Knowledge Management

SharePointSemantik

Summary

• Objective of the whitepaper• Definition of knowledge management• Why worry about it• Reviewing your current corporate system• Reviewing the literature on the different

realization approaches• AlphaMosaïk’s implementation objectives• Global strategy

Objective of the Whitepaper

• The objective of this document is to describe the global approach used to deploy Knowledge Management within a firm using the SharePoint and Semantik technologies.

Definition of Knowledge Management

Several definitions, from the most simple to the most complex:

The process used to capture, distribute and efficiently use knowledge.

Discipline that promotes an integrated approach to identify, capture, evaluate and share informational assets within your firm.

These assets can include databases, documents, policies, procedures and the expertise/experiences of individuals that were

not captured before.

Definition of Knowledge Management

Diagram:

Implicit knowledge is internalized

Codified explicit knowledge is externalized

Pertinent implicit knowledge on

demand

Why Knowledge Management

• Current Findings– Intangible assets (including

knowledge) are taking up more room.

– Managing and using this knowledge becomes a major differential factor.

“If you have not started to take these steps, your organization is most likely wasting resources by re-inventing knowledge, spending excess time locating difficult to find knowledge and unsuccessfully absorbing and using the growing volumes of new knowledge flowing into your organization every day.” (KM7steps)

Global Approach

• The following approach is recommended for the deployment of a Knowledge Management system:– Reviewing the existing: Current knowledge sources– Reviewing the existing: Identification of the current level

of KM– Reviewing the existing: Determine the target for the

required corporate KM systems– Deployment of a roadmap for the implementation of KM

Reviewing the ExistingExample of Knowledge Sources

Sources Benefits Disadvantages

People • No effort required to store information • Personnel turnover causes loss of knowledge• Availability of the veterans• Access to information

Project Sites • Pertinent and up-to-date information • Impossible to find pertinent information without having been part of the creative process.

Expertise Center • Daily article reading and creation • Find pertinent information at the right time.

TFS Source Code • Everything is up to date in TFS • We do not know what is done, so no reusing potential information.

Internet-Google-Bing • Facilitate searches and the quantity and richness of the information

• Quality of the information• Lack of synthesis

Document Templates • Forces the integration of best practices within the document

• Standardization of AM deliverables

• Templates always evolving

Reviewing the ExistingUsing Knowledge within your Firm

Your company

Reviewing the Existing at AlphaMosaïk (3/3)Maturity Level

Maturity Level Perception Evaluation Infrastructure Evaluation

0 – Absent

1 – Possible Not discouraged. General desire to share. Some people do it and understand the value.

Knowledge assets are identified.

2 – Encouraged

The value of knowledge assets is recognized by the company. Corporate culture encourages the sharing of information. This knowledge sharing is recognized and rewarded.

Knowledge assets are stored a certain way.

3 – Practiced Sharing knowledge assets is practiced. Knowledge management activities are part of normal processes.

Systematic mechanisms exists to allow KM activities. A central storage space exists. A taxonomy also exists.

4 – Managed The employees find it easy to share knowledge assets. They expect to easily find what they are looking for if it exists.

Training exists to learn how to use KM systems. Change management is introduced in KM practice..

5 – Continuously Improved

Mechanisms and tools to benefit from the knowledge assets are accepted.

Smart tools exist. Sharing tools and mechanisms are periodically improved. Business processes that incorporate knowledge sharing are reviewed periodically.

Current

Literature Review

• What we must remember– There is no « magic formula » to implement a

knowledge management system.– The knowledge management systems must be based

on « building blocks » which will constitute an efficient KM system.

– It is important to proceed step by step– The KM system deployment initiative is 20%

technological and 80% communication and organizational

– The notion of an expertise community is one of the most important criterion of knowledge management.

AlphaMosaïk Knowledge Management Implementation Objectives

Maturity Level

Perception Evaluation Infrastructure Evaluation

0 – Absent

1 – Possible Not discouraged. General desire to share. Some people do it and understand the value.

Knowledge assets are identified.

2 – Encouraged

The value of knowledge assets is recognized by the company. Corporate culture promotes sharing activities. Sharing is recognized and rewarded.

Knowledge assets are stored a certain way.

3 – Practiced The sharing of knowledge assets is common practice. Knowledge management activities are an integral part of standard processes.

Systematic mechanisms exist to allow KM activities. A central storage space exists. A taxonomy exists.

4 – Managed Employees find sharing easy. They expect to easily find the information they are looking for if it exists.

Training exists to learn how to use KM systems. Change management is introduced in the KM practice.

5 – Continuously Improved

Mechanisms and tools to benefit from knowledge assets are widely accepted.

Smart tools exists. The sharing tools and mechanisms are periodically improved. Business processes that incorporate knowledge sharing are periodically reviewed.

Autre objectif: vendre notre

expertise qui se marie

bien avec SharePoint

Recommended Global Strategy / Roadmap

Deployment of practice communities

Expertise Blog

Search engine federated with Google and other systems

Application of Semantik to our internal documents

Deployment of Practice Communities

• Create communities based on expertise– .NET Communities– Analyst Communities– …

• Recurrent process for codifying knowledge

1. Fixed meetings for the community2. Presentation of noteworthy

deliverables3. Publication as reusable deliverables4. According to the usage, creation of a

generic version

• Codification of the experts’ responses to frequently asked questions

• Using SharePoint 2013 community sites

Expertise Blog

• Provide practice communities with blogs

• Description of the incentives for employee contribution

• Definition of the minimum quality criteria required to publish

• Possibility to transfer existing articles from the Expertise Center to the Web for instant recognition

Search engine federated with Google and other systems

• A single search engine for all your searches:– Federates all the results of

your Intranet, systems (project spaces, CRM…) and the Web. Encourages users to use internal resources without sacrificing Google’s pertinence

• Refines the current search engine– Adds search sources (CRM,

TFS…)– Extended search scope

Semantik Application

• In order to find your way around the volume of existing data, it is important to classify corporate documents.

• Manual classification of data is often impossible due to the sheer volume of available information.

• Semantik enables the automatic extraction of metadata from existing informational assets to improve search results.

• Better understanding of the usefulness of the product by employees.

Semantik: some features…

• Supports Office documents, including Word, Excel, PowerPoint, PDF documents, etc.

• Automatic metadata & concept extraction• Automatic content types • Automatic classification/categorization of

documents• Automatic generation of summaries • Native Term Store integration• Automatic term boosting for search

engine• Integration of the tag cloud functionality

Leveraging Metadata as an Enabling asset…

SharePoint : some benefits…

• Reduces manual activities required to tag documents (incorrect tags costs $2500/user/year) (IDC)

• Full Term Store support• Automatic and semi-automatic categorization of

documents• Site Collection/Structure can be organized by a

hierarchical taxonomy structure• Document Library Structure can be organized by a

hierarchical taxonomy structure• Eliminate duplicates• Native integration to SharePoint (service managed

directly from management console)

Metadata, Auto-classification, Taxonomies Drive Business Value

Increase IR precision for

search

Semantic metadata tagging

Auto-classificati

on