1. KM Toolkit Task Team Update
Global Health Knowledge Collaborative Meeting
September 13, 2016
Sarah Harlan – CCP
Simone Parrish – CCP

2. KM Toolkit Task Team
Met at the last GHKC meeting to discuss process of updating KM Toolkit
Decided on a parallel effort:
Review Toolkit analytics for the past year
Conduct survey on knowledge needs of KM practitioners

3. Analytics: General Impressions
Very wide range of traffic—some resources not viewed at all
Top = over 2,000 views of a single resource
8 out of 60 sections had more than 500 views/downloads
25 out of 60 sections had fewer than 100 total views/downloads
90% of participants said they help colleagues share information or knowledge with each other
80% said they help manage or improve information systems to support the work of their colleagues
61% are “very experienced in KM” (26% have “some experience”; 13% are “new to KM”)
67% have KM as an official part of their job description; an additional 27% are program managers who want to understand KM better for their projects

4. Analytics: Traffic Proportion by Section
Remaining 14%:
(4%)
(4%)
(3%)
(2%)
(1%)
What really stood out to me here: The “Operationalizing KM” landing page gets a lot of pageviews, but then people don’t drill down into most of the sections.
I think the “Getting Started” and “Operationalizing KM” headers are obscuring some of their subsections, and we should lift those up to the top level.
“Operationalizing KM” is a bit odd: A lot of people hit the landing page, but most of the sub-sections and resources under it have very low traffic. The section as a whole gets a massive artificial boost due to two outliers (which I’ll talk about in a bit).

5. Analytics: Least Popular Sections
About / History
Making the Case / Statistics
Operationalizing KM:
Behavior change communication strategies
Communities of practice
eLearning
Social media
Training and facilitation techniques
Measuring the Impact of CoPs
KM Professional Development / Communities of practice and listservs
Useful Technologies for KM Practitioners
BCC, CoPs, eLearning, Social Media, and training and facilitation—all buried under “Operationalizing KM”
Survey respondents called out strategy, internal KM advocacy, and training as specific needs—let’s use their language?
CoP information is buried/split up across multiple sections. I think if we unify it under one top-level page, more people might see it.

6. Analytics: Interesting Outliers
Least viewed:
Knowledge, Policy and Power in International Development
Tips for Trainers
Why Should I Share? Examining Social Capital and Knowledge Contribution in Electronic Networks of Practice
Chapter 4 (of what?): Linking Research to Action
World Report on Knowledge for Better Health
Measuring the impacts of knowledge management
Some of these, I think, suffer from their titles: The first one sounds overtly political.
The second sounds broad and vague.
But “Measuring the impacts of knowledge management” sounds right up our audience’s alley, and it’s not too buried.
Is the intro boring? Is it not relevant to our audience?

7. Analytics: Interesting Outliers
Disproportionately high Clicks:
“A Tool for Sharing Internal Best Practices” : More than 2,000 views
“European Guide to good Practice in Knowledge Management - Part 4: Guidelines for Measuring KM”: More than 1,100 views

8. Survey Results – KM expertise
90% of participants said they help colleagues share information or knowledge with each other
80% said they help manage or improve information systems to support the work of their colleagues
61% are “very experienced in KM” (26% have “some experience”; 13% are “new to KM”)
67% have KM as an official part of their job description
90% of participants said they help colleagues share information or knowledge with each other
80% said they help manage or improve information systems to support the work of their colleagues
61% are “very experienced in KM” (26% have “some experience”; 13% are “new to KM”)
67% have KM as an official part of their job description; an additional 27% are program managers who want to understand KM better for their projects

9. Survey Results – KM Work
The following elements are most central to participants’ work:
Knowledge sharing & communication (90%)
Knowledge capture & organization (87%)
Knowledge generation & synthesis (81%)
Developing a KM strategy (68%)
Defining roles & responsibilities of KM teams (55%)
Measuring KM (52%)
These are the elements participants named as most central to their KM work – in order - these all received more than 50% ”yeses”

10. Survey Results – KM Responsibilities
Great majority said ”yes” to each of following responsibilities:
Managing/improving information systems to support colleagues’ work (71%)
Training/providing access to learning resources for colleagues (87%)
Helping colleagues share information/knowledge with each other (94%)
Sustaining communities of colleagues/partners who share interests or a common goal (67%)
Working to preserve access to documentation of the organization’s history (73%

11. Survey Results – KM Behavior
Most participants (68%) have used the KM for Health and Development Toolkit
Other places they go – or recommend – to look for KM information & tools:
KM4Dev
World Bank
USAID Learning Lab
NASA Knowledge Toolbox
APQC
K4Health
Google
KSToolkit.org

12. Survey Results – KM Behavior
Favorite KM resources (esp. those published since 2011):
World Bank’s Art of Knowledge Exchange
Nick Milton – Writing a KM Strategy
Collaboration Mapping Tool from USAID Learning Lab

13. Discuss: Match Toolkit Structure to Practitioner Needs?
Identifying knowledge and information needs
Gathering knowledge from colleagues and stakeholders
Organizing information
Sharing documented insights and lessons learned
Evaluating and measuring KM program success
I have a handout!