Get documents about "Monitoring and Evaluation of Knowledge Management
Document Sample
Monitoring and Evaluation of
Knowledge Management
Simon Hearn, ODI, s.hearn@odi.org.uk
Ewen LeBorgne, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, leborgne@Irc.nl
Valerie Brown, Australia National University, valeriebrown@ozemail.com.au
Overview
“It is, in fact, nothing
short of a miracle that the
modern methods of
instruction have not
entirely strangled the holy
curiosity of inquiry.”
- Albert Einstein
Definitions
“When I use a word, it
means just what I choose it
to mean — neither more
nor less”
Monitoring and evaluation
• OECD definitions:
– Evaluation: The systematic and objective
assessment of an on-going or completed project,
programme or policy, its design, implementation
and results.
– Monitoring: A continuing function that uses
systematic collection of data on specified
indicators to provide indications of the extent of
progress and achievement of objectives (abridged)
Monitoring and evaluation
• OK, but... Any definition must recognise:
– M&E as universal functions, not specialised roles
– Presence of different worldviews
– Validity of evidence from different knowledge
domains*
– The ethical basis for the desired social change
– The importance of the unexpected and the
intangible
Knowledge
• Objective and subjective
• Individual and society
• Facts and values
• Tacit and implcit
• E.g. Western scientific conception of
knowledge as ‘justified true belief’ vs African
concept of Ubuntu
Development
• Often conceptualised as a service industry
• Delivery of even basic services (roads,
sanitation..) requires an understanding of the
social, political and economic contexts
• Thus, development is more like a knowledge
industry (Powell 2006)
• But development is more than donor aid and
we must recognise civic-driven change also
Challenges
Challenges in M&E of KM4D
1. KM4D does not as yet have a well grounded theory
2. Knowledge for development practice is still young
3. KM4D goes beyond what is labeled ‘KM’
4. Competing ontological and epistemological perspectives
(and related knowledge systems)
5. Existing reporting frameworks are designed for a service
industry rather than a knowledge industry
6. There can be no simple cause-effect relationship
7. KM initiatives often lack explicit linkages to individual,
specialist, organisational or social results
8. Knowledge is not static
9. Lack of methods for interpreting intangibles
Signposts
1. KM ripple model
Performance improvement
Changed practices
Knowledge capital
Knowledge
process-
enhancing
activities
Hulsebosch et al (2009)
2. The KM Framework
Talisayon (2009)
Need a better understanding of what
intangibles are
Human Capital
Motivational Factors
Cognitive Factors
Structural Capital
Value creation
Relationship Capital through intangibles
Tangible Assets
Based on Talisayon (2009)
Need a better understanding of
knowledge transitions
SECI
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
Need a better understanding of
how knowledge is put to use
Knowledge to
action cycle
Graham et al (2001)
Need a better understanding of organisational
factors affecting knowledge use
The RAPID
Framework for
Knowledge
Strategies
Ramalingam (2005)
We need to understand the level of
complexity
Cynefin framework
Snowden (2002)
Summary: a range of perspectives
• Ontological: What world-views are reflected in the
initiative and how do we recognise them?
• Epistemological: What are the knowledge domains
contributing to M&E and how do they relate?
• Socio-political: Who has a stake in the monitoring
process and who has power? How can we monitor
these interdependent relationships?
• Methodological: How to choose tools and approaches
relevant to the parties and processes involved?
• Operational: How do we organise M&E activities
according to each of the knowledge domains?
Your reflections?
• Do you identify with these signposts?
• What signposts do you use?
• How do you see these models supporting
your work?
Multiple knowledges:
M&E as multiple partners
Whole-of-community M&E
INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENT
COMMUNITY INTERESTS
SPECIALISED ADVICE
ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT
HOLISTIC SOLUTIONS
Multiple knowledges (Brown 2008)
INDIVIDUAL KNOWLEDGE
Personal lived experience
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE
Shared community event
SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE
Environment, Health, Finance…,
STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE
Organisational structure, aims
HOLISTIC KNOWLEDGE
. Focus, vision
Rejected knowledges
INDIVIDUAL KNOWLEDGE
Biased
LOCAL KNOWLEDGE
Anecdote
SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE
Jargon
STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE
Self-serving
HOLISTIC KNOWLEDGE
. Airy-fairy
Collective knowledge as a nested set
Individual knowledge
Local knowledge
Specialist knowledge
Organisational knowledge
Holistic knowledge
A collaborative system
25
Port Pirie:
small town with the biggest lead smelter in the world
KNOWLEDGES STRUCTURE CONDITIONS
INDIVIDUAL Children diagnosed with lead
COMMUNITY People long resigned to risk
SPECIALIST Health Centre stays aloof
ORGANISATION Mine muzzles council
HOLISTIC FOCUS Fear for future livelihood
26
New alliances in Port Pirie
INDIVIDUAL Parent, grandparent
COMMUNITY
Outrage, political action
SPECIALISTS
Technical skills, advocacy
ORGANISATIONAL Public/private good
HOLISTIC Children’s well-being
27
M&E as collective learning
- multiple interests
- multiple knowledges
- collaborative action
Next steps:
- The IKM-E approach
- Emergent questions on the horizon
Our approach: Multi-evidence based?
Each knowledge community uses different M&E criteria,
evidence bases, databases for judgments...
• Individuals (experiences)
• Communities (observations)
• Experts (practitioner stories)
• Organisations (monitoring reports as stated)
• Holistic thinkers (ideas, forecasts)
Our approach: Purposes of conducting M&E
• Financial accountability
• Operational improvement
• Strategic readjustment
• Capacity strengthening
• Contextual understanding
• Deepening understanding (research)
• Self-auditing
• Advocacy
• Sensitisation
(From I. Guijt’s PhD thesis ‘seeking surprise’)
Our approach: KM as collective learning
Key to nested knowledge cultures:
Individual
(Local) Community
Specialised
Organisational (strategic)
Holistic Describe
Develop
Initiative
Do Design
Our approach: critical questioning
• A series of questions at each step of the way
– Overall, a sound questioning practice
– And specifically, a guideline to tailor one’s
approach:
• What questions to address?
• Who to involve, in what function?
• What tools and methods to choose?
• What lessons to draw from the approach?
Our approach: A nested iterative inquiry
Emergent questions on the horizon
• How would our approach work in practice?
• Specific methods and metrics to go ‘light’
• Particularly complexity-focused approaches
• Power vs. collective?
What now?
IKM-E + KMIC = IKMEKMIC?
• Avoiding overlaps...
– Connecting KMIC and IKM (blogs...)
– Organising another webinar?
– Identifying different models / approaches?
• Having creative leaps...
– Reviewing the IKM papers?
– Expanding parts of this paper?
– Testing the IKM-E framework (later)?
Additional resources
• IKM-Emergent website:
http://wiki.ikmemergent.net
• The giraffe, Working group 3 blog
• Working paper 3: ‘Monitoring and Evaluation in
Knowledge Management for Development‘
http://su.pr/5rqp8c
• Background paper: ‘Monitoring and evaluating
knowledge management strategies’
http://su.pr/28Q9Yu
Thank you!
