Sarahcummings, AfableFINAL

Afable, N.M., D. Boom and S. Talisayon. 2020.
Towards a framework for measuring the impact of

knowledge management solutions applied to work processes.
Knowledge Management for Development Journal 15(1): 26-42
Km4djournal.org
Towards a framework for measuring the impact of knowledge

management solutions applied to work processes
Nicole Marie Afable, Daan Boom and Serafin Talisayon
Community and Corporate Learning for Innovation (CCLFI), Philippines
According to Klein and Prusak (1994), one can define intellectual capital
operationally as intellectual material that has been formalized, captured and
leveraged to produce a higher value asset. Models, frameworks, and
methodologies for measuring knowledge assets and intellectual capital (IC) exist
in the domains of accounting, economics, human resource accounting and
intellectual property. None of these models have been applied in the non-profit
sector. The objective is thus to determine what can be learned from existing
models and how they can be adapted to organizations in the development sector.
We provide an overview of the various school and methodologies on IC but
demonstrate in particular the Skandia model (Edvinsson and Malone 1997) as
viable methodology for measuring the IC/knowledge management value
proposition of an organization. In the development sector, benefits from
knowledge products and services (KPS) are generated either directly by a
development institution when it implements projects or indirectly when it
supports stakeholders who implement projects. Based on the definition of
knowledge, benefits are created when knowledge is used for effective action or
decision. When a development institution is indirectly producing development
results through its stakeholders, this knowledge-action-benefit framework can be
expanded using the four-stage modified Kirkpatrick Model. The paper explains
and provides examples on how this model can be used in measuring benefits from
KPS.
Keywords: knowledge measurement; intellectual capital; impact measurement;

knowledge products and services
26
Km4djournal.org
Knowledge management (KM) as a field of practice has persisted for more than three
decades1 despite the fact that there is no agreement among the KM community on the
core concepts of the field and no standard or commonly accepted framework for
measuring the impact or benefit of the practice (Arisha and Ragab, 2013). The objective
of this paper is to contribute to the discourse towards such a framework by drawing on
empirical evidence and on observations of what works in actual practice.
Literature review
There is a plethora of definitions of the terms “knowledge” and “knowledge

management.” However, if we refer back to the definitions by the earliest and leading
KM practitioners, a clear commonality and agreement among them can be seen.
“Knowledge is information that changes something or somebody — either by

becoming grounds for action, or by making an individual (or an institution)
capable of different or more effective action.” (Drucker 1989)
“Justified belief that increases an entity’s capacity for effective action.” (Nonaka,
1994)
“I define knowledge as a capacity to act.” (Sveiby 1997)
“Knowledge is information in action.” (O’Dell et al. 1998)
“Knowledge is understanding the why, what, how, who, when, and where relative
to taking some action." (Boom 2004)
The commonality among them is that knowledge is information, understanding or belief

that enables effective action. O’Dell’s definition of “knowledge management” again
refers to putting information into action:
“…conscious strategy of getting the right knowledge to the right people at the
right time and helping people share and put information into action in ways that
strive to improve organizational performance.” (O’Dell et al, 1998)
The earliest reviews of KM measurement frameworks provided some useful observations

and conclusions. Measurements of KM impact can be grouped into three categories,
namely those at the level of tasks or projects (outputs), those at the level of the
1
Using the Google Books Ngram Viewer, one observes that the number of books published yearly with the
phrase “knowledge management” in their title started in the 1980s.
27
Km4djournal.org
organization (outcomes), and those about support systems. They can be further grouped
into generic frameworks or those designed for specific KM initiatives (US Department of
the Navy 2001). The discourse on knowledge, KM and KM measurement overlaps with
that on intellectual capital and intellectual capital management (ICM). The big gap often
observed between market values and book values2 (FASB 2007) of corporations is one of
the reasons behind the interest among corporate practitioners in tracking intangible assets
– which are mostly knowledge assets or elements of intellectual capital (Starovic and
Marr 2004; BEI Consulting 2003). Table 1 summarizes the results of a number of reviews
of KM measurement. Most of the proposed methods of measuring the impact of KM are
those at the organizational level.
Table 1: KM Measurement Frameworks

Level Proposed KM Measurement
Organization Knowledge Centric Organization Model (US Department of the Navy 2001)
Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan and Norton 1992)
Performance Prism (Adams and Neely 2000)
Various ICM tools: Ericsson’s cockpit communicator, Celemi’s intangible assets
monitor, Bates Gruppen Company IQ, Ramboll’s holistic company model, Tobin’s
q, Baruch Lev method, Value-added IC coefficient, Knowledge Assets Map, etc.
(Starovic and Marr 2004)
Skandia Navigator (Edvinsson 1997)
Team or Group Knowledge Centric Organization Model (US Department of the Navy 2001)
Individual Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick 1994)
Success Case Method (Brinkerhoff 2003)
Reviews of ICM literature confirmed the consensus that three categories of intellectual
capital can be distinguished: human capital, structural capital and relational capital
(Grimaldi et al. 2013). There is also a relative lack of research on the impact of KM at the
individual level (Arisha and Ragab 2013). Empirical data on factors that enable effective
action at the individual level confirmed the three categories of intellectual capital or
intangible assets but also showed that effective action is the result of the interplay of five
factors. These are tangible assets, the three categories of intangible assets, and a cross-
cutting factor related to motivation and attitudes (Talisayon 2009a and 2009b).
2
The book value of an asset is its original purchase cost, adjusted for any subsequent changes, such as for
impairment or depreciation. Market value is the price that could be obtained by selling an asset on a
competitive, open market.
28
Km4djournal.org
Statement of the problem
If knowledge enables effective action, then the impact of a KM solution in a workplace

should be measurable in terms of performance of that action. Multilateral development
banks have defined value for money to describe both the effectiveness and efficiency
dimensions of performance of an action either by an individual knowledge worker or by a
team (AfDB 2016)3. Actions in the workplace are often organized into a business process
in the private sector or into a work process in the public or development sector. In the
private sector, value is created by the corporations’ core business processes, hence a KM
measurement framework applied to business or work processes may be translatable to
impacts or benefits at the organizational level.
This paper proposes an approach for measuring the impact or benefit from using a KM
solution or KM tool at the level of individuals and teams in a workplace. It will not look
into the problem of measurement of the stock or flow of knowledge assets, nor will it
look into the problem of measuring characteristics of knowledge processes. It will focus
only on measuring the impact of applying a KM solution or tool at the level of a business
or work process. Specifically, it will test the applicability of the Kirkpatrick model to this
measurement issue.
Conceptual Framework
The assumptions behind the focus on the workplace are:
a) The impact of knowledge when applied in action or performance of a work or

business process is the consequent improvement in the effectiveness of the action,
b) The action by an individual or the work process performed by a team is an
appropriate and basic level for measuring KM impact, and
c) Because the work or business process is embedded in an organization and justified by
organizational goals, impact at the level of the organization can be measured through
KM impact at the team process level, or at the individual action level if only one
person is performing the work or business process sanctioned by the organization.
d) The outcome is value creation at the level of the organization.
The KM logical framework consists of three elements (Talisayon 2008):
3
The African Development Bank is leading the effort of the MDB’s to define value for money.
29
Km4djournal.org
Knowledge Effective action/Performance Value creation in outputs

 
Assets of a work process and outcomes
This framework is consistent with the value for money framework of MDBs applied to
efficiency and effectiveness of an action or project. It is also consistent with the value
creation framework for communities of practice (Wenger et al. 2011) where knowledge
sharing-receiving (Cycle 2) is followed by change in behavior and work performance
(Cycles 3 and 4). It must be noted that the proposed KM logical framework can be
viewed as an upstream extension of the common project logical framework in results-
based management.
The KM logical framework is also consistent with the Kirkpatrick model. Among
learning and development and human resource development practitioners in the private
sector, a common framework used for measuring the impact of a training course is the
Kirkpatrick model (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick 1994). In this framework impact is
measured at four levels:
Level 1 or Reaction: Is the student satisfied?

Level 2 or Learning: Did the student learn the concepts and theories?
Level 3 or Behavior: Did the student apply what he learned in his work in the
organization?
Level 4 or Results: Did the application result or contributed to a concrete benefit to the
organization?
Kaufman (1996) suggest a fifth level, pertaining to the utility to consumers or the public
of the end product or service produced by the organization.
Methodology
This paper will proceed in two stages: (a) survey of factors that influence effective action
by teams, and (b) survey of impacts of KM solutions applied to work or business
processes.
The first two authors are mentors, while the third author is e-learning associate, of an
online KM Practitioner Certification Course (KMPCC) implemented under a KM
consulting organization, the Community and Corporate Learning for Innovation (CCLFI)
since 2013. The second author developed a blended graduate course in KM, Technology
Management 298 (TM 298), at the University of the Philippines Technology
30
Km4djournal.org
Management Center and has been implementing it since 2002. In both cases, our students
implemented a workplace KM practicum where each selected a KM solution or tool that
addresses a problem of the work process or business process they were currently
performing in their workplace. The KM practicum applies the KM concepts learned
earlier by the student.
The main objective in both KMPCC and TM 298 classes is to learn KM by doing KM.
The following procedures were followed by each student:
a) The early part of the course is devoted to KM concepts and theories, and the latter
part is spent in performing a selected KM tool or solution in the student’s workplace.
b) The student is required to get permission from, and coordinate with, the superior in
the selection of the work or business process as well as the appropriate KM tool or
solution. In TM 298 most of the students are from the private sector in the Metro
Manila. Often when a student works in the private sector, the permission is granted on
condition of confidentiality of data and results. In KMPCC, most of the students are
from the public and development sectors from the Philippines as well as from more
than twenty other countries across Africa, Europe, South America, Asia and North
America.
c) The selection of the KM tool is determined by three factors: (a) time constraint of
eight weeks, (b) result of a KM assessment of the work or business process, and (c)
the judgment of the superior. In TM 298, the KM assessment tool is the Quick
Business Process Assessment© (QBPA) which asks two questions each to two sets of
respondents, those performing the process and those using the output of the process.
The answers of the first set of respondents often pertain to efficiency issues, while
those of the second set pertain to effectiveness issues. In KMPCC, there are six other
KM assessment tools used in addition to the QBPA. As a result a variety of KM tools
or solutions were used.
d) Organizations often periodically measure KPI or other performance metrics on their
work or business process. This performance metric is measured before and after the
workplace KM practicum.
e) The final report is in the form of an actionable guideline or manual which can
facilitate the replication of the KM solution elsewhere in or outside the organization.
f) In KMPCC, the practicum is a requirement. In TM 298, this requirement cannot be
enforced and the student may submit an ordinary research or term paper instead of a
practicum report. It cannot be enforced in cases where the student (a) is not
employed, (b) is transitioning between two employments, and (c) the superior does
not approve for reasons of company confidentiality.
31
Km4djournal.org
g) At the end of the course in TM 298, the supervisor of the student emails the teacher,
who is one of the authors (Talisayon), his evaluation of the work of the student. The
superior’s evaluation is a big factor in determining the grade of the student in the
course.
In both KMPCC and TM 298, students learned (a) how to identify workplace problems
using a demand-driven or problem-driven KM framework, and (b) how to select the right
KM tool that matches the workplace problem. For the first step, two inputs are considered
most important: (a) the QBPA results which identify problems from the perspective of
process performers and of output users, and (b) the advice of the superior who has good
tacit knowledge of the kinds of issues experiences in and around the business or work
process. For the second step, students were provided five KM tool menus. Menus are
organized according to the type of use or problem, and the choices of KM tools
corresponding to each use or problem.
Before the start of KMPCC, students answer an open-ended survey consisting of only one
question: “What things or people, factors, conditions, inputs, etc. help your team do its
job well?”
An online survey was issued to graduates of KMPCC and TM 298. The Kirkpatrick
framework guided the formulation of the evaluative survey. The survey questions were
along the following a concerns:
a) Whether the student shared the knowledge gained;

b) The impact on the student’s workplace: whether the student applied the knowledge in
a work or business process of the organization and what was the result;
c) The impact on the student’s organization: whether the practicum was replicated by
other teams or over the entire organization; and
d) Comments on other impacts.
Results and analyses
Survey on factors that affect team performance

This survey is parallel to that reported by Talisayon (2009a); the earlier work asked the
same question but addressed to the individual knowledge worker: “What things or people,
factors, conditions, inputs, etc. help you do your job well?”
32
Km4djournal.org
The answers are summarized in Table 2. The categories that emerge are the same as those
from the earlier study. The following observations can be made from the results:
a) Many subcategories correspond to either tacit or explicit knowledge. This supports

the view that knowledge enables effective action or performance of a team as well as
it does of an individual.
b) Effective team action is influenced by categories that correspond very closely to the
three IC categories of human, structural and relational capital, with the following
additional categories: (i) tangible assets and (ii) a cross-cutting category that may be
labelled as motivational factors (sub-categories in bold italics in Table 2).
Motivational factors similarly emerged in a meta-analysis of success factors in KM
case studies drawn from Asia and the Philippines (Talisayon, 2008; Talisayon,
2009b). These findings suggest that effective action at the workplace is the product
not only of cognitive or knowledge factors but also of affective factors. They are
consistent with the experience of KM practitioners who find it more effective to
accompany KM programs with change management initiatives.
c) The answers confirm the overlap between knowledge and IC, and between KM and
ICM.
In the private sector, performance of a business process by a team is viewed as

“effective” if the output or result creates value or satisfies internal or external customers.
Hence, the desired outcome of managing knowledge assets or knowledge processes is
value creation. This suggests that linking KM to workplace processes is the way to align
KM to organizational objectives – a suggestion that is explored further in the next survey.
Survey of impact of KM practicum on the workplace
Adoption of KM solution
39 of the 55 TM 298 students (71%) who responded to the follow-up survey said they did
a workplace KM practicum; the rest submitted a research paper. Examples of work
process demand-driven KM solution or tool adopted as their KM practicum were as
follows:
• Adding a “Lessons Learned” session at the end of each work cycle
• Setting up an expertise directory using micro-competencies for a work process
• Using Google worksheet for M&E among a work team
• Improving on-boarding procedure to shorten learning curves of new hires
• Collecting reusable macros/scripts/routines from software development teams
• Participatory procedure for building up a tagging dictionary (knowledge taxonomy)
33
Km4djournal.org
• Collecting and organizing work templates and guidelines by process steps

• Harvesting successful sales techniques by high-performing sales personnel
• Piloting an IQC (innovation and quality circle)
• Compiling a searchable web-based problem-solution logbook
Table 2: Categorization of answers to the survey question
34
Km4djournal.org
The KM tool or solution used in the practicum was adopted by other teams in the
organization to varying degrees. Its impact generally went beyond the immediate
workplace or work process performed by the student. In contrast, organization-wide
adoption of the KM solution used in practicum was the most frequently mentioned
outcome of the 25 graduates of the online KMPPC (Table 3).
Table 3: Summary of KM solution adoption

Item What Happened after the Practicum TM 298 KMPCC
1 The KM solution or tool was adopted as part of the regular or 5 10
standard operating procedures of the whole organization
2 It was adopted in whole or in part by some teams 18 5
3 It was adopted only by one team 8 2
4 It was adopted for some time and then it was stopped 4 3
5 It was not adopted nor sustained 2 3
6 The student lost track or was not aware of what had happened 1 1
after he/she did the KM practicum
7 Others 5 2
Benefits of KM solution
34 (or 87%) TM 298 students who performed a workplace KM practicum and 25
KMPCC graduates claimed that it generated benefits in one form or another (Table 4).
Table 4: Benefits of workplace practicum

Item Benefit Reported TM 298 KMPCC
1A Information/documentation about the KM practicum (e.g. 16 12
what for, how and results) were shared with officemates.
1B Documentation of the KM practicum was uploaded/stored in 13 7
the company intranet, database or shared folders.
2A According to KPI or other performance indicators the KM 11 5
practicum resulted in better performance
2B Users or internal customers of the business process (where the 13 10
KM practicum was applied) expressed higher satisfaction as a
result of the KM practicums
3A Officemates and/or managers expressed satisfaction with the 12 7
KM practicum and its results
3B Other teammates or officemates repeated or applied my KM 12 11
practicum in their respective workplaces
Others 6 5
Knowledge sharing. Items 1A and 1B show the number of respondents who reported are
benefits associated with knowledge sharing behavior.
35
Km4djournal.org
Knowledge use in the workplace. Items 2A and 2B are the number of respondents who
observe or claim impacts of their practicum in their own workplace or work process.
Performance indicators (Item 2A) often reflects efficiency. A KM solution from TM 298,
reduced turn-around time from 117 to 18 minutes. A student reported “annual savings of
approximately USD 60,000 based on number of man-hours saved.” Behavioral or
qualitative impacts on team members are reflected in comments such as “…I also was
able to influence my teammates to consistently record both open and closed incidents
using the tracker” and “It served as a basis of our team's Manual of Operation.”
KMPCC graduates shared how various ways their KM practicum positively affected their
operations. The results of applications of KM solutions to a work or business process are
often observed to overlap with quality management solutions and benefits.
“The Integrated Database made reporting system of the regular status of LFPs
easy and convenient with high accuracy.”
“Much smoother flow of office transaction due to KM product.”
“Validation of both our financial and physical accomplishments in the
implementation of the scholarship programs in the region is easier than before.
Real time updating is also made possible.”
“The online monitoring of management review allowed us to gauge how far our
regional offices are being compliant to the inputs on management review per ISO
9001:2015 standards.”
Knowledge use in the rest of the organization. Feedback from users of an output (Item
2B) are indicators of effectiveness of the process which produces the output. Items 3A
and 3B pertain to actions or events where the practicum results were observed beyond the
immediate workplace of the student, or to the rest of the organization.
For TM 298 students, these wider scopes of impact are reflected in the following
comments: “it led to other process improvement initiatives and standardization in our
department” and “new teams transitioning are now integrating KM as part of the SOP
[standard operating procedure].”
In one case, the KM practicum was expanded and its outputs were shared to the rest of
the organization: “One of my two KM practicums was the creation of internal job aids.
Our team continues to create job aids that will help both existing and new members of
our team. Recently, my manager asked us to also create recordings (video presentation) in
36
Km4djournal.org
conjunction with the job aids. We now share both job aids including recordings to users
who need them.”
An organization-wide cultural change was observed by one respondent: "...a Lessons

Learned session became the norm of our group and some groups in the bank. [After]
every project where we get positive and negative learnings, we collate them, share them
to one another and use one drive as future reference in case we encounter the same. We
became more open to fixing things as a team rather than pointing fingers." "Pointing
fingers" means blaming people.”
Many graduates of the KMPCC also reported that their workplace KM practicum led to
adoption by other units in their organization.
“From my KM practicum… I was able to develop a tool for assessment of KM

competencies. This was applied to 9 Offices/Bureaus and 1 Field Office…”
“[After transferring to another office] the project I had during the KM Course is
being adopted also in my new office. [My former office] is continually using my
KM project.”
“My practicum… was adopted for other processes… This has subsequently led to
some improvements in the processes every quarter/year.”
Impacts beyond the organization were also reported. A TM 298 student shared, “from a
Document Management System that served as a central storage for corporate manuals, I
learned that they built a Knowledge Management Center in lieu of a library, not just to
serve internal clients but external parties as well.”
A KMPCC graduate said, “[My KM practicum] now has official tie-in to our official
website... and has reported continually increasing views and downloads from staff and
external audience. The increasing downloads indicate an interest in our materials”
Negative consequences were also mentioned: “not all departments are open to change.
KM practicum became a threat”; “I think in our organization in terms of KM awareness,
it is very difficult to motivate others to participate; the push must come from top
management”; and “most of the Google Docs are still underutilized due to current team
members’ preference for analog storage.” The negative consequences were more the
result of resistance or lack of appreciation by managers or personnel in the organization.
For KMPCC graduates, some negative consequences were the result of external factors
such as changes in policy or leadership
37
Km4djournal.org
“The KM practicum project was adopted and utilized for some time. However,
due to changes in the quality objectives of branches, the consolidation of the
results was not necessary anymore.”
“Knowledge Management didn't seem to be a priority of the new leadership…”
Conclusions and recommendations
This study supports the observation that KM exerts impacts at various levels or scopes.
The scope of the impact can be arranged or ordered into levels, and quantitative measures
can be adopted at each level (Table 5). Qualitative impacts are also observable at each
level, which can be positive or negative.
Table 5: Modified Kirkpatrick levels of impacts

Level Beneficiary Nature of Impact Quantitative Measure(s)
1 Student Learning by student Academic grade
Number of downloads,
2 Team mates Learning by knowledge sharing
number of receivers
Organization: student’s Knowledge use in a work or business
3A KPI, turn-around time,
workplace process
satisfaction of internal
Other units in the Replication of knowledge use
3B customers, cost savings
organization elsewhere in the organization
Number of buyers or
Entities outside the
4 Consumption of product/service clients served,
organization
Customer satisfaction
The above measurement scheme is a modified version of the Kirkpatrick levels. It is a

combination of an ordinal scale (Levels 1 to 4) and various measurements (cardinal scale)
specific to each level; hence it can be described as a taxonomic scale (Figure 1).
Levels 3 to 4 impacts are possible in KMPCC and TM 298 because, by instructional

design, the KM tool or solution is required to be applied in the workplace and specifically
on a business or work process. If a KM tool, such as knowledge sharing within a
community of practice or knowledge sharing by uploading in the company intranet, is
disconnected from company operations then the benefit is only up to Level 2. For this
reason, the KM solution must be work demand driven so that it can generate wider
impacts beyond the individual student or his team mates. By designing the KMPCC and
TM 298 courses to be work demand driven, both the student and his or her organization
38
Km4djournal.org
benefits (Figure 2). The business or work process is the link between individual or team
benefits and organizational benefits.
Figure 1: Taxonomic scale
Figure 2: Work or business process: link between individual and organizational

benefit
This study demonstrates the advantages of workplace demand- or problem-driven KM,

where the KM tool or solution is determined by a workplace problem. By linking the KM
solution to the business or work process, the impact of the KM solution to the
organization can be measured in terms of KPI or other performance indicators that many
organization adopt to periodically evaluate those processes. The modified Kirkpatrick
model is a useful framework for measuring the impact of learning in the two KM courses
studied here. Further studies can be done to see if this model can be used to measure the
impact of other forms of transfer, delivery and consumption of knowledge products and
services.
39
Km4djournal.org
References
Adams, C. and A. Neely (2000) The performance prism to boost M&A success,
Measuring Business Excellence, 4(3), 19-23.
African Development Bank (2016) Measuring and reporting on value for money: A
conceptual framework for MDBs. pp. 1.
Arisha, A. and M. Ragab (2013) Knowledge management and measurement: a critical
review, Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6).
BEI Consulting (2003) Estimating return on investment (ROI) for knowledge
management (KM) initiatives: An information technology (IT) perspective).
Boom, D. (2004) Knowledge management in ADB. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
Boom, D. (2005) The Asian Development Bank’s knowledge management framework: In
KM4Dev Journal 1(2), 69-75.
Brinkerhoff, R.O. (2003) The success case method: Find out quickly what’s working and
what’s not. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Drucker, P.F. (1989) The new realities: In Government and politics/In economics and
business/In society and world view. New York: Harper & Row.
Edvinsson, L. (1997). Developing intellectual capital at Skandia. Long Range Planning:
30, 366-373.
Edvinsson, L., and M.S. Malone (1997) Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s
true value by finding its hidden roots. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.
Financial Accounting Standards Board (2007) SFAS 157, Fair value measurement.
FASB, Stamford.
Grimaldi, M., Cricelli, L., and F. Rogo (2013) A theoretical framework for assessing
managing and indexing the intellectual capital, Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(4),
501-521.
Kaplan, R., and D. Norton (1992) The balanced scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business
Review Press.
Kaufman, R. (1996) Strategic thinking: A guide to identifying and solving problems.
American Society for Training and Development and International Society for
Performance Improvement. Alexandra, VA: American Society for Training and
Development and International Society for Performance Improvement.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. and J. D. Kirkpatrick (1994) Evaluating training programs. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization
Science, 5(1). 14-37.
O’Dell, C., and C.J. Grayson (1998) If only we knew what we know, The transfer of
internal knowledge and best practice. New York: The Free Press.
40
Km4djournal.org
Starovic, D. and B. Marr (2004) Understanding corporate value: Managing and

reporting intellectual capital. London: The Chartered Institute of Management
Accountants (CIMA) and Cranfield University.
Sveiby, K.E. (1997) The new organizational wealth - Managing and measuring
knowledge based assets, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Talisayon, S. (2008) Overview In: Talisayon, S. (editor): Knowledge management in
Asia: Experiences and lessons. Tokyo, Japan: Asian Productivity Organization.
Talisayon, S. (2009a) Monitoring and evaluation in knowledge management for
development, IKM Working Paper.
Talisayon, S. (2009b) Organisational energy and other meta-learning: case studies of
knowledge management implementation in nine Asian countries. Knowledge
Management for Development Journal, 5(1).
United States Department of the Navy (2001) Metrics guide for knowledge management
initiatives.
Wenger, E., B. Trayner and M. de Laat (2011) Promoting and assessing value creation in
communities and networks: A conceptual framework. Ruud de Moor Centrum,
Open Universiteit, Netherlands.
About the Authors

Nicole Marie Afable is a Knowledge and Information Associate of Community and
Corporate Learning for Innovation (CCLFI), a corporation with over twenty years of
experience in teaching, consultancy, practice and advocacy in knowledge management
(KM), personal and organizational learning, and innovation. She is also a consultant at
the Asian Development Bank. She was Junior Knowledge Officer and then Knowledge
Management Analyst at the International Labour Organization's Impact Insurance
Facility in Geneva from 2013 to 2015. Before that she was Research and Knowledge
Assistant and then Technical Writing Assistant at PEMSEA (Partnership for
Environmental Management of the Seas of East Asia). Together with co-authors Serafin
and Daan, she presents the successful online Knowledge Management Practitioners
Certification Course, currently in its 17th season.
Email: nicole.afable@gmail.com
Daan Boom is a Dutch national. He is Director International Operations of CCLFI. He
has over 30 years of experience leading the implementation of knowledge management
initiatives across a wide range of organization including KPMG, the Asian Development
Bank (ADB) and the International Centre of Integrated Mountain Development,
Kathmandu, Nepal. In 2012 he joined CCLFI in a consultancy capacity with assignments
for the African Development Bank, UNDP New York, UNICEF, Islamic Development
41
Km4djournal.org
Bank, World Bank, and ADB. He wrote several KM articles of which one, KM at the
ADB, appeared in one of the first KM4Dev Journals. He is a KM4D member since 2003,
a member of the Royal Dutch Association of Information Professionals (KNVI), and the
Association of Intelligent Information Management (AIIM). Email:
daanboom@gmail.com
Serafin Talisayon is President and Director for Research and Development of CCLFI. He
is a retired professor from the University of the Philippines but he continues to teach part
time a graduate course in knowledge management for the Technology Management
Center of the university. Filipino colleagues call him the “Father of KM in the
Philippines” after teaching the first university KM course, writing the first KM book and
co-founding the KM Association of the Philippines. He wrote several KM books and
articles, edited several international KM publications, and developed several KM tools.
His KM consulting experiences extend over many Asian countries such as Japan, Korea,
Taiwan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, Sri
Lanka, Pakistan, Philippines and Saudi Arabia.
Email: serafintalisayon@gmail.com
42

Sarahcummings, AfableFINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sarahcummings, AfableFINAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sarahcummings, AfableFINAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Afable, N.M., D. Boom and S. Talisayon. 2020.

Towards a framework for measuring the impact of

Towards a framework for measuring the impact of knowledge

Nicole Marie Afable, Daan Boom and Serafin Talisayon

Community and Corporate Learning for Innovation (CCLFI), Philippines

Keywords: knowledge measurement; intellectual capital; impact measurement;

There is a plethora of definitions of the terms “knowledge” and “knowledge

“Knowledge is information that changes something or somebody — either by

The commonality among them is that knowledge is information, understanding or belief

The earliest reviews of KM measurement frameworks provided some useful observations

Table 1: KM Measurement Frameworks

Statement of the problem

If knowledge enables effective action, then the impact of a KM solution in a workplace

The assumptions behind the focus on the workplace are:

a) The impact of knowledge when applied in action or performance of a work or

The KM logical framework consists of three elements (Talisayon 2008):

Knowledge Effective action/Performance Value creation in outputs

Level 1 or Reaction: Is the student satisfied?

a) Whether the student shared the knowledge gained;

Results and analyses

Survey on factors that affect team performance

a) Many subcategories correspond to either tacit or explicit knowledge. This supports

In the private sector, performance of a business process by a team is viewed as

Survey of impact of KM practicum on the workplace

• Collecting and organizing work templates and guidelines by process steps

Table 2: Categorization of answers to the survey question

Table 3: Summary of KM solution adoption

Table 4: Benefits of workplace practicum

An organization-wide cultural change was observed by one respondent: "...a Lessons

“From my KM practicum… I was able to develop a tool for assessment of KM

Conclusions and recommendations

Table 5: Modified Kirkpatrick levels of impacts

The above measurement scheme is a modified version of the Kirkpatrick levels. It is a

Levels 3 to 4 impacts are possible in KMPCC and TM 298 because, by instructional

Figure 1: Taxonomic scale

Figure 2: Work or business process: link between individual and organizational

This study demonstrates the advantages of workplace demand- or problem-driven KM,

Starovic, D. and B. Marr (2004) Understanding corporate value: Managing and

About the Authors

You might also like