENTS 

1.0 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. B-23 

2.0 SCOPE ...................................................................................................................................................... B-23 

3.0 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... B-23 

4.0 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................... B-24 

5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................................................................ B-24 

5.1. Continuous Improvement ..................................................................................................................... B-24 

5.2. Division Officers, General Managers, Managers, and Supervisors ...................................................... B-25 

5.3. Process Owners .................................................................................................................................... B-25 

5.4. Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................. B-25 

5.5. Approvers ............................................................................................................................................. B-25 

5.6. All Colorado Springs Utilities Employees ............................................................................................ B-25 

5.7. Divisions ............................................................................................................................................... B-26 

6.0 PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................. B-26 

6.1. Creating Documents ............................................................................................................................. B-26 

6.2. Review Cycle........................................................................................................................................ B-28 

6.3. Approval Cycle ..................................................................................................................................... B-28 

6.4. Issuing Documents ............................................................................................................................... B-29 

6.5. Notification ........................................................................................................................................... B-29 

6.6. Using Documents ................................................................................................................................. B-29 

6.7. Creating Links to QBD Documents ...................................................................................................... B-30 

6.8. Changing Documents ........................................................................................................................... B-30 

6.9. Editing Process Tools ........................................................................................................................... B-31 

6.10. Periodic Evaluation of Documents .................................................................................................. B-31 

6.11. Archiving Documents ...................................................................................................................... B-31 

6.12. Making Documents Obsolete ........................................................................................................... B-31 

6.13. Other Types of Documentation ........................................................................................................ B-31 

7.0 PROCESS METRICS / SERVICE LEVELS ............................................................................................ B-32 

8.0 EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS .................................................................................................................... B-33 

9.0 RECORDS MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................... B-33 

10.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................. B-33 

11.0 ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... B-33 


1.0 PURPOSE 

The purpose of a document control system is to ensure that accurate and current process documents are 

available to all employees and that outdated information is removed from general access. 

The purpose of this document is to describe the processes used to create, review, approve, issue, notify, use, 

change and obsolete process documents. 

SCOPE 

This process applies to all level 1, 2, and 3 documents, which describe processes essential to the effective 

functioning of Colorado Springs Utilities. It describes the role of Continuous Improvement, Management, 

Process Owners, Reviewers, Approvers, and all Colorado Springs Utilities Employees. 

TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Approval Date – the date the signed process document was moved to the Approved Process Documents Database. 

Approved Process Document – the electronic version of a document that resides in the Approved Process 

Documents Database. Approved Process Documents have been reviewed for adequacy and signed by Approvers 

and become Colorado Springs Utilities policy upon final approval. The term “Approved Process Document” refers 

to the parent document and its attachments. 

Approved Process Documents Database – a Lotus Notes Database centrally located and accessible by all 

employees. This database contains all Approved Process Documents, including parent documents and attachments. 

Work should be performed as defined in Approved Process Documents. 

Approvers – individuals identified by the Process Owner that must sign the document before it can be moved to the 

Approved Process Documents Database and subsequently used to perform work. 

Attachment – additions such as agendas, charts, drawings, forms, graphics, information/instructions, measurements, 

policies, questionnaires, slides, or templates, which enhance the functionality or usability of the parent document. 

CI – Continuous Improvement 

Controlled Document – a hard copy of a quality document that has been issued and recorded for future retrieval 

when changes occur. 

Document Change Notice (DCN) – a Lotus Notes Database form used to record the history of document changes. 

This form is attached to the parent document within the database and can be viewed in the Approved Process 

Documents Database directly below the document it references. 

Draft Process Documents Database – a Lotus Notes Database centrally located and accessible by all employees. 

This database contains documentation that is in the process of being developed, reviewed, and/or approved. Work 

should not be performed using a Draft Process Document. 

ELMS – Enterprise Learning Management System 

Evaluation Date – the date automatically assigned by the Notes system for three years from the last version of 

process document. 

External Document – documents, such as those created by regulatory agencies, which exist outside of Colorado 

Springs Utilities that impact Springs Utilities operations or work methods. 

Issue – to move a signed document from the Draft Process Documents Database to the Approved Process 

Documents Database (see section 6.4). When a document has been issued it is considered “Approved” and can be 

distributed and used to perform the task described, as a training aid, etc. 

Level 1 – a type of document, which answers the question “Why?” Level 1 documents are typically philosophical 

and strategic in nature. 

Level 2 – a type of document that answers the questions “What?”, “Who?”, “Where?”, and “When?” Level 2 

documents are more specific than Level 1 documents and less detailed than Level 3 documents. See Attachment 

I03-00002 for instructions on how to write Level 2 documents. 

Level 3 – a type of document that answers the question “How?” Level 3 documents are the most detailed form of 

process document. 


Master Document List – a list of approved process documents that contains the document number, approval date, 

title, version, and process owner. The list is located in the Approved Process Documents Database. 

Notification field – a location in the Draft Documents binder and the Process Tools binder used to list persons or 

groups to be notified when a process is moved to the Approved Database (new or revised) or when a Process Tool 

has been changed. 

Obsolete Document – indicates a document version that has been replaced by newer information or a process that is 

no longer valid. Obsolete documents are stored in an archive database and should not be used to perform work. 

Parent Document – Level 1, 2, or 3 documents, which describe the process. 

Process Owner – a subject matter expert (SME) who assures the integrity of the process document. See Process 

Owner responsibilities in Section 5.3 for a more complete description. 

Process Tool – an attachment that has no process-type information, see specific criteria in I05-00002. 

Process Tools Database – the repository for Process Tools. 

QBD – Quality by Design; the term used to identify the quality system for Colorado Springs Utilities and the 

elements of the quality system. For example, process documents are maintained in the QBD Process Documents 

Database. 

QBD Activity Report – a report that lists current activity of the Approved Process Documents Database. 

Documents are sorted by New, Revised, and Obsolete Process Documents. This report is updated daily and is 

available as a sort in the Approved Process Documents Database. 

Reviewers – individuals who have been identified by the Process Owner because they have valuable input to 

contribute during the document review cycle. Reviewers may be Subject Matter Experts, customers, stakeholders, 

etc. of the process. 

Stand Alone Document – a document, such as Utilities Rules and Regulations, created by Colorado Springs 

Utilities, but controlled through a method other than as specified in this process. 

SECC – System Energy Control Center 

Unapproved Document – an electronic or paper copy of a document from the Draft Process Documents 

Database or an Approved Process Document located anywhere other than the Approved Process 

Documents Database that does not match the version listed in the Master Document List. 

URC – Utilities Resource Center 

USU – University of Springs Utilities 

Version – a term used to describe modifications of the same document. The version number appears in the header 

directly under the document title. Attachment versions are indicated by the month and year in parentheses following 

the attachment designator and parent document number; e.g., F01-00002 (01/2002). 

SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 

All Colorado Springs Utilities safety and health policy and procedure requirements shall be integrated into 

any referenced operational procedures in this document. All safety related policies and procedures 

contained in this document must comply with the Safety and Health Program Manual. 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

1.1. Continuous Improvement 

• Ownership, continuous improvement, and maintenance of this process, 

• Assuring document numbers are issued to Process Owners, 

• Reviewing documents, working with Process Owners to correct problems, and moving them 

to the Approved Process Documents Database, 

• Moving obsolete documents to the designated archive location, 

• Publishing reports of Approved, Revised, and Obsolete document activity, 

• Providing support to USU for Process Document training, 

• Assisting Process Owners as required, 


• Ensuring the content of process documents is consistent with documents from other divisions, 

departments, sections, units, or teams, 

• Maintenance and continuous improvement of the QBD Document Databases. 

1.2. Division Officers, General Managers, Managers, and Supervisors 

• Supporting documentation efforts and use of the document control system, 

• Assuring assignment of Process Owners within their divisions, departments, sections, units, or 

teams, 

• Informing employees of changes to process documents as appropriate. 

1.3. Process Owners 

• Documenting the process using approved templates, 

• Understanding the document control system defined by this process, 

• Assuring the integrity of the document’s content and changing it when appropriate, 

• Seeking the necessary approvals, 

• Serving as the point of contact for any proposed changes, including researching the impact of 

proposed changes, 

• Using the Standard Template Checklist, Attachment F01-00002, before submitting a process 

document for review or approval to assure compliance to this process, 

• Determining stakeholders and users of an initial issue or version change and utilizing the 

notification field as the communication method, 

• Updating Process Tools as necessary. 

1.4. Reviewers 

• Understanding the document control system defined by this document, 

• Evaluating the content of each document submitted for review for format, completeness, 

accuracy, and impact on other divisions, departments, sections, units, or teams, 

• Indicating when review of the document is complete, 

• Sharing opportunities for improvements to the Process Owner. 

1.5. Approvers 

• Understanding the document control system defined by this document, 

• Evaluating the content of each document submitted for approval for format, completeness, 

accuracy, and impact on other divisions, departments, sections, units, or teams, 

• Signing approval of the document in a timely manner, 

• Understanding that, as an approver, you agree the process is performed as explained in the 

document, 

• Notifying employees and/or co-workers of an initial issue or version change as appropriate, 

• Ensuring that any necessary training or communication related to the initial issue or version 

change of a document is accomplished. 

1.6. All Colorado Springs Utilities Employees 

• Performing work as defined in approved process documents, 

• Assuring approved process documents being used match the version found in the Approved 

Process Documents Database, 

• Regularly reviewing the QBD Activity Report for process documents that may impact them in 

their roles, 

• Referring to the relevant approved process document when a question arises, 


PROCESS 

• Printing paper copies only when electronic copies are not practical, 

• Destroying paper copies when the version of a process document changes, 

• Proposing process improvement opportunities and document changes to Process Owners. 

1.7. Divisions 

• Describing the control methodology for stand-alone documents that are generated and 

maintained by the Division. (Refer to 6.13.1 for a complete explanation of stand-alone 

documents.) 

The purpose of a document control system is to ensure that accurate and current process documents are 

available to all employees and that outdated information is removed from general access. Guidelines and 

rules must be established to assure successful deployment of a document control system. The following 

describes the major process steps critical to the overall document control process. 

1.8. Creating Documents 

Once it is determined that a process needs to be documented, the next step is to create the document. It is 

important to identify a single Process Owner (see responsibilities in Section 5.3) for each document to be 

written. Detailed instructions can be found in the Process Owner Manual, Attachment I01-00002 of this 

document. Training on how to write process documents is available in a computer-based or individual 

setting. The computer-based training, How to Write a QBD Process Document, is found on the Intranet 

(University/Training, log in to ELMS, search for QBD). To schedule Individual document training call 

Continuous Improvement at 8-4357, option 4. 

New documents are created in the Draft Process Documents Database by selecting the “New Document” 

button in the Draft Process Documents Database. There are several template options from which to choose. 

Current templates are listed in Section 11.0 and are available as attachments to this document. It is 

recommended that the Process Owner use Standard Template T01-00002 whenever possible. This 

promotes consistency of format and ease of use. 

There are also a number of templates designed specifically for certain types of documents. 

• Templates T02-00002 and T07-00002 provide a format for documenting training. 

• T03-00002 is used to develop Management Plans. 

There are three attachment templates that are used with Management Plans. 

• T03a is the template for Scorecards 

• T03b is the template for Initiatives Definitions 

• T03c is the template for creating a Strategy Map 

• A Lab Template, T04-00002, is used by the environmental and quality labs. 

• T05-00002 is similar to T01-00002, but focuses on site security plans. 

• Documents created using T06-00002 are company regulations or policies. 

• Template T08-00002 is used to describe and document the support model for enterprise-wide IT 

systems. 

• T09-00002 is used to document the interface design between two systems, such as how transactions 

progress from the Customer Information System (CIS) to and from the Financial/Human Analytic 

System (FHAS). 

• The Risk Management Plan for the organization is documented on template T10-00002. 

• The former Environmental Procedures and Guidance Manual has been transferred to QBD documents 

using T12-00002. 

• T13-00002 is used in conjunction with T09-00002. This template is used as a parent document to 

provide a framework for the interface design details described in T09-00002. 

• Water Risk Management Plan (RMP) documents are created on T14-00002. 


• T15-00002 is used as a high-level introductory parent document for Customer Care Policies. 

• T18-00002 is used to define an IT system in terms of its architecture, policies, and processes. 

If a template that meets your needs cannot be found please contact Continuous Improvement (8-4357, 

option 4). 

Templates may be modified or added to this process document without processing a version change of the 

parent document. The version of the template is noted in the footer of each. 

1.8.1. Titling Documents 

The document title should be a brief description of the document’s purpose or process being 

performed. For Title guidelines refer to the Process Owner Manual, I01-00002. 

1.8.2. Document Classification 

When a new document is created it is assigned a unique number. This unique number remains 

with the document throughout its life although the process may move to another division, 

department, or section. 

Other key information regarding the document is recorded in the QBD Databases. This 

information is used to differentiate and sort the documents according to Division, Department, 

Section, Location, or Function. 

The only required field is Division. All other fields are optional with the exception of the 5 digit 

unique number. Use Department, Section, Location, and Function codes only if it will assist users 

in easily sorting through the database to locate a particular document. Drop down menus are 

loaded into the Draft Process Documents Database to provide a view of available options for each 

field. 

Location codes should be used on a limited basis. Location is used only when the process 

document pertains to one physical location. An example is a security plan for a specific facility or 

site. 

Determination of document level is based on the definitions in Section 3.0 and made by 

Continuous Improvement at the time the unique document number is requested based on the 

description of the process provided by the Process Owner. 

1.8.3. Numbering Attachments 

The overall effectiveness of documents can be improved if associated forms, charts, graphics, etc. 

can be included. Attachments are usually left in their original application, such as Word, Excel or 

PowerPoint. They are assigned an attachment designator followed by a sequential number and 

then the unique number of the Parent Document. For example, the first form for this document is 

numbered F01-00002, the second form, F02-00002, etc. The attachment version is designated by 

a month and year placed within parentheses. An example is (01/2003). Both the attachment 

number and the version must be indicated in the attachment’s footer. 

If the attachment is more than one page, the page number should also be placed in the footer. 

The attachment designators available are as follows: 

A = Agenda (used to provide format for meeting agendas) 

C = Chart (a flowchart or reference table that does not require information to be entered into it) 

D = Drawing (used for CAD drawings, schematics, etc.) 

E = Exercise (used for training exercises and in-class practice; not scored or measured) 

F = Form (used when information of a restricted size is to be filled into pre-designated fields; can 

be filled out on paper or electronically) 

G = Graphic (used for graphics or pictures, such as examples of completed forms, templates, 

reports, or screen prints) 

I = Information/Instructions (used for instructions, user’s guides, manuals, scripts, etc.) 

M = Measurement (used for evaluating or measuring understanding of course material of the 

participant/student) 


P = Policy (used to define an organizational principle, rule, or established course of action to be 

followed regarding Colorado Springs Utilities) 

Q = Questionnaire (used for information gathering tools such as surveys) 

Record = used when a record of a process is maintained in the document binder. (Legal Hold) 

S = Slide (used to identify a PowerPoint slide file) 

T = Template (used when a standard format is desired, but a specific field size is not practical) 

1.9. Review Cycle 

After a document has been created, it is useful to send it out for review. The review cycle is not required. 

At times it may be helpful to proceed directly to the Approval cycle for routine version changes of a current 

approved document or when the document has been reviewed by another method. The extensive review 

process is primarily intended for the initial release of new documents or for total rewrites of existing 

documents. 

Paper Review Cycle 

The review cycle can be conducted by distributing paper copies of the Parent Document and all of its 

attachments to the Reviewers. Using the electronic method is preferred for tracking purposes. When that is 

not feasible, this method also works well. Reviewers should include individuals or representatives from 

groups asked to perform processes called out in the document. It is sometimes useful to also include prior 

Process Owners in the review process to capture historical knowledge. Each Reviewer marks up and 

returns feedback to the Process Owner. 

If the Process Owner reviews the changes and does not agree with the change recommendations, he/she 

explains to the person recommending the changes the reasons why they are not feasible. 

If the Process Owner agrees with the change recommendations, he/she incorporates the changes into the 

document. 

Electronic Review Cycle 

The Process Owner routes the process document using the Electronic Review Cycle. 

The Process Owner selects the “Review” option and selects individuals from the Notes directory by 

clicking on the twisty next to the “Reviewers” prompt in the Draft Process Documents Database. 

Reviewers should include individuals or representatives from groups asked to perform processes called out 

in the document. It is sometimes useful to also include prior Process Owners in the review process to 

capture historical knowledge. 

Document Reviewers are automatically sent an e-mail message by the system, informing them that a 

document is awaiting review and feedback. The Document Reviewer provides feedback via the Draft 

Process Documents Database. Instructions on how to track edits/comments can be found in the Process 

Owner Manual, I01-00002. 

If the Process Owner reviews the changes and does not agree with the change recommendations, he/she 

explains to the person recommending the changes the reasons why they are not feasible. 

The Process Owner incorporates changes as deemed appropriate and proceeds to the Approval Cycle. If 

major changes have been recommended, the Process Owner may also elect to clear the Review Cycle and 

Section 6.2 may be repeated until the document has been fully defined and discussed. 

1.10. Approval Cycle 

Submitting a document for approval can only be conducted using an Electronic Approval Cycle. 

After the document has been reviewed and updated, the Process Owner requests signature approval by 

selecting the “Approval” route and listing the Document Approvers. Approvers should include the 

appropriate Manager/Supervisor of the process as well as individuals or representatives from groups who 

perform a responsibility called out in the document. 

At this time the Process Owner should consider who will need to be notified that the document has been 

approved. This list should include users of the process, key stakeholders, and potentially affected interests. 

The names and/or distribution lists can be added in the field labeled “Notification of Process Change.” 


When the document is submitted for signatures, Continuous Improvement will review the document for 

format and consistency. The Process Owner may be contacted for clarification or changes that need to be 

made. This may delay the approval process depending on the amount of work required to bring the 

document to acceptable standards. When the document review is complete, Continuous Improvement will 

send the document to the Approvers for signature. 

An e-mail message is automatically sent to the Document Approvers who then have 30 calendar days to 

respond. Upon receiving the e-mail message indicating that a document is ready for approval, the 

Approver clicks the Document Link icon in the mail message to access the document. To approve the 

document the Approver clicks on the “Sign Document” button. The database records the Approver’s name 

and the date of the signature. 

If an Approver does not respond within the 30-day period, Continuous Improvement may contact the 

Process Owner and/or outstanding Approver(s) to decide how to proceed. The system does not 

automatically default an Approver’s signature. After all signatures have been obtained, an e-mail is sent to 

the Process Owner and Continuous Improvement. 

The Process Owner incorporates changes as deemed appropriate. If the Process Owner does not agree with 

the change recommendations, he/she explains to the person recommending the changes the reasons why 

they are not feasible. It is the Process Owner’s responsibility to accept or reject tracked changes and then 

notify Continuous Improvement that the document is ready to be moved. Once the CI Department receives 

this communication from the Process Owner, the document is issued to the Approved Process Documents 


1.11. Issuing Documents 

Once the document has been approved, the Continuous Improvement Department moves the document to 

the Approved Process Documents Database and stamps each page of the document with an “APPROVED” 

watermark. Attachments that meet the criteria for Process Tools will be placed in the Process Tools 


The Approved Process Documents Database is accessible by all Colorado Springs Utilities employees 

through their Lotus Notes account and is “read only”. If you do not have access to Lotus Notes or the QBD 

Process Documents Databases, call the URC at 8-4357. 

1.12. Notification 

When a document is issued an e-mail notification is sent to the Process Owner, all Approvers, and all 

persons/groups listed in the notification field. It is the responsibility of the Process Owner and/or 

appropriate management to ensure all stakeholders and users are aware of the new approved process 

document. 

Additional notification is available in QBD Activity reports. These reports list all the documents that have 

been approved and issued or made obsolete. 

1.13. Using Documents 

Any Colorado Springs Utilities employee can view documents residing in the Approved Process 

Documents Database. There are a select few documents that have been marked as “Private” and cannot be 

universally viewed. If you have documents of this nature, contact Continuous Improvement to mark them 

as such. 

Work is performed in the manner and order documented. If any employee identifies an opportunity to 

improve a process, they should contact the Process Owner and follow the change process in Section 6.8. 

There is also a button at the top of each approved document binder labeled “Process Improvement Opp.”. 

By selecting this button, an e-mail is automatically created addressed to the Process Owner. Any employee 

may use this functionality to send suggestions for process improvements to the Process Owner. 

The process for searching the Approved Process Documents Database to find the appropriate document is 

detailed in attachment I02-00002 Search Instructions. 

Use of electronic copies is encouraged, but not always feasible. Making paper copies for use in such 

situations is allowed, but the Master Document List should be checked frequently to assure that version 

changes have not occurred, making the paper copies obsolete. For attachments, such as forms, version 

changes are identified in the footer by month/year. When a version changes, all paper copies of the prior 


version must be collected and destroyed to assure that all employees are performing work based on the 

most recent version of the process document. 

1.14. Creating Links to QBD Documents 

At Colorado Springs Utilities, many processes are dependent on or are referenced in other processes. It 

may be helpful to create links from the Intranet or within documents that will take the user to another 

specific document or Process Tool. 

For instructions on creating links, refer to attachment I04-00002, Linking to QBD Documents. 

1.15. Changing Documents 

The initial issue of a document establishes a baseline for a process. However, as continuous improvement 

opportunities are identified or processes are changed, it is necessary to change documents and/or Process 

Tools (Refer to 6.9). The Document Control system utilizes a numeric version system. As documents are 

changed they are updated from version 01 to 02 to 03, etc. The Process Owner is the focal point for all 

changes. The basic steps for a version change are: 

• Process Owner is made aware of process changes or improvement opportunities that lead to 

changes in the current approved document. 

• Individuals who are recommending changes contact the Process Owner to share their 

recommendations. The changes can be shared verbally, through a marked up hard copy, or 

through a redlined soft copy. If not sure who owns the document, check the Master 

Document List in the Approved Process Documents Database. 

• If the Process Owner reviews the changes and does not agree with the change 

recommendations, he/she explains to the originator the reasons why the changes are not 

feasible. 

• If the Process Owner agrees with the change recommendations, he/she moves a copy of the 

current document version from the Approved Process Documents Database into the Draft 

Process Documents Database and incorporates the changes. This is done by opening the 

document to be moved and clicking on the “Copy to Draft Db” button at the top of the page. 

• The Process Owner updates the document and records each major change in a Document 

Change Notice (DCN). A DCN is created by clicking on the “DCN” button at the top of the 

window and then selecting “Add DCN”. There should be only one DCN for each version 

change. 

• The Process Owner follows the instructions in Sections 6.2 and 6.3 to route the revised 

document for approval. As stated before, the review cycle is optional. 

• If the change affects an attachment used to record process outcomes, the Process Owner 

making the change decides whether to remove all previous versions from use and replace 

them with the new version or deplete current available stock first. 

1.15.1. Potential Impact of Changes 

The Process Owner may need to contact potentially affected interests in order to determine what 

effects the proposed change may have upon other systems or process documents. Some potential 

impacts include operations, regulations, contract requirements, cost, materials, and the customer. 

Continuous Improvement can assist in this effort, especially in evaluating the impact on other 

quality system requirements. 

1.15.2. Minor Changes 

Minor changes in editorial style, typographical errors, layout, and/or any change that has no 

detrimental effect on the quality of the product or service can be accumulated over time. The 

changes should be collected and incorporated during the next change or at the next scheduled 

evaluation date. (Refer to 6.10) 

1.15.3. Multiple Documents Affected 

If a change affects multiple process documents, a change process and document approval is 

required for each affected process document. 


1.15.4. Changing Process Owners 

Changing Process Owners does not require changing document version through a formal change 

process. If a Process Owner is rotated, changes their work role, or leaves the company, the 

outgoing Process Owner or his/her supervisor/manager should notify the CI Department of the 

new Process Owner’s name. The CI Department makes the change in the Approved Process 

Documents Database. An electronic record is made at the time of the Process Owner change as an 

audit trail of the transaction. 

1.16. Editing Process Tools 

Attachments that do not contain any process-oriented information will be placed in the Process Tools 

Database. Forms, templates, contact lists, and checklists are ideal candidates. Edits to such attachments, 

referred to as Process Tools, may be made in the Process Tools Database without going through the formal 

change process outlined in section 6.8. It is the responsibility of the Process Owner to update Process 

Tools as necessary. 

There is a notification field in the Process Tools binder that should be used to notify all users and 

potentially affected interests about changes made in a Process Tool. For detail instructions see attachment 

I05-00002, Editing Process Tools. 

1.17. Periodic Evaluation of Documents 

Documents are scheduled for evaluation every three years after the last approval date. The next suggested 

evaluation date is noted as “Review Due:” in the approved document binder and is found next to the 

“Approval Date.” Lotus Notes will e-mail the Process Owner when the evaluation period is approaching. 

This periodic evaluation is conducted to assure that the process document is accurate, comprehensive, and 

still viable. The version number of the document is increased after the evaluation is complete. See Section 

6.8 for processing changes; detailed instruction are found in the Process Owner Manual, attachment I01- 

00002. If no change is necessary, the document version is still increased by one number in order to provide 

an audit trail of the review activity. 

1.18. Archiving Documents 

When a new version of a document is issued, the Lotus Notes database automatically moves a copy of the 

new version to an Archive Database. This database is maintained and accessible by Continuous 

Improvement. All related DCNs are also maintained with their respective documents. Anyone requiring an 

archived version of a document should contact Continuous Improvement. 

1.19. Making Documents Obsolete 

Sometimes business requirements change making process documents invalid. To remove documents from 

the Approved Process Documents Database, the Process Owner copies the document to the Draft Process 

Documents Database as described in Section 6.8. 

In the DCN, the version change should be noted as from the current version to OB (for Obsolete). The 

description in the DCN describes the reasons for making the document obsolete. Approval signatures are 

obtained by using the Approval Cycle. Once all signatures are obtained, Continuous Improvement moves 

the document to the Approved Process Documents Database and then it is deleted. A copy is retained in 

the Archive Database. Anyone requiring an archived version of a document should contact Continuous 

Improvement. 

1.20. Other Types of Documentation 

1.20.1. Stand Alone Documentation 

Stand-alone documentation refers to authoritative documentation already in existence before the 

Document Control process was implemented. Areas generating and maintaining these documents 

are responsible for describing the document control methodology. This type of document is 

usually noted in the Reference Document section of the document templates. The following list is 

a representative sample of stand-alone documents. 

• Utilities Administrative Regulations 

• Utilities Rules and Regulations (Tariffs) 


1.20.2. External Documents 

External documents are regulatory or agency documents created outside of Colorado Springs 

Utilities that impact the company’s operations or work methods. This type of document is usually 

noted in the Reference Documents section of the document templates. 

PROCESS METRICS / SERVICE LEVELS 

Not applicable 


EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 

QBD Approved Process Documents Database 

QBD Archive Process Documents Database 

QBD Draft Process Documents Database 

QBD Process Tools Database 

RECORDS MANAGEMENT 

Record 

Number 

Record Title Record Owner Retention 

Location 

Type of 

Record 

Retention Time 

QBD Approved Process 

Documents Database 

QBD Archive Documents 

Database 

Lotus Notes 


Lotus Notes 


SECC Electronic Superseded 

SECC Electronic Permanent 

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 

Source/Standard Document # Title/Description QBD 

Status 

QBD 00001 Business Quality System A 

ATTACHMENTS 

Attachment 

Number 

Title 

C01-00002 Document Control Process Flowcharts 

F01-00002 Standard Template Checklist 

I01-00002 Process Owner Manual 

I02-00002 Search Instructions 

I03-00002 Level 2 Document Process 

I04-00002 Linking to QBD Documents 

I05-00002 Editing Process Tools 

T01-00002 Standard Template 

T02-00002 Course Management Plan Template 

T03-00002 Management Plan Template 

T03a-00002 

T03b-00002 

Scorecard Template (for Management Plans) 

Initiatives Definition Template (for Management Plans) 


Attachment 

Number 

T03c-00002 

Title 

Strategy Map Template (for Management Plans) 

T04-00002 Lab Template 

T05-00002 Security Plan Template 

T06-00002 Regulation Template 

T07-00002 Program Management Plan Template 

T08-00002 IT Support Model Template 

T09-00002 IT Interface Design Template 

T10-00002 Risk Management Template 

T12-00002 Environmental Procedures & Guidance Manual 

T13-00002 Interface Parent 

T14-00002 Water RMP 

T15-00002 Customer Care Policies 

T18-00002 IT System Definition Template 

2.0 PURPOSE 

The purpose section is to outline the intention of the document in a summarized manner. It is highly 

recommended that you begin your purpose statement with the phrase, "The purpose of this document is 

to…." See the example below: 

“The purpose of this document is to describe the process the company uses to develop the strategic plan.” 

* Be sure to type the document name in the HEADER where it states “INSERT DOCUMENT TITLE 

HERE” and replace XXXXX with the document number. 

3.0 SCOPE 

The scope section outlines areas that are affected by the document. This is where you would describe who 

is affected and what is covered by this document. See example below: 

“This process affects all employees and organizations throughout Colorado Springs Utilities.” 

4.0 TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

This section contains an alphabetized list of acronyms or infrequently used terms that may confuse the user 

or distort the meaning of the document. 

See examples below: 

CEO 

Chief Executive Officer 

QBD 

Quality by Design 

QBD Approved Process Documents Database is a Lotus Notes Database centrally located and accessible 

by all Colorado Springs Utilities employees. This database contains all approved process documents, 

including parent documents and associated attachments. 


5.0 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 

This section is where you explain applicable safety requirements pertaining to the process. Specific safety 

instructions/guidelines should be referenced in the Reference Documents section of this document. Safety 

equipment should be listed in the Equipment and Tools section of this document. 

If specific safety instructions/guidelines are unavailable, the following generic statement may be used: 

All Colorado Springs Utilities safety and health policy and procedure requirements shall be integrated into 

any referenced operational procedures in this document. All safety related policies and procedures 

contained in this document must comply with the Safety and Health Program Manual. 

6.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 

This section outlines the responsibilities of the person(s) or group(s) that must implement or control the 

process being described. Include the title of each employee or group responsibility that is mentioned within 

this document. It is often easier for Process Owners to fill out this section after the process section 6.0 has 

been written and all roles have been identified. See example below: 

“The Strategic Planning Manager is responsible for: 

• Facilitating the development of the Strategic Plan. 

• Conducting quarterly reviews of progress to plan. 

• Serving as subject matter experts on the Strategic Planning process.” 

7.0 PROCESS 

This section is where you explain the major areas of the process steps or the details of steps to be 

performed. Creating a high level flowchart of the process can be helpful in determining sub headings. For 

example: 

7.1. Obtaining Inputs from External Sources 

7.2. Updating Ends and Limitations 

7.3. Establishing CEO Goals 

If the document has attachments, be sure to refer to them by number and name. For example “A process 

flow chart is contained in attachment C01-Strategic Planning Process.” 

If you are not using Microsoft XP you may need to edit the total page count on your document. After you 

have completed the final draft of your document, double-click on the footer and delete the current total 

page number then manually type in the actual total number of pages in the lower RIGHT hand corner. Do 

not change the template number in the lower LEFT hand corner of the footer as it is important for change 

tracking purposes. 

NOTE: To create a numbered list of the primary steps, or major processes, use the style called "QBD 

Indent 2”. This style is formatted to begin a list using the numbering scheme 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, etc. For a list of 

detailed steps use the style called "QBD Indent 3" (for example - 6.1.1., 6.1.2., and so on). For bulleted lists 

use the appropriate QBD bullet style – “QBD Bullet 2” or “QBD Bullet 3”. 

8.0 PROCESS METRICS / SERVICE LEVELS 

Every process must be measured in order to determine its effectiveness. These metrics are often called 

service levels. Process metrics provide feedback that can be acted upon to avoid poor output of a product 

or service. Examples of process metrics are performance to schedule, results of audits, and tracking 

expenditures. 

The three types of process metrics are 1) Supplier Metrics, 2) Process Metrics, or 3) Customer Metrics. 

• Supplier metrics establish targets for the quality of work performed before this process. Materials, 

information, completed forms, and phone conversations are examples of supplier inputs. Supplier 

measures predict the likelihood of success based on the input parameters. In other words, it is difficult 

to produce a quality product or service if the input is defective from the start of the process. 

• Process metrics apply to specific characteristics, features, or attributes of the process itself. These 

metrics are used to monitor the performance of the process as it is being performed. 


• Customer metrics apply to how the customer uses the product or service. Examples of customer 

metrics are results surveys, repeat customers, and referrals. 

Use the following table to describe metrics that indicate the effectiveness of this process. Be sure to make 

a separate copy of the table and fill out the required information for each metric. 

Metric 

Definition of Metric 

Source of Metric 

Calculation of Metric 

Metric - The title of the metric 

Definition of Metric - A detailed explanation of what is being measured 

Source of Metric - Information regarding where the data is obtained, i.e. surveys, reports, logs, etc. 

Calculation of Metric - Information on how the metric is calculated 

9.0 EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS 

This section provides a list of equipment and/or tools needed to accomplish tasks described in this 

document. If safety equipment, special hardware/software or certifications or licensing are required, 

indicate it here. See example below: 

• Microsoft PowerPoint Application Software 

• Lotus Notes discussion database 

10.0 RECORDS MANAGEMENT 

This section lists any outputs of this process (such as filled-in forms, completed checklists, etc.) that require 

retention for future reference or legal requirements. Include only records that are specifically generated by 

following this process document. Use the following MSWord table to list all records. Additional rows can 

be added by positioning the cursor after the last character in the field furthest to the right and hitting the 

Tab key. 

When filling in the “Type of Record” section, please classify the record as Microform, Electronic, or Paper. 

If the output of your process is a report or information backup, use the term “Report” or “Backup” for 

Record Number. 

See example below: 

Record Number Record Title Record Owner Record Location Type of 

Record 

Retention 

Time 

T01-00004 Client/Analyst Quality Manager Central QBD Files Paper 5 years 

Agreement 

Report 

Monthly Training 

Report 

Training Manager Central Training 


Electronic 2 years 

11.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 

This section lists any documents to which a person might need to refer in order to complete this particular 

process. Do not include the document’s revision, unless it is relevant. See examples below: 

Source/Standard Document # Title/Description QBD 

Status 

QBD 00001 Colorado Springs Utilities Quality Business System A 

Utilities Rules and 

Regulations 

44-00 Release of Information 


Source/Standard Standards, codebooks, manuals, user guides, related QBD processes 

Document # if this a QBD document, please include only the unique ID number 

Title/Description in some documents, this may be a Chapter or sub-heading. If linking to a 

website, place the web address here. 

QBD Status A = Approved, D = Draft 

12.0 ATTACHMENTS 

This section lists all attachments that are associated with this parent document, which assist the user in 

performing the process. Examples of attachments are agendas (A), charts (C), drawings (D), exercises (E), 

forms (F), graphics (G), information/instructions (I), marketing media (M), questionnaire (Q), slides (S), or 

templates (T). 

Include the complete attachment number (attachment designator, sequential number, and unique ID 

number) and title. See examples below: 

Attachment 

Number 

Title 

I01-00032 Score Card Write-up 

I02-00032 Strategic Planning Calendar 


Instructions: The purpose of this checklist is to provide guidelines for Process Owners and Process Owner Assistants to use 

prior to submitting documents for review and/or approval. If there any questions please refer to the Document Control process, 

#00002. For additional assistance call the Continuous Improvement Department help line at extension 8-4357 and press #4. 

PARENT DOCUMENT Document Title/Unique Number: 

OVERALL 

The Title of the document is: 

£ Descriptive and matches title on QBD 

Document Binder screen 

£ All CAPITALS 

£ 14-pt font £ Centered in header 

£ Unique ID # is below Title and matches number in the Profile section. 

£ The Page Count matches the actual number of pages of the document. 

£ If a Table of Contents is used, all page numbers match actual locations within the 

document. 

£ Document is formatted and organized to be easily understood by the user (good use of 

numbering, bullets, sub-headings). 

£ Template has not been altered or changed (no headings added or deleted). 

£ Checked spelling and grammar. 

PURPOSE AND SCOPE £ Statements are brief and to-the-point and reflect content of the process that follows. 

TERMS/ABBREVIATIONS £ All acronyms, abbreviations, and unfamiliar terms are listed and defined. 

SAFETY REQUIREMENTS £ Applicable safety requirements are explained. 

RESPONSIBILITIES £ Included all persons involved in completing the process. 

£ Included key stakeholders critical to successful process implementation. 

£ Summarized responsibilities of the involved individuals or groups referred to. 

PROCESS £ The process steps are clear and understandable. 

PROCESS METRICS / 

SERVICE LEVELS 

£ Flow charts are complete and logical. 

£ The process is written from the perspective of a trainee/new employee. 

£ All process metrics for the process are listed in the table. 

EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS £ Listed all equipment and/or tools needed to accomplish the tasks that are listed. 

RECORDS MANAGEMENT £ Contacted QBD Records Management for records retention information. 

£ All records created in the process (for example logs, reports, completed forms) are 

listed in the table. See the example below. 


REFERENCE DOCUMENTS £ All necessary reference documents are listed in the table. See the example below. 

£ All the reference documents can be verified using the information given. 

ATTACHMENTS £ All attachments are listed in the table identified by the attachment type designator, 

document unique number and attachment title. See the example below. 

£ There is a 1-to-1 match with attachments in the QBD Document Binder. 


ATTACHMENTS 

£ There is a Title in the attachment that clearly describes the attachment. 

£ Proper attachment designators are used. 

A = Agenda (used to provide format for meeting agendas) 

C = Chart (a flowchart, troubleshooting diagram, or reference table, flip-chart, wall chart, etc., that does not require 

information to be entered into it). 

D = Drawing (used for CAD drawings, schematics, etc.) 

E = Exercise (for USU-developed training exercises, please use the “M” prefix instead of the “E”) 

F = Form (used when information of a restricted size is to be filled into pre-designated fields, can be filled out on 

paper or electronically) 

G = Graphic (used for graphics or pictures, such as examples of completed forms, templates, or reports, or screen 

prints) 

I = Information/Instructions (used for instructions, user’s guides, manuals, scripts, handouts, classroom 

instructor/student guides, job aids, frequently-asked questions (FAQs) and other performance-support tools) 

M = Measurement (Used for evaluating or measuring student/participant understanding of course materials or other 

training events; includes, but not limited to: exercises, quizzes, skill-checks, role-plays, scored or unscored 

written assessments, oral exams, field evaluations, apprenticeship qualifications [“quals”], etc.) 

P = Policy (used to define an organizational principle, rule, or established course of action to be followed regarding 

Colorado Springs Utilities) 

Q = Questionnaire (used for information gathering tools such as surveys) 

R = Record (used when a record of a process is maintained in the document binder) 

S = Slide (used to identify a PowerPoint slide file or an overhead-projector transparency) 

T = Template (used when a standard format is desired, but a specific field size is not practical) 

£ The footer is formatted correctly: 

Attachment number (mm/yyyy) 

Page x of y 

Ex. F01-00002 (12/2003) Page 1 of 3 

(Note: (mm/yyyy) = release or revision date of the attachment.) 

£ If using a scanned image, the image is pasted into Word and has the proper header and footer information. 

QBD DOCUMENT BINDER SCREEN 

FIELDS COMPLETED £ Owner £ Division 

£ Department £ Section 

£ Location 

SEARCH FIELDS £ Description. This section contains a brief description of the process document. May be 

similar to the Purpose section in the document. 

£ Keywords. This section contains keywords that a user may use to search for the process. 

Different words and phrases are separated by a comma. 

DOCUMENT TITLE £ Describes the process. 

£ Not all in Capitals. 

£ Same as Parent Document. 

SIGNATURE COVERAGE £ Owner and Approver are not the same person. 

£ All individuals or representatives of groups listed in the Responsibilities section of the 

Parent Document are listed as Approvers. 

£ Appropriate supervisor/manager is listed as an approver. 

£ Entered individuals or distribution list in Notification field 


ATTACHMENTS £ There is a 1-to-1 match with attachments listed in the Parent Document in Section 11.0. 

£ Naming format – the filename of the attachment becomes the name on the icon. 

Attachment # - Title/Short description (abbreviate where possible) 

Ex. F01 – Doc Review Checklist 

REVISED DOCUMENTS 

REVISED DOCUMENTS £ A DCN (Document Change Notice) has been completed for the revised document. 

£ The revised document has been converted to the most recent version of the template. 

£ The changes made are clear and easy to understand. 

NOTE: This is not a quality record and retention is not required. Always refer to the current revision of the 

Document Control process #00002 and its Attachments when questions arise. 


Begin 

Creating and Issuing Process Documents 

Sign Document 

Create A New Document 

On Draft Process 


(Process Owner) 

Edit As 

Appropriate 


(Approvers) 

No 

Select Correct Template 

& Obtain Document # 

From Continuous 

Improvement 

Department 

Approve 

Document? 

Yes 

30 Days 

Later? 

No 

Create Document By 

Following Document 

Template 


Attachments 

Required ? 

Yes 

Create Attachments & 

Add To Draft Process 



Optional: Identify 

Reviewers 

& Send Out For 

Review 

Receive Reviewer 

Feedback & Edit 

Process Document 


No 

Send Document 

For Approval 

(Continuous 

Improvement) 

Check Document For 

Format & Content 

(Continuous 

Improvement) 

Identify Approvers and 

Others To Notify 

& Send Out For Approval 


Clear Review Cycle 


Receive 

Approver 

Feedback & 

Edit 

A N 

Yes 

Move Document To 

Approved 

Process Documents 


Publish Regular 

Reports 

Of Document Activity 

(Notes QBD Agent) 

Notify Area Personnel 

& Ensure Appropriate 

Action Is Taken 

(Manager/Supervisor) 

End 

C01-00002 (07/2007) Page 1 of 2 


Begin 

Changing Existing Documents 

Determine A Change Is 

Necessary Or Receive 

Proposed Change From 

A Requestor 

Sign Document 

(Approvers) 


Consider Effects Of 

Proposed Change 


- Operations 

- Quality System 

- Regulatory or 

Contractual Impact 

- Cost 

30 Days 

Later? 

No 

Yes 

Continue With 

Change? 

No 

Notify Requestor w/ 

Reason Change Will 

Not Be Implemented 


Receive Approver 

Feedback & Edit 

As Necessary 


Yes 

Copy Current Version 

From Approved Process 


To Draft Process 


(Process Owner ) 

End 

Move Document 

To Approved Process 


(Continuous Improvement) 

Publish Regular Reports 

Of Document Activity 


Make Changes, Create DCN, 

Identify Approvers, & Send 

Out For Approval 


Check Document For 

Format & Content And 

Send Out For Approval 


Edit As Deemed 

Appropriate 


No 

Approve 

Changes 

? 

Notify Area Personnel 

& Ensure Appropriate 

Action Is Taken 

(Manager/Supervisor) 

End 

Yes 

C01-00002 (07/2007) 

Page 2 of 2 



Knowledge Management through Training 

Project Description: The organization sent eight people to England for a week, three days of 

that week were spent doing on sight training at a plant similar to theirs. The training was put on 

by operators in Great Britain. They spent the remaining eight days shadowing the British 

operators, going where they went, and doing what they did. 

Size of Utility: Not identified 

Critical Success Factors: Success is the knowledge acquired to run a state of the art water 

treatment plant efficiently and effectively. 

Costs: $25,000 

Alignment: Specifically aligned with operational training. 

Benefits: They came back so pumped up and confident with their newly found knowledge that 

they sat down with the contractor, senior staff, and the engineer and said look guys you have a 

plan to start a new plant up in a three week window, we can do it in three days. This goal was 

accomplished and they were able to instill that enthusiasm into the people that did not go to 

England. This is an example of taking the concept of knowledge management and putting it to 



________________________________ 

POC: 

Lyndon B. Stovall 

Greenville Water System 



Using contract employees to supplement and prepare retirements 

Project Description: This program called Project Grant Program allows the utility to hire full-time 

contract employees in order to supplement fluctuating knowledge and operational needs. This 

initial program was established following a catastrophic flood which required the city to hire 

temporary employees. The utility now uses the program for attrition planning with contract 

employees receiving full benefits. They are on a one-year contract from January to December. 

When a contract terminates, it can be renewed for another year. When the utility interviews a 

potential new hire, the contract clearly states the hourly rate, the benefits are defined, and 

employees are held to all internal policies. This program has allowed the water utility to recruit 

from outside the city’s civil service system; which, in turn, then provides an in-house hiring pool 

that has needed training programs to ensure current knowledge and direction. This program 

has been in effect for three years and has been successful. 

Size of Utility: 28.5 employees 

Critical Success Factors: A critical success factor is to choose a good candidate that has some 

experience. For example, one employee that was hired actually came with some treatment 

certification and surface water experience, bringing needed knowledge into the organization. 

While this person could have been hired externally, the city’s civil service system gives 

preferential treatment to internal candidates, or those from other city departments, before hiring 

an external candidate with related work experience or operator certification. 

Cost: There is no additional cost to this approach other than that of hiring in the normal fashion. 

In-house training is supplied to all new hires. Because the organization wants qualified people 

to apply, it offers the same benefit package to contract employees and permanent employees, 

i.e., the contract employee is hired at a salary equal to the entry level schedule, and they will 

earn vacation and have the option of receiving insurance. 

Benefits: The utility is able to recruit outside of the system for a very talented candidate and put 

him or her into the utility’s system. For example, the utility had a lead operator leave and 

already had an internal candidate in training as this employee’s assistant. This assistant was 

able to easily move up into the lead operator position. 


____________________________________ 

POC: 

Hazel Sletten 

City of Grand Forks Public Water Utility 



Increasing the number of Standard Operating Procedures 

Project Description: Implementing standard operating procedures (SOPs) in the system as a 

training tool. 


Critical Success Factors: Adequate technology and skill sets of staff. 

Costs: Most of the cost is staff time, utilizing existing resources and reprioritizing work to allow 

enough time to write and implement standard operating procedures. Typically in operations 

employee strength is their operational skills, not in their technical writing ability. They have to 

be interviewed or videotaped in order to provide a starting point for a specific standard operating 

procedure. 

Alignment: This project study is aligned with succession planning, because of the high rate of 

retirement that is expected over the next five to ten years. It is a way to capture institutional 

knowledge in a form that can be passed on to new employees. It also ties into technology 

planning by documenting the SOP and standardizing the data that is related to a specific 

operation and having the technology in place for implementation. Further, it is aligned with the 

utility’s strategic plan by trying to create a workplace that attracts and retains employees. 

Benefits: The utility is seeing improved training programs. In addition, when the organization 

reviews the completed SOP’s after a year or two, the utility is able to tweak them instead of 

having to recall the entire procedure from employee memory. 


_____________________________ 

POC: 

Cheryl Nero or Dave Matthews 

City of Akron Public Utilities Bureau 



Converting from paper utility to a Geodatabase 

Project Description: The Utility has moved from a paper based utility to the process of capturing 

all asset data into one database. 


Critical Success Factors: The skill sets of the existing employees did not match the skill sets 

needed for higher technology use. Therefore the employees had to be trained on the use of the 

new Geodatabase. 

Cost: $300,000 to $500,000 over a three-year period for technology, training, and overtime for 

310 employees. 

Alignment: Specifically aligned with the technology plan due to having better integration with 

the work order management system, customer information system, billing systems and 

document management system. Also, from a knowledge retention viewpoint, all the information 

is now easily captured within an electronic database rather than having to rely on hard copies. 

Benefits: The organization has better data for asset management, and therefore can make 

better asset management decisions, and is able to answer inquiries on asset information. This 

process enables the utility to better integrate asset information with other applications. 


________________________ 

POC: 





Increasing the number of interns hired 

Project Description: The utility started a program with the local school system to bring high 

school seniors in for internships. The students are in vocational training for half a day and in 

school for the other half. If the students perform the job correctly and efficiently, the utility will 

hire them at an entry level position. This program provides a way to increase the skills and 

aptitudes of entry-level employees while leveraging existing training programs that are in the 

school system. It also includes mentoring at the operations level to produce entry level workers 

that have both skills and aptitude and a working knowledge of operations. 


Critical Success Factors: These factors include a skilled mentor, quality high school level 

vocational training, a good work ethic on the students’ part. Students must be able to provide 

their own transportation. 

Cost: There are some costs in providing tools and training, generally around $3,000 to $5,000 

per utility intern. 

. 

Alignment: Aligned with the utility’s succession plan by first, bringing in new employees with 

higher skill sets, aptitudes and training to perform the job; and second, minimizing the amount of 

time it takes to learn institutional knowledge. 

Benefits: A benefit to the utility is the ability to hire a new young employee within six to nine 

months of experience; and have a young, strong body able to do what is considered manual 

labor. 


________________________ 

POC: 





Career Ladder Program 

Project Description: The Career Ladder Program is a program in which employees take their 

certification tests and, if they pass, get automatic raises until they reach the highest level of 

license available, at which point they make 10 percent less than the Foreman. 


Critical Success factors: The utility is creating a competitive environment that offers the 

opportunity for people to move through the system with knowledge as the competitive factor. 

Cost: $40,000 a year to implement the Career Ladder Program, including costs of employee 

raises and continuing education. 

Alignment: Aligned with human resources. 

Benefits: In a Union-employed shop, the only way to advance is for someone positioned in a 

higher pay slot to move or retire. This can cause a serious motivation problem. The Career 

Ladder Program allows the employee to advance with the correct licensing based on their 

knowledge. Since employees are receiving licensing and advanced licensing through this 

program, the utility is building a competent and reliable workforce. For example, if a supervisor 

is unable to be present, the utility has three or four other employees who are equally licensed 

who can take care of problems. The Career Ladder Program motivates an employee to stay in 

the job since they are the determining factor of their salary level, and the utility is continuously 

improving their workforce and thus their capability. 


______________________________ 

POC: 

Terry Biederman 

Waterford Township Department of Public Works 



Rallying a Team of Exceptional Employees 

Project Description: Rallying a team of exceptional employees is one of this utility’s five 

strategic goals. The organization is trying to identify all the positions and people that are going 

to retire or potentially leave through longevity with the company who have acquired knowledge 

and skill sets essential to the success of the utility. By doing this, the organization is also 

identifying the areas across the business unit that need back-filling or teaming-up to enable the 

transfer of knowledge from near-term retirees to newer employees. This is accomplished 

through many venues. For example, the organization may decide to add new staff to work 

alongside the retiree, gaining as much knowledge about the position as possible. 

Size of Utility: 1,158 employees 

Critical Success Factors: Having human resources engaged to help the utility identify these 

key positions that are subject to retirement. A second critical success factor is working with 

financial services to create the budget for a parallel learning effort and then, in the future 

possibly using an automated process to capture business knowledge. 

Costs: There is a budget variance that will exist when you add additional people to the 

department budget. Technically, you have two people in the same role for some amount of 

time. While this may not appear efficient, it is critical to the continuing effectiveness of the utility. 

Alignment: This was initiated out of the organization’s strategic planning; it also involves life 

cycle management and IT planning. 

Benefits: Reducing or mitigating utility risk by identifying key positions. The utility is not running 

the risk of the employee leaving without gathering critical institutional knowledge and 

documenting it. 


___________________________________ 

POC: 

Greg Rodeghier 

Orlando Utilities Commission 



Hired a private firm to determine the utility’s communication/ knowledge 

sharing needs 

Project Description: Hired a private firm to explore communication gaps among the entire staff, 

including vertical and horizontal communication. This aggressive program required each 

employee to attend a weekly session of 3-4 hours for eight weeks. During this session, the 

communication needs of the organization were determined through dialogue and role-playing. 

Better communications practices were addressed at the individual and group levels. 


Critical Success factors: Prior to the sessions, individuals from the company (from four 

separate departments) discussed sensitive issues from differing viewpoints. Then, the results of 

these interviews were collectively presented to management for discussion, mitigation and 

action. 

Cost: Several thousands of dollars. A representative of the organization said, “It was money 

well spent.” 

Alignment: The utility has set a global goal of open and clear communications. The fact that 

everyone understood the goal gave them the opportunity to hopefully strive to maintain and 

acquire the skills necessary to accomplish the goal. Group buy-in helped accomplish this goal. 

Benefits: One of the benefits is that all employees have the opportunity to realize they were not 

just part of their individual departments; they are a team. The staff—including management— 

has learned to communicate better. We now hold weekly staff meetings in the departments, 

and management meets with the whole group quarterly. Public relations and communications 

have improved immensely. In addition, the utility is seeing more personal development and 

confidence in the employees. 


________________________________ 

POC: 

Wally Thom 

Rice Lake Utilities 



Computerization of all customer service records 

Project Description: Implementing a computerization of all customer service records tied to the 

organizational GIS data base that will link both pieces of information, thereby facilitating 

knowledge flows. 


Critical Success factors: A success factor would be the amount of information available on a 

field laptop that would allow the field person or office staff to answer questions or solve 

problems with detailed file access at their fingertips. Another factor would be the amount of staff 

time that can be dedicated to the project. 

Cost: This is a multi-year project. At completion the estimated cost is $500,000. 

Alignment: This project is aligned with strategic business planning, operational planning, human 

resource development, life cycle planning, and information technology master planning. In the 

future it will allow the utility to simplify its five-year capital improvement and replacement plan. 

Benefits: Whenever a piece of the plan has been implemented, benefits show up immediately. 

The utility can easily look into the future and see the long-term possibilities when the plan is 

completed. 


____________________________________ 

POC: Gerald Schulte 

Evergreen Metro Distict 



On the Job Training 

Project Description: The utility will send an employee to a credited school for an introductory 

course for water operators. Employees attend school one night a week for eight months, 

hopefully successfully completing and passing the course. 


Critical Success factors: The employee is required to receive this education and pass the 

course before taking their licensing exam to become a certified operator. 

Cost: The utility reimburses the employee for tuition and books. 

Alignment: This initiative is aligned with life cycle planning and human resource development. 

Benefits: Employees are able to learn while employed in an entry level position and are given 

the opportunity for career advancement. With this program, the organization can hire someone 

who has potential but may not have the knowledge or training for the position. Further, this 

person has a chance to advance their education and gain a certification. 


___________________________________ 

POC: 

Paul Kozakiewicz 

Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority 



Retiree Program 

Project Description: The City of Phoenix Water Services Department is experiencing a 

knowledge drain due to retirements. We have approximately 1,400 employees, of 

which 300 are eligible to retire in the next five years, and 400 employees who have five 

years or less of service with the Department. 

Often, critical staff are promoted or retire and there is no one readily available to 

perform their daily job duties. Our goal was to establish a retiree program that allows 

for the use of soon to be retired and retired employees in a training capacity to pass on 

their knowledge and abilities to their replacement. With a retiree program, we hoped to 

achieve a knowledge transfer from experienced employees to less knowledgeable 

employees, and a faster development (shorter learning curve) or time to competency of 

new employees. The City of Phoenix allows for the contractual hiring of former 

employees as independent vendors to provide specific duties including training. Some 

of the department’s contracted retirees who are working on special projects have a fixed 

work schedule. The retirees provide training work on an as-needed basis. They are 

contacted directly by our supervisors to provide employee training in the areas of 

instrumentation, electrical, and plant operations. 


Critical Success Factors: To establish this retiree program the knowledge retention pilot 

committee, which consisted of employees, supervisors and Human Resources Staff all 

internal to the Water Services Department, held a series of meetings to: get the buy-in 

from our Executives and Middle Managers that this program would be beneficial to the 

staff and the Department; identify critical knowledge that was lost through retirements 

and/or lacking in new employees and supervisors; and identify retirees with this critical 

knowledge that were interested in training new employees. We then obtained approval 

to hire specific retirees back under a training contract. 

Cost: Because this program was implemented as part of a much larger training 

program, several vendors including retirees were hired under training contracts, the 

costs to implement this were minimal and were limited to staff time to identify the 

training needs, negotiate the cost of services, obtain necessary approvals and 

coordinate the training. These activities occurred over one or two hours a week over a 

two month period. The only direct costs would have been the newspaper advertisement 

for the services, $200.00. 

Alignment: This initiative is aligned with human resources development as part of our 

Operations & Maintenance Technician training program. 


Benefits: Our retiree training program has been in place for several years and has been 

extremely successful and beneficial to the Department. Not only do new employees get 

an opportunity to receive hands-on, one-on-one training from experienced retires, the 

facility does not have to allocate remaining experienced staff to provide this training. 

They are available to complete the daily work requirements while the retiree provides 

the training. Because the use of retirees allows our Department to pass on critical 

knowledge and skills without adding to the workloads of the remaining supervisors and 

subject matter experts, we will continue to hire retirees back under contract to provide 

specific technical training. 

Compiled September 2007 

_____________________________ 

POC: 

Lisa Nevitt 

City of Phoenix Water Services Department 



Develop Organizational Learning System 

Project Description: Developing an organizational learning system, that enables information to 

be disseminated throughout the organization. This approach provides more focus on interactive 

topic areas such as: asset management; safety and emergency preparedness; race and social 

justice. There are nine principles used to help guide the organizational learning system: (1) 

design and deliver the training in a way that the learning is accessible for all audiences; (2) all 

employees receive a consistent high level overview; (3) the training/communications should 

have a common look and feel; (4) SPU values will be clearly integrated into the learning system 

program; (5) the leadership team is a partner in communicating the key messages and learning 

objectives; (6) the learning outcomes should be integrated into and reinforced throughout the 

organization; (7) learning system programs will be interactive, two way learning opportunities; 

(8) draw out natural leaders, early adopters, and enthusiastic learners, and place them in a 

central role in the learning system; (9) learning system programs will measure their 

effectiveness in meeting learning objectives. 


Critical Success factors: The willingness of the people in the organization to learn, and 

leadership teams commitment and communication of the learning objectives. 

Cost: Minimal costs—executive level leaders focusing time and energy around system. There 

are teams for each category, and all work is done internally. 

Alignment: This initiative is aligned with strategic business planning by helping to reach the 

goals of the organization through learning. 

Benefits: An approach to decision making that involves data-driven decisions, established 

customer service levels, full life cycle costs that are increasingly being adopted in the utility 

sector. This initiative draws out natural leaders, early adopters, and enthusiastic learners. It 

fosters and supports more learning in the department, providing the opportunity for developing 

back-up expertise across functional areas. 


___________________________ 

POC: 

Nancy Ahern 

Seattle Public Utilities 



Louisville Water Company 2007 System Certification Process: Knowledge 


Project Description: In 2006, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System developed a 

process for identifying, storing and indexing critical operational knowledge. In 2007, each 

business system was responsible for collecting the information described below in the bullet 

items. In 2008, each business system is responsible for developing and implementing a 

documented Knowledge Management action plan based upon the data collected in 2007. This 

plan will be reviewed as part of a process that we call System Certification Reviews. In order to 

assist our managers with this process, OE developed a questionnaire that could be used by the 

employees to collect the information needed for the action plan. Business Systems also had the 

flexibility of designing their own questionnaire. The objectives of this process are: 

• Identify LWC employees who possess critical operational knowledge that needs to be 

retained. 

• Identify the critical operational knowledge. 

• Determine if the critical operational knowledge can be obtained from other resources. 

• Determine the potential business consequences that might occur if the critical 

operational knowledge is not captured. 

• Determine the best format to capture, store, index and make available the critical 

operational knowledge to other employees. 

• Develop a documented action plan and implement same to accomplish the above. 

Challenge: The initial challenge was the willingness of employees to complete the 

questionnaire. However, what we discovered was that employees were more than willing to do 

this because of the importance of the work that they are performing. They quickly realized the 

importance of sharing this information with others and enjoyed being seen as the “expert” in 

their particular fields. 


Critical Success Factors: The success of this project is based on the completion of the 

Knowledge Management action plans and implementation of those plans. All LWC business 

systems are documenting their plans, collecting critical operational knowledge, and sharing this 

data on the LWC intranet with the exception of operations requiring confidentiality and /or 

security issues. We have seen an increase in the documentation and storing of Work 

Instructions, Process Flowcharts, and digital photos capturing work processes, etc. We have 

also seen an increase in participants in cross-training, cross-functional teams, and participants 

in LWC’s Mentoring program. 

Cost: No cost noted. 

Benefits: Better planning in the areas of succession management, knowledge sharing and 

retention, and cross-training. 


Attachments provided: (1) LWC Knowledge Management Process (Public Version) 

Compiled May 2008 

________________________ 

POC: 

Carl Blanton 



2007 System Certification Review Process: 


Version 1.0: December 2006 


Presented by: Carl Blanton 

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 

In order for Louisville Water Company (LWC) to meet its strategic objectives, we 

must depend on our ability to identify and retain critical operations knowledge. 

When workers retire or leave LWC, their critical operations knowledge goes with 

them. Therefore, the objectives of this process are: 

1. Identify LWC employees who possess critical operations knowledge that 

needs to be retained. 

2. Identify the critical operations knowledge. 

3. Determine if the critical operations knowledge can be obtained from other 

resources (internal and/or external). 

4. Determine the potential business consequences that might occur if the 

critical operations knowledge is not captured. 

5. Determine the best format to capture, store, index and make available the 

critical operations knowledge to other employees. 

6. Develop an action plan to accomplish the above. 

1.0 General Types of Knowledge 

There are two general types of knowledge: E xplicit and Implicit or Tacit 

Knowledge. 

‣ Explicit Knowledge encompasses the things we know that can be written 

down, shared with others and p ut into a d atabase such as SOP’s, work 

procedures, work instructions, training manuals, etc. L WC does a v ery 

good job in capturing this type of knowledge and making it available to its 

employees. 


‣ Implicit or Tacit Knowledge encompasses know-how, rules of thumb, 

experiences, insights, and intuition. This type of knowledge is sometimes 

difficult to capture because it resides in a person’s head, and not on paper. 

Companies in general do a l ess effective job in capturing this type of 

knowledge, and yet it is just as important to retain as Explicit Knowledge. 

In order to begin this process, Organizational Effectiveness (OE), has prepared an 

outline and questionnaire to assist managers in identifying, capturing and 

retaining the specific system and process knowledge that is critical to our 

operational success. Beginning in 2007, LWC System Certification Reviews will 

include an assessment of progress made by the business system on capturing 

and managing operational knowledge in their respective functions. Specifically, 

OE will be looking at what has already been accomplished, and what kind of 

action objectives remain to be completed throughout the remainder of the year 

and perhaps into 2008. We acknowledge that systems that are evaluated in the 

latter part of 2007 should be farther along on this process than those evaluated in 

the early months of 2007. 

Do not make this process more difficult than it needs to be. What you may discover upon 

going through this process is that your system is doing a solid job in capturing 

and retaining critical operations knowledge. If that’s the case, then document the 

procedures that you have in place and continue your success. O n the other 

hand, what you may discover is that some critical operations knowledge has 

been captured and retained, while other operational knowledge has not. In those 

situations, most likely the knowledge is “in the head” of one of your key 

employees, and there is the potential of losing that knowledge if and when the 

employee chooses to retire from or leave LWC. If that’s the case, then continue 

to follow through the steps provided in this document and create your action plan 

to address the issue. 

OE employees are available to answer questions and assist all managers through 

this process. I n addition, this outline and questionnaire provided to you is not 

“carved in stone.” We welcome ideas and suggestions for “Knowledge 

Management Best Practices” to share with others throughout the year. We 

encourage you to design your own tools and resources that best fit your 

business system. What works best for one system may not work well for another 

system. Thi s outline and questionnaire are simply designed to help you get 

started on this journey. 

Finally, the process of Knowledge Management is not a “one-time deal.” T he 

ultimate goal is for each system to have an ongoing process in place to 

consistently identify, capture and store critical operational knowledge and make 

it available to our future employees who will serve our internal and external 

customers for decades to come. 


LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 

KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PROCESS 

STEP ONE: IDENTIFICATION OF KEY PERSONNEL 

A. Identify employees within your system who you anticipate may be retiring within the next three years 

(2007-2010). 

Name Job Title Anticipated 

Retirement 

Date 

B. Identify employees within your system who have the most tenure/seniority (the longer an employee’s 

tenure/seniority, the greater likelihood that individual possesses knowledge critical to a company’s 

operations). 

Name Job Title Tenure in 

Years 


C. Identify employees within your system/process who are performing “critical knowledge at-risk” 

positions (i.e. employees, who upon leaving LWC, could severely affect operations). 

Name Job Title Process 

ST TWO: IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO BE RETAINED 

STEP TWO: IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO BE 

RETAINED 

When identifying critical operational knowledge to be retained from the employee, 

focus on the following three types of knowledge applicable to all utilities: 

‣ Technical Knowledge* encompasses individual capabilities. It is what 

individuals know or know how to do, and it is typically demonstrated as a 

skill. Some examples include the ability to operate a particular pump; the 

ability to use software programs and systems such as Oracle, FINS, MDS, 

PeopleSoft HRMS; or an understanding of chemical reactions. 

‣ Social Knowledge* involves relationships and working cultures. I t is an 

individual’s ability to interact with other people and to fit into the social 

networks of organizations. E xamples include an ability to communicate 

effectively with local politicians and to function well within a utility’s unique 

working culture. 

‣ Structural Knowledge* is embedded in an organization’s systems, 

processes, policies and procedures. It tends to be explicit or rules-based. 

Examples include knowledge of how to follow the utility’s procurement 

process, to purchase a piece of equipment, and to navigate a permit 

process. 


*(Source: Knowledge Retention: A guide for Utilities. J ournal AWWA, 

September 2006. Author: Mark Frigo) 

To assist you in this process, you may want to ask each employee identified as “key 

personnel” to complete the enclosed questionnaire. You may also want to create your 

own questionnaire that is unique to your system and processes. 

STEP THREE: DETERMINE IF THE CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE CAN BE 

OBTAINED FROM OTHER RESOURCES 

Questions to consider include: 

‣ Has the knowledge been passed on t o another employee through crosstraining 

or job shadowing? 

‣ Has the knowledge been captured through some other means such as a 

training manual, documented standard operating procedures (SOP’s), 

documented work instructions, video instructions, picture maps, LWC 

Service Rules & Regulations, LWC Intranet, PowerPoint presentations, 

etc.? 

‣ Can the knowledge be obtained on an interim basis when needed through 

other resources such as the external job market, external contractors, LWC 

retirees, LWC employees in other systems/processes, etc.?) 

STEP FOUR: DETERMINE THE BUSINESS CONSEQUENCES OF NOT CAPTURING THE 

KNOWLEDGE 

In order to decide and prioritize which critical operational knowledge is the most 

important to capture and retain, use the following questions to determine the 

potential business consequences: 

Business Consequences: Importance 


‣ Would not knowing this knowledge result in major or minor losses for 

LWC? If yes, please explain. 

‣ Would this knowledge affect system or process reliability from the 

viewpoint of the customer? If yes, please explain. 

‣ Would the loss of this knowledge affect one location or multiple locations? 

If yes, please identify the locations and how they would be affected. 

Business Consequences: Immediacy 

‣ How long will it take to transfer or reacquire this knowledge to deal with 

certain problems? 

Business Consequences: Recovery 

‣ Is it feasible to recover this knowledge? 

‣ What is the estimated cost and feasibility to recover this knowledge? 

Business Consequences: Knowledge Transfer 

‣ How difficult will it be to capture and transfer this knowledge to others? 

‣ What is the most preferred method to capture and transfer this knowledge? 

(See Step Five for examples of how knowledge can be captured and 

transferred to others.) 

STEP FIVE: DETERMINE THE BEST FORMAT TO CAPTURE, STORE, INDEX AND MAKE 

AVAILABLE THIS CRITICAL OPERATIONAL KNOWLEDGE TO OTHER EMPLOYEES. 

There are several Knowledge Transfer/Sharing Techniques that can be used to 

capture and retain critical operational knowledge and make it available to others. 


The most common techniques are those that you may already be familiar with 

such as: 

‣ Cross-Training 

‣ Job Shadowing 

‣ Standard Operating Procedures (Work Instructions) 

‣ LWC Service Rules and Regulations 

‣ LWC Company Policies and Procedures 

‣ Training Manuals 

‣ Troubleshooting Guides 

‣ Video/DVD Instructions 

‣ Computer-based Training 

‣ Simulators 

‣ Blueprints 

‣ Databases such as G.I.S. 

‣ PowerPoint Presentations/Instructions 

‣ Process Flowcharts 

‣ Software Program Tutorials 

Some additional Knowledge Transfer/Sharing Techniques for you to consider are: 

‣ Communities of Practice – These are groups of practitioners who share a common 

interest in a specific area of competence and are willing to share their experiences. 

They are sometimes known by other names such as learning communities or learning 

networks. 

‣ After Action Review - This is a process developed by the U.S. Army to help teams learn 

quickly from their successes and failures and share their learning with other teams. It 

involves conducting a structured and facilitated discussion after a task or project has 

been completed to review what should have happened, what actually happened, and 

why it happened. This allows participants to learn how to sustain strengths and 

improve on weaknesses in subsequent tasks or projects. 

‣ Expertise Directory/Skills Directory – This is a staff directory in the form of a database 

that includes details of people’s skills, knowledge, experience, and expertise so that 

users can search for people with specific know-how. It is sometimes referred to as a 

Corporate Yellow Pages. Each person’s own page may include: 

• Basic contact information 

• Areas of expertise. (People can rate themselves as having extensive 

expertise, some working knowledge, or just learning.) 

• Work history 

• Key internal and external contacts 

• Interests 

‣ Knowledge Harvesting – This is a technique that allows tacit knowledge or know-how of 

experts and top performers in an organization to be captured and documented. This 


know-how can then be made available to others in various forms such as t raining 

programs, manuals, best practices, and other forms of knowledge repositories. 

‣ Mentoring - A one-to-one learning relationship in which a senior member of an 

organization is assigned to support the development of a newer or more junior 

member by sharing his or her knowledge, experience, and wisdom with them. 

‣ Peer Assist - This is where an individual or team calls a meeting or a workshop in order to tap the 

knowledge and experience of others before embarking on a project or activity. 

‣ Picture Map – A combination of pictures and a map to explain how a process operates or flows 

within a company. To view the example below, go to .louisvillewater.com, click on FunZone, 

Teachers’ Tools, and Follow the Flow. 

Storyboards – A series of illustrations or images displayed in sequence for the 

purpose of pre-visualizing a v ideo sequence. A storyboard provides a visual 

layout of events as they are to be seen through the camera lens. 

‣ Storytelling - The use of stories in organizations as a way of sharing knowledge and facilitating 

learning. Stories can be used to describe complicated issues, explain events, communicate lessons 

learned, or bring about cultural change. 

2.0 ADDITIONAL TIPS FOR KNOWLEDGE SHARING/TRANSFER 

TECHNIQUES: 

When determining the best format to capture, store, and index critical knowledge to share 

with future employees, the following tips may be helpful: 

‣ Avoid the use of dry, colorless, lifeless documents. The goal is to produce publications that will be 

read, not stuffed into a file drawer. 


‣ Less is more – the goal is to deliver enough, but not too much. P eople with 

experience can wade through a m ountain of material, but they usually lack the 

patience and time to do so. 

‣ People remember... 

10% of what they hear 

15% of what they see 

20% of what they hear and see 

40% of what they discuss 

80% of what they experience and practice 

90% of what they teach to others 

‣ When using video to capture and store knowledge, always prepare a scr ipt and 

storyboard in advance before shooting footage in the field. This will save you much 

time in terms of preparation, equipment selection, obstacles to overcome, etc. 

STEP SIX: DEVELOP AN ACTION PLAN TO CAPTURE, STORE, INDEX AND SHARE KEY 

CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE 

The action plan needs to be specific and workable for your specific system and 

processes. Whatever format you choose to use, the action plan should include 

the following: 

‣ Specific action objectives 

‣ Anticipated outcomes 

‣ Person(s) responsible for carrying out the action objectives 

‣ Timeline and deadline date 

‣ Resources needed 

Be sure to schedule periodic updates to monitor the continued progress of your action plan. 

For System Certification review purposes, please maintain your action plan and all 

supporting documentation in a format and location that best meets your needs. Options you 

may want to consider include your web site on the LWC Intranet; a separate section in your 

certification binder tabbed Knowledge Management; or a shared drive within your system. 

Involve your Natural Work Teams and/or System Advisory Council in this process. 


LWC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 

Instructions: I n order for LWC to capture, store, and retain operational 

knowledge that is critical for the success of the company, Organizational 

Effectiveness (OE) has requested managers to identify employees who meet any 

of the following criteria: 

A. Employees who anticipate retiring from LWC within the next three years. 

B. Employees with the most tenure (seniority) with LWC. ( The longer an 

employee’s tenure/seniority, the greater likelihood that employee 

possesses knowledge critical to a company’s operations). 

C. Employee’s currently employed in “critical knowledge at-risk” positions 

(i.e. those individuals, who upon l eaving LWC could severely affect 

operations). 

You have been identified as an employee who meets one or more of the criteria listed 

above. 

Please answer each of the following questions in as much detail as possible and 

return this questionnaire to your Process Owner. If you need clarification on any 

question, please consult with your Process Owner or Business System Owner. 

Thank you for your cooperation. 

Name: 

Job Title: 

Process: 

Phone Extension or Cell Phone Number: 

Definition: Technical Knowledge encompasses individual capabilities. It is what individuals know or know 

how to do, and it is typically demonstrated as a skill. Examples include the ability to operate a particular 

pump, the ability to use spreadsheet software, and an understanding of chemical reactions. 

1. What kind of technical knowledge should LWC retain from you in order to perform your tasks? 


Technical Knowledge to be retained: 

Definition: Social Knowledge involves relationships and working cultures. It is an individual’s ability to 

interact with other people and to fit into the social networks of organizations. Examples include an ability to 

communicate effectively with local politicians and to function well within a utility’s unique working culture. 

2. What kind of social knowledge should LWC retain from you in order to continue the working 

relationships needed to perform your tasks? 

Social Knowledge to be retained: 

Definition: Structural Knowledge is embedded in an organization’s systems, processes, policies and 

procedures. It tends to be explicit or rules-based. Examples include knowledge of how to follow LWC’s 

procurement process, to purchase a piece of equipment, and to navigate a permit process. 

3. What kind of structural knowledge should LWC retain from you in order to continue to perform 

your tasks? 

Structural Knowledge to be retained: Structural Knowledge to be retained: 


4. What other kind of critical knowledge do you fear will be lost when you choose to leave LWC? 

Response: 

5. What facts and information pertaining to your job are important to know? 

Facts: 

Information: 


6. What are the key lessons learned from your job? 

Response: 



LWC System Certification Review Process 

Project Description: In 1995, Louisville Water Company (LWC) created its systems-based 

management approach. LWC created five (5) business cores consisting of 12 business 

systems and approximately 34 processes. Business System Owners (BSO’s) are equivalent to 

“Directors” and Process Owners (PO’s) are equivalent to “Supervisors”. The Executive 

Leadership Team (ELT) developed challenging criteria to determine if business systems were 

achieving the goals and objectives necessary to establish LWC as a Total Quality Organization. 

Each business system goes through a review process every two years known as System 

Certification Review. The review is performed by the Organizational Effectiveness Business 

System which issues a detailed report of findings, successes, challenges, etc. to the ELT for 

review and approval. (Note: The Organizational Effectiveness Business System is also 

required to meet the same criteria/standards as the remaining 11 business systems. However, 

the certification review for OE is conducted by the Director of Internal Audit). The certification 

review objectives are: 

1. Determine that required documentation exists, is controlled, and validated. 

2. Assess system’s progress toward commitment to quality principles. 

3. Assess the system’s evaluation of business risk. 

4. Determine the effectiveness of process improvements. 

5. Determine the system’s commitment to partnership among employees. 

6. Assess the system’s level of customer focus. 

7. Determine the system’s progress toward empowerment. 

8. Assess the system’s commitment to quality of work life. 

9. Evaluate system’s plans and documented business results. 

10. Assess the system’s progress toward knowledge management. 

Challenge: Reviewing and updating each business system’s documentation to remain current 

at all times. 


Critical Success Factors: While all business systems are required to share and maintain their 

system and process documentation on LWC’s Intranet site in a consistent and standard format, 

each system is encouraged to include additional information that may be applicable to other 

systems. In addition to reviewing the documentation, the OE System interviews all managers 

and a random number of employees to determine if the system is truly operating as a Total 

Quality Organization. The review team members observe employees in their Natural Work 

Team meetings and System Advisory Council meetings. We review progress made toward 

improving customer satisfaction with both internal and external customers. We identify and 

share “Best Practices” with other systems, and also review how managers are recognizing 

employees for outstanding performance and how well managers are conducting their quarterly 

performance management reviews. We also review how well each system is executing its 

System Operating Plan. 


Cost: No cost noted 

Benefits: Systems that are fully functioning as Total Quality Organizations are recognized by 

the Executive Leadership Team. Systems that may be lacking in some areas are provided with 

coaching and assistance necessary to achieve compliance with the criteria/standards. The 

certification process has allowed LWC to bring consistency in the documentation of work 

processes, standard operating procedures, operating plans, relationship charts, flowcharts, etc. 

Attachments provided: 2008—2009 System Certification Working Checklist FINAL; 2008— 

2009 Management Interview Questions; 2008—2009 Non-Management Interview 

Questions. 


_______________________ 

POC: 

Carl Blanton 


SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS (SOE) 

2008 - 2009 System Certification Working Checklist 

Business System: 

Entrance Conference Date: 

Exit Conference Date: 

Date of Final Report: 

Date of ELT Review for Approval: 

Certification Purpose: 

To determine that Business Systems are complying with the Next Level Plan 2005 and Beyond 

certification elements. 

Certification Review Objectives: 

11. Determine that required documentation exists, is controlled, and validated. 

12. Assess system’s progress toward commitment to quality principles. 

13. Assess the system’s evaluation of business risk. 

14. Determine the effectiveness of process improvements. 

15. Determine the system’s commitment to partnership among employees. 

16. Assess the system’s level of customer focus. 

17. Determine the system’s progress toward empowerment. 

18. Assess the system’s commitment to quality of work life. 

19. Evaluate system’s plans and documented business results. 

20. Assess the system’s progress toward knowledge management. 


Certification Review Process Steps: 

1. BSOs of systems to be reviewed are contacted in the 1 st quarter to identify timeframes to avoid 

based on their specific business needs. 

2. BSOs are informed of their “certification start date” for the year by the end of the 1 st quarter in 

order to prepare in advance. 

3. BSOs receive a 30-working day reminder prior to the review. 

4. An Entrance Conference is held with the BSO on t he “certification start date” to review the 

process steps and begin the examination of the system documentation (via intranet). Documents 

not posted on the intranet due to confidentiality can be supplied to the review team in a binder for 

review. The review team will protect the confidentiality of these documents and return them to 

the BSO as quickly as possible. ( Note: BSOs are invited to include their POs in the Entrance 

Conference). 

5. SOE reviews the system/process documentation. 

6. SOE conducts personal interviews with BSO, POs and a r andom number of employees 

representing NWTs. 

7. SOE will attend at least one NWT meeting and one SAC meeting if possible. 

8. SOE prepares the first draft of the certification report. 

9. SOE conducts an Exit Conference with the BSO to review the draft report and seek clarification 

and/or corrections on any issues. 

10. SOE prepares the final report and distributes same to the CBSO and BSO of the system being 

reviewed. 

11. SOE requests “management responses” to any recommendations be forwarded to SOE within 

two weeks. 

12. CBSO schedules certification discussion on ELT agenda. 

13. ELT reaches decision on certification status. 


CHECKLIST – WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR? 

Systems-based Management Structure 

1. System Organizational Chart Yes/No Comments 

Does the chart include names and job titles? 

Has the chart been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

2. System Synopsis Sheet 

Has the sheet been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

Is there a reference to a “customer satisfaction 

indicator” as 

one of the “outcome measures?” 

Did employees provide input on this document? 

3. System Relationship Chart 


Does the chart match the System Synopsis Sheet in 

terms 

of “suppliers, customers, inputs and outputs?” 

4. Process Synopsis Sheet 

Has the sheet been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

Is there a reference to a “customer satisfaction 

indicator” as 

one of the “outcome measures?” 

5. Process Relationship Chart 


Does the chart match the Process Synopsis Sheet in 

terms of “suppliers, customers, inputs and outputs?” 

6. Process NWT Charter 

Has the charter been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

Have all the sections of the Charter been completed? 

7. Process Flow Charts – Macro / Micro 

Have the charts been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

8. Standard Operating Procedures (as applicable) 

Are the SOPs documented on the Work Instructions 

template? 

Have the SOPs been reviewed in the last 12 months? 


Are the SOP’s clear and easy to understand? 

9. Process / Operational Improvements 

Have employees submitted Process / Operational 

Improvements in the last two years? How many? 

10. NWT Meeting Minutes 

Are NWT meetings held on a regular basis? 

Is the leader’s role alternated among members of the 

NWT? 

Are meeting minutes documented and made available 

to team members and other employees? 

Are topics such as process improvements, quality of 

work life, 

KPI’s, safety issues, etc. discussed in the meetings? 

11. Previous Re-Certification Report & Management 

Response 

Is the previous report and management response 

included 

on the website? 

12. LWC Intranet 

Is the system/process documentation posted on the 

LWC 

Intranet? 

How is the intranet being used as a “communications 

tool” for the system? 


Partnership Among Employees 

1. System Partnership Agreement Yes/No Comments 

Has the document been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

Has the document been signed by all parties to the 

agreement? 

Is there a reference to the Labor-Mgt. Partnership 

agreement? 

2. System Advisory Council Charter 

Has the charter been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

Is the leader’s role alternated among members of the 

SAC? 

Have all sections of the charter been completed (i.e. 

deliverables & expectations, scope, etc.?” 

3. System Advisory Council Meeting Minutes 

Are meeting minutes documented and distributed (or 

posted) to SAC members and other employees? 

Does the SAC discuss and address system issues such 

as Operating Plans, System Certification, process 

improvements, QWL issues, etc.? 

4. Organizational Effectiveness Index Survey (if 

applicable) 

Is the OEI System Summary included with the 

documentation? 

What plans and/or actions are in place to improve the 

index score? 

Quality of Work Life 

1. System Training Needs Assessment/Training Plan Yes/No Comments 

Have the training needs been identified and documented 

on 

a training plan or Individual Development Plan in the last 

12 months? 

Did employees provide input on their training needs? 

Have discussions occurred between the employee and 

manager 

on specific “learning objectives” to achieve before 

attending training 

seminars? 


2. Quality of Work Life (QWL) 

Is QWL a “ standing item” on N WT and S AC meeting 

agendas? 

Are there other avenues available for employees to raise 

& 

address QWL issues? 

3. Recognition of Employees 

How are employees recognized for outstanding 

performance? 

Accountability Through Empowerment 

1. Empowerment & Accountability Yes/No Comments 

Has does the system/process empower its employees? 

How are employees held accountable for performance? 

2. Performance Partnerships (Non-Union) 

Were employees involved in setting their performance 

goals? 

Do their performance goals meet the SMART criteria? 

Are employees empowered to share their own 

performance 

feedback in their quarterly reviews? 

3. Individual Development Plans 

Are employees encouraged to prepare Individual 

Development Plans for their personal growth and 

development? 


Planning & Results 

1. System Operating Plan Yes/No Comments 

Are System Operating Plans for the current and prior 

year 

included on the intranet? 

Do the plans include references and initiatives about 

quality 

elements and customer satisfaction? 

Do objectives link directly and/or support the LWC 

Strategic Plan? 

Is progress being made toward the goals on the plan? 

2. Process/NWT Operating Plans 

Do plans exist for the current year? 

Is progress being made toward the goals on the plan? 

Are process measurements in place where applicable? 

Does the system/process have “activity” and 

“performance” based measures? 

Customer Focus/Satisfaction 

1. External Customer Satisfaction Index (if applicable) Yes/No Comments 

Is improvement of the CSI part of the System Operating 

Plan? 

2. Internal Customer Satisfaction Survey 

Does the System Operating Plan include an objective to 

improve internal and/or external customer satisfaction? 

3. External/Internal Customer Feedback 

How is customer satisfaction data being collected and 

reviewed 

(i.e. focus groups, surveys, customer interviews, etc.)? 

Risk Management 

1. Risk Assessment Sheet/Plan Yes/No Comments 

Have the sheets been reviewed in the last 12 months? 

Have the SAC and/or NWT’s reviewed the risk 

assessments 

to verify their current validity? 


Have new risks been identified? 

Are the top risks being addressed in the System 

Operating Plan? 

Are employees aware of the top risks and controls in 

their process? 

Were any cross-functional risks identified, and if so, are 

controls in 

place to address those risks? 


1. Knowledge Management Research Yes/No Comments 

Has the system identified the critical operational 

knowledge that 

needs to be captured and retained for employees to 

access? 

2. Knowledge Management Action Plan 

Is there a documented Knowledge Management Action 

Plan in 

place with action items and deadline dates? 

How much progress has been completed on the action 

plan? 


Best Practices, Resources, Recommendations, Questions & Special 

Notes 

1. Best Practices (list below) 4. Questions 

2. Resources (list below) 5. Special Notes 


3. Recommendations (list below) 


Natural Work Team Observation Checklist 

Team 

Name 

Observer 

Name 

Meeting 


Team Meeting Logistics 

On time: Meeting starts on time and members are present. 

Minutes: Minutes are documented and approved. 

Agenda: Agenda includes sections for topics, outcomes, time allocation, & person 

responsible 

Agenda Items: Process/Operational Improvements, QWL, & Open Communication are 

agenda items. 

Prepared: Members are prepared for the meeting and responsible for commitments. 

Roles: Roles are defined and individuals are aware of their responsibility. 

Rotation: Leadership role and other roles rotate among members. 

Regular Meetings: Meetings are held at a regular time and place. 

Purpose: A clear understanding of the purpose for the meeting. 

Goals: Clear goals with measures that are reviewed and discussed. 

Team Dynamics 

Balanced Participation: All members are engaged in the discussion and add to the 

conversation without domination. 

Contributions: Differences of opinion are freely expressed and valued by others. 

Listening: Ideas and input are listened to by the team without interruption. 

Trust: Interactions are open and honest and members support and respect each other. 

Goals: Members appear to be headed in the same direction and on the same page. 

Tension: Differences and conflicts are resolved openly and constructively. 

Responsibility: The team takes responsibility for its successes/failures and does not blame 

others. 

Leadership Qualities 

Vision: Leader articulates big picture and communicates importance of goals and team to 

LWC. 

Expectations: Expectations for the team are clarified and explained when necessary. 


Delegation: Leader delegates responsibility and leadership to individuals in their area of 

expertise. 

Trust: Leader is open and honest, has no hidden agendas, and discusses key issues with 

the team. 

Feedback: Leader provides regular feedback about progress made by the team. 

Management: Leader manages team dynamics respectfully. 

Support: The leader removes barriers and provides support and resources for the 

members. 

Recognition: Praise is given in the meeting for successes. 

Comments: 

2008-2009 System Certifications 

Interview Questions/Discussion Points (Management) 

Section 1 – Systems Based Management 

1. What changes have occurred in your process / business system since the last certification? 

2. What is it that keeps you awake at night in relation to your job at LWC? 

3. What is your vision for your system/process for the next 2 to 3 years? 


Section 2 – Partnership Among Employees 

4. Which systems or processes does your system depend on most to perform your tasks? 

5. What efforts are being made by your employees to help improve communications and 

cooperation with the systems and processes that you just identified? 

6. Give me your personal assessment on how well your NWT and SAC teams are functioning? 

Section 3 – Quality of Work Life 

7. What type of “quality of work life” issues are you hearing from your employees and are you 

able to resolve them? 

8. Do you discuss “learning objectives” with your employees before they attend a particular 

training course? Do you meet with them after they complete the training course in order to 

determine if the learning objectives have been met? 

9. What kind of action plan do you have in place to ensure that your employees’ training 

needs are being met? 

Section 4 – Empowerment 

10. Can you provide me with some examples of how you empower your employees? 

11. Please explain how you conduct a Performance Partnership quarterly review with your 

employees. 

Section 5 – Planning and Results 

12. What kind of “workforce planning” are you doing to address any vacancies that you 

anticipate in the near future through retirements, turnover, etc.? 


13. What are some of the key challenges facing your process / system, and how are you 

planning to address them? 

14. How are you using measurement data to improve your work processes? 

Section 6 – Customer Focus 

15. What efforts are you making to focus on internal and/or external customer satisfaction? 

Section 7 – Risk Management 

16. What are the most critical risks facing your process / system and what kind of action plan(s) 

do you have in place to mitigate the risk? 

17. Are there any risks that are shared between your system and other systems/processes? If 

so, what are you and the other system/process managers doing together to address these 

risks? 

Section 8 – Knowledge Management 

18. Do you have your Knowledge Management action plan prepared? 

19. Tell me about the process you used to collect the data needed for your KM action plan. 

2008-2009 System Certifications 

Interview Questions/Discussion Points (Non-Management) 

Section 1 – Systems based Management 

1. Did you have any involvement in putting together the documents required for certification 

(i.e., Work Instructions, System/Process Organizational Chart, Synopsis Sheet, Relationship 

Chart, Flow Charts, Process Improvements, etc.) 

2. Are you able to access these documents on the intranet? 


Section 2 – Partnership Among Employees 

3. Which systems or processes do you depend on the most to get your job done? 

4. What efforts are you and your co-workers making to improve communications and 

cooperation with the systems/processes you just identified? 

5. How often does your Process NWT and System SAC team meet? 

6. What kind of topics do you cover in your NWT meetings? SAC meetings? 

Section 3 – Quality of Work Life 

7. How does your process/system address Quality of Work Life issues? 

8. What kind of training or personal development activities are you participating in? 

Section 4 – Empowerment 

(Note: Ask the employee to bring a copy of their 2008 performance goals to the interview meeting.) 

9. Can you give me some examples of how you are empowered to do your job? 

a. NON-UNION ONLY – Describe how your PO/BSO conducts his/her Performance 

Partnership reviews with you. Did you have a role in setting your performance goals? 

Did you talk about key competencies? 

b. Look at the employee’s performance goals to see if they meet the SMART criteria. If 

not, please provide them with some coaching on how to draft a SMART goal. 

Section 5 – Planning and Results 

10. Does your manager encourage you and others to submit Process and Operational 

Improvements? 

11. Have you personally submitted any within the last 12 months? 


12. What kind of measurements does your Process Owner track and share with you in 

meetings? 

13. Are there any measurements that you think should be tracked in your process? 

Section 6 – Customer Focus 

14. How are you collecting feedback from your internal and/or external customers on the 

services that you provide to them? 

15. How is the feedback used to improve customer service and satisfaction? 

Section 7 – Risk Management 

16. What do you consider to be the top risks for your particular job? 

15. How would you address the risk? 

Section 8 – Knowledge Management 

16. How is knowledge shared within your process/system? 

Other: 

Is there anything else pertaining to system certification that you would like to share with us? 



LWC Process & Operational Improvements 

Project Description: In January 2005, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System rolled 

out new procedures for submitting Process and Operational Improvements. Under the new 

procedures, LWC employees who submit documented improvements must identify: (1) past 

practice, (2) difficulty with the past practice, (3) description of the new practice, and (4) 

description of the outcome or results of the new practice. Operational Improvements have an 

additional requirement of a graph showing performance improvement over a period of time or 

against a goal or target. Managers review the improvements before they are submitted to OE 

where they are also reviewed before being counted in the yearly total. Process and 

Operational Improvements can be submitted by individuals or teams. 

Challenge: Originally, LWC only collected Operational Improvements, which placed the 

focus exclusively on “big-ticket” items that resulted in significant dollar savings to the company. 

However, we wanted employees to focus on continuous improvement in all areas (big and 

small) that may result in reducing unnecessary steps within a task, improving customer 

satisfaction, or reducing the amount of time it takes to complete a process. Therefore, the 

addition of Process Improvements was introduced to employees. 


Critical Success Factors: In 2005, LWC employees submitted a total of 103 Process 

Improvements and 15 Operational Improvements. In 2006, that number grew to 158 Process 

Improvements and 28 Operational Improvements. In 2007, 163 Process Improvements and 23 

Operational Improvements were submitted. We are currently running ahead of last year’s YTD 

total and anticipate breaking the record again in 2008. 

Cost: No costs noted. However, there have been significant dollar savings as a result of this 

practice (see attached summary of 2007 success) 

Benefits: See attached summary of 2007 success. 

Attachments provided: (6) 2005 Operational & Process Improvements Summary; 2006 

Operational & Process Improvements Summary Listing; 2007 Operational & Process 

Improvements Summary Listing; LWC Process Improvement Form; LWC Operational 

Improvement Form; Newsleaks Article on 2007 Process & Operational Improvements. 


_______________________ 

POC: 

Carl Blanton 



2005 Process / Operational Improvements 

CURRENT YTD TOTAL – 118 

(103 Process Improvements & 15 Operational Improvements) 

FACILITY DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE BUSINESS SYSTEM 

7 Process Improvements 

1. Lawn Maintenance for LWC Grounds 

2. Corporate HQ Interior Fountain Timers 

3. In-house Repairs for Security Access Control & Gate Systems 

4. Removal of Scrubs and Trees at BE Payne Lagoons 

5. Contract Document Distribution to Plan Rooms & Suppliers 

6. Process Fleet Allocation Sheet 

7. Establish Standard Division Document 

ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS BUSINESS SYSTEM 


1. ELT Forums/Visits 

2. LWC Orientation Information 

3. Quality Tools Intranet Folder 

4. Competency Linkage to LWC Training Programs 

5. New Hire & Transferred Employee Orientation Process 

6. I.T. Request Form and Welcome Letter 

7. DOW Training CEU’s 

8. Performance Management Matrix 

9. ICS Administration Improvements 

DISTRIBUTION OPERATIONS BUSINESS SYSTEM 


1. Project Tracking 

2. Prefab Steel Forms to Pour Concrete Tops & Bottoms 

3. Excavation Protocol 

4. Inventory of Polyethylene (HDPE) Emergency Repair Materials 

5. Equipment Theft Prevention 

6. Pipe Tongs for Transport & Installation of New Water Pipe 

7. C2 Digital Camera Process & Procedure 

8. Excavated Main & Materials Staging Area 

9. Flushing Examples & Standard Notifications 

10. National Standard Thread Flushing Cap Procedure 

11. Allmond Printing Center Upgrade 

1 Operational Improvement 

1. Development of the Magnetic Pickup Tool 


CUSTOMER SERVICE & PUBLIC INFORMATION 


1. SFO/Unauthorized Use of Water Responsibility Form 

2. IVR High Call Volume Message 

3. Marketing Teacher Workshops 

4. New & Improved Tapper 

5. Size on Size Service Procedure 

6. Set Meter/Discontinue SO 

7. Public Fire Hydrant Tracker Spreadsheet 

8. Updated Bullitt County Fire Hydrant Service Order Request Form 

9. Education Brochure 

10. Fed/EX/UPS Shipping Center Labels & Packaging 

11. Third Street Copy Paper Delivery 

12. Formation of Applicant Pool 

13. QA Coaching Report 

14. Formation of H2O Natural Work Team 

2 Operational Improvements 

1. Bottle Delivery for Smile Kentucky 

2. Revised Service Rules & Regulations [Cross-Functional Team] 

METERING SERVICES 


1. Metered Water Ratio 

2. Streamlined Meter Shop Inventory 

3. Tool Money Distribution 

4. New Unit Cost Measures 

5. Creation of Productivity Reports 

6. Stabilization of Meter Inventory 

7. Billing for Damages to Meter Vaults 


1. Duty Exchange Program 

2. Reduction of Service Order Creation 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES 


1. Application 1 – Inspectors 

2. Corporate Data Backup Improvement 

3. Backup-To-Disk Implementation 

4. Application 2 – Backflow 

5. Communication 1 


6. Spam Blocking 

7. Time Server 

8. Temperature Alert 

9. Third Street NAS 

10. KT NAS 

FINANCIAL RESOURCES 


1. Permit Data Base Improvements 

2. Inspector Forms – Material Out of Balance Report 

3. Budget Presentation 

4. Improved Budget Forecasting 

5. Improved Forecasting for Long-Range Consumption 

6. Mandatory Direct Deposit 

7. Elevated Area Surcharge for Water Rates Analyzed 

8. Report for Actual Costs for a Project for a Specific Year 

9. Balancing Information Sent From Projects to the General Ledger 

10. W-9 Form through Email 

11. Attendance at B&A Committee Meetings 

12. Bid Folder Checkout 

13. Bids Received Affidavit 

14. Outsourcing of Business Card Ordering 

15. Cell Phone Reporting 

16. Decentralizing of Copier Reporting 

17. Good Faith Effort Documents Revision 

18. Procurement’s Legal Ad Corner 

19. Prequalification Application Revised and Available in Word and PDF Format 

20. Prequalification Label Enhancements 

21. Quote Form 

22. Subcontractor Utilization Payment Report 

23. Discoverer Report of Top 25 Suppliers 

24. Approval Confirmation Slip 

PIPELINE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION 


1. BC Office Backup Cashier 

2. BC Office Trouble Alert Notification 

3. BCEP Frequently Asked Questions Customer Service Brochure 

4. Reimbursement for Defective Materials [Cross-Functional] 

5. Addition of Active Projects to GIS SPIN Browser 

6. Bi-Lingual Project Notification Envelopes 

7. Boil Water Advisory Notification for Inspectors 

8. Project Documentation Status Board 

9. Color Prints – Inspector & Contractor 


1. Dechlorination Venturi Apparatus 

2. Service Installation Data Sheet/Lead Service Info 


BUSINESS RISK 


1. Fire Hydrant Recoveries Process 

2. Defective Materials Process 

HUMAN RESOURCES & LABOR RELATIONS 

1 Process Improvement 

1. HR Attendance Report 

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING 


1. Pipe Evaluation Model Update 

2. Open Meter Vaults – Safety Hazard 

3. Creating Cycle Boundary Maps 

1 Operational Improvement 

1. Storage Tank Alternatives 

WATER QUALITY & PRODUCTION 


1. Cost Cutting Strategy – Utility Accounts for System 

2. Managing Water Quality & Production Intranet Website 

3. Operating Water Production Facilities & Equipment Documentation Improvement 

4. Filter Monitoring Program 

5. Lime Trough Cleaning at Payne Plant 

6. Quality Environmental, Health and Safety Inspection 


1. HACH 1720D Filter Turbidimeters 

2. Improvements in Plant Process – Hydraulic Limitations on South Filters 

3. Improvement in Plant Process – Ferric Chloride 

4. Improvements in Distribution Water Quality 

5. Improvement in Distribution Water Quality Sampling 

6. Improvements in New Construction Water Quality Sampling 

7. Improvements in Suspicious Water Sampling - Communications & Analysis 





Facility Design, Construction & Maintenance 

13 Process Improvements: 

1. Conceptual Design Template for CFR [Community Facility Review] 

2. Routine Files – Specifications 

3. Dumpster’s Signage 

4. Trailer Ramp Lifter 

5. Third Street – Exhaust Fan Scheduled Operation 

6. Consolidation of Tank Data 

7. Contractor Performance Evaluation Form 

8. Managing Escrow Accounts 

9. Induction Loops for Gates 

10. Third Street HVAC Controls – Remote Access 

11. Project File Format 

12. Pre-Bid Meeting Agenda 

13. Contract Language (NTE vs. Lump Sum) 

1 Operational Improvement: 

1. Standardization of Bottled Water to Jefferson County Public School System 

Supporting Organizational Effectiveness 


1. OEI Survey Improvements 

2. System Certification Review of SAC & NWT’s 

3. LWC Executive Management Competencies & Definitions 

4. Leadership Competency Development Process 

5. LWC Leadership Competency Profile and 360 Feedback Process 

6. Meeting Minutes Template 

7. Recognition Process Guide 

8. Safety Recognition Program 

Managing Distribution Operations 


1. Operations and Engineering Intranet Web Site 

2. Compact Digital Video Camera 

3. LWC Repair Procedures for HDPE Pipe Materials 

4. Monthly Housekeeping Audits 


5. Distribution Truck Cycle Count 

6. Computer-Based Training for Vehicular Accidents 

7. Fire Hydrant Program Reorganization 

8. Crew Manuals 

9. Improved Tracking of Uniform Purchases 

10. Coordination of Garage Parking 

11. Emergency Turners Manual 

12. Hydrant Bury Depth Schematic 

13. Hydraulic Calculation Form 

14. Fire Hydrant Photo Journal 

15. Large Vault Lid Improvement 

16. Heavy Equipment Training Procedures for Backhoes & Excavators 

17. Crew Leaders Assisting With Construction Estimates 

18. E-Requisition and Return Process for Inventory 

19. Bilingual BWA Improvement 

20. Planning Work Space Shared Drive Improvement 

21. Distribution System Materials Training 

22. Main Break Planning Response & Notification 

23. Point Renewal Proximity Scheduling 

9 Operational Improvements: 

1. Pre-fabricated Rebar Anchors 

2. Stoll Construction and Paving LWC Invoice 

3. Segregation of Scrap Metal 

4. Fire Hydrant Servicing Productivity 

5. Contractual Services Invoice Verification 

6. Cross Business Fire Hydrant Team 

7. Coordination of Capital Project Charges 

8. Digital Camera Process for Field and First Response Personnel 

9. Ownership of Construction Equipment 

Providing Customer & Public Information 


1. Process for Discontinue/Kill Service Orders 

2. Tracker File Folder 

3. ADJDO Utility Contract 

4. Assigning Attachment Number / Updating Attach Database 

5. Tax ID/Soc. Sec. 

6. Master Meter Customer Forms/Process 

7. Cell Phone # 

8. Non-billed Public Fire Hydrant Application 

9. Bill Message Request 

10. FDM Path in E-CIS 

11. High Bill Protocol Letter 

12. Bill Statement Update 

13. Activity Code Revision 

14. LWC Small Scale Filter Design 

15. Postcard Evaluation 

16. Balancing Method for NSA Checks Received 

17. Electronic Survey 

18. Daily Deposit Reporting 


19. Payment@LWCKY.COM Email Address 

20. Cashiers Shared Computer Drive 

21. Coordinator in Cash Remittance Area 

22. Third Party Bill Payer with Checks 

23. Computer in Daily Balancing Area 

24. Bellarmine Education Program 

25. Mail Room Back-up 


1. Electronic Remittance 

2. Currency Counting 

Metering Services 


1. Revision of Meter Vault Lid Specifications 

2. UPS Security Access 

3. Field Staff AMR (Radio Read Training) 

4. Office Staff Cross-Training 

5. Security of Tools and Equipment 

6. Tracking Overtime to Fill Odd Shifts 

7. New Door Tags 

8. Indemnification Form 

9. Retro-Fit Bill Message 

10. Redistribution of Districts 

11. ¾” Meter Set on Bypass 

12. Large Meter Renovate Service Orders 

13. Dust Suppression on Quickie Saws 

14. Cross-training Crew Leaders 

15. Towing Fee 

16. Fire Service Meter Conversion 

17. Automated MIU/Meter Creation in FDM 


1. Vacuum Excavation Savings 

2. 10” vs. 12” Material Savings for New Services 

3. Miscellaneous Fee Charge 

4. Profiling 

5. Damaged Facility Reimbursements 

6. Support Incident Resolution 

Supplying I.T. Resources 

1 Process Improvement: 

1. Customer Payment Extensions 

(Note: I.T. employees played an active role on several other process/operational improvements submitted by other 

systems.) 


Supplying Financial Resources 


1. Prequalification Reference Request 

2. KEND Added to Contract Files 

3. Tracking of Bids to B&A 

4. Project Labor Balancing with the General Ledger 

5. Detail Capital Project Status Report 

6. Bid Opening Schedule 

7. Verification of Advertisement to Courier Journal 

8. Enhancements to Subcontractor Utilization Payment Reporting 

9. File Centralization of Change Orders & Change Action Forms 

10. Cingular Cell Phone Usage Report 

11. Supplier Site in I-Procurement 

12. Active Contracts – Contract Management Process 

13. Prequalification Financial Alert / Performance Status Flowchart Update 

14. Creation of Process Flow Chart – Request for Proposals for Competitive Negotiations or Professional 

Services 

15. Prequalification Removal Form 

16. Daily Cash Remittance Reporting & Reconciliation 

17. FA (Fixed Assets) Retirement 

18. Final Checks 

19. Holiday Reporting 

20. Mass Additions Validation 

21. Misc. 95 Report 

22. Timecards 

23. Union Dues Report 

24. Required Invoice Language in Bids for All MDO Projects 

25. Update of Prequalification Re-Evaluation to Only Run Dun & Bradstreet Report Every 6 years Instead of 2 

years 

26. Facility Maps for Capital Projects (Assets) 

27. CPAC & President Approval Notification Email 

28. Elevated Service Area Asset Allocation for Water Rates 

29. Calculation of Monthly Fleet Entry 

30. Holiday Week Payroll Processing 

Pipeline Design & Construction 


1. Meter Exchange During Capital Main Service Replacement Projects 

2. Weekly Cost Report for Capital Projects 

3. Additional Task Numbers for Capital Construction Crew Projects 

4. Decision Matrix – Lead Service Renewals 

5. Designate Required Signatures on Change Action 

6. Assignment of Tapping Fee Contract Numbers 

7. LOJIC Application to Indicate CSO Locations 

8. MRRP Planning Scope and Cost Estimating 

9. Bacti Sample Isolation Bag 

10. Inspector Form Oracle Application 


11. Archiving Project Folders (Combining Inspector File and Project Management File) 

12. Preconstruction Checklist for Developer Installed Projects 

13. Annual Flushing Meter Maintenance 

14. Paper Work Completion Process for Developer Installed Projects 

15. Combined KDOT Encroachment & Service Permit 

16. Monuments for Locating Transmission Mains 


1. Service Sleeve Installation Pilot Program 

2. Materials Requisitions & Returns 

3. Defective/Damaged Materials Returns 

Managing Business Risk 


1. After Hours Drug Testing Procedures 

2. Tracking of New Lawsuits 

3. Reporting Incidents at Corporate Headquarters 

4. Tracking of Replacement of Access Cards 

5. Cost Allocation for Worker’s Compensation Claims 


1. Auto Liability Claims Cost Allocation Revision 

Supplying Human Resources & Labor Relations 


1. Job Opening Notification Form 

2. Benefits Billing 

3. Leave Accrual Process 

4. FMLA Tracking Sheet 

5. CIGNA Premium Report for Short-Term & Long-Term Disability 

6. Checklist for Retirement, Leave of Absence, Termination and Offer of Employment 

7. Employee Self Service & Self Service Stations 

8. Union Pay and Step Increasing Processing 

9. Three-Tier Retiree Contribution Schedule 

10. Missed Time Incident Report 

11. HR Attendance Report 

12. Pay Change Process 


1. Benefits Change Process 

2. Online Recruiting (External Applicants) 

3. Online Open Enrollment 


Infrastructure Planning 


1. Fixed Base RTK-GPS Phone Tethering 

2. Operations and Engineering Intranet Web Site 

3. Post Processing GIS Field Collected Data 

4. Automated GIS Data Transfer & Export Process 

5. Revise Easement Plat Drafting Standards 


1. Mobile GIS - Tadpole 

Managing Water Quality & Production 


1. Continued Improvement in Water Quality 

2. Managing Water Quality & Production Intranet Website 

3. Maintaining Tank Aviation Obstruction Lighting 


1. Improvements in Customer Water Quality Complaints 

2. Improvements in Main Break Sampling 

FINAL TOTALS 




Facility Design, Construction & Maintenance 


1. Unfinished Area Floor Improvement (1 st Qtr 07) (Submitted first by PCPI; shared with Facilities 

Management) 

2. New Light Pole at Hwy 44 Fill Station (3 rd Qtr 07) 

3. Capital Projects: Internet Access to Existing Condition Photographs (3 rd Qtr 07) 

4. Addition of Fixed Ladder to Allow Easier Access to Lower Elevation Lab Roof (4 th Qtr 07) 


5. Improve Security at Crescent Hill Chlorine Building Access Gates (4 th Qtr 07) 

6. Installed Roll Bar on Lawn Mower (4 th Qtr 07) 

7. Project Status Report Form Modifications (4 th Qtr 07) 

8. Improve Agenda Item Follow-Up for NWT Meetings (4 th Qtr 07) 

9. Typical Guideline for Project Manager Assistance to Right-of-Way Specialist for Property Acquisition for 

Tank, Pump Station or Other Facilities (4 th Qtr 07) 

10. Small Contract Review and Routing Memo (4 th Qtr 07) 

11. Customer Survey Form Improvement (4 th Qtr 07) 


1. Streamlined Pure Tap Bottling Production (4 th Qtr 07) 

Supporting Organizational Effectiveness 


1. Performance Evaluation and Performance Planning Quick Reference Guides - Managers & Employee 

Versions (1 st Qtr 07) 

2. Guidelines for use of Training Room A (1 st Qtr 07) 

3. System Certification ELT Bin List Notice (2 nd Qtr 07) 

4. Focus Group Scope Document and Protocol Worksheet (3 rd Qtr 07) 

5. Sample Year-End Performance Partnership Reviews (4 th Qtr 07) 


Managing Distribution Operations 


1. Trench Shield Catalog & Safe Handling Instructions (1 st Qtr 07) 

2. Trench Shoring for Water Main Tees & Crosses (1 st Qtr 07) 

3. Two Person Service Maintenance (2 nd Qtr 07) 

4. Keytube Maintenance Prioritization (4 th Qtr 07) 

5. B62B Fire Hydrant Renovation Project (4 th Qtr 07) 

6. Low Flow Hydrant Management Process Developed (4 th Qtr 07) 

7. SCADA Software on MDO Engineer Computer (4 th Qtr 07) 

8. Allmond MDO Photo Library (4 th Qtr 07) 

9. Morning Report Water Temperature Improvement (4 th Qtr 07) 

10. Spoils Agreement (4 th Qtr 07) 

11. Fire Hydrant Replacement Prioritization (4 th Qtr 07) 

12. BC Facility In-Service Memo to Allmond MDO (4 th Qtr 07) 


1. Safe Working Distances/Pressurized Valves & Components (1 st Qtr 07) 

2. Barricade Rehabilitation (1 st Qtr 07) 


3. MDO Truck Inventory Controls (2 nd Qtr 07) 

4. Backhoe & Hydraulic Excavator Training Program (3 rd Qtr 07) 

5. Improved Pre-fabricated Concrete Forms (3 rd Qtr 07) 

6. Rental Protection Insurance for Rental Equipment (4 th Qtr 07) 

7. Managing Distribution Operations Budget Process (4 th Qtr 07) 

8. Managing Distribution Operations Warehouse Improvements (4 th Qtr 07) 

9. Overtime Reports Automated (4 th Qtr 07) 

Providing Customer & Public Information 


1. Unfinished Area Floor Improvement (1 st Qtr 07) (Submitted first by PCPI; shared with Facilities 

Management) 

2. Germ Models for Clean Hands Up1 (1 st Qtr 07) 

3. Education Lab Coat (1 st Qtr 07) 

4. Pure Tap Bottle Flier (2 nd Qtr 07) 

5. Monthly Side-by-Side Schedule (2 nd Qtr 07) 

6. Monthly Floor Walk (2 nd Qtr 07) 

7. Whole Team Natural Work Team – Team Meeting (Reinstated) 

8. Pure Tap Bottle Flier (2 nd Qtr 07) 

9. Call Center Shared Drive Pure Tap Bottle Flier (2 nd Qtr 07) 

10. New Metric Weighting System (2 nd Qtr 07) 

11. Misapplied Payment Notification Letter (2 nd Qtr 07) 

12. Third Party Payment Account # Update (2 nd Qtr 07) 

13. Updated Change Order Form (2 nd Qtr 07) 

14. Water Bottle Tracking (2 nd Qtr 07) 

15. Cashier Test (2 nd Qtr 07) 

16. Apportionment Warrant Search Query (Query Name: AWFIND) (2 nd Qtr 07) 

17. Customer Payment Extensions (2 nd Qtr 07) 

18. Pool ID (2 nd Qtr 07) 

19. Quality Assurance Program (2 nd Qtr 07) 

20. EFT Forms and Voided Checks (2 nd Qtr 07) 

21. Irrigation Retro-fit letters to Customers Through ECIS (3 rd Qtr 07) 

22. FH Attachment Number Accountability (3 rd Qtr 07) 

23. SOPP Edit for Commercial Property (3 rd Qtr 07) 

24. LWC Small Scale Filter Design (3 rd Qtr 07) 

25. ADJIR – Adjustment Information Received (4 th Qtr. 07) 

26. Adjustment Status (4 th Qtr. 07) 

27. Improvement of New Service Application Form (4 th Qtr. 07) 


1. Remote Capture Check Processing (2 nd Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Susan Camp; Shared with Financial 

Resources) 

2. LWC Customer Billhead Scanning (3 rd Qtr 07) 


Metering Services 


1. Magnetic Key Vault Lid Removal (2 nd Qtr 07) 

2. Delinquent Fire Service Accounts (2 nd Qtr 07) 

3. Disconnect Work File / Field Notices (2 nd Qtr 07) 

4. Bankruptcy Streamlining (2 nd Qtr 07) 

5. Retro-fit Advertisement in CCR (2 nd Qtr 07) 

6. Old Accounts to Collection Agency (Submitted first by Metering Services; Shared with IT) (4 th Qtr 07) 

7. COLMS – Collections Miscellaneous (4 th Qtr 07) 

8. New Collection Group (LARGE)/DSCN (4 th Qtr 07) 

9. Radio Dispatch Support (4 th Qtr 07) 

10. SFOTN Improvements/Revitalization (4 th Qtr 07) 

11. SFO Hotline – (502) 569-3600 x SFOS (4 th Qtr 07) 

12. SFO Edits (4 th Qtr 07) 

13. AMR Drive Route Mapping (4 th Qtr 07) 

14. Daily Read Schedule Report (4 th Qtr 07) 

15. Meter Dial Reference Materials (4 th Qtr 07) 

16. Rainsuit Improvements (4 th Qtr 07) 

17. AMR Antenna Fix (4 th Qtr 07) 

18. Camera Purchase (Repair Leaders) (4 th Qtr 07) 

19. Cross-Training Effort (4 th Qtr 07) 

20. Duty Exchange Service Order Dispatching (4 th Qtr 07) 

21. Forklift Qualification (4 th Qtr 07) 

22. Meter Inventory Tracker (4 th Qtr 07) 

23. Posting Productivity Data (4 th Qtr 07) 

24. Pressure Testing Equipment (4 th Qtr 07) 

25. Use of Planner Eraser Board (4 th Qtr 07) 

26. RDAMR and RFFIX Field Documentation (4 th Qtr 07) 

27. Tool Box Spare Keys (4 th Qtr 07) 

28. Meter Shop Garage Inventory Organization (4 th Qtr 07) 

29. Transfer of AMR MIU Number Information from C2 Personnel to Metering Services Personnel 

(Submitted first by Metering Services; Shared with Distribution Operations) (4 th Qtr 07) 

30. Updating ECIS When a Defective Dial is Exchanged in the Meter Shop With a New Dial Reading Zero (4 th 

Qtr 07) 

31. Groove Lock Pliers (4 th Qtr 07) 

32. Reading of UPS Meters (4 th Qtr 07) 

33. Jeep Inventory (4 th Qtr 07) 


1. Meter Shop – Capitalize Labor Used Building Meter Batteries (Submitted first by Metering Services; 

Shared with Financial Resources) (4 th Qtr 07) 

2. AMR MIU Warranty (4 th Qtr 07) 

3. Meter Pit Extension Rings (4 th Qtr 07) 

4. Large Meter UME Replacement (4 th Qtr) 

Supplying I.T. Resources 



1. Federal Taxes on Bonus Checks (3 rd Qtr.07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with Financial Resources) 

2. General Billing Edit (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT) 

3. Close Gap in OFFNP Service Order Dates and Readings (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT) 

4. Preventing Payroll Problems Because of Tablespace (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with 

Financial Resources) 

5. Balancing Yearly CERS Against Gross Wages (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with 

Financial Resources) 

6. Costing Codes Transfer to PeopleSoft (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT; Shared with Financial 

Resources) 

7. Creating Production Emergency Payrolls and Test Payrolls in PeopleSoft (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by 

IT; Shared with Financial Resources) 

8. Meter reading Database & Improved Reporting/Data Integrity (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by IT) 


1. Meter Read Upload and Table Population (3 rd Qtr 07) 

Supplying Financial Resources 


1. Outstanding Paychecks (4 th Qtr 07) 

2. Self-Service on Terminated Employees (4 th Qtr 07) 

3. Meal Money Check Issuance (4 th Qtr 07) 

4. Data Collection of Subcontractor Utilization Dollars (4 th Qtr 07) 

5. Modified GFE Language & Forms For Master Agreements (4 th Qtr 07) 

6. Include LWC Guard in Distribution List for Bid Opening Schedule (4 th Qtr 07) 

7. Intranet Redesign (4 th Qtr 07) 

8. Procurement Card Communication Tool (4 th Qtr 07) 

9. Proposal Submittal Review (4 th Qtr 07) 

10. Expansion of Contract Rangers (4 th Qtr 07) 

11. Preventing Payroll Problems Because of Tablespace (4 th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by IT; Count only in 

SFR total) 

12. Pay Discrepancy Costing (4 th Qtr 07) 

13. KIA Grant Pay Request Invoice (4 th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Pipeline Design; Count only in SFR 

total) 

14. W2 Reprints (4 th Qtr 07) 

15. Streamline Developer Installed Accounts Payable (4 th Qtr 07) 

16. Creating Production Emergency Payrolls and Test Payrolls in PeopleSoft (4 th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by 

IT; Count for SFR total only) 

17. Tuition Reimbursement off of Final Checks (4 th Qtr 07) 

18. Balancing Yearly CERS Against Gross Wages (Submitted first by IT; Count in SFR total only) (4 th Qtr 

07) 

19. Costing Codes Transfer to PeopleSoft (Submitted first by IT; Count in SFR total only) (4 th Qtr 07) 

20. Federal Taxes on Bonus Checks (Submitted first by IT; Count in SFR total only) (4 th Qtr 07) 

21. Kentucky and Indiana State Withholding Forms on Intranet (Submitted first Financial Resources) (4 th Qtr 

07) 

22. Prequalification of Fire Hydrants) (Submitted first by Financial Resources) (4 th Qtr 07) 

23. Procurement Card Email Notification (4 th Qtr 07) 

24. Add Information on the GFE Program to Prequalification Re-Evaluation and New Evaluation Letters (4 th 

Qtr 07) 

25. Blackberry Cell Phone Devices (4 th Qtr 07) 


26. Pagers (Reconciliation of Active vs. Unused Pagers) (4 th Qtr 07) 

27. SPLASH Instructions (4 th Qtr 07) 

28. W9 Forms (4 th Qtr 07) 

29. Revised Procurement Strategy For New Services Bid (Submitted first by Financial Resources; Shared 

with Distribution Operations) (4 th Qtr 07) 

30. New Multifunction Machines That Copy, Print and Scan (4 th Qtr 07) 

31. Purchase Order Supplier Items (4 th Qtr 07) 

32. GFE Requirements Documentation Review (4 th Qtr 07) 


1. Remote Capture Check Processing (4 th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Susan Camp; Count in SFR total 

only) 

Pipeline Design & Construction 


1. Process for LWC Customers to Get Service Lines Back Flushed After Planned Water Shut-offs (3 rd Qtr 07) 

2. Requirement for Curb Installation Prior to Placing the Main in Service (3 rd Qtr 07) 

3. Re-winterizing Fire Hydrants Used by Inspection Personnel During Water Main Construction Phases (3 rd 

Qtr 07) 

4. Bullitt County Customer Communications (Toll Free Number) (3 rd Qtr 07) 

5. Program for Calculating the Tapping Fee With Grant Funding (3 rd Qtr 07) 

6. Transfer of the BCEP 2/3’s Petition Service Application Fee (3 rd Qtr 07) 

7. Project Manager’s Meeting For New Development Extensions Project (3 rd Qtr 07) 

8. Placement and removal of “NO PARKING” Signs Issued by Louisville Metro Public Works (LWPC) 

through Parking Authority of River City (PARC) for Capital Projects (4 th Qtr. 07) 

9. Project Notification for GIS Mapping (4 th Qtr. 07) 

10. Follow-Up for Relocation Inquiries that Require Additional Action (4 th Qtr. 07) 

11. Employee PTO Request to Process Owner (PO) (4 th Qtr. 07) 

12. Rechargeable Batteries for Inspection Areas (4 th Qtr. 07) 

13. KIA Grant Pay Request Invoice (4 th Qtr. 07) (Submitted first by Pipeline Design & Construction; 

Shared with Financial Resources) 

14. BCWIP Grant Log (4 th Qtr 07) 

15. Deferral of the BCEP 2/3’s Petition Tapping Fee (4 th Qtr 2007) 

16. Project Name Identification for Projects in our Regional Water Service Area (4 th Qtr 07) 

17. Creation of Database to Track Quality of Work Life Issues for PD&C System Advisory Council (4 th Qtr 

07) 


1. Revision to Lead Brochure and Notification Letter (4 th Qtr. 07) 

Managing Business Risk 

1 Process Improvement: 

1. Lobby Security Post Daily Routine Reference List (4 th Qtr 07) 



Supplying Human Resources & Labor Relations 


1. Employee New Hire/Separation Notification (4 th Qtr 07) 

2. Extending PeopleSoft Employee Self-Service (ESS) Security Past Termination Date – Submitted first by 

HRLR) (4 th Qtr 07) 

3. Development of 457 Three Year Catch-up Worksheet (4 th Qtr 07) 

4. Union Rule 61 (Sick Leave) Process & Report Changes (Submitted first by HR; Shared with IT) (4 th Qtr 

07) 

5. Attendance Bonus PeopleSoft Processing (Submitted first by HR; Shared with IT and Payroll) (4 th Qtr 

07) 

6. Sick Payout PeopleSoft Processing (Submitted first by HR; Shared with IT and Finance) (4 th Qtr 07) 

7. PeopleSoft Manager Direct Access & Home Page (4 th Qtr 07) 

8. SHR/LR Benefits Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s and HROE Intranet Home Page (4 th Qtr 07) 

9. Maintenance Mechanic Advancement Program (4 th Qtr 07) 

10. Recruitment Process – Skills Testing for CSR Positions (4 th Qtr) (Shared with CPI) 

11. Recruitment/Interviewing Process – Phone Screens for CSR Positions (4 th Qtr 07) 


Infrastructure Planning 


1. Capital Projects Authorization Committee (CPAC) Intranet Site (Submitted by cross functional team but 

credited to Engineering/Planning) (1 st Qtr 07) 

2. Retired Services (4 th Qtr 07) 

3. LWC-JCFD Partnership, Private Hydrant Point Layers (4 th Qtr 07) 

4. LWC-JCFD Partnership, Preliminary Fire Hydrant Layer (4 th Qtr 07) 


Managing Water Quality & Production 


1. BPS-PRV-Tank-Master Meter Information Booklet Updates (4 th Qtr 07) 

2. Improved Fabrication of the Chlorine Pipe Nipples (4 th Qtr 07) 

3. Natural Work Team Restructuring (4 th Qtr 07) 

4. Storage Issue in CHFP Chemical Building (4 th Qtr 07) 

5. Key Process Indicator Subteam (4 th Qtr 07) 

6. Enhancements to the Cross-Connection Control Program (4 th Qtr 07) 

7. Training & Tracking of Essential Filter Plant Maintenance Skills (DPT System) (4 th Qtr 07) 

8. Better Identification of Unknown Water Samples Using THM as an Indicator (4 th Qtr 07) 

9. TCR Sites Geospatial Database Creation (4 th Qtr 07) 

10. Curry Crossing and Stoneridge Landing Hydropneumatic Booster Pump Stations Pump and Motor 

Reliability Improvements (4 th Qtr 07) 

11. Complete ReBuilt of Mixing Paddle Operation for North Coag Floc Mixing Basin #2 (4 th Qtr. 07) 



1. Tank Nitrification Monitoring Modifications (4 th Qtr 07) 

2. Optimized Tank Management Activity Improvement (4 th Qtr 07) (Submitted first by Managing Water 

Quality and Production) 

3. Flushing Leader Optimization Strategy Improvements (4 th Qtr 07) 

4. Hydrodyne Method for Fluoride for Operations (4 th Qtr 07) 

5. Expansion of WQ Analytical Capabilities for Managing Regrowth in Distribution Systems (4 th Qtr 07) 


LWC Process Improvement 


Name of Individuals or Team Involved: 

Date: 

Name of the Improvement: 

Past Practice: 

Difficulty with the Past Practice: 

New Practice: 

Outcome: (Quantify the results of the new practice/program, not the activities taken to achieve the results. Briefly describe results). 


Insert chart or supporting documentation here (optional) 


Improvement 

Operational 

Business System: 

Name of Individuals or Team Involved: 

DATE: 

NAME OF IMPROVEMENT: 

Past Practice: Provide a short description of the past practice/process used. 

Difficulty with the Past Practice: Provide a brief description of what problems or difficulties were caused by the past practice and how the practice 

impacted the quality, service or value of the service/product provision. 

New Practice: Describe the goal established to correct or overcome the difficulty with the past practice. Note changes implemented and how the new 

practice positively impacts quality, service or value. Describe changes in activities, procedures or process. 

Outcome: Describe the goal established to correct or overcome the difficulty with the past practice. Note changes implemented and how the new 

practice positively impacts quality, service or value. Describe changes in activities, procedures or process. 

A graph must be submitted below showing an improvement trend over time between past and the new practice, including performance against the goal or 

target. 



188 Process/Operational Improvements Submitted in 2007 

Carl Blanton, Supporting Organizational Effectiveness 

2007 was another successful year for submitting Process and Operational Improvements by LWC employees, 

natural work teams, and several cross-functional teams. The seeds for this success were actually planted three years 

ago. 

In January 2005, Supporting Organizational Effectiveness (SOE) rolled out new procedures for submitting Process 

and Operational Improvements. Under the new procedures, employees must identify: (1) past practice, (2) difficulty 

with the past practice, (3) description of the new improvement, and (4) description of the outcome or results from 

the new improvement. Operational Improvements have an additional requirement of a graph showing performance 

improvement over a period of time or against a goal or target. Managers review the improvements before they are 

submitted to SOE where they are reviewed a second time before being counted in the yearly totals. 

In 2005, the new procedures resulted in LWC employees submitting a total of 103 Process Improvements and 15 

Operational Improvements. That number grew in 2006 to 158 Process Improvements and 28 Operational 

Improvements. In 2007, we anticipated a decrease in the number of improvements because of the high volume 

submitted in 2006. Surprisingly, that was not the case. In 2007, LWC employees submitted 165 Process 

Improvements and 23 Operational Improvements. 

Here are a few examples of Operational Improvements submitted in 2007: 

• Facility Management streamlined their production methods resulting in a savings of approximately $11,500 in 

Pure Tap production costs. 

• Managing Distribution Operations (MDO) implemented a “Barricade Rehabilitation” pilot program resulting 

in rehabilitating damaged barricades at $5.00 per barricade versus a replacement cost of $29.47 per barricade. 

The cost savings from the pilot program was $1,468. 

• Employees from MDO/SPLASH NWT designed a new type of aluminum concrete form used for pouring 

concrete for large vault lids resulting in an annual savings of $3,924. 

• MDO, Supplying Financial Resources (SFR), and Internal Audit implemented several initiatives to improve 

the Warehouse Inventory Control Process resulting in a reduction of the Net Adjustment from $350,800 in 2006 

to $23,004 in 2007. 

• Providing Customer & Public Information (PCPI) and SFR implemented electronic scanning using a 

process known as “remote capture” that resulted in an approximate $16,000 annual increase in interest income. 

• Metering Maintenance and Warehouse Services Processes implemented the practice of installing “Meter Pit 

Extension Rings” to raise vaults to the desired height levels. The results include a reduction in material costs 

from $314 to $23.25 per service order including a reduction in labor costs. The estimated savings in the 4 th 

quarter based on 30 service orders was $13,149. 

• Managing Water Quality & Research consolidated their multi-department tank data into one comprehensive 

database. This information allowed them to combine a Capital Project and O&M initiative involving the 

Cardinal Hill 30 MG Reservoir (CHR) into one simultaneous effort. The tank was drained once instead of 

twice, and a savings of $12,800 was realized by performing the work with LWC employees instead of 

contractual services. An additional savings of $59,500 was realized after it was determined that a chemical 

cleaning agent would not be needed on the tank wall and column surface area. 

These are just a few of many examples demonstrating how LWC employees are focusing on continuous quality 

improvement by combining TQO resources and tools with their individual skills, knowledge and expertise. SOE 


wants to thank and congratulate all employees for this success and particularly acknowledge the following systems 

for leading the way in 2007. 

• Most Operational Improvements submitted: Managing Distribution Operations (9) 

• Most Process Improvements submitted: Metering Services (33) 

• Most combined Process & Operational Improvements submitted: Metering Services (37) 

In addition, we want to acknowledge the efforts of Supplying Financial Resources for submitting a total of 33 

Process/Operational Improvements, and Providing Customer and Public Information for their submission of 29 

Process/Operational Improvements in 2007. 

Thank you for a job well done! 



LWC Talent Resource Planning/ Succession Management 

Project Description: In 2005, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System developed and 

implemented the Talent Resource Planning process. A template was created called the Talent 

Resource Planning form (TRP) to provide LWC with data to assess our level of bench strength 

for all management classifications. Specifically, the TRP provides the following data: 

• A progress report on the most recent developmental activities completed by the 

employee. 

• Information regarding specific management training needs within the organization. 

• Strategic and organizational planning through the identification of areas where there is 

sufficient bench strength and/or gaps in leadership. 

• An overall assessment of the knowledge, skills, experience, and potential of LWC’s 

management team. 

• The “readiness state” of potential candidates for future management positions and their 

potential back-ups. 

• Key developmental questions that managers may have regarding their direct reports. 

The TRP’s are completed on a two-year alternating cycle. TRP’s for the executive and director 

(BSO’s) levels are updated in odd-number years. TRP’s for supervisors (PO’s) and managers 

are updated in even-numbered years. If an employee is identified as a potential candidate for 

another position, the manager will list that position along with their opinion as to the “readiness 

state” of that employee (i.e. Ready Now – RN; Ready in 1 to 2 years – R1; Ready in 3 years – 

R3; or Future Talent – FT). 

Challenge: The initial challenge is that some managers (BSO’s) wanted their direct reports 

(PO’s) to complete the TRP’s on themselves. That’s not the purpose of the process. Some 

managers may not be comfortable in telling their direct reports that they may not be viewed as a 

potential successor. 


Critical Success Factors: Since implementing this process, LWC has current data on the 

potential successors for each management position (if any were identified for that position) and 

their “readiness state.” We have also been able to use this data to identify critical training needs 

and develop new training programs and experiences to address those gaps. For example, we 

currently know that our bench strength lies in the area of having solid talent resource pools to fill 

positions within our Engineering and Operations Departments. We are lacking bench strength 

in our support departments such as finance, I.T. and HR (however, these positions will be easier 

to fill from the job market if necessary). Employees benefit from candid discussions with their 

managers regarding their strengths and opportunities for development, which can be transferred 

to their Individual Development Plans (see next Project Description below). The TRP is also a 

tool that is used by HR in making decisions on whether to post management position internally, 

or both internally and externally. 


Cost: No cost noted. 

Benefits: Improved knowledge of bench strength and gaps; training needs to be addressed; 

and candid conversations with employees on their career development and growth within the 

company. 

Attachments provided: Talent Resource Form FINAL 


__________________________ 

POC: 

Carl Blanton 



Content in their Talent Resource Form: 

LOUISVILLE WATER COMPANY 

Talent Resource Planning 

Name: 

Job Title: 

Date in Position: 

Hire Date: 

Education: 

Certification(s): 

Edited Date/Initials: 

Developmental Actions Taken Since Last Review: 

Key Strengths: 

Areas to Develop: 

Key Developmental Questions(s): 

Employee’s Career Goals: 

Candidate for: 

1.___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 

3.___________________________________ 

Back-up Candidates: 

1.___________________________________ 

2.___________________________________ 

3.___________________________________ 

Readiness: ______________ 

Readiness: ______________ 

Readiness: ______________ 

Readiness: ______________ 

Readiness: ______________ 

Readiness: ______________ 

Readiness Choices: 

RN Ready Now 

R1 Ready within one to two years 

R3 Ready in 3 or more years 

FT Future Talent 



LWC Individual Development Plans (IDP’s) 

Project Description: In late 2004, the Organizational Effectiveness Business System wanted 

to place a renewed emphasis on identifying training and development (T&D) needs for 

employees and initiating a process to address those needs with “action objectives.” Therefore, 

we created the Individual Development Plan (IDP) to be used by managers at the beginning of 

each year to assist their employees in identifying their T&D goals (“action objectives”). The 

process was mandatory for all managers and strongly encouraged for all non-management 

(non-union) employees. The majority of non-union employees now have their own IDP’s. 

Managers and employees are encouraged to “think outside of the box” when it comes to 

identifying opportunities to gain knowledge and skills in new areas (i.e. training workshops, 

participation on cross-functional teams; leading a project; mentoring; shadowing, etc.) Each 

employee is responsible for giving an update on the progress he or she has made on their IDP 

during their quarterly performance reviews. 

Challenge: The biggest challenge was encouraging employees to “think outside of the box” 

when identifying training opportunities, particularly in those years involving budget cuts at midyear. 

However, since most of our training is developed and conducted in-house at a fraction of 

the costs that we would incur through outsourcing, this challenge has not been much of a 

problem. 


Critical Success Factors: Employees who follow through on their IDP’s are better prepared to 

perform in their current positions and in most cases have increased their opportunities for 

success in newer positions. Managers are strongly encouraged to meet with their employee(s) 

before they attend a particular training class, etc. to discuss and reach agreement on the 

“learning objectives” to be accomplished. Managers are then encouraged to meet with their 

employee(s) after they complete the training experience to discuss if the “learning objectives” 

were met, and determine what the employee is going to do differently on the job as a result of 

their new skills, knowledge, etc. 

Cost: Only costs involved are those to purchase materials for training sessions and to pay 

salaries, etc. to training facilitators on staff. 

Benefits: Employees achieve their learning objectives and are better prepared to perform their 

current jobs or to take on new responsibilities. 

Attachments provided: LWC Individual Development Plan 


_________________________ 

POC: Carl Blanton 



WATER COMPANY 

2008 INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 

Name: 


Areas for Development Action Required Start 


Technical: 

• • 

Achieved 

Functional: 

• • 

Leadership: 

• • 

Agreement 

Mid-Year Year-end Review 

Review 

The Professional Development plan set forth above has been agreed to: (Initial) (Initial) 

Employee: _________________________ Date: _____________ 

Manager: _________________________ Date: ______________ 



Implementation of OPCON—Knowledge Keeper Software 

Project Description: Plant operations are utilizing the KnowledgeKeeper, a hosted, on-line 

knowledge management software application from OpCon Technologies, Inc. These 

procedures were videotaped, and then turned into a searchable format available to plant 

operations personnel. The goal of the organization is to have a place where all employees can 

access needed knowledge to support training, succession planning, continuous improvement 

and organizational sustainability. 


Critical Success Factors: Employees must have access to a computer. The organization wants 

to explore this programs feasibility for use across the entire organization, not just one part. 

Ensure that the process is documented/ mapped, and then determine how it can be transformed 

into a platform for organizational learning and sustainability. 

Cost: There is a monthly subscription required in order to use this software program. 

Alignment: This initiative is aligned with human resources. It is also a part of the division of 

water strategic business plan and a part of the City’s operations efficiency task force as it 

relates to this particular division. The organization plans to get their technology group involved. 

Benefits: The concept was first initiated in plant operations and the lessons the organization is 

learning are being embedded for future applications. Since the program is relatively new to the 

rest of the organization, other divisions are still in the understanding and buy-in stages. The 

organization is seeking to use the software as a means to support training, succession planning, 

continuous improvement and organizational sustainability. When fully implemented, the 

organization expects improved knowledge accessibility. 


______________________________ 

POC: 

Angela Smith 

City of Cleveland Department of Utilities, Division of Water 



The Directions Program 

Project Description: Faced with a major reorganization, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) undertook 

a formal Mentoring program to build relationships and develop leadership competencies. It was 

called the “Directions Program.” The program’s vision was “To build leadership capacity of 

individuals within Seattle Public Utilities and create a culture that will help management and 

others lead the Utility into the future.” So the program had an important element of tacit 

knowledge transfer by building cultural knowledge. Program participants were matched with a 

mentor from senior leadership. Mentoring matches were made based on using 360 assessment 

data so areas of weakness were matched with areas of strengths. 


Critical Success Factors: Mentor matches were given a one-time optional, no-fault divorce in 

the event that the parties were not matched well. The first meeting between mentor and mentee 

was facilitated by in-house Human Resources staff. A formal agreement was developed 

between the mentor and mentee. The program included a closure exercise for the participants 

when the mentoring effort had accomplished its objectives. Staff provided regular follow-ups via 

phone calls and emails. Recognizing that the original program was labor intensive for the 

Human Resources staff, SPU now focuses on training individuals on how to find the help they 

need and initiate a mentoring relationship on their own. 

Cost: The cost of the program was $175,000.00. 

Alignment: The program was aligned with Seattle Public Utilities’ Strategic Business Plan 

focused on human resource development and succession planning. It was our effort to increase 

our leadership capacity and to create a sustainable vision, mission and values strategy for the 


Benefits: Mentoring has been consistently the highest rated activity in the Directions Program. 

This training has been found to be useful to individuals. 

Compiled 2005 

_____________________________ 

POC: 

Joanne Peterson 

Seattle Public Utilities 



Cross—Utility Partnership for Safe Drinking Water 

Project Description In 1995 the Utah’s five largest water organizations joined together to build a 

strong technical pool of individuals to optimize all of the surface water treatment plants 

processes within their combined jurisdictions. In 1997 representatives from Salt Lake City 

Public Utilities, Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County Water 

Conservancy District, Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Weber Basin Water 

Conservancy District inked their voluntary commitment with EPA. Also included are two state 

agencies, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Drinking Water and 

Division of Laboratory Services. The Alliance has diligently moved forward in meeting the 

requirements of the Partnership program, completing Phase II and Phase III. 

The purpose of this Partnership is to facilitate knowledge sharing across geographically 

dispersed Drinking Water Utilities in the state of Utah a specific focus was the surveying 

treatment facilities, treatment processes, operations and maintenance procedures, and 

management oversight practices. The objective was to identify and prioritize areas that will 

enhance individual utility capabilities to prevent the entry of Cryptosporidium, Giardia and other 

microbial contaminants into the treated water, and to assist the voluntary implementation of 

corrective actions appropriate for the system. 


Critical Success factors: 

The Partnership implementation plan consists of four phases: 

1. Eligibility requirements include compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule 

for six months and a commitment to pursue further stages of the program. 

2. Collect basic plant information and plant performance data within 180 days of joining 

the program. 

3. Undertake a self- assessment that is based on the Composite Correction Program. 

The self- assessment includes a performance assessment, major unit process 

evaluation and identification and correction of performance—limiting factors. 

4. Completion of a third party assessment. Upon completion of this phase and review 

and approval of the completion report, the water supplier will be presented with a 

Partnership for Safe Water “Administrator’s Certificate of Recognition.” 

Cost: No cost identified. 

Alignment: Consistent with the purpose of the Utility and embedded in all planning processes. 

Benefits: Through this program water consumers are assured that their water provider is 

commited to providing the best quality water possible and that each treatment facility has gone 

through a rigorous effort to optimize water treatment processes. 


In recognition for the Alliance’s efforts, the Utah Safe Drinking Water Board presented 

the five agencies, the 1997 Achievement Award for “Their Cooperative Efforts to Achieve the 

Highest Possible Standards of Water Treatment.” 

Compiled 2008 

____________________________________ 

POC: 

Florence Reynolds 

Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities 



Social Network Analysis 

Project Description: We are completing a 6 month project, with a limited number of employees, 

across several disciplines. We decided to use Social Network Analysis (SNA) to gain 

information. From the Utilities perspectives, the tool seemed appropriate for the assessment of 

the quantity and quality of information learned about our project. This tool will help us evaluate 

the process, the people and the results in order to help with planning to expand the reuse 

program. 

We used SNA with the following objectives in mind: 


• Help identify key sources of information 

• Search for problem solvers 

• Evaluate flow of information gathering and sharing 

• Institutionalize the storage of project knowledge 

• Create a model for decision making and knowledge retention for future 

projects. 

Critical Success Factors: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities chose to revitalize its 10 year old 

water reuse program. In doing so, many parts of the puzzle were evaluated, rehabbed, reengineered 

and adapted. Those activities and processes involved numerous interactions, both 

among plant staff, but also with other subject matter experts. 

Cost: Staff time only. The cost is estimated to be less than $5,000.00. 

Alignment: This project was aligned with and totally compatible with our business plan. The 

structure of the project was the variable. We would have gathered this data, made 

assessments and identified participant’s roles regardless of this tool; however this methodology 

allowed us to plan for and digest the information as well as confirm our earlier findings. 

Benefits: SNA helped us to identify how information is processed, who participates and to what 

degree in the information sharing, and where the key information or knowledge is stored. It 

helped identify one way flows of information. 

A beneficial by-product of the tool was the identification of additional subject matter 

experts critical to this and future reuse projects. Use of SNA helped us to develop a successful 

reuse project by: 

Compiled February 2007 

• Capturing key information from the consultant on the project 

• Retaining data and information by function in operational manuals and operating 

procedures 

• Identify critical problem solvers and subject matter experts for future project 



_____________________________ 

POC: 

Maeneen Klein 

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities 



Real Estate Manager 

Project Description: A computer program that tracks all Tampa Bay Water property interests 

including: fee properties, permanent easements and interlocal easements, interlock 

agreements, license agreements and leased property. The Real Estate Manager allows the 

user to have all the information they need at their fingertips. 


Critical Success Factors: Integration of the GIS and survey data with aerial photos; portability 

for the application to be deployed to all user groups at the agency’s three main offices and in the 

field. 

Cost: Approximately $50,000 to develop this application given that we already had the survey 

and GIS work ongoing to meet other needs. 

Alignment: Our latest five-year management performance audit recommended increased 

deployment of real estate data (real estate information being considered data) to user groups 

(which in this case includes designers, operations and maintenance), and development of cross 

functional teams. 

Benefits: This application provides operations/maintenance feedback on use of our property to 

guide future acquisitions (i.e., existing easement widths for comparative facilities) and better 

enforce our existing land rights (against encroachment) as well as perform our real estate 

obligations (mowing, maintenance of appearance, etc.) more efficiently. 


_____________________________ 

POC: 

Jon Kennedy 

Tampa Bay Water 



Sharepoint for Sharing Plant Operations 

Project Description: Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server 2007 is a program that provides a website 

to facilitate collaboration, manage content and workflow, implement business processes, 

find organizational resources and supply information that is critical for the organizations goals 

and processes. Each unit of The City of Cleveland Department of Utilities Division of water has 

its own web-site where they can get information pertaining to their individual departments or 

other departments within the Utility. The capabilities of this computer program are: 

• Collaboration- sharing of information 

• Portals- create a personal site on the program to share information with others 

• Enterprise Search- the ability to search the organization and outside agencies to find the 

experts 

• Enterprise Content Management- create and manage documents and records 

• Business Process and Forms- creates electronic forms and workflows 

• Business Intelligence- allows personnel to efficiently access information, analyze and 

view data and publish reports. 

As an example, the Plant Operations Department is using this program to enhance knowledge 

sharing within their department. Their site includes: 

• Home page with links to all plants in their department 

• General Emergency Announcements 

• Calendar 

• The big issue announcements 

• Current policies 


Critical Success Factors: 

• Participation and commitment by every single employee. 

• Continuous updating. 

• Computer access. 

Cost: Program was bundled in Microsoft package. 

Alignment: Aligned with all planning processes. Included as part of Information technology 

planning in terms of Microsoft updates. 

Benefits: One of the benefits that have been seen by the usage of this program is the calendar 

that lets the user know when chemical deliveries are and who is working. In addition this 

program provides easy access to the Documents such as; Standard Operator Procedures, work 


aides and safety issues. This program allows for the Utility to have the critical information 

needed at their fingertips 

Compiled September 2008 

_____________________________ 

POC: 

Rolfe Porter 

City of Cleveland Department of Utilities, Division of Water 


Appendix C 

Knowledge Management Toolkit Tools 

C-1 


Action Learning 1 

A process involving a small group of people learning as they solve real problems. 

Supports: problem solving, individual and group learning, team collaboration 

LEVEL OF EFFORT 

SIZE OF UTILITY 

SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

People learn by doing. Action Learning is task oriented and can be useful for approaching 

narrowly-focused issues. Action learning involves the formation of a small group of people who 

share common issues, goals or learning needs. This group, called an action learning set, 

works to resolve issues and achieve these goals together, meeting regularly, about once a 

month, to reflect on progress, issues and solutions and refine the way forward. The team is able 

to brainstorm on alternative approaches or offer advice to an individual on how to proceed in 

achieving specific goals. Emphasis is on trying new things and evaluating the results. 

A simple methodology for the group is to (1) Identify the task and learning opportunity, (2) 

Plan together, (3) Act, (4) Reflect, (5) Share, and (6) Close out. 

(1) Identify Task and Learning Opportunity 

This begins with determining the objectives of the action learning program and forming the 

action learning set. An action learning set is ideally 5-8 people in size to allow for good 

discussion within the sessions. Assign somebody to facilitate the group meeting sessions, 

asking questions of the participants to draw out the key learning points. Define how often the 

group will meet and some ground rules for the meetings. Identify any subject matter experts 

who might be able to come and talk to the group. Discuss with the team the development 

needs and job challenges that might be addressed by action learning. Not all of the members of 

the set will necessarily have the same development need, but these should be similar. It is 

important for the group to understand the development needs of the individuals within the group 

and any development needs of the group as a whole. 

(2) Plan Together 

The official start of an action learning program should be in the form of a start-up workshop. 

Ideally the workshop should be held off site to allow the participants to spend time away from 

the usual distractions of the workplace. Included in the agenda for the workshop should be time 

for the following activities: 

Develop personal learning plans and a common view of the purpose of the action 

learning set 

Declare individual objectives for membership in this action learning set and 

identifying medium and short-term actions that can be taken to progress towards 

those objectives. Ask how the group will know when objectives have been reached 

or how progress will be measured. 

Identify opportunities to apply new ideas and learning points into the workplace. 

1 Adapted from the Department of the Navy cPort Toolkit 

C-2 


Introduce the practice of reflection. Each member of the set keeps a learning log to 

capture key learning and group progress. This log/journal will be used extensively 

during the Acting phase. 

As the end of each session review what went well and what can be done to improve 

the format for future sessions 

(3) Act 

This is time spent working on a task on the job. The members of the action learning set 

spend time experimenting with new approaches and testing new ideas developed during the 

action learning set meetings, all with the aim of making progress on a problem, project or issue 

of importance to them. Following are the steps to ensure consistent progress during this phase: 

Refer back to the action plan developed during the planning workshop. 

Before taking action, reflect on what you think the outcome of the action will be. If 

possible, record this in the learning log. 

Take action. Try out the approach as planned. This is where you do the work you do 

every day, but with the benefit of advanced planning and documenting your expectations 

before you act. 

Look for evidence of how effective you have been. What did you observe? 

Write down your observations in the learning log. This is where you create the 

opportunities to learn, by reflecting on your observations both by yourself and with the 

benefit of the perspective of others at the next set meeting. 

(4) Reflect 

This occurs during a regular session where members of the action learning set come together 

to reflect on the progress they have made on their work issues. It is a time for challenging 

assumptions, exploring new ways of perceiving and thinking about problems, and planning what 

to do next in the workplace. It is also an opportunity for set members to bring up specific issues 

of their work that they would like others to think through with them, as well as offer their thinking 

support to explore the issues and problems raised by others. Here are some guidelines: 

Plan reflection sessions on a regular basis and as far in advance as possible, ensure 

maximum attendance. 

Book enough time to allow a thorough exploration of issues of importance. Try 20-30 

minutes per person, plus an extra thirty minutes as an estimate when planning reflection 

sessions. 

Make sure that participants have prepared for the reflection session by updating their 

individual learning logs and notifying the facilitator of any key issues they wish to 

discuss. 

The facilitator should ensure that each individual declares what actions they intend to 

take once they leave the reflection session and what outcomes they expect from these 

actions. 

(5) Share 

This is the step where new knowledge, skills and experiences are shared outside of the 

action learning set to allow other individuals and teams to benefit from the experiences. One 

way this is done is by making what is being learned explicit. Capturing the knowledge that 

grows out of the action learning experience contributes to the intellectual capital of the 

organization. As new knowledge is added to the organization’s knowledgebase over time, utility 

employees will find more and more content that is timely and applicable to their current learning 

needs. Here are ways to make that happen: 

C-3 


Newsgroup and/or threaded discussion features can be included on the utility’s web-site 

to allow action learning set members to collaborate on line. This may be open access so 

that others can see what is being achieved. 

The utility should keep a running list of all action learning sets, with each entry listing 

basic information about the members, the set's objectives and the timing of the set's 

meetings as well as the contact details of the set facilitator. 

Some action learning sets may decide to create a Learning History, a document that 

describes the day-to-day work of the team and also attempts to capture how the set's 

learning evolved during the project. This can be developed periodically from the 

log/journals kept by each individual member of the set. 

At the conclusion of the action learning set, the team members, with the help of their 

facilitator, can select the information from their experience that others would find 

valuable, and post it to the utility’s knowledgebase. Suggested topics would include 

objectives, conclusions, recommendations, etc., as well as the learning from experts that 

were consulted, and planning documents such as agendas. 

(6) Closing Out 

The purpose of a closeout event is to ensure that the action learning individuals reflect on the 

time spent together (the process) and review the progress made against the original objectives. 

The closeout session is facilitated in the same way as the regular reflection sessions, but 

includes the administrative tasks associated with disbanding the set. The most important of 

these tasks is to decide which resources and learning points are to be shared with the rest of 

the organization. Here are some important points. 

Plan the event to allow time to reflect on both the task that the set has been working on 

between sessions as well as the individual and team learning that has occurred through 

the entire process. 

In advance of the closeout session, all set members should be asked to prepare their 

reflections. The facilitator may choose to issue a structured form or specific questions to 

focus this preparation. Suggested questions include: What has become clearer to you 

since the start of the action learning program? How has your perspective of the task or 

problem changed during the time you have spent as a member of this action learning 

set? What were the defining moments of the set, that is, at what points did major 

breakthroughs take place? What did you learn from this experience that you can apply 

to other parts of your job? 

Expected Outcomes: 

Higher quality decision-making. 

Individuals learn how to learn. 

Improved understanding of problem solving and team learning. 

Experience in creating, sharing and applying knowledge. 

See: 

Case Example # 6 (SHELL HP) 

Case Example #7 (US Army) 

Tools: After Action Review 

Collaborative Problem Solving Forum 

Learning History 

C-4 


Ideas: Group Learning 

Individual Learning 

_____________________ 

Reference: 

Marquardt, M.J. (1999). Acting Learning in Action: Transforming Problems and People for World-Class 

Organizational Learning. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing. 

C-5 


Affinity Diagram 2 

A process for categorizing Utility knowledge needs in a diagram format to exhibit differences 

and relationships. 

Supports: group learning, knowledge audit 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

The Affinity Diagram can be used to take specific knowledge needs, group them, and create 

representative categories called content centers. The Affinity Diagram is a simple tool that 

enables the user to enter the knowledge requirements of some process, issue, or situation; 

gather similar requirements together into small groups; evaluate those groups; and decide on a 

category name for each grouping. The groups you will develop will serve as content centers for 

the development of communities of practice as part of the knowledge management system. 

Constructing an Affinity Diagram 

The most effective group to do an Affinity Diagram is one that has the necessary knowledge 

to uncover the various dimensions of the issue, process, etc. This works best when the group or 

team is accustomed to working together and there is representation from all departments 

involved in this area of knowledge. This enables team members to communicate clearly 

because of their relationship and common experiences. Personnel should be included that 

have valuable input and who may not have been involved in the past. Also, keep the team fluid; 

bringing in resource people as needed. There should be a maximum of five to six members on 

the team. Since the team will explore the categorization of drinking water utility knowledge 

needs, it should also ensure that the team members are personally aware of user knowledge 

requirements. 

1. Phrase the issue for discussion: 

The issue seems to work best when vaguely stated. For example, ―What are the main 

communities of practice needed to help the Utility become more valuable and effective?‖ To 

review, communities of practice are groups of people whose responsibilities require access to 

similar information. Once everyone agrees on the question, place it at the top of the diagram. 

2. List and Display all your knowledge requirements. 

To begin this exercise, refer to your knowledge requirements. All of these should be transcribed 

so that the team can see them clearly. Enter all the knowledge requirements onto the small 

note cards, one idea per card. Whenever possible the knowledge requirement should have a 

noun and a verb (i.e., complete status report). This tends to make the statements clearer to 

understand. 

2 Adapted from the Department of the Navy Knowledge Centric Organization Toolkit. 

C-6 


3. Find the First Cut Affinity 

Although it is possible for one person to complete an affinity diagram, all of the benefits are lost 

that come from the melding of perspectives, opinions and insights. The team approach is highly 

recommended. Look for two cards that seem to be related in some way and group them 

together. Look for other cards that either are related to each other or to the original two cards 

that were set aside. Repeat this process until all the cards are placed in 6-10 groupings. Do 

not force-fit single cards into groupings in which they do not belong. These single cards 

(―loners‖) may form their own grouping or never find a ―home‖. Encourage team members not to 

―contemplate‖ but to ―react‖ to what they see. 

Many managers would like to mentally structure all the cards like an oversized chess game. 

The only thing left to do is to move the pieces to their appointed spots. In an Affinity, speed 

rather than deliberation is the order of the day. Doing an Affinity should be a high-energy 

process, not a contemplative exercise. Disagreements over the placement of cards should be 

handled simply and undiplomatically: If you don’t like where the card is, move it! Strong 

disagreements can be handled through facilitation and consensus building. (This is where using 

yellow ―post-it‖ pads can come in handy). 

It is critical that the team allows new groupings to emerge from the chaos of the cards. For 

the process to work best, members should avoid sorting cards into ―safe‖ known categories. 

This pigeonholing will force fit everything into existing logic, preventing breakthrough from 

occurring. 

4. For each grouping, create summary or header cards using consensus. 

Look for a card in each grouping that captures the central idea that ties all the cards together. 

This is referred to as a ―header‖ card. The header card should be typed onto the heading line. 

In cases where a central idea does not exist (which happens often), a header must be created. 

Gather each grouping together with its header at the top of the column. 

The headers should be, above all, concise. They should say in one to three words the 

essence of each grouping. Think of it as an idea still. Ingredients are thrown into the hopper 

and distilled until the powerful stuff remains. The headers should therefore pack a punch that 

would be clear to anyone reading it. Imagine that all of the detailed cards under each header 

were removed; all that remained were your headers. Would someone who was not a team 

member understand the essence and detail of the groups you formed? 

To be effective, the leader must now help clearly identify the common thread that ties all of 

the cards together. This is a central concept, like ―budgeting‖. However, this is not enough. The 

leader must also help the team reflect on the color and texture of the common thread identified. 

The header can be a breakthrough idea when it reflects the individual content of the cards as 

well as the ―spirit‖ of the grouping. Creating headers is an opportunity to create new twists in 

old topics. If the headers sound too familiar, they may deserve another look. 

5. Draw a finished affinity diagram. 

Draw lines around each grouping, thereby clearly connecting all of the items with the header 

card. Related groupings should be placed near each other and connected by lines. Often when 

this is done, the user finds that another header card must be created (referred to as a 

―superheader‖) that sums up how these two groupings are related to each other. This would be 

placed above these two columns and also connected with lines. The final drawing can be done 

right on the original sheets or only when the completed diagram has been transferred to another 

sheet of paper. It is usually transferred because an Affinity Diagram is often shared with people 

outside the team for comments and changes. Remember that it is a reiterative process that 

should be changed until it reflects the actual situation and key factors. 

C-7 


When finished with these steps, several communities will have been produced. These 

communities will be storage areas for the information needed to meet drinking water utility 

knowledge requirements. See KnowledgeBase Roadmap. 


A successful diagram provides visible relationships and differences among ideas 

generated to address some issue or situation. The visibility aids observers in 

interpreting and understanding the meaning of, and patterns among, the ideas 

generated. 

The process of creating an affinity diagram represents a highly effective learning process 

for the group participants. 

See: 

Case Example #16 (Virginia Department of Transportation) 

Case Example #19 (Office of Personnel Management) 

Tools: Communities of Practice 

KnowledgeBase Roadmap 

Knowledge Audit 

Knowledge Mapping 

Knowledge Ontology 

Knowledge Taxonomy 

Additional Resource: 

MQI paper on Systems and Complexity Thinking 

C-8 


After Action Review 

A group process for assessing the effectiveness of events or the way situations were handled. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, assessment, knowledge retention, innovation 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

While After Action Reviews were initiated by the military a number of years ago, they have 

more recently been effectively used in organizations with diverse missions. The concept is that 

key questions are asked by engaged stakeholders following every event or situation to assess 

the context of the event and capture the learning that has occurred. The After Action Review 

Learning and Assessment Document is ―pushed‖ (via email or a pre-determined reporting 

process) to those individuals to whom it has immediate relevance, and stored virtually for future 

ease of access to the larger utility team. 

After Action Reviews serve as real-time on-going assessment vehicles as well as to build 

shared understanding in those who participated. They also serve as lessons learned for those 

who later read them and assessment instruments for those who later analyze them, perhaps as 

part of a larger pattern of events. 

People involved in the action part of the effort are questioned carefully about their feelings, 

perceptions, why they did what they did and what they expected the outcome to be. By helping 

the individual participants re-live the entire sequence of the effort, they learn to reflect on the 

sequence, understand why things happened and as a result they gain a deeper understanding 

of the nature and behavior of the activity. See Lessons Learned Sample Report. 

An essential feature of the AAR process adopted by the U.S. Army is involvement of all 

personnel, soldiers and leaders, immediately after an event, while the details are still fresh in 

their minds. They compare the actual outcome of the event with the intended outcome, 

discovering what went right and why, and why went wrong and why. The discussion is 

completely candid and without consciousness of rank. Thus leaders and soldiers can openly 

and honestly discuss what actually transpired in sufficient detail and clarity that not only will 

everyone understand what did and did not occur and why, but most important will have a strong 

desire to seek the opportunity to practice the task again. To help promote this openness and 

honesty, the Army publication on AARs directed that seating be arranged in a horseshoe shape, 

so that the greatest number of soldiers have front-row seats. The officers sit behind the 

soldiers. Additionally, the AAR leader is often a trained facilitator and not one of the 

commanders. In Case Example #6, SHELL HP uses AARs. For a U.S. Army example of 

application of the AAR, see Case Example #7. For their impact in USAID, see Case Example 

#17. 

The Singapore Armed Forces expanded the After Action/Action Learning process to include 

three phases: Before Action Learning (BAL), During Action Leaning (DAL) and After Action 

Learning (AAL). During the BAL, the group identifies what it thinks will happen and why and 

how it will happen. After the action has started, the group stops and evaluates what has 

happened, how it differs from what was expected, and then incorporates any needed changes 

from the original action plan. After the action is completed, a third learning review occurs to 

C-9 


assess their overall performance and what lessons have been learned. These results are then 

forwarded to a lessons learned center for review, storage and use in training other soldiers. 


The individuals involved learn and remember more if they figure it out themselves rather 

than being told what went right and what went wrong. 

The shared learning experience promotes the bonding of the group or project team. 

Individuals understand the activity and the consequences of their own role in it. 

Teams learn how to ask the right questions and the importance of collaboration, trust 

and honesty in both communications and actions. 

See: 

Project Study #23 (Louisville Water Company, KY) 

Case Example #6 (Shell HP) 


Case Example #17 (USAID) 

Tools: Action Learning 

Key Learnings Document 



Peer View Process 



C-10 


Appreciative Inquiry 3 

An approach to accelerating receptivity to new ideas, behavior change, and the adoption of 

best practices. 

Supports: organizational learning, culture change 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

To appreciate is to value, to recognize the best in people and the things around us, while to 

inquire is the act of exploration and discovery and asking questions. Appreciative Inquiry (AI), 

then, is an approach that discovers and promotes the best in people and those things around 

us. Hammond describes appreciative inquiry as a way of thinking, seeing and acting to bring 

about purposeful change (Hammond, 1996). 

The approach was discovered by Dr. David Cooperrider and his colleagues who were 

studying at the Weatherhead Graduate School of Management at Case Western Reserve 

University. Traditional organizational interventions identify problems and hunt for solutions; the 

appreciative inquiry approach locates and tries to understand that which is working, learning 

from it and amplifying it, serving as a complement to other interventions, or, perhaps, offering a 

way other interventions can be approached. It is based on the simple premise that 

organizations (teams, communities, countries) grow in the direction of what they are repeatedly 

asked questions about and therefore focus their attention on (Srivastva and Cooperrider, 1990). 

The principles Cooperrider and Srivastva created for appreciative inquiry as explained in 

terms of organizations and groups by Hammond and Hall (reference below) are: 

1. In every organization or group, something works. 

2. What we focus on becomes our reality. 

3. Reality is created in the moment and there are multiple realities. 

4. The act of asking questions of an organization or group influences the group in some 

way. 

5. People have more confidence and comfort to journey to the future (the unknown) when 

they carry forward parts of the past (the known). 

6. If we carry parts of the past forward, they should be what is best about the past. 

7. It is important to value differences. 

8. The language we use creates our reality. 

The appreciative inquiry approach has been successfully used in organizations. As the 

focus in organizations moves back to people and the knowledge they create, share and use, the 

empowering aspects of the appreciative inquiry approach can build self-confidence in—and 

receptivity to—new ideas and accelerate behavioral change. 

3 Adapted from Bennet and Bennet (2007) 

C-11 



The adoption of best practices. 

An empowered workforce receptive to new ideas. 

Increased employee self-confidence. 

Increasing ability of the organization to facilitate needed change. 

See: 

Project Study #5 (City of Moline Water Division, IL) 


Best Practices 

Relationship Building 

Success Stories 

Ideas: Recognition and Rewards 


MQI paper on Relationship Network Management 

C-12 


Ba Spaces 

Collaborative spaces designed into the workplace to facilitate knowledge moments. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, team building, knowledge retention 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

A Ba Space is a space specifically designed to encourage people to have dialogues. They 

are warm, comfortable spaces with few distractions. The location is best where people can drop 

in and enter into a casual, learning conversation in which both, or all, participants are seeking to 

learn and develop a common understanding around a common topic. Or, people come together 

to share information and knowledge. 

Examples of Ba Spaces would be specially designed sitting areas situated near a common 

area such as a coffee mess, but off to the side, or situated in a corner off of a high-traffic area. 


The flow of knowledge across the Utility. 

Efficient and effective learning and sharing of knowledge. 

Increased number of knowledge moments and innovative ideas. 

See: 

Case Example #10 (Institute of Water and Sanitation Development, Zimbabwe) 

Case Example #12 (AMRED, Kenya) 

Case Example #21 (NASA) 

Tools: Dialogue 


Shared Space 

Ideas: Knowledge Sharing 



C-13 


Benchmarking 

A process for identifying good practices in external organizations, learning from them, and 

adapting them to your Utility. 

Supports: organizational learning, process improvement, culture change 



MED 

SCALABLE 

SCOPE OF WORK C 2 

C2 = CONTEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT 

The first step of the benchmarking process is identifying the organization you want to learn 

from. Consider: Who is the best at what? What is the standard in the Industry? Who is 

setting or moving beyond that standard? The organizations a Utility would benchmark with 

would generally be other utilities, although they may not be specific to the drinking water 

industry. 

The second step of the benchmarking process is to select a team of individuals who will 

participate and build a sound methodology for the benchmarking process. The individuals 

selected need to have an understanding of the area of focus, as well as an understanding of 

how your organization does the process that is being benchmarked. It is also a good idea to 

have some performance measures in hand to assess the potential effectiveness in your 

organization of what is being externally benchmarked. 

While benchmarking can be accomplished in many ways (via telephone or other virtual 

exchange), the face-to-face approach can facilitate relationship building and learning, and offers 

the opportunity for a question and answer exchange as thoughts emerge. However, note that 

this is not just a site visit, but the collection of information about best practices and building an 

understanding of how this best practice has been applied and why it was successful in their 

situation (which may or may not correlate to the specific situation in which you will apply it). 

The benchmarking process may be approached much like any other Utility project. For 

example, develop a benchmarking plan that includes project objectives, scope, approach, 

timeline and budget. 

The following Code of Conduct that has been scripted by the International Benchmarking 

Clearinghouse: 

Don’t enter into any discussions that might be construed as illegal, for example, 

discussing costs or prices (which might lead to allegations of price fixing). However, the 

process of how you arrive at prices might be an acceptable conversation. 

Don’t ask questions of another organization that you are not willing to answer yourself to 

the same detail. Set the expectations of level of exchange early in the benchmarking 

discussions. 

Treat the information you receive with the same degree of care you treat information 

proprietary to your organization. You may need to enter into a non-disclosure 

agreement. 

Only use the information you receive for the agreed-upon purpose. 

Follow agreed-upon procedures; complying with the wishes and culture of the 

organization you are benchmarking. 

C-14 


Prepare for your meetings and exchanges in order to ensure efficiency and 

effectiveness. 

Don’t make any commitment you can’t or won’t keep. 

Follow the Golden Rule: treat your partner and their information the way you’d like 

them to treat you and yours. 

The third step of the process involves the meetings and discussions that occur following the 

actual benchmarking experience where participant thoughts and the potential for 

implementation in your Utility are discussed. Ensure that the CONTEXT of the benchmarked 

organization and the CONTEXT of your organization are both understood in terms of their affect 

on the process being implemented. Then be careful to stay within the bounds of the 

benchmarking agreement. This step is where the process is defined and refined in terms of your 

Utility, and the planning and preparation begins as would any implementation of any new 

initiative. See Best Practices and Lessons Learned. 

In Project Study #11, eight people from the Utility spent eight days in England shadowing 

British operators. The Utility team returned with both new found knowledge and enthusiasm to 

share what they had learned. In Case Example #22, the US Forest Service considers 

benchmarking as one of six tasks critical for organizational learning. 


The adaptation of best practices to your Utility. 

Assessment of your organization in terms of Industry standards. 

See: 


Project Study #11 (Greenville Water System, SC) 

Case Example #22 (US Forest Service) 


Appreciative Inquiry 


Case Study 

Interviewing 




Additional Resources: 

Examples of APQC benchmarking studies under Resources 

MQI paper CONTEXT 

_____________________ 

References: 

Benchmarking for Reengineering Teams at www.prosci.com/benchmarking.htm 

C-15 



A systematic process for transferring best practices between groups within the Utility or across 

Utilities. 

Supports: organization learning, Utility operations, Utility performance and sustainability 

LEVEL OF EFFORT C 2 

SIZE OF UTILITY C 2 


C 2 = CONTEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT 

A best practice for recording best practices is to provide sufficient information to clearly 

express the best practice. Based on information collected during an interview process, the 

content of a best practice document will look something like this: 

Part 1: In this section, describe the theme and any related practices 

of successful organizations. 

Part 2: In this section, present the quotes that describe the theme in the right 

column. The quotes presented in the learning history are not inclusive of all the 

quotes received; rather, the quotes selected are designed to be representative of 

the various perspectives of interview candidates and representative of the 

information gathered throughout the interview process. The left column of the 

document does not list questions asked during the interview, but records 

commentary and questions posed to the reader by the author for further 

consideration when reading the document. The commentary on the left relates to 

the adjacent quote or quotes. The commentary is presented to provide the reader 

with ideas for reflection. The reader is encouraged to record their own thoughts 

and questions as they read. 

Part 3: The final section of the theme is a summary of the key points from the 

quotes in Part 2. Questions for further consideration relating to the theme are 

presented at the end of this topic. 

The format of each section (following the theme title) is depicted below. 

Part 1. Overview of the theme. 

Part 2. Commentary, conclusions and potential questions to be 

asked that relate to the adjacent quotes. 

Part 3. Brief summary of quotes, as heard by the learning consultant. 

Additional questions for the purpose of providing more clarity to the theme. 

If additional materials such as models and business rules were developed, include them, and 

consider how graphics could be used to enhance knowledge transfer. The best practice also 

needs to include meta-knowledge (information about the knowledge). This would include: the 

date prepared, point of contact (include name, organization, and contact information), members 

who participated in development of the best practice and contact information, problem 

statement, background (note any research that was conducted during the exploration phase and 

a summary of significant findings. Include findings from root cause analysis), and alternatives 

considered (list significant ideas that were considered and explain reasons for non-selection). 

C-16 


All of this information provides the context of the best practice, which can make a significant 

difference to other individuals or organizations trying to apply it. 

Members are encouraged to call either the point of contact (originator of the best practice) or 

other members to gain a deeper understanding of the topic. 

Like lessons learned, best practices are of little value if they are not shared and used. See 

the discussion on applying Lessons Learned. 

APQC, a not-for-profit organization that has been promoting the use of best practices for 

over 25 years, uses a facilitated best practice transfer approach. This approach includes 

identifying best practices, capturing tacit and business process knowledge, reviewing and 

validating the practice, assessing the benefits accruing to implementation of this practice, 

communicating and sharing the practice (bringing people together), and supporting 

implementation by the adopter. Key to their success is bringing people together and staying 

involved as the best practice is implemented. APQC has contributed several of their best 

practice research studies to this toolkit. See Resources. 

The Collaborative Problem Solving Forum is an approach for creating and sharing 

knowledge about best practices. In Project Study #25 the Utility has implemented procedures 

for teams and individuals to submit Process and Operational Improvements. This continuous 

search for best practices has resulted in significant dollar savings. 

Effective transfer of best practice results in achieving high performance in a specific practice 

with a minimum of time and resources. However, it is not always easy to transfer best practices 

because of the subtle and often unrecognized aspects of implementation that even the 

successful implementers are not aware of. Also, the context within which the best practice is 

executed may affect its outcome in ways not easily recognized. The caution is to transfer best 

practices with care and diligence, while understanding them thoroughly and learning carefully as 

you begin your own implementation and evaluation of outcomes. 

See the short discussion on Best Practices Celebration and Sharing Day in Knowledge 

Sharing. 


Efficient creation of good performance results when best practices are effectively 

transferred to your organization. 

Improved understanding of how to implement (and perhaps modify or upgrade) the 

practice to meet special or additional needs within your Utility. 

See: 

Project Study #21 (City of Phoenix Water Service Department, AZ) 



Tools: Collaborative Problem Solving Forum 


Interviewing 





Technology Related Tools 


See the APQC best practice/benchmarking studies in Resources 

C-17 


Blog 

A conversational web site maintained by an individual. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, team building, relationship building 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

A blog is a contraction of the term ―web log.‖ It expresses individual opinions in a 

conversational format, and can contain commentaries, descriptions, news, poems, art, 

photographs, videos and other graphical representations of thoughts. Blogs are generally used 

to express opinions. Like verbal conversations, they are linear in nature and organized in a 

chronological format. 

Question blogs can be used to specifically answer questions. Corporate blogs can be used 

for business purposes. Specifically, they can be used internally by a Utility to enhance 

communications and help create a knowledge sharing culture. In Case Example #20, IBM 

encourages an open exchange through blogging, social web applications and networking. 

Among other benefits, blogging can facilitate knowledge sharing, team building, and individual 

memory, and, because it’s an avenue for writing about experiences from the personal 

perspective, blogs have the therapeutic effect of improving sleep and boosting immune cell 

activity. 

However, external blogs have brought about some unforeseen consequences. According to 

the Wikipedia, potential issues involve: defamation of character, employment, political 

sensitivities, and personal safety. Clearly, intelligent blogging is just as essential as intelligent 

communicating in other mediums. It is a good idea to follow a set of guidelines similar to that 

used by IBM in Case Example #20 referenced above. 


Empowered employees 

The creation of new ideas for the organization and for the individual 

More positive feelings about the organization and a higher morale of the workforce 

See: 

Case Example #18 (USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service) 

Case Example #20 (IBM) 


Shared Space 

Wiki 

Ideas: Building Trust 


C-18 


Brain Writing 4 

A process to help groups collaborate when dealing with a sensitive idea or issue. 

Supports: collaboration, problem solving, conflict resolution, group learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

Brain Writing is a specific process to gather ideas and opinions in a non-threatening manner. 

It is particularly effective in achieving collaboration when sensitivities or conflicts are anticipated. 

If the intent is to gather ideas and opinions, the group might be as large as 20 people. 

However, if the intent is to hone in on specific wording, the effective size for the group would be 

4-8 people. The estimated time to complete the process for 4-8 people is 20 minutes. For a 

group of up to 20 people, allow 30 minutes to write and another 15-20 minutes to discuss. The 

only props needed are blank paper and writing utensils for each participant. Brain Writing 

entails a five-step process. 

Step One: Pose or frame the question, issue, or problem facing the group. Ask each person 

to write on the top of their paper one of the following (depending on the question, issue or 

problem just framed): 

An answer (if a question is posed). 

A resolution (if an issue is presented). 

An idea (if a problem is confronted). 

Proposed wording (if a statement is being crafted, that is, a mission statement). 

Step Two: Ask each person to pass their paper to the person on their left. 

Step Three: Ask each person to comment on the paper in front of him or her by either writing 

a rewording of the suggestion below what is already written, or commenting on his or her 

opinion of the suggestion. When this is complete, again pass the paper to the left. 

Step Four: Continue this process until the papers are in the hands of their originator. 

Step Five: Discuss the findings. Most often, consensus will have built around a small 

number of suggestions, narrowing the discussion field. 

A variation on this process is that once ideas have been generated, to post each idea on a 

sheet of flip chart paper and spread those around the room. Each participant would then travel 

around the room with a marker commenting on as many items as desired, repeating the process 

as many times as they choose. During this process suggest that people use a check mark to 

indicate agreement. When the activity dies down, review each chart to assess group opinion 

and determine if the comments lead to a common conclusion. This technique can also be used 

to narrow the field prior to voting. 


C-19 


After completion of the exercise, the facilitator should initiate a discussion of what could be 

learned from the results. This should make participants aware of the many possible views of 

the question, issue, problem or statement. These could then be explored, with the goal of 

getting the participants to realize the true value of keeping an open mind and not closing too 

quickly on ―the answer‖. If time permits, the facilitator could also get the group to discuss how 

each individual could deliberately shift the way they see things. 


Good information or answers to the question, issue, problem or statement. 

Participants learn the variety of perspectives or frames of reference that can exist for a 

single question, issue, etc. 

After participating, people tend to be more open minded in the future. 

Tools: Brainstorming 


____________________________ 

Reference: 

Harrington-Mackin, D. (1994). The Team Building Tool Kit: Tips, Tactics, and Rules for Effective Workplace 

Teams. New York, NY: AMACOM. 

C-20 


Brainstorming 

A process for enhancing the creation and flow of new ideas. 

Supports: innovation, consensus building, problem solving, teambuilding, relationship 

building 



LOW 

SCALABLE 


C2 = CONTEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT 

Brainstorming is a participative process that nurtures creative thinking and innovation by 

enhancing the flow of ideas and building consensus and commitment. There are four basic rules 

for a truly effective brainstorm session: 

1. Quantity versus quality. The more ideas, the greater the likelihood of finding a useful 

one. 

2. Freewheeling. Open the gate and allow the ideas to flow freely. Build on the ideas of 

others, even if they seem wild or outrageous 

3. Defer judgment. The surest way to shut down creative thinking is to judge each idea as 

it occurs. You are not deciding on ideas at this point, simply thinking imaginatively. 

4. Hitchhike. If there is a lull in the flow, try making more out of what has already been 

said, changing it a little, adding to it; for example, if a stakeholder meeting was 

suggested, add ideas for how to structure the meeting, and Voila, a new idea! 

There are many approaches to brainstorming. The one below can be tweaked and 

massaged to fit into different situations: 

1. Frame a session with a general topic or an idea-seeking question such as, "What are all 

the ways…" Then, write the topic question in front of the group where everyone can see 

it. 

2. Clearly state that the purpose is to generate a storm of ideas and review the 

brainstorming rules (above) and any additional ground rules the group wishes to add. 

3. Establish a time limit, say 20-30 minutes. 

4. Try a round robin approach to encourage participation, allowing members to pass or 

"green light" participants to speak out in any order that naturally occurs. The round robin 

approach means that you go around the room with each participant volunteering one 

idea at a time, repeating as long as there are ideas. When an individual has an idea 

spurred by another idea and needs to express the idea before it is forgotten, the 

individual who next has the floor or the facilitator can ―green light‖ that individual to go 

ahead and add their idea. When a number of ―passes‖ are occurring the floor can be 

opened up for random contributions. 

5. Encourage participants to build on others' ideas. 

6. Post all ideas. 

C-21 


7. Allow no evaluation, criticism, or discussion while ideas are being generated. Watch out 

for "stifling phrases." Ideas can be clarified by their originator if others request it. 

8. Allow participants time to think. Do not let a lull in the storm stop the session. 

9. After all ideas have been generated, reduce the list by questioning, categorizing, and 

consolidating. 

In Project Study #5, brainstorming was used to develop work performance improvement 

principles and techniques. 

Remember, the goal is to think creatively and view the problem from many perspectives. To 

paraphrase Nobel Prize winning physician, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, discovery is looking at the 

same thing everyone else is looking at but thinking of something different. And as another 

creative genius, Albert Einstein, expressed, problems cannot be solved at the same level of 

conscious awareness at which they were created. 


A large number of ideas that relate to some specific problem or situation. 

Broadening participants thinking by exposure to many ways of looking at a problem. 

Sets the framework for good communication and dialogue by getting everyone involved 

and contributing. 

See: 

Project Study #5 (City of Moline, IL) 

Case Example #4 (Chrysler Corporation) 

Case Example #15 (US Army TEAM C4ISR) 

Tools: Brain Writing 


Concept Mapping 


Sleep On It 

C-22 


Case Study 

An approach to learning and decision-making grounded by real-life situations. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, assessment 



MED 

SCALABLE 



A case study is an extension of experience, a story. It is not meant to represent the world, 

but to represent the case. Case studies are valuable as examples, a reflection on human 

experience in the area of focus. They are used extensively in the study of Law, Medicine and 

Business. When a case study serves as an example of a best practice, or something that 

worked or is working in that specific situation, there can be implications for trying it in your 

organization. Since the focus is on the case, the methods underlying the case are not 

necessarily included in detail. The more detail in the case study in terms of situation and 

context (including methodologies and the reasons for choosing those methodologies), the better 

a decision-maker can judge whether this is something to pursue further. 

Case studies provide a systematic way of studying events, collecting data, analyzing 

information and reporting the results. They can loosely be thought of as exploratory, 

explanatory or descriptive (Tellis, 1997). Exploratory case studies are used as a prelude to 

much research done in the social sciences. Since they are exploratory in nature, data collection 

and field work may occur prior to definition of what is trying to be discovered. Explanatory 

cases are causal studies that involve very complex situations. Descriptive cases are generally 

written over time where some observation of changes is captured. It covers the depth and 

scope of the case under study. 

A case study can be either qualitative or quantitative or a combination of both. And it can be 

very short (a few paragraphs) or very long (enough for a book). They serve as good learning 

tools when they provide all the relevant data individuals need to discuss and resolve the central 

issue. Readers can examine multiple aspects of a problem, or just a circumscribed piece, and 

then identify the parameters of the problem and propose a solution. These can be extremely 

effective vehicles for leadership and management training. 

Writing a case study is not a simple task. The material can be drawn from your own 

professional experiences, current events and historical happenings. According to Davis (1993), 

an effective case study is one that: 

Tells a ―real‖ and engaging story 

Raises a thought-provoking issue 

Has elements of conflict 

Promotes empathy with the central characters 

Lacks an obvious or clear-cut right answer 

Encourages individuals to think and take a position 

Portrays actors in moments of decision 

C-23 


Provides plenty of data about character, location, context, actions 

Is relatively concise 

In Case Example #18, the USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service used case studies in support 

of outcomes based assistance. 


Improved understanding of a specific situation or class of problems. 

Practice in working with others to explore the case study to develop different 

perspectives and interpretations of issues and potential solutions. 

Learning from real-life situations. 

See: 

Case Example #9 (The Socio Economic Unit Foundation, India) 


Tools: Benchmarking 

Storytelling 

____________________________ 

References: 

Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Tellis, W. (1997). ―Aplication of a Case Study Methodology‖ in The Qualitative Report, Vol. 3, No. 3, September. 

Can be downloaded from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html 

C-24 


Causal Loop Diagram 5 

A process for representing the cause and effect relationships among variables. 

Supports: problem solving, knowledge sharing, learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

Causal loop diagrams are used as a tool to aid in Systems Thinking. They are used to 

represent the structure of a system by showing the relationships between its key parts. This 

helps in understanding the underlying drive behavior and provides a visual representation with 

which to communicate that understanding. The diagram generally consists of one or more 

closed loops that represent cause and effect relationships between variables. This document is 

designed to give you a high level overview of how to construct a causal loop. In a causal loop 

diagram, a link is an arrow between two variables that represents a relationship. There are two 

types of links, ―same‖ and ―opposite‖. ―Same‖ links are indicated by an ―s‖ and represent that a 

change in the first variable results in a change in the same direction in the second variable. 

―Opposite‖ links are indicated by an ―o‖ and represent that a change in the first variable results 

in a change in the opposite direction in the second variable. 

Guidelines for Drawing Causal Loop Diagrams 

GUIDELINE 

Selecting Variable Names 

1. When choosing a variable 

name, use nouns. Avoid 

verbs and action phrases 

since the action is 

conveyed in the arrows. 

For example, ―Costs‖ is 

better than ―Increasing 

Costs,‖ since a decrease in 

Increasing Costs is 

confusing. The sign of the 

arrow (―s‖ for same or ―o‖ 

for opposite) indicates 

whether Costs increase or 

decrease relative to the 

other variable. (Note that 

often a ―+‖ is used for ―s‖ 

and a ―-―is used for ―o‖. 

This is another way of 

expressing the same 

concept. 

EXAMPLE 

5 Adapted from the Department of the Navy Knowledge Centric Organization Toolkit 

C-25 


2. Variables should be 

something that can be 

measured—quantities that 

can vary over time. It does 

not make sense to say that 

―State of Mind‖ increases 

or decreases. A term like 

―Happiness,‖ on the other 

hand, can vary. 

3. Choosing the ―positive‖ 

sense of a variable name 

is preferable. An increase 

or decrease in ―Growth‖ is 

clearer than an increase or 

decrease in ―Contraction.‖ 

Loop Construction 

4. For every course of action 

included in the diagram, 

think of the possible 

unintended consequences 

as well as he expected 

outcomes. An increase in 

―Production Pressure‖ may 

increase ―Production 

Output,‖ for example, but it 

may also increase ―St ress‖ 

and decrease ―Quality.‖ 

5. All balancing loops are 

goal-seeking processes. 

Try to make goals driving 

the loop explicit. For 

example, Loop B1 may 

raise questions as to why 

increasing ―Quality‖ would 

lead to a decrease in 

―Actions to Improve 

Quality.‖ By explicitly 

identifying ―Desired 

Quality‖ as the goal in 

Loop B2, we see that the 

―Gap in Quality‖ is really 

driving improvement 

actions. 

C-26 


6. Distinguishing between 

perceived and actual 

states, such as ―Perceived 

Quality‖ vs. ―Ac tual 

Quality,‖ is important. 

Perceptions often lag 

reality, and mistaking the 

perceived status for current 

reality can e misleading 

and create undesirable 

results. 

7. If there are multiple 

consequences of a 

variable, start by lumping 

them into one term while 

finishing the rest of the 

loop. For example, 

―Coping Strategies‖ can 

represent many different 

ways we respond to stress 

(exercise, meditation, 

alcohol use, etc.) 

8. There are almost always 

differing long-term and 

short-term consequences 

of actions. Draw loops 

with increasing radius as 

they progress from shortterm 

behavior of using 

alcohol to combat stress. 

Loop R1, however, draws 

out the long-term 

consequences which will 

actually increase stress. 

The two vertical lines 

crossing the line between 

―Alcohol Use‖ and ―Health‖ 

indicate a delay. 

C-27 


9. If a link between two terms 

is not clear to others and 

requires a lot of explaining, 

the variables probably 

need to be redefined or an 

intermediate term needs to 

be inserted. ―Higher 

demand‖ leading to lower 

―Quality‖ may be less 

obvious than when 

―Production Pressure‖ is 

inserted in between. 

10. A short-cut to determining 

whether a loop is balancing 

(B) or reinforcing (R) is to 

count the number of ―o’s‖ 

in the loop. An odd 

number of ―o’s‖ indicates a 

balancing loop, an even 

number (or none) means it 

is a reinforcing loop. 

CAUTION: After labeling 

the loop, you should 

always talk yourself around 

the loop and make sure the 

story agrees with your R or 

B label. 

The Department of the Navy (DON) used causal loops as part of their systems approach to 

implementing knowledge management. (See the Department of Navy Case Study.) On page 

10 of the study, there is a causal loop that links the DON information technology investment to 

an increase in the amount of data, information and knowledge available which in turn increases 

decision-making complexity. The balancing loops they put in place address knowledge 

management implementation at the individual, organizational and enterprise levels. 


Improved problem solving. 

A useful technique for simplifying complicated relationships and identifying key variables 

within a situation. 

Identification of causal relationships and specific changes that may be needed to control 

or ―change‖ the system. 

Identification of standard or universal system archetypes that are found in many systems 

or situations that may quickly illuminate the sources of behavior of the system. 

See: Case Example #4 (Chrysler Corporation) 

Case Example #5 (Natural Resources Canada) 

Department of the Navy Case Study 



Force Field Analysis 

__________________________ 

References: 

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday. 

C-28 


Collaborative Problem Solving Forum 6 

An approach for creating and sharing knowledge about best practices. 

Supports: collaboration, problem solving, process improvement, workforce learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

A forum is a periodic meeting or gathering for purposes of discussion, dialogue or debate. It 

is a means of sharing information, knowledge and research while focusing on common interests 

and challenges. A well-facilitated forum can be an excellent approach to creating and sharing 

knowledge about best practices. These forums can serve a variety of purposes such as solving 

relevant, day-to-day problems; building trust among community members by actually learning 

from and helping each other; and solving problems in a public forum thereby creating a common 

understanding of tools, approaches, and solutions. This is also an effective approach for groups 

to develop common standards and guidelines. 

A five-step roadmap for problem solving as a means to generate new knowledge is provided 

below which can be used by an individual or a group. It is a variation on an approach commonly 

used for problem solving. This roadmap works well for best practices that can easily be reused; 

for example, methodologies, analytical models, diagnostic approaches, case studies, and 

benchmark data. The steps are: (1) Define a problem, (2) Conduct analysis, (3) Generate 

ideas, (4) Select a best practice or solution, and (5) Capture the knowledge in explicit form. 

(1) Problem Exploration and Definition 

Explore the problem and determine if additional information is needed. For example, 

members of the group may decide to observe specific practices, or research existing information 

on a topic. Methods to collect additional information might include conducting interviews with 

impacted individuals or subject matter experts. 

Jumping to a conclusion without understanding a problem can save time, but it can also waste 

time if you solve the wrong problem. Before jumping to the wrong conclusion, consider the 

following: 

Examine the problem from all angles. Try to see it from the perspective of different 

utility stakeholders. 

Separate fact from fiction. Perception is important, but it must be distinguished from 

fact. 

Identify key players affected by the problem. Who is responsible for solving the 

problem, and who has the authority to accept and implement a solution? 

Dissect or decompose the situation. Break the problem down into pieces. 

Develop a plan for gathering information. Use surveys, interviews, observations, 

brainstorm sessions, or benchmark reviews if needed. 


C-29 


Clearly defining a problem using clear, plain language is like having your finger on its pulse. 

Defining a problem is often more difficult than solving it. However, the right definition of a 

problem will make the solution much easier. A clear definition builds a strong foundation for 

subsequent fact finding, communication, and analysis. A good definition distills the situation into 

a brief, concise statement; provides key words to get to the bottom of the situation; states what 

a problem is rather than what it isn't; and states a problem in terms of needs, not solutions. 

(2) Analysis 

Typically, what you "see" is only the tip of the iceberg, or the symptoms of a problem rather 

than its root cause. It is important to distinguish cause from effect to ensure that you are actually 

solving the source of the problem, not just addressing its symptoms. Consider a medical 

analogy. You have many symptoms of the common cold, but you may, in fact, have a sinus 

infection that can only be cured with an antibiotic. While using over-the-counter cold medicines 

to alleviate your symptoms, the original infection continues to become worse. This is just what 

can happen in an organization. By addressing only the symptoms, you miss the root cause and 

the condition persists and may become worse. 

Discovering the root cause of a problem can be tricky. Sound questioning techniques are a 

good start. Using your problem definition statement, answer the following questions. 

Why does the problem persist? 

Where did it start and where did it come from? 

What caused it in the first place? 

What changed right before it started? 

Why doesn't it resolve itself or just go away? 

Why do we keep getting pulled back into the situation? 

Why won't things improve no matter what we do? 

Still not sure? Don't move to the solution phase until you are sure you have found the root 

cause. Test your tentative conclusion using the following indicators. Continue analysis until you 

can answer yes to each of these indicators. 

greement? 

You ran into a dead end when you asked, "What caused the proposed root 

cause?" 

All conversation has come to a positive end. 

Everyone involved feels good, is motivated and uplifted emotionally. 

All agree it is the root cause that keeps the problem from resolving. 

The root cause fully explains why the problem exists from all points of view. 

The earliest beginnings of the situation have been explored and are 

understood. 

The root cause is logical, makes sense, and dispels all confusion. 

The root cause is something you can influence, control, and deal with 

realistically. 

Finding the root cause has returned hope that something constructive can be 

done about the situation. 

Suddenly workable solutions, not outrageous demands, begin to appear. 

A stable, long-term, once-and-for-all resolution of the situation now appears 

feasible. 

Use of analytic techniques such as diagramming and process modeling can also be applied 

during the analysis stage. A few additional techniques for analyzing a problem are Napoleon 

(imagine you are someone else to gain new perspective), morphological analysis 

(systematically examine each attribute of the problem), create a deadline, or Sleep On It. 

C-30 


(3) Idea Generation 

Once the root cause is identified, it is time to generate possible solutions. This is the time to 

be really creative. One useful way to generate a storm of ideas with a group is 

Brainstorming. But before generating ideas, try some creativity exercises. 

Von Oech's offers some good exercises to get the creative juices flowing. For example, when 

generating ideas, avoid mental locks. See Ladder of Inference. The following are common 

mental locks and possible techniques to overcome them. 

Mental Lock 

Consider 

There is often more than one right answer. 

Excessive logical thinking can short-circuit your creative process. Be curious 

and look for surprises. 

Challenge the rules. (Dick Nicolosi, Philosopher: "Slaying sacred cows makes 

great steaks‖.) 

Ask what if questions. Use them as stepping-stones. 

Use play to fertilize your thinking. Make a game of it. 

Specialization limits you. Develop an explorer's attitude. Leave your own turf. 

Foolish thinking can get you out of a rut. 

Too much specificity can stifle your imagination. 

Don't be afraid to fail. (Grace Hopper, Inventor and Naval Officer: "A ship in 

port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for‖.) 

Believe in the worth of your ideas. 

You don't have time not to. 

(4) Solution Selection 

The goal at this point is to narrow the list of ideas into feasible, creative, and win-win 

alternatives. By using an objective, criterion-based method to select ideas, you will 

coincidentally make the decision-making process much easier in that you have defined the 

terms for reaching consensus. The process therefore becomes one that is fact-based and less 

emotionally charged. 

Establishing objective criteria is similar to judging a sporting event. Olympic judges use 

consistent, objective criteria to evaluate the performance of athletes to select winners. In 

addition to establishing criteria, you may want to prioritize criteria. For example, some criteria 

may be mandatory while others are optional. Another technique is to set acceptable ranges. For 

example, if an idea meets less than 80 percent of the criteria, it will be removed from the 

running. If a clear winner does not emerge, identify the best and worst outcomes for each idea 

and/or the pros and cons of each idea. An additional step might be to validate the practice with 

stakeholders or peers. 

For a final check, ask yourself the following questions: 

Is the best practice, or alternative, based upon good, sound reasoning and data? 

Were the right people involved in the problem solving process? 

Following this roadmap will serve to create new knowledge that can improve not only your own 

job but also the overall performance of your utility. 

Other tools that can be utilized in the Collaborative Problem Solving Forum include the 

causal loop diagram and force field analysis. The Causal Loop Diagram is a process for 

representing the cause and effect relationships among variables. Force Field Analysis is a 

C-31 


mechanism for assessing and dealing with the various forces that aid or hinder the 

implementation of a program or project. 

In Case Example #22, the US Forest Service considers systematic problem solving as one 

of six tasks critical for organizational learning. 


Improved problem resolution. 

Team members learning how to solve problems. 

Reduced probability of generating poor quality solutions. 

See: 





Brainstorming 

Causal Loop Diagram 


Force Field Analysis 

Ladder of Inference 

Prioritization Matrix 

Sleep On It 

Storyboard 


____________________________ 

Reference: 

Von Oech, R. (1998). A Kick in the Seat of the Pants: Using your Explorer, Artist, Judge, and Warrior to be More 

Creative. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. 

C-32 


Communications Plan 

A method for linking messages to target audiences and indicating the timely communication of 

important information. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, assessment 



LOW 

SCALABLE 


C2 = CONEXT/CONTENT DEPENDENT 

The Communications Plan breaks down the process of sending a message out to a large 

audience by helping an individual or team refine the message and develop the logistics of 

delivering that message. The matrix (example below) provides a mechanism for evaluating the 

message in terms of the stakeholders, receivers, the method of delivery, the sender, how the 

sender is preparing it, reasons behind sending it, and how often it will be sent. This table 

provides a comprehensive plan clearly indicating the timely communication of important 


The steps are quite simple. First, fill in the message (or messages) to be sent out. If it is 

difficult to determine the message, try to evaluate the rationale for sending the message. The 

rationale may help identify the desired message. The message should be thought of as the 

action step for the rationale. Each message should be listed and then evaluated, based on each 

of the following factors: stakeholder, receiver, vehicle, sender, sender preparation, rationale and 

frequency, and timing. These steps are further discussed below. 

1. Identify the desired message to send. 

This could be a particular action that may affect the staff. For example, you may want to make 

the staff aware of the purpose of this project. For example, in the ―Message‖ column write: 

―The purpose of this project is to transform our Utility into a Knowledge-Centric Organization.‖ 

2. Identify Stakeholder/Receiver. 

This individual or group would be the audience to whom your message is being directed. 

Develop a detailed profile for each audience – listing number of people, location, easiest 

method of contact, etc. Who is it that needs to get this message and how will they interpret it? 

3. Determine Vehicle. 

The vehicle is the way by which the message is delivered. Examples of channels include: 

memos, E-mail, voice mail, videotape, newsletter, meeting, brochure, phone call. 

4. Determine Sender. 

The sender is the individual or group sending the message. This person is probably an 

authority figure within your organization, or perhaps a group or team. 

5. Sender Preparation. 

This is how the sender will go about preparing the message to be delivered. This may be 

designing the newsletter, or planning a meeting. 

C-33 


6. Consider Rationale. 

The rationale consists of why this message is being sent. Why is it important that the 

stakeholders receive this message? The reasoning here may be for the group to become 

aware, or to use the message to complete some aspect of their job. The rationale is why the 

message is being sent. 

7. Speculate Frequency/Timing. 

The frequency or timing is how often the message will be conveyed and over what period of 

time. Certain groups within an organization may need to receive information first. When this 

occurs, messages may change to fit the frames of reference of the receivers as the 

communication moves down the organization. It is best to communicate early and often, and 

maintain communication through all phases of the engagement. Do you plan to have weekly 

meetings? Will there be a monthly newsletter? Or is repetition less imperative? Perhaps bimonthly 

meetings or a bi-annual meeting would be better? 

Below is an example of the Communications Plan matrix. 

# Message Stakeholder 

Receiver 

1 New safety All field 

procedures personnel 


base on-line 


communities 

Vehicle Sender Sender 

Preparation 

Presentation/ General Engineering 

Film 

Manager Department 

Training, 

Feedback, 

Real-time use 


team 


team/ 

contractor 

Rationale 

To create 

awareness 

of new 

safety 

procedures 

To educate 

knowledge 

communities 

on usage 

and daily 

operations 

Frequency/ 

Timing 

Once, 

followed by 

other 

messages 

reinforcing 

safety 

Frequent 

classes and 

updates as 

needed 

In Case Example #18, communications (events, visits, inquiries, etc.) were managed 

strategically. In Project Study #18, the Utility hired a private firm to explore communication 

gaps among the entire staff, including vertical and horizontal communication. Social Network 

Analysis is a tool used to discover the flow patterns of information and knowledge across an 



Improved communications throughout the Utility. 

Improved morale and, if the communication is clear, open and consistent, trust between 

employees and the sender can be developed. 

Fewer mistakes or surprises from misinterpretation by receivers. 

See: 



Project Study #18 (Rice Lake Utilities, WI) 

C-34 





Tools: KnowledgeBase Roadmap 


Ideas: Communications Publications 


Leadership Commitment Visibility 

Media Productions 

Stakeholder Engagement 

C-35 



A group of individuals who communicate with each other within a common area of knowledge. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, knowledge retention, cross-training 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

LARGE 

WIDE 

A community of people who are interested in a specific area of knowledge and need to share 

information. Comprised of a network of individuals who have a common interest in an area of 

knowledge, a CoI communicates virtually to share and learn from each other’s experiences, 

insights, best practices and lessons learned. A CoI is primarily a community of learners who 

exchange ideas, develop relationships and work towards furthering their knowledge and 

perhaps the application of the area of interest. 

While communities are supported by technology, their social dynamic plays a much larger 

role than technology. They are implemented by making connections, dialoguing and building 

relationships based on trust and mutual interests. The focus is on value added, mutual 

exchange, sharing, and continuous learning. 

A CoI can be used in support of a CoP (community of practice). When this is the case, 

individuals outside the work area of the knowledge domain have the opportunity to participate in 

and learn about that domain, thus building future capacity and capabilities for a Utility. CoIs can 

be particularly effective vehicles for engaging stakeholders. 

Since communities of Interest are primarily virtual, they can involve geographically-dispersed 

individuals across various functional areas. The APQC benchmarking study on Virtual 

Collaborations provides detailed information on preparing for, supporting and measuring a 

virtual collaboration strategy. 


Individuals enhance their learning through information dialogues and conversations. 

The organization benefits from cross-learning and 

See: Case Example #4 (Chrysler Corporation) 

Case Example #6 (SHELL HP) 


Tools: Best Practices 



Ideas: Stakeholder Engagement 


APQC benchmarking study on Virtual Collaboration 

____________________ 

Reference: 

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge 


C-36 



A group of individuals who work in a common area of knowledge. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, knowledge retention 



SCOPE OF WORK 

HIGH 

MED-LARGE* 

WIDE 

*ALSO EFFECTIVE VEHICLE FOR CROSS-UTILITY COLLABORATION 

One of the core tools for continuous knowledge sharing across functional areas in an 

organization is the community of practice (CoP). Comprised of a network of people who work 

(practice) in a common field with similar goals and purpose, a CoP communicates virtually to 

share and learn from other experiences, insights, best practices and lessons learned. Since 

CoPs are defined by knowledge within a specific domain, they align the organization around 

competencies without reverting to functional structures. As community members interact and 

new knowledge emerges, the agenda of the CoP evolves. 

While communities are supported by technology and are largely virtual, their social dynamic 

play a much larger role than technology. They are managed by making connections, dialoguing 

and building relationships based on trust and mutual interests. The focus is on value added, 

mutual exchange, sharing and continuous learning. 

CoP members are often brainstorming and seeking solutions to specific issues and problems 

forwarded by community members. When this occurs there is a sense of urgency that 

stimulates the exchange and surfaces new ideas. Thus, participation in and reliance on CoPs 

increases over time, with CoPs often becoming the primary source of learning and knowledge— 

and a continuing source of energy—for community members. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Guide to Virtual CoPs is a guide to promote the 

understanding of basic concepts relating to the creation of nurturing environments for the 

support of knowledge communities. The Department of Navy’s ABC’s for CoP Quick Start 

provides a roadmap for community start-up from concept to reality. The steps of the Quick Start 

process support the following outcomes: 

Community identity, including name, knowledge domain, type of community, and 

organizational fit 

The CoP's value, including purpose and how the CoP will help with the Utility's mission 

and goals, and generally how the CoP will meet member needs. 

Initial direction for community type and organization fit 

A clear understanding of the community roles and responsibilities 

A Core Group planning meeting 

An Initial Community Workshop 

A foundation for community activities 

An approach for establishing a collaborative work environment 

Assessment of community progress 

Initial input to a Community Experience Locator 

C-37 


The APCQ best practice report on Building and Sustaining CoPs identifies how communities 

of practice fit within a KM strategy, the types of communities and their characteristics; 

successful approaches to planning, initiating, and sustaining communities; necessary support 

structures and roles for various community types; enablers of successful communities, including 

information technology; and how to assess the health and measure the effectiveness of 

communities. The APQC benchmarking study on Virtual Collaboration focuses on strategies 

and enablers for effective virtual collaboration as well as providing detailed information on 

preparing for, supporting and measuring a virtual collaboration strategy. 


Individuals enhance their learning through informal dialogues and conversations. 

The Utility benefits from better employee knowledge. 

The organization has a process in place for getting other opinions (or expert resources) 

to solve timely, critical problems or events. 

When the CoP is composed of workers from many utilities it offers a talent resource of 

knowledge that could be stronger and broader than an single Utility would possess. 

See: 




Case Example #15 (U.S. Army TEAM C4ISR) 


Case Example #17 (USAID) 


Department of the Navy Case Study 

Learn@WELL Case Study 



Expertise Locator 




Cross Utility Collaboration 

Reference Materials for Knowledge Sharing 



APCQ best practice report on Building and Sustaining CoPs 

APQC benchmarking study on Virtual Collaboration 

Department of Navy’s ABC’s for CoP Quick Start 

Federal Aviation Administration Guide to Virtual CoPs 

__________________________ 

Reference: 

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. New York, NY: Cambridge 


C-38 



A technique for mapping the relationships among different concepts. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, idea generation, learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

Concept mapping was developed by Professor Joseph D. Novak at Cornell University in the 

1960’s. It is based on the theory of David Ausubel, who forwarded the idea that new knowledge 

was based on prior knowledge. Today, neuroscience findings have affirmed that our minds are 

continuously connecting incoming information (through our senses) with information that is 

stored in our memories, confirming the importance of concept mapping as a tool. 

A concept map is represented as a network, with core ideas connected to related ideas. 

These core ideas, or concepts, can be labeled, and the links (which can have arrows one or 

both ways, or just be ―associated‖ by a connecting line) can also be labeled. 

Concept maps are used to generate ideas and support creativity; for example, during 

brainstorming. They are also used for note taking, to understand complex structures and 

communicate complex ideas, for the transfer of information and the creation of knowledge, and 

to enhance metacognition (learning to learn, and thinking about knowledge). 

Mindmapping is similar to concept mapping. However, the mindmap starts with one concept 

as core, while the concept map can have any number of core ideas. 


An increased ability to visualize and comprehend the relationships among multiple ideas 

and concepts. This allows employees to create a high level view of the set of concepts 

and to relate them to their Utility. 

Seeing these relations also helps employees understand how their efforts and products 

may relate to other worker’s work, depending upon the specific concepts I the map. 

See: 




Causal Loops 

____________________________ 

References: 

Buzan, T. (1995). The MindMap Book (2 nd ed). London, UK: BBC Books. 

Novak, J.D. (1991). ―Cl arify with concept maps: A tool for students and teachers alike. The Science Teacher, 

58(7), 45-49. 

C-39 


Dialogue 

A small group of people seeking a common understanding through a specific process called 

dialogue. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, individual and organizational 

learning, group collaboration, creating a shared/common understanding 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

Dialogue is the capacity of members of a group to suspend assumptions and enter into a 

genuine thinking together. Dialogue is a process used by David Bohm in 1992 to create a 

situation in which group members participate as coequals in inquiring and learning about some 

specific topic. In essence, the group creates a common understanding and shared perception 

of a given situation or topic. 

Dialogue is frequently viewed as the collaborative sharing and development of 

understanding. It can include both inquiry and discussion, but all participants must suspend 

judgment and not seek their own outcomes and answers. The process stresses the 

examination of underlying assumptions and listening deeply to the self and others to develop a 

collective meaning. According to Senge, dialogue involves gathering and unfolding meaning 

that comes from many parts, as well as inquiring into assumptions, learning through inquiry and 

disclosure, and creating a shared meaning among group members. 

Two dialogue tools are: The Left Hand Column (below) and The World Café (listed 

separately). 

Left-Hand Column 

The left-hand column dialogue tool is based on the premise that during conversations there 

are actually two conversations taking place. The conversation that is explicit consists of the 

words that are actually being spoken throughout the exchange between two or more persons. 

The other conversation consists of what the individuals are thinking and feeling but not saying. 

The term "left hand column" is derived from an exercise designed to explore what is not being 

said but is being thought during the course of a conversation. This "tool" offers a way to actually 

study our conversations so that we can re-design them to be more effective in creating desired 

results. 

People need an introduction to this tool before it can be used effectively as a group. Here is 

an exercise to introduce it to a group: 

Step 1: Choosing a Problem. Select a difficult problem you've been involved with during the 

last month or two. Write a brief paragraph describing the situation. What are you trying to 

accomplish? Who or what is blocking you? What might happen? Examples include (1) the rest 

of the organization is resisting—or you believe they will resist—a change you want to 

implement, or (2) you believe your team is not paying much attention to the most crucial 

problem. 

C-40 


Step 2: The Right-Hand Column (what was said). Now, recall a frustrating conversation you 

had over this topic. Take several pieces of paper and draw a line down the center. In the righthand 

column, write out the conversation that actually occurred, or the conversation you're pretty 

sure would occur if you were to raise this issue. The discussion may go on for several pages. 

Leave the left-hand column blank until you're finished. 

Step 3: The Left-Hand Column (what you were thinking). Now, in the left-hand column, write 

out what you were thinking and feeling but not saying. 

Step 4: Individual Reflection (using your left-hand column as a resource). While you can 

learn a great deal from the act of writing out a case in the format of left and right columns, if you 

put it away for a week and then looking at it again, you will most often achieve deeper insights. 

Whether immediately after completing the writing, or a week later, ask yourself as you reflect: 

What has really led me to think and feel this way? 

How might my comments have contributed to the difficulties? 

Why didn't I say what was in my left-hand column? 

What assumptions am I making about the other person or people? 

How can I use my left-hand column as a resource to improve communications? 

Step 5: Discuss in pairs or a small group. In pairs or small groups review one or more of the 

left-hand columns written in step 3. The conversation should focus on exploring the 

assumptions behind both speakers' words, and discussing alternative ways in which the 

participant could have conducted the conversation so that he/she would have been more 

satisfied with the outcome. 


Better understanding of your own assumptions, beliefs and biases. 

Increased understanding and transfer of knowledge. 

Creation of new knowledge. 

Developing different frames of reference or perspectives on issues. 

Learning to keep an open mind. 

See: 

Case Example #11 (TREND, Ghana) 

Case Example #13 (Federal Aviation Administration) 


Tools: Blog 



The World Café 

_________________________ 

References: 

Bennet, D. (1998). IPT Learning Campus: Gaining Acquisition Results through IPTs. Alexandria, VA: Dynamic 

Systems Inc. (Available from dbennet@mountainquestinstitute.com) 

Bohm, D. (1994) Thought as a System. New York, NY: Routledge. 

Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the Art of Thinking together: A Pioneering Approach to Communicating in 

Business and in Life. New York, NY: Doubleday. 

Senge, Peter, et al. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning 

Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday. 

C-41 


Document Repositories 

A technology for storing, tracking and managing formatted information objects. 

Supports: expertise location, knowledge sharing 



SCOPE OF WORK 

HIGH 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

The document repository of a Utility holds much of the support information needed by 

decision-makers to make effective decisions. While the location of documents in an 

organization used to be libraries and file rooms, today they are ubiquitous, accessible and 

searchable from every computer hooked to a Utility Intranet. This is where employees will find 

the policies, standards and standard operating procedures that drive everyday work. Thus the 

focus of document management has moved away from stewardship to a greater concern with 

the use of information itself, the processes that inform decision-makers across the Utility. The 

flow of information throughout the Utility is the life blood of the organization! 

From a technology viewpoint, there are many areas to consider when evaluating differences 

among the large number of systems (both open source and proprietary) that are available for 

use today. Those areas would include: community knowledge base (supports development of); 

ease of deployment (packaging, installation, software and hardware requirements and ability to 

support separate repositories if needed); ease of programming in needed changes (adding or 

changing digital object types, consistency and style of code); interoperability (including the use 

of standard meta-data); open source (future needs); scalablity (not only up, but can the 

architecture be separated and used on different machines); security (data encryption, server 

security, authentication, and access rights); system administration (customization and 

publishing ease); and workflow tools (supports use of different tools and workflow software used 

by the Utility). While some Electronic Document Management Systems may not successfully 

satisfy all these areas, ensure that the one that is chosen meets the needs of the Utility and 

allows the potential for upgrading as the Utility becomes more familiar with the system and 

identifies additional requirements. 

A key step to developing a document repository is the knowledge audit. Not only does a 

knowledge audit help identify what knowledge an organization has, who has it and how it flows 

throughout the organization, but it identifies the knowledge that should reside in the document 

repository. See Knowledge Audit. 

A taxonomy, an agreed-upon vocabulary of topics arranged around specific themes, is 

developed to help organize the document repository and support search capabilities. See a 

resource paper by TECHi2 on Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies. 

The KnowledgeBase Roadmap provides a framework for building the knowledge base in a 

specific area of knowledge. This provides another step in the ability to effective access 

information that is needed when it is needed. 

In the results of the AwwaRF study on ―Strategies to Help Drinking Water Utilities Ensure 

Effective Retention of Knowledge,‖ document repositories were described as representing the 

best of the codified knowledge of the Utility (and therefore often the first place people look). 

C-42 


Specifically, document repositories were called out as a self-service tool in support of 

knowledge retention. 

Project Study #14 involves the move from a paper based Utility to the process of capturing 

all asset data into one database. This involved training 310 employees (costing data included). 

In Project Study #19 the Utility is computerizing all customer service records tied to the 

organizational GIOS database that will link both pieces of information, thereby facilitating 

knowledge flows. 

Project Study #28 details the use of KnowledgeKeeper, a knowledge management software 

application, involving videotaping procedures that are then turned into a searchable format 

available to plant operations personnel. In Project Study #2, the Utility has developed 

operations and maintenance manuals for each of three areas: water distribution, water 

treatment and sewage collection. In Project Study #13, the Utility has increased the number of 

Standard Operating Procedures captured in its information system. In Project Study #10, the 

Utility has created a document repository called Quality Based Documentation and today the 

documentation process has become the norm for the organization. The Utility has provided a 

process graph and the parent document supporting the document control process. In Project 

Study #32, the Utility has developed a document repository for capital improvements. Project 

Study #24, systems documentation is kept up to date through a System Certification Review 

Process. This process is part of a larger commitment to total quality management. 


Rapid and easy access to relevant information needed by the Utility workforce. 

An efficient way of storing, updating and keeping track of information that the Utility 

considers important for its day-to-day activities. 

See: Project Study #2 (City of Fairborn, OH) 

Project Study #10 (Colorado Springs Utility, CO) 

Project Study #13 (City of Akron, OH) 

Project Study #14 (City of Akron, OH) 

Project Study #19 (Evergreen Metro District, CO) 


Project Study #28 (City of Cleveland, OH) 

Project Study #32 (Tampa Bay Water, FL) 

Case Example #2 (Mitre Corporation) 


Tools: Knowledge Audit 




Ideas: Technology-Related Tools 


Paper by TECHi2 on Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies 

_________________________________ 

Resources: 

Oce Business Services White Paper. ―Document Process Management: The Case for an Integrated Lifecycle 

Approach.‖ Downloaded from www.oceusa.com/obs. 

Sutton, M. J. D. (1996). Document Management for the Enterprise: Principles, Techniques, and Applications. New 

York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 

C-43 


Engaging Golden Expertise 

A program or series of actions for engaging employees who have retired or external experts 

who are no longer fully engaged in the workplace. 

Supports: knowledge retention, Utility performance, organizational learning, employee 

development 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

Engaging Golden Expertise is an approach to ensuring your Utility has access to needed 

expertise no longer available within the Utility. The concept is built on an understanding that the 

boundaries of an organization can no longer be clearly defined, but are permeable and porous. 

People no longer stay in one job their entire lives, but move around in and out of organizations 

and in and out of the government, industry and non-profit sectors. Industry copes with this issue 

through joint ventures and partnering agreements. The military has a trained reserve force 

available for call up. 

A body of knowledge that has been previously much overlooked resides in Third Agers. 

Third-agers are individuals who possess a great deal of experience and knowledge, who are 

retired but still active physically and mentally, and have a desire to contribute to the Utility. 

These can be retirees from a specific Utility, or others who have identified expertise in areas of 

interest and need. Since the past several years have seen an increase of third-agers moving 

from metropolitan areas into the suburbs and beyond, this may provide an opportunity for small 

Utilities serving rural areas to have availability of specialized expertise that can be identified 

through community social organizations. 

Third Agers can be formally employed for specific term tasks or on advisory boards or task 

teams. They can also serve as volunteers for special events. 

Retiring Utility employees provide a known source of Third Agers. Hopefully, the Utility has 

engaged them in knowledge sharing activities such as mentoring, coaching and communities of 

practice prior to leaving. See knowledge retention and the MQI graphic Knowledge Sharing as a 

Systems Approach. However, there is still the opportunity to engage individuals postretirement. 

Some examples are as members of communities of practice, speakers at 

knowledge sharing forums, and as members of a reserve force or perhaps on governance 

boards. A phased retirement approach is another option, eliminating hours gradually as others 

move into their positions. Still another approach is to retain selected employees on the payroll 

with reduced hours (say 10 hours a month) as expert resources and trouble-shooters. 

In Project Study #12, the Utility established a retiree program allowing for the hiring of 

retired employees in a training capacity. In Project Study #17, the Utility’s ―Rallying a Team of 

Exceptional Employees‖ program includes adding new staff alongside retirees to facilitate the 

transfer of critical institutional knowledge. In Project Study #21, the Utility has engaged retired 

employees in a training capacity. Their approach also allows for the contractual hiring of former 

employees as independent vendors of special projects. 

Regardless of the approach engaged, Third Agers offer another source to tap for ensuring 

the Utility has the knowledge it needs when it needs it. 

C-44 



Better decisions because of availability of expertise and advice. 

Learning opportunities by employees moving into higher levels positions that were 

vacated by retirement, accidents, etc. 

Fewer learning mistakes by less experienced employees and an increased respect for 

their Utility for doing all that it can to help employees learn and maintain good or high 


See: 

Project Study #12 (City of Grand Forks Public Water Utility, ND) 

Project Study #17 (Orlando Utilities Commission, FL) 

Project Study #21 (The City of Phoenix Water Services Department, AR) 



Also: Learning History 

Leave a Legacy 



MQI graphic Knowledge Sharing as a Systems Approach 

C-45 


Event Intermediation 

An event for which the planning process and actual event are strategically used to bring about 

large-scale change across a Utility and its larger stakeholder group. 

Supports: change management, knowledge flows, knowledge sharing, customer relations 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED-HIGH 

MED-LARGE 

WIDE 

Event intermediation is the use of a planned, collaborative event to move from intention to 

reality. An intermediary connects knowledge seekers with knowledge sources by relating, 

researching, validating, reshaping, and transferring information. Planned and supported 

through groups, teams and communities, event intermediation is a tool for facilitating the 

horizontal and vertical sharing of knowledge at a point in time as part of a larger change 

strategy. Historically, humans work and strive to create change with only slightly visible results, 

then some event occurs which connects all this prior activity, and the understanding of change 

pushes everyone to a new strata of recognition, with the entire plain of behavior shifting upward 

to a new starting point. A good analogy would be the growth of bamboo. For the first four years 

the young bamboo plant is watered with relatively little visible evidence of growth. But during 

this time, out of sight, the roots are spreading, interconnecting and growing in strength. Then, 

during the fifth year, the bamboo plant streaks upward some 20 or more feet. 

Using an Appreciative Inquiry Approach, sources within an organization or within the water 

industry are identified where desired actions are successfully occurring, and these are 

highlighted, widely shared and rewarded at this event. Although each of these sources may 

bring to the event only part of the process needed to accomplish a desired end state, 

collectively they provide the evidence that what is being attempted can be done, and they act as 

indictors of how to accomplish it. This is similar to the amplification and sense and response 

approaches in MQI’s paper on Systems and Complexity Theory. 

A larger event approach such as a town hall or knowledge fair provides the venue for event 

intermediation (see Stakeholder Engagement). An event of this nature requires wide 

participation of stakeholders as both presenters and participants, and coordinated, high-level 

planning for what must be thought of as self-organized local events. For example, in a 

knowledge fair this might take the form of booths where dozens of participants plan and share 

their stories. Simultaneously, there might be more formal presentations balanced against 

demonstrations on the hour. In a town hall format, this might mean simultaneous events such 

as an expert panel with an audience and live video-feed, a telethon, and a question and answer 

session being web-cast, with participants moving from one form of media to the next. Other 

formats might be stand-downs or road shows. Stand-down is a term used in military 

organizations to refer to a period of time where everyone in the organization ―stands-down‖ from 

their day-to-day job/requirements to focus on a significant need, event or aspect of the 


The event selected could then be followed by development of a toolkit which would include 

video interviews capturing the words of experts and high-level policy-makers; presentations, 

stories and video clips representing each booth with points of contact; the latest research 

C-46 


findings; dialogues from a panel discussion; resource documents; pictures of groups of people; 

award honorees with descriptions of their work and activity, and so forth. 

In their Case Study, the Department of the Navy held a series of knowledge fairs followed up 

by toolkits to spread KM best practices across the enterprise. 


Increased knowledge sharing and knowledge reuse. 

Utility-wide change based on a large number of people having the opportunity to meet 

and share their interests and knowledge and to learn about knowledge initiatives being 

implemented by others. 

Relationship building across the utility and larger stakeholder group. 

Attendees develop a better appreciation of the value of KM. 

See: 

Department of Navy Case Study 


Tools: Appreciative Inquiry 

Ideas: Community Outreach 




___________________________ 

References: 

Bennet, A. & Bennet, D. (2007). Knowledge Mobilization in the Social Sciences and Humanities: Moving from 

Research to Action. Frost, WV: MQIPress. 

Douglas, Lloyd C. (1935). Green Light. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. 

Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston, MA: Little, Brown 

and Company. 

C-47 



A system for connecting knowledge seekers with knowledge holders to facilitate knowledge 

exchange. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, decision-making 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

With today’s technologies, information can be rapidly transferred from one place to another. 

Only how do you know whom to contact to learn more about a specific topic? Who is the 

―expert‖ in your utility? This may be a particularly challenging question in larger utilities. 

Many organizations have identified the need to develop systems to help locate expertise 

across an organization. The expertise locator can also be called a ―utility yellow pages‖. The 

objective becomes to create a locator system that can be easily and successfully queried from 

any part of the organization. 

The Expert Seeker developed by NASA goes beyond locating specialists to providing a 

unified interface to access NASA competencies, assisting in the organization of cross-functional 

teams, offering NASA experts more visibility, and helping to perform gap analysis. See KM at 

NASA-Kennedy Space Center. 

While there are software programs that can scan the Utility document repository and 

automatically generate an Expertise Locator, there are many potential sources of expertise that 

may not be captured in that repository. For example, the expertise residing in retired personnel 

who may be easily accessible for short engagements. See Engaging Golden Expertise. 


Increased communication. 

Less time wasted in locating and obtaining information and knowledge. 

See: 



Case Example #10 (IWSD Zimbabwe) 

Case Example #15 (U.S. Army TEAM C4ISR) 


KM at NASA-Kennedy Space Center Case Study 

Tools: Document Repository 



C-48 



A process for leading and collaboratively working with a group of individuals to achieve a 

specific objective by maximizing group synergy. 

Supports: Knowledge sharing, problem-solving, brainstorming, leadership development 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

MED 

Facilitation might be considered an advanced form of collaboration; it is clearly an important 

strength of leaders. An effective facilitator is a leader, a follower, a collaborator, and a servant 

to the group. Like collaboration, facilitation can be learned only through experience. It is both a 

behavior and a mental process, demanding parallel monitoring of several different processes 

occurring simultaneously during teamwork sessions. Experience in processing several streams 

of data simultaneously helps a leader monitor situations and interactions and adjust their own 

behavior and responses accordingly. 

To expand on this consider the following story 1 . 

John had been facilitating a group of water utility executives all morning but had not been 

able to get them to communicate very well. The executives faced a challenging and complex 

issue that was hard to understand, confusing, and had potentially very serious consequences to 

their organizations. Everyone took the issue seriously and most of the group had their own quick 

solutions, but they all seemed to be talking at cross-purposes. There had been many heated 

discussions and arguments with little listening; some personal animosities had burst forth. Even 

when they did seem to listen they did not get the deeper meaning behind the words. It was a 

classic case of everyone feeling that they knew the right answer. In frustration, John begged 

away from lunch and went to his office to think about what he should do. He was a good, proven 

facilitator, yet nothing he had done seemed to be working that morning. In desperation, he 

picked up an old sheet of questions he had kept from a seminar years ago. It read: 

1. What are ―you‖ doing to make the problem worse? 

2. Are you enforcing the ground rules? 

3. Did you prepare the group for dialogue and inquiry? 

4. Is the process appropriate for the objective? 

5. Is the problem due to diversity of personalities, language problems because of different 

disciplines, levels of seniority, competing objectives, inexperienced participants, 

organizational loyalties, personal arrogance, or misguided faith in their own knowledge? 

John read over the questions carefully and began to realize that the essence behind all of 

the questions was to prepare the individuals in the group so they were open to learning and 

knowing. Such preparation would help the executives question their own beliefs and knowledge 

and look carefully at other ideas---and how they were delivered and responded to---in order to 

see beyond images, hear beyond words, and sense beyond appearances. This was essential to 

get to the heart of the matter and create an understanding and consensus for the road ahead. 

C-49 


Regarding the first question, John realized that he had become involved in several of the 

discussions and, although he always tried to be objective, there were probably individuals in the 

group who felt he was biased. In thinking about his behavior, he recalled the trick of taking 

himself out of himself and looking at himself from the upper corner of the room. When he 

reflected on this, he became aware that he had been giving some leaders more attention than 

others and that his mannerisms had shown some of his personal bias. 

Regarding the second question, several times John had not enforced the ground rules and 

allowed some individuals to ramble and talk too long. This had undoubtedly irritated other 

participants. He recalled the first rule of management, ―If you’re not getting what you want the 

first thing that has to change is you.‖ 

Regarding the third question, he realized that although he had originally intended to talk 

about the question ―How do we know what we know?‖ and to do a systems review of the topic, 

he had let several of the senior leaders talk him out of it because they thought it would waste 

time and they wanted to have more time to resolve the issues. He now realized this had been a 

serious mistake on his part. 

Thinking about the fourth question, John felt certain that all of these utility leaders were 

extremely well-qualified, dedicated, and seriously trying to do their best in coming up with a 

good solution. Certainly there were personality differences. The language problem was not too 

serious, although he knew it would probably have been better had he helped them develop a 

common perception of the problem. Looking at the other possible problems he concluded that 

the major issue was that, even though they were well intended, they each had a strong belief in 

their own knowledge and were certain that their answer was the right one. They came from 

cultures of hierarchy and competitiveness. They had proven themselves through their careers, 

had demonstrated good decision-making capabilities, and firmly believed that their solution 

would be best for the drinking water industry. 

Reviewing the last question he concluded that although the group had shown some signs of 

every problem mentioned in the question, none of their behavior was enough to be the cause of 

the current problem. 

Finally, John thought about how well he had been able to keep up with the four processes 

that unfold simultaneously during every teamwork session. He felt good about being able to 

follow the flow of content of the group and to understand the significance of some of the ideas. 

Monitoring the quality of interpersonal relationships among members and taking early action to 

prevent disruptions had been straightforward. The third process, the movement of the group 

toward its objective, is what got stymied and he had not handled it well. He also knew that he 

had not monitored his own behavior---how he came across to the group---very well. Learning to 

track all four of these processes in real time while standing in front of a group of well-educated, 

proactive knowledgeable leaders had not been easy for him. But through experience and the 

school of hard knocks he had come to feel confident about his abilities as a facilitator. 

Reviewing all of these thoughts in his mind, John realized that he had not given enough 

attention to preparing the group to question their own knowledge, and thereby be open to other 

ideas and perspectives. He knew this was a critical step in guiding the group through the overall 

path. Once it is brought to their attention that there is no solid answer to the question, ―How do I 

know what I know?‖ almost everyone is willing to consider other answers and try to keep an 

open mind. 

Since it was too late to drastically change the planned process, John decided the best action 

was to get everyone to step back from the situation and spend time looking at their own beliefs 

and assumptions, recognizing and respecting the beliefs of others, and exploring the context 

within which the objective was to be accomplished. In addition, he wanted to explore the 

possibility there were no right or wrong answers, only possibilities and probabilities. He really 

wanted to spend time on complexity thinking to get the group to appreciate the challenges and 

possibilities of piercing their unknown world of the future. ―But there was no time for that,‖ he 

C-50 


quietly muttered under his breath as he walked back into the lunchroom. When lunch was over, 

John began the afternoon session feeling much better about the way ahead. John’s experience, 

here described as a formal facilitation responsibility, is very close to what collaborative leaders 

do in their interactions with knowledgeable workers. During their conversations, they 

continuously monitor and support the content flow, the process and direction of the discussion, 

the interpersonal relationships being developed, and their own behavior as seen by others--- 

always done within the framework of honesty, openness, values, and integrity. This is how 

collaborative leaders lead, learn, and build their own character. 


Improved communication. 

The creation of trust, active listening and collaboration. 

New ideas and better ways of looking at problems. 

See: 


Case Example #13 (Federal Aviation Administration Knowledge Services Network) 


C-51 


Force Field Analysis 7 

A mechanism for assessing and dealing with the various forces that aid or hinder the 

implementation of a program or project. 

Supports: problem solving, decision support, collaboration and knowledge sharing 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

A Force Field Analysis can be used to identify forces in place that support or work against 

the solution of an issue or problem. It illustrates the driving forces that can be reinforced or the 

restraining forces that should be eliminated or reduced. Force Field Analysis can also be used 

to analyze the positives and negatives of the implementation process. The Force Field Analysis 

prepares members of a team or community to analyze and tackle elements of a project that 

prohibit them from achieving their goals. It also identifies positive forces that can be 

strengthened to propel the project forward. 

The process starts with a ―T ―diagram. Write the current problem and the ideal situation or 

solution to the problem at the top of the diagram. Evaluate the forces driving the ideal state and 

list those on the left-hand side of the diagram. List the restraining forces, or forces that are 

holding the team or Utility from attaining the ideal situation on the right-hand side. When all the 

forces have been identified and listed, evaluate the list. Ask which restraining forces might be 

reduced or which driving forces may be enhanced to bring one closer to the ideal situation. 

Here is an example of using a force field analysis to consider an individual’s fear of public 

speaking: 

Current Problem: 

Ideal State: 

Fear of public speaking 

To speak confidently, clearly, and concisely in any situation. 

+ Driving Forces Restraining Forces – 

Increase self-esteem 

Helps career 

Communicates 

ideas Contributes to a plan/solution 

Encourages others to speak 

Helps others to change 

Past embarrassments 

Afraid to make mistakes 

Lack of knowledge on the topic 

Afraid people will be indifferent 

Afraid people will laugh 

May forget what to say 

Here’s a quick overview of how to construct a Force Field Analysis diagram: 


C-52 


1. At the top of the T, write the issue or problem to analyze. Underneath it, write a 

description of the ideal situation to achieve. 

2. Brainstorm the forces that are driving towards the ideal situation. These forces may be 

internal or external. List them on the left side. 

3. Brainstorm the forces that are restraining movement toward the ideal state. List them on 

the right side. 

4. Prioritize the driving forces that can be strengthened or identify restraining forces that 

would allow the most movement toward the ideal state if they were removed 

5. Discuss the driving forces and restraining forces to focus on. Decide how to strengthen 

the positive elements and decrease the occurrence and ramifications of the negative 

elements. 


More efficient and/or effective solutions to problems because of better understanding of 

forces involved and easier to address and take advantage of these forces. 

Helps groups analyze, understand, develop and implement effective solutions to 

problems. 

Improves learning through dialogue and problem solving and gives individuals a 

technique to develop a deeper understanding and suggests ways of thinking about a 

problem that can lead to insights, creative solutions and the anticipation of desired 

outcomes. 


Brain Writing 

Causal Loop Diagram 


__________________________ 

Reference: 

Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. New York, NY: Harper. 

C-53 


Interviewing 

A one-on-one process for gathering first-hand information. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge retention, information gathering 



MED 

SCALABLE 



The following interview guidelines are a tool for conducting interviews to gather information. 

For an idea of potential information to gather during an exit interview see KM Desk Guide. The 

ten steps for conducting effective interviews below are divided into three sections: Preparing for 

the Interview, During the Interview, and After the Interview. 

Preparing for the Interview: 

1. Determine the purpose of the interview and the associated types of information that will be 

collected. 

2. Identify the categories of questions to be asked during the interview, for example, 

knowledge requirements, knowledge sharing and interaction, and knowledge exchange. 

3. Specify the areas of data and information necessary to meet the objectives of the interview. 

Attempt to conduct the interview in the interviewee’s workspace to support access to any 

needed info and data located in their office. 

You should notify them in advance of the interview of your data and areas of information 

you need. 

4. State questions utilizing the following techniques: 

Ask open-ended questions. For example, "How can this process be improved?" 

Ensure clarity of meaning by eliminating ambiguity. For example, "How would you rate 

the professionalism of your staff?" Since ―professionalism‖ can have various meanings 

to different people, explain what you mean by professionalism. 

Keep questions simple. For example, State ―agree‖ or ―disagree‖ with questions like "Our 

staff was both fast and friendly", then ask for examples. 

Watch out for biased questions, which can be difficult to detect and can hinder obtaining 

insight. For example, "Do you wish me to pass on any complements to the Director?" 

During the Interview: 

5. Introduce yourself, your objective and the agenda of the interview, specifically: 

Find out if interviewees have any objectives of their own for the interview. 

Ask if they have any general questions pertaining to the project. 

Explain how information will be used. 

6. Put the interviewee at ease with note-taking by explaining that the notes are to be used as 

reference of what is discussed. Try to capture their exact words, particularly if you think they 

may be of high importance. Ensure understanding throughout the interview and paraphrase 

back to them what you hear them say. 

7. Utilize the Funnel Technique to move from general ideas to detail. For example: 

C-54 


Initially broad: "Tell me about..." "Describe..." 

More detail: "Who? What? When? Where? How?" 

Very detailed: "Yes" or "No" to verify information 

After the Interview 

8. Document your findings as soon as possible and follow up with interviewees on areas of 

uncertainty. 

9. Consider sending interviewees a summary of their comments to confirm what you heard and 

how you interpreted their statements. 

Interviewing does not always come naturally; it is basically a learned skill. Here are some 

useful tips: 

People learn best via stories—let them tell their stories. This also helps keep (and 

transfer) the context of what they are saying. 

Don’t settle for vague answers. For example, if the responder says, ―You need enough 

time for planning‖ ask them ―How much time?‖ 

Dig for causes. For example, ask: ―What was missing that caused this to happen?‖ 

―What did you put in place to ensure success?‖ ― 

Don’t ask closed questions. Give the responder some space to reflect and answer. 

Ask expanding questions. For example, ―What made that a success?‖ ―What would be 

three pieces of advice for the next person facing this challenge?‖ ―What makes you say 

that?‖ ―How did you achieve that?‖ ―Would you do something differently next time?‖ 

In Case Example #1 (ReVisions), interviews with upper management were used during a 

Knowledge Audit to gain a better understanding of the corporate culture. In Case Example #16 

(Virginia Department of Transportation), interviews started the knowledge mapping process. An 

Interviewing Profiling Tool provides sample questions that might be used in support of a 

knowledge audit or knowledge retention effort. In Case Example #15 (US Army TEAM C4ISR), 

interviews are used to produce a Key Learnings Document, part of the knowledge capture 

process. 


The data, information and understanding needed to meet the reasons for having the 

interview. 

Interviewees may have a better appreciation for their work and its value to the 


See: 

Case Example #1 (ReVisions) 



Tools: Interviewing Profiling Tool 


KM Desk Guide 


Sample KM Plan 

C-55 



Provides pertinent questions to interview key personnel. 

Supports: learning, knowledge retention, knowledge sharing 



MED 

SCALABLE 



The purpose of the Profiling Tool is to support the interviewing of key personnel in order to 

identify knowledge, skills and information requirements needed by the Utility. It can be used as 

a reference or serve as a basic questionnaire that takes the interviewer and interviewee through 

a series of questions pertaining to actions accomplished on the job and the information 

necessary to complete those actions. For each interview, enter the information gathered into 

the Profiling Tool. It serves as a helpful organizational tool for gathering and displaying 

important information about the knowledge, skills and information requirements of the key 

personnel. 

1.0 Output/Example 

The output will vary as the information gathered on specific individuals differs. 

Name: 

Position: 

Process: 

Critical Actions: 

_____________________ 

_____________________ 

_____________________ 

_____________________ 

Preliminary Questions: 

What training is vital to doing your job and why? List of all Knowledge required and why 

What training do you need to accomplish your job? List of all skills required 

What information do you require to do your job? List of all information required 

INTERVIEWEE 

Outcome Needed 

QUESTIONS: 

Of all the information List of important documents that require 

available to you, which immediate access. 

documents must you have 

immediate access? 

Analysis and Follow 

Up Questions 

C-56 


What documents do you 

keep on your hard drive? 

Which documents are 

always back-up? 

List of important documents that have local 

access. 

List of critical documents. 

How do you keep track of 

them? 

Description of document maintenance and 

back-up procedures. 

What are typical Identify gaps in information availability. 

situations in which lack of 

information hurts or 

hinders your ability to do 

your job effectively? 

If you need to call How are the most common gaps filled? 

someone for information, 

how do you know whom to 

call? 

How efficient is the 

maintenance process 

and what are the 

potential hazards? 

How can these gaps 

(inefficiencies of 

information) be 

improved? 

Why do these work 

around situations 

exist? 

What do you do if you 

don't know? 

How do you learn about 

new process initiatives or 

innovations? 

How do you apply these 

process initiatives or 

innovations? 

What Utility information 

from outside your 

immediate division or 

community do you use 

regularly? 

What information 

originating outside your 

Utility do you regularly, 

(i.e. Databases, industry 

reports, etc.)? 

How are the typical gaps resolved? 

How do they find out about improvements? 

How do they improve? 

How frequently do you use Utility information? 

How frequently do you use information 

originating outside your Utility? 

What is the typical 

method to resolve 

gaps? 

What information 

(conference, internet, 

local email, etc.) has 

been made available? 

How effective is 

implementation and 

why? 

Does this frequency 

relate to its importance 

(i.e. Is it listed above)? 

Does frequency relate 

to importance (is it 

listed above)? 

Expected Outcome: 

A high level of understanding of the interviewee’s knowledge and experiences. 

A thorough coverage of the areas of interviewee’s knowledge. 

Improved determination of key knowledge areas that must be understood after the 

interviewee’s departure. 

See: 




Interviewing 

KM Desk Guide 


C-57 



Short summaries of specific actions and results in context. 

Supports: knowledge retention, knowledge sharing, learning 



MED 

SCALABLE 


C 2 = CONTEXT/CONTENT SENSITIVE 

Key learnings are insights kept in context, which may or may not be applicable to another 

situation. They are a one to two-line summary sentence focusing on a specific actions and a 

resulting benefit. These key learnings are then categorized by major themes and presented in a 

question and answer format. For example, for the theme ―Proven evaluations criteria and 

techniques,‖ the question might be ―What issues should I consider when evaluating past 

performance?‖ The key learning would be: ―Understand the circumstances behind the success 

and failures of past performance proposals to avoid eliminating a bidder who may have the best 

solution.‖ 

To prepare the key learnings document, the U.S. Army TEAM C4ISR implemented the 

following process. The interviews were transcribed with time codes. Then a group of knowledge 

harvesters (a minimum of 2, maximum of 4) joins together in a distillation process, first prereading 

the transcripts to identify key learnings, pull quotes and major themes. Then the group 

comes together to compare notes and debate, using a laptop and projector to edit the 

transcripts as the group agrees on key learnings. Group rules of the process included: 

There is no true right or wrong. 

Discussion is focused on the statements made in the interview, not on the knowledge 

harvester’s experience. 

Avoid over-interpreting—don’t put words in the mouth of the interviewee. 

Using this group process, it takes about 4-6 hours to distill one hour of interview. Finally, the 

group produces the Key Learning Document, which is then forwarded to the interviewee to 

ensure accuracy. See Case Example #15. 

This document can then be used to create video, audio and text clips for the Utility. It can 

also be linked to related after actions reviews. 


The capture of tacit knowledge for reuse 

Individual and organizational learning 

See: 




Interviewing 


Learning How to Learn 

C-58 


Knowledge Audit 8 

An inquiry into what knowledge an organization has, who has it and how it flows throughout the 


Supports: organizational assessment, strategic planning, succession planning, decisionmaking, 

knowledge sharing, knowledge retention, organizational learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

HIGH 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

―The best audits capture not only what the key knowledge is that advances important goals, 

but why people think it’s important, where it resides and who knows the most about it.‖ 1 A 

knowledge audit—designed to meet the needs of a specific organization—moves beyond 

knowledge mapping to include evaluating the state of an organization’s technology, how well the 

organization’s processes support knowledge sharing, and the work styles and culture of the 

people within the organization. A successful knowledge audit can show needed changes in 

organizational and personal behavior, enabling technologies and business processes so that 

knowledge can be applied to improve how well the utility achieves its mission. It can also be 

valuable in pointing out improvements to existing processes, clarifying the knowledge people 

really need, and locating sources of that knowledge. 

The knowledge audit begins with Knowledge Mapping, a process for identifying and locating 

knowledge within the organization. Now this information can be used to design a knowledge 

management system. For example, information that is used by a large number of employees 

would become part of a web-based application widely available to multiple employees (see 

Case Example #1). As a second example, Communities of Practice might be implemented to 

help mitigate identified knowledge gaps within a specific area or practice, mobilizing knowledge 

from one source of expertise in the organization to a larger team of employees who can use that 

knowledge to improve their efficiency and effectiveness. 

Tiwana offers a six-step process for the multidisciplinary group of people who make up the 

audit team to document knowledge assets. 

(1) Define the goals. This would include targeting of specific goals or knowledge and 

identifying any constraints. 

(2) Determine the ideal. This does not have to be extremely detailed. 

(3) Select the method to use. The method should be one with which your organization is 

comfortable. For example, a virtual survey process may be a good starting point for 

a geographically dispersed organization, but not very effective for groups of 

employees who do not regularly use computers. 

(4) Perform the audit and document assets. This becomes an internal benchmarking 

product that can later be used to evaluate the effectiveness of knowledge 

management initiatives. This would also be the place where a knowledge map is 

developed for use across the organization. 

8 Jeff Angus, the Project Director of Data Works, Ltd., Seattle, Washington 

C-59 


(5) Track knowledge growth over time. As the ideal defined in (2) above changes, so 

too do knowledge needs of the organization. Periodic knowledge audits help identify 

the direction over time that the organization is heading and provide the opportunity 

for conscious strategic shifts. 

(6) Determine your organization’s strategic position within its technology framework. As 

the knowledge audit surfaces information that can now populate information 

systems, the directions in which knowledge management and information technology 

should and should not focus are clarified. 

It is critical to have a consistent framework to assess the knowledge assets that are 

discovered during the knowledge audit. While the knowledge discovery process selected in (3) 

and performed in (4) above often uses surveys and interviews, it may also include focus groups 

or Delphi studies, formal and informal reports, and exploration of databases, employee skills, 

the sharing of best practices and core competencies which can provide indicators of knowledge 

robustness. 

In Project Study #9, the Utility identified critical knowledge and knowledge gaps as part of a 

complete Workforce Planning Project. In Project Study #23, the Utility used a questionnaire to 

help identify critical operational knowledge and as input for development of a documented 

action plan. The questionnaire and the process they are using to develop their action plan are 

attached to the project study. In Case Example #2, a knowledge audit was used to measure 

Return on Investment. 


Important information and knowledge will be identified, stored and made available to 

those who need it. 

Learning and succession planning will be easier because of this meta-knowledge. 

Actions can be taken to fill in gaps of knowledge and information, avoiding mistakes and 

frantic searches for problem resolution. 

Training, planning and decision-making will be more efficient. 

All of the above will increase Utility efficiency and effectiveness. 

See: 

Project Study #9 (Tualatin Valley Water District, OR) 




Tools: Communities of Practice 


Knowledge Blueprint 



___________________________ 

References: 

Bennet, A. & Bennet, D. (2004). Organizational Survival in the New World: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive 

System. Boston, MA: Elsevier. 

Tiwana, A. (2000). The Knowledge Management Toolkit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

C-60 


KnowledgeBase Roadmap 9 

A framework for building the knowledge base in a specific area of knowledge. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, communities of practice, knowledge reuse, knowledge 

retention 



SCOPE OF WORK 

HIGH 

MED-LARGE 

WIDE 

The KnowledgeBase roadmap provides a framework for building the knowledge base in a 

specific area of knowledge. A knowledge base is the collection of information, supporting 

context, and the individuals and groups who possess and can share and apply the knowledge 

necessary to ensure the performance and sustainability of the Utility. A knowledge base is 

generally focused in a specific domain of practice (thus the emergence of the term community of 

practice). It may support an established community of practice, or a group of employees 

working in the same functional area. (See also Shared Space.) While a Utility may already 

have an information infrastructure in place, the KnowledgeBase development process focuses 

on creating collaborative processes and information support for a specified area of knowledge. 

An KnowledgeBase example is the IWRM (integrated water resources management) 

knowledge base which includes data from basic hydrological monitoring for estimating 

sustainable water supplies and data on water resources from remote sensing. While political, 

institutional and economic instability caused a severe decline in basic hydrological monitoring 

(for example, downsizing of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources in Venezuela 

resulted in most stations of the original network no longer operational), the World Hydrological 

Cycle Observation System is now making an important contribution to the available knowledge 

base (UN World Water Development Report 2). 

The Implementing Community 

Development of a knowledge base is best implemented by community members practicing in 

that functional area. It requires a core group of community members involved in the entire initial 

process. These individuals would take on the roles of Community Leader, Coordinator, 

Cybrarian and Technologist. The Leader provides day-to-day support while serving as an active, 

contributing member. The Leader strives to further the community's goals by: (1) serving as a 

subject matter expert; (2) coordinating with and connecting other team or community members; 

(3) planning, scheduling and managing activities; (4) interfacing with senior leadership; (5) 

representing the KnowledgeBase effort at briefings; (6) recognizing contributions; and (7) 

tracking budget expenditures, if applicable. The Coordinator assists the Leader in performing 

the above tasks, but focuses on internal coordination rather than external relations with the 

organization. While Cybrarian is a new cyber-term, it easily resonates with most people. 

Cybrarian conveys the notion of one who looks after the collecting and access to library-type 

resources needed by the Utility. Regardless of the extent of dedicated Web support that is 

available to the Utility, the Cybrarian will provide help with finding and connecting domainrelated 

assistance in the Web environment. This person has at his or her fingertips both Internet 


C-61 


and Intranet sites of value. The Technologist watches over infrastructure support. As the 

KnowledgeBase comes together, the Technologist ensures Utility employees can connect and 

communicate through various media, providing them options and resources for collaboration. 

When decisions are being made regarding the infrastructure, the Technologist is available to 

relate technical issues to KnowledgeBase requirements. The role is best filled by a person who 

knows the domain and is technically savvy. 

The following products are developed as part of the knowledgebase: 

1. Matrix of groupware functions that the community will focus on for its first release of the 

KnowledgeBase 

2. List of identified knowledge domain information (documents, presentations, 

spreadsheets, etc.) that includes specific documents 

3. List of folders used for organizing domain information 

4. Graphical model and supporting narrative of "AS-IS" information flows between the 

Utility community of practice and stakeholder organizations 

5. List of community members and the folders that they have been assigned 

6. Groupware electronic repository. Information will have been migrated to the groupware 

application under the given folder structure 

7. List of asset rules that ensures all groupware transactions are done in a manner 

consistent across the community 

8. Graphical model and supporting narrative of "TO-BE" information flows between the 

community and stakeholder organizations. This would includes a list of business 

performance measures and expected efficiencies from the KnowledgeBase (e.g., cycle 

time = 8 weeks; goal is 2 week reduction). 

The Key Tasks to develop a KnowledgeBase are the following. Each key task is first 

introduced and then discussed in greater detail below. 

1. Requirements: Map identified collaborative tool functions to business requirements to 

simplify deployment, narrow training scope, and ensure more efficient use of the 

groupware. 

2. Inventory: Define knowledge assets in a business process context and identify whether 

they will be created by the community or borrowed from other business owners. 

3. Taxonomy: Develop a business context classification structure for organizing the 

inventory of information. It should provide an intuitive navigation scheme for members of 

the community and other interested stakeholders. 

4. Flow Model: Model AS-IS business processes based on the flow of inventory assets to 

and from customers. Focus on how assets are created and disseminated. 

5. Migrate: Provide necessary technical support to migrate inventory assets that exist in 

legacy repositories. Inventory should be organized, classified as relevant, and mapped 

to a classification owner. Owners are typically subject matter experts from within the 

Utility. 

6. Map: Identify owners of the Inventory folders and designate life-cycle responsibility at a 

folders structure level. 

7. Asset Rules: Establish business rules for the use of the groupware to maintain 

consistency while performing business transactions. Designate which groupware 

functionality will be used to process specific transactions. 

8. Transformation: Identify, in priority order, high value/low risk business processes that 

provide the group with the highest value in terms of customer service, cycle time 

C-62 


eduction, and total ownership cost. Focus on measures that correlate to related 

business performance measures. 

9. Training: Secure computer-training facilities to allow "hands-on" training for users. 

Transformed business processes will be simulated in a training environment for user 

testing and acceptance. 

Key Task 1: Requirements 

This task is aimed at narrowing the functional scope of the selected groupware application to 

only those functions that enable the achievement of mission-related measures (that is, reduction 

in cycle time). For example, given a groupware application, conduct a functional analysis of the 

application. At minimum the analysis should include the function name, description and release. 

List all of the functions that the groupware application is capable of performing (such as, add a 

new document). This list should not include any extended or custom functionality. Focus on the 

base functionality of the groupware. 

Once a list has been prepared, convene the community members to review the list. Leaders 

should aim at obtaining consensus over which functions meet the general requirements of the 

community's needs within the first release of the KnowledgeBase. Enter 1 for ―release‖ if the 

community requires the function in the first release. Enter 2 or 3, respectively, if the community 

feels as though that particular function can be postponed for a later release. The community is 

expected to base its functionality decisions on lessons learned and past experiences, and the 

requirements of the project. 

Work Product: Requirements Traceability Matrix - Excel spreadsheet containing the following 

elements: REQ ID, REQUIREMENT (or Function Name), DESCRIPTION, RELEASE (version of 

the implementation that will contain the corresponding function), NEW or EXISTING, 

FULL/PARTIAL, COMMENTS, DOCUMENTS 

Key Task 2: Inventory 

The inventory offers community members the opportunity of identifying all information 

associated with established business processes. With the help of a facilitator or community 

leader, convene a session of community members and conduct a brainstorming session on 

information that is either inputs to or outputs of the community's business processes. 

Once the list has been developed, assign each member the responsibility of reviewing the 

baseline list and adding information not captured during the community session. Compile the 

baseline list along with the individual input from community members. This will become the 

baseline inventory for the community. 

Work Products: Inventory List - Excel spreadsheet containing the following elements: ASSET 

ID#, NAME, DESCRIPTION, BEST PRACTICE, RECORDS MANAGEMENT META DATA 

(SSIC data) 

Key Task 3: Taxonomy 

The objective of taxonomy building in the community is to provide an intuitive structure for users 

who are interested in obtaining information from or contributing to a community's practice. 

Convene the community to brainstorm a list of categories based on the prepared inventory list. 

The objective of the taxonomy brainstorming session is to develop as complete a list as 

possible. Disregard the length of the list. The actual list can be finalized during a separate 

community session. See Taxonomy. Tip 1: Limit the final consolidated list to 9 categories. Tip 

2: Limit sub categories to 3 levels. 

Once the group has developed a list, distribute the list to group members and have them 

conduct a personal assessment of the list. Community members add, consolidate, or 

recommend deletions to the list. Community leaders will consolidate the group and individual 

C-63 


lists into a single group list. Once completed, begin assigning inventory items to their respective 

categories. 

Work Product: Taxonomy List - Excel spreadsheet consisting of the following elements: 

FOLDER ID #, CATEGORY, LEVEL, OWNERS, STATUS, DESCRIPTION, and REVISION 

NOTES. 

Key Task 4: Flow Model 

The purpose of flow modeling is to graphically illustrate how inventory items are transferred 

between organizations as business transactions are conducted. The model will present a view 

that allows for easy identification of ―As-Is‖ business processes. To begin, model the 

organizations involved in the inventory exchange as depicted below. 

Sample Flow Model 

Using the baseline inventory list, illustrate how each item travels between community and 

organization. In some cases, an inventory item may traverse several paths between 

organization and community until the business process cycle is completed. 

Sample Flow Model w/ Path Example 

The ―As-Is‖ flow model is complete when each of the inventory items has been illustrated on the 

model. 

Once the graphical model has been completed, the Leader will write a narrative that 

describes the path of community inventory items. The narrative should e written in terms that 

are easily comprehensible. Within the narrative, incorporate details that are not readily apparent 

within the model. See Picture Map and Storyboards. 

C-64 


Work Product: ―As-Is‖ model and narrative of the business process and the knowledge 

assets transacted during the identified processes. Illustration of community, stakeholders or 

customers and the direction flow of assets between services and customer. 

Key Task 5: Map 

Mapping provides a means for the community to maintain its data. Community members will be 

designated as the point of contact for a particular category of data within the knowledgebase. As 

with any community, all members must participate in the maintenance and upkeep of its locale. 

Mapping is a relatively quick and informal process. Convene a meeting of community 

members. Using the established taxonomy list, have community members volunteer for folders 

that fall within their area of responsibility. Record these assignments in the ASSIGNED OWNER 

column of the taxonomy list. Additionally, have members volunteer for folders as an alternate 

point of contact. Therefore, each folder will have two community members who are familiar with 

the folder structure, content, and access privileges granted the folder. 

Work Product: See Taxonomy List - Excel spreadsheet of ASSET CLASSIFICATIONS and 

ASSIGNED OWNER. 

Key Task 6: Migration 

Migration of data is important to demonstrating the capabilities of the groupware application. It 

also provides a means of validating what has been accomplished in terms of data organizations. 

Finally, it provides a context for discussing how Inventory and taxonomy contribute to the 

Utility's business processes 

Migration begins with validation of both Inventory and taxonomy lists. This ensures what has 

been gathered thus far accurately reflects the needs of the community. Convene the community 

and conduct a quick review of both lists. Pay particular attention to those Inventory items that (a) 

are not associated to a business process and (b) are not products of the community. Items that 

are not associated to a business process may be considered for removal. Items that are not a 

product of the community may exist as parts of an adjacent community. If so, eliminate 

redundancy by cutting out "borrowed" items. 

Once the lists have been validated, begin populating the project workspace according to the 

taxonomy. Data can be populated manually or in batch. Tools are available for large-scale 

conversions. 

Work Product: Tool user accounts for all core group members and operational prototype of 

current release of the collaborative workspace. 

Key Task 7: Asset Rules 

Asset Rules provide members with groupware guidelines for moving data in and out of the 

knowledgebase. They also designate which groupware function will be used to support specific 

transactions in business processes. An example of an asset rule is using a compound 

document instead of a folder to collect and present periodic volume releases of a newsletter. In 

this case, two different groupware functions could be used to achieve similar results. 

Establishing asset rules provides a consistent means for interacting with the KnowledgeBase. 

Sets of asset rules exist for each business process supported. Regardless of the size, rules 

must be put in place to avoid differences in practitioner usage. Asset rules will most commonly 

be identified with a business process. However, in some cases, specific documents may have 

an asset rule associated with them specifically. 

Begin with listing the different processes or documents that will require an asset rule. 

Remember, all transactions conducted within the groupware application will require a set of 

asset rules that provide guidance to the community members. For example, a particular 

community maintains a community calendar within its groupware application. The document 

C-65 


format of the calendar is a Microsoft Word file. To provide guidance to the community on the 

use of this document, the following asset rules have been created: 

1. Calendar only maintained by assigned owner 

2. Community members who need to add a date to the calendar will use the groupware's 

document Check-in / Check-out function 

3. The community will maintain three months of its calendar. One month of past events and 

two months of future events 

4. All community members will create a change notification on the community calendar 

thus allowing them to receive email notification upon calendar update 

Again, a set of asset rules should be developed for each process or document involved in a 

community business transaction. Asset rules should be reviewed periodically to ensure 

applicability and effectiveness. 

Work Product: Asset Rules - Excel spreadsheet including BUSINESS RULE NUMBER, 

BUSINESS RULE, DESCRIPTION, REVISION, STATUS, and COMMENTS 

Key Task 8: Transformation 

Transformation is key to achieving value from the KnowledgeBase. The use of the 

KnowledgeBase process implies communities will undergo a transformation in how they do 

business. If transformation is not achieved, the community has done nothing more than increase 

its burden and develop another data repository. 

To transform, begin by selecting "high value/low risk" flows of inventory identified in the flow 

model stage. The flow selection should be based on that which the community believes would 

bring the highest value at the lowest risk to the community's mission, that is, the most likely to 

be successful with no side effects or perturbations. List and prioritize which flows will be 

transformed into the groupware application such that all future transactions relating to the 

selected process will be conducted via the groupware. 

Once processes have been listed and prioritized in terms of value and risk, prepare an 

assessment or "gap analysis" of the "AS-IS" process and the "TO-BE" process. The analysis 

should include: 

1. List of stakeholders who will be affected by the process change 

2. Changes to the process in terms of steps required to complete the process - Are there 

any changes to the process? If so, document the changes. 

3. Measures and metrics for assessing the value achieved by transforming the "AS-IS" 

process to the groupware application environment 

4. Document asset rules associated to conducting the process in the "TO-BE" environment 

Work Product: TO-BE model and narrative of the business processes transacted. Includes a 

Gap Analysis identifying changes to AS-IS model and documented asset rules. 

Key Task 9: Training 

Training ensures that all community members possess the necessary skills to function within the 

collaborative work environment. Community leaders should not assume that its members 

understand and can operate within the knowledgebase without training and support. 

Training in this context includes more than just application training. It includes context-based 

training that is rooted in business processes. That is, members are trained in both the use of the 

groupware application and the business processes it supports. This way, training has relevance 

to the community member and has immediate application. 

C-66 


Training can be accomplished within the community by identifying a training lead for the 

community. Typically, this person will possess an above average aptitude for Information 

Technology and has a good grasp of the business processes. 

The trainer will use the Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) developed earlier in the 

process to design a course for community members. The RTM provides the basis for the 

training. That is, it lists what groupware topics the trainer will cover. It is up to the trainer to 

select the business context of the functional topics. The trainer should develop a group of use 

cases or scenarios that illustrates to community members how the groupware will be utilized 

within the community's business environment. An example of a use case is: (1) update group 

calendar; (2) login to groupware; (3) check-out calendar; (4) add new calendar entry; and (5) 

check-in calendar. 

There is no replacement for hands-on training. Where possible, utilize a training center to 

deliver training to community members. Training should be designed to be brief and specifically 

geared towards business processes. Long training sessions greater than 1.5 hours have proven 

to be ineffective. If training seems too long, scale back on the coverage areas. Keep it 

manageable, applicable, short, and enjoyable for your community members. 

In the KM Plan attached to Project Study #23, the Utility is developing an Intranet-supported 

knowledge base for critical operational knowledge. This includes an increase in work 

instructions, process flowcharts and digital photos. 


An established knowledge inventory and folder structure for the domain of knowledge 

A process for capturing documents 

A framework to continually improve business processes leveraging lessons learned and 

reusing best practices 

Increased community collaboration and support 

Identified target efficiencies in mission related measures such as cycle time, customer 

service and total ownership cost 

See: 




Document Repository 






Picture Map 

Shared Space 

Storyboard 

C-67 



A template for recording KSI (knowledge, skill, information) requirements. 

Supports: knowledge acquisition, knowledge sharing, learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

The Knowledge Blueprint is a template that allows you to record information about each 

knowledge, skill, and information (KSI) requirements for specific jobs. A series of knowledge 

blueprints might be filled out for each KSI requirement, each detailing a different knowledge 

object used to transfer the knowledge. The example below shows one way of transferring First 

Aid skills (the knowledge object is a training course). Other knowledge objects for this 

requirement might be books, manuals, pictures, apprenticeship etc. Separate blueprints should 

be filled out for each knowledge object as appropriate. 

How do I use the Knowledge Blueprint? 

For each KSI requirement you should create a set of knowledge blueprints. These are the plans 

for knowledge transfer and should indicate the lifespan and update frequency of the material. 

The template should enable you to think through each KSI requirement in turn and define 

knowledge objects/knowledge transfer methods that satisfy that requirement. As different 

knowledge objects will take different update frequencies and potentially different audiences, you 

may need a range of knowledge objects to satisfy each KSI requirement. Fill in the templates 

using the example below as a guide. 

Output/Example 

KSI Requirement 

Title (Knowledge Object) 

Community/Content Center 

Knowledge Transfer Modality 

Process Phase 

Available Through (Media Type) 

Target Audience 

Update Frequency 

Purpose 

Abstract 

Contents 

Responsibility for compiling 

and/or authoring 

First Aid Skills 

First Aid Training Course (Hands-On Training) 

Medical (First Aid Skills) 

Cognitive understanding 

Prior to field work 

Workshop 

All Utility personnel 

Offered once a month, required once a year 

To ensure Utility personnel understand and are capable of practicing 

basic First Aid 

Explanation of basic First Aid skills such as the Heimlich Maneuver, 

how to administer CPR, basic emergency medicine and health 

maintenance. 

How do I perform CPR? 

How do individuals react in emergency situations? 

What are the important components of health maintenance? 

Who do I contact for what? 

First Aid training leader (through HR) 

C-68 


Estimate effort in ongoing 

maintenance and updating 

Sources of information 

3 days per First Aid workshop 

Local hospitals 

Primary care physicians 

Emergency care personnel 


When all important knowledge objects are identified and templates recorded, the Utility 

(or some subdivision) has a record of its basic knowledge needs. These can be 

changed or added to as desired. 

The record of knowledge objects can serve to ensure proper training and learning is 

accomplished, thereby keeping Utility employees up to date on specific training 

requirements. 

As new knowledge is needed, the knowledge templates can be increased or updated, 

ensuring a current inventory of required knowledge objects is available. 

See: 



Tools: Knowledge Audit 


C-69 


KM Desk Guide 

An information resource specifically tied to job activity 

Supports: knowledge retention, new hires, job transition, knowledge sharing, resource 

management 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

One of the most difficult parts of coming into a new position is figuring out what is and is not 

known and available, and where all the required resources are located. A simple tool that 

supports this transition is the KM Desk Guide, which helps to make knowledge explicit and 

reusable. The Desk Guide contains specific information needs to successfully accomplish the 

job, including such things as: 

an organizational breakdown 

project team members 

regular meeting dates 

processes for decision-making 

applicable guidance and directive documents or descriptions of same and pointers to 

their locations 

technology systems accessed (and where data needed and used is stored) 

individuals who can serve as knowledge resources (and their area(s) of expertise) 

instructions for use of collaboration systems 

To ensure necessary specificity, templates can be developed to match functions within the 

drinking water utility that serve as guides for needed information. For example, when this 

approach was used in the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) of the U.S. Department of 

the Navy, guidance templates were developed (in the logistics group) for configuration/data 

managers, logistics management specialists, and quality control managers. Each employee 

was required to develop a Desk Guide—or continue building on one already developed—and 

update it on a regular basis (at least annually), as well as two weeks prior to job departure. This 

provides useful information for anyone new to the organization, or joining a new team within the 

same organization. Further, an updated Desk Guide was tied directly to an individual’s annual 

performance review, and considered a baseline requirement for performance awards. 

A variation of this is the virtual Desk Guide which would make each individual’s Desk Guide 

accessible to others across the organization. 

The Sample Desk Book Template (1) focuses on Competency Manager turnover information. 

The Sample Desk Book Template (2) is an example of a desk guide used for Configuration 

Management and Information Management. See also the Interviewing Profiling Tool 


Workers are aware of the essential information and contacts needed to do their jobs. 

New hires come up to speed faster. 

C-70 


In the virtual application, the importance of knowledge and key relationships is 

recognized and made available to others, thereby facilitating communications and 

collaboration across the organization. 

See: 



Tools: Interviewing Profiling Tool 

KM Plan (3. Smart Book) 



Sample Desk Book Template (1) 

Sample Desk Book Template (2) 

_______________________ 

Reference: 

DeLong, David (2004). Lost Knowledge: Confronting the Threat of an Aging Workforce. New York, NY: Oxford 


C-71 


Knowledge Management Plan 

A plan to implement a knowledge management initiative or strategy within a drinking water 

utility. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, succession planning, creating a 

learning organization 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

In order to execute a Knowledge Management Plan—which would call out specific actions to 

be accomplished—an individual or team must be tasked with leading implementation of the 

plan. The way a plan is implemented is as important as what is being implemented. Since 

knowledge is a critical asset of any utility and it is embedded in every single employee of the 

organization, knowledge management cannot be done to an organization. While leadership is 

necessary, effective knowledge management is accomplished from the inside-out, through 

individuals, groups, teams and whole organizations becoming networked among themselves 

and with external stakeholders and information sources and proactively creating, sharing and 

applying information and knowledge. 

As an example, a Sample KM Plan used by an organization in the Department of the Army 

(DOA) is provided. However, as with the DOA, each water utility has different knowledge needs 

that are heavily dependent on the size of the organization, the number and breadth of changing 

environmental demands, the age and condition of the plant infrastructure, the technology 

infrastructure that is in place, the level of training and expertise achieved across the 

organization, the turn-over rate, the culture and many other factors. The example below was 

used for an organization of around 400 people. A Knowledge Management Officer (KMO) had 

been tasked as lead (a collateral duty), and had pulled together a team that crossed functional 

and departmental lines to ensure coordinated implementation in their areas of work. Thus while 

the description is written from the viewpoint of the KMO, the way the program was implemented 

was through a KMO team. The organization also participated in a number of Communities of 

Practice that connected them to other organizations working in similar functional domains. 

Other connections were sustained through participation in associations similar to AWWA and 

regular attendance at conferences which provided opportunities for Benchmarking. 

An approved Knowledge Plan serves as a guide, a source of authority to meet objectives, 

and as a contract between the implementing team and higher authority. While plans must often 

be adjusted during implementation, knowledge management plans almost always require the 

support and cooperation of other individuals in the utility. This must be voluntary on their part, 

and is obtained only through sharing and understanding the nature and importance of 

information and knowledge to the success and future of the utility. Although senior 

management approval of the plan is necessary, it is also necessary for them to show visible 

interest and backing for implementation of the plan. See Leadership Commitment Visibility. 

One useful way to ensure success is to have all key participants and senior management 

personally sign the plan document. This ensures ownership—thereby most likely backing—for 

the effort. 

C-72 


In Project Study #23, a KM action plan and implementation of that plan was necessary for 

the Utility to successfully complete their System Certification Process. Their KM plan is 

attached to the project study. Knowledge plans are included in Case Example #8 (NWRI 

Nigeria), Case Example #9 (SEUF India), Case Example #10 (IWSD Zimbabwe), Case 

Example #11 (TREND, Ghana), Case Example #12 (AMREF, Kenya). 


Develops a common vision and way ahead. 

A well-written plan, signed by all participants, will greatly facilitate successful 


A well-run program can serve as an example and as a voice for waking a utility to the 

usefulness and value of knowledge management to its future. 

See: 



Case Example #8 (NWRI Nigeria) 

Case Example #9 (SEUF India) 

Case Example #10 (IWSD Zimbabwe) 


Case Example #12 (AMREF, Kenya) 







Ideas: Additional Assessment Tools 

Leadership Commitment Visibility 




Department of the Navy Metrics Guide 

MQI paper The Change Agents Strategy 

MQI paper KM, Learning and the Knowledge Worker 

C-73 



Sample Plan 

This plan is somewhat over-simplified to emphasize major points. Additionally, it is framed 

from the viewpoint of a KMO (Knowledge Management Officer) who will be working with a team 

representing departmental and functional areas across the organization, and a larger 

Community of Practice for implementation of KM across the larger enterprise. 

1. Establish an atmosphere of trust within the organization, within and between sections (and 

functional areas). This foundation of trust is essential if members of the organization are to 

share information that will lead to retained and helpful knowledge. 

KMO establishes leadership-approved incentive program for the quarterly and annual 

incentive awards (certificates, coins, and small statues) for the shared knowledge voted 

by organizational members to be the most helpful to the organization. Once established, 

KMO manages and improve the incentive awards program as needed. 

KMO establishes and maintains a leadership-approved ―My Story‖ program (the sharing 

of stories by organization members on who they are and what they offer the team), and 

development of an ―Encouragement List‖ (three positive things about each member of 

the organization that affirm that individual’s worth as a knowledge source and 

contribution to the organization). These are used to introduce individuals during 

meetings, provide examples where appropriate, and design Knowledge Sharing events 

such as lunchtime exchanges. 

KMO facilitates the ―Care to Share‖ Blog on the Staff SharePoint site on anything 

organizational members care to share with each other about hobbies, interests, trips, 

photos, etc. 

2. Establish and maintain a Knowledge Management Education Program. 

KMO establishes and maintains a program to educate organizational members in the 

principles and procedures of Knowledge Management such as ―Leave a Legacy‖ and 

related programs. 

3. Establish a ―Smart Book‖ policy to pass knowledge from one person to the next person to 

occupy the position. [See KM Desk Guide] 

KMO designs a Leadership-approved ―Smart Book‖ format containing: 

Role/Function/Grade for each position; software used (purpose and details of how to use 

it if necessary); websites used (and why); contacts (phone; e-mail) used in the 

performance of duties and why, ―My Story‖ section on what the particular person brings 

to the position (It’s usually done THIS way, but I’ve found that THIS works better ...‖); 

Recommendations (―If I could do anything to improve the duties/performance of this 

position I would ....‖ List any equipment, training, additional personnel, contracts, or 

other suggestions you have.) 

C-74 


KMO interviews organization members to get ―their take‖ on what they offer the 

organization from their unique perspective; challenges they’ve faced and how their life 

experiences bring knowledge that helps the organization and those the organization 

serves. (Sample questions: What has been the biggest challenge in your life? What is 

the biggest challenge on the job? How do the two relate to each other? What is your 

greatest strength? How do you use that strength to serve others in the organization? 

How do you use your strength to serve water utility customers and other stakeholders? 

What is the line of sight between your job activities and the utility’s purpose?) 

4. Continually seek improvement of processes, procedures and practices through sharing 

knowledge and best practices. 

KMO maintains records of procedures, processes and practices throughout the 

organization and seeks to find best practices for their improvement. KMO then 

maintains records of those best practices until changes occur which lead to improving 

them. As appropriate, the KMO pulls together a group of functional area specialists to 

discover the patterns emerging from best practices, and then embeds what is learned in 

appropriate communities, teams, educational programs, and organizational processes. 

Working with teams and communities, KMO oversees the development of ―job aids‖ to 

improve performance. 

KMO serves as ―warehouse manager‖, helping to locate and transfer 

information/knowledge that organization members need to do their jobs better and 

mobilize the knowledge/products they produce across the organization. 

KMO maintains backups of material for future reference. 

5. Leverage state-of-the-art technologies to enhance the gathering and sharing of 

information/knowledge throughout the organization and those whom the organization 

serves. 

Working with the CIO, KMO stays abreast of, and advises organization members of the 

latest trends in technology for the gathering and sharing of information/knowledge 

through websites, virtual worlds, collaboration software and the latest products and 

techniques. 

KMO works with the CIO and organization members whose jobs include library and file 

room functions to ensure production and maintenance of digital archives of significant 

events, training, briefings, etc. that occur at and by the organization for use in training 

materials, legacy materials, improvement of processes and procedures and the overall 

sharing of knowledge with and for the organization. 

Approved by: [Senior Manager/Leader and Direct Report Manager] 

Acknowledged by: [KMO and Implementation Team Members] 

C-75 



A process for identifying and illustrating the location of knowledge within an organization. 

Supports: knowledge audit, knowledge flows, strategic planning, succession planning, 

decision-making 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

Knowledge mapping is a fundamental step in any knowledge management initiative and the 

first step in a knowledge audit. There are many approaches to knowledge mapping. Davenport 

and Prusak describe knowledge mapping as locating important knowledge within the 

organization and then publishing a list or picture that shows users where to find that knowledge. 

Thus, the knowledge map is a guide to show people in the organization where to go when they 

need expertise. The knowledge map connects people to information and data repositories 

(whether in hard copy or virtual format), serving as an inventory of what knowledge exists in the 

organization and where it may be found. Conversely, Tiwana uses the term ―knowledge 

directories‖ to describe knowledge maps that serve the purpose of showing users where to 

obtain knowledge or expertise on specific subject matter. These directories may refer to people 

with expertise (Expertise Locator), documentation libraries, process descriptions, suppliers, firm 

policies, methodologies, and so on. In Case Example #1 a knowledge map was developed for 

sources of expertise. 

Zack focuses on strategic knowledge mapping. This approach maps the firm’s knowledge 

along two dimensions: the degree to which it supports the firm’s strategy, and its quality relative 

to competing firms. There are three focus areas in strategic knowledge mapping: 

(1) What the organization needs to know to execute its strategy; 

(2) What the organization does know; and 

(3) What the organization’s partners (or competitors) know. 

In responding to each question, knowledge can be classified according to whether it is core, 

advanced, or innovative. Core knowledge represents the basic knowledge required to operate 

in the industry. Advanced knowledge differentiates a firm, enabling it to compete in a changing 

world and remain viable. Innovative knowledge is unique and enables a firm to significantly 

differentiate itself as a knowledge leader, with the potential for changing the industry in 

fundamental ways. 

Once an organization has decided on the strategic direction for its future, it can identify the 

knowledge required to reach that goal. This assessment can then be compared to the utility’s 

knowledge map to see where the gaps arise. Benchmarking and mapping other water utility’s 

knowledge can also provide key insights into filling those gaps as well as the feasibility and cost 

effectiveness of obtaining required or desired knowledge. Strategic knowledge mapping 

enables an organization to identify and act upon its knowledge strengths, weaknesses, 

opportunities and threats (similar to a typical SWOT analysis). 

C-76 


As an example of knowledge mapping, Microsoft used the following process to improve the 

matching of employees to jobs and work teams: 

(1) Develop the structure of knowledge competency types/levels; 

(2) Define the knowledge required for particular jobs; 

(3) Rate employee performance in particular jobs by knowledge competencies; 

(4) Implement knowledge competencies in an online system; and 

(5) Link the knowledge model to training programs. 

It is important to recognize that a knowledge map represents a point in time. Knowledge 

mapping is an ongoing quest within an organization (including its supply chain and customers) 

to help (1) discover the location, ownership, value and use of knowledge artifacts (information 

that has helped create knowledge in the past); (2) learn the roles and expertise of people; (3) 

identify constraints to the flow of knowledge; and (4) highlight opportunities to leverage existing 

knowledge. The process included conducting a survey (see Sample Questions regarding the 

existence of current knowledge and needed knowledge), performing a Knowledge Audit, and 

then translating the findings into a knowledge map. See also the Interviewing Profiling Tool. 

Surveys and interviews should be multilevel and cross departmental lines. The larger the 

organization, the more critical to understand the perceptions and expectations at all levels of the 

organization. In Case Example #16, the Virginia Department of Transportation began the 

knowledge mapping process with a series of interviews. In Case Example #6, SHELL HP used 

knowledge maps to assess gaps in organizational knowledge. 

There are challenges to knowledge mapping. Assembly of the map can be difficult because 

the information used in the map is highly fragmented and undocumented. Knowledge that 

resides in the minds of employees may require time-consuming interviews and surveys. 

Further, knowledge maps must be updated on an ongoing basis due to the dynamic nature of 

knowledge assets within the organization. Finally, to maximize the benefits of knowledge maps 

employees and managers must find them to be useful, or they will go unused. However, as 

people who hold large amounts of knowledge continue to retire, awareness of the importance of 

knowledge retention is rising in the industry. Knowledge mapping serves as a tool to 

understand what knowledge needs to be captured and retained. 

In the Learn@WELL Case Study, a personal KM map is prepared by each individual in the 

organization to assess information behaviors (skills, experience and attitudes). The questions 

are asked: 

Who are you working with? 

How do you obtain the information you need? 

How do you share information and knowledge? 

How do you document what knowledge you have? 

What do you need to learn? 

The aim of this personal mapping is for people to think and talk about what they know in a 

systematic way, modifying it as needed. Further Learn@WELL discovered that group 

discussions of individual KM maps provide opportunities for suggestions to be made about how 

individuals can modify their information behavior to contribute to effective knowledge sharing 

within the organization. Similar questions are part of Social Network Analysis. 

In Project Study #26, the Utility used knowledge mapping as part of their Talent Resource 

Planning process. 

C-77 



The knowledge map as a directory encourages knowledge re-use and prevents reinvention, 

saving search time and acquisition costs, and decreasing decision-making time 

while increasing customer response. 

Knowledge mapping identifies significant information and some of the critical knowledge in 

the heads of employees. Highlighting such knowledge prior to retirement or leaving gives 

the utility time to develop replacements for key workers 

The knowledge map as a strategic tool provides knowledge sources for decision-makers 

and customers in an uncertain and changing environment. 

A knowledge map helps identify knowledge gaps relative to strategic future goals and 

highlights knowledge that is no longer relevant to utility success.. 

See: 


Case Example #1 (Revisions) 








Sample Questions 




_______________________________ 

References: 

Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (1998). Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, 

MA: Harvard Business School Press. 

Tiwana, A. (2000). The Knowledge Management Toolkit. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 

Zack, M. (1999). Knowlede and Strategy. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

C-78 



Sample Questions 

Questions regarding the existence of current knowledge: 

List categories of knowledge you need to perform your job. 

Which of this knowledge is available to you? 

How do you use this knowledge to meet the goals of your utility? 

From where do you obtain this knowledge? 

How do you obtain this knowledge? 

Is this knowledge readily available or difficult to find? 

What could help you find, use and share knowledge more efficiently? 

Does the environment you work in help or hinder acquiring knowledge? 

Who do you consider experts in your organization? 

In what form is the knowledge that you get from these experts? 

What are the primary documents or resources you use in your work? 

Who has control of those documents? 

Questions regarding missing knowledge: 

List categories of knowledge you need to better perform your job. 

How would your performance improve if you had this knowledge? 

Where or from whom could you get this knowledge? 

What knowledge do you use over and over again? 

How much time do you spend looking for knowledge? 

Do you ever have to recreate knowledge you previously used? 

What types of questions do you ask to which you cannot find answers? 

Who comes to you for information? What level are they? 

Do you have the information they need? 

Did the requested knowledge have to do with: 

Business performance? 

Functional area expertise? 

Administrative issues? 

How much of the knowledge you use is outdated? 

What are the barriers to knowledge sharing in your organization? 

What can be done to promote knowledge sharing? 

What are the reasons you make mistakes on the job? 

C-79 



A new frame of reference for creating and supporting situations that connect people and their 

knowledge. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, organizational learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

An organization can be viewed as a collage of human knowledge moments. This refers to 

the daily experiences and interactions across the utility and among the utility and its larger 

stakeholder community as people read, write, converse and think during their workday—and 

often in reflection and mental chatter outside of the workday. 

Knowledge moments happen at the intersection of people, places, processes and purpose, 

with every knowledge moment offering a learning experience to those involved. Since 

knowledge is defined as the capacity to take effective action, knowledge moments refer to 

exchanges that provide the potential for, or lead to, effective action. Thus the behavior of the 

utility is enhanced by the result of the interaction of all decisions made and actions taken based 

on the knowledge moments of every individual in the Utility. Similar to the butterfly concept in 

chaos theory (see the MQI paper on Systems and Complexity Thinking), there is the potential 

for success or failure based on knowledge moments which cannot be specifically identified or 

tied directly to that success or failure. 

A sustainable utility is co-evolving with its environment. Thus, the quantity and quality of 

both planned and spontaneous exchanges within the utility’s larger stakeholder community 

affects both the quality of the utility’s work products and stakeholder’s perceived quality of the 

utility’s work products. 

This new frame of reference lays the groundwork for applying this understanding to the 

drinking water utility. The questions a utility must ask are: 

How can the utility increase the quantity and quality of knowledge moments for its 

employees? 

How can the utility increase the quantity and quality of knowledge moments with the 

larger stakeholder community? 


Improved knowledge sharing resulting in more effective actions by employees. 

Expansion of each employee’s network of colleagues resulting in greater access to 

needed information and knowledge and a better appreciation for how the utility works. 

See: 




Ba Space 

C-80 



Shared Space 

The World Cafe 


Group Learning 





_____________________ 

Reference: 

Dvir, R. (2006). ―Knowledge City, Seen as a collae of Human Knowledge Moments,‖ in Carrillo, F.J. (Ed.). 

Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences, and Perspectives. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann Elsevier. 

C-81 


Knowledge Ontology* 

The conceptual framework that expresses the primary concepts and relationships among 

those concepts in a particular area. 

Supports: collaboration, knowledge sharing, search and retrieval 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

NARROW* 

*FOUNDATIONAL FOR KNOWLEDE TAXONOMY 

When we talk about a drinking water utility or a water system, we are actually considering all 

the context and relationships to other concepts that provide a general understanding of these 

topics for those familiar with the drinking water utility industry. For example, when engineers 

talk about achieving high levels of water use efficiency, they do not have to keep asking how 

this topic relates to regulatory approvals since that is common knowledge in the field. Yet, this 

contextual link is critical to understand why controlling leakage is important and how it relates to 

overall plant effectiveness. In contrast, a city planner may not have this knowledge and 

therefore not understand why this is a priority to the drinking water industry. It is a group’s 

common understanding of the concepts related to water use efficiency that provide the basis for 

classifying topics and determining which ones are more general or more detailed to establish an 

effective hierarchy. These concepts inherently have connections to many other concepts with 

different strengths of relationships. Developing an ontology helps surface and understand these 

relationships. 

The ontology is translated into a hierarchy of descriptive categories that form the taxonomic 

schemes used to structure the classification process. Even with a detailed taxonomy, the 

classification scheme cannot convey the relative importance of the taxonomy nodes within the 

document nor the relationship among the nodes, which is exactly the contextual information 

needed to transform information into knowledge. The ontology provides this contextual 


For example, the Standard Subject Identification Code (SSIC) (used by the Department of the 

Navy and other government organizations) has a node titled Data/Information under Operations 

and Readiness. As a user, this can also describe an information technology system function 

and therefore belongs under Information Technology or some other heading that starts with an 

information theme. Similarly, this topic can be about new data storage techniques, both 

hardware and software, and therefore belongs under a Research and Development heading. 

Each case is correct and useful but it is difficult to determine which is best without more 

knowledge on the context of how the topic is being used. One common method to alleviate 

some of this discrepancy is to use a thesaurus of terms to augment the terms used for the 

taxonomy nodes. This allows a wider set of words to form the basis of determining what is 

relevant to a particular node in the same way as we might use synonyms and antonyms to help 

someone understand a new word. 

The TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies talks about 

ontologies and taxonomies in plain language. In the author’s words, you begin by defining a 

structure to organize information into categories of main concepts, and then by terms to group 

C-82 


like items. The concepts are defined in an ontology that maps the main ideas and their 

relationships. Once this conceptual map is made, a set of terms must be created that defines 

how to label items according to the concepts described in the conceptual map. This structure 

set of terms is a taxonomy. This paper describes the basics and how to develop and implement 

them. 


Enables development of an effective taxonomy. 

Allows individuals to intuitively navigate large volumes of resources. 

Blends the need for context and individuality with a consistent and structured framework. 

See: 

Case Example #14 (Defence Information Agency) 

Tools: Document Repository, 




Ideas: Folksonomies 


TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies 

______________________ 

References: 

Malafsky, G.P. (2003). ―Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets‖ in Holsapple, C.W. (Ed.). 

Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters. Lexington, KY: Springer-Verlag. 

_____________________ 

*Adapted from Porter, D., Bennet, A., Turner, R. & Wennergren, D. (2002). The Power of Team: The Making of a CIO. Washington, D.C.: The 

Department of the Navy. 

C-83 


Knowledge Taxonomy* 

A structured set of names and descriptions used to organize information and knowledge in a 

consistent way. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, search and retrieval, decision-making 



SCOPE OF WORK 

HIGH 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

A taxonomy is an agreed-upon vocabulary of topics arranged around specific themes. For 

example, effective use of an organizational taxonomy enables a common language that both 

engineers and technicians can use to access needed information and communicate and 

understand each other no matter who has stored it. Classification becomes more and more 

important as the number of items increases and people have trouble remembering what they 

have and where to find it. It becomes very useful when organizations have access to large 

amounts of information available via global electronic networking. 

Creating an orderly method of classifying and relating knowledge is tremendously complex. 

Consider the enormous quantity of written, spoken and visual information that occurs and is 

stored somewhere in your drinking water utility, then consider where it occurs and resides. Your 

utility may have multiple technology systems with many legacy applications, have limited 

resources to capture critical information and processes, and rely on a variety of external experts 

as needs emerge. Further, (1) even in the same organization people use different words for 

similar concepts, and (2) people often use the same words to convey different concepts 

depending upon the context of an exchange, what we think other people already know or don’t 

know, and how it relates to other activities and thoughts. 

A typical taxonomy is based on a logical arrangement, usually hierarchical, and built on an 

organization’s natural workflow and knowledge needs in an intuitive structure (with ―intuitive‖ 

representing a shared understanding of a specific domain of information). Examples of 

taxonomies are the Standard Subject Identification Code (SSIC), the Library of Congress 

Classification (LOCC) and the Dewey Decimal System. As we build a classification scheme, we 

define topics and order them based on relative importance to our organization and their level of 

detail. For example, water treatment and sewage treatment are included in the Dewey Decimal 

System under Environment Protection Engineering (see below) because they are specific 

instances of the general field. 

Sample of Dewey Decimal System 

600 Technology & Applied Sciences 

628 Environment Protection Engineering 

628.1 Water Supply 

C-84 

628.162 Water 

Treatment 

628.3 Sewage 

Treatment 


But how far should we go in listing the aspects of water? Should we scour the world for every 

possibility and create a note for all water related topics? As can be seen, issues quickly arise 

while defining a taxonomy and lead to hair-splitting decision about what nodes should be 

included and which are subordinate to others. As a consequence, taxonomies grow in size and 

complexity as they attempt to cover all the important topics in a field or organization. 

As an example, a portion of the physics taxonomy from the American Institute of Physics 

below shows the extreme detail of the nodes. Note that while an accountant might have 

difficulty understanding what these topics represent, for a physicist or an engineer they are still 

broad definitions since there are many sub-specialties under each topic. 

80. INTERDISCIPLINARY PHYSICS AND RELATED AREAS OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

81. Materials science 

81.05.t Specific materials: fabrication, treatment, testing and analysis 

Superconducting materials, see 74.70 and 74.72 

Magnetic materials, see 75.50 

Optical materials, see 42.70 

Dielectric, piezoelectric, and ferroelectric materials, see 77.80 

Colloids, gels, and emulsions, see 82.70.D, G, K respectively 

Biological materials, see 87.14 

81.05.Bx Metals, semimetals, and alloys 

The challenge that comes along with KM is effective management, and that means 

organizing a large amount of related but disjointed information into something that is useful, 

accurate and trustworthy. The TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and 

Taxonomies talks about ontologies and taxonomies in plain language. In the author’s words, 

you begin by defining a structure to organize information into categories of main concepts, and 

then by terms to group like items. The concepts are defined in an ontology that maps the main 

ideas and their relationships. Once this conceptual map is made, a set of terms must be 

created that defines how to label items according to the concepts described in the conceptual 

map. This structure stet of terms is a taxonomy. This paper describes the basics and how to 

develop and implement them. 

In Case Example #16 (Virginia Department of Transportation), an integrated taxonomy 

development and data design was used to allow for consistent collection, indexing, and access 

of lessons learned across the agency. 

C-85 



Enables the exploitation of information and knowledge. 

Improves the quality and speed of communication and decision-making. 

Facilitates greater efficiency, effectiveness and innovation across large organizations. 

See: 



Tools: Knowledge Mapping 


Ideas: Folksonomies 


TECHi2 paper Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies 

____________________ 

References: 

Malafsky, G.P. (2003). ―Technology for Acquiring and Sharing Knowledge Assets‖ in Holsapple, C.W. 

(Ed.). Handbook on Knowledge Management 1: Knowledge Matters. Lexington, KY: Springer-Verlag. 

_________________________ 

*Adapted from Porter, D., Bennet, A., Turner, R. & Wennergren, D. (2002). The Power of Team: The Making of a CIO. Washington, D.C.: The 

Department of the Navy. 

C-86 


Ladder of Inference 

An approach for checking the assumptions related to our mental processes. 

Supports: decision-making, learning, knowledge sharing 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

The ladder of inference is a model that describes an individual's mental process of 

observing situations, drawing conclusions and taking action. When we say "the fact is …,‖ what 

we are actually saying is ―the fact, as I understand it based upon my data selection process, 

cultural and personal background, judgments, beliefs and assumptions, is ..." This is important 

because there are a lot of steps in between the data and the actions we take based upon that 

data. By recognizing and exploring our thinking processes, we may understand ourselves and 

develop more effective and higher leverage solutions. 

Directly Observable Data 

After an event takes place, our mental processing immediately screens out a certain percentage 

of the data. In other words, our vision is naturally limited and absorbs only a portion of the data 

that represents life events. The ladder of inference helps us check our assumptions by asking 

three questions: Have we added meaning? Have we made judgements, conclusions and 

inferences based on attached meaning? Have we built beliefs, assumptions or mental models 

that are affecting this decision? 

ADD: Meaning (Personal and Cultural). When we look at the information we have 

collected, we attach our own personal meaning and cultural biases to what we observe. 

No information, therefore, is pure--it is influenced by whoever observes and analyzes 

their information. 

MAKE: Judgments, Conclusions and Inferences. Based on the meaning we attach to the 

information collected we make inferences or judgments and arrive at conclusions that 

influence our behavior. Therefore one piece of information could lead to as many 

different conclusions as there are people analyzing it. 

BUILD: Beliefs, Assumptions, Mental Models. Over time, and the conclusions we reach 

from an event or pattern of events we develop our belief system. We may become 

fixated on certain ways of viewing how the world works, creating our own mental models 

that reoccur each time an event takes place. 

Another way of looking at the ladder of inference is to consider the bottom range of the 

ladder as the: 

(a) Observable information and the associated experience we take in from external 

situations. Then, the next rung up the ladder ... 

(b) We select, filter, limit the information and that is what we consciously observe. Then, 

the next rung ... 

C-87 


(c) We interpret our observations and create meaning and understanding from that 

interpretation. Then, ... 

(d) We make assumptions based on our meaning and understanding, which leads to ... 

(e) Conclusions regarding the situation. From these conclusions we then create or 

adapt ... 

(f) Beliefs about a situation, which through extended experience we take as beliefs 

about the world. These beliefs then ... 

(g) Guide or determine our actions. 

This process is often unconscious and we are not aware of the role of our limited view of the 

situation or of the assumptions we have made. This leads to actions that come from a particular 

frame of reference, mindset or what Senge calls a mental model. 

What value is there in checking our assumptions? All too often, people fall into what may 

be termed "competency traps,‖ a routine of problem solving that provided initial success and is 

used over and over with little regard for how accurately it fits with the current problem. The 

ladder of inference helps us break out of that trap by providing an easy tool to ask, "What 

assumptions am I making about this particular situation that may be wrong and/or limit my 

deeper understanding of the problem?" As we work to more clearly understand the problem, we 

may actually be able to reframe our perspective to more effectively understand the problem. 

What value is there in being more aware of your own reasoning? The ladder of 

inference helps us understand why it is important to make our reasoning steps explicit. By 

consciously reviewing the information that supports our conclusions, we can improve our ability 

to explore complex problems and reduce those instances where (often without realizing it) we 

"jump" to conclusions based upon information that is incomplete. 

What value is there in making your reasoning clear to others? People often employ 

defensive behaviors such as trying to control situations that we have little control over, always 

acting as if we're in control, and never saying "I don't know." By having a tool which provides us 

an opportunity to say, "As I understand what you're saying, x leads to y which results in z. . . am 

I on track with your thinking," we don't have to resort to trying to defuse complex issues on our 

own or end up attempting to cover up the fact that we don't understand the situation. 

What value is there in inquiring into other’s reasoning? When people in organizations 

jointly practice skilled incompetence, the result is the formation of defensive routines. By having 

a mutually acceptable tool, we can inquire into each other’s thinking without resorting to 

rudeness. 

A very powerful application of the ladder of inference is to introduce it at the beginning of a 

project. When team members commit to individually and collectively examine their beliefs and 

assumptions and making them explicit, a great deal of time spent arguing and going around in 

circles can be eliminated. 

A similar concept to the ladder of inference is Senge’s ―mental models.‖ 


Improved problem solving and decision-making. 

Improved knowledge sharing and communication. 

Better understanding of our own assumptions and mental models that we use to 

interpret situations and develop solutions. 

A more open mind to other people who see things differently than we do. 

Improved ability to think critically about issues and problems. 

See: 



C-88 




_________________________ 

References: 

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. San Francisco, 

CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York: Doubleday. 

Senge, P. Kleiner, A., Robers, C., Ross, R. and Smith B. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York, NY: 

Doubleday. 

C-89 



A structured process for gathering information related to a project, strategy or initiative. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, knowledge retention, assessment, organizational learning 



MED 

SCALABLE 



A learning history is a very useful tool to capture knowledge resident in the minds of 

individuals. It is a retrospective history of significant events in an organization's recent past 

described in the voices of people who took part in those events. Researched through a series of 

debriefings or reflective interviews, the learning history uses feedback from employees at all 

levels to help an organization evaluate its progress. A learning history goes beyond simply 

gathering best practices and other lessons learned. It 

(1) provides the time and space for participants to openly reflect on the learning from an 

initiative or event; 

(2) enhances the reflection process so that team or project members begin to make new 

connections and see how their actions ultimately produce final outcomes; 

(3) gathers information from a variety of perspectives to reduce bias in the assessment 

process; 

(4) analyzes data to draw out key themes; 

(5) contains accurate, validated information; 

(6) is written in the words of those involved, not paraphrased in the words of consultants; 

and 

(7) provides a vehicle to promote discussion among participants in the initiative. 

In debriefings, interviewees recall their experience, in their own words, in a way that reflects 

their collective learning experience. While this technique captures knowledge resident in 

individual minds, it is then transcribed into a question/answer format with all interview results 

considered together in a collective format. An alternative approach would be videoing the 

interviews and cutting and splicing responses into a collective format. Regardless of the 

medium, what is important is to ensure the interview occurs while events are still fresh in 

participant’s minds. 

Using this approach, utilities can learn by reviewing both successes and failures, assessing 

them systematically, and recording the lessons learned in a form that employees find open and 

accessible. Recording employee’s experience with technical projects, special response teams, 

change programs, stakeholder groups, technical conferences or symposia, leadership 

conferences, workshops, site visits, and so forth, helps to ensure that useful knowledge is 

shared and that mistakes are not repeated. 

A six-step approach to creating a learning history is outlined below. 

C-90 


Step 1. Select Interview Candidates. Interview candidates are selected to give a variety of 

perspectives on the project or process. When developing a thorough learning history, the 

selection of interview candidates should include those who initiated, participated in, or were 

affected by the project in any way. 

Step 2. Conduct Interviews. (See Interviewing) Interviews can be conducted in-person, or by 

telephone when in-person interviews are not possible. The interviews generally average about 

45 minutes in length and to maintain consistency are conducted by the same interviewers 

whenever possible. The interviews are designed to be reflective, to allow the interview 

candidate to speak freely without the constraints of over structure. No more than six general 

questions are prepared in advance. Additional questions are asked during the interview based 

on the responses of the interview candidates to gather more specific information. General 

interview questions might include: 

What was your role in the initiative? 

How would you judge the success of the initiative? 

What would you do differently if you could? 

What recommendations do you have for other people who might go through a similar 

process? 

What innovative things were done or could have been done? 

Step 3. Record and Transcribe Interviews. Interviews are recorded to ensure the quotes used 

in the learning history are accurate. The recorded interviews are transcribed to enable analysis 

of interview data. 

Step 4. Analyze Data. The interview data is analyzed and sorted to identify like themes and 

sub-themes. Quotes are identified to support the major themes from a balance of perspectives. 

Step 5. Document Key Themes and Supporting Quotes. In this step, assemble and record 

the themes and supporting quotes into the right-hand column of the document. The quotes 

should be in no particular order, but designed to provide a picture of the theme from the different 

perspectives of the interview candidates. Now develop the left-hand column of each section, 

which includes commentary and potential questions for consideration that relate to the adjacent 

quotes. The left-hand column commentary does not reflect the questions asked during the 

interview process but rather comments, questions, and conclusions posed by the author to the 

reader for further reflection. 

Step 6. Validate Quotes. In the final step in the process, validate the quotes that are used in 

the learning history document with the interview candidates. Although interviews were recorded 

and quotes are anonymous, quotes are validated to ensure they were not taken out of context 

and truly represent the intent of the speaker. Quotes are sent to each interview candidate for 

correction and a signature of approval. 


Allows an organization to learn from its own history. 

Makes employees aware of the importance of focused learning on the job by 

demonstrating past experiences, successes and mistakes. 

See: 

Case Example #3 (Hill and Knowlton) 


C-91 



Engaging Golden Experience 

Interviewing 



KM Desk Guide 

C-92 


Learning How to Learn 1 

A process for investigating your own capabilities of learning and optimizing the situations in 

which you best learn. 

Supports: individual learning, decision-maker efficiency and effectiveness, group 

learning, organizational learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

INTRODUCTION 

Learning is the act or process we all go through as we acquire new data, information, skills 

or knowledge. From an external perspective, we believe others have learned when they 

demonstrate changes in behavior that produce effective results. In this section we will consider 

learning in the context of acquiring complex concepts and knowledge as distinct from 

memorizing simple data and information. (See the MQI paper on surface, shallow and deep 

knowledge.) Because of our individually unique genetics, development, experience and 

cognitive and emotional characteristics, there is not a single process that results in maximum 

learning. Some people learn best from reading, some from listening to lectures, some from 

teaching, some from dialogue, social conversation or listening to stories, some from visual 

displays, some from internal reflection, some from intense debate and some from rituals and 

repetition. Any one or combination of these may work best at any given time and situation. 

While we all learn as we go through our personal life cycle, the amount and efficiency of that 

learning varies widely among individuals. As society becomes more complicated and changes 

occur more frequently, the need to learn in order to keep up with our own area of expertise 

becomes a challenge in itself. This is particularly true for professionals working in a world 

where they must maintain a solid understanding of rapidly changing areas of knowledge that are 

becoming more complex. One of the challenges of this millennia is for professionals to learn 

how to develop and maintain their knowledge and competency in order to grow and provide the 

value added needed by their organizations. 

AXIOMS 

We take as an axiom that the responsibility for learning, and learning how to learn falls on 

the individual, and that self-directed learning is usually the best. No theory of learning can take 

into account individual characteristics. Unfortunately, as Hilgard and Bower have noted, 

―It has been found enormously difficult to apply laboratory-derived principles of learning 

to the improvement of efficiency in tasks with clear and relatively simple objectives. We 

may infer that it will be even more difficult to apply laboratory-derived principles of 

learning to the improvement of efficient learning in tasks with more complex objectives.‖ 

Another given is that proactive learning is better than reactive learning. Academic 

institutions, training programs and other adult educational programs that offer or facilitate 

learning are useful, but in general they can all too easily produce students that are passive 

learners. As Knowles noted ―For some time now I have been aware of the fact that the products 

C-93 


of our educational system don’t know how to learn—they only know how to be taught.‖ Yet for 

most situations passive learning is inadequate, only the adult learner knows what knowledge is 

needed, when it is needed, how it will be used and possibly how best they can learn. 

As we move through the phases of life, our local environment will likely undergo significant 

changes. In school we probably learned from lectures and self-study, yet our learning dealt 

mostly with theory and simple problems. In real life we have to learn to deal with ambiguity, nowin 

problems and messy situations. We also must learn to learn in a wide variety of local 

environments, some of which we find difficult or even offensive. In other words, to maintain 

learning over time and in a wide variety of situations we must learn how to learn—a subject that 

is rarely discussed in academia or in the corporate world. 

Since each of us is unique, with our own history, motivations and cognitive skills and 

preferences, we know that our ability to learn will also be unique to each of us. Thus learning 

how to learn will be a personal journey, undoubtedly with help from others, but the brunt of the 

work must be done by each of us. If we consider the need to learn deep knowledge as noted 

above, then the normal academic approach of lectures and self-study may well be inadequate. 

We may learn about ―X‖ but we must live with ―X‖ to learn ―X‖. That is to get the ―feel of X‖, to 

be able to anticipate the consequences of our decisions and actions, and by doing so, achieve 

effective results. Only experience coupled with practice, reflection, questioning, challenging, 

guessing and trial and error creates the insights and ―a-ha‖ experiences that lead to real 

understanding and comprehension. 

A most important question is: How do we learn how to learn from all of these ways of 

gaining data, information and knowledge? The starting point is to know ourselves: our own 

strengths, weaknesses, feelings and likes and dislikes relative to the acquisition and 

assimilation of new information and knowledge. How we have learned best in the past, what 

our preferences for receiving new information and, most important, can we learn how to learn 

from all of the various techniques and artifacts of learning situations. Since we will continue to 

be exposed to a wide variety of learning situations such as those mentioned above, even if we 

dislike learning from lectures, we should make an effort to learn how to learn from lectures. 

Every process for learning can contribute to our build-up of knowledge and to ignore some 

methods by ―turning off‖ is to lose an opportunity. Each individual can look at a given situation 

and reflect on how to learn from that situation. Two perspectives are helpful. One is to look at 

the situation and ask what is in the situation that I can learn from. The second and more difficult 

is to ask yourself what do I need to do to get the maximum learning out of this system— 

composed of the situation, me, and the interaction between us. Answers to such questions will 

encourage learning about learning in each situation. Let’s take a couple of examples— 

storytelling and reading. 

Most people are aware of the power of stories to communicate understanding, values and 

guidelines. They are easily remembered and recalled when needed and may serve as internal 

mentors that offer guidance to us when we find ourselves in a situation related to the lessons of 

the story. See Storytelling. Storytelling could perhaps be looked at as a form of teaching, true 

but incomplete. The storyteller can learn from listening to the comments and observing the 

reactions of the audience. Any forthcoming dialogue will give the storyteller much greater 

insight into the different meanings and insights lying within a good story. However, to learn from 

such an experience, the storyteller must consciously ask questions, listen carefully and be open 

to different interpretations of her story. Just as good teachers learn much from their students, 

every individual can learn by helping others learn. Good stories carry a secret weapon within 

them that is powerful but usually unnoticed—the values within the story. The secret is that the 

listener hears the story and derives its values. By creating the values themselves, the listener 

has ownership and will accept and remember the values. 

Many people consider reading a book a passive activity. In doesn’t have to be. Since we all 

learn from an interaction, a dialogue on a given subject, we can interact with a book by 

C-94 


highlighting or underlining passages we believe important. This simple process gives the 

unconscious mind more time to absorb the sentences and think about them. By prioritizing 

ideas and concepts using a four star system next to important areas we can easily return to the 

book and pick out areas that were most interesting and important, thereby reinforcing or 

reviewing our earlier thoughts—again reinforcing learning. Another technique is to challenge 

statements believed to be untrue, thereby creating action items for our own further research. Or 

we add our thoughts and questions in the margins where the author made statements that 

trigger our own knowledge. 

In other words, we can become active participants with the book and use it as a vehicle for 

creating and pulling information and knowledge from our own experiences or unconscious mind. 

There is an old saying that is very appropriate: ―We don’t know what we know until we say it, 

write it or think it.‖ Thus if a book is read not just as a source of someone else’ ideas, but as a 

tool to leverage our experience, emotions, intuitions and creative powers, we can amplify our 

learning from every book we read. To do this takes patience, practice and time. It is an 

example of learning how to learn and each reader will need to develop their own techniques that 

are comfortable and fit individual learning preferences. 

The above examples are not meant to be definitive. They suggest that sometimes situations 

can be used to expand and improve our capacity to learn and create knowledge by asking 

ourselves the question: ―How can I gain the maximum knowledge from this specific situation?‖ 

See: 





Storytelling 


Individual Learning 


MQI paper Surface, Shallow and Deep Knowledge 

MQI paper KM, Learning and the Knowledge Worker 

____________________________ 

REFERENCES: 

Hilgard, E. R., and Bower, G. H. (1966). Theories of Learning. New York; Appleton-Centure-Crofts. 

Knowles, Malcolm S (1990). The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company. 

____________________________ 

1 Used (with permission) from a paper by David Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute 

C-95 



A process to capture tacit knowledge. 

Supports: knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, knowledge retention 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

The Leave a Legacy approach was developed and is being used by a Department of the 

Army organization. It has been adapted to drinking water utilities as presented below, and is 

written in the form of individual letters sent to all employees that could be signed by any 

appropriate leader or manager within the drinking water utility. In the below example, this letter 

is sent from the Knowledge Management Officer for the organization. 

―Dear ______, 

Imagine that it is the day of your retirement. As you walk out the doors, for the last time, what 

is the legacy you want to leave behind? 

One way I serve you as Knowledge Management Officer is to help you leave a legacy, a 

record of "what you accomplished and how" during your time here. This helps you influence 

future generations for years to come. 

Do you have "How To" lists for each task you do? Formalized, these are called 

"Standard/Standing Operating Procedures." But, informally, they are your record of how you 

help the organization and its customers. You may not even realize it until you write these things 

down, but you have special skills and knowledge that others don't have. If it’s not captured 

somehow, that knowledge will be lost when you leave, resulting in reduced service to our 

customers, those people you’ve spent your life here working to support. 

To help you capture this knowledge, your legacy, I've created two spots on [in this case the 

SharePoint site for collaboration]: 

(1) A "How To" folder where you can upload a Word document you create of how you do 

the tasks you do, especially those things others might not realize you do, or might 

not know how to do them without you. Or, you can just open the document that's 

already there, copy the info from your document and paste it into that one. 

(2) A "My Legacy" folder for more generic thoughts you want to leave behind. These 

might be initiatives you've started or would like to see started. 

Or, if you prefer, feel free to send your "how to" or "legacy" ideas back to me as an attachment 

or text of an e-mail. Or, want me to come and speak to you in person? NOTE: I intentionally 

haven't left an example to avoid setting a format. Feel free to leave your thoughts in the form 

that works best for you! Bullets? Pictures? Drawings? Stories? Formal SOPs? Voicemail? Or 

something different? Your choice. 

C-96 


I am particularly interested in the implicit and tacit knowledge you have been accumulating 

over the years that has been the basis for your high performance in this utility. Many of your 

most difficult actions and decisions have been based on your intuition and judgment created 

over years of experience, both successes and mistakes. So what can you tell us about your 

learning that will help your relief avoid errors and keep our utility high performing? Where have 

you found intuition to be most valuable in your work, and what should your relief look for in 

these areas? Any hints, feelings, rules, heuristics that you found useful would help us greatly 

and represent a wonderful legacy for our future. 

We realize you did not get such help when you began your career many years ago, but things 

were simpler then, and time moved slower. Today we have little time for mistakes, nor margin 

for errors. If your oldest child were stepping into your shoes tomorrow, what would you tell 

her/him other than your telephone number? Leave a legacy behind that directly affects the way 

this utility serves its customers, thus enriching the lives of your colleagues and customers for 

generations to come with your contributions.‖ 


A fluid and efficient transition between an employee’s departure and the new employee 

getting up to speed. 

Decrease in new employee mistakes. 

Accelerated learning by new employee. 

See: 



Tools: Engaging Golden Expertise 

KM Desk Guide 

KM Plan 


C-97 


Lessons Learned* 

A systematic collection, capturing, and mobilizing approach for ensuring the organization 

learns from its successes and mistakes. 

Supports: organization learning, decision-making, knowledge retention 



SCOPE OF WORK 

HIGH 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

Many organizations use the term ―lessons learned‖ to describe the way they avoid repeating 

mistakes, or ensure building on past successes. Yet a lesson can only be applied if it has been 

successfully identified, captured and shared. Even in learning organizations that embrace 

knowledge sharing, the process for identifying lessons learned may lack rigor or depth, and end 

up as a generic statement in a report sitting on the shelf gathering dust (or its electronic 

equivalent). Lessons learned can be collected many ways (meetings, reports, conversations, 

and so forth) and conveyed in many forms (notes, videos, diagrams, databases, and so forth). 

Collison and Parcell (reference below) describe ten key steps to consider capturing lessons 

learned. Similar to the After Action Review process, they must occur as soon after an event as 

possible: call the meeting, invite the right people, appoint a facilitator, revisit the objectives and 

deliverables of the project, go through the project step-by-step, ask what went well, find out why 

these aspects went well, and express the learning as advice or guidelines for the future, ask 

what could have gone better, ensure that participants leave with their feelings acknowledged, 

record the meeting. 

While in this process identifying and recording lessons learned may be a fairly straightforward 

process (see Sample Lessons Learned Report), this is only part of the knowledge 

management cycle. Lessons learned and the guidelines they spawn have no intrinsic value; the 

benefits come from ensuring that the lessons are effectively applied. See Knowledge Sharing, 

Knowledge Mobilization, Group Learning, and Communications Publications. Documenting and 

applying lessons learned is an important part of the strategy presented in Case Example #12 

(AMREF Kenya). 

Lessons learned can be critical for an organization’s survival. When this is the case, formal 

collection, analysis and knowledge mobilization processes should be developed and executed. 

For example, a few days after collector-observers from the Center for Army Lessons Learned 

(CALL) 1 arrive at a mission, they start sending in observations to headquarters. They report 

details on issues and questions outlined in a data collection plan. This raw data is then turned 

over to CALL analysts. To obtain feedback on the data, analysts post observations on 

electronic bulletin boards and electronic mailing lists that reach communities of experts and 

other interested people. The bulletin boards are open forums anyone can access, so that they 

create a broad, generalized audience. The mailing lists deal with a specific subject or specialty. 

A subscriber to the list receives all the messages posted to the list that day, and can also post 

messages to be read by all the other subscribers. Thus the mailing list’s audience is a 

community of people interested in a certain subject, what could be described as a community of 

interest. 

C-98 


Feedback from these two avenues starts coming in right away. CALL analysts relate it to the 

new information coming from the collector-observers and to information the Army already has. 

Studying these relationships produces more questions and new issues, which the analysts send 

to the collector-observers so they can get more information. In this way, the analysts maintain 

the following cycle: 

Collector-observers observe, collect data, and report to the analysts. 

The analysts post the data for experts to read. 

Experts give feedback to the analysts. 

Based on the feedback, the analysts redirect the collector-observers. 

This cycle continues until the analysts have finished their interpretation. When that happens, 

the data has turned into knowledge that can be acted upon—lessons. 

In the Haiti mission, CALL used this method to deliver validated lessons to ground troops 

within five days of the original observations. CALL produced 26 scenarios, including video 

footage, simulations and scripts of situations faced by the troops to use as training materials for 

the incoming troops. See Case Example #7. 

In Case Example #16, the Virginia Department of Transportation used an integrated 

taxonomy development and data design to allow for consistent collection, indexing, and access 

of lessons learned across the agency. 


Fairly rapid, widespread learning by teams involved in real world experiences. 

Creation of a library of lessons learned. 

Improved awareness of, and communication with, others in the same field of activity. 

A resource to get quality answers to complex problems. 

See: 


Case Example #12 (AMREF Kenya) 






Sample Lessons Learned Report 






4003 Knowledge Mobilization paper 

_____________________ 

Reference: 

* Collison, C. & Parcell, G. (2001). Learning to Fly: Practical Knowledge Management from Leading and Learning 

Organizations. Chichester, West Sussex: Capstone Publishing (Wiley). 

____________________________ 

1 U.S. Army example compiled from The Federal CIO Council KM Toolkit. 

C-99 


S A M P L E R E P O R T 

LESSONS LEARNED REPORT 

Name of project or initiative: 

Point of contact: 

Purpose of document: The purpose of the Lessons Learned Report is to pass on any 

lessons which can be usefully applied to other projects. 

Quality and management processes used: 

What went well? 

What went badly? 

What was lacking? 

Assessment of method used: 

Analysis of project issues and their results: 

Recommendations for future enhancement or modification of the project 

management method: 

Recommendations for changes to the process or product used: 

Useful measurement or statistics o how much effort was required: 

Other important thoughts: 

Author/Title/Date 

C-100 


Mentoring 

A learning relationship between an experienced employee and a newer, high-potential 

employee. 

Supports: individual learning, succession planning, knowledge sharing, knowledge 

retention 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MEDIUM 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

Mentoring is the relationship between an experienced, proven mentor and a newer, high 

potential employee to provide personal learning and communication experiences. Mentoring 

can be either a formal Utility-sanctioned arrangement or an ad-hoc relationship that just 

happens because both individuals choose to do it. It can last for as little as a month or as long 

as both parties desire. 

While there are many ways of implementing the process, it usually involves individuals 

spending time together and discussing issues and challenges that come up in the organization. 

The Mentor describes problems faced in the past and discusses approaches and solutions 

he/she used that worked, or did not work. If the two individuals become comfortable with each 

other—a highly desirable result—then a deeper sharing of beliefs, insights, feelings and ways to 

behave and act can be shared and discussed. Such confidentiality is of great value to the 

mentee as it gives her an appreciation for, and understanding of, exactly what it means to be a 

senior leader or manger in the organization. In the best of relationships their conversations are 

kept confidential, allowing the transfer of knowledge and, to some extent, a deeper 

understanding of the nature of the organization and its unstated rules. 

During the mentoring process the mentee has the opportunity to shadow the mentor to see 

and feel the nature and content of problems, people, environments and the dynamics and 

variability of a typical senior manager’s day. When close relationships are developed, these 

sometimes last after the mentoring relationship is finished. This results in a strong relationship 

network that can benefit both parties and the Utility. 

In some cases mentoring relationships do not work out and only surface learning occurs. 

Either party can stop the process without reason. Overall, the process is an excellent way to 

expose a good, younger employee to what it means to be a senior manager and to learn some 

of their deep knowledge, much like the master-apprentice relationships in medieval days. 

In Project Study #29 the Utility implemented a formal mentoring program to build 

relationships and develop leadership competencies. 


The mentee learns faster and contributes more to the Utility. 

The mentor has the opportunity to think about (and question) their own knowledge and 

experience as well as learning how younger workers see the Utility and their jobs. 

C-101 


See: 


Project Study #29 (Seattle Public Utilities, WA) 



Tool: Dialogue 

Ideas: Individual Learning 




C-102 



A process for building familiarity with (and trust of) the expertise of others. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, building trust 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

The ―peer view‖ process (also called a peer assist) provides an effective example of both 

managing conversations and the sharing dimensions. Before a project is about to start, the 

project manager facilitates a meeting in which all team members are invited to participate. 

Individual members are asked to provide related insights from previous projects, experiences 

and lessons learned. 

Through this peer view process, not only is performance on the task at hand improved, but 

people become much more aware of the unique skills and abilities others can bring to projects. 

This creates a natural process for becoming familiar with the expertise of others. It also begins 

to develop the needed norms of reciprocity and trust that make the sharing of expertise 

comfortable. Should a problem appear at a future time, these individuals are more likely to 

come together and provide their inputs to help solve the current problem or derive potential 

solutions. 

This process is used at AT&T. Since there are virtual teams of AT&T employees dispersed 

around the globe, video conferencing is often used as a supporting mechanism to increase the 

effectiveness of this enabler. 


Better knowledge sharing among key employees. 

Speeds up teambuilding process, thereby getting the team up and running more quickly. 

Better quality of decision and implementation through improved trust and collaboration. 

See: 





Dialogue 



C-103 


Picture Map 

A map used for clarifying a process. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

The picture map includes pictures and words to map a specific process or procedure. 

Working visually allows us to see the ongoing productions that are multi-dimensional and 

sometimes chaotic. Pictures present a step-by-step guide explaining performances and skills 

that cannot be easily reduced to words. The visual technique of pictures used by ―how to‖ 

instructional plans, (such as assembling a bicycle or replacing a printer cartridge) help us to 

memorize content and easily repeat operative procedures. For example, creating a database of 

work procedures, instructions and training manuals with accompanying ―picture maps‖ provide a 

mechanism for effectively capturing and sharing knowledge across the utility. 

In Project Study #23, Louisville Water Company (LWC) uses a picture map to show the 

water flow from the Ohio River to the utilities 25 million gallon Clearwell. LWC describes its 

picture map in this manner: 

C-104 


“Follow the Flow 

Hmmm. Now how does the water from the Ohio River turn into drinking water? And how 

does it get to your house?‖ 


Clearer understanding of a process or procedure. 

Sharing critical operations knowledge. 

Supports successful results. 

See: 

Project Study #23 (Louisville Water Company, OH) 


Tools: Storyboard 

Storytelling 


C-105 


Prioritization Matrix 

A process for setting priorities for tasks or issues. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, decision-making 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

Use the Prioritization Matrix to prioritize tasks, issues, etc. (based on known, weighted 

criteria) and identify the most influential actions within your process. Before you use this tool, 

assemble all the tasks within your core strategic process. Each critical action will be 

quantitatively evaluated in comparison with other steps within the process. 

How do I use the Prioritization Matrix? 

The Prioritization Matrix is a grid. Enter each task onto the horizontal and vertical columns of 

the grid. Each task is compared to the other tasks, and evaluated accordingly: 

1 Equally Important 

5 Significantly More Important 

10 Exceedingly More Important 

.5 Significantly Less Important 

.1 Exceedingly Less Important 

Whenever a number is entered in a row, its reciprocal must be entered in the corresponding 

column. Calculate and total each row to determine the overall weight of each task when the 

matrix is complete. This will give you a prioritized listing of each task with respect to the other 

tasks. 

Examples/Output 

Critical Action A B C D E F G H Total 

A 5 10 5 1 5 1 .5 27.5 

B .5 5 .1 5 .1 5 .1 15.8 

C .1 .5 1 1 10 .5 5 18.1 

D .5 10 1 5 1 .5 1 19.0 

E 1 .5 1 .5 .5 10 .5 14.0 

F .5 10 .1 1 5 1 5 22.6 

G 1 .5 5 5 .1 1 .1 12.7 

H 5 10 .5 1 5 .5 10 32.0 


Improved capability to compare and determine relative importance of several tasks 

where limited funds, people or time requires selection of tasks. 

See: Case Example #21 (NASA) 



C-106 


Relationship Building 1 

Processes for building relationships within Utilities at all levels and areas throughout the 


Supports: individual learning, knowledge sharing, dialogue 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

The best organizations—and the teams and communities in those organizations—are built 

upon strong relationships. Relationships typically form naturally from working together over a 

period of time. However, a relationship-building exercise can speed up the process and 

strengthen relationships already developed. Two sample relationship building exercises are 

provided below: Connecting with Community Members and What's the Moral of the Story? 

Connecting with Community Members 

This exercise is designed to help build personal relationships between and among members 

and to begin to answer the questions: What do we know? What do we need to know? Who 

knows it? It can be effective with groups from 5-40, and takes from 20-60 minutes depending on 

the group size. Needed props include: a set of blank, individual, member factoid cards strung 

together on a loose ring - perhaps a community key ring! Each member should have a blank set 

with a blank card for each member. 

Cards have Community Name and Member Name on one side. On the other side they have 

the following outline: 

Member name: 

Organization: 

Best way to contact: 

Best time to call: 

Previous interesting job or organization: 

Top knowledge need: 

Fun Fact: 

Follow the steps described below: 

1. Organize participants into groups of four to six. Adjust according to total number of 

members. 

2. Explain that the goal of this activity is to learn about each other's unique backgrounds 

and perspectives as well as getting to know each other better. 

3. Give each participant a set of blank factoid cards. 

4. Explain the directions: 

Subgroups should convene for 10 minutes to complete factoid cards. 

Each member completes own factoid cards. 

C-107 


After 10 minutes, disperse subgroup members and regroup into new subgroups - be 

sure that everyone hears from every other member in one of the subgroup sessions. 

Note: Rotations should last just long enough for members to gather information, but 

still want more time -- whet their appetite! 

Repeat subgroup formation until each member has completed a card for all of the 

other members. 

Tip: Provide complete set of blank cards to new members as they join and encourage them to 

complete them, one-on-one, with each member. 

Tip: As new members join, provide new factoid cards to existing members and encourage them 

to complete new cards informally and add them to their rings. 

What's the Moral of the Story? 

An exercise called What's the Moral of the Story? can be used to practice sifting through 

information and deriving lessons learned. It is effective in a group of 8-20 and takes 

approximately 8-10 minutes. The only props required are fables. 

Follow these easy steps: 

1. Ask participants to pair up. 

2. Distribute fables. 

3. Explain that fables and folk tales are short fictional narratives that illustrate a moral, or a 

lesson. They are an indirect means of telling truths about life. Thus they have a level of 

meaning beyond the surface story. 

4. Tell pairs they have five minutes to read two fables and find a moral in each. 

5. After five minutes, ask members to discuss possible morals of the story. 

A variation on this theme is to use fables without known morals and ask the group to develop 

some. Some suggested Fables from Aesop are The Rooster and the Jewel, the Crow and the 

Pitcher, and the Ass and his Shadow. 

The Rooster and the Jewel. A Rooster, scratching for food for himself and his hens, found a 

precious stone and exclaimed: "If your owner had found thee, and not I, he would have taken 

thee up, and have set thee in thy first estate; but I have found thee for no purpose. I would 

rather have one barleycorn than all the jewels in the world." Moral: The misinformed despise 

what is precious only because they cannot understand it. 

The Crow and the Pitcher. A Crow perishing with thirst saw a pitcher and, hoping to find 

water, flew to it with delight. When he reached it, he discovered to his grief that it contained so 

little water that he could not possibly get at it. He tried everything he could think of to reach the 

water, but all his efforts were in vain. At last he collected as many stones as he could carry and 

dropped them one by one with his beak into the pitcher, until he brought the water within his 

reach and thus saved his life. Moral: Necessity is the mother of invention. 

The Ass and His Shadow. A Traveler hired an Ass to convey him to a distant place. The day 

being intensely hot, and the sun shining in its strength, the Traveler stopped to rest, and sought 

shelter from the heat under the Shadow of the Ass. As this afforded only protection for one, and 

as the Traveler and the owner of the Ass both claimed it, a violent dispute arose between them 

as to which of them had the right to the Shadow. The owner maintained that he had let the Ass 

only, and not his Shadow. The Traveler asserted that he had, with the hire of the Ass, hired his 

Shadow also. The quarrel proceeded from words to blows, and while the men fought, the Ass 

galloped off. Moral: In quarreling about the shadow we often lose the substance. 

In Project Study #29, the Utility implemented a formal mentoring program to build 

relationships and develop leadership competencies. 

C-108 



Better understanding of other workers, and hence better cooperation and collaboration, 

resulting in improved Utility performance. 

When needed, the organization can rapidly create teams that can work together to solve 

problems. 

Values, being the bedrock of Utility success, cannot be taught but can be learned, 

accepted and utilized by employees as they listen to, and interpret, stories and 

anecdotes, especially those relevant to the Utility. 

See: 

Project Study #29 (Seattle Public Utilities, WA) 

Case Study #9 (The Socio Economic Unit Foundation, India) 



Ba Spaces 

Dialogue 


Shared Space 




________________________ 

References: 

Nilson, Carolyn (1993). Team Games for Trainers. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. 

Von Oech, R. (1998). A Kick in the Seat of the Pants, Using Your Explorer, Artist, Judge, and Warrior to be More 

Creative. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. 

_____________________________ 


C-109 


Shared Space 1 

A concept that promotes environments for nurturing knowledge sharing. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, creativity, problem solving 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

MED-LARGE 

WIDE 

One of the impacts of our post-industrial society is the exponential rise of the need for 

collaborative environments, and new ways of behaving to effectively engage those 

environments. For example, as more and more meetings take place with larger and sometimes 

geographically dispersed groups, the role of facilitators (see Facilitation) and the value of 

agendas with good process design were recognized. Highly specialized process design along 

with unique environments has been found to vastly increase creativity and significantly reduce 

time required for interacting. 

The idea of shared space moves far beyond the room in which those meetings are held or 

even a virtual meeting platform. In the paragraphs below shared space will be discussed in 

terms of both the physical and virtual workspace. 

Schrage uses a story to build an understanding of the importance of shared space, and how 

it expands the space between the sender and receiver in a conversation. You are at lunch with 

a colleague when an idea emerges from the conversation. Pulling out a pen you quickly jot 

down a diagram of the idea on a napkin. Watching you closely, your colleague says ―No, no 

that’s not what I meant‖, takes the pen, and adds a few lines and additional context to the 

diagram. Now the conversation turns to exploring the meaning of the images on the napkin. If 

a waiter came and took the napkin away, the conversation might go away. You were talking to 

each other through a medium, a shared reference point (or shared space) that changed the 

dynamics of the conversation and served as a mutual communication and learning tool. 

In terms of workspace, a lot has been learned about the importance of shared space. A 

common example is the value of conversations that occur around the water fountain or during 

the coffee break. Many organizations now take this into account when designing office space. 

For example, centrally locating a wide staircase with highly visible seating spaces when spaces 

reside on two levels to facilitate interactions or Knowledge Moments. Nonaka and Takeuchi 

introduced the idea of ―Ba spaces‖, common seating areas or small conference areas centrally 

located with a pleasant and stimulating environment. The intent is to encourage people to 

engage in conversations in their day-to-day work environment. 

As virtual systems have become part of daily work life, a great deal of research has gone into 

designing stimulating and user-friendly systems. As shared space becomes available over time 

and distance, the boundaries and reach of organizations widens. This reaching out offers the 

opportunity for an expansion of thought built on an ecology of shared space. Some descriptive 

terms for this ecology include: cool, fast, free, open, global, relevant, compelling and rich. 

Cool is both tangible and intangible. In the tangible sense, how does this shared space 

impact your senses? Is it attractive? Can you be in it with a clear sense of presence? In the 

intangible sense, how does it make you feel? Does it meet your needs? 

C-110 


Fast is critical in the ever-increasing pace of our lives. We now reach around the world in 

fractions of seconds to obscure sources of the latest scientific or business developments. 

Speed is becoming ―multi-media‖, meaning that one media supports another. You reach for 

your mouse to find and send an email, 30 minutes later you’re on the phone with someone 

you’ve never met, and three weeks later you’ve having lunch with that individual during a 

conference at a distant city. 

Free has to do with minimizing the costs for people to engage. Nothing is free. But focusing 

on the cost of engagement may be a barrier to entry, whether it be time and space for a face-toface 

engagement or the cost of a collaborative software environment. There are two issues 

addressed here. One is that inordinate costs are distracting to building relationships. The 

second is that costs become a hurdle for every opportunity reaching out. This design principle 

simply says to make the costs transparent to the individual, pursuing economies of scale and 

absorbing the cost at the organizational level. 

Open refers to both the boundaries of the system and the expansion of thinking. An open 

information technology architecture is a fundamental design principle. Opening up space to 

colleagues definitely fosters the notion of networking. Opening up to new ideas and different 

ways of thinking fosters learning and innovation. 

Global has to do with exploration and the emerging sense of unity as a world. In the future 

global may truly become the concept of shared space. But even today, no matter what our field 

of expertise, it is pursued in a global context with the realization that the global space has much 

to offer in terms of learning. 

Relevant initially implies relevance to the topic of the domain and the assets of the 

knowledge base. Relevance is also the building of ideas as individuals, groups and the 

organization learn from each other. 

Rich means that the space is rich in design (colors, ideas, variety, complexity) such that it 

stimulates all areas of the mind/brain. 

Compelling starts with the stickiness of the virtual system, then moves beyond that 

stickiness to considering shared space in terms of its ability to attract and retain participation. 

Does the shared space operate in such a way as to become a key asset to participants in their 

day-to-day work? 

Wenger describes 13 fundamental elements of community that technology can affect. These 

are: presence and visibility, rhythm (in terms of events and rituals that reaffirm value), variety of 

interactions, efficiency of involvement (must be easy), short-term value (each interaction needs 

to create some value), long-term value, connection to the world, personal identity, communal 

identity, belonging and relationship, complex boundaries (multiple levels and types of 

participation), evolution (maturation and integration) and active community-building. 

It is also important to recognize that in many ways the resources of a shared space are to 

knowledge workers what tools or instruments have been in many crafts, guilds, and builders 

throughout history. In many instances the relationship to tools has taken on a reverence that 

has deep cultural or religious meaning. Such relationships complement or build upon regard for 

professional skills and status. Such is the transformation that occurred as knowledge workers 

moved from typewriter to computer to computational computing power to the computer as a 

communications tool to a virtual space in the 21 st century ―my-workspace‖ revolution, and have 

extended into Wikis and Blogs. See Case Example #20 for a baseline set of guidelines for 

social networking. 

In Case Example #22, the US Forest Service developed a community center on line to 

assist wildland fire work groups in sharing knowledge. Today knowledge workers develop, 

aggregate, and manage their personal workspace resources virtually throughout their career, 

and have the expanded capability of interacting and working in a global shared space. 

C-111 



Knowledge transfer among employees. 

Creative ideas that help the utility. 

Improved organizational learning and communication. 

A sense of ownership and belonging. 

See: 





Tools: Ba Spaces 

Blog 






Reference Materials for Knowledge Sharing 



MQI Paper on Relationship Network Management 

____________________________ 

References: 

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the 

Dynamics of Innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Schrage, M. (2000). Serious Play: How the World’s Best Companies Simulate to Innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard 

Business School Press. 

Schrage, M. (1990). Shared Minds: The New Technologies of Collaboration. New York, NY: Random House. 

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge 


____________________________ 

1 Adapted from the Department of the Navy Chief Information Officer cPort Toolkit. 

C-112 


Sleep On It 

An approach for improving problem solving and innovation. 

Supports: individual learning, problem solving 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

Sleeping on a question can yield an answer the next morning. This is a particularly powerful 

way to access tacit knowledge. Tell yourself, as you fall asleep at night, to work on a problem 

or question. The next morning when you wake up, but before you get up. Lie in bed and ask the 

same question, listening patiently to your own, quiet, passive thoughts. Frequently, but not 

always, the answer will appear, although it must be written down quickly before it is lost from the 

conscious mind. 

This process becomes more effective if the conscious mind has been primed. For example, 

early in the evening, prior to going to bed, take a focused period of time to ―brainstorm‖ with 

yourself, asking yourself a lot of questions related to the task at hand. Even if you don’t think 

you know the answers, reflect carefully on the questions and be patient. This is the process of 

active reflection. 

Another aspect of this approach is useful when a group or team is tackling a difficult problem. 

It has been found that the answers from the team can be improved if, rather than acting on the 

quick responses, let the team sleep on the problem and review the answers they come up with 

in the morning. What happens is that while you sleep your unconscious mind is processing the 

information taken in that day, keeping the valuable information and discarding that which 

doesn’t make sense. It is also working on solutions to issues or problems that have come up 

during the previous day. When the team gets back together the next day, there will be new 

ideas and thoughts, and a clearer vision of the best way ahead. 


Improved problem solving and decision making. 

Increased number of new ideas. 

Better awareness of the importance and power of the unconscious. 




C-113 



A process for mapping the relationships among people, teams, or across organizations. 

Supports: Knowledge sharing, organizational learning, improved communications, 

information flows 

Many companies and organizations invest a considerable amount of money in restructuring 

organizational charts and reengineering business processes only to be disappointed with the 

results. This is because much of the work happens outside the formal organizational structure. 

Often what needs attention is the informal organization, the networks of relationships that 

employees from across functions and divisions to quickly accomplish tasks. These informal 

relationships can cut through formal reporting procedures to jump-start stalled initiatives and 

meet extraordinary deadlines. However, informal networks can just as easily sabotage the best 

laid plans of companies by blocking communication and fomenting opposition to change unless 

leaders know how to identify and direct them. Learning how to map these social links can help 

you harness the real power of your organization. 

Using social network analysis, it is possible to translate a myriad of relationships and ties into 

maps that show how the informal organization gets things done. In the simplest form, these 

maps consist of a series of named dots (or "nodes"), each of which represents a person, and 

lines or arrows connecting the dots to represent the existence of relationship between people. 

For example, the two individuals who have the largest number of connecting lines (the two dots 

with six lines each connecting to them) communicate more with their coworkers than the 

individuals (represented by the outlying dots) who have only one connecting line. 

Some useful networks to understand within your organization might be: 

1. The advice network, which shows the prominent players in an organization on whom 

others rely to help them solve problems and provide technical information 

2. The trust network, which shows which employees share delicate political information 

3. The communication network, which reveals the employees who talk about work-related 

matters on a regular basis 

C-114 


Information to build these networks can usually be gathered by means of a simple 

questionnaire, or you can use the interview process. Examples of questions asked would be: 

From whom do you seek work-related information? 

To whom do you give work-related information? 

When you need information or advice, is this person accessible to you? 

When you need information or advice, does this person respond within a sufficient 

amount of time to help you solve your problem? 

How frequently have you received work-related information from this person in the past 

month? 

From the answers to these or similar questions a map is created that connects people who 

receive information with people who have provided that information. Looking at a network of 

relationships can help you to identify the integrators, or the employees who are seen by many 

as experts or who are trusted as an information source. The two individuals who have the 

largest number of connections are likely to know more about what is going on in the Utility and 

the feelings and attitudes of the workforce than others. Recruiting such individuals to be 

involved in the implementation will make your communication effort easier, as these people 

have a wide reach in the informal communication network of the organization. Or, this could 

represent an individual who is a bottleneck to communications. The questions then become: 

Has the group become too reliant on this individual? What would happen if this individual left? 

The bottom line is that the process of SNA allows organizations to assess their ability to create 

and share knowledge, and once their current state is recognized, it becomes an enabler for 

improving these abilities. 

There are several software products available to do SNA mapping. These programs use 

simple screen-oriented interfaces, allowing the user to drag nodes with the mouse and click to 

add new modes. Each node is assigned a number of attributes, which are highlighted using 

color and shape. There are also several tools for automatic layout of the network. Once the 

mapping is complete, analysis of this structure of connections can provide information on 

relationships that facilitate or impeded work, offering intervention opportunities. 

In Project Study #31, the Utility used Social Network Analysis to assess the quantity and 

quality of information flows. A beneficial byproduct was identification of additional SMEs critical 

to this and future reuse projects. 


Provides the Utility with an understanding of how information flows, who moves 

information around and where the sources of information and knowledge sharing are. 

Identifies key personnel who have the contacts and trust to be able to assist in efforts to 

change the organization relative to how the work gets done. 

Knowing how the communication network works gives managers the baseline upon 

which they can make changes to improve communications (or relationships) between 

departments or with field activities. 

See: 

Project Study #18 (Rice Lakes Utilities, WI) 

Project Study #31 (Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, NC) 



C-115 


Tools: Relationship Building 

Shared Space 



APQC’s benchmarking study on Virtual Communications 

MQI’s paper on Relationship Network Management 

_________________________ 

References: 

Bennet, A. and Bennet, D. (2004). Organizational Survival in the New World: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive 

System. Boston, MA: Elsevier. 

Cross, R. and L. Prusak. (2002). ―The People That Make Organizations Stop—or Go‖ in Harvard Business 

Review, 80, No. 6, 104-112. 

Cross, R.S, Borgatti, S. and Parker, A. (2002). ―Making Invisible Work Visible: Using Social Network Analysis to 

Support Human Networks‖ in California Management Review, 44, No. 2, 25-46. 

Cross, R., Nohria, N. and Parker, A. (2002). ―Six Myths About Informal Networks—and How to Overcome Them‖ 

in Sloan Management Review, 43, No. 3, 67-76. 

C-116 


Storyboards 

An approach to sequentially visualizing an event, process or series of activities before they 

occur. 

Supports: learning, knowledge sharing, knowledge retention 



SCOPE OF WORK 

LOW 

SCALABLE 

NARROW 

A storyboard is a series of visuals (illustrations or images) displayed sequentially for the 

purpose of pre-visualizing an event, process or series of activities. Storyboarding is used 

extensively by video and movie-makers, with the visuals serving as a layout of events as they 

will be seen through the camera lens. But storyboarding can be an effective tool in many 

circumstances. Through a detailed storyboard the whole idea is presented like visual shorthand. 

You don’t always need to know the dialogue to understand the emotional (or instructional) 

context of it all. 

For example, a storyboard can serve as a way of understanding and communicating a new 

Utility process. First, it could be used by a team to design/develop a new process, laying the 

key parts of the process out, developing a common understanding, and deciding the most 

effective order. Second, it can be used as a vehicle to validate the process with experts. Third, 

an updated storyboard could be used with verbal directions to illustrate specific aspects of the 

process to new hires. A sequential visual representation of a tricky connection can prove much 

more effective than written directions alone. It provides the opportunity to capture small details 

related to specific processes. 


Clearer understanding of a process or procedure. 

Improved results through the use of groups in the design process. 

See: 




Tools: Picture Map 

Storytelling 


C-117 


Storytelling 

A tried and true process for effectively transferring knowledge. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, culture change, individual and organizational learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

Storytelling, whether in a personal or organizational setting, connects people, develops 

creativity, and increases confidence and learning. In Case Example #12 (AMREF Kenya) 

storytelling is considered an important part of sharing. The Defense Information Agency 

identified storytelling as a best practice in Case Example #14. An organizational story is a 

detailed narrative of management actions, employee interactions, or other intra-organizational 

events that are communicated informally within the organization. A research paper exploring the 

unique relationship of man and his stories, looking at various aspects of storytelling and 

differences between written and oral stories, and reviewing the use of stories in organizations is 

included in the resource section. See Storytelling: The Thread of Humanity. A related paper 

included in the resource section is: From Stories to Strategies. 

A variety of story forms exist naturally throughout organizations, including scenarios, 

anecdotes, and fictional stories. Scenarios are the articulation of possible future states, 

constructed within the imaginative limits of the author. While scenarios provide an awareness of 

alternatives—of value in and of itself—they are often used as planning tools for possible future 

situations. The plan becomes a vehicle to respond to recognized objectives in each scenario. 

An anecdote is a brief sequence captured in the field or arising from a brainstorming session. To 

reinforce positive behavior, sensitive managers seek out and disseminate true anecdotes that 

embody the value desired in the organization. The capture and distribution of anecdotes across 

organizations carries high value. The values and rules underlying an organization can be 

determined when a large number of anecdotes are captured within an organization. 

Conveying information in a story provides a rich context for learning since stories remain in 

the conscious memory longer and create a larger number of memory traces than information not 

in context. Therefore, a story is more likely to be acted upon than most normal means of 

communications. The use of stories in organizations can build descriptive capabilities, increase 

organizational learning, convey complex meaning, and communicate common values and rule 

sets. These aspects are described in greater detail below. 

Stories have the ability to increase our descriptive capabilities, a strength in this age of 

uncertainty where we must be able to describe our environment and have the self-awareness to 

describe our individual capabilities. Description capabilities are essential in strategic thinking 

and planning, and create a greater awareness of what we could achieve. Fictional stories can 

be powerful because they provide a mechanism by which an organization can learn from failure 

without attributing blame. Some organizations actually create characters from archetypes taken 

from a large number of organizational anecdotes. These characters are used over and over 

again. Once established, they become a natural vehicle for organizational learning and a 

repository for organizational memory. 

C-118 


When well constructed, stories can convey a high level of complex meaning. The use of 

sub-text can convey this meaning without making it obvious. Sub-text is a term that refers to an 

unstated message not explicit in the dialogue of the story. (See the in-depth research paper on 

CONTEXT in the Resource Section.) Analogies are often used to aid in the transfer of 

particularly complex information and knowledge to give the human mind something to relate to. 

This form of learning has been used throughout human history to transfer complex concepts 

and core values. 

Finally, because stories communicate common values and rule systems, they provide a 

mechanism to build organic organizational response to emerging requirements. This means that 

as new situations and new challenges arise in response to an ever-changing world, a common 

set of values will drive that response at every level of the organization. To operate in a highly 

uncertain environment, we must have common values and rule systems that support networks 

of groups and teams organized around a common purpose. Stories provide just such a catalyst. 

As an example, The World Bank used what they called a Springboard Story to move that 

organization to become a knowledge organization. The Springboard Story, a powerful method 

of communicating knowledge about norms and values, is a transformational story that enables 

the listener to take a personal leap in understanding how an organization or community or 

complex system may change. The intent of this type of story is not to transfer information, but to 

serve as a catalyst for creating understanding within the listener. These stories enable listeners 

to easily and quickly grasp the ideas as a whole in a non-threatening way. In effect, they invite 

the listener to see analogies from their own histories, their own contexts, and their own fields of 

expertise. 

These Springboard Stories were told from the perspective of a single protagonist who was 

known to the audience and actually in the predicament being told in the story; there was an 

element of strangeness or incongruity to the listeners which could capture their attention and 

imagination; the story had a degree of plausibility and a premonition of what the future might be 

like; and there was a happy ending. Happy endings make it easier for listeners to take the 

imaginative leap from the explicit story to the implicit meaning. There are two books referenced 

below that provide details and practical how-to information for creating Springboard stories. 

With the advent of the Internet and Intranet, there is a larger opportunity to use stories to 

bring about change. Electronic media adds moving images and sound as context setters. 

Hypertext capabilities and collaboration software invites groups, teams and communities to cocreate 

their stories. New multiprocessing skills are required to navigate this high-tech world, 

skills that include the quick and sure assimilation of and response to fast-flowing images and 

sounds and sensory assaults. 

In summary, when used well, storytelling is a powerful transformational tool in organizations, 

one that will work well for the sharing of knowledge across a utility, and across the larger group 

of utility stakeholders. 


High level of transferring information and knowledge to Utility employees. 

Utilities can understand and take ownership of the Utility’s purpose, mission and values 

much easier when stories are used to explain and communicate these concepts. 

See: 


Case Example #12 (AMREF Kenya) 



Communities of Practice 

C-119 




Picture Map 

Storyboard 



MQI paper CONTEXT 

MQI paper Storytelling: The Thread of Humanity 

MQI paper From Stories to Strategies 

_________________________ 

References: 

Brown, J.S., Denning, S., Groh, K. and Prusak, L. (2005 ). Storytelling in Organizations: Why Storytelling is 

Transforming 21 st Century Organizations and Management. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Cassady, M. (1990). Storytelling Step by Step. San Jose, CA: Resource Publications, Inc. 

Denning, S. (2001). The Springboard: How Storytelling Ignites Action in Knowledge-Era Organizations. Woburn, 

MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. 

C-120 



A strong methodology of communicating best practices across Utility stakeholders. 

Supports: knowledge sharing, learning, team building 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

SCALABLE 

WIDE 

An old adage is ―success begets success.‖ And indeed it can if a success in one situation is 

recognized and understood sufficiently to benefit others who are in similar situations and 

circumstances. This aspect is related to the transfer of Best Practices. 

Success stories can also serve to showcase project efforts and accomplishments to 

stakeholders. What happened in this project? What significant findings or results occurred? 

Use the language appropriate for your target audience (see Communications Plan), and 

positive, catchy phrases or quotations from participants along with facts and figures. 

Radhakrishna at Penn State University provides the following tips for writing success stories: 

Explain in about 10 sentences the need, importance, and significance of your project 

(the problem situation). 

Cover in 5-6 sentences the objectives and methodology (what you want to accomplish 

and how information is collected). 

Talk about in 10-15 sentences the project results (what happened, significant findings). 

Present in 10 sentences or less the program impact (what’s being done differently, what 

has been learned). 

Discuss in 5 sentences or less the future potential (what’s next for this project, what is 

the larger contribution to the Utility/stakeholders). 

Disseminate (newspapers, conference proceedings, professional organizations, 

extension publications, staff updates, impact statements, journal articles). 

In Project Study #25, the Utility implemented a Process and Operational Improvements 

initiative that has resulted in significant dollar savings. In this organization, continuous 

improvement is celebrated. 

Recognizing successes can serve as a reward for individuals, teams and communities, and 

for the Utility as a whole. See ideas for recognition and rewards. 


Communicates successes that others can duplicate or build upon. 

Provides a reward to those who made the effort successful by letting them communicate 

their work to others in the Utility. 

In some cases, the patterns that created the success can be studied and applied to 

other situations, thereby producing more successes in other areas. 

C-121 


See: 






Storytelling 



References: 

Radhakrishna, R.B. (2002). ―Writing Success Stories for Program Enhancement and Accountability.‖ Downloaded 

from http://www.joe.org/joe/2002April/tt2.html August 2008. 

C-122 


The World Café 

A process for building knowledge about a focused need or opportunity. 

Supports: collaboration, idea generation, problem solving 



MED 

MED-LARGE 



While the World Café as a named and framed process formed in the mid 1990’s, it is a 

process that has intuitively been used (both formally and informally) in organizations and groups 

of all sizes for many years. Focused on the social aspect of building new ideas and the valueadded 

each individual can contribute to that idea, there are evolving rounds of dialogue. For 

example, let’s say there are 30-40 people engaged in finding a solution (or solutions) to a 

burning issue. These people may all be within the same organization, part of a larger 

connected stakeholder group, or interested/informed individuals invited to participate in the 

World Café experience. Concurrently, they may be individuals with knowledge focused around 

a specific domain-although working from different frames of reference—or they may represent a 

variety of functional areas with a common interest in the issue or opportunity being addressed. 

Good questions (those for which we do not have answers) are developed around the issue at 

hand. The larger group breaks into smaller groups—of 4, 5 or 6—with each group gathered 

around a paper tablecloth-covered table or around a flip chart with markers for everyone. All the 

groups may be addressing a single Café Question, or there may be several closely-related and 

overlapping questions scattered among the groups. For a set period of time each group 

engages in conversations (using all the rules of Dialogue) around the question they are 

addressing. As the conversations progress, core ides re captured through drawings, symbols or 

words. 

After a period of time—in our example a half hour has passed—individuals rotate to another 

group of their choice. One person in each small group stays behind to host the incoming group. 

As the second round begins, the ―host‖ of each group has the opportunity to introduce the 

―seed‖ ideas from round one, and the second dialogue period begins. This rotation is repeated 

five or six times, providing the opportunity for both cross-fertilization and social development of 

new ideas. The results from this process then become the basis for action planning, with the 

host who has stayed with a specific set of ideas becoming the expert resource for those ideas. 


Creative ideas and processes to solve a specific problem. 

New relationships and connections made among participants. 

See: 



C-123 






__________________________ 

Reference: 

Brown, Juanita, with Isaacs, David and the World Café’ Community (2005). The World Café: Shaping Our Futures 

Through Conversations That Matter. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. 

C-124 


Wiki 

A web site or group of web pages used for collaboration. 

Supports: Knowledge sharing, collaboration, group and individual learning 



SCOPE OF WORK 

MED 

MED-LARGE 

WIDE 

Wikis are emerging throughout organizations, often replacing static intranets to serve as an 

organization’s software of choice for collaboration. In their book The Wiki Way: Quick 

Collaboration on the Web, authors Ward Cunningham and Bo Leuf describe the Wiki concept as 

follows: 

A wiki invites all users to edit any page or create new pages within the web site. 

A wiki promotes meaningful topic associations between different pages by making page 

link creation easily and intuitive. 

A wiki is not a carefully-crafted site for casual visitors, rather it seeks to involve the visitor 

in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the 

landscape of the site. 

An example of a wiki is the Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia project that is an example of open 

source computing. The name is a derivation of wiki (a collaborative web site) and encyclopedia. 

The content for Wikipedia is contributed by volunteers around the world, and can be edited by 

anyone with access to the Internet. This on-going project has more than 75,000 active 

contributors on more than 10,000,000 articles in over 250 languages. Contributions remain the 

property of their contributors while being widely and freely distributed and reproduced. While 

the articles are not all of encyclopedic quality at the beginning, by the time experts from around 

the world have contributed their thoughts and edited previous thoughts, the contributions 

eventually come into balance and provide comprehensive (and current) coverage, something 

that was impossible to achieve through the normal encyclopedia channels. See 

www.wikipedia.org. 

Another example of open source computing is Citizendium (the Citizens’ Compendium of 

everything). This project builds on the Wikipedia approach but requires contributors to use their 

real names and is strictly moderated for unprofessional behaviors through ―gentle expert 

oversight.‖ A main feature is ―approved articles‖ which have undergone a form of peer review 

by credentialed topic-experts. Citizendium is focused on the reduction of bias, facts versus 

opinion, and fairness and sympathy. It expects professional behavior and is also family-friendly 

in the topics that are included. See www.citizendium.org 

A related virtual source of information is the Encyclopedia of Earth, focused on Earth’s 

natural environments and the interaction of society with those environments. It is composed of 

articles written by scholars, professionals, educators and experts in a collaboration and peerreviewed 

process. While there is much material available via the Internet in the area of the 

environment, what the EoE does is provide an authoritative source. The EoE touts itself as the 

C-125 


largest reliable information resource on the environment in history. It includes articles on the 

hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, magnetosphere, cryosphere and biosphere; the living 

organisms on Earth; the interactions and feedbacks among society, biological diversity and the 

physical systems of Earth; and the interdisciplinary field of environmental science, natural and 

social. See www.eoearth.org All of these sources can provide immediate, current information 

which must then be intelligently assessed in terms of its usefulness to the subject at hand. 

In Case Example #20, IBM encourages an open exchange through blogging, social web 

applications such as wikis and networking. 


Provides easy and fast access to information, although the quality of the information 

should always be considered. 

See: 



Tools: Blog 

Ideas: Technology Related Tools 

C-126 


Appendix D 

Assessment Instrument Questions and Interpretations 

D-1 


The Drinking Water Utility KM Toolkit 

Readiness Assessment Instrument 

Questions 

GENERAL QUESTIONS 

VERY 

VERY 

LOW LOW MEDIUM HIGH HIGH 

Q1: A KM strategy’s contribution to the 1 2 3 4 5 

current performance of my Utility would be 

Q2: A KM strategy’s contribution to the 1 2 3 4 5 

sustainable performance of my Utility would be 

Q3: The level of credibility of the business 1 2 3 4 5 

case for a KM strategy is 

Q4: Support of the Governance group that 1 2 3 4 5 

oversees this Utility for a KM strategy is 

Q5: The level of financial resources available is 1 2 3 4 5 

Q6: The availability of qualified people to 1 2 3 4 5 

implement the KM strategy is 

Q7: The amount of time available for 1 2 3 4 5 

employees to implement a KM strategy is 

LEADERSHIP (General Manager and Direct Reports) 

Q8: Leadership’s level of personal interest 1 2 3 4 5 

in the KM strategy would be 

Q9: Leadership’s ability to work well together 1 2 3 4 5 

in support of a KM strategy would be 

Q10: The leadership team’s expectation of 1 2 3 4 5 

achieving the intended results of a KM strategy 

would be 

Q11: The leadership team’s willingness to 1 2 3 4 5 

reward employees who contribute to the KM 

strategy is 

Q12: The leadership style in my Utility is 1 2 3 4 5 

[very control oriented (1), in between (2-4) 

or very collaborative oriented (5)] ... 

Q13: The level of leadership involvement and 1 2 3 4 5 

Interaction with the workforce is 

D-2 


VERY 

VERY 


Q14: In my Utility leadership’s acceptance 1 2 3 4 5 

of change is 

Q15: Leadership’s understanding of KM 1 2 3 4 5 

and its usefulness is 

MANAGEMENT 

Q16: The level of communication among 1 2 3 4 5 

Utility departments is 

Q17: The level of management’s 1 2 3 4 5 

empowerment of the workforce is 

Q18: The use of teams or groups to 1 2 3 4 5 

accomplish specific objectives within this 

Utility is 

Q19: Managers’ willingness to accept and 1 2 3 4 5 

implement new initiatives is 

Q20: The level of support for knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 

sharing through the structure of this Utility is 

Q21: The consistency of management 1 2 3 4 5 

direction and Utility goals is 

Q22: The effectiveness of the organization’s 1 2 3 4 5 

support of employee training and development is 

CULTURE 

Q23: The willingness of employees to accept 1 2 3 4 5 

and take advantage of change is 

Q24: The level of trust among Utility employees 1 2 3 4 5 

is 

Q25: The capacity of employees to tackle and 1 2 3 4 5 

take a flexible approach to problems is 

Q26: The energy level and spirit of the 1 2 3 4 5 

workforce in my Utility is 

Q27: The percentage of workers who learn 1 2 3 4 5 

fast enough to keep up with change is 

D-3 


VERY 

VERY 


Q28: The level of networking and 1 2 3 4 5 

communication among Utility workers is 

Q29: The percentage of employees who 1 2 3 4 5 

understand the vision of this Utility is 

Q30: The percentage of employees 1 2 3 4 5 

empowered to do their job with minimal 

direction is 

Q31: The discipline of the workforce in 1 2 3 4 5 

accomplishing the critical processes of the 

utility is 

Q32: The level of trust between employees 1 2 3 4 5 

and managers is 

Q33: The level of employee training, 1 2 3 4 5 

learning, and development in this Utility is 

Q34: The percentage of employees that 1 2 3 4 5 

think in terms of systems, and how their 

work affects other employee efforts and 

the mission of the organization, is 

ALIGNMENT 

Q35: How well will the strategic business 1 2 3 4 5 

plan support the KM strategy? 

Q36: How well will the operational plan 1 2 3 4 5 

support the KM strategy? 

Q37: How well will the capital improvement 1 2 3 4 5 

plan support implementation of a KM strategy? 

Q38: How well will the Utility’s information 1 2 3 4 5 

technology master plan support implementation 

of a KM strategy? 

Q39: How well will your information 1 2 3 4 5 

technology department support implementation 

of a KM strategy? 

Q40: The competency and skill sets of this 1 2 3 4 5 

Utility’s employees is ... 

D-4 


KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT TOOLKIT 

[INSERT DATE TAKEN] 

Assessment Scoring Sheet 

The total score on this assessment of your drinking water utility is [TOTAL NUMBER IS 

INSERTED]. 

As a general guideline, consider the following (with the caveats below) before determining 

whether to initiate a KM strategy. 

(a) If your total score is 140 or greater, your Utility should be ready to successfully 

implement a KM strategy. 

(b) If your total score is between 130 and 140, you may consider implementing your KM 

strategy, but you may have some assessment items that need to be fixed as part of 

that strategy. 

(c) If your total score is between 110 and 130, you may have to delay implementation of 

the full KM strategy and instead select one or more initiatives for implementation 

while fixing or upgrading those specific low-scored items needed for full KM strategy 

success. 

(d) If your total score is under 110, low-scored items (levels 1 or 2) should be dealt with 

prior to implementing a KM initiative (or perhaps a KM strategy if the weak areas are 

independent of your KM strategy or they can be corrected). 

CAVEATS: 

While the total score is one indicator, it is not sufficient to determine your utility’s readiness to 

implement a KM strategy. Other factors that may play a significant role in determining 

readiness include the specific KM strategy being considered; the history, culture, size, vision 

and current situation of the utility; the external environment (customers, government regulations, 

local community, Unions, political issues) within which the utility operates; and the nature and 

number of the items scored at level 1 or 2. For example, an item scored at level 1 or 2 could 

range from highly significant to irrelevant depending upon its impact on your particular KM 

strategy. 

Shown below is a figure representing the spectrum of your assessment. The figure indicates 

the number of items valued at levels 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. 

[A BAR CHART IS INSERTED] 

This chart can be viewed from two perspectives. First, the number of items scored for a given 

level indicates their potential contribution to assisting in the implementation of a KM strategy. 

Second, note the stop-light colors attributed to the various levels. The two right-hand columns 

(representing levels 4 and 5) are green, indicating those items fully support implementation of a 

KM strategy. The center column (representing level 3) is yellow, indicating a mid-level 

assessment for those items and that some caution should be maintained relative to their ability 

to support implementation of a KM strategy. The two columns on the left (representing levels 1 

and 2) are colored red, indicating that these items provide a low or minimum contribution to a 

KM strategy. These two columns also indicate that the items represented may need to be 

corrected prior to initiating a KM strategy. For example, if you have two or three assessment 

items scored at a 1 or 2 level that are relevant to your specific KM strategy, yet all other items 

D-5 


were scored at level 3 or higher, you will need to decide whether it is best to (a) delay starting 

the KM strategy until these low-scored items are corrected, or (b) start the KM strategy and 

improve these low-scored areas early during strategy implementation. A third option would be 

to modify the KM strategy to reduce the impact of the low-scored items. A large number of lowscored 

items relevant to a KM strategy may also drive the decision not to implement that 

specific strategy at this time. 

A next step is to individually look at all of the items shown below which were scored at levels 1, 

2 or 3. Next to each of the items printed below is a short discussion of that specific item. The 

intent is to provide information and suggestions to help you interpret the importance of each 

item to your KM strategy, the external environment, and the internal nature of your Utility. 

[LEVEL 1, 2 AND 3 PARAS (QUESTION AND RESPONSE) INSERTED AS DETERMINED BY 

YOUR RESPONSES] 

GENERAL QUESTIONS 

Q1: A KM strategy’s contribution to the current performance of my Utility would be ... 

Q1-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the contribution a successful KM strategy would provide 

to your utility is medium. It is likely that more work is needed to analyze the specific strategy to 

ensure increased contribution to your Utility. A discussion of “developing strategy” is included in 

the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q1-2: Selecting level 2 for this item indicates that you consider that the KM strategy would 

provide a low level of contribution to performance. This suggests that the strategy itself may not 

be applicable to your Utility at this time. Perhaps a rethinking of the specific strategy intended 

would result in a higher level of contribution. A discussion of “developing strategy” is included in 

the Planning phase of the toolkit process. You might consider creating a team of 

knowledgeable leaders and managers to study the options available that could potentially 

provide a higher payoff to the Utility. The MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and 

Success, is provided in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q1-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that a KM strategy would have little or no contribution to your 

organization, and therefore your Utility may not be ready to implement the KM strategy at this 

time. You may want to explore the full potential of KM in terms of other strategies or initiatives. 

The Introduction and Planning phase of the toolkit process may prove useful in building and 

understanding KM and KM strategies. Additionally, the Tools section of the toolkit under 

Resources offers an overview of KM initiatives. 

Q2: A KM strategy’s contribution to the sustainable performance of my Utility would be ... 

Q2-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that a successful KM strategy would provide a medium 

contribution to your Utility’s sustainable performance. This may be acceptable if your goal is to 

focus on improving current performance. Since many KM strategies also provide sustainable 

performance improvements, you may want to look at your KM strategy and your Utility 

characteristics to see if both current and sustainable performance can be achieved 

simultaneously. The discussion on “Nurturing Organizational Health” in the Sustainable phase 

of the toolkit may prove useful. 

Q2-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the KM strategy would provide little support for 

sustainable performance. If this limitation is acceptable, you may want to proceed with 

D-6 


implementation. If this limitation is not acceptable, then the strategy should be reviewed and 

perhaps modified. The discussion on “Nurturing Organizational Health” in the Sustainable 

phase of the toolkit may prove useful. 

Q2-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the KM strategy will not contribute to sustainable 

performance. This being the case, you may want to reconsider the importance of sustainability 

to your Utility before taking further actions. The discussion on “Nurturing Organizational Health” 

in the Sustainable phase of the toolkit may prove useful. 

Q3: The level of credibility of the business case for a KM strategy is ... 

Q3-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the business case may not be solid and may be 

questioned by others. It may be that you intend to develop the business case as part of the 

implementation of the KM strategy. The feasibility of this approach will likely depend upon the 

interests and acceptance of KM by the governance group. A discussion of “The Need for KM in 

Water Utilities” is included in the Introduction to the toolkit. The Business Case for KM in the 

drinking water utility industry can be accessed from this section or through the White Papers 

section under Resources. 

Q3-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that a strong business case has not been developed at this 

time. This makes the justification of the strategy challenging and may lead to non-acceptance 

by the Utility. Under these conditions it is suggested that further work be put into development of 

the business case. A discussion of “The Need for KM in Water Utilities” is included in the 

Introduction to the toolkit. The Business Case for KM in the drinking water utility industry can 

be accessed from this section or through the White Papers section under Resources. 

Q3-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that it is difficult, or may not be possible, to develop a business 

case for the intended KM strategy. Under these conditions it is suggested that further work be 

put into understanding the outcome of the KM strategy and relating that outcome to the 

performance or sustainability of the Utility. A discussion of “The Need for KM in Water Utilities” 

is included in the Introduction to the toolkit. The Business Case for KM in the drinking water 

utility industry can be accessed from this section or through the White Papers section under 

Resources. 

Q4: Support of the Governance group that oversees this Utility for a KM strategy is ... 

Q4-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there is not strong support by the Governance group for 

the KM strategy. If support of this group is needed to implement the strategy, then a strong 

business case and close communication with the Governance group may be necessary. If 

support of this group is not needed, then the KM strategy can move forward. However, it is 

advisable to develop a strong business case and share this business case with the Governance 

group and other key individuals. In the toolkit, a paper titled “The Business Case for KM” can be 

accessed from The Need for KM in Drinking Water Utilities section in the Introduction, or 

through the White Papers section under Resources. 

Q4-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the Governance group would provide low support for the 

KM strategy. This level of support may significantly impair the outcome of the strategy. In this 

situation, it is essential that efforts be made to bring the Governance group onboard with the KM 

strategy in order to gain their cooperation and support. You may find the paper titled “The 

Business Case for KM” useful. It can be accessed through the White Papers section of the 

D-7 


toolkit under Resources. For more information on KM, see the extensive Resource Documents 

section also under Resources. 

Q4-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the Governance group will have little or no support for the 

KM strategy. Under these conditions, the specific strategy anticipated and the interest and 

influence of the Governance group will determine whether the KM strategy is feasible or not. 

Effort is required to build an understanding within the Governance group of the value of KM. 

You may find the paper titled “The Business Case for KM” useful. It can be accessed through 

the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. For more information on KM, see the 

extensive Resource Documents section also under Resources. 

Q5: The level of financial resources available is ... 

Q5-3: Selecting level 3 indicates an uncertainty concerning availability of financial resources, or 

perhaps an uncertainty about the financial resources needed. Depending on the specific KM 

strategy and the amount of anticipated financial resources needed, suggested actions could be 

to (a) go ahead and start the program in anticipation of solving any resource issues early in the 

program, or (b) delay the program until resources are available. 

Q5-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that financial resources may not be available. If financial 

resources are essential for successful implementation of the strategy you have selected, that 

strategy should be delayed until resources are available, or perhaps another strategy 

considered. 

Q5-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that financial resources are not available. Unless the KM 

strategy does not require financial resources, it should be delayed and reconsidered at a later 

time. 

Q6: The availability of qualified people to implement the KM strategy is ... 

Q6-3: Selecting level 3 indicates some uncertainty as to the availability of qualified people for 

implementing the KM strategy. Under these conditions, the actions may be to (a) delay the 

strategy until qualified people can be made available or (b) review the prioritization of human 

resource allocations and identify and charter the key individuals necessary to make the KM 

strategy successful. You might wish to consider utilizing recent retirees. There is a short 

discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden Experience” in the Tools section of the 

toolkit under Resources. 

Q6-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the chances of having qualified people available to 

implement the KM strategy are low. Under these conditions it may be best to delay or cancel a 

KM strategy until the availability of key people can be assured. Another option is to create a 

phased KM strategy where a small number of people are initially required and plan to 

supplement them as the strategy proceeds. You might wish to consider utilizing recent retirees. 

There is a short discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden Experience” in the Tools 

section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q6-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little chance of having qualified employees 

available to implement the KM strategy. Under these conditions, the KM strategy cannot be 

attempted. Creating a situation which has a significant chance of failure simply creates 

problems with morale in the future. In order to move forward, you need to review the 

prioritization of human resource allocations and involve individuals with appropriate skill sets 

D-8 


and experience in order for the strategy to succeed. If funds are available for hiring additional 

people, you might also wish to consider utilizing recent retirees. There is a short discussion of 

an approach called “Engaging Golden Experience” in the Tools section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q7: The amount of time available for employees to implement a KM strategy is 

Q7-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there may not be enough time available for employees to 

implement the KM strategy. While time commitments can be corrected during implementation, it 

may be risky to start a program without assurance that time priorities will support effective 

implementation. You might want to reconsider the KM strategy in order to reduce the time 

needed for employees to implement the strategy, or to allocate additional time for 

implementation. Another option is to consider utilizing recent retirees in support of available 

internal personnel. There is a short discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden 

Experience” in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q7-2: Selecting level 2 indicates there is most likely not enough employee time available to 

implement the strategy. As a consequence the decision to implement may need to be delayed 

until adequate time can be made available. In addition, you may wish to consider utilizing 

recent retirees. There is a short discussion of an approach called “Engaging Golden 

Experience” in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q7-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that employees do not have time to implement this strategy. 

In this case, the strategy should be reconsidered for later implementation or modified to require 

less employee time. 

LEADERSHIP (General Manager and Direct Reports) 

Q8: Leadership’s level of personal interest in the KM strategy would be ... 

Q8-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that leadership may not take a serious and personal interest in 

implementation of the KM strategy. In this case, it will be important to review the KM strategy 

and evaluate the significance of personal leadership participation in strategy success. While all 

strategies require leadership support, and the personal interest of leadership greatly enhances 

the probability of success, some KM strategies require less leadership visibility than others. A 

discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging Leadership Commitment section of 

the Planning phase in the toolkit. 

Q8-2: Selecting level 2 indicates a lack of leadership interest in the KM strategy. This may 

significantly impact the effectiveness of the program, and therefore the strategy may have to be 

seriously reconsidered or carefully discussed with leadership in order to build their willingness to 

personally support the strategy. A discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging 

Leadership Commitment section of the Planning phase in the toolkit. In the toolkit, a discussion 

of the benefits of KM to drinking water utilities gathered during a survey of over 200 utilities is 

located in the White Papers section under Resources. 

Q8-1: Selecting level 1 indicates there is essentially little or no interest by leadership in offering 

their personal support. Under those conditions it would not seem wise to initiate the strategy 

until these conditions are changed. A discussion of leadership visibility is included in the 

Engaging Leadership Commitment section of the Planning phase in the toolkit. In the toolkit, a 

D-9 


discussion of the benefits of KM to drinking water utilities gathered during a survey of over 200 

utilities is located in the White Papers section under Resources. 

Q9: Leadership’s ability to work well together in support of a KM strategy would be ... 

Q9-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the leadership team may not be working closely together. 

This could present significant problems to implementing a KM strategy since employees in 

different departments would receive different directions and views on the importance and 

implementation of the KM strategy. Such differences can quickly reduce enthusiasm and create 

concerns among departments as to the importance of and actions necessary to the KM 

strategy. For ideas on collaborative leadership see the MQI research paper on Collaborative 

Leadership in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q9-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leadership does not work well together and would 

probably not cooperate in implementing a Utility KM strategy. It may be best to work with 

leadership to determine what could be done to get their collective backing, interest and 

knowledge of the importance and value of the KM strategy prior to beginning implementation. 

For ideas on collaborative leadership see the MQI research paper on Collaborative Leadership 

in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q9-1: Selecting level 1 indicates there is little or no leadership collaboration, seriously 

jeopardizing the potential success of a KM strategy. Under these conditions, the Utility most 

likely has strong silos that prevent communication and collaboration. It may be best to postpone 

implementation of a Utility-wide KM strategy until these issues can be worked through. As 

another approach to implementation, consider selecting and implementing a KM initiative in a 

department familiar with and conducive to KM implementation. The success of this initiative 

could then serve as a pilot for a larger implementation approach and make visible to the entire 

Utility the efficacy and potential of KM. You might want to look at The Business Case for KM in 

drinking water utilities located in the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Another resource is the MQI research paper on Collaborative Leadership located in the 

Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q10: The leadership team’s expectation of achieving the intended results of a KM 

strategy would be ... 

Q10-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that leadership has only a medium expectation of achieving 

the desired results from this KM strategy. Under these conditions the workforce will likely pick 

up on, and react to, such perspectives of leadership. It is suggested that careful consideration 

be given to whether the KM strategy can be successfully implemented. Further study and 

recognition of why the strategy will be successful and how it will be beneficial to the Utility may 

be needed. It may be useful to review The Business Case for KM in drinking water utilities that 

can be accessed through the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. Another 

approach is to scan the Case Examples and Project Studies (also under Resources) to find 

success stories about strategies and initiatives similar to those you propose. 

Q10-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leadership has a low expectation that the KM strategy 

will achieve its intended result. This might be due to a lack of understanding of KM’s potential, a 

disagreement with the specific strategy proposed, or the readiness of the Utility to accept and 

implement such a strategy. Under any of these conditions, it would be unwise to move ahead 

too quickly. Leadership must play a strong role in implementing any KM strategy. This role is 

discussed in the Leading and Managing section of the Executing phase of the toolkit process. 

D-10 


Q10-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the organization is most likely not ready for 

implementation of a KM strategy. With such low expectations it would be very difficult to 

implement a KM strategy. A pilot KM initiative in a department, coupled with a program to 

inform leadership of the value of KM may help build the leadership team’s expectation of 

achieving the intended results. Leadership’s role is discussed in the Leading and Managing 

section of the Executing phase of the toolkit process. 

Q11: The leadership team’s willingness to reward employees who contribute to the KM 

strategy is ... 

Q11-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there may be a question regarding leadership’s 

willingness to reward employees who contribute to the implementation of a KM strategy. Since 

rewards are one of the positive forces in KM strategy implementation, careful consideration 

should be given to the feasibility of success under these conditions. Consider including 

development of a rewards approach as part of the implementation strategy. Some KM 

approaches to Recognition and Rewards are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q11-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leadership has little willingness to reward employees 

who contribute to KM strategy success. Under these conditions it may be best not to go forward 

with the strategy unless some form of rewards to key individuals may be found. Some KM 

approaches to Recognition and Rewards are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q11-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that leadership will not reward employees. It may be unwise 

to implement a KM strategy at this time. Another option is to find local rewards for employees 

who significantly contribute to the KM strategy, or implement a local KM initiative whose 

success would convince the leadership team of KM’s value to the Utility. 

Q12: The leadership style in my Utility is [very control oriented (1), in between (2-4) 

or very collaborative oriented (5)] ... 

Q12-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the leadership style of management in the utility is 

midway between control oriented and collaborative oriented. Each functional area of an 

organization has to find its own optimal styles of management dependent upon the focus of their 

business. For example, where safety is concerned control management may be required. 

Where innovation and flexibility are needed in the workplace a collaborative management 

approach would work best. A key question to ask is: what management styles are best for the 

different departments within the Utility and will they support the basic activities needed for 

successful KM strategy implementation? If the answer is yes, the KM strategy can move 

forward. If the answer is no, a separate and distinct leadership strategy should be applied to 

each department involved in the overarching KM strategy. A discussion of leading and 

managing consistent with a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit 

process. 

Q12-2: If the leadership style leans more toward control (level 2 ) it will probably be difficult to 

get managers, or employees, to begin sharing information and knowledge. Under these 

conditions it may be best to delay implementation of a KM strategy or incorporate a change of 

leadership style into the KM strategy. Another approach is to implement a KM initiative in part 

D-11 


of the Utility where collaboration is supported. A discussion of leading and managing consistent 

with a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process. 

Q12-1: Selecting level 1 indicates a strong control-oriented management which, depending on 

the specific strategy considered, might prevent success. In this case efforts should be made to 

move the Utility from a control-oriented approach to a collaborative, or perhaps mixed, 

approach, depending on the specific needs of the Utility. A discussion of leading and managing 

consistent with a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process. 

Q13: The level of leadership involvement with the workforce [as described by 

“management by walking around”] is ... 

Q13-3: Selecting level 3 indicates some degree of personal interface between leaders and their 

employees, which would aid in the implementation of a KM strategy. On the other hand, if the 

Utility has leaders who remain aloof from their employees, these parts of the Utility may have 

difficulty accepting and implementing a KM strategy. A discussion of leading and managing 

related to a KM strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process. 

Q13-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that leaders do not maintain close contact with employees, 

and therefore may not provide personal support to KM strategy implementation. Both 

leadership and management roles in implementing a KM strategy are very important because of 

the typical changes in culture and behavior that occur throughout the Utility as part of the 

strategy. A discussion of leading and managing related to a KM strategy is included in the 

Executing phase of the toolkit process. In addition, a discussion of Becoming a Change Agent 

is included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. 

Q13-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that leaders are relatively aloof from their employees and it 

would be unlikely that they lend personal support to the KM strategy. If this condition is correct, 

it may be best to delay implementation of the KM strategy until leadership has time to digest, 

analyze, understand and recognize the importance and long-term contribution that a KM 

strategy can provide to the Utility. A discussion of leading and managing related to a KM 

strategy is included in the Executing phase of the toolkit process. It may also be useful to 

review The Business Case for KM in drinking water utilities that can be accessed through the 

White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. An additional resource is to scan the 

Case Examples and Project Studies (also under Resources) to find success stories about 

strategies and initiatives similar to those you propose. 

Q14: In my Utility leadership’s acceptance of change is ... 

Q14-3: Selecting level 3 indicates a somewhat slow acceptance of change in the organization. 

To the extent this is valid, leadership may be hesitant to accept significant changes in culture, 

policies, or "ways of doing business." Since the role of leadership is to set the tone and 

reinforce the importance of the changes resulting from a KM strategy, it may be wise to get 

leadership more on board before commencing a KM strategy for the Utility. Such preparation 

time may pay high dividends in the future. A discussion on Becoming a Change Agent is 

included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. 

Q14-2: Selecting level 2 indicates leadership is typically resistant to change and this may 

present a strong challenge to a successful KM initiative. It may be necessary to put off the KM 

initiative until leadership can be persuaded of the value and need for the anticipated changes. 

Another option would be to implement a KM initiative that can validate the value of change and 

D-12 


KM. It may be useful to review The Business Case for KM in drinking water utilities that can be 

accessed through the White Papers section of the toolkit under Resources. Another resource 

is the discussion of Becoming a Change Agent that is included in the Preparing phase of the 

toolkit process. 

Q14-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that leadership will likely resist any changes in the Utility and 

therefore, until this resistance is dissolved, it may be best to wait until leadership can be brought 

on board to support the KM strategy. One option would be to implement a KM initiative that can 

validate the value of change and KM. It may be useful to review The Business Case for KM in 

drinking water utilities that can be accessed through the White Papers section of the toolkit 

under Resources. Another resource is the discussion of Becoming a Change Agent that is 

included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. 

Q15: Leadership’s understanding of KM and its usefulness is ... 

Q15-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the leadership team has not been brought fully on board 

as to the nature and value of knowledge management to the Utility. Because the leadership 

teams’ role in the desired strategy is very important, it is suggested that this issue be corrected 

before commencing the KM strategy. See the Introduction to the toolkit. Numerous resources 

are also available under Resources in the toolkit. These include case examples, project 

studies, white papers, case studies, APQC benchmarking and best practice studies as well as 

MQI research papers. 

Q15-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the leadership team knows very little about knowledge 

management, and hence immediate steps are suggested to bring them up to speed in order to 

empower them to understand and participate in the KM strategy. If this cannot be done, it may 

be best to delay implementation of the KM strategy. See the Introduction to the toolkit. 

Numerous resources are also available under Resources in the toolkit. These include case 

examples, project studies, white papers, case studies, APQC benchmarking and best practice 

studies as well as MQI research papers. 

Q15-1: Selecting level 1 indicates the leadership team has little or no understanding of 

knowledge management. Under these conditions it is best to delay initiating a KM strategy until 

sufficient time can be taken to ensure the leadership team is aware of, understands, and will 

support implementation of the KM strategy. See the Introduction to the toolkit. Numerous 

resources are also available under Resources in the toolkit. These include case examples, 

project studies, white papers, case studies, APQC benchmarking and best practice studies as 

well as MQI research papers. 

MANAGEMENT 

Q16: The level of communication among Utility departments is ... 

Q16-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the level of communication among Utility departments is 

average, and therefore improvement would be helpful to the success of a KM strategy. While a 

KM strategy may be implemented under these conditions, it would be worthwhile to observe the 

level of communication and take actions to improve and facilitate additional communication 

channels among departments. This may well follow directly from the KM strategy since many 

strategies include improving the knowledge sharing among both individuals and departments. 

The toolkit is full of resources that support knowledge sharing and communication. For 

example, see the section on Growing a Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the 

D-13 


toolkit process. You might also wish to review several initiatives in the Tools and Ideas sections 

of the toolkit under Resources; specifically, Dialogue, Social Network Analysis, and Knowledge 

Sharing. 

Q16-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is below average communication among 

departments, and specific actions are needed to create an environment within which employees 

communicate easily and effectively. This lack of communication makes it difficult to implement 

KM strategies such as building a knowledge centric Utility or nurturing a knowledge sharing 

culture. The toolkit is full of resources that support knowledge sharing and communication. For 

example, see the section on Growing a Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the 

toolkit process. You might also wish to review several initiatives in the Tools and Ideas sections 

of the toolkit under Resources; specifically, Dialogue, Social Network Analysis, and Knowledge 

Sharing. 

Q16-1: Selecting level 1 indicates very poor or little communication among departments of the 

Utility. While it may be feasible to successfully implement a knowledge initiative within a given 

department where communication is effective, a Utility-wide KM strategy would be very difficult 

to implement. The Social Network Analysis tool in the Tools section of the toolkit under 

Resources provides a methodology for identifying the areas that are holding communications 

back as well as the integrative points within an organization. The toolkit is full of resources that 

support knowledge sharing and communication. For example, see the section on Growing a 

Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. You might also wish to 

review other initiatives in the Tools and Ideas sections of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q17: The level of management’s empowerment of the workforce is ... 

Q17-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the overall empowerment of employees for this Utility is 

average. The specific level of empowerment should be determined. There is a discussion of 

empowerment included in the MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and Success, which 

is located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources. If it is insufficient 

to encourage knowledge creation, sharing, and collaboration among employees steps should be 

built into the KM strategy to strengthen this aspect of utility effectiveness. Relationship Network 

Management, an approach to developing self empowerment, is included as a MQI paper in the 


Q17-2: Selecting level 2 indicates a general overall lack of empowerment of employees. To 

successfully implement a KM strategy under these conditions would mean building up employee 

confidence and practice in taking actions, creating and sharing knowledge, and accepting 

responsibilities for their decisions. This goal could be made part of the overall KM strategy 

implementation. Without employees feeling empowered to create and share their knowledge 

with others, they are likely to have a difficult time meeting the KM strategy objectives. A 

discussion of empowerment is included in the MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and 

Success, which is located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Relationship Network Management, an approach to developing self empowerment, is included 

as a MQI paper in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q17-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is very little, if any, empowerment of employees in 

the Utility. Since empowerment is very important to knowledge creation and sharing, solutions 

to this limitation should be identified and implemented prior to or during a KM strategy start up. 

There is a discussion of empowerment included in the MQI monogram, A Model for Team 

Learning and Success, which is located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under 

D-14 


Resources. Relationship Network Management, an approach to developing self 

empowerment, is included as a MQI paper in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit 

under Resources. 

Q18: The use of teams or groups to accomplish specific objectives within this Utility is 

... 

Q18-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that teams may be occasionally used by the Utility, but are 

not part of its general operating style. Since employees who are working in teams typically 

communicate and collaborate with each other in a highly productive way, the importance of 

teams or groups to accomplish desired objectives should be carefully observed and considered 

when creating and implementing a KM strategy. See the section on Growing a Knowledge 

Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and the MQI monogram, A Model for 

Team Learning and Success, located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q18-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that teams are not used very often in your Utility. This may 

impose a burden on the KM strategy and the culture of the workforce would need to be moved 

toward a team-oriented, collaboration-based approach to support success of the KM strategy. 

Depending on the specific KM strategy selected, special attention would most likely have to be 

paid to creating effective workforce team and groups skills. Organizational culture is discussed 

in the Building the Foundation section of the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. Also, see 

the section on Growing a Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and 

the MQI monogram, A Model for Team Learning and Success, located in the Resource 

Document section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q18-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the Utility rarely uses teams. Given this state of affairs, 

it is worth looking carefully into the current culture to determine how well employees are able to 

communicate and collaborate in their daily work. As a minimum the KM strategy should include 

learning how to work in teams, or a KM initiative whose purpose is to create effective team and 

community communication and collaboration. This could begin as a local initiative or pilot 

program which would then be expanded to the entire Utility. See the section on Growing a 

Knowledge Network in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and the MQI monogram, A 

Model for Team Learning and Success, located in the Resource Document section of the toolkit 


Q19: Managers’ willingness to accept and implement new initiatives is ... 

Q19-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the Utility’s capability to implement new initiatives is 

average at best. Thus, some training or learning may need to be planned into the KM strategy. 

In addition, those employees who have demonstrated the willingness and capacity to work with 

change and implement new initiatives may be considered for leading specific parts of the KM 

strategy. A discussion on Becoming a Change Agent is included in the Preparing phase of the 

toolkit process. 

Q19-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the Utility's capability to implement new initiatives is low, 

and possibly that there is little experience in this area. If this is the case, it may be worth 

considering additional training and development of key individuals to ensure their ability to 

implement a KM initiative. However, it should be noted that managers who are reluctant to 

accept and implement new initiatives may not be easily changed. They may resist or slowdown 

a KM strategy implementation. Moving managers to other positions is one way of stimulating 

D-15 


their learning and getting them used to changes. Another approach is to make them aware of 

the need and benefit of change. Still a third approach, is to get them to work together as a team 

with the responsibility for implementing a KM strategy. 

Q19-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that most managers in the Utility would not be comfortable 

implementing new initiatives, and therefore would undoubtedly have difficulty supporting a KM 

strategy. Without management and leadership support it is very difficult for any KM strategy to 

be successfully implemented. See the discussion on Ensuring Leadership Commitment in the 

Planning phase of the toolkit process. A significant effort may be needed in moving 

management styles such that management actions will facilitate the creation of new initiatives 

and change prior to starting a KM strategy. Under these conditions, it would probably be best 

not to initiative a KM strategy unless that strategy directly addressed the issues of initiating and 

living with change. An alternate approach would be to work with the managers through team 

assignments and team building to give them greater experience and comfort in initiating and 

dealing with change, which could then be transferred to a KM strategy at a later date. A 

discussion on Becoming a Change Agent is included in the Preparing phase of the toolkit 

process. An MQI paper on personal change is included in the Resource Document section 

under Resources. Papers on Barriers and Critical Success Factors to KM initiatives and 

strategies developed from the 4003 study of over 200 drinking water utilities is accessible 

through the White Papers section under Resources. 

Q20: The level of support for knowledge sharing through the structure of this Utility is ... 

Q20-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the Utility’s structure provides a medium level of support 

for employee knowledge sharing. Depending on the specific KM strategy intended, this may be 

adequate as long as the structure does not inhibit an increased level of employee knowledge 

sharing. If the structure does inhibit knowledge sharing, then it needs to be reviewed and 

perhaps modified through policies and procedures, with emphasis placed on increased 

collaboration among departments or divisions, or efforts made to reduce silo mentalities and 

practices. Another step may be to review the organizational processes and create more teams 

and communities. Related materials in the toolkit include the discussion on Thinking Systems in 

the Planning phase of the toolkit process, the discussion on The Four Organizational 

Processes in the Executing phase of the toolkit process, and the Learning section in the 

Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. Papers on Barriers and Critical Success Factors to KM 

initiatives and strategies developed from the 4003 study of over 200 drinking water utilities is 

accessible through the White Papers section under Resources. Approaches to knowledge 

sharing are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q20-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the structure is detrimental to employee knowledge 

sharing. Implementation of a KM strategy should be delayed until the structure can be reviewed 

and needed actions taken. For example, if the structure does not contain computer networking, 

does not allow communities of practice, or does not encourage meetings among department 

heads or frequent discussions among first-line supervisors exchanging their experience, then 

knowledge will rarely be shared. Creating and maintaining trust is another very important 

aspect of knowledge sharing and can be influenced by knowledge structure. Without a support 

structure, it is difficult to get a successful outcome from any KM strategy. Under these 

conditions it would be worthwhile to implement a KM initiative that would look at how to modify 

the structure to encourage and create knowledge sharing among employees. All of these may 

be particularly important actions to implement since knowledge sharing is a key aspect of most 

KM strategies. Related materials in the toolkit include the discussion on Thinking Systems in 

the Planning phase of the toolkit process, the discussion on The Four Organizational 

D-16 


Processes in the Executing phase of the toolkit process, and the Learning section in the 

Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. Papers on Barriers and Critical Success Factors to 

KM initiatives and strategies developed from the 4003 study of over 200 drinking water utilities 

is accessible through the White Papers section under Resources. Approaches to knowledge 

sharing are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q20-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the nature of the structure is seriously inhibiting 

knowledge sharing. If this is correct, it would be essential to evaluate the structure and take 

proper actions prior to commencing a KM strategy. Actions could include a KM initiative 

focused on evaluating the current structure and creating and implementing changes necessary 

to encourage and support continuous knowledge sharing. Related materials in the toolkit 

include the discussion on Thinking Systems in the Planning phase of the toolkit process, the 

discussion on The Four Organizational Processes in the Executing phase of the toolkit 

process, and the Learning section in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. Papers on 

Barriers and Critical Success Factors to KM initiatives and strategies developed from the 4003 

study of over 200 drinking water utilities is accessible through the White Papers section under 

Resources. Approaches to knowledge sharing are included in the Ideas section of the toolkit 


Q21: The consistency of management direction and Utility goals is ... 

Q21-3: Selecting level 3 indicates some variability or inconsistency in management direction 

and Utility goals as seen by employees. To the extent that this is true, employees may well 

assume any new change program such as a KM strategy is another “flavor of the day” and not 

give it the serious consideration necessary for successful implementation. One solution is to 

ensure that management is fully aligned and supportive of the program and personally active in 

its implementation. The toolkit offers a myriad of resources to help build understanding of the 

value of KM, including case examples, project studies, and several APQC benchmarking/best 

practice studies with additional examples. These are all accessible through Resources. A 

discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging Leadership Commitment section of 

the Planning phase in the toolkit. 

Q21-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that management has a history of fluctuations and changing 

goals and directions for the Utility. When these conditions occur, they represent a potential 

barrier to implementation of a KM strategy and actions need to be taken to counter the reaction 

of employees to "the new flavor of the month." The solution could be to assure that leadership 

and senior management are fully aligned and supportive of the program, and are personally 

supportive and/or active in its implementation. The toolkit offers a myriad of resources to help 

build understanding of the value of KM, including case examples, project studies, and several 

APQC benchmarking/best practice studies with additional examples. These are all accessible 

through Resources. A discussion of leadership visibility is included in the Engaging Leadership 

Commitment section of the Planning phase in the toolkit. 

Q21-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that management has a strong history of shifting goals and 

directions for the Utility. This condition would almost certainly generate an employee 

perspective of, "we have seen it before and it will go away as other initiatives have” or “this is 

the new flavor of the month, why should I take it seriously?" Such attitudes represent a 

significant barrier to successful KM strategy implementation and must be addressed and 

resolved prior to initiating a KM strategy. Since this issue reflects a general mistrust of 

management decisions and actions on the part of employees, it is larger than bringing 

management on-board with the KM strategy. Further, it will not easily go away. Definitive 

D-17 


management decisions and actions aligned to Utility goals and with consistent follow-through 

over time are required to mitigate this effect. 

Q22: The effectiveness of the HR department’s support of employee training and 

development is ... 

Q22-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the HR department provides some support for employee 

training and development but not necessarily as much as desired. HR has the opportunity to 

play a significant role in influencing and building the Utility culture relative to learning and human 

development. Depending on the specific KM strategy to be implemented, the role of the HR 

department may be significant and needs to be brought into the strategy, with specific required 

resources and responsibilities assigned to HR. Where there is a question regarding HR 

support, senior management may have to step in and take a personal interest to ensure that the 

HR department has the resources and authority to support the KM strategy. The role of HR in a 

KM strategy is the subject of a White Paper included in the toolkit under Resources. 

Q22-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the HR department is providing little support for 

employee training and development. This could be a major barrier to successfully implementing 

a KM strategy, depending on the specific strategy selected. If the HR departments’ role is 

significant in this strategy, then leadership should ensure the required changes in HR 

responsibilities and activities occur prior to or in concert with implementation of the KM strategy. 

The role of HR in a KM strategy is the subject of a White Paper included in the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q22-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the HR department is providing little or no support for 

employee training and development. This would be rare, but to the extent it occurs it would be 

essential to ensure that the HR department has the authority and resources to provide the 

needed support for employee training and development prior to implementing a KM strategy. 

Knowledge creation, sharing and application are essential to many KM strategies, and as a 

result employee training and development is foundational. The role of HR in a KM strategy is 

the subject of a White Paper included in the toolkit under Resources. 

CULTURE 

Q23: The willingness of employees to accept and take advantage of change is ... 

Q23-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there is some willingness to accept and take advantage 

of change but it is not a strong point of the Utility. The importance of this item would depend 

upon the change required in implementing a specific KM strategy. If significant change is 

needed, then actions should be taken to prepare the Utility to accept and embrace change. 

Depending on the history and specific nature of the Utility’s culture and leadership and 

management style, this may be a long-term challenge. People cannot be ordered to change. 

For example, you cannot successfully tell a knowledge worker to share their knowledge, trust 

others, be creative, or collaborate with their peers. The following factors are instrumental in 

determining whether or not an individual will change: awareness, understanding, believing, 

feeling good, ownership, empowerment, and impact. For more information on these factors see 

the Becoming a Change Agent section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. In 

addition, an MQI paper, “A New Change Model: Factors for Initiating and Implementing 

Personal Action Learning,” discusses these factors in detail. This paper is accessible in the 


D-18 


Q23-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the Utility’s culture is not comfortable with change and 

may provide resistance to any KM strategy. Utility cultures are often highly resistive to change 

unless they have a history of continuous learning and adapting to a changing environment. In 

any case, depending on the size of the utility and the specific KM strategy selected, this level 

would indicate the need for a carefully thought out and significant effort to ensure that the 

culture would accept and adapt to the necessary changes required by the strategy. A 

discussion of culture is included in the Connecting the Dots section of the Preparing phase of 

the toolkit process and the APQC best practice report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing 

Culture” located in the Resource Documents section under Resources. 

Q23-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the history of the Utility is one of stability, and most likely 

has a culture which is change resistant. Unless the intended KM strategy requires little or no 

change in the current culture, it may be best to address the change requirements before 

initiating a KM strategy. Knowledge management involves the creation, sharing and application 

of knowledge, all of which encompass learning and change. A discussion of culture is included 

in the Connecting the Dots section of the Preparing phase of the toolkit process and the APQC 

best practice report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture” located in the Resource 

Documents section under Resources. 

Q24: The level of trust among Utility employees is ... 

Q24-3: Selecting level 3 indicates an average level of trust among Utility employees. While this 

may be acceptable to commence a KM strategy implementation, a high level of trust is desired 

for maximum knowledge sharing and organizational learning. Using teams, team building and 

collaborative groups working closely together to make decisions and take actions on 

implementing the KM strategy could improve the overall level of trust in the Utility. Trust in an 

underlying theme in the MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning and Success” and the 

APQC best practices report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture”.” Both are available in 

the Resource Document Section of the toolkit under Resources. You might also want to review 

the “Building Trust” and “Knowledge Sharing” lists in the Idea section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q24-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is a below average level of trust among Utility 

employees. Under this condition it may be best to consider the importance of trust among 

employees as it relates to a specific KM strategy to be implemented. If trust is significant, the 

KM strategy may be delayed until the trust level of the Utility can be increased. A second option 

would be to build in a process for trust enhancement during the KM strategy implementation. 

Trust is one of the critical factors for any KM strategy and as such, becomes a major challenge 

to management and leadership. Trust in an underlying theme in the MQI monogram “A Model 

for Team Learning and Success” and the APQC best practices report on “Creating a 

Knowledge-Sharing Culture”.” Both are available in the Resource Document Section of the 

toolkit under Resources. You might also want to review the “Building Trust” and “Knowledge 

Sharing” lists in the Idea section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q24-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is essentially little or no trust within the Utility. 

Under these conditions it is most likely futile to try to implement a KM strategy before resolving 

the trust issue. Resources focused on trust in the toolkit include: 

The MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning and Success” in the Resource 

Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. 

The APQC best practices report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture” in the 


D-19 


The “Building Trust” and “Knowledge Sharing” lists in the Idea section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q25: The capacity of employees to tackle and take a flexible approach to problems is ... 

Q25-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that employees are sometimes able to be flexible in their 

approach to solving problems. A KM strategy implementation may offer a vehicle for improving 

employee's capacity to solve problems and stay flexible in how they deal with issues. The Four 

Organizational Processes section in the Executing phase of the toolkit process and the 

Nurturing Organizational Health section in the Sustaining Phase may provide insights on the 

need for flexibility. 

Q25-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that employees are not good at tackling and taking a flexible 

approach to problems. In this situation it may be best to delay the KM strategy or create training 

as part of the strategy mechanisms to improve employee capacity for problem-solving and 

flexibility. The Four Organizational Processes section in the Executing phase of the toolkit 

process and the Nurturing Organizational Health section in the Sustaining Phase may provide 

insights on the need for flexibility. 

Q25-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that employees have difficulty solving problems and being 

flexible. This kind of a condition is frequently created by a strong control oriented organization, 

which has not empowered the workforce and is intolerant of mistakes. Under these conditions it 

may be very difficult to implement a successful KM strategy. The Four Organizational 

Processes section in the Executing phase of the toolkit process and the Nurturing 

Organizational Health section in the Sustaining Phase may provide insights on the need for 

flexibility. 

Q26: The energy level and spirit of the workforce in my Utility is ... 

Q26-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the employees have a medium energy level and spirit 

toward their work. Under these conditions it may be possible for a successful KM initiative to 

pull a workforce together, increasing energy and improving Utility performance at the same time. 

In any case, a medium energy level workforce is going to move slower toward an objective, and 

therefore the implementation program needs to take this into account. 

Q26-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the employees have low energy levels and not too much 

spirit towards their work. This would most likely make it quite difficult to implement a KM 

strategy. However, the KM strategy might be implemented in a manner which would improve 

the energy level and spirit of the workforce, providing management and senior leadership are 

personally involved and use that involvement to communicate with their employees. You might 

wish to review the Ensuring Leadership Commitment section in the Planning phase of the 

toolkit process and the myriad of Idea lists including Recognition, Knowledge Sharing and 

Rewards and Communications Publications located under Resources. 

Q26-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the employees have very low energy levels and little or 

no spirit towards their work. When this occurs, there are generally larger underlying issues at 

play. Regardless, this situation would make it very difficult to implement a KM strategy. One 

approach would be to create a problem solving team or hold a collaborative problem solving 

forum to surface and address these critical issues. Various resources in the toolkit may be of 

assistance. For example, there is a discussion of the Collaborative Problem Solving Forum in 

D-20 


the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. The MQI monogram “A Model for Team 

Learning and Success” may be a useful resource. 

Q27: The percentage of workers who learn fast enough to keep up with change is ... 

Q27-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that overall the Utility learning rate is average. This would 

indicate that implementation of a KM strategy would likely increase the learning rate throughout 

the Utility and provide more efficient and effective use of the knowledge generated. If there are 

specific pockets within which learning is not occurring, they should be addressed as part of the 

KM strategy. Learning is discussed in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. 

Q27-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the overall Utility learning rate is low. Since knowledge 

management is about creating, leveraging, sharing and applying knowledge, the learning rate of 

the Utility is very important to a KM strategy. With a low-level learning rate, it will likely be 

necessary that special care be given to upgrading the Utility’s capability of working 

collaboratively, learning, and sharing information and knowledge. This area should be 

addressed as a significant part of the KM implementation strategy. Learning is discussed in the 

Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. 

Q27-1: Selecting level 1 indicates a very low overall rate of learning for the Utility. Depending 

upon other assessments within this instrument, it may be necessary to delay implementation of 

a KM strategy until the overall learning capacity of the Utility has been improved. An 

organization cannot survive in an uncertain and changing environment without the ability to 

learn. Serious consideration should be given to developing and embracing an organizational 

learning strategy. Learning is discussed in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. An 

MQI paper on knowledge management and organizational learning is included in the Resource 

Documents section under Resources. 

Q28: The level of networking and communication among Utility workers is ... 

Q28-3: Selecting level 3 indicates there is some networking and communication among Utility 

workers, but it is not at a high level. Networking and communication is an indicator of employee 

communication and collaboration, and as such is an essential element in effective KM strategy 

implementation and success. At this level, a specific plan should be made and implemented to 

increase the amount of networking and communication among Utility employees as part of the 

KM implementation strategy. Growing a Knowledge Network is discussed in the Preparing 

phase of the toolkit process. Social Network Analysis (SNA) is a process for mapping the 

relationships among people, teams, or across organizations which may prove useful for 

identifying places where communication links may be broken. It is discussed in the Tools 


Q28-2: Selecting level 2 indicates there is not very much networking and communication 

among Utility workers. Contingent upon other aspects of the assessment (in particular those 

areas related to knowledge sharing and management interactions), this may indicate that 

significant effort needs to be put into the creation and improvement of employee networking and 

communication before implementing a KM strategy. Consider Social Network Analysis (SNA) 

as a process for mapping the relationships among people, teams, or across organizations. 

SNA may prove useful for identifying places where communication links are broken. It is 

discussed in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. 

D-21 


Q28-1: Selecting level 1 indicates there is very little and perhaps no networking and 

communication among Utility workers. In this extreme case, it may be unwise to begin a KM 

strategy implementation. The creation, sharing and application of knowledge represent the 

payoff of knowledge management, and as such, require a level of communication and 

networking by Utility employees. Conducting Social Network Analysis (SNA), a process for 

mapping the relationships among people, teams, or across organizations, will help surface 

communications issues. SNA is discussed in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q29: The percentage of employees who understand the vision of this Utility is ... 

Q29-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that some employees are aware of the vision of the Utility. A 

KM strategy is usually intended to improve the current and future performance of the 

organization in support of the vision of the Utility. This relationship between the objectives of 

the KM strategy and the vision is one key to having employees understand the need for, and 

importance of, the KM strategy. Ensure that this connection is clearly communicated as the KM 

strategy moves forward. You might wish to refer to the Developing the Strategy and Writing the 

Plan sections in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q29-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that most employees are not clear about, or aware of, the 

Utility’s specific vision. Before implementing a KM strategy it may be best to build employee 

understanding of and appreciation for the vision of the Utility. Another option is to ensure the 

vision of the organization is addressed early during KM strategy implementation along with the 

relationship of the KM strategy to this vision. Refer to the Developing the Strategy and Writing 

the Plan sections in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q29-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that very few, if any, employees understand or are aware of 

the Utility’s vision. Before implementing a KM strategy it may be best to build employee 

understanding of and appreciation for the vision of the Utility. Another option is to ensure the 

vision of the organization is addressed early during KM strategy implementation along with the 

relationship of the KM strategy and each individual’s contribution to this vision. Refer to the 

Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan sections in the Planning phase of the toolkit 

process. 

Q30: The percentage of employees empowered to do their job with minimal direction is ... 

Q30-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there are some employees who are empowered and do 

not have significant oversight. This group could represent the core of the group supporting KM 

strategy implementation. If these individuals are located in specific departments and other 

departments have few or no empowered workers, the Utility KM strategy may be challenging. 

This should be taken into account in developing of the specific approach to the KM strategy to 

be implemented. Empowerment is discussed in the MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning 

and Success” and the MQI paper “Collaborative Leadership.” Both can be accessed through 

the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q30-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there are only a few employees who are empowered, 

with most employees working in the same level of a control-oriented environment. This situation 

would make implementation of a KM strategy difficult since KM relies on the individual worker 

using their knowledge and expertise to collaborate and share with others, and making decisions 

within the envelope of their competency, experience and level of empowerment by 

management. Empowerment is discussed in the MQI monogram “A Model for Team Learning 

D-22 


and Success” and the MQI paper “Collaborative Leadership.” Both can be accessed through 

the Resource Document section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q30-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that very few or perhaps none of the employees in the Utility 

are empowered. This situation would make it quite difficult to implement a KM strategy for the 

Utility. Most often, this is a leadership/management problem that must be addressed before 

moving ahead with a KM strategy. You may wish to review the Leading and Managing section 

in the Executing phase of the toolkit process and the MQI paper on “Collaborative Leadership” 

in the Resource Documents section of Resources. 

Q31: For the critical processes of the Utility, workforce discipline is ... 

Q31-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that not all critical processes are implemented by workers 

with high discipline. Critical processes would be considered as those that ensure safe drinking 

water for the public, or those that require safety procedures that must not be compromised. The 

challenge here is that—when implementing a KM strategy for the entire Utility—employees 

involved in the critical processes maintain their discipline and careful performance on a daily 

basis while simultaneously learning and sharing their knowledge and helping others perform 

well. Considerations such as these may need to be taken into account in the creation of KM 

strategy implementation. Note that workforce discipline and management control are not 

synonymous. 

Q31-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there are critical processes within the Utility in which 

employee discipline may be lower than desired. Under these conditions, this discipline must be 

reinstated. If the KM strategy is implemented it should support both disciplined processes as 

well as collaboration and knowledge sharing. 

Q31-1: Selecting level 2 indicates that the critical processes within the Utility are not 

implemented with sufficient employee discipline. While this rarely occurs due to the critical 

nature of the drinking water industry, if such a situation does exist it should be corrected 

immediately and prior to implementing any KM strategy. 

Q32: The level of trust between employees and managers is ... 

Q32-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that while there is a level of trust between workers and 

management in this Utility, there is also some distrust. Trust is an essential ingredient in the 

workplace before collaboration and knowledge sharing can be implemented effectively. Thus 

actions should be considered early in the implementation phase of the KM strategy to improve 

the level of trust between management and the employees. Trust is an underlying theme 

throughout the discussions on knowledge strategies and initiatives. It is also a major area in the 

extended APQC and MQI studies and reports located in the Resource Documents section of the 


Q32-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is not very much trust between management and 

the employees. Under these conditions it may be best to approach and resolve the trust issue 

prior to implementing a KM strategy. Trust between management and the employees 

represents a foundation upon which empowerment, knowledge sharing and learning can be 

built. Without this foundation the challenges may be too great for the Utility to successfully 

implement a KM strategy. You may wish to refer to the MQI paper on “Collaborative 

Leadership” in the Resource Documents section under Resources. Trust is an underlying 

theme throughout the discussions on knowledge strategies and initiatives. It is also a major 

D-23 


area in the extended APQC and MQI studies and reports located in the Resource Documents 


Q32-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no trust between management and the 

employees. When this situation occurs, it would be very difficult to implement almost any form 

of KM strategy unless the strategy is specifically designed to improve the level of trust 

throughout the Utility. Building trust takes time, significant effort and patience by all concerned. 

It is particularly challenging if the lack of trust is organization-wide and management is control 

oriented with silos and/or old boy networks built into the culture. You may wish to refer to the 

APQC best practice report on “Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture” and the MQI paper on 

“Collaborative Leadership” in the Resource Documents section under Resources. 

Q33: The level of employee training, learning, and development in this Utility is ... 

Q33-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that this Utility has a medium level of employee training, 

learning and development. This may be an adequate baseline to initiate a KM strategy. 

Depending on the specific strategy selected, it may be important to look at the various 

departments within the Utility to determine if training, learning and development are adequate to 

meet current and anticipated needs relative to the creation, sharing and application of 

knowledge and the empowerment of employees. Refer to the Sharing and Learning sections in 

the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. 

Q33-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that while there is some employee training, learning and 

development it may not be adequate. Specific actions may be necessary to upgrade training, 

learning and development either prior to commencing—or as part of—a KM strategy. Refer to 

the Sharing and Learning sections in the Sustaining phase of the toolkit process. 

Q33-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no employee training, learning and development. 

If this is the case, the KM strategy should not be implemented unless it contains training, learning and 

development as part of the strategy, or perhaps that could be the strategy. Organizational learning and 

knowledge management go hand in hand. You might wish to read the MQI paper on organizational 

learning and knowledge management located in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q34: The percentage of employees that think in terms of systems, and how their work affects 

other employee efforts and the mission of the organization, is ... 

Q34-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that there are some employees within the Utility who do think 

in terms of systems and how their work affects other employee efforts and contributes to the 

mission of the organization. This is a positive situation upon which KM strategies may be built. 

A discussion on Thinking About Systems is included in the Planning phase of the toolkit 

process. For those desiring a deeper treatment of systems and complexity, there is an MQI 

paper on this topic as related to decision-making included in the Resource Documents section 

of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q34-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there are perhaps a few employees who think in terms of 

systems and how their work affects other employee efforts and the overall mission of the 

organization. Since the capacity to think in terms of systems and interaction among workers 

provide significant support for any KM strategy being implemented, this characteristic in the 

Utility may need to be further developed by using teams, or perhaps training in systems and 

complexity. While this situation may not preclude a successful KM strategy, it would be 

D-24 


worthwhile to include team training and workshops on collaboration and communication as part 

of the startup of KM strategy implementation. One approach would be to embrace Relationship 

Network Management (RNM) as a core competency for Utility employees. A paper on RNM is 

included in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. A discussion on 

Thinking About Systems is included in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. For those 

desiring a deeper treatment of systems and complexity, there is an MQI paper on this topic as 

relationed to decision-making included in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

Q34-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no systems thinking in the Utility which 

would include an understanding of how one employee’s work affects other employees as well as 

its relationship to the organizational mission. While such a situation may not preclude 

successful KM implementation, it highlights the need for, and importance of, developing 

employee capacity to think broader than their individual job responsibilities and to begin to 

communicate and collaborate more effectively with other employees. Plan on including team 

training and workshops on collaboration and communication as part of the startup of KM 

strategy implementation. One approach would be to embrace Relationship Network 

Management (RNM) as a core competency for Utility employees. A paper on RNM is included 

in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. Another approach for 

medium-large utilities would be to consider developing and supporting Communities of Practice 

(CoP). A large number of resources on CoPs are included in the toolkit. A good starting place 

is Community of Practice in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. A discussion on 

Thinking About Systems is included in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. For those 

desiring a deeper treatment of systems and complexity, there is an MQI paper on this topic as 

related to decision-making included in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under 

Resources. 

ALIGNMENT 

Q35: How well will the strategic business plan support the KM strategy? 

Q35-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that this plan will provide some support to the KM strategy. If 

the strategic business plan is well developed and consistent with the purpose and vision of the 

Utility, then the KM strategy would most likely be aligned with, and supportive of, the business 

plan. If the business plan does not support the needs of the KM strategy, then it may be 

necessary to ensure that the business plan and the KM strategy are aligned. It may be 

beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning 

phase of the toolkit process. 

Q35-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that there is minimum alignment between the business plan 

and the KM strategy. . If the strategic business plan is well developed and consistent with the 

purpose and vision of the Utility, then the KM strategy would most likely be aligned with, and 

supportive of, the business plan. If the business plan does not support the needs of the KM 

strategy, then it may be necessary to ensure that the business plan and the KM strategy are 

aligned. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the 

Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q35-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that there is little or no alignment or relationship between the 

business plan and the KM strategy. Clearly this gap needs to be addressed. If the business 

plan does not support the needs of the KM strategy, then it will be necessary to ensure that the 

D-25 


usiness plan and the KM strategy are aligned. It may be beneficial to read the sections on 

Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q36: How well will the operational plan support the KM strategy? 

Q36-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the operational plan provides some support to the KM 

strategy, but not necessarily a large amount. Depending on the anticipated interaction and 

relationship between the operational plan and the KM strategy, this may be acceptable. Where 

possible, the two should mutually support each other. It may be beneficial to read the sections 

on Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q36-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the operational plan may provide some support for the 

KM strategy. If the operational plan and KM strategy are independent and do not need 

interaction and alignment, then a KM strategy may begin implementation. However, the plan 

and KM strategy may have to be reviewed to bring them into better alignment. It may be 

beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning 

phase of the toolkit process. 

Q36-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the operational plan will provide little or no support for 

the KM strategy. If this is the case then the plan and the KM strategy need to be reviewed and 

brought into closer alignment and mutual support. It may be beneficial to read the sections on 

Developing the Strategy and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q37: How well will the capital improvement plan support implementation of a KM 

strategy? 

Q37-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the capital improvement plan provides some support for 

the KM strategy. In this case, a KM strategy would have to be reviewed for its relationship to 

the capital improvement plan to ensure the KM strategy supports the long-term goals of the 

Utility. If the two are relatively independent, there should be no issue in commencing the KM 

strategy. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing the 

Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q37-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the capital improvement plan is relatively independent of 

the KM strategy. This should not be an issue unless the KM strategy directly impacts the capital 

improvement plan. In this case, the plan and the KM strategy need to be reviewed carefully and 

brought into alignment. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy 

and Writing the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q37-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the capital improvement plan will not support the KM 

strategy. Assuming the KM strategy needs support from the capital improvement plan, then 

these two should be brought into alignment. If there are no negative impacts between the two, 

the KM strategy could begin implementation, assuming other aspects of this assessment are 

acceptable. It may be beneficial to read the sections on Developing the Strategy and Writing 

the Plan in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. 

Q38: How well will the Utility’s information technology master plan support 

implementation of a KM strategy? 

Q38-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the information technology master plan provides some 

support for the KM strategy. If the KM strategy involves significant technological support, this 

D-26 


issue could require careful consideration before proceeding with the strategy. Whatever level of 

technology support is needed, it is important to ensure that the technology is selected and 

implemented in a manner which is cohesive with Utility needs and resources, and employee 

acceptance. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation section in the Preparing 

phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the 


Q38-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the information technology master plan provides some, 

but not necessarily sufficient, support for the KM strategy. If the KM strategy is highly 

dependent upon technological support, as many KM strategies are, implementation may have to 

be delayed until it is assured that adequate technology is available. You may wish to review the 

Building the Foundation section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also 

Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q38-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the information technology master plan would provide 

little or no technology in support of the KM strategy. Since technology is an enabler for KM, this 

may not be acceptable, depending upon the needs of the KM strategy. A careful review of the 

plan and the KM strategy is necessary. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation 

section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in 

the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q39: How well will your information technology department support implementation of 

a KM strategy? 

Q39-3: Selecting level 3 indicates that the information technology department will provide 

medium support to the KM strategy. This may be satisfactory if the KM strategy does not 

require significant technology and its related support. However, if technology is a significant 

aspect of the KM strategy, then a part of that strategy must ensure that the information 

technology department is capable of providing necessary support. You may wish to review the 

Building the Foundation section in the Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also 

Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q39-2: Selecting level 2 indicates that the information technology department will be able to 

provide some support, but perhaps not enough to ensure an effective KM strategy. If the 

strategy is dependent upon strong IT support, this issue should be resolved before commencing 

the KM strategy. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation section in the Preparing 

phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in the Ideas section of the 


Q39-1: Selecting level 1 indicates that the information technology department is essentially 

unable to provide support to the KM strategy. This is only be acceptable if the KM strategy does 

not include any technology for its implementation. However, since IT is an enabler of KM, this is 

highly unlikely. When technology is required, the KM strategy would need to be delayed until 

this issue is resolved. You may wish to review the Building the Foundation section in the 

Preparing phase of the toolkit process. See also Technology Related Tools in the Ideas 


Q40: The competency and skill sets of this Utility’s employees is ... 

Q40-3: Selecting a 3 indicates that the competency and skills of this Utility’s employees are 

average in their capacity to support a KM strategy. This should be adequate to implement a KM 

D-27 


strategy; however, the strategy might be designed to include training and other experiences to 

build up employee capabilities. While competencies and skills are included throughout the 

Resources section of the toolkit, you may wish to review the Lehigh County Authority 

Workforce Plan, which includes a model that serves as a hiring guide and provides skills 

expectations of their leadership team. The Plan is included in the Resource Documents section 

of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q40-2: Selecting a 2 indicates that the competency and skills of this Utility’s employees are 

lower than average. Depending on the KM strategy, it may be best to delay implementation, or 

to modify the strategy to include upgrading the competencies and skills of employees. One 

approach is to engage retirees to support rapid upgrading of employee competencies and skills. 

See Engaging Golden Experience in the Tools section of the toolkit under Resources. While 

competencies and skills are included throughout the Resources section of the toolkit, you may 

wish to review the Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, which includes a model that serves 

as a hiring guide and provides skills expectations of their leadership team. The Plan is included 

in the Resource Documents section of the toolkit under Resources. 

Q40-1: Selecting a 1 indicates that the competencies and skills of the Utility workforce are low. 

This condition needs immediate attention. A KM initiative could be used to upgrade weak areas 

while simultaneously supporting implementation of a broader KM strategy. While competencies 

and skills are included throughout the Resources section of the toolkit, you may wish to review 

the Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan, which includes a model that serves as a hiring 

guide and provides skills expectations of their leadership team. The Plan is included in the 


In concluding your analysis, consider the four areas below: 

(1) The total score and the above discussion; 

(2) the appropriateness of your specific strategy; 

(3) the impact of items scored at a level 1, 2 or 3 on your KM strategy; and 

(4) the impact of the external environment in which the KM strategy will be implemented. 

Then, use your judgment to determine the readiness of your Utility to implement a specific KM 

strategy. You may find it helpful to get several other managers in your Utility to take the 

assessment and use a team dialogue to arrive at your Utility’s readiness for a KM strategy. 

D-28 


Appendix E 

Knowledge Management Toolkit Intro and Process Phases 





Toolkit Resources 

Related WaterRF Research 


The decisions that are made every day by every single person in your Utility determine the 

performance of the Utility that day. Knowledge is about making good decisions and taking 

the best actions in a given situation. This is why knowledge is defined as the capability 

(potential or actual) to take effective action. When you have good knowledge your decisions and 

actions will result in what you expect or plan to happen. Managing knowledge in an organization 

means ensuring decision-makers at all levels have the ability and the information they need to 

make the best decisions and take the most effective actions. 

Knowledge can be thought about in many different ways. One way is to consider it in terms 

of explicit, implicit and tacit. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be called up from memory 

and described in words or visuals such that another person can comprehend what is expressed. 

Emotions can also be expressed as explicit knowledge in terms of changes in body state; for 

example, when someone blushes. Implicit knowledge is a bit more complicated. It is knowledge 

stored in memory which you may not recall but can be triggered, usually by an external event. 

Examples of triggers are questions, dialogue and reflective thought. In other words, implicit 

knowledge is something you do not know you have but is self-discoverable. Tacit knowledge 

describes that which cannot be recalled and put into words. It is a knowing or doing that is 

known or acted upon but which cannot be articulated or explained. Examples range from 

intuitive feelings to bicycle riding. 

There are other ways to think about knowledge that can be useful to individuals and 

organizations. For example, thinking about knowledge in terms of surface knowledge, shallow 

knowledge and deep knowledge can help a manager ask relevant questions about specific 

levels of knowledge. It also helps us to recognize the scope and depth of knowledge available 

to maximize problem solving, decision-making and action in simple, complicated and complex 

situations. Further, these three levels of knowledge help tailor learning and knowledge to 

improve knowledge sharing and retention. Another way to think about knowledge is in terms of 

types of knowledge grouped by similarities and differences, specifically, in terms of what 

knowledge is needed to do a particular type of work or take a particular action. This is useful 

when considering the knowledge needs for specific jobs, and identifying knowledge gaps in a 

Utility. See the MQI paper on The Depth of KNOWLEDGE. 

Another way to think about knowledge is in terms of technical, social and structural. 

Technical knowledge applies to functional capabilities, and is typically demonstrated as a skill. 

Social knowledge is embedded in the exchanges individuals have among themselves, and is 

built on relationships and culture. Structural knowledge is what is embedded in the Utility’s 

systems, processes, policies and procedures, and is usually rules-based. In Project Study 

#23, the Louisville Water Company surveyed retiring managers to discover the technical, social, 

and structural knowledge needed to do their jobs. 



Knowledge Management (KM) is all about people—individuals, groups and 

organizations—effectively applying their knowledge. KM looks at the organization through 

an information and knowledge lens and asks the question: What can leaders and managers 

do to help employees work more efficiently and effectively, be proactive, and take the best 

actions to support the goals and strategy of the Utility? In short, KM can help resolve a 

specific problem, change a culture, or prepare an organization (and individuals) for a better 

future. 

KM consists of a group of related ideas, principles and practices that, when tailored and 

applied by experienced people to specific issues, can improve the quality of the Utility’s 

decisions and actions. The unifying theme is its focus on information and knowledge. It is 

also an approach to increasing the Utility’s capacity to deal with growing change, 

uncertainty and complexity. For example, one KM objective is to build a collaborative 

learning organization with employees who create, share, leverage, and apply their 

information and knowledge in support of Utility objectives. The payoff includes rapid 

response, employee satisfaction, quality work and fewer mistakes. When individuals begin 

to understand the potential offered by KM—and that it is all about helping them use their 

knowledge better, they often get excited. This happened in Project Study #11. 

At different times in its history and implementation, KM has been focused on information 

systems, communities of practice, and knowledge strategies. Combining these focuses, the 

U.S. Department of the Navy considered KM from three viewpoints: information, decisionmakers, 

and the organization. 

From the viewpoint of information: Connecting information and people. This includes 

searchable and linked information repositories consistently organized through the use of 

a taxonomy; and the flow of information through systems support of communities, teams 

and various communications and intermediation approaches (connecting those who 

need knowledge with those who have the knowledge). 

From the viewpoint of the decision-maker: Facilitating understanding. This includes 

the use of meta information to ensure understanding of the context of how specific 

information has been used in the past (and its effectiveness in that situation). This also 

includes the ability to access what is needed (information literacy) and to have open 

communications with others to build awareness and facilitate the creation of new ideas 

(relationship network management). Further, it focuses on the ability of individuals and 

teams to understand what is accessed and effectively use it to make decisions (critical 

thinking, systems and complexity thinking; decision-making in a complex environment, 

From the viewpoint of the organization: Nurturing a knowledge sharing culture. This 

also means nurturing a learning organization, which includes encouraging and 

supporting communities of practice and communities of interest, and rewarding 

knowledge sharing. It also includes leadership commitment and providing the guidance, 


planning, and tools to support movement within the organization toward becoming a knowledge 

centric organization. 

As you move through this toolkit, additional resources are embedded to facilitate a deeper 

understanding. However, it is important to recognize that neither KM (nor for that matter any 

strategy or initiative) will provide all the answers for your Utility. Ultimately, it is informed, 

intelligent thinking, caring and mission-aligned individuals making the best decisions 

that will take your Utility into the future. What is critical about KM is its concern with the 

knowledge that must be created by all of your decision-makers using the best available 

information. Thus KM focuses on information, the flow of information across the organization 

(and beyond), and individual and organizational learning to create and maintain the best 

knowledge available relative to the present and future needs of your Utility. See the MQI 

research reports on The Current State of KM. 


[This is a short description of KM that can help you describe to others why it is important to 

drinking water utilities.] 

KM is a set of ideas, principles and practices that make knowledge available to decisionmakers 

at every level of the organization, and help encourage workers to learn, take the 

initiative and guide their actions to meet utility goals and objectives. Efficiency can be improved 

by reducing mistakes, optimizing processes, broadening worker responsibilities, and reducing 

time spent searching for documents, information or expertise. Effectiveness improves when 

employees know their job, can learn fast enough to keep up with changing work needs, and 

know who to tell, or ask, relative to the impact of their actions. To be optimally effective means 

to look at the entire utility from a knowledge perspective, making KM a central part of overall 

leadership, management and day-to-day decision-making. [See The Business Case for KM in 

the drinking water utility industry.] 


drinking water is recognized world-wide as a scarce resource, emerging research in water 

treatment and wastewater and solid waste treatment will offer new opportunities. New 

processes and procedures will focus on improved efficiency and effectiveness in terms of the 

services and products provided, customer perceptions and needs, and environmental 

requirements. [See the 4003 report on issues faced by drinking water utilities and regulatory 

perspectives for the water utilities.] 

Toolkit Resources 

A large number of resources are available in this toolkit from various contributors that can 

serve as guidance in implementing KM strategies and initiatives in drinking water utilities. These 

resources take the form of white papers, published articles, research studies, case studies, case 

examples, project studies (internal examples), tools, idea sheets, and more. As you move 

through this toolkit these resources are linked to related topics. 

Several resources that serve as generic guides to KM and the implementation of KM are 

briefly introduced below: 


Knowledge and information management in the water and sanitation sector: A hard nut to crack 

published by the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, June 2006, written by Jan Teun 

Visscher, Jaap Pels, Viktor Markowski and Sascha de Graaf; Reviewed by Urs Karl Egger 

(SKAT) and Ratan Budhathoki (NEWAH) (included with permission) 

Following the introduction and a brief treatment of concepts and definitions, this document 

addresses strategy (a KM strategy, the strategy document, monitoring and evaluating KM efforts), 

people (knowledge acquisition, learning styles, training and learning, and KM roles in an 

organisational setting); processes (KM/IM and examples); technology (the KM spectrum); 

enablers and barriers (culture, policies and structure, learning projects); improving KM (person, 

organisational and sector); cases and example; and references. Go directly to this resource. 

Public sector information technology and knowledge management written by Susan Turnquist, 

Project Management, American Water Works Association Research Foundation. 

This paper addresses the topic of KM in the public sector, mainly in the federal government, and 

particularly focuses on how the development of information technologies has contributed to KM 

and changes in public administration. Go directly to this resource. 

Related WaterRF Research 

Organizational Development Needed to Implement a Knowledge Management Strategy at 

Water Utilities (WaterRF #4003) (This toolkit is a product of this study.) 

Will identify the benefits of implementing a KM initiative and investigate and identify 

organizational development factors critical to the success of implementing a KM initiative. Will 

develop a toolkit for drinking water utilities to evaluate and develop their organizational cultures 

so that they are supportive of successful implementation of KM strategies and initiatives. 

(Underway) 

http://waterrf.org/search/detail.aspx?Type=1&PID=4003&OID=4003 

Strategies to Help Drinking Water Utilities Ensure Effective Retention of Knowledge (WaterRF 

#3120) 

Will identify strategies, tools, and techniques that utilities can use to retain knowledge of the 

retiring and shifting workforce. Will include key drivers, critical success factors, barriers, and 

costs and benefits related to implementing knowledge retention programs. (Underway) 


A Knowledge Management Approach to Drinking Water Utility Business (WaterRF #2933) 

Identifies potential research projects in the area of KM as it applies to the business of drinking 

water utilities, either through a workshop or other forum. Aims to enhance the creation, 

discovery, collection, organization, distribution, and accessibility of relevant and current 

knowledge at all levels within a drinking water utility. (Published in 2006) 


Executive summary for project: 

http://waterrf.org/ProjectsReports/ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/91113_2933_profile.pdf 


Application of KM to Utilities (WaterRF #2603) 

Combines industry expertise in water quality management with emerging KM techniques into a 

computerized, real-time, easily accessed decision-support system to optimize delivered water 

quality. (Published in 2003) 

http://waterrf.org/search/detail.aspx?Type=2&PID=2603&OID=90895F 

Executive summary for project: 

http://waterrf.org/ProjectsReports/ExecutiveSummaryLibrary/90895F_2603_profile.pdf 

MOVE ON TO ASSESSING READINESS 

MOVE ON TO PLANNING 


Introduction to the Instrument 

The Readiness Assessment Instrument 

Individual Assessment Interpretations 

For a Utility to be ready to successfully implement a KM strategy it should have certain 

characteristics and capabilities. Leadership, management, culture and support staff are all likely 

to play a role in the success of a KM strategy. While the assessment instrument is developed to 

assist in determining a Utility’s readiness, the final judgment of readiness lies with the Utility’s 

leadership. They are the experts who know the intended KM strategy, the stakeholder 

environment, and their Utility’s ability to learn and change. 

Introduction to the Instrument 

This assessment instrument takes 10-15 minutes to fill out, and is designed to help you 

answer the question: Is my Utility ready to implement a knowledge management strategy? 

A knowledge management (KM) strategy is a program to implement KM throughout the entire 

Utility as compared to implementing a KM initiative in one or more departments or divisions of 

the Utility. 

There are 40 questions that are divided into five areas, each area pertaining to a specific 

aspect of your Utility. EACH QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED. Each statement or question 

asks you to respond on a forced five-point Likert scale in one of the following ways: 1/very low; 

2/low; 3/medium; 4/high; and 5/very high. For example, consider the first statement: A KM 

strategy’s contribution to the current performance of my Utility would be ... If KM is already 

understood by leadership and the value of your planned KM strategy recognized as high or very 

high, then you would select a 4/high or 5/very high. If the value of KM is understood but the 

strategy unclear, or there is perhaps an uncertainty about KM but the planned strategy makes 

sense, you might answer 3/medium, indicating some value but uncertainty regarding how much. 

It is assumed that you have a specific KM strategy that you are considering implementing. If 

you do not have a KM strategy in mind, then you may wish to read the section on Developing 

the Strategy in the Planning phase of the toolkit process. Short descriptions of several KM 

strategies are provided for your consideration. 

Because each Utility is unique and possesses a wide variety of characteristics—complete 

with its own history—this instrument must be used in concert with informed reflective thought to 

determine readiness. What this assessment will do is provide key questions and aspects of your 

Utility for you to think about before implementing a KM strategy. From your answers to these 

questions and your reflection on what you know about your Utility, you will be able to make an 

informed judgment on whether to proceed with implementation of your KM strategy, or take 

some preparatory steps prior to implementation of a KM strategy. 

The Readiness Assessment Instrument 

While a description of the implications of item scoring is provided below, it is strongly 

recommended that you do not review this material until after you have completed the 

assessment instrument. Following completion of the instrument, you will be provided with an 

Assessment Scoring Sheet which will include a discussion of the implications of items scored in 

terms of your specific responses. 

Complete the Assessment Instrument. A list of the assessment questions is also provided. 


Individual Assessment Interpretations 

It is suggested that several managers in the Utility take the assessment instrument, then use 

a team dialogue approach to arrive at a common understanding of your Utility’s readiness to 

implement a KM strategy. 

When you have completed the assessment instrument, an assessment scoring sheet will 

appear. The total score provided at the top is intended as a general guideline. It is one 

indicator, but not sufficient to determine your Utility’s readiness to implement a KM strategy. 

Other factors that may play a significant role in determining readiness include the specific KM 

strategy being considered; the history, culture, size, vision and current situation of the Utility; the 

external environment (customers, government regulations, local community, Unions, political 

issues) within which the Utility operates; and the nature and number of the items scored at level 

1 or 2. 

Just below a discussion of your overall score appears a bar chart that maps out the items 

scored at each of the five levels of the Likert scale. This represents the items at levels 1, 2 and 

3 that may require additional reflection, and the items at levels 4 and 5 that may assist in your 

implementation strategy. 

Finally, your assessment scoring sheet will provide ideas and suggested areas of reflective 

thought for each 1, 2 or 3 level response selected. 

If you have not taken the assessment instrument, it is recommended you do so at this time. 

Complete the Assessment Instrument. For more information on the assessment scoring and 

evaluation you can pull up the generic template used to support the assessment scoring sheet. 

The generic template can also be used as a guide scoring assessment results off line. 

HOME 







The planning phase offers the opportunity to focus on a course of action to move forward 

prior to taking any action. By now, several leaders within the organization have recognized the 

value of and need for implementation of a knowledge management initiative or strategy. (See 

the MQI white paper The Business Case for KM in the Industry.) 


Leadership must be actively involved for any KM strategy to be successful. When a 

respected senior leader clearly demonstrates commitment to a vision through words and 

consistent and continuous personal actions, members of the senior leader’s relationship 

network, peers and subordinates, quickly follow suit. As leaders begin to communicate, 

collaborate and reward successes, those successes spread across the organization. In Case 

Example #8, lessons learned by NWRI Nigeria included locating enthusiastic champions and 

ensuring a firm commitment from the top (necessary for a successful KM initiative). Further, 

there are emerging leaders at all levels. In every organization there are forward-thinking 

individuals who push the edge of change, no matter what name is applied to that change. 

These are champions with success stories waiting to be identified and shared. 

Recognizing that people do not change easily or quickly, implementation requires continued 

leadership interest, oversight, presence, and sometimes active involvement, coupled with the 

repeated message that KM is necessary. Beyond being aware of the desired changes, 

employees have to understand them, believe they are necessary for the health of the Utility, feel 

good about them, take ownership of them, feel empowered to do them and recognize the impact 

of doing them. See the MQI paper “A New Change Model.” Leadership and management help 

this to happen when they openly explain and communicate their understanding and 

expectations through eye-to-eye conversations, group meetings, open forums and perhaps 

even a town hall discussion. Many KM strategies require a change in culture—a change that 

employees must actively support. See leadership commitment for some ideas to help facilitate 

visibility of that commitment throughout the water utility. 


The questions from the Readiness Assessment Instrument and the feedback to your answers 

have helped identify your Utility’s strengths and potential gaps in terms of readiness to 

implement a KM initiative or strategy. The terms “initiative” and “strategy” can be used in many 

different ways. In this toolkit, the term “tool” is used to refer to a specific bounded KM initiative 

and the word “strategy” is used to describe overarching KM approaches (strategies) such as 

succession planning, an organization-wide strategy that involves the use of a variety of tools 

(initiatives) over a sustained period of time. Other KM strategies include: 

• Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization (KCO) 

• Increasing Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge 

• Developing Knowledge Leaders 


• Implementing eLearning 

• Knowledge Retention 

• Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing Culture. 

A KM strategy is an approach or plan for how the Utility will manage its knowledge better to 

achieve its mission. The IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre resource on KM and IM 

in the water sector discusses a KM strategy on page 16 of their report. The Singapore Ministry 

of the Environment and Water Resources manages Singapore’s water supply, water catchment 

and used water in an integrated way. An integral part of their strategy is technological innovation 

and community engagement. See the Singapore Case Study. 

There are several approaches to implementing KM initiatives including: (1) implement a pilot 

project; (2) start with quick wins and low-hanging fruit (short bursts); or (3) full-scale 

implementation. An advantage of holding a pilot project is its potential contribution to learning; 

the disadvantage is that often what is learned is not easily transferable, and the learning 

process must be repeated when larger implementation occurs. See Case Example #13 

(Federal Aviation Administration) and Case Study #14 (Defense Information Agency). An 

advantage of the short bursts approach is that when benefits are seen it is easier to build 

support and implement in a larger fashion; a disadvantage is that larger underlying problems are 

not being addressed. The Learn@WELL case study offers an example of this approach. An 

advantage of full-scale implementation is the demonstrated commitment to this course of action, 

which helps ensure success; a disadvantage would be if this was premature and the 

organization was not yet prepared to move down this road. The case study KM at NASA- 

Kennedy Space Center is an example of NASA’s commitment to KM. 


A good first step for the planning process is a feasibility review. Ensure that the following 

five statements are true: 

• The strategic goal, mission and purpose of the utility are clear and understood by 

people within the utility. 

• The planned project is aligned or consistent with the core Utility processes such as 

strategic business planning, the operational planning process, capital improvement 

planning, and information technology master planning. 

• The planned project is consistent with the organization’s strategic focus. 

• Resources (time, people, funding) are available to take the project to completion. 

• The project is important to the Utility and, if at all possible, will be completed. 

• The project is economically feasible. 

• Enough data and information are available to make a sound decision. 

The number of elements required for planning a project is highly dependent on the complexity of 

the initiative or strategy. For example, defining scope, identifying tools, developing schedule, 

budgeting, manpower, risk planning, etc.—all the elements that go into planning any other 

successful project—will depend heavily upon the content and context of the initiative or strategy, 

as well as the specific Utility. 

A written plan should be developed which outlines the various stages and activities of the 

project. Planners usually start with a vision of the desired project outcomes and determine, at a 

high level, the characteristics and macro elements of the project required to achieve these 


outcomes. For example, if the desired initiative is knowledge retention, then macro elements of 

the project might involve: (1) a fast-track KM approach for those who are leaving in 30 days, (2) 

a series of tools and activities for those who are retiring in six months; and (3) a strategic 

approach to ensure that knowledge is continuously flowing up and down, and across the 

organization, and that there are mandated pre-retirement actions. 

These major elements are broken down into smaller pieces which lend themselves to 

scheduling and costing and specific activities. This is the process of decomposition. The plan 

identifies all the things that must be accomplished during the life of the project. For example, in 

the above example, (1) would undoubtedly include an exit interview, (2) might include a 

knowledge audit and development of a KM desk guide for every position, while (3) would 

include development of communities of practice, use of shared space and the nurturing of 

storytelling. Both large and small changes can help make a difference. During the WaterRF 

4003 survey process, representatives of more than 200 drinking water utilities listed the 

opportunities and initiatives that they felt would make their organizations more successful. 

These are detailed in 4003 Research Report #2. 

The way a KM plan is implemented is as important as what is being implemented. One of 

the reasons is that it is focused on knowledge, and knowledge is very personal—it resides 

within people. Thus, while information technology and information management are necessary, 

they are not sufficient for success. The KM Plan is focused on people: helping people create, 

share, leverage and apply their information and knowledge in support of Utility objectives. 


The effectiveness of any KM strategy or initiative is highly dependent on the energy, 

dedication, collaboration and coherence of the efforts of all major stakeholders that play a role in 

its implementation. Thus it is important for the implementation team to not only have the right 

mix of people in terms of expertise, capability and organizational connectivity, but to equally 

consider attitudes, networking skills and commitment to success. At the core of all successful 

change strategies are integrators, those trusted individuals who connect people, information and 

knowledge. 

Team members should be from different parts of the Utility, have backgrounds representing 

the areas of the Utility that the initiative will impact, and understand and feel good about the 

purpose and implementation of the task. The team should be heavily involved with developing 

the strategy and implementing the plan. This allows them to have ownership of the initiative and 

to develop a common perspective and understanding of their objectives, issues and 

contributions to the Utility’s performance. If the KM program is relatively large, their task could 

be written in a one-page agreement, signed by senior leadership and by every team member. 

This agreement would state the objectives, resources and authorities of the team. Team 

training and team building time may also be provided, particularly for major efforts. See the MQI 

team monogram for more information. Senior leadership needs to support the team as it runs 

into issues or difficulties in implementation. This is essential for success, as there will likely be 

individuals at all levels who do not understand, or agree with, the initiative. 

Since the U.S. Department of the Navy (DON) operates as a large enterprise, it was 

necessary for them to create an overarching Community of Practice (CoP) as a guidance body 

in the implementation of KM. While this CoP was indeed focused on the discovery and sharing 


of new ideas, task teams were drawn from this group as necessary to support implementation of 

enterprise-wide initiatives. See the DON Case Study. 


Every organization—and every individual within that organization—is a complex adaptive 

system co-evolving with its environment. What we struggle to achieve is to become intelligent 

complex adaptive systems, organizations where the decisions that are made every day at every 

level help the organization achieve its mission. A top-level systems perspective encourages 

individual managers and teams to develop and implement balanced decisions that optimize the 

entire system instead of one part of the system. Systems thinking provides an approach for 

managing complicated situations by helping decision-makers recognize and understand causeand-effect 

relationships among organizational parameters. For example, identifying the 

boundaries of a problem or issue helps focus corrective actions, while understanding the 

connections among parts of the system might tell you that multiple actions are required to 

correct a situation. For an introduction to, and overview of systems and complexity as they apply 

to organizations, see the MQI research paper Thinking About Systems and Complexity. 

In terms of implementing a KM initiative or strategy, by understanding the interrelationships 

of, for example, a technology system storing guidance documents (information) and an expert 

who has a reputation for trouble-shooting (knowledge), both can be used to achieve optimum 

performance. For periodic issues handled in a repeatable manner, the technology system can 

support a training requirement to spread this ability across the Utility. However, when situations 

arise that have different parameters than previously experienced, it’s time to consult an expert 

with the appropriate knowledge. By developing an expertise locator, even the largest 

organizations can have quick access to the knowledge that is needed. 

The U.S. Department of the Navy took a systems approach to implementing KM. The DON 

Case Study includes a Systems Thinking model that describes the cause and effect 

relationships between IT investment and decision-making complexity. It focuses on 

implementation of KM at the individual level, organizational level, and enterprise level. In 

Project Study #24, the Utility created a systems-based management approach which includes 

KM as an enabler. 

Taking a systems perspective to implementing a KM initiative or strategy includes identifying 

critical success factors (CSFs) as well as potential barriers to achieving the desired goal. NASA- 

Kennedy Space Center identified barriers to effective KM when implementing KM. See page 

169 of the NASA case study. In support of Research Study WaterRF 4003, more than 200 

drinking water utilities identified CSFs (4003 Research Report #4) and barriers (4003 Research 

Report #3) to the implementation of KM initiatives during focus groups, leadership interviews 

and the survey process. 

Taking a systems perspective also means deciding on what is going to be measured and 

how it is going to be measured prior to project start-up. See the discussion on Evaluating and 

Measuring included in the Sustaining phase. The DON Metrics Guide is also provided as a 

resource. 

MOVE ON TO PREPARING 







After completion of the planning stage of a KM strategy or initiative, attention should be 

focused on preparing the Utility and the project team or individuals for implementation. A plan 

cannot succeed just because someone orders it to be done. Careful consideration needs to be 

given to the current state of the Utility, its culture, workload, competencies and outside demands 

on its time. Also, it is useful to get some key workers involved so that the purpose, nature and 

value of the project is made visible in a way that gives the Utility time to digest and understand 

its goals and impacts. 


The project requirements must be made explicit for all personnel involved in the project. 

Project objectives are often defined in terms of being SMART: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, 

Realistic (and Relevant) and Time-based. While this approach works well for complicated 

systems such as building information systems or developing KM Desk Guides, parts of SMART 

may have to be dropped or modified in a KM project where the desired outcome is an emergent 

phenomenon of a complex system (a community or team). See the MQI paper on systems and 

complexity. 

Closely linked to setting objectives are setting targets and developing milestones. Set 

targets which create direction and opportunities for high performance. These targets are 

sometimes referred to as “stretch” goals. They are challenging but not so challenging that they 

are viewed as non-achievable. Develop milestones to evaluate performance by comparing 

planned results at a point in time to actual results. Milestones are usually significant events in 

the project, such as completion of on-time deliverables or successful completion of phases of 

the project. Milestone deviations should be monitored and carefully managed throughout the life 

of the project. There is little point of being informed of a major cost overrun at the end of a 

project, or of ignoring a counter intuitive result that creates unintended and harmful 

consequences to the project outcome. While knowledge projects are usually aimed at long-term 

results and may be difficult to evaluate in the short-term, activity toward the anticipated outcome 

and emergent indicators can be reviewed and assessed. 


Any forward movement requires both a starting point and a direction in which to move. A 

good way to understand the knowledge currently available in the Utility is through conducting a 

knowledge audit and creating a knowledge map. A knowledge audit moves beyond identifying 

and mapping knowledge sources to evaluating the state of an organization’s technology, how 

well the organization’s processes support knowledge sharing, and the work styles and culture of 

the people within the organization. See Case Example #1 and Case Example #2. What is 

learned from the knowledge audit can now be compared to what knowledge is needed in order 

to identify knowledge gaps. These gaps could be related to current knowledge, or potential 

gaps as identified employees move toward retirement or as demands of the environment 


change. In Project Study #9, an audit showed that most of a Utility’s critical knowledge had 

been previously documented. Project Study #23 includes the questionnaire and process used 

by the Utility to perform a knowledge audit. 

But having needed information available is not enough. People have to know about it in order 

to use it. The flow of data, information and knowledge across the Utility enables effective 

decision-making and facilitates the connections and continuity that maintain Utility unity and 

coherence. A method for assessing the effective flow of information through communication 

and collaboration is social network analysis. Interviews and surveys are used to ask such 

questions as: From whom do you seek work-related information? Is this person accessible to 

you? Does this person respond in time to help resolve your problem? To whom do you give 

work-related information? From the answers to these and similar questions a map is created 

that connects people who receive information with people who provide the information. This 

process allows the Utility to assess its ability to create and share knowledge through 

connections, and identifies areas to improve these abilities. For example, the map resulting 

from social network analysis identifies those who are central to the knowledge sharing process. 

Then the following questions are asked: Should this individual be rewarded for the important 

role they are playing OR is this individual hoarding information and bottlenecking knowledge 

sharing and creation? What happens if this individual leaves? 

As an example of the knowledge audit approach through one-on-one interviewing, the 

Lehigh County Authority conducted an audit of staff-level managers. The audit allowed them to 

determine critical knowledge areas and current knowledge and skill sets, and then identify 

current and future gaps. They also identified the consequences of failure, that is, their inability to 

complete any of the individual areas of responsibility identified due to lack of knowledge. See 

the LCA Workforce Plan. An approach for personal knowledge mapping is provided in the 

Learn@WELL Case Study. 

Another process of connecting the dots is that of identifying strategies and initiatives 

underway or recently completed that are similar to the KM strategies and initiatives proposed. 

Because knowledge is at the core of what individuals and utilities do—and because there are 

many committed people that are already moving in similar directions (no matter what they call 

it)—the Utility can gain greater advantage by the linking and melding of similar strategies and 

initiatives. Leveraging is a goal of knowledge management. The similarities and differences of 

these strategies and initiatives—and how they complement each other—should be identified 

and broadly shared to ensure full leveraging of all activities underway. 


The document repository is the place where much of the information available to the Utility 

decision-makers resides. Since the flow of information throughout the Utility is the life blood of 

the organization, it is critical to ensure an integrated, connected, well-organized, and easily 

searchable information system that supports access to information when it is needed. The 

KnowledgeBase roadmap provides a framework for building the knowledge base in a specific 

area of knowledge (for a specific community). The knowledge taxonomy, a structured set of 

names and descriptions agreed-upon by the Utility, is necessary to organize information and 

knowledge in a consistent way. The knowledge taxonomy is built on the knowledge ontology, a 

conceptual framework that expresses a classification scheme. Together, development of a 

taxonomy and ontology help ensure a common language and understanding across the Utility 


while also supporting ease of access to needed information. See the TECHi2 paper on 

Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies. 

As a Utility recognizes the value of its knowledge in responding to an uncertain future, the 

organization’s culture becomes a core area of focus. Culture—how the work gets done—is the 

source of energy, or apathy, and a major determinant of performance. Culture is a set of norms 

in the workplace that often include unstated assumptions about people, relationships and 

knowledge. These assumptions develop over time from internal and external events and all of 

the interactions among the workforce. 

Since KM is about people, it cannot be done to people, but rather with them and in support of 

them as they support the mission of the Utility. For example, individuals cannot be ordered to 

share knowledge; however, an environment that supports knowledge sharing can be nurtured. A 

knowledge sharing culture might emerge from (1) the clear linking between sharing knowledge 

and accomplishing the mission of the Utility, (2) the expectation of knowledge sharing, and 

example set by senior leadership, (3) the underlying recognition that knowledge sharing is the 

right thing to do and will benefit them and their Utility, and (4) alignment of Utility rewards and 

recognition programs with knowledge sharing. See APQC’s best practice report on Creating a 

Knowledge-Sharing Culture. In Project Study #5, a brainstorming session was used to develop 

work performance improvement principles and techniques. As the number of individuals 

practicing a principle grows, the more that principle will become a part of the organization’s 

workplace culture. 

Often it takes a traumatic event to recognize the need for change. In Case Example #10 this 

event was the death of a senior leader. A planned approach was used in Case Example #16. 

In this example, the Virginia Department of Transportation developed a lessons learned system 

using an integrated taxonomy as a starting point for changing the culture. 

A major determinant of effective communication and sharing is the degree of trust throughout 

the workforce, trust of the Utility as a whole and of its leadership and management. Trust is a 

cumulative belief that another individual (or the organization) will live up to our expectations. In 

order for an individual to share their knowledge with another individual they must believe that 

this knowledge will not be misused or used against them, and that this sharing will be 

reciprocated. Distrust is as much a communications issue as an attitudinal problem. When 

people do not have good communication they cannot clearly signal their intentions or 

expectations. Rather than treating communication as a transfer of information, it is better to 

ensure that communication is the sharing of understanding. Virtual signaling has been found to 

be of critical importance in email and other virtual forums where body language cannot play the 

large role it does in face-to-face interactions. See APQC’s benchmarking study on Virtual 

Collaboration. 


The knowledge network is the weaving together of people, whether through teams, 

communities of practice, one-on-one relationships or through virtual social networking. In Case 

Example #20, IBM has embraced the blogosphere, encouraging employees to participate in 

blogging, social web applications (such as wikis) and networking, all emerging as important 

areas for engagement and learning. In Case Example #18, the USDA Foreign Agricultural 

Service has set up a network to connect and interact with stakeholders around the world to 

facilitate trade and improve food safety. 


Task teams at various levels of the Utility’s structure are a natural way that work gets done. 

The very structure of an organization encourages individuals with similar skills or similar focus 

areas to work closely together. When necessary, an integrated product team crosses functional 

area lines to ensure a project is successfully implemented from cradle to grave. The use of 

cross-functional teams is demonstrated in Project Study #1. There are ten items that determine 

the capability of a team to do its job. These key success factors are: team leadership, shared 

vision/approach, team collaboration, empowerment, technology support, team learning, 

enterprise partnering, feedback, team collocation and team size. See the MQI monogram A 

Model for Team Learning and Success. Approaches for addressing problems and issues in 

groups and teams include brainstorming, brain writing, collaborative problem solving, and The 

World Café. 

Although the team leader has more responsibility for team performance than the team 

members, all team members carry equal responsibility for results. Decisions are made by the 

team, not by the team leader acting alone. A team’s accountability is primarily for effectiveness 

(getting the desired results), and secondarily for efficiency (doing things at the least cost), 

although, as always, funds are limited and efficiency is important. However, when working in a 

complex environment, doing the right things often means losing some efficiency. For example, 

such things as learning, networking, keeping information systems up-to-date on what is learned, 

sharing knowledge with others (such as participating in communities), trying new ways of 

supporting customers, and spending time thinking about a complex situation to ensure the best 

decisions may all be considered inefficient in a bureaucratic organization. Yet without these 

activities, the Utility will not be able to function, let alone excel, in a changing and uncertain 

environment. Efficiency and effectiveness are independent only in a stable environment, where 

the products, services and customer desires do not change significantly and there are no 

surprises. See the discussion on Shared Space. 

A Communities of practice (CoPs) is comprised of people who actually work (practice) in a 

specific area of knowledge. CoPs bring people together who face many of the same issues and 

opportunities. These communities are particularly effective in large organizations (where people 

do not regularly interact) and across organizations (where the sharing of ideas and lessons 

learned can prove extremely valuable). See the APQC best practice report on Building and 

Sustaining CoPs. Communities can also be effectively employed for cross-Utility collaboration. 

See Project Study 30. While the focus of communities is on value added, mutual exchange and 

continuous learning, participants often brainstorm and seek solutions to specific issues and 

problems forwarded by community members. Thus, participation and reliance on CoPs 

increases over time. This powerful form of community can prove a continuing source of ideas 

and energy for long-term KM implementation. See the Department of the Navy ABC’s for CoP 

Quick Start. 

Another form of organizing groups around a common area of interest is the community of 

interest (CoIs). These are particularly important for cross-learning and they offer the opportunity 

for individuals to develop (and contribute to the Utility) in areas of their interest, not just the 

areas in which they work. Most CoPs and CoIs are supported by technology systems, thus 

making a large part of the community’s interactions virtual. See the Federal Aviation 

Administration Guide to Virtual CoPs and the APQC benchmarking study on Virtual 

Collaboration. 


Every decision an individual makes is a result of life experiences and conversations and the 

learning that results from those experiences and conversations. Thus the networks we belong to 

help define who we are, contributing to our self-confidence, purpose and identity. They also 

provide a source for getting one or more opinions in a trusted environment, whether this is 

achieved through consulting a boss or employee, or a trusted and knowledgeable member of a 

team or community. The active relationship networks that crisscross organizations increase 

awareness, provide redundancies, and affect organizational responsiveness in terms of agility 

and flexibility. An organization can react faster when information around key areas of concern is 

flowing freely. An active relationship network also provides a monitoring and scanning system 

for problems and opportunities. It is easy to see how important everyday conversations can 

become to both individuals and their organizations. The good news is that each individual 

manages their own relationship network of people. If an individual’s networking is effective— 

based on interdependency, trust, a common framework, openness, the flow of information and 

knowledge, and equitability—that individual’s decisions will be more effective. See the MQI 

research paper on Relationship Network Management. See also, relationship building. 


Everyone working in their Utility to improve the way it achieves its mission can be considered 

a change agent. Since knowledge—and by extension KM—is at the core of every individual’s 

contribution to the mission of the Utility, implementation of a KM strategy or initiative is no 

exception. Further, an organization cannot change in a vacuum. This means that as changes 

occur within a Utility, other parts of the Utility and its stakeholders need to be changing as well. 

This also means that as the environment changes, the state-of-the-art changes, or another 

Utility discovers a better way of doing things, your Utility must be willing to consider, evaluate 

and, as appropriate, embrace these changes. 

While the easiest approach might be to order change to occur, this does not work in a 

complex organization such as a Utility. In order for organizations to change, people must 

change. When people change they move through the following cognitive processes: 

• Awareness (aware of the needed action) 

• Understanding (understand its meaning and the expected result) 

• Believing (believe that the action is real and will work) 

• Feeling good (feel good about taking the action) 

• Ownership (feel a personal responsibility for taking action) 

• Empowerment (feel they have the right, knowledge and freedom to take action) 

• Impact (know that taking this action will make a difference) 

While this sounds difficult (and often it is), it can also occur within an instant. For example, if you 

are a trouble-shooter in a drinking water utility and a water main breaks in front of you, there is 

no doubt you move through this process and take some action within seconds, even if that 

action is to hit an emergency button call for assistance. Thus the intent of a KM strategy or 

initiative is to embed that same response in terms of knowledge creation, knowledge sharing 

and knowledge retention. See the MQI paper A New Change Model on individual change, and 

the MQI research paper The Change Agent’s Strategy on organizational change. The largescale 

change approach used by the Department of the Navy included event intermediation and 


the use of stories and storytelling. See the Department of the Navy case study The DON Moves 

into the Knowledge World and the MQI paper From Stories to Strategy. 

An important part of the change approach in KM is to overcome barriers before they become 

barriers. One approach is to use a team or community to identify potential barriers, then 

brainstorming ways to remove these barriers or negate their impact on the success of the KM 

strategy or initiative being planned. In Case Example #22 managing unexpected threats is part 

of the High Reliability Organizing (HRO) approach used by the US Forest Service. The Fahen- 

Prusak article titled The Eleven Deadliest Sins of Knowledge Management draws attention to a 

set of pervasive errors when implementing KM strategies and initiatives. Focusing on barriers in 

drinking water utilities, participants were asked in the WaterRF 4003 survey, “What are the 

barriers in your organization to implementing new initiatives?” Responses from over 200 

drinking water utilities are included as 4003 White Paper #3. 

Equally important is to identify and recognize what is working well. Built on the precept that 

what we focus on becomes our reality, the Appreciative Inquiry approach helps empower the 

workforce and facilitate receptivity to new ideas. 

The Singapore Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources built in a robust community 

engagement strategy to ensure stakeholder support of their NEWater project. See the 

Singapore Case Study. Other ideas for involving stakeholders are included under community 

outreach, media productions and stakeholder engagement. 

MOVE ON TO EXECUTING 






Knowledge Mobilization 

Start-up of the KM project usually means the beginning of execution or implementation of the 

project plan. If the planning has been thorough, the project team is in place and networks have 

been identified or established. Now is the time to set in motion project activities such as 

allocating resources, contract administration, distributing information and communicating the 

project plan to stakeholders and the project team, which must be managed, motivated, 

informed, encouraged, empowered and supported. After start-up the project moves into an 

expansion and growth phase where the processes and approaches needed to sustain the 

project are established, and implementation gets underway. 


With the emergence of knowledge leadership over the past several decades, new 

relationships between leaders, followers, and knowledge have also emerged. In the past 

knowledge was held tightly at the higher levels of an organization and used to maintain control. 

Today knowledge that is essential to the success of the Utility resides in people at all levels. 

Further, since knowledge and knowledge needs shift and change in response to new demands 

and ideas from the environment, no single individual or group of individuals can have all the 

knowledge necessary to run a Utility. See the MQI research paper Influence of Knowledge on 

Leadership. In this new world, there is some shift in authority from upper and middle 

management and leadership to the workforce, which essentially means that management and 

leadership give employees more freedom while still maintaining responsibility—something that 

is difficult for some line managers and supervisors to do! Yet, for leaders and the Utility to take 

advantage of worker’s knowledge and experience for organizational improvement, the context, 

direction and authority to make local decisions should be at the point of action where the best 

knowledge resides. See the MQI research paper on Collaborative Leadership. 

Thus the role of leaders is much that of a gardener. Leaders are available for advice; for 

integrating the efforts of knowledge workers; for nurturing an atmosphere of trust, collaboration, 

confidence and integrity; for listening and being a sounding board; and for overriding knowledge 

workers (only) when they believe that a fatal mistake is about to be made. Mistakes will happen. 

They are a necessary part of living in a turbulent environment, and having the freedom to make 

mistakes is the price for creativity, agility, learning, and optimum complexity. What is critical is 

that knowledge workers learn from all mistakes. Leaders recognize that there are some areas, 

and times, when workers must follow exact procedures and deviating from the rules cannot be 

allowed. A clear example is safety procedures or high risk areas. Thus modern leaders have to 

work with their utilities under both conditions, perhaps at the same time, encouraging new ideas 

and exploration to improve efficiency or effectiveness in one area of operations while ensuring 

rigid discipline and training in another. 

In the DON Case Study leaders at all levels played critical roles in ensuring implementation 

of the KM strategy. As written by senior leaders meeting at the Naval Academy, their vision was 

to see the US Navy “alive with the fire of shared understanding.” 


The Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan—which is tied to their concern over knowledge 

retention—offers a leadership model in support of their vision to be the leading 

water/wastewater provider in the Lehigh Valley region in every dimension. This model 

addresses the areas of strategic planning, human resources, technology, public service, 

financial management, industry leadership and operations optimization. The Authority considers 

this model as a dynamic tool to use in assessing the organization’s hiring needs while 

simultaneously serving as the expectations of their leadership team. Baseline leadership skills 

are also listed in the Plan. As another example of leadership development, in Project Study #7 

an employee leadership and development program is being used to build knowledge skills. 

In addition to providing resources and guidance to their team, a primary job of the project 

(team) leader is to monitor and assess project progress. Information on progress must be 

evaluated, comprehended and acted upon. Variations should be investigated, and adjustments 

made when necessary, while keeping the entire project team informed. While an in-depth 

treatment of project management actions is beyond the scope of this project, included here is a 

quick synopsis of management actions during the expansion and growth phase and 

sustainability phase. The prioritization matrix is a tool for setting priorities for tasks or issues. 


In every organization there are four processes that are used continuously, although often 

they are used unconsciously, invisible or merged together depending on the problem and 

experience of the individuals involved. Together, these four processes—creativity, problemsolving, 

decision-making and implementation—constitute a procedure for ensuring all aspects of 

a situation are taken into account. Knowledge is at the heart of all four of these processes, and 

undoubtedly all four will play a role in planning and preparing for, executing and sustaining KM 

strategies and initiatives. 

Creativity is both an art and a science. The creative process typically has four stages. 

• Stage one is the problem, situation, or opportunity identification where a thorough 

discussion of the issues and objectives occurs among interested/responsible 

organizational employees to ensure common understanding of the desired effort. 

• Stage two is gathering relevant information needed to focus potential new ideas 

and to provide stimulation for idea generation. 

• Stage three is the actual generation of ideas via brainstorming or some other 

technique. 

• Stage four is the discussion, evaluation and prioritization of ideas to determine 

which ones are the best. 

Each of these stages is built upon the collaboration and interactions among individuals and the 

exchange of ideas. Further, creativity is part of the learning process. Each assumption leads to 

an entirely different set of ideas that are acceptable for consideration. A useful technique to aid 

thinking out of the box is to first surface the basic assumptions of individuals and teams that 

may underlie an initial response, then change that set of assumptions and follow the 

consequences. This frees up the mind to generate more and different ideas. See also concept 

mapping and brain writing. 


Problem-solving is one of the most important processes in the organization. Taking inputs from 

the creative process as needed, the problem-solving process provides the links between ideas, 

problems, and decisions. The output of the problem-solving team or community is a solution set 

of alternatives that provide ways to achieve a desired situation or problem solution. There is no 

one process for solving problems, and rarely is there a single solution. When people, 

organizations, and complex relationships exist, it is often impossible to identify causes. Before a 

team can solve a problem, it must first agree on exactly what the problem is, and why it is a 

problem. Since for the most complex problems there is rarely enough right information or time to 

provide a definitive, clean solution, finding solutions to complex problems becomes a creative 

act. Collaborative problem solving is an approach for solving relevant, day-to-day problems as 

well as creating and sharing knowledge about best practices. Other tools for problem-solving 

include dialogue, The World Café, force field analysis, the causal loop diagram, and Sleep On It. 

Decision-making refers to the selection of one or more alternatives generated by the problemsolving 

process. Some key points to note concerning decisions are: 

1. No decision is a decision. 

2. All complex decisions involve values and judgments. 

3. No one can predict the future. 

4. Every decision is a guess about the future. 

5. The quality of a decision cannot be measured by its outcome. 

There are many ways to make decisions and just as many processes. But no matter what 

process is used, there are some questions that should be considered before starting to make a 

decision. First, who should make the decision? Then, if it is determined that a team should 

make the decision, how will the outcome be measured? What is the type and degree of team 

interaction needed during team decision-making discussions? Will the decision require creative 

thinking or analysis and logic? Do all team members need to be present? Should outside 

experts participate in the process? Is facilitation needed? Finally, what is the sequence of 

thinking that the team will go through to arrive at a decision? Team decision-making is 

addressed further in the MQI monogram A Model for Team Learning and Success. 

As the environment becomes more complex, decision-makers at the point of action (residing 

at all levels throughout the organization) must increasingly rely on their intuition and judgment. 

See the MQI paper on thinking about systems and complexity. The ladder of inference is an 

approach for checking the assumptions related to the decision-making process. The 

importance of knowledge sharing in decision-making is demonstrated in Case Example #21. 

See also a NASA case study on Web-Based Collaborative Decision Support. 

Implementation is the act of taking good decisions and turning them into actions and changes 

that solve problems, satisfy customers, take advantage of new opportunities, and enhance the 

image and value of the Utility. Implementation is the most situation-dependent of the major 

processes. The details of the actions required to achieve the desired results cannot be 

generalized. However, there are a few points to remember. When individuals who have 

responsibility for implementation are aligned with the decision, implementation becomes much 

more effective. Ultimately, implementation is built on relationships and an understanding of the 

objectives and the environment. Efficiency and clarity of communication, coupled with openness 

and a sincere concern to share understanding and get participation, will help ensure success. 


The paragraphs that are covered in this section on execution are specifically concerned with the 

implementation of KM strategies and initiatives. 


What we refer to as knowledge capture is actually the capturing of information that can then 

be used by decision-makers to create knowledge. Information can be captured in many ways. 

For example, every time utility workers develop white papers, research papers and reports they 

are capturing their knowledge in the form of information which others can read and hopefully 

understand. A large part of how well this information is understood is based on context and a 

common language. These documents are then stored in information systems (with contact 

information for the originators), and connected to similar and complementary information that 

can help build a deeper understanding of when and how to use this information in future 

situations. As an example, see the Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan (page 21) for their 

approach to knowledge capture. 

An approach to capturing lessons learned is after action reviews, real-time communication 

vehicles that share understanding across the implementation team while also serving as 

lessons learned for those who later read them, and assessment instruments for those who later 

analyze them. After action reviews are held immediately after an event has occurred while the 

details are fresh in the minds of participants. The actual outcome of the event is compared with 

the intended outcome to discover what went right and why, and what went wrong and why in a 

candid, open discussion. There must be sufficient detail and clarity to ensure everyone 

understands what did and did not occur (and why) so that lessons can be understood and 

applied to future actions. Many organizations also hold pre-event and during-event reviews. The 

pre-action review brings an implementation team together to focus on the direction ahead, how 

progress will be assessed, and sharing lessons learned from previous projects or related 

events. The during-action review provides the opportunity to assess progress and adjust 

actions underway accordingly. See also the peer view process. 

The learning history is a structured process for gathering information related to a project, 

mission or initiative. It is a retrospective history of significant events in an organization’s recent 

past described in the voices of people who took part in those events. Researched through a 

series of debriefings or reflective interviews, the learning history uses feedback from employees 

at all levels to help an organizational evaluate its progress and provide information for future 

decisions. In Project Study #1 teams are used to capture field and employee knowledge in a 

written, usable format to create a complete training program. In Project Study #8, standard 

operating procedures are being developed to create a more knowledgeable staff. Another 

example of knowledge capture is the use of updated operations and maintenance manuals (see 

Project Study #2). 

The KM desk guide is a document residing on the desk (or virtually within the system 

supporting that desk) that contains the specific information needed to successfully accomplish 

the job of the individual who works from that desk. Each desk guide is updated annually, as 

changes occur, or as an individual is preparing to leave a position to ensure ease of job 

transition. The KM desk guide also serves as a resource for temporary employees and 

development of an expertise locator. A variation of the KM desk guide is the leave a legacy 

approach developed by the Department of the Army. 


The exit interview uses the interviewing process to capture the knowledge of individuals who 

are leaving the organization. See also the interviewing profiling tool. While interviews with 

highly knowledgeable employees will generally prove valuable at some level, the capture of 

“knowledge” from departing individuals requires a systems approach. See the MQI chart A 

Systems Approach to Capturing Knowledge. Note that the capture of knowledge begins long 

before an individual is scheduled to leave. For proactive strategies to deal with a shifting work 

force, see the APQC best practice report on Retaining Valuable Knowledge. 

The bottom line for the U.S. Army TEAM C4ISR is knowledge capture is essential to our 

mission. In Case Example #15, trained knowledge harvesters capture expert knowledge 

through the interview process. Knowledge capture and dissemination is critical to the KM 

approach shared in the NASA-Kennedy Space Center Case Study. 


Best practices and lessons learned have no intrinsic value. Their benefits come from 

ensuring that they are effectively transferred and applied. The harvesting of information by 

decision-makers that can create the knowledge needed to make the best decisions is achieved 

through good information systems, the flow of information and knowledge across the Utility, and 

the decision-maker’s competency. Good information systems means systems and processes 

that ensure the value, relevancy, currency and credibility of information and the ability to access 

what is needed (see the discussion on multiple search technologies in technology-related tools). 

The flow of information and knowledge across an organization is enabled by the interactions 

among people, whether that is through formal work structures, teams and communities, through 

information relationship networks, or through casual conversations and discussions. See 

knowledge sharing and group learning. 

An expertise locator helps connect knowledge seekers to knowledge holders. For example, 

NASA developed the ExpertSeeker to utilize existing structured data as well as semi-structured 

and unstructured web-based information to develop a skills database that profiles each 

employee’s competency areas. See the case study on KM at NASA-Kennedy Space Center. 

In an information-rich work place and a changing environment, every decision-maker needs 

to hone new skills. For example, Information Literacy (MQI research paper) is necessary in 

order to make full use of Internet resources. Systems and Complexity Thinking (MQI research 

paper) provides a frame of reference that enables decision-makers to understand the 

relationships and patterns among issues and opportunities. Relationship Network Management 

(MQI research paper) helps decision-makers have the conversations and participate in 

knowledge moments that matter, those that will help them make effective decisions in the future. 

Knowledge Mobilization 

Knowledge mobilization is the process of creating value through the creation, assimilation, 

leveraging, sharing and application of focused knowledge to a bounded community. This 

means that there is specific knowledge (such as that required to manage a drinking water utility) 

and a specific community (such as managers in training or new hires) and knowledge is 

mobilized such that future decisions and consequent actions (taken by these managers in 

training) are effective and sustainable. Thus KMb is a process for moving specific knowledge to 

action (and value) in a bounded situation or location. Thinking in terms of specific knowledge 


(bounding this knowledge) and specific people who need that knowledge in specific situations 

helps produce an effective, targeted strategy for mobilization. This is the idea of chunking in 

order to achieve the successful embedding of knowledge in the target community. Chunking is 

the bringing together of several areas of knowledge in a manner that creates a more powerful 

knowledge that is applicable to predetermined needs. 

As noted above and by way of review, the organizational structure in terms of teams, 

communities, and formal and informal relationship networks of the Utility are core vehicles to 

facilitate the flow of information and knowledge across the organization. Shared space is a 

concept that promotes environments for nurturing knowledge sharing. It can be either virtual or 

physical. The idea is to facilitate people working together and to enable knowledge moments. 

Another effective tool for knowledge mobilization is storytelling. 

Further, it is also necessary for the Utility to have well-organized, accessible and searchable 

information repositories. The knowledge taxonomy used to organize information in the 

KnowledgeBase also serves as a support tool for searching and linking information. A powerful 

tool supporting knowledge mobilization for larger organizations is development of an expertise 

locator, often referred to as the yellow pages. It is generally a virtual system that identifies 

people and their expertise and interests and where information resources reside throughout the 

organization. Thus the expertise locator helps to connect specific knowledge needs and specific 

knowledge sources. 

The bottom-line here is to take a systems approach that involves connecting people and 

information, utilizing social and technological structures in support of achieving the free flow of 

information across the Utility. 

MOVE ON TO SUSTAINING 



Embedding 

Sharing 


Learning 

Your strategy or initiative is underway. While measures were determined early in the 

Planning stage, now is where they will tell the story. Thus a discussion of measures is included 

below. A classic and continuing challenge to management is to follow through on a strategy, 

program or project. Too often they start with a big bang and gradually fade into the distance as 

other demands (and perhaps opposition) slow down momentum. From experiences like these, 

many workers take a cautious or even cynical view of new efforts to “improve” the Utility. This 

makes it even more important that any new program or strategy is designed to be sustainable 

for as long as it contributes to the health and performance of the Utility. To be sustainable, a 

program has to validate its contribution to Utility performance. But that is not enough. The 

program needs to be able to adapt to the needs of the organization and have other 

characteristics addressed below. A major contribution offered by knowledge management is its 

ability to help the entire Utility adapt and maintain high performance by supporting several of the 

below listed organizational characteristics. 


Organizational health is the capacity to maintain high performance in a changing, uncertain, 

complex and anxiety-producing environment. An organization is considered healthy when it has 

the internal capacity and capability to deal with this new reality over time. Since organizational 

performance is the sum of every decision and action every day in the organization, the healthier 

the organization, the higher the quality of decision-making and consequent actions. Eight 

factors that significantly influence the capacity of an organization to sustain high performance in 

this environment are provided below with descriptions. 

v Continuous learning (workers and organizations always gaining knowledge and 

adapting behavior) 

v Quick response (the organization is capable of reacting/responding quickly when 

needed.) 

v Robustness (the capacity to operate in a broad range of environments) 

v Resiliency (the ability to recover readily, to resume its original performance) 

v Flexibility (capable of being changed, or flexed, susceptible to influence or persuasion, 

tractable) 

v Adaptability (the ability to change to fit a specific need or situation; an alteration or 

adjustment in structure or habits) 

v Stakeholder satisfaction (providing value that satisfies stakeholders—customers, 

governance boards, regulatory agencies, local communities and employees) 

v Alignment (the capacity of an organization to simultaneously maintain organizational 

cohesion and worker empowerment). 

In a 2005 study involving participants from 24 Federal government organizations, the two 

hundred senior executives surveyed felt that stakeholder satisfaction, resilience and robustness 

were strengths of their organizations. On the other hand, alignment, adaptability, quick response 

and flexibility were seen as organizational capabilities that were below average. This meant that 


their organizations were controlling without good cohesion, structurally difficult to change, 

perhaps slow to respond and not very flexible—characteristics typical of a bureaucracy. 

Rightfully so, there was significant concern expressed regarding their ability to deal with an 

environment that is rapidly becoming more dynamic, uncertain and complex. Drinking water 

utilities are facing these same issues. See The Business Case for KM and the MQI report on 

regulatory perspectives for drinking water utilities. 

When a Utility recognizes the value knowledge and knowledge sharing contribute to 

organizational sustainability—a focus on the value of people and their interactions—they are 

building the foundation for sustainability. When aligned and focused on stakeholder satisfaction, 

this means that the best knowledge is available to decision-makers at all levels of the 

organization every day. 

Embedding 

All the steps taken in the start-up and the growth and expansion phase to ensure project 

expectations (see Execution) are being fulfilled and are firmly in place during the sustainability 

phase. The implementation team understands expectations and is a cohesive connected body, 

empowered and making decisions at the point of action. The ultimate goal is for the 

implementation team to move into a supporting role as the strategy or initiative becomes 

embedded in the everyday life of the Utility. 

Stories and storytelling are a powerful tool for sustaining change. The construction of fictional 

examples (or of true experiences) to illustrate a point can be used to effectively transfer 

knowledge. When well-constructed, stories can convey a high level of complex meaning and 

values. 

A variety of story forms exist naturally throughout every organization, including scenarios— 

the articulation of possible future states, constructed within the imaginative limits of the author, 

and anecdotes—brief sequences captured in the field or arising from brainstorming sessions. 

While scenarios provide awareness of alternatives, they can also be used as planning tools for 

possible future situations. Anecdotes can be used to reinforce positive behavior; leaders can 

seek out and disseminate true anecdotes that embody the values desired in the organization. 

Healthy organizations are filled with anecdotes. 

Open communications across a Utility play a large role in facilitating knowledge sharing. For 

examples see ideas for building shared understanding. In addition to interactions through 

teams, communities and meetings, best practices and lessons learned can be communicated 

across the Utility in regular communications publications, some of which could be made 

available to stakeholders. Specific ways to engage stakeholders include community meeting, 

focus groups and town halls. See also, community outreach and media productions. For 

example, in Project Study #4, good public relations are reinforced through conducting plant 

tours for schools and other civic organizations. 

Sharing 

Knowledge sharing is not merely a transfer of information; it is bringing people together to 

interact and exchange different experiences and share understanding. Any time two or more 

Utility employees engage dialogue this is occurring. Through dialogue an individual’s context 

can be conveyed, allowing each participant to gain the explicit knowledge shared by the other 


and to create new knowledge through a mutual learning process. For example, mentoring—a 

relationship between an experienced Utility and a younger professional—can facilitate the 

sharing of shallow and deep knowledge. 

Knowledge is one of those rare things you can give away and still have. In the past, 

knowledge was used in organizations to control others and maintain power. Today, knowledge 

hoarders have limited value to their organizations and often create cultural barriers to learning. 

Wherever possible, it is best to develop and share as much knowledge as possible so that 

others can act independently and develop their own internally and situation-driven behavior. 

Through reciprocal sharing, innovation springs into being. 

While a necessary first step, simply having access to knowledge does not constitute sharing. 

For example, many organizations make information available through technology systems, but 

fail to incorporate knowledge maps or guides for users so they can find what they need and put 

it to use. Yet, as The World Bank forwards, knowledge sharing has become a strategic 

necessity to survival. A growing number of organizations are recognizing the need for 

collaboration across organizational boundaries (see cross-utility collaboration). 

Ideally, knowledge sharing emerges as part of the culture. Some examples that facilitate 

knowledge sharing are: the support and use of teams and communities as part of the everyday 

work process, the example of openness and integrity set by senior leadership; and an awards 

program that rewards knowledge sharing. See the APQC best practice report on Creating a 

Knowledge-Sharing Culture. 


While there is a need to measure expenses, schedule, scope, and quality, there are also 

subjective measures for things like your team’s relationship with stakeholders, knowledge 

sharing, innovative ideas emerging, etc. Any measure is appropriate if it helps ensure the 

project is on track with its strategic intent. When picking metrics, ensure that you are measuring 

for the future. Since what gets measured is what gets attention, it is important to think forward 

to the desired end state and identify performance measures that move beyond specific goals to 

serving as part of the implementation change strategy. The knowledge centric organization 

model designed by the Department of the Navy uses three types of metrics to assess different 

levels of KM impact, namely outcome (enterprise or overall value), output (project or task), and 

system (technology tool). See the Department of the Navy Metrics Guide for KM Initiatives and 

additional assessment tools. In Project Study #24 progress toward KM is measured as part of 

the Utility’s systems-based management approach. 

The perspectives of the customer, department, organization, and individual are critical to the 

project’s success and, as appropriate, need to be incorporated into its evolution. The 

implication for KM metrics is that it is important to identify who is likely to use the performance 

measurement information. Potential users include strategic decision makers, special project 

decision makers, funding and approval stakeholders, government agencies involved in approval 

or regulation, or customers. Measures should be in terms that are familiar to the stakeholder, 

there may be several different metrics that need to be captured for an initiative. There is no one 

“right” set of measures for KM, and most initiatives will require a combination of measurement 

types and classes to reflect the overall mission and strategy of the Utility and effectively 

communicate with key individuals. 


In Case Example #18, the USDA/Foreign Agricultural Service uses a market intelligence 

information system to automatically create a comprehensive history for metrics and institutional 

memory purposes. This system also supports the automated generation of success story 

information. In Case Example #5, Natural Resources Canada developed an approach to 

describe, measure, and manage their knowledge services. In Case Example #6, SHELL HP 

measures success quantitatively through the continuous gathering of “incidental successes” and 

whether results exceed expectation. Qualitative indicators (which are perceived as larger than 

quantitative benefits) focus on optimizing people as an asset and breeding the challenge to 

innovate. 

Learning 

If there was one core competency of an organization—and the people within the 

organization—that could be culled out from others to ensure success, it is learning. Learning is 

the process that creates new meaning from experience and new capabilities for action. 

Strangely enough, while learning is critical to the life of individuals and the Utility, few people 

have ever focused on learning how to learn. 

Knowledge is the result of learning. To become a knowledge Utility means to become a 

learning Utility. See Case Example #12 and Case Example #14. To put learning in 

perspective, consider several closely related concepts: training, education, and what might be 

called acquiring deep knowledge. All of these are forms of learning, each emphasizing a 

different goal with varying processes used for each. Training deals with developing skills and 

abilities that do not require abstract concepts or a great deal of experience. Training usually has 

a narrow focus, and results that achieve a specific capability. Education is usually thought of as 

a process of learning about things that provide the learner with a broad, balanced perspective 

on the world and the ability to understand and deal with many areas of life. Deep learning refers 

to the acquisition and understanding of highly abstract and complex concepts, systems and 

information. For example, a deep knowledge of calculus would be the ability to solve calculus 

problems which would include understanding the foundations of the theory, its limitations, and 

domain of application. Deep knowledge is created by study, reflection, assimilation, practice, 

problem-solving, and “living with the subject.” See the MQI research paper Learning and 

Knowledge Management. 

People learn best by doing. Action learning is a task-oriented group process that is useful for 

approaching narrowly focused issues. Individual learning can be facilitated through the use of 

new technologies such as podcasts, Wikipedia, and a school set up in Second Life. Group 

learning approaches include retreats, brown bag lunches, speaker series and workshops. 

Continuous learning (the creation of new ideas) and the ability to effectively (and often 

quickly) act on those ideas is paramount in any organization involved in knowledge work. 

Continuous learning is a daily routine for knowledge workers as new challenges require new 

ideas, solutions and approaches. Various continuous learning approaches are used in Project 

Study #3. In Case Example #19, the Office of Personnel Management develops an eLearning 

environment. In Case Example #17, the use of pre, during and after action reviews produce a 

continuous learning cycle. 

HOME 


Appendix F 

Business Case for Knowledge Management 

F-1 


The Business Case for Knowledge Management 

In the Drinking Water Utility Industry 

A Mountain Quest Institute Report 

Executive Summary 

This paper addresses the question of how knowledge management can contribute to a 

drinking water utility’s bottom line. After defining critical terms and suggesting several utility 

outcome measures, it is proposed that all of the worker’s daily actions, taken together, 

determine how well a utility performs. Worker competency, knowledge and motivation are 

primary drivers that determine the effectiveness of their actions. The challenge for leadership is 

to ensure workers have the requisite knowledge to make effective decisions and take actions 

that result in the best utility performance. This is the role of Knowledge Management. 

Knowledge Management is a set of ideas, principles and practices that make knowledge 

available to decision-makers at every level of the organization, and help encourage workers to 

learn, take the initiative and guide their actions to meet utility goals and objectives. Thus 

leadership, through Knowledge Management implementation, creates a culture, structure and 

technology that facilitate the worker’s capacity to create, share, leverage, and apply their 

knowledge to maximize utility performance. By looking at their utility through a knowledge lens 

and practicing Knowledge Management, leaders and managers can improve their organization’s 

efficiency, effectiveness, product quality and sustainability. This is the bottom line of the 

business case. 

What is knowledge and Knowledge Management? 

Knowledge can best be understood as the ability to take effective action. If an individual 

understands a situation well enough so that he can take an action that will result in the expected 

outcome, then he has knowledge of the situation. Knowledge involves understanding, insight, 

experience, judgment and the ability to anticipate the results of actions. We can now see the 

connection from knowledge to action to results to performance. Knowledge Management is the 

name used to represent the ideas, principles and practices that leaders/managers take to get all 

employees to have and use the best knowledge possible in their day to day work decisions and 

actions. It also represents the processes and practices of workers as they apply and share their 

knowledge in the workplace. 

What are the performance measures? 

In the utility business, performance measures include the following: efficiency—doing things 

right; effectiveness—doing the right things; quality—providing the best products desired; and 

sustainability—creating a utility that can withstand the surprises and shocks that occur over time 

in the environment. Simply put, efficiency reduces cost, effectiveness produces the right 

products and services, quality keeps customers happy, and sustainability keeps the utility 

around for a long time. At any given time different utilities will put different emphasis on these 

measures. However, they are all dependent on the actions of every employee every day. 

What drives performance? 

It is understood that the environment can create forces that may significantly challenge the 

utilities capacity to respond. Nevertheless, their response is heavily dependent upon each 

worker taking the best action, doing the right thing to further the utilities objectives. This is true 

for the governing board members all the way to the newest employee, whatever their job 

description. How well do they understand their job? Can they trace their work responsibilities to 

the purpose and vision of the utility? Do they know the effect of their actions on the rest of the 

utility? In brief, do they have the knowledge to make the best decisions and take the best action 

F-2 


for their division, department and utility? The answers to these questions directly relate to the 

business proposition and its success. 

Although the capital accounts and asset management are likely to be large and are very 

important to all utilities, the real source of overall performance lies in the employees and the 

knowledge they possess and apply. As the utility’s environment grows more dynamic, uncertain 

and complex (as it will), knowledge becomes of greater importance to overall performance and 

sustainability. The critical nature of water with its associated quality and health requirements, 

when combined with the complexity of the overall utility system make water utilities highly 

knowledge intensive. The realization of the enormous economic value of people has sparked an 

intense competition for people, especially workers who want to learn, grow and make decisions 

as they gain experience. The younger workers are attracted to knowledge oriented 

organizations where they are empowered—and held responsible. Another force pressing utilities 

toward becoming knowledge organizations is the loss of senior, experienced people at all levels. 

Unfortunately, it is often only when the organization loses knowledge that it becomes aware of 

the importance of knowledge. 

What is the leadership challenge? 

The challenge is to ensure employees have the right knowledge needed for the present and 

future demands placed on their utility. What works, and what doesn’t? Where do they find and 

get the right knowledge? How does knowledge get to the right individual? How do employees 

become aware of the right knowledge, understand it, feel good about it, and be willing to use it 

in their work? 

Knowledge is not the same as information. When found, if information is the right information, 

it can be used immediately. Knowledge, on the other hand, is information put together in a way 

that creates understanding, insight, meaning and the ability to take the right action. It takes 

experience, study, reflection and time to create knowledge. In most utilities there may be 

someone who knows just how to handle any given situation, but does the person with the 

problem know who that is? As times change, knowledge is lost when the past actions no longer 

work; much is also lost when time is spent trying to find the right knowledge to handle a 

situation. In essence, organizations often do not know what they know! This, along with the 

rapidly changing world, was the genesis of organizational learning and Knowledge 

Management. To maintain utility performance, leaders must build and support a culture, 

structure, and management style that help employees create, share, leverage and apply their 

knowledge. This is Knowledge Management. 

How can knowledge management help my organization? Where’s the beef? 

Efficiency can be improved by reducing mistakes, optimizing processes, broadening worker 

responsibilities, and reducing time spent searching for documents, information or expertise. 

Effectiveness improves when employees know their job, can learn fast enough to keep up with 

changing work needs, and know who to tell, or ask, relative to the impact of their actions. When 

employees become aware of where, and why, the utility is heading in a given direction, why 

changes are needed and what their role is, they can take better actions to support those goals. 

Quality of products is not free and it doesn’t come from technology alone, it also takes 

knowledgeable workers who observe carefully, understanding deviations and how to create and 

maintain quality. Sustainability is more complicated and requires continuous employee and 

organizational learning, resilience and adaptability, and preparing for contingencies. Your utility 

is probably using some Knowledge Management now, such as teams to resolve internal issues 

and networks to facilitate communication. 

To be optimally effective means to look at the entire utility from a knowledge perspective, 

making KM a central part of overall leadership, management and day-to-day decision-making. It 

also means treating people as a major asset rather than as an expense; it means investing in 

F-3 


them, demanding more of them, and at the same time supporting their professional growth. In 

the old days of stability and long range planning, senior leaders could make responsible 

decisions that would determine the organization’s future. Not so anymore. It now takes many 

people in the organization to understand what is going on and to handle the uncertainty and 

surprises that come along. This is why the human element, and the knowledge possessed by 

the workforce, is playing an increasingly important role in determining the organization’s future 

health. It can be said that Knowledge Management is a journey, not a destination. 

Give me some examples of Knowledge Management 

Some organizations that have taken knowledge management very seriously include: 

Siemens, the US Army, NASA, Canon, Ericsson, and Shell. Other organizations include: The 

World Bank, the US Navy, Chevron, and a small steel company in Texas called Chaparral Steel. 

There are many more examples of successes, each with a different context, and a different 

focus on knowledge strategies and initiatives. 

One efficiency solution used by utilities is to combine parts of operation and maintenance by 

broadening operator’s knowledge and responsibilities to include some maintenance, thereby 

reducing overall labor costs. Creating communities of practice within a utility or among several 

utilities to enable employees to share their problems (and knowledge) has proven very effective 

in many companies. Communities of practice focused on functional areas within a utility—or 

across utilities—offer an approach to access and apply proven solutions or new ideas. For 

example, utility IT systems personnel could through communities of practice share experience 

and solutions rather than reinvent hardware and software solutions related to new installations, 

upgrades or maintenance. Many of the organizations called out above have embraced 

communities of practice (COPs) as part of the way they do business. For example, Siemens 

has developed and supported 345 COPs, the World Bank has 120, the U.S. Navy has 250, and 

Chevron has 100. 

Developing accurate and easily retrievable data bases to minimize search time (and 

data base errors) is another aspect of knowledge management. Focusing on the user’s ability 

to access and understand current and validated information when creating and maintaining 

accurate and automated information systems can save search time and time lost from actions 

resulting from bad information—all leading to improved efficiency and effectiveness. In general, 

the building and sharing of knowledge of how problems are solved, how customers are treated, 

and how the work gets done can result in significant gains in cost reduction, performance 

improvement and employee morale. The use of teams by many organizations has proven highly 

effective in that they leverage knowledge through team problem solving and decision making 

and also pull people together through dialogue and collaboration. 

Because each utility is different and has its own unique situation and context, to get the 

most out of Knowledge Management, leaders must first understand their organization, its goals 

and direction, its strengths and weaknesses and its structure and culture. With this background, 

they can then select specific areas for change and identify knowledge management initiatives 

that can facilitate improvements. Or, they may decide to implement a knowledge management 

strategy to transform their utility into a knowledge centric organization that utilizes information, 

knowledge and collaboration to the maximum extent. 

In summary, 

Knowledge is central to drinking water utility success and will become even more important 

as the future unrolls with new technologies, consumer concerns, succession challenges and 

potentially catastrophic surprises. While knowledge is not a silver bullet, it can provide the utility 

with the learning, collaborative, empowering and knowledge centric environment that yields 

efficiency, effectiveness, quality and sustainability. This goal is a challenge for all utilities. It 

does not come quickly or easily. 

F-4 


Because each utility is different and has its own unique situation and context, to get the most 

out of knowledge management leaders must understand their organization, its goals and 

direction, its strengths and weaknesses, and its structure and culture. With this understanding 

they can then select specific areas for change and identify Knowledge Management initiatives 

that can facilitate improvements. Or, they may decide to implement a Knowledge Management 

strategy to transform their utility into a knowledge centric organization that utilizes information, 

knowledge, and collaboration to the maximum extent. This approach is the first step toward 

building a utility of the future. 

F-5 


Appendix G 

Regulatory Perspective for Drinking Water Utilities 

G-1 


Regulatory Perspectives for the Water Utilities 

A Mountain Quest Institute Report 


drinking water is recognized world-wide as a scarce resource, emerging research in water 

treatment and wastewater and solid waste treatment will offer new opportunities. New 

processes and procedures will focus on improved efficiency and effectiveness in terms of the 

services and products provided, customer perceptions and needs, and environmental 

requirements. As called out in the WaterRF Strategic Research Plan and the National 

Research Council’s “Public Water Supply Distribution Systems Assessing and Reducing Risks” 

First Report (2005), environmental regulations will continue to be promulgated and the 

regulations will complicate new resource development and require more sophisticated water 

treatment. Specifically, the collective mandates of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water 

Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act will increase the cost of treatment and water supply 

development and continued tightening of drinking water regulations will drive decisions 

regarding the feasibility of maintaining high quality water from centralized, sophisticated 

treatment plants through distributions systems. Recognizing the potential of KM strategies and 

initiatives to offer value to changing expectations and requirements in the water utilities, 

WaterRF continues to sponsor research to help utilities assess and transition their unique 

organizational structures and cultures to enable implementation of KM strategies and initiatives. 

In September 2001 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined the practices 

in five agencies that helped empower front-line employees. The practices—all aimed at 

improving performance—included demonstrated top leadership commitment, delegation of 

decision-making to front-line employees, training and education, the use of teams and employee 

and union involvement in planning and sharing performance information. (GAO, 2001) This 

effort built on the earlier Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to address resultsoriented 

goals, improve performance and assure accountability. In May 2000, the Office of 

Management and Budget issued a bulletin that called for agencies to use workforce planning to 

redistribute higher-level positions to front-line, service delivery positions that interact with 

citizens. In their cover letter to the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government, the GAO stated: “As our studies of private and public sector organizations have 

shown, high performing organizations focus on valuing and investing in their employees— 

human capital—and on aligning their ‘people policies’ to support organizational performance 

goals … the Administration’s emphasis on workforce planning and restructuring will require 

federal agencies to examine how they can flatten their organizational hierarchy and improve 

their work processes.” 

In March 2006, the GAO issued a report to Congressional Requesters on Information 

Sharing. This report examines the status of efforts to establish government-wide information 

sharing policies and processes with specific focus on terrorism-related and sensitive but 

unclassified information. While designers and operators of wastewater and stormwater 

infrastructures have considered the potential impact of severe natural events (floods, 

hurricanes, blizzards, earthquakes, etc.) for decades, the possible effects of intentional acts by 

domestic or international terrorists is a new focus of concern. The Public Health Security and 

Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (PL 107-188) required U.S. drinking 

water systems that serve populations greater than 3,300 people to conduct vulnerability 

assessments. According to EPA statistics, approximately 4800 water utilities serving over 256 

million people fit into this category. These vulnerability assessments require periodic reviews 

and updates/modifications on risk acceptability and proposed upgrades. The water utility 

response to the recent GAO report would include establishing utility-wide policies and 

processes for sharing vulnerability assessment information—mobilizing knowledge—with 

G-2 


elated federal, state and local government offices. This information would include processes 

and results for planning, threat assessment, site characterization, consequence assessment, 

system effectiveness and risk analysis. During the last term of the Clinton Administration, the 

President issued Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 62, Combating Terrorism, and PDD 63, 

Critical Infrastructure Protection, to create an integrated structure for combating terrorist attacks 

that involve explosives, chemical or biological agents, or sabotage against infrastructures 

(utilities). PDD 63 also created the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office. These directives 

demonstrate the critical importance of bringing KM into U.S. drinking water utilities. 

In May 2005, MQI briefed approximately150 Nuclear Regulatory Commission executives 

on the intelligent complex adaptive organization and its KM implications. During the discussions 

it became clear that there was concern regarding future infrastructure capabilities and security 

throughout the nation. The continuing increase in complexity of all utilities exposes them to 

ever-increasing ways of disruption and failure. Interestingly enough, this did not arise during 

informal conversations following a briefing earlier provided to 220 senior government executives 

from 24 different Federal agencies. It was clear that managing government organizations which 

needed to be adaptable required different leadership and approaches than managing those 

organizations (or subdivisions) which performed repetitive work and therefore required strong 

discipline and control. Clearly drinking water utilities include both of these aspects, thereby 

necessitating KM to address each aspect in a different way. 

Reference: 

AMSA/AMWA (2004). “The Changing Workforce…Crisis & Opportunity.” An 

AMSA/AMWA Checklist. Washington, D.C.: AMSA/AMWA. 

AwwaRF and AWWA (2004). “Selection and Definition of Performance Indicators 

for Water and Wastewater Utilities.” Denver, CO: AwwaRF. 

Government Accounting Office (2001). KM Practices in Government. 

Washington, D.C.: GAO. 

National Research Council (2005). “Public Water Supply Distribution Systems 

Assessing and Reducing Risks” First Report. Washington, D.C.: NRC. 

Mountain Quest Institute 

RR 2, Box 109 (Frost) 

Marlinton, WV 24954 

G-3 


Appendix H 

Knowledge Management Toolkit Ideas 

H-1 


ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT TOOLS 

Many tools used for gathering information and knowledge can also be used as assessment 

tools. From that point of view, a number of these are briefly addressed below. 

Action Assessment and Learning. The AAL is an action learning-while-assessing 

approach that ensures what is planned stays in resonance with emerging utility needs. AAL 

would be based on a series of periodic “reviews” throughout the life of a project or program. 

These reviews are similar to After Action Review, except they are process-driven rather than 

action-driven. Both a pre-AAL and during-AAL become part of the process. The pre-AAL 

brings a project or management team together to focus on the direction ahead, how 

progress will be assessed, and sharing Lessons Learned from previous projects or related 

utility projects. Following each AAL session, the project team would continue to learn from 

the feedback from actions taken and actions underway to ensure the relevance of continuing 

and future actions. 

Benchmarking. Benchmarking has historically proven useful for transfer of Best Practices 

when situations are similar in process context. When this is the case, benchmarking can 

provide a point of comparison, potentially offering insights and guidelines for actions or 

questions. 

Case Study. As an assessment tool, the case study would be a formal and comprehensive 

report about a specific individual or group (organization) who has successfully (or not 

successfully) implemented a process or approach that is similar to the one being assessed. 

It can be used to build an understanding of connections and causes, thereby helping a 

project team create patterns that may apply to present or future situations. Since the case 

study is a detailed description of a project, situation or group, including heavy context, it 

provides a setting to examine numerous elements within a component of the implementation 

process. Always beware of the differences in context between the case study and the one 

being assessed. 

Cost Benefit Analysis. A cost benefit analysis can be used to assess the value of a 

knowledge management project in term of its real costs to stakeholders, the quantitative and 

qualitative outcome and overall project costs. What were the resources spent and what was 

the result? One of the costs is time, another is knowledge created or lost. Part of the 

outcome may be in peripheral benefits. When coupled with a priority technique such as a 

Prioritization Matrix, this can aid decision-making among several choices. 

Inquiry Groups. These are groups brought together to investigate or examine some 

specific issue. These can be held both face-to-face and through interactive technologies 

(video conference, conference calls, e-discussion groups). They may include the full or 

partial group of stakeholders with invited outside resources. Inquiry groups provide the 

opportunity for each stakeholder to assess the project, sharing diverse perspectives and 

building future capacity through learning and teaching. Basic inquiry procedures are used, 

including questioning, cycling between action and reflection, and in some cases Dialogue 

and Interviewing. 

H-2 


Inventories. The inventory is a detailed account of products and processes. This approach 

can be used to create a list of what has been completed and what is still in process, what is 

working and what is not, and any issues that have emerged. An inventory is useful as a 

baseline for assessing progress. 

Surveys. The survey process can provide a baseline for understanding attitudes and 

behaviors of stakeholders in regards to a specific project underway or just completed. For 

example, data taken at start-up of a project and again a year or two into implementation can 

be used to identify attitudinal changes over time. In addition, surveys can take many 

formats, and questions can be structured, semi-structured or open-ended, providing different 

points of reference for exploring core issues. They can also help identify sustainability 

factors that are working. 

See: 

Project Study 24 (Louisville Water Company, KY) 


Case Example #5 (Natural Resource Canada) 


H-3 


BUILDING TRUST 

Develop a leadership-supported “My Story” program (the sharing of stories by 

organization members on who they are and what they offer the team), and an 

“Encouragement List” (three positive things about each member of the Utility that affirm that 

individual’s worth as a knowledge source and contribution to the Utility). These are used to 

introduce individuals during meetings, provide examples where appropriate, and design 

Knowledge Sharing events such as lunchtime exchanges. See Case Example #3. 

Develop and facilitate a “Care to Share” Blog on anything Utility members care to share 

with each other about hobbies, interests, trips, photos, etc. 

Support social networking. Social capital is developed through trust, dialogue, 

collaboration and reciprocity. The way in which social networks are created reveals the 

ways in which social capital is realized, such as friendship (one to few) or virtual 

communities (one to many). See Community of Practice, Shared Space and Wiki. Trust is 

built over time from personal experience (I know you), shared experience (we both worked 

on the same project), transfer of trust (I know someone who knows you) and shared values 

(we operate by the same rules). These social networks can be a primary way of doing 

business. See the MQI paper on Relationship Network Management and the APQC 

benchmarking study on Virtual Collaboration. 

Consistency of behavior is important in building trust, as is making sure that there is 

follow-through between what one says they will do and what they do. As noted above, trust 

is built, over time, between two individuals who are always honest with each other, are 

supportive of others and follow-through on their promises. Trust takes considerable time to 

create and can e broken in a single incident, misunderstanding or by a simple mistake. For 

person “A” to share their knowledge with person “B”, person A must believe that B will not 

misuse that knowledge, will not use that knowledge against “A” and, if A needs some 

knowledge that B has, that person B will reciprocate the knowledge sharing. See Case 

Example #3. 

See: 

Project Study #8 (Loudon County Sanitation Authority, VA) 

Tools: Knowledge Sharing 


H-4 


COMMUNICATIONS PUBLICATIONS 

Background Papers. These would provide pertinent background material in plain language 

to raise the awareness and understanding of the public about current Utility projects and 

issues. These could be distributed to the larger stakeholder group; for example, through the 

courthouse, community groups and local schools. 

Book Review. Book reviews are opinion pieces on published works related to the drinking 

water Utility industry. When a book review is sent to colleagues or employees from a senior 

leader or manager—with a personal one-liner regarding the value of this book—it can be a 

powerful incentive to get a copy and read the book, thus facilitating learning and knowledge 

sharing. 

Issues Brief. Less formal than a presentation, a brief is often extracted from a longer study 

or report in order to make ideas more accessible and understandable to a wider audience. 

This would be a short paper describing issues (background, content and context) and 

framing questions around those issues. It can be presented in oral or written format. 

Brochures. A pamphlet or short printed work that has been stitched, stapled or folded, 

usually supporting high-level information focused on positive aspects about the Utility (in 

general or focused on a specific project planned or underway). Can be used to share 

information and contact points. Generally used in combination with other media or events, 

or to raise interest in Utility functions. 

Editorial. Article that expresses personal opinion, specifically that of the editor. Can be an 

excellent vehicle for facilitating community understanding of shifts underway in a drinking 

water utility, or to initiate interest and discussion among readers (or employees). 

Fact Sheet. A means of providing factual material to a broad array of stakeholders. 

Generally one page focused on a single issue with relevant facts presented in clear 

language. Would be provided free of charge and placed in locations that are easily 

accessible by stakeholders. Could also be made available on a web site. 

Flyers. A short for of the flysheet or flyleaf (the leaves at the beginning and end of a book 

that carry short overviews or quotes from advocates). Flyers are similar to handbills, a quick 

form—generally one page—of disseminating information about an event or publication. 

Guidelines. A book of instruction on a specific subject. A document providing directions, 

but softer direction than laws, rules or policies. While moving toward standardization, 

guidelines embed a level of meaning and understanding, combining “why” as well as “why 

not.” Road Map Guidelines are a form of guidelines that provide specific step-by-step 

mapping of actions used for specific processes (such as incubators). 

Information Packets. These are collections of pertinent printed and CD-based materials 

provided to specific stakeholders. For example, the target stakeholders may be voters, EPA 

inspectors, or the town council. 

H-5 


Interpretative Materials. Materials that provide background and context to an area of focus 

such as an engineering proposal of which the general public needs an understanding. 

Generally developed and delivered in support of events or other publications. 

Manuals. A handbook or a book of instruction (about a specific subject matter) which 

serves as a learning tool. Pragmatic in nature, it provides a methodology for use or 

application. After release, an employee workshop could be held on the use of the manual. 

Project Study #2 demonstrates the use of continuously updated operations and 

maintenance manuals to capture current knowledge. See also Project Study #10, Project 

Study #13, and Project Study #24. 

One-Pager. Collaboration piece or lay summary that provide the main points of a specific 

issue occurring in the drinking water utility. 

Policy Updates. One-page updates of changes occurring specifically focused on keeping 

policy makers in the loop and those changes in their awareness. A Policy Advisory Report 

would be a formally issued summary with findings and recommendations. 

Posters. Large sheets of paper or placards sharing ideas. Prepared such that they catch 

attention and quickly convey core ideas. Can be posted in public places, or used on tour 

routes to convey specific points. 

Presentations. The act of presenting or demonstrating, generally connected with visuals 

and models such as PowerPoint slides. A presentation handout would be take-home slides 

or support materials. 

Press Releases. Formal and official statement offered to the general public via publication 

in public media. Usually connected with an event or issue at a specific point in time; for 

example, a notice of emergency procedures during a water shortage. 

Public Service Announcements. Formal statement provided for community or stakeholder 

welfare, usually under the direction of policy-makers or community officials. May or may not 

be time dependent. An example would be ideas on how to conserve water. 

See: 

Project Study #2 (City of Fairborn, OH) 

Project Study #3 (City of Moline, IL) 

Project Study #10 (Colorado Springs Utility, CO) 

Project Study #13 (City of Akron Public Utilities Bureau, OH) 



Tool: Communications Plan 

H-6 


COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

Contest. A process for raising community awareness of the significant but unseen role the 

drinking water Utility plays in their everyday lives. This is particularly effective for school-age 

youth. For example, teenagers may be asked to write a poem or short story about the 

importance of water to their community, with winners (and their parents) given an award and 

personal tour of the drinking water utility by the Utility manager, complete with appropriate 

recognition in the local paper. In this way the contest serves as a learning lesson for youth 

as well as raising awareness within the community of the contribution made by, and 

effectiveness of, the Utility. Conversely, adults in a stakeholder population might be asked 

to submit their ideas for how the Utility might better serve the community. Several ideas 

would be selected and implemented, again in the context of high visibility. For example, 

perhaps a press conference where the idea(s) and plan(s) for implementation are released 

following by a dinner hosted by the Utility. Contests are self-selective by their nature, 

involving individuals through the potential of personal reward and/or recognition who 

otherwise might not engage. They are also a way of spreading the feeling of connectivity 

and ownership among customers and the larger stakeholder group in general. See Exhibit 

below. 

Demonstration. A practical application of something by example. Generally complements 

some other scheduled event, taking advantage of a gathering of stakeholders. Can be used 

to teach or inform or convince. For example, during a city council meeting using a computer 

model of a city’s drinking water supply system to demonstrate how additional expansion will 

be integrated with the current system to better serve the community. Or, using a projection 

microscope during a high school science class to help students see first-hand how bacteria 

in water can be treated. 

Exhibit. A show or display held separately or in conjunction with another event at a point in 

time that makes available for public enjoyment, learning and consideration a group of 

objects or products related to the drinking water utility, perhaps with a demonstrated 

relationship to anticipated future changes. An exhibit might be created from the results of 

the contest (above) and placed in a public location. A specific type of exhibit is the 

Photograph Exhibit, which may be particularly poignant to illustrate need and/or the 

effectiveness of utility plant changes underway. A Floating Exhibit is the movement of the 

show or display from one location to another. This is particularly effective in a 

geographically dispersed stakeholder community. 

Festival. A high-energy, joyful (festive) celebratory approach to knowledge sharing. 

Effective when held in conjunction with a special day or celebration pertinent to the utility; for 

example, the opening of a new plant, the addition of a pumping station, or a new repair 

facility. Might include food booths, games, Picture Maps of the water system and other 

exhibits, all geared toward helping stakeholders understand more about the work of the 

drinking water utility. 

Tours. Physical and mental sharing of spaces and places. This might entail offering 

structured tours at specific times for the public at large, or staying open to visits and tours by 

H-7 


community groups. These can take many forms. For an exceptional example see the 

Singapore Case Study. 

Field Trip. A visit by selected stakeholder groups (adults, school children) to any site 

that has significance to, and will build understanding of, the drinking water utility process. 

Site Visit is a variation of the tour approach with a specific agenda and tour. 

Speaking Tour. Repeated use of presentations geared toward delivering a bounded 

message to specific stakeholder audiences. Provides person-to-person exchange and 

offers opportunity for question and answer sessions. 

See: 

Project Studies as indicated below. 

Project Study #4 (City of Moline Water Division, IL). 

In Project Study #6 (Columbus Water Works, GA), the Utility includes volunteer or 

community service as part of their succession planning. 

As part of the school vocational training program, the Utility in Project Study #15 (City 

of Akron Public Utilities Bureau, OH) brings high school seniors in for internships. 

H-8 


CROSS-UTILITY COLLABORATION 

Inter-Utility Communities of Practice. A community of practice is focused on a specific 

domain of knowledge and is comprised of people who work (practice) in that domain. The 

CoP is defined by knowledge within some domain (not by task), has an evolving agenda 

driven by members of the community, and is managed by making connections and building 

relationships. While the focus is on value added, mutual exchange and continuous learning, 

CoPs members are often brainstorming and seeking solutions to specific issues and 

problems forwarded by other CoP members. Thus, participation in and reliance on CoPs 

increases over time, and they often become the primary source of knowledge and a 

continuing source of ideas and energy for community members. See Community of 

Practice. When this powerful form of collaborative advantage is engaged across utilities, 

there is an opportunity to learn from each other’s successes and mistakes, fill missing 

knowledge gaps in multiple organizations, and build new, synergistic solutions for emergent 

issues. When two organizations can openly share in a mutual environment of trust and 

interdependence, there can only be a win-win result. 

Conference. Formal meeting for presentation, consultation and discussion. Brings 

geographically-dispersed ( or organizationally separated) participants together to share 

knowledge, assess and evaluate their experiences and dialogue on issues core to the 

drinking water utilities. Presentations often relate to best practices, lessons learned, recent 

research findings, implementation approaches and results of shared insights. Recognized 

national leaders and experts may be invited to speak about innovative responses to issues. 

Can be an annual event with geographical location rotated. May be tied to significant policy 

actions. Conferences are an effective tool of the various associations in the water industry. 

International conference. Platform for widely sharing newly discovered knowledge. 

Provides opportunity to gain valuable insights from researchers, policy makers and 

drinking water community members around the world working on similar issues. May 

be a single or periodic event. 

Creating and maintaining a small regional network of Utility personnel who have highly 

specialized expertise that is not available in a single Utility. As these individuals get to know 

each other and share their know-how, even visiting each other’s sites, they can then support 

all of their Utility’s emergency needs. This is particularly helpful where many small Utilities 

coexist in a region and manpower and expertise is limited. On a broader sale, such Utilities 

coold even share manpower, spare parts, etc., when emergencies arise. 

See: 

Project Study #11 (Greenville Water System, SC) 

Project Study #30 (Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities) 


APQC study on Virtual Collaboration 

H-9 


GROUP LEARNING 

Retreat. An emersion process where participants commit to learning, sharing and social 

interaction focused on key challenges, questions, and emergent findings. Uses dialogue to 

strengthen relationships, develop shared understanding and meaning and facilitate mutual 

support. Can be used to jumpstart development of a learning community or community of 

practice. 

Seminars. A short, intensive course focused on a specific topic or area of research. 

Brown Bag Seminars. Scheduled during a meal period (for example, lunch) with 

participants invited to bring and eat their meal during the seminar. Informal structure 

with a planned speaker followed by open discussion. 

Speaker Series. Formal talks by an expert, policy maker, advocate or other stakeholder, 

followed by a question and answer session. An opportunity to bring external stakeholders 

into the utility as subject matter experts, with simultaneous learning and relationship 

building. Employees can play an active role; for example, through suggesting lecture topics 

and SMEs. Whether on location or off location, series could be made available to all 

employees through live streaming via the Internet, then archived online and accessible for 

future use such as new employee orientation. 

Stand-down. The stand-down is based on a military approach used to support a specific 

behavior change. In a utility, this would be a one-day stop-work community event focused 

on conveying focused information (and potentially associated skills). This event demands 

hands-on top leadership/management participation, including the sharing of stories. 

Workshops. Workshops are content-rich experiences revolving around discussion, study 

and experimentation. They provide the opportunity for one-on-one and group interactions. 

Since content may significantly different for specific employee groups, attendance may be 

focused and segmented. 

See: 




Dialogue 

Storyboards 

Storytelling 

H-10 


INDIVIDUAL LEARNING 

Professional Development Day. A day designated to focus on a specific skill set that will 

help utility employees hone and polish that skill set. Also effective when new tools or 

processes are being implemented. Scheduled regularly and structured to provide continuing 

education units for participating professionals. 

Podcast. A podcast relates to the terms iPod and broadcast, and refers to a series of 

digital-media files that are distributed via the Internet and can be played back on portable 

media players and computers. While the term emerged in reference to syndicated and 

subscribed to content, it can also be used to describe aural learning sequences developed 

by a Utility and distributed to Utility employees. Podcasts have been used for distribution of 

school lessons, audio tours of museums, conference meeting updates and by police 

departments to distribute public safety messages. 

Second Life. Virtual worlds are 3D immersive, persistent environments where people meet, 

interact, make friends, and accomplish tasks. They are powerful learning tools. Launched 

by Linden Las in 2003, Second Life now has 8 million residents (40,000 active at any one 

point) with a growth rate of more than 20 percent per month (adding 25,000 members per 

day). Gartner has forecast that 80 percent of active Internet users and Fortune 500 

companies will participate in a virtual world by 2011. NASA has four thrusts for virtual 

worlds: mission support (modeling and simulation, collaboration, proposal development, 

and more), outreach (public engagement and participation), education (K-12 learning) and 

training (internal). For example, NASA designed live-action learning modules that give 

players the chance to experiment with orbital mechanics, the principles of spaceflight and 

other space-related subjects. These are used as learning devices for people of all ages. 

Other uses might include: participating in company events such as town halls, promoting 

new standards, virtual interview events by major corporations or creating weather maps to 

model pandemics. Drinking water utilities could use Second Life to practice response 

scenarios to contaminants and help develop skill sets in young engineers for contingency 

planning. 

Wikipedia. The Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia project, is an example of open source 

computing. The name is a derivation of wiki (a collaborative web site) and encyclopedia. 

The content for Wikipedia is contributed by volunteers around the world, and can be edited 

by anyone with access to the Internet. See Wiki for more detailed examples. 

Book Learning—The Active Way. Instead of passively reading a book and then trying to 

remember what was written, much more learning takes place if a proactive approach is 

taken. This approach prompts the reader to energize their own thinking and improve their 

understanding of the information in the book. For example, when the reader comes across 

a sentence or paragraph that is new and relevant to their learning, they would underline that 

material and put starts (one to four) in the side margin based on how important the material 

was judge to be to the reader. One star denotes interest; four stars denotes extremely 

important. This does several things. First, underlining forces the reader to think about the 

sentence some length of time (a second or longer) and the repetition as it is read over helps 

H-11 


instill this information in long-term memory. Second, the stars force the reader to evaluate 

its importance as seen from the reader’s interest and knowledge, causing active thinking as 

well as emotional aspects of the material to be considered. While the material in the book is 

passive, the reader’s mind and knowledge has been engaged to improve learning, that is, 

the creation of understanding, meaning and knowledge. Another useful trick is to challenge 

the book’s author(s) in appropriate places and write out why the reader disagrees. This 

prompts an internal dialogue with oneself by asking questions and searching memory and 

pulling tacit knowledge from the unconscious. See Learning How to Learn. 

See: 

Project Studies as indicated below. 

Project Study #3 (City of Moline, IL) demonstrates various activities to ensure 

continuous learning. 

Project Study #7 (Columbus Water Works, GA) and Project Study #27 (Louisville Water 

Company, KY) share approaches to training and development, including the use of 

individual development plans. 

In Project Study #8 (London County Sanitation Authority, Dulles, VA) standard 

operating procedures are developed to use in training. 

A career ladder program is detailed in Project Study #16 (Waterford Township Water, 

MI) to enable employees to take advanced certification tests. 

In Project Study #20 (Southeast Morris County MUA, New Jersey), the Utility offers onthe-job 

training in support of taking the licensing exam to become a certified operator. 

In Project Study #22 (Seattle Public Utilities, WA), the Utility has developed an 

organizational learning system focused on interactive topic areas. 

Project Study #29 (Seattle Public Utilities, WA) describes a formal mentoring program 

to build relationships and develop leadership competencies. 


Dialogue 

Learning How to Learn 

Mentoring 

Picture Map 

Storytelling 

eLearning Strategy 


MQI paper on KM, Learning and the Knowledge Worker 

H-12 


KNOWLEDGE SHARING 

Ask, Learn, Share Model. An approach developed by SHELL HP in 2006. Ask before 

any business activity: What do we already know? Learn during any business activity. 

Share after any business activity. See Case Example #6. 

Best Practices Celebration and Sharing Day. This is an idea based on Texas 

Instruments model started in 1996. All TI Best Practice teams staff booths to publicize 

and answer question about their practices. The day is culminated with an awards 

ceremony for those organizations that have most successfully shared best practices and 

knowledge, and produced the best results. Those organizations receive an award from 

the senior executives at TI for collaborating on the exchange of best practices. This is a 

highly prestigious award at TI, because it builds enthusiasm and reinforces both the 

process and the results. See Recognition and Rewards. 

Case Study. A detailed analysis or study of a group, event or organization. Generally 

used as a model or guide for learning. A vehicle for deep learning and sharing 

knowledge, by both the group developing it, and those reading it. See Case Example 

#9 (SEUF, India) for an example of the use of case studies in support of knowledge 

sharing. 

Communities of Practice. 

Informal Events. This may take the form of walks, lunches, fireside chats or various 

social events. Networking and the sharing of ideas taking place outside normal 

everyday activities can result in new undertakings, new insights, and new collaboration. 

Professional Associations. Local, state and national associations that meet regularly 

and offer a platform for the sharing of information and knowledge (might also be called a 

knowledge network, a community of practice of a community of interest). This linking 

offers feedback opportunities and the potential for developing advocates. 

Round Table. Small group discussion format where all participants have equal voice. 

Larger groups would be segmented and round tables held in different locations (as 

appropriate to accommodate participation). Serves as a venue to clarify and share new 

knowledge and promote dialogue among diverse groups. 

Social Networking. See Blog, Wiki and Case Example #20. 

Symposium. Brings leadership and employees involved in a specific interest area or 

project together to share opinions, philosophies and conversation. Approaches: (1) 

Annual activity open to all interested individuals with new themes each year. Provides 

new leadership thinking to employees while simultaneously pulling practical insights into 

the application of new ideas. (2) Major event on mutually agreed-upon topic. For 

H-13 


example, a full-day workshop designed by and for multiple stakeholder involvement. (3) 

Small group (10-15), week-long interdisciplinary activity to build shared understanding 

across functional areas, exploring different frames of reference to brainstorm potential 

solutions. 

See: 


Case Example #3 (Hill & Knowlton) 



Case Example #9 (SEUF India) 

Case Example #10 (IWSD, Zimbabwe) 


Case Example #12 (AMREF, Kenya) 

Case Example #13 (Federal Aviation Administration) 


Case Example #17 (USAID). 



Project Study #11 (Greenville Water System) 

Project Study #17 (Orlando Utilities Commission, FL) 

Project Study #21 (City of Phoenix Water Services Department, AZ) 


In Project Study #18 (Rice Lake Utilities, WI) the Utility hired an external firm to explore 

communication gaps and knowledge sharing needs. 

Project Study #22 (Seattle Public Utilities, WA) involves development of an 

organizational learning system focused on interactive topic areas such as asset 

management; safety and emergency preparedness; and race and social justice. 

Tools: Blog 


Picture Map 


Storyboards 

Storytelling 

Wiki 


Cross-Utility Collaboration 


Reference Materials 


H-14 


LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT VISIBILITY i 

Develop a short video, beginning with a two-minute opening by the senior leader of the 

organization, and featuring project leaders talking about their early successes. Have the 

senior leader hand-write notes to accompany copies of the video to managers throughout 

the organization, asking them to ensure that every employee has the opportunity to see and 

discuss the video with their supervisors. 

Develop pass-it-down training, beginning at the very top of the organization. The concept 

of pass-it-down training is that leaders at all levels have the opportunity to impress on 

workers and teams the importance and significance of Knowledge Management and the 

specific initiative or strategy that is being implemented. This process has the added benefit 

of ensuring that organizational leadership fully understands the new initiative or strategy and 

how it will operate. Teaching and facilitation are forms of learning and leading. 

Hold a Town Hall, featuring senior leadership, virtually supported (television, video) to 

facilitate geographically dispersed organizations and stakeholders, with live connectivity via 

telephone and computers. Much like a telethon, this event will offer the opportunity for 

workers at all levels to interact with senior leadership, voicing their concerns and ideas and 

receiving an immediate response, even if that response is: “We need to think more about 

that.” This process, called Event Intermediation, ensures a point in time where all senior 

leaders, managers and employees understand the importance of the KM initiative or 

strategy and have an awareness of their areas of responsibility to help ensure success. 

Capture quotes from leaders, managers and champions and embed these in presentations, 

both internal and external, at every level of the organization. 

Hold a Knowledge Fair where every functional and organizational area is featured showing 

how they are contributing to achieving the KM vision. Have senior leadership open the fair, 

and include enjoyable, memorable events centered around the way the organization needs 

to work, with members of the organization participating in the presentation. (Remember, 

emotion aids memory.) Create a groundswell of sharing and understanding by opening the 

fair to employees and the larger stakeholder group. See Event Intermediation. 

Develop a virtual CD or portal-based reference tool about the knowledge fair, town hall, or 

other large group event capturing people talking about their projects and contributions and 

leaders talking about their organizational, all focused on their contribution to achieving a 

knowledge centric organization. Make this easily available to employees and stakeholders. 



1 Adapted from Bennet, A. & Bennet, D. (2004). Organizational Survival in the New World: The Intelligent Complex Adaptive System. Boston, MA: 

Elsevier. 

H-15 


MEDIA PRODUCTIONS 

Documentary. A fact-based film. An example would be a film on the water purification 

process developed to expand the awareness of school-age children. 

DVD. A format for delivering audio and high definition video recordings. Can provide faceto-face 

presence across large stakeholder populations, and offers the opportunity to provide 

detailed information in a conversational approach with visual impact, sharing a story in 

creative form. 

Graphics. Use of models that can visually convey the knowledge introduced in a specific 

paper or virtual medium. 

Movie. An individual film that presents moving images usually accompanied by speech and 

sound. Can entertain, educate, inform, enlighten and inspire. Visual elements require little, 

if any, explanation to make them highly accessible and easily understood by many different 

viewers. Movies are also cultural artifacts, in that they are recreated by a specific culture, 

reflect that culture, and in turn affect that culture. Thus they have high impact when done 

well. 

Radio Program. The transmission of information through electromagnetic waves such that 

it can be picked up by receivers. Widely available to the general public. Excellent vehicle 

for public service announcements. 

Story Pitches. Short human-interest media pitches that focus on unique and high-interest 

postings about the utility and the story behind some major event or change. Help build 

visibility. Can also be focused on specific individuals or groups. See Storytelling and 

Storyboard. 

Television Shows. A designed, time-driven event for television broadcast specifically 

focused on communicating a specific message. Video broadcasts and streaming through 

the Internet are rapidly replacing television as the medium of choice because fo time access 

and cost benefits. Supports specific programming. 

Theatre. Portrayal of stories in front of an audience using multiple elements of the 

performing arts, e.g., speech, music, dance, gesture. Theatre is a collaborative art form 

since it involves the participation and skills of many different contributors, not just the 

performers. Can be effectively used in concert with directed messages. For example, a 

utility co-sponsoring with a civic organization a theatre production that is a reenactment of a 

past or potential event dealing with community behaviors around water. 

H-16 


Training Videos. (1) Support material for training sessions. (2) Self-contained training 

sessions for self-learning. Could be used on-line or down-loadable for just-in-time training. 

Offers opportunity to demonstrate concepts through visual scenarios. For example, a 

practitioners guide might be created to focus on a specific process. 

See: 



H-17 


RECOGNITION AND REWARDS 

Knowledge in Action Award. An annual award given out to those individuals who have 

leveraged the utility knowledge infrastructure, knowledge assets, expertise directory or 

best practices to deliver meaningful value to their project or business unit. Nominations 

for these awards can be submitted by anyone in the utility who can tell a story about how 

utility knowledge has been leveraged, either about themselves or others. 

Not Invented Here Award. Create a new award that promotes desired behaviors. For 

example, Texas Instruments created the NIHBIDIA Award (Not Invented Here But I Did It 

Anyway). These are awarded annually by senior leadership. 

Peer Recognition. Meaningful recognition can come from peers as well as leadership. 

Utility employees at all levels should be encouraged to acknowledge individual and 

organizational contributions on a personal level. If knowledge culled from the 

knowledgebase is useful to an employee’s work, that employee should reach out to the 

contributor and personally acknowledge the contribution. This doesn’t need to be 

formal. A simple phone call or email expressing appreciation works. 

Peer Nomination for Awards. Peer nomination for rewards can be especially valued. 

An example is a team of individuals contributing lessons learned on a particular project 

to the utility knowledgebase. A second team utilizes these lessons on a similar project, 

resulting in improved decision-making capability and improved results. The second 

team then nominates the first team for some kind of reward and recognition based on 

these results. 

Recognition by the Project Leader. The project leader should continuously promote 

and publicize individual and group or team contributions to organizational goals. 

Contributors can be recognized in newsletters, on web sites, at staff meeting, during 

special luncheons, and so forth. 

Recognition by Senior Leadership. Another mechanism for project leaders to 

recognize contributors is to inform senior leadership of success stories. This information 

should be accompanied by a request for a personal note of appreciation from senior 

leadership to the individuals or groups/teams commending their work and 

acknowledging how their contribution has made a difference to the mission of the utility. 

Utility Shared Knowledge Award. Develop an incentive program for the quarterly and 

yearly awarding of incentive awards (certificates, coins, small statues) for the shared 

knowledge voted by organizational members to be the most helpful to the organization. 

See: 


In Project Study #25 (Louisville Water Company, KY), the Utility is recognizing 

individuals and teams who contribute Process and Operational Improvements. 

H-18 


REFERENCE MATERIALS 

FOR BUILDING SHARED UNDERSTANDING 

Acronym List. Abbreviations or words formed with representative letters of other words. 

Short forms that are usually related to utility processes or short terms related to longer 

concepts. Can be organization-specific and geographically driven. 

Bibliography. An annotated presentation of existing resources to facilitate easy access to 

research information to all stakeholders. Arranged alphabetically, chronologically and/or in 

classifications related to research. Usually updated annually. 

Glossary. An alphabetical listing of selected words relative to the drinking water industry. 

Includes definitions, pronunciation, origin, and usage examples (as appropriate). 

Lexicon. A dictionary that focuses on the specific language (vocabulary) related to utility 

areas of concern or practice. 

Resource Catalog. List of available materials in support of drinking water processes or 

research. Vehicle for organizing related information. Includes abstracts written in a nontechnical 

language. Uses key words as locators. 

Thesaurus. A collection of concepts and terms designed to facilitate interdisciplinary 

dialogue; for example, providing an engineering term and a similar generic term that a nonengineer 

might apply to the same concept. A thesaurus can also functions as a vocabulary 

aid for database searches. 

Tools: Knowledge Sharing 

Wikipedia under Individual Learning 

H-19 


STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT 

Community Meeting. Another form of town hall, with formal invitations to community 

leaders and key opinion leaders, those individuals connected to service clubs and 

associations, religious organizations, and small businesses central to the community. While 

encouraging an open dialogue on drinking water issues, the focus is on engagement, 

making connections, and opening information flows among the utility and community 

stakeholders. 

Focus Group. A planned coming together of a small number of stakeholders to dialogue on 

a specific area or issue related to the drinking water utility. This event is by invitation. 

Forum. Periodic meeting or gathering for purposes of discussion, dialogue or debate. 

Means of sharing information, knowledge and research while focusing on common interests 

and challenges. 

Community Forum. Provides networking opportunities and increased visibility of 

initiatives and projects underway. Opportunity for the utility to inform the public about 

forthcoming or specific projects underway. 

Forum Series. Brings policy-makers together with practitioners, advocates and 

consumers with the opportunity over time of involving geographically dispersed 

stakeholders. 

Knowledge Exchange Forum. Planned process, specifically: (1) the group meets to 

review objectives and establishes ground rules; (2) breaks out into domain-specific 

discussion groups to share practices and experiences; (3) reconvenes to discuss 

commonalities and differences; and (4) works together to create an action plan for 

improved collaboration and knowledge exchange between key stakeholders. 

Special Forums between policy makers and utility members. Defined topics. Inclusive 

of larger stakeholder input and participation as appropriate. 

Stakeholder Resource Kit. A collection of various information in hard copy and/or virtual 

format for distribution to stakeholders. 

Symposium. Brings stakeholders involved in a specific interest area or project together to 

share opinions, philosophies and conversation. In this context, this would be a major event 

on a mutually agreed-upon topic. For example, a full-day workshop designed by and for 

multiple stakeholder involvement. 

Pairing Symposia. Provides opportunity for individual utility members and a subset of 

the stakeholder group to come together at a location within the community. Event would 

be jointly planned with a structured presentation by a utility member and a structured 

presentation by a member of the stakeholder group, thus demonstrating two frames of 

H-20 


eference for the same topic or issue. Following these formal presentations the topic 

would be open for further discussion. 

Public Sector Symposia. Partnering between non-government organizations and the 

public sector to dialogue on cutting-edge thinking regarding policy aspects of drinking 

water and other significant issues. 

Town Hall. Formal interactive public gathering based on a discussion framework, 

promoting dialogue among the utility and the larger stakeholder group. Information on all 

aspects of current processes as well as strategic thinking for the future would be widely 

available to stakeholders, and open discussion on all issues encouraged. Annual event held 

in the cultural tradition of the community; for example, one community might need a formal 

meeting at a convention center, while another may set aside an hour or two during an 

annual community picnic event. See Event Intermediation. 

See: 



H-21 


TECHNOLOGY-RELATED TOOLS 

Collaborative Decision Support Systems. When decisions are based on inputs from multiple 

domains, teams are required to ensure the experience to act effectively. Simultaneously, 

expertise may be in other organizations or geographic locations. A recent resource that 

extensively presents the current state of decision support systems is The Handbook on Decision 

Support Systems (edited by F. Burstein and C.W. Holsapple) (Springer-Verlag, 2007). See the 

NASA case study on Web-Based Collaborative Decision Support. 

Folksonomy. Organic system of organization that is simply a set of terms that a group of users 

apply to content (a user-driven taxonomy). “Folksonomy” (a combination of “folk” and 

“taxonomy” was used by Thomas Vander Wal in a discussion on an information mailing list. 

Unlike a taxonomy, a Folksonomy has no hierarchical relationships, rather automatically 

generated “related” tags which are clustered based on URLs. While this system of building a 

taxonomy provides the opportunity for individuality and entertaining creativity and carries an 

element of surprise, there are limitations and weaknesses due to an uncontrolled vocabulary 

that support ambiguities and multiple terms for the same concepts. The point folksonomies 

bring to bear is their representation of the user’s language, a critical point to reflect upon when 

developing a taxonomy. 

Multiple Search Technologies. Searching capability is a system, not a single tool. Rather, it 

is an integration of multiple search technologies which can include text and graphical search 

results and crawler and query systems for both structured and unstructured content. The 

system must be capable of precision, recall, discovery and agility. Core capabilities of a search 

system include: 

User controlling the accuracy of a search, ranging from extreme precision (only relevant 

content with risk of missing some) to extreme recall (all relevant content with risk of nonrelevant 

material) and all points in between. 

Results are presented as text and graphical profiles modifiable for greater accuracy. 

Search output becomes input (can improve relevancy by graphically modifying results; 

add-by-click concepts and entities; and change importance and weighting). 

Suggestions to user for improving the search (mining results for concepts/entities not in 

previous search). 

Prefers plain language as input (context of terms and phrases is exposed for 

disambiguation to provide greater relevance—key words are not necessary). 

Social Bookmarking. A system of free-form tagging used by software designed as social 

bookmarks manager. One example is Del.icio.us, a tool to organize web pages. When 

browsing a web page, users can select the bookmark and are presented with a form that allows 

them to enter any tags they want to associate with the page, then save it. The tags are used to 

automatically generate a chronological ordering of bookmarks saved to the systems and to 

collocate bookmarks within a user’s collection. They are also used to collocate bookmarks 

across the entire system, thereby providing tagged bookmarks for other users. Another 

example is Flickr, a photo management and sharing web application that uses free-form tagging 

for photos. Both examples require user accounts. 

H-22 


You Tube. You Tube provides a public space for widespread viewing of informative material in 

support of knowledge sharing. “You Tube” promotes itself with the words “Broadcast Yourself”. 

This medium of broadcasting is attracting experts and decision-makers at the point of action 

who have something important to say and share. The “You Tube” concept can be adapted at 

the Utility level to provide a space to videotape and broadcast Utility experts at all levels. This 

social media can support the rapid, widespread transfer of knowledge and serve as a source of 

employee learning. 

Video Teleconferencing. Video Teleconferencing is a live on-line meeting that allows 

participants to see and communicate with each other. This forum can be used by large groups 

of professionals to conduct business meetings and discussions, enabling anyone anywhere in 

the world to log on and participate. This method of a meeting place can help bring utilities 

together to conduct staff meetings and training sessions, or share lessons learned. During a 

time when many travel budgets are frozen, video teleconferencing can improve efficiency and 

teamwork without raising expenses by bridging the barriers of time and distance to facilitate 

collaboration. 

Tools: Blog 

Document Repository 

KnowledgeBase Road Map 

Shared Space 

Wiki 


APQC study on Virtual Collaboration 

H-23 


H-24 


Appendix I 

Knowledge Management Toolkit Indexes 


Case Examples 

1 ReVisions A small behavior health care organization that needed a 

process to capture knowledge and implement knowledge 

management processes throughout the organization. 

2 Mitre Corporation Implemented a knowledge system and four years later 

performed a knowledge audit to analyze the systems 

benefits. 

3 Hill and Knowlton Developed a new knowledge-sharing system that utilized 

professionals and captured external knowledge therefore 

increasing efficiency within the organization. 

4 Chrysler Corporation An organization that used communities of practice to 

demonstrate the power of knowledge and the value of 

knowledge sharing. 

5 Natural Resources Canada Established knowledge services task group to discover 

patterns and processes in a complex organization. 

6 Exploration & Production 

(SHELL HP) 

The organization developed a four-prong approach to 

knowledge management in order to improve performance. 

7 The U.S. Army An example of how After Action Reviews create ideas by 

applying lessons learned through a process of continuous 

learning. 

8 National Water Resources 

Institute (NWRI), Nigeria 

9 The Socio Economic Unit 

Foundation (SEUF), India 

10 Institute of Water and 

Sanitation Development 

(IWSD), Zimbabwe 

An organization that has a vision to become a leading 

knowledge institution for the water sector in Nigeria through 

training, research and technical service. 

A foundation that experienced a transition from being an 

implementer organization to a resource organization by 

improving knowledge creation and flow between 

individuals. 

An institute that realized shared knowledge can be applied 

in any situation and therefore creates an enabling 

environment. 

11 TREND, Ghana This organization is working toward becoming an 

independent institution by using a knowledge management 

approach which is changing staff attitudes and 

management styles. 

12 AMRED, Kenya An institution dedicated to improving the health of the 

African people through improvement of documentation and 

sharing of information and knowledge. 

13 Federal Aviation 


FAA developed a Knowledge Services Network (KSN) to 

facilitate the movement of business processes to virtual 

environments. 

14 Defense Information An agency that recognized that knowledge is an effective 


Agency 

strategic resource to enhance organizational performance. 

15 U.S. Army (TEAM C4ISR) A pilot site for the Department of Defense (DoD) to create a 

common approach for the capture of tacit knowledge by 

initiating Project Exodus. 

16 Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) 

This organization recognized the need to maintain 

institutional knowledge by creating an environment that 

supports knowledge sharing and making knowledge 

accessible electronically. 

17 U.S. AID An organization that developed a field, strategic and 

operational knowledge management strategy for 

connecting and sharing knowledge throughout the entire 


18 USDA/Foreign Agricultural 

Service 

19 Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) 

The goal of the organization is to evolve into a knowledgecentric 

organization by connecting and interacting with a 

network of agricultural and marketing representatives 

world-wide. 

Established a program to create a premier e-learning 

environment that allows the organization to efficiently 

accomplish their agency missions. 

20 IBM An organization that believes that learning and sharing of 

knowledge encourages creativity and innovation through 

social networking and by developing technological tools. 

21 NASA An organization that, driven by a flawed decision support 

system, and a breakdown in knowledge sharing, 

implemented management structure changes and more 

effective communication at all levels. 

22 U.S. Forest Service An institution that is practicing High Reliability Organizing 

(HRO), which enables the wildland fire community to use 

lessons learned to anticipate future events and manage 

unexpected situations. 


Case Studies 

The Department of the Navy 

The DON Moves into the Knowledge World 

The Department of the Navy became aware of the need to implement knowledge 

management strategies to optimize strategic and tactical decision making, resulting 

in more effective and efficient mission performance. The DON’s vision for the 

future is to obtain Knowledge Superiority, a sustainable competitive advantage over 

potential enemies, by sharing knowledge through an interactive network system. 

The institution considers knowledge management as a process for optimizing the 

effective application of intellectual individual, team-based and corporate capital to 

achieve organizational objectives. Thus, they developed a knowledge management 

implementation framework built around five balanced concepts: technology, 

content, process, culture and learning. Another core element was the development of 

a Knowledge Management Community of Practice (CoP) which now includes more 

than 50 participating organizations and gets its support through the web and 

actively exchanges thinking and best practices virtually. 

Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing Countries) 

Design and Practical Experiences with the Learn@WELL Knowledge Management 

Module 

This paper introduces knowledge management and describes how it is being 

implemented to partners in WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing 

Countries) through the Learn@WELL knowledge management distance-learning 

module. This module is a value chain model and is also known as knowledge 

lifecycle, which is driven by the operational goals flowing from an organization’s 

mission and vision. These goals can be accomplished by creating, sharing, applying 

and evaluating knowledge. Learn@WELL intended to strengthen its network 

system by implementing the knowledge management module in small steps through 

the application of different tools, such as communities of practice, personal 

mapping, a knowledge management scan and developing a knowledge management 

plan by internal and external information sharing. 


NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 

A Case Study of Web-Based Collaborative Decision Support at NASA 

NASA is a knowledge intensive organization, dedicated to the mission of human 

space flight, space science, Earth observation and aeronautics research. In this 

article the design, progression, implementation, application, value and future vision 

of Postdoc, a web-based collaborative knowledge management platform system 

developed by NASA and written in the language Perl, is described. It is currently 

also being used by other parts of the Federal Government including the Department 

of Defense and The Naval Research Laboratory. The platform enables NASA and 

various other organizations to share mission-critical information in real time based 

on inputs from virtually networked national and international expert teams in 

multiple domains and thus produce efficient decisions. It is also an effective means 

for organizing, storing and retrieving data and information of all types. 

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) 

Knowledge Management at NASA-Kennedy Space Center 

The KSC implemented technical and socio-structural knowledge management 

initiatives by instituting a knowledge management working group which consisted 

of contacts and consultant experts across the Center, reporting to the Human 

Resource Development board. They focused on gaining an understanding of the 

needs of the organization for competency management and on tacit knowledge 

capture and dissemination. The knowledge management working group also 

developed “Expert Seeker” a Center-wide expertise locator system which can be 

accessed via/through NASA’s intranet. KSC’s vision for the future of knowledge 

management is to share and retain organizational knowledge through technology, 

such as web-based chats between individuals within or outside the agency so that 

they can compete successfully with other organizations in a much more demanding 

environment. 



OVERVIEW OF PROJECT STUDIES 

A list of project studies that provide examples of 

knowledge management initiatives. The list 

includes subject, utility, size of utility, estimated 

cost and benefits. 

1 Organizational Efficiency Through Team 

Work 

2 Development of Operations and Maintenance 

Manuals 

Alexandria Sanitation Authority, 

VA 

City of Fairborn, OH 

3 Professional Development Initiative – 2007 City of Moline Water Division, IL 

4 Public Relations Initiative – 2007 City of Moline Water Division, IL 

5 Work Performance Improvement Principles – 

2007 

City of Moline Water Division, IL 

6 Succession Planning Columbus Water Works, GA 

7 Employee Leadership and Development Columbus Water Works, GA 

8 Adopting the SOP and Training Sessions Loudon County Sanitation 

Authority, VA 

9 Contracted a Complete Workforce Planning 

Project 

Tualatin Valley Water District, 

OR 

10 Quality Based Documentation - Case Study Colorado Springs Utility, CO 

11 Knowledge Management through Training Greenville Water System, SC 

12 Using Contract Employees to Supplement 

and Prepare for Retirements 

13 Increasing the Number of Standard 

Operating Procedures 

14 Converting from Paper Utility to a 


City of Grand Forks Public Water 

Utility, ND 

City of Akron Public Utilities 

Bureau, OH 

City of Akron Public Utilities 

Bureau, OH 

15 Increasing the Number of Interns Hired City of Akron Public Utilities 

Bureau, OH 

16 Career Ladder Program Waterford Township Department 

of Public Works, MI 

17 Rally a Team of Exceptional Employees Orlando Utilities Commission, FL 

18 Hired a Private Firm to Determine the Utility’s 

Communication/Knowledge Sharing Needs 

Rice Lake Utilities, WI 

19 Computerization of all Customers Service Evergreen Metro District, CO 


Records 

20 On the Job Training Southeast Morris County 

Municipal Utilities Authority, NJ 

21 Retiree Program City of Phoenix, Water Services 

Department, AZ 

22 Develop Organizational Learning System Seattle Public Utilities, WA 

23 Louisville Water Company 207 System 

Certification Process: Knowledge 


Louisville Water Company, KY 

24 LWC System Certification Review Process Louisville Water Company, KY 

25 LWC Process & Operational Improvements Louisville Water Company, KY 

26 LWC Talent Resource Planning/Succession 


Louisville Water Company, KY 

27 LWC Individual Development Plans (IDP’s) Louisville Water Company, KY 

28 Implementation of OPCON - Knowledge 


City of Cleveland Department of 

Utilities, Division of Water, OH 

29 Directions Program Seattle Public Utilities, WA 

30 File Net Washington Suburban Sanitary 

Commission, MD 

31 Social Network Analysis Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, 

NC 

32 Real Estate Manager Tampa Bay Water, FL 

33 Sharepoint for Sharing Plant Operations City of Cleveland Water Division, 

OH 



American Productivity Quality Center (APQC), Houston, TX, (800) 776-9676 

POC: Kelly Hunter 

See Also: APQC’s KM Edge blog at http://www.kmedge.org/ 

Building and Sustaining Communities of Practice: Continuing Success in KM 

Creating a Knowledge-Sharing Culture 

Retaining Valuable Knowledge: Proactive Strategies to Deal with a Shifting 


Virtual Collaboration: Enabling Project Teams and Communities 

Department of the Navy (DON) 

ABCs for Communities of Practice Quickstart 

A System’s Approach to Capturing Knowledge (Single PowerPoint Slide) 

Metrics Guide for KM Initiatives 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Knowledge Communities: A Guide to Virtual Communities of Practice 

IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre 

Knowledge and Information Management in the Water and Sanitation Sector: A 

Hard Nut to Crack 


Lehigh County Authority, Allentown, PA 

POC: Liesel Adam 

Lehigh County Authority Workforce Plan 

Mountain Quest Institute, Frost, WV, (866) 245-6494 

POC: Alex Bennet [sbennet@mountainquestinstitute.com] 

The Change Agent’s Strategy 

Collaborative Leadership: The Role of Leadership in an ICAS Organization 

The Current State of KM: A Mountain Quest Institute Report 

The Decision-Making Process for Complex Situations in a Complex Environment 

The Depth of Knowledge: Surface, Shallow or Deep? 

Developing a Model for Team Learning and Success 

eLearning as Energetic Learning 

From Stories to Strategy: Putting Organizational Learning to Work 

Influence of Knowledge on Leadership 

Information Literacy 

Learning and KM 

A New Change Model: Factors for Initiating and Implementing Personal Action 

Learning 


Relationship Network Management 

Storytelling: The Thread of Humanity 

Systems and Complexity Thinking 

Other Contributed Papers 

11 Deadliest Sins of KM (Laurence Prusak and Leam Fahey) 

Organizing Knowledge with Ontologies and Taxonomies 

(Geoffrey Malafsky and Brian Newman, TECHi2) 

Public Sector Information Technology and KM 

(Susan Turnquist, Project Manager, WaterRF) 


Resources 

Tools 

Ideas 


White Papers 

Case Examples 

Case Studies 

Practices and processes to support implementation of 

knowledge management in Drinking Water Utilities. Each tool 

can be considered separately as an initiative or a set of tools 

can be used in support of a knowledge management strategy. 

These tools can also support other Utility strategies. For ease 

of use, each tool is rated in terms of level of effort, size of utility 

and scope of work. 

A resource that lists a variety of concepts and approaches that 

can support the application of knowledge management 

practices in Drinking Water Utilities. 

Short studies contributed by Drinking Water Utilities nationwide 

for WaterRF Project 4003. These Project Studies are examples 

of knowledge management initiatives that are either in the 

process of implementation or have been applied. There are 34 

Project Studies. [NOTE: Project Studies appear in blue 

throughout the Toolkit.] 

Research documents that address specific issues in Drinking 

Water Utilities related to knowledge management and 

knowledge mobilization. 4003 White Papers describe internal 

and external barriers, critical success factors, successful 

initiatives and opportunities. Detail Papers expand concepts 

introduced in the toolkit. All White Papers and Detail Papers 

are linked in the toolkit where they are applicable. 

Knowledge management strategies and initiatives occurring in 

organizations external to the Drinking Water Utility sector. 

These provide real-life implementation examples of strategies 

and initiatives applied in the public, private and not-for-profit 

sectors. [NOTE: Case Examples appear in blue throughout the 

Toolkit.] 

Includes several organizations well-known for their successful 

implementation of knowledge management; specifically, the 

U.S. Department of Navy (DON) and the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Both of 

these organizations are MAKE (Most Admired Knowledge 

Enterprise) award winners. This section also includes a 

Learn@WELL (Water and Environmental Health in Developing 

Countries) study and a case study on Integrating 

Technological Innovation and Community Engagement in 

Singapore. Collectively, these studies describe technical and 



Bibliography 

Suggested Reading 

Glossary 

socio-structural knowledge strategies and initiatives that 

enhance organizational learning and information sharing. 

[NOTE: Case Studies appear in blue throughout the Toolkit.] 

Extensive reference materials that can help a Utility implement 

knowledge management strategies and initiatives and enhance 

organizational learning. These include APQC (American 

Productivity & Quality Center) benchmarking and best practices 

studies, MQI (Mountain Quest Institute) research papers and 

publications, and resources contributed by IRC International 

Water and Sanitation Centre, FAA (Federal Aviation 

Administration), TECHi2 and the U.S. Department of Navy. 

Also included is a Workforce Plan developed by the Lehigh 

County Authority and several papers contributed by other 

knowledge management thought leaders. 

A systematic list of books and other works such as articles 

used to prepare this toolkit. 

A short list of books and articles suggested for reading to 

further understand knowledge management. 

A list of specialized or uncommon words relating to knowledge 

management and their definitions. 


White Papers 

The WaterRF 4003 Knowledge Mobilization Program 

Business Case for Knowledge Management in the Drinking Water 

Industry 

The Current State of Knowledge Management 

Issues Faced by Drinking Water Utilities 

Regulatory Perspectives for the Water Utilities 

Knowledge Management Strategies 

Becoming a Knowledge Centric Organization 

Developing Knowledge Leaders 

Implementing eLearning 

Increasing Efficiency and Effectiveness through Knowledge 

Knowledge Rentention 


Nurturing a Knowledge Sharing Culture 

4003 Research Papers 

1. Role of Human Resources 

2. Opportunities and Initiatives 

3. Barriers to Knowledge Management Initiatives 

4. Critical Success Factors of Knowledge Management Initiatives 

Detail Papers 

Context 

Integrative Product Team 

Management Actions 

Optimum Complexity 

Research Study WaterRF 4003 


1P-2C-4003-04/11-FP 

6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098 USA 

P 303.347.6100 • F 303.734.0196 • www.WaterResearchFoundation.org 

Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water Utilities 4003

Organizational Development for Knowledge Management at Water ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?