Knowledge Management Survey Results
This topic is a continuation of the raised topic of knowledge management in IT-profile companies. In November last year, I conducted a survey on knowledge management. The goal was to determine the current state of affairs and get information for reflection from the staff. It took quite a long time. I thought to present the results much earlier, but it turned out as always. In this article I will show some pictures, I will give general subjective comments and, I hope, I will write one more article about what conclusions came after immersing in the topic.
First of all I would like to note the relatively large involvement of the habr-community in the problematic. I did not expect so many people to take part - about 75 people, especially given the small number of comments on the article. Pleased with the presence of comments in the questionnaire itself. Many pointed out the real problems and wishes that set the vector for further development.
Turning to the illustrations and figures, I immediately want to make a reservation that the survey results were not subjected to any harsh statistical processing, because the survey was of a secondary nature. Moreover, some errors were subsequently found there. Until a more complete picture, of course, far;)
')
Let me remind you that the first part consisted of general questions that clarified the general state of affairs in the organization’s knowledge management. 12 questions were asked and three answers were proposed (no, perhaps yes - 0, 1, 2 points, respectively). The more points - the higher the level of development of the company in the field of knowledge management. The questionnaire essentially represented the squeeze of the book “Knowledge Management” by Janetto K. and Wheeler E. There should have been more questions, but in the end something was lost. To the results.
Just points:
If you look vertically, the least points were obtained by the questions:
Maximum points:
Thus, the main problem is that there is no one to be engaged in combing informational and knowledge flows, but it is more or less successfully solved on a purely human level due to the fact that we know who to turn to.
It's time to dilute the boring text with pictures. In the second part there were open questions. I insert in the text a presentation with diagrams of the received answers, the visualization will tell everything better than me. Here the article is hard to see, and on the slideshare page more or less.
The free field with wishes was also actively filled. There were mainly comments on the complexity of structuring information and knowledge, especially if the volumes are large. On the need for their codification for the purpose of subsequent machine processing, or at least a more standardized representation.
I specifically focused on the use of visual techniques, namely, mind map or mind maps. I stopped at them, because any visualization is perceived by a person better, and therefore it is necessary to pay attention to any possibilities of using such tools. It turned out that some of the respondents had already tried the intellect card in their work, in the comments there were mentions about it. As always, there are both positive and negative experiences.
Remark about workflow turned out to be very valuable. This topic in one form or another met in many comments. Indeed, what is the most correct way to link knowledge, if not with the main processes occurring in the organization. In this thread, too, had to go deep.
With the results of the survey, everything seems to be the next topic will be more substantive, I will go through many of the questions identified and, I hope, without such a long break.
The questionnaire just in case again opened. You never know who wants to look at the original. Here is the link .
Overall impression
First of all I would like to note the relatively large involvement of the habr-community in the problematic. I did not expect so many people to take part - about 75 people, especially given the small number of comments on the article. Pleased with the presence of comments in the questionnaire itself. Many pointed out the real problems and wishes that set the vector for further development.
Turning to the illustrations and figures, I immediately want to make a reservation that the survey results were not subjected to any harsh statistical processing, because the survey was of a secondary nature. Moreover, some errors were subsequently found there. Until a more complete picture, of course, far;)
')
The first part of the questionnaire
Let me remind you that the first part consisted of general questions that clarified the general state of affairs in the organization’s knowledge management. 12 questions were asked and three answers were proposed (no, perhaps yes - 0, 1, 2 points, respectively). The more points - the higher the level of development of the company in the field of knowledge management. The questionnaire essentially represented the squeeze of the book “Knowledge Management” by Janetto K. and Wheeler E. There should have been more questions, but in the end something was lost. To the results.
Just points:
- Average score - 9.28
- The maximum number of points - 22 out of 24
- The minimum number of points is 0. If I were processing the results, I think this zero would definitely fall under the emission
If you look vertically, the least points were obtained by the questions:
- , , , (0,43);
- (0,68);
- (0,68).Maximum points:
- , (1,2);
- , (1,08);
- (1,08).Thus, the main problem is that there is no one to be engaged in combing informational and knowledge flows, but it is more or less successfully solved on a purely human level due to the fact that we know who to turn to.
The second part of
It's time to dilute the boring text with pictures. In the second part there were open questions. I insert in the text a presentation with diagrams of the received answers, the visualization will tell everything better than me. Here the article is hard to see, and on the slideshare page more or less.
The free field with wishes was also actively filled. There were mainly comments on the complexity of structuring information and knowledge, especially if the volumes are large. On the need for their codification for the purpose of subsequent machine processing, or at least a more standardized representation.
I specifically focused on the use of visual techniques, namely, mind map or mind maps. I stopped at them, because any visualization is perceived by a person better, and therefore it is necessary to pay attention to any possibilities of using such tools. It turned out that some of the respondents had already tried the intellect card in their work, in the comments there were mentions about it. As always, there are both positive and negative experiences.
Remark about workflow turned out to be very valuable. This topic in one form or another met in many comments. Indeed, what is the most correct way to link knowledge, if not with the main processes occurring in the organization. In this thread, too, had to go deep.
With the results of the survey, everything seems to be the next topic will be more substantive, I will go through many of the questions identified and, I hope, without such a long break.
The questionnaire just in case again opened. You never know who wants to look at the original. Here is the link .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/138353/
All Articles