The Knowledge Accountability Index is an instrument used to view everyone’s ability and competency for a specific occupation. The index captures a wide range of abilities and organizes them into five Grades; from “Fundamental Awareness” to “Expert”. An individual can compare their current grade of proficiency to top performers in the same occupation.
Company Knowledge Centricity Level
Our current situation is represented by Grade 1 and Grade 2 depending on of individual and department.
Our strategic goal is to achieve Grade 3 till spring and Grade 5 by next year
|Secure Group Centricity Grade|
|Knowledge Centricity Grade||Grade Description||Capabilities||Value Delivered||Knowledge Footprint|
|Grade 1||Inability to generate actionable knowledge||
||Understanding on an ad hoc, post-mortem basis as to why it happened.||Little Knowledge infrastructure.|
|Grade 2||Knowledge silos within the organization.||
||Understanding of business and issues which must be addressed to improve individual business units/functions.||Analytical resources embedded in local functional teams.|
|Grade 3||Aspire to leverage knowledge.||
||Ability to capture current conditions, attempt to understand future trends model in place.||Local knowledge delivery Model in place.|
|Grade 4||Knowledge-Driven Business||
||Ability to anticipate I adapt to changes in external/internal environments to obtain/retain competitive advantage analytical structure.||Central enterprise-wide knowledge structure.|
|Grade 5||Industry Knowledge Leader||
||Generate consistent business value through insights to obtain competitive advantage established analytical processes embedded in over competition organization.||Well established knowledge process embedded in the organization.|
Why is it failing
1. Inefficient when it serves only individuals. When an employee or a prospect gains information from another person – say, via email or through a conversation, this knowledge has been transferred to a grand total of one person. It takes time and diligence to convey knowledge – and to go through that effort for one person alone is completely inefficient. There are likely dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of other stakeholders who might be in need of the exact same information. That’s a lot of emails or phone calls.
2. Reckless with employees’ time because it’s repetitious. In most cases, stakeholders will get answers and information in a one-on-one conversation. (For instance, an employee asks a colleague a question or a prospect visits the location to talk with a staff member.) This knowledge transfer process is hardly even a process; it’s disruptive and time-consuming. When a handful of Subject Matter Experts are heavily relied upon to provide information verbally, they’re interrupted frequently to answer the same questions over and over by different people – they spend their time repeating the same information when they could be doing more value-added work.
3. Ineffectual because it’s impermanent. According to the latest research, it’s extremely difficult for humans to remember information they learned even just a few days ago. This problem – illustrated in the Curve of Forgetting – is exacerbated if the person learned this information verbally. That’s just a reality of the human brain. So not only was the process to acquire the information time-consuming and wasteful, it wasn’t even effective. The person probably has forgotten some or most of the knowledge and will be forced to seek it out again.
4. Uncontrolled because no one is accountable. A non-existent or ill-thought-out knowledge transfer process means that no one can be held accountable to be sure the information they have is accurate and up-to-date. When managers and company leadership don’t know:
- What they need their team to know
- What their team already know and if it is correct
- What their team do not know
- If the accurate information is readily available to all relevant members of the team
No one can hold employees accountable to own the correct knowledge and to leverage it appropriately. This means staff can be wasting time looking for answers, providing incorrect, incomplete, or outdated information to prospects and customers, not following the wrong processes and guidelines – and there’s no proper way to assess their work, correct them, or monitor their improvement afterward.
5. A self-fulfilling prophecy that's bound to reoccur. Though stakeholders may be willing to go to some effort to find and learn the knowledge they need, when the process stops after they’ve got the information they want, the organization misses out on a key opportunity to streamline their process, reduce repetition, and better serve others. Aside from the knowledge giver and recipient, no one else is aware of the gap that existed in the first place – thus, no one can prevent this situation from reoccurring.
Where knowledge should not be
1. In previously published content: For example, Ivan might dust off his old training manual or search on the company intranet to look for the answer. The problem? This is time-consuming – especially since the information may not even be there, or could be outdated. Worse, the information might actually be present in other materials of which Ivan isn’t aware or to which he does not have access.
2. In somebody’s brain: Ivan fastest option is to ask one of his colleagues. He might email, call, or have a conversation with a co-worker. But if the particular expert he needs is out sick, too busy to talk, or simply makes a mistake, Ivan either has an incorrect answer or no answer at all. In addition, he has also disrupted that employee from his or her tasks.
3. In the cloud: Sometimes, the knowledge exists in a sub-space that isn’t formally published content, but has been recorded. For instance, Ivan might find the answer sifting through his archived emails, memos, company updates, or notes. Chances are its obscure, ill-explained, and hard to find.
Knowledge Level Description
This scale serves as the guide to understanding the expected proficiency in each grade.
|1||Not Applicable.||You are not required to apply or demonstrate this competency. This competency does not apply to your position.|
|2||Fundamental Awareness (basic knowledge).||You have a common knowledge or an understanding of basic techniques and concepts.||Focus on learning.|
|3||Novice (limited experience)||
||Focus on developing through on-the-job experience.|
|4||Intermediate (practical application)||
||Focus is on applying and enhancing knowledge or skill.|
|5||Advanced (applied theory)||
||Focus is on broad organizational/professional issues.|
|6||Expert (recognized authority)||
||Focus is strategic.|
Secure Group Knowledge Accountability Index
To be edited once the Skills are defined