feature
Knowledge management:
Karolien Selhorst reports on how a
knowledge management audit was
the first step in making best use of
the hidden knowledge potential of
a Dutch library’s staff.
L
ibraries excel in managing infor-
mation and knowledge captured
in books and documents, but
they fail in locating and man-
aging the knowledge potential
in the heads of their own people.
The public library of Vlissingen, in
south-west Holland, where I work, pro-
vides services in its main building, and in
the nearby village, in the local school and
in the local hospital. It has a staff comple-
ment of 44 people, who work together in a
strongly team-oriented environment.
The library management has always
been convinced that, to stay relevant, the
library has to provide more specialist serv-
ices. To do this, it knew that more efficient
use had to be made of the knowledge and
skills of library staff members. In the past
there had been problems related to knowl-
edge transfer between library workers at the
different sites and between library staff and
customers. Library staff had been through
many training programmes but manage-
ment had no clear idea of who possessed
what knowledge and what knowledge
could be made use of in order to achieve
the library goals.
The knowledge audit
Prior to formulating a knowledge manage-
ment strategy and encouraging knowledge
transfer, we wanted to locate, analyse and
evaluate the library’s internal knowledge.
It was decided to organise a ‘knowledge
audit’.
The main objective of the audit was to
map and evaluate current knowledge prac-
tices and culture and to identify potential
38 | update
making use of
hidden staff talent
knowledge sources, gaps and needs.
In order to find out how to conduct an
audit, we studied a large body of scientific
and business-related literature. Unfor-
tunately, very little material was useful
because it did not go beyond the theoretical
discussion of what a knowledge audit is or
might be. So we turned to other organi-
sations experienced in the KM field. The
practical tips from Tatiana White (Oxford
University Library Service) and Caroline
De Brún (NHS), combined with the more
theoretical research, gave us an insight into
what knowledge management is about and
how we could implement it in our library.
The two-month audit was organised in
six different phases.
1 We planned the actual audit. For
example, we spent a considerable amount
of time analysing the library structure and
culture. We considered this a crucial step,
because it provided us with the enabling
and disabling conditions for making rec-
ommendations after the audit. Another
important issue was to determine the aim
and the scope of our KM audit: we wanted
to give all library workers – not only man-
agers and supervisors – the opportunity to
participate.
Prior to the audit we also organised a
meeting with all staff members to tell them
about our plans and to ensure a broad own-
ership base for the future implementation
of our recommendations.
2 An online survey was launched for all
library workers to complete. When we
had the results, we organised a series of
in-depth interviews with some of the key
knowledge players in the previously out-
Image: Sean Prophet, Black Sun Journal
lined strategic knowledge domains of our
library (customer knowledge, information
dissemination, reading promotion, library
management development, community
information and media education). One
of the biggest challenges was to encourage
people to fill out the rather extensive ques-
tionnaire. Promoting the audit as a stra-
tegically significant project proved to be a
very useful solution.
3, 4 We analysed and evaluated the results
of our audit and prepared for a series of
recommendations.
5 A second meeting was organised to thank
senior management and library workers
for their co-operation and to present the
results of the audit and our recommenda-
tions.
6 At present we are developing and imple-
menting the recommendations.
Audit results
The most surprising result of the audit was
that, although the majority of library staff
members were willing to share knowledge,
they did not feel encouraged to do so. Rea-
sons given were: library management did
not explicitly support them; they did not
know who knew what; they lacked time to
share knowledge, etc.
The respondents had the chance to sug-
gest how management could encourage
them to share knowledge. Answers
included: by allocating time; by explicitly
stimulating people to share their knowl-
edge; by embedding knowledge sharing in
everyday practice; by providing the means
to share knowledge (an ‘open platform’
as someone suggested). During the inter-
7 (6) June 2008

‘
Although the majority of library staff members were
willing to share knowledge, they did not feel
encouraged to do so.
views respondents were also asked how
other colleagues could encourage them to
share their knowledge. Most felt ‘respect’
and ‘recognition’ were essential.
Library workers were less willing, how-
ever, to share knowledge with colleagues
from other teams than their own, ham-
pering collective knowledge sharing and
learning throughout the library.
Another problem was the fact that
the intranet was hardly used by library
workers. Reasons included: the contents
were often out of date; people felt they
were not encouraged to contribute to the
intranet; navigation was extremely diffi-
cult; the intranet was extremely ‘slow’; and
it lacked interactivity. Also, the archive
was insufficiently separated from current
information, which made it difficult for
people to find the information they were
looking for. Despite the low popularity
of the intranet, the respondents indicated
that they were eager to share knowledge
through a ‘similar medium’ in addition to
face-to-face meetings.
The audit also revealed that projects
were hardly ever evaluated. Consequently,
staff members lacked the opportunity
to learn from earlier identified ‘best’ and
‘worst’ practice.
Library management was impressed
by the enormously rich ‘tacit’ knowledge
potential that until the KM audit had
remained invisible and unexplored. We
found that 50 per cent of library staff
members did not know who to consult if
they needed advice or wanted to share their
knowledge.
Finally, it was found that library workers
lacked a sense of ‘collective ambition’.
According to Dutch KM expert Mathieu
Vlissingen public library, south-west Holland: ‘Management had no clear idea of who pos-
sessed what knowledge and what knowledge could be made use of in order to achieve the
library goals.’
7 (6) June 2008
Weggeman,1 having a collective ambition
is an essential condition for knowledge
sharing. If this condition is not fulfilled a
knowledge=power culture will arise, which
was the case in our library.
Recommendations
To provide staff members with a virtual plat-
form for knowledge storage and transfer,
we recommended the replacement of the
intranet with an internal wiki. Klobas2 and
Wagner3 have identified many advantages
of wikis as KM tools – for example the low
barrier for people to contribute.
The wiki could also operate as a central
knowledge base for storing the knowledge
profiles of our staff members. These would
include lists of skills, knowledge, hobbies
and previous professional experience.
To stimulate knowledge sharing at the
level of the strategically important knowl-
edge domains for the future, we recom-
mended initiating so-called ‘communities
of practice’.
To help staff learn from earlier identi-
fied ‘best’ and ‘worst’ practice, we recom-
mended the use of a simple technique − the
‘After Action Review (AAR)’, as used by the
US Army. The interviews had indicated
that lack of time was a big problem and
this technique takes only a limited amount
of time and resources. A standard format
was designed to help project leaders eval-
uate their projects. The evaluation reports
would then be made accessible through the
wiki.
In order to stress that KM is not simply
about the present, but also about meeting
future goals, we explicitly communicated
to library workers the aim and value of KM
in the library (‘the collective ambition’)
feature
’
through a so-called ‘knowledge vision’,
aligned with the library’s strategic goals.
The financial investment needed for
conducting a KM audit is quite small, but
you should be aware of the amount of time
it takes to launch the survey, to conduct the
interviews and to have people complete the
questionnaire. ✪
Practical Tips
● The person responsible for analysing
the results should be familiar with the
KM field
● Get management support. If senior
management is unaware of the poten-
tial benefits that KM holds for the
organisation, all efforts will be in vain.
Finding a sponsor in the organisation
who can liaise between the audit team
and senior management and who can
promote the audit may significantly
improve the chances of success.
● Do not fear people’s reactions to the
outcomes of your survey. If you don’t do
the audit, nothing will happen and that
is even worse.
● KM is a lot about common sense, so
keep things simple.
● A good communication strategy is
essential throughout the entire KM
audit process. During the audit process
it is vital to address concerns or ques-
tions that staff members have. This
ensures a broader ownership base and
at the same time increases support for
the recommendations. Also, effective
feedback after the audit will minimise
resistance to the suggested changes.
References
1 M. Weggeman. Kennismanagement:de praktijk, Scriptum,
Schiedam, 2006.
2 J. Klobas. Wikis: tools for information work and collaboration,
Chandos Publishing, 2006.
3 C. Wagner. ‘Wiki: a technology for conversational knowledge
management and group collaboration.’ Communications of the
Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13, 2004, pp. 265-89.
Karolien Selhorst holds a Master’s degree in
Information and Library Sciences (University
of Antwerp) and currently works as digital
library manager/knowledge manager in the
public library of Vlissingen. She gives prac-
tical workshops on knowledge management
for information professionals/libraries. She
is also a freelance journalist for Bibliotheek-
blad and a member of the editorial board of
InformatieProfessional. Karolien presented
the results of her research at ECKM 2007.
selhorst.karolien@telenet.be
http://flemishlibrarian.blogspot.com
update | 39