Project: | Collaboration and Knowledge Sharing in Technology-Based Networks, Communities, and Forums |
Partner: | U.S. Army |
Challenge: | The U.S. Army sought to better understand the objectives of both grass-roots and institutionally-sponsored Networks, Communities and Forums (NCFs) and the needs of their users; to assess capabilities and resources that were needed and provided to meet those objectives and needs; and to provide more effective centralized support and infrastructure while being responsive to the unique needs of particular NCFs. |
Description: | The U.S. Army developed a network-centric knowledge management strategy to support greater agility, flexibility, and knowledge sharing in action. The Huber Institute worked with the U.S. Army to assess collaboration and knowledge sharing in technology-based NCFs in the Army. After extensive interviews with designers and managers of NCFs, the Huber Institute developed and administered customized surveys for both users and managers of NCFs. The Institute also developed a framework and a prototype for the development and use of metrics plans that would enable NCFs to assess progress in meeting their goals and to measure value for users and stakeholders. |
Benefits: |
|
To learn more about this project and results, click questions below:
What were the objectives of NCFs in the Army?
What value did users obtain by participating in their NCFs?
What other outcomes did NCFs help users achieve?
What were the objectives of NCFs in the Army?
For all NCFs analyzed, access to information and knowledge sharing were key objectives. Some NCFs focused on leadership development and building communities for different roles and levels of leadership. Others provided specialized knowledge to professionals wherever they were located and supported communities for people in particular fields. For some, mentoring and/or problem solving was very important. A few NCFs focused on the capture of tacit knowledge and its conversion into knowledge assets that could be used by others. Many NCFs were working towards translating learning from experience into validated practices and doctrine. Many NCFs were also working to establish closer links with the schoolhouses for professional development.
What capabilities, features/tools, and resources did NCFs provide to meet their objectives and the needs of their users?
All NCFs had repositories of documents and other information. Other tools and features enabled users to quickly access knowledge and expertise needed—for example, to find best practices and lessons learned, to locate experts and peers, or to get advice from mentors. Many NCFs relied on chat rooms and other capabilities for discussion and collaboration. When communities of practice were important, capabilities and tools were available for sharing stories, videos, and other forms of tacit knowledge. For some NCFs, online discussions complemented and catalyzed interactions and discussions offline. Some sites changed their architecture over time to better meet the needs and tasks of users. Other sites developed incrementally, using different platforms and software, and then faced challenges of integration.
What value did users obtain by participating in their NCFs?
What are the components of an NCF's metrics plan as specified in the framework developed by the Huber Institute?
The metrics plan for an NCF is organized around key goals of the NCF as identified collaboratively by developers, managers, and stakeholders. Stakeholders are identified for each goal. Two or three metrics are identified for each goal that can be used to assess progress in meeting the goal and to measure value for users and stakeholders. The source of data for each metric is identified, and processes are specified for collecting and analyzing data to establish a baseline and track the metric over time. Many metrics require the collection of both quantitative and qualitative data-quantitative data to measure and track value, and qualitative data to clarify how the value is realized.
What other outcomes did NCFs help users achieve?
NCFs helped their users to be more innovative in their work, to learn from their own and others' experience, to improve their skills and knowledge, and to build more and better relationships.
Innovation. NCFs helped their users become more innovative by helping them recognize needs and opportunities for new ideas and approaches, get and use new ideas in their work, and ask new questions.
Learning. NCFs helped their users learn from their own and others' experience, use feedback to see what does or doesn't work, make incremental improvements in their work, and reduce the time it takes to learn new ways of working.
Improved Skills and Knowledge. NCFs helped their users
Better Relationships. NCFs helped their users connect with others of like
mind/interest, build relationships, feel part of the community, and strengthen networks.
Which supports and barriers were most important in facilitating or impeding desired outcomes? What challenges did they pose?
Leadership, resources, and culture were key supports and barriers. High-level leadership was needed within the Army, as was participation and support from leaders who were members of each NCF and could serve as champions. All NCFs depended on the leadership of volunteer members as well. The absence of leadership support at any of these levels was a key barrier. Resources were another key support, and barrier. All of the NCFs needed more resources. Some NCFs benefited from resources obtained through links with colleges and partnerships with software developers and vendors. An ongoing challenge was the balance between the centralization of resources and responsiveness to local needs. A culture of learning and knowledge sharing was another critical support. Achieving a balance between the hierarchical culture of the Army and the knowledge sharing culture of many NCFs was an ongoing challenge. There were similar tensions between anonymity needed for knowledge sharing and accountability.