ISO 30401: Knowledge Management Systems - What Does It .

3y ago
260 Views
33 Downloads
5.27 MB
32 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Luis Waller
Transcription

ISO 30401: Knowledge ManagementSystems - what does it mean for KMprofessionals and for organiza?onsimplemen?ng KM?Patrick Lambe – 10 December 1

Informal community (volunteers)Quarterly sharing and networkingmee:ngsAnnual one day conference “KMExchange”Let your KM contacts and colleagues know!www.mykmroundtable.org2

Agenda Timeline of standards development in KM Why are standards conten?ous in KM?Arguments for and against ISO 30401 – why did it succeed? ISO 30401 – structure andrequirements Limita?ons of the standard How can you use it?3

1. KM Standards: A Timelinewww.mykmroundtable.org4

”5

2000-20056

2011-20187

2. The BaXle over KM Standards“So this ISO KM standard, how’s it going then?”“It’s preJy much what you’d expect. There’s lots of peopleaccusing each other of crass commercialism, being wrong,not recognizing each other’s genius. Everyone really seemsto hate each other in this group.”(MaJ Moore – SIKM Leaders Forum)www.mykmroundtable.org8

Emo?onal Cri?ques KM Cer?fica?on Wars1998-2006 Fear of commercial bias Lack of trust or ac?vemistrust Fear of loss of freedom Compe?ng affilia?ons tomodels of KMEdward Swanstrom9

Emo?onal Cri?quesHelen Hasan2003: Interim AS5037“too simplis?c,” “too rigid,” “toomechanis?c,” “too linear,”it would “reduce KM to the lowestcommon denominator,”“it would exclude legi?mateapproaches to KM,”“it would be compromised by thecommercial ac?vi?es” of BusinessExcellence Australia (the commercialdivision of Standards Australia),“too much jargon”(Hasan 2004; Ferguson 2006). 10

Reasoned Cri?quesJoseph FirestoneComplexity of KM KM as a field is too broadand complex to be capturedin a single standard (orcer?fica?on) It is possible to hold equallyjus?fiable but opposingviews on KM decisions KM is s?ll evolving There is no consensus on KM(and insufficient trust toreach consensus)11

Reasoned Cri?quesComplexity of Organiza ons &Knowledge Organiza?ons are complexadap?ve systems – futureoriented Standards assumepredictability andconsistency – past oriented It’s not possible to beprescrip?ve in KM, which isled by variable contextualneedsDavid Snowden12

ResponsesComplexity of KM KM as a field is too broad andcomplex to be captured in asingle standard (orcer?fica?on) It is possible to hold equallyjus?fiable but opposing viewson KM decisions KM is s?ll evolving There is no consensus on KM(and insufficient trust to reachconsensus) – except at a verygeneral “common-sense” levelComplexity of KM It should be possible to map thelandscape at least at a high level,leaving scope for varia?on andadap?veness Not to capture whatever consensusexists leaves innocent buyersvulnerable In-principle resistance is a selffulfilling prophecy but standardsdevelopment process can nudge afield towards common referencepoints and add stability What is obvious common sense toprac?oners may not be obvious toothers – e.g. senior leadershipteams13

ResponsesComplexity of Organiza ons & Complexity of KMKnowledge Not all aspects oforganisa?onal life are complex Organiza?ons are complex– some are well structured andadap?ve systemspredictable Standards assumepredictability and consistency Even in complex adap?vesystems, some prac?ces It’s not possible to bebecome habituated andprescrip?ve in KM, which isstabilise over ?me, andled by variable contextualbecome norma?veneedsKM standards are likely to work as high-level framing and orienta:on devices forKM prac:ce, and they are likely to work best for those aspects of organisa:onallife that are stable, rou:nized and rela:vely predictable. They are less likely to beuseful to structure or govern more complex, emergent and adap:ve prac:ces andcontexts.14

3. ISO 30401Why did it succeed?What it saysLimita?onswww.mykmroundtable.org15

Why did ISO 30401 succeed? ISO as an ins?tu?on – separa?on of the standardfrom commercial exploita?on (e.g. cer?fica?on) Imposi?on of a consistent management systemsstandard template – “framework-free” CommiXee work was disciplined and planned The standard is principles-based rather thanrules-based Debate was channeled into public comment16

ISO 30401 Principles1. Nature of Knowledge: intangible and complex; created by people.2. Value: knowledge is a key source of value for organiza?ons tomeet their objec?ves.3. Focus: KM serves the organiza?onal objec?ves, strategies andneeds.4. Adap ve: there is no one knowledge management solu?on thatfits all organiza?ons within all contexts. KM adapts itself topar?cular needs.5. Shared understanding: For shared understanding, KM shouldinclude interac?ons between people, using content, processesand technologies.6. Environment: knowledge is not managed directly; KM focuses onmanaging the working environment, and nurturing the knowledgelifecycle.7. Culture: culture is cri?cal to the effec?veness of KM.8. Itera ve: KM should be phased, incorpora?ng learning andfeedback cycle.17

ISO 30401 Requirements – “Shall”1. Determine: the org. purpose, business environment andstakeholders to determine goals of KM2. Scope and priori se: the knowledge domains to be covered3. Cover: processes for knowledge acquisi?on, applica?on, reten?on,discarding, human interac?on, codifica?on, synthesis, learning4. Include and integrate: all enablers – people, process,infrastructure, governance, culture5. Leadership: values, policy, integra?on of KM into businessprocesses, resourcing, KM roles and responsibili?es,communica?ons, change management, metrics, con?nualimprovement6. Planning: define objec?ves and outcomes, manage the plan anddocument outcomes7. Resource: resourcing, competencies, awareness, communica?ons8. Monitoring and evalua on: improvement, internal audit,management review18

ISO 30401 Limita?onsISO 30401 is a prescrip?ve standard and is wriXen in compliance language –“shall”; BUT because it is principles-led rather than rules-led intended to allow for a variety of KM prac?ce and approach, lacking in specificity and granularity it is highly dependent on auditor experience, interpreta?on and judgement. Thiscan lead to three audit-related issues:1.Ambiguity: where the underlying principle is so vague or ambiguous that itprovides no substan?ve guidance for ac?on or for audit.2. Decoupling: where the visible things you can document don’t guarantee thereal (invisible) effec?veness of the prac?ce;leading to 3. Audit inconsistency: where the same prac?ces may give rise to differentinterpreta?ons by different auditors.19

Ambiguity examples1.Nature of Knowledge: intangible and complex; created by people.Not all knowledge is in intangible form. It’s much easier to measure managementof tangible forms of knowledge than intangible forms. There is no guidance onhow to audit intangible forms, and the requirements as wriXen would “pass”organiza?ons that mainly manage tangible forms as long as they also manageinterac?ons between people.2. Value: knowledge is a key source of value for organiza?ons to meet theirobjec?ves.Not all knowledge is of equal value. The standard gives no guidance on how todiscriminate high value from low value. It just says the organisa?on shall iden?fycri?cal knowledge. There is no consensus or clarity on how this principle or itsrequirements could be audited.20

What is Decoupling?The marks of a decoupled measurement system are:a) the use of general categories (or motherhood statements) in place ofgranular defined outcomes,b) the use of ambiguous language that is capable of suppor?ng mul?pleinterpreta?ons, andc) a focus on measurement and documenta?on of observed behaviours,regardless of how well they reflect the real ac?vity of the system. Thismeasurement focus conceals the actual difficul?es in measuringeffec?veness of complex human systems.The result is to create an illusion of measurement while the actual prac?ceof interpreta?on and audi?ng is subject to informal nego?a?ons,dependent on the skills of “specialist” (but opaque) exper?se of auditors(Meyer and Rowan 1977).21

Decoupling in ISO 30401Decoupling is a well-known risk in the audi?ng of management systems(Terlaak 2007). ISO 14001 on environmental standards is an ol citedexample. Contribu?ng condi?ons:1. lack of consensus on specific best prac?ces,2. non compliance is difficult to observe or detect, and3. there is a perceived reward for compliance (legi?macy effects).E.G. ISO 30401 4.5 : “The organiza?on shall demonstrate thatorganiza?onal culture has been addressed as a means to support theknowledge management system”. Annex C : defining a desired knowledge culture; running a gap analysis; crea?ng a plan to address the gaps; ac?ng upon this plan;22 revisi?ng and upda?ng all previous steps at defined intervals.

Audit InconsistencyISO does not cer?fy its own standards. You can do internal audits or beaudited by accredited na?onal standards cer?fica?on bodies affiliated withISO.Ambiguity and decoupling places a heavy burden on auditors’ judgmentand exper?se – the auditor has to interpret what he/she sees usingambiguous guidance.a) Knowledge of KMb) Knowledge of contextual par?culari?es of the organisa?on(stakeholders, business environment, structure, culture, history)c) Insight into informal, intangible aspects of knowledge use in that org.BUT – we know that vague standards generally lead to lower (external)auditor effort (it pays to check the boxes, it doesn’t pay to inves?gateambiguous areas)23

Will the Standard Distort Prac?ce?Tale of two organisa ons:24

4. DiscussionWhat are the Pros and Cons of having thisstandard?How might you use it?25

Poten?al Benefits of ISO 30401BenefitObserva onISO 30401 Implica on1. Compa bility andinterchangeabilityComponents and prac?ces can be combinedwithout error.ISO management systems standards – enable orgwide approach not func?on-based2. Commonunderstanding andconsistent vocabularyKM prac?oners, and management teamswill use key KM terms with greaterconsistency and less ambiguity.Despite some ambiguity the standard provides acomprehensive and reasonably consensus-basedframe of reference for KM.3. Transferability oflearning betweencontextsKM prac?oners and organisa?ons cancompare prac?ces more easily, and learnfrom each other.Use the standard as a basis to benchmark andcollect examples of KM prac?ces from elsewhere4. Compe veness andcomparability betweensuppliersKM commercial tools and service providersuse dis?nc?ons in language to confusebuyers, and jus?fy one product or serviceover another. Par?al approaches can’t bedis?nguished from comprehensive ones.Implementers have greater assurance of thelikely quality of implementa?on, and theirrisk of a poor implementa?on is reduced.The standard provides a comprehensive suite ofhygiene factors for KM against which providers candefine their offerings in a consistent and easy tocompare way.5. Quality and safety6. Enhancing levels ofcompetence amongprofessionals(Skyrme 2002)Provides a profession-wide approach todescribing competencies and skills areas forKM prac?oners, iden?fying gaps, andproviding development opportuni?es.The standard alone does not bring absoluteassurance of quality. Superficial use of ISO 30401could increase implementa?on risks - but if there isbalanced and pragma?c use of the standardalongside other instruments, quality and riskshould be beXer managed.The standard describes a comprehensive range ofac?vi?es that KM professionals and topmanagement will need to be engaged in. 26

Competency DevelopmentThe CILIP Professional Knowledge and Skill Base (PKSB) is beingupdated to include KM, using ISO 30401 as a agementChartership27

Review (1)1. The KM community has resisted prescrip?ve standards un?l veryrecently with fierce debate on both sides.2. The history of standards development suggests that KMstandards are likely to work as high-level framing and orienta?ondevices for KM prac?ce, and will work best for those aspects oforganisa?onal life that are stable, rou?nized and rela?velypredictable. Less useful for more complex aspects oforganisa?onal life.3. A KM standard could easily be used inappropriately if theselimita?ons are not recognised.4. ISO 30401 standard for knowledge management systems ispresented as a prescrip?ve standard with requirements that canin principle be audited – but it contains ambigui?es, and haspossible decoupling effects.28

Review (1)5. Ambigui?es/vagueness in the standard create a dependency onindividual auditor judgement and experience – leading to auditinconsistencies and a retreat to the easily observed.6. The standard formalises a number of well-known basic hygienefactors for effec?ve KM implementa?on but does not captureall the necessary and sufficient condi?ons. It can guidecompetency development for prac?oners.7. The ISO 30401 standard might be useful as a framinginstrument alongside other knowledge audit and KMassessment approaches.8. Knowledge audits and knowledge mapping would helporganisa?ons to implement KM according to ISO 30401requirements.29

References Aravind, Deepa, and Christmann, Petra (2011) ‘Decoupling of standard implementa?on from cer?fica?on: Doesquality of ISO 14001 implementa?on affect facili?es’ environmental performance?’ Business Ethics Quarterly 21(1): 73-102.Boyes, Bruce (2018) ‘Implemen?ng KM standard ISO 30401: risks and opportuni?es’ RealKM 6 April retrievedfrom rd-iso-30401-risks-and-opportuni?es/Corney, Paul and McFarlane, Karen (2018) ‘The new ISO standard for KM is coming’ Informa:on Professional 25September.Ferguson, Stuart (2006) ‘AS 5037–2005: knowledge management blueprint for Australian organisa?ons?’ TheAustralian Library Journal, 55 (3): 196-209.Hasan, Helen (2004) ‘BoXling fog: conjuring up the Australian KM Standard’ Proceedings of ACKMIDS 2004):organisa:onal challenges for knowledge management, Melbourne, VIC, 29-30 November 2004 (Melbourne:Australian Scholarly Publishing) 100-12.ISO (2018a) Guidelines for audi:ng management systems – ISO 19011:2018(E) (Geneva: ISO).ISO (2018b) Knowledge management systems – requirements – ISO 30401:2018 (Geneva: ISO).Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian (1977) ‘Ins?tu?onalized organiza?ons: formal structure as myth andceremony’ American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340-63.Skyrme, David J. (2002) ‘KM standards: do we need them?’ retrieved from hXps://www.skyrme.com/updates/u65 f1.htmTerlaak, Ann (2007) ‘Order without law? The role of cer?fied management standards in sharing socially desiredfirm behaviors’ Academy of Management Review 32 (3): 968-85.Vílchez, Vera Ferrón (2017) ‘The dark side of ISO 14001: The symbolic environmental behavior’ EuropeanResearch on Management and Business Economics 23 (1): 33-39.Wilson, John P. and Campbell, Larry (2016) ‘ Developing a knowledge management policy for ISO 9001: 2015’30Journal of Knowledge Management 20 (4): 829-44.

Call for Par?cipa?onCompare yourKM capabili?eswith peers –free for 2018h]ps:// nyurl.com/KMglobalsurvey31

This talk is based on research for my new bookKnowledge Audi:ng: Principles and Prac:ce (2019)Patrick .org32

ISO 30401 Limitaons ISO 30401 is a prescrip?ve standard and is wriXen in compliance language – “shall”; BUT because it is principles-led rather than rules-led intended to allow for a variety of KM prac?ce and approach, lacking in specificity and granularity

Related Documents:

CURRENT STATUS OF ISO 30401 KM STANDARD ! 2014/15 ISO TC260 Committee ! 14 HR Standards, including ISO 30401 Knowledge Management ! November 2015, Galveston, Texas (USA) ! May 2016, Berlin, Germany (Europe) ! September 2016, Singapore (Asia) ! May 2017, London ! 2017/2018 Expected publication of ISO 30401 KM Standard

ISO 30401:2018(E) new insights into the future. Knowledge management is a holistic approach to improving learning and effectiveness through optimization of the use of knowledge, in order to create value for the organization.

ISO 10381-1:2002 da ISO 10381-2:2002 da ISO 10381-3:2001 da ISO 10381-4:2003 da ISO 10381-5:2001 da ISO 10381-6:1993 da ISO 10381-7:2005 ne ISO 10381-8:2006 ne ISO/DIS 18512:2006 ne ISO 5667-13 da ISO 5667-15 da Priprema uzoraka za laboratorijske analize u skladu s normama: HRN ISO 11464:2004 ne ISO 14507:2003 ne ISO/DIS 16720:2005 ne

ISO 10771-1 ISO 16860 ISO 16889 ISO 18413 ISO 23181 ISO 2941 ISO 2942 ISO 2943 ISO 3724 ISO 3968 ISO 4405 ISO 4406 ISO 4407 ISO 16232-7 DIN 51777 PASSION TO PERFORM PASSION TO PERFORM www.mp ltri.com HEADQUARTERS MP Filtri S.p.A. Via 1 Maggio, 3 20060 Pessano con Bornago (MI) Italy 39 02 957

Previous newsletters familiar with ISO 9001:2015, for example, will find ISO 30401:2018 very Email us Our facebook page Our Linked-in page Nick's blog Rupert's blog Javier's blog in Spanish Vedalis blog in French Ewa's blog in Polish Knoco on YouTube ISO is an international non-governmental organisation which exists for the

ISO/TS 30411:2018 HRM –Quality of Hire Metric ISO/TS 30414:2018 HRM –Guidelines for Internal & External Human Capital Reporting ISO TS 24179:2020 HRM -Occupational Health and Safety Metrics ISO/TS 30401:2018 HRM –Knowledge Management Systems ISO/TS 30406:2017 HRM –Sustainable Employability Management for Organizations ISO/TS 30400:2016

ISO 45001 : 2018 Health & Safety (OH&S) Management Systems ISO 37001 : 2016 Anti-Bribery Management Systems ISO 28000 : 2007 Supply Chain Security Management Systems ISO 21001 : 2018 Education Management Systems ISO 22000 : 2018 Food Safety Management Systems ISO 50001 : 2018 Energy Management Systems ISO 20000-1 : 2018 IT Service Management Part 1

Thomas Coyne, LEM, Dir. Greg Lesko Nina Mascio Debbie Walters, LEM Faith Formation Lori Ellis, LEM, Religious Education Baptism/Marriage Please contact Lori Ellis at 412-462-8161 Confession Schedule Mondays at St. Therese at 7:00 p.m. Saturdays at Holy Trinity from 3:00-3:45 p.m. Saturdays at St. Max from 3:00-3:45 p.m. Hall Rentals Please call 412-461-1054 Website www.thomastheapostle.net .