1. How to Define a “Best Practice” Michael J. Spendolini, Ph.D. President, MJS Associates KM World 2000 September 13, 2000

2. MJS Associates / KM World 2k2 The Issue: Include a “Best Practices” Element in the Knowledge Base Typical Client requestors Benchmarking applications KM database element Professional Associations Strategic planners

3. MJS Associates / KM World 2k3 Why Should We Care? The best-practice (BP) objective defines the exact nature of the information selected for inclusion The BP perspective suggests a level of investigation to identify “qualified” information The nature of information provided by contributors will be influenced by your definition of a BP How an organization defines a “successful” information product will depend on it’s BP perspective

4. MJS Associates / KM World 2k4 The Challenge: To Identify a Meaningful Set of Dimensions That Define a “Best Practice”  Research objective:  Review existing formal definitions  Consult with “topic experts” regarding their perspective  Methodology  Literature review (on-line hits: 000s)  On-line survey of benchmarking experts and experienced practitioners (n = 428)  Telephone and on-line interviews with 40+ KM “experts”  Special emphasis on consultants who sell or promote a best practices product

5. MJS Associates / KM World 2k5 Initial Impressions  There is nothing resembling a consistent and/or uniform BP definition or perspective  Several “definitive” definitions are being promoted, but they seem limited  The implications of the use of the term “best practices” are often ignored or not fully understood  An expedient answer is often desired and/or accepted  Consultants and subject matter “experts” exert a tremendous amount of influence on their client’s perspective  Many “clients” are not very demanding of their “consultants” (lack of “client savvy”)

6. MJS Associates / KM World 2k6 Project Direction Identify meaningful dimensions that could be used to define a “best practice” Attempt to reflect levels of consistency and creativity Assume that the majority of BP applications will not require or demand a consideration of all identified dimensions

7. MJS Associates / KM World 2k7 Process Guided by a Basic Belief That the identification and documentation of a set of BP dimensions can support several desirable outcomes: Provide a common platform for discussion for data requestors and service providers Help define the exact nature of a BP-related data set (input sources and data users) Stimulate a more aggressive BP perspective in the marketplace Support the notion of a “dynamic” database that is multi-dimensional and evolving

8. MJS Associates / KM World 2k8 Progress to date: 5 “Core Dimensions” are Proposed 1. Type of information 2. Level of Validation / Verification 3. Geographical reach Systems Impact Environmental Considerations

9. MJS Associates / KM World 2k9 1. Type of Information  Quantitative  Performance levels, costs, revenue, staffing levels, resource requirements, various ratios, etc.  Process  processes, technologies, org. structure, customer-supplier relationships, strategic decision-making approach, etc.  Strategic  Macro (org.-level) and micro (process level), the strategic planning process itself, environmental analyses, forecasting, growth projections, key business assumptions  Qualitative  Personal opinions, reactions, preferences

10. MJS Associates / KM World 2k10 2. Level of Validation / Verification  Evidence that information represents anything of a “special” nature  Often linked with special research effort to provide evidence of relative performance  Position of information on a continuum of performance  Practices  Working practices  Generally accepted practices  Recommended practices  Practices reflecting expert opinion  Practices reflecting absolute performance standards

11. MJS Associates / KM World 2k11 3. “Partner” or Source Relationship  Refers to the “locus” of information – inward vs outward looking, level of “out-of-the-box” information represented.  Low level: “the usual suspects” – internal, competitive, members of existing networks, etc. No research required  Medium: non-traditional partners, but from similar types of environments (still a lot in common). Attempts to discriminate and seek high performers  High: Information from non-traditional sources. Selection is process focused as opposed to output focused.

12. MJS Associates / KM World 2k12 4. Geographical “Reach” Location in relation to one’s organization. Low: “Best-in-class” or “Best-in-Cleveland”. In U.S. by region. In Europe, Asia, Middle East – by country Medium: Outside of one’s immediate geographical area. For U.S., majority of sources are typically U.S. based. Outside of U.S., by region (e.g., Europe) High: True global outlook. Proactive search. U.S. generally more conservative

13. MJS Associates / KM World 2k13 5. Systems Impact Reasonable cost-benefit analysis Consideration of actual costs of practices: transition costs, training, information systems, staffing, consultant, maintenance…….. Inter-relationship of cost, quality, time, etc. is considered Long-term implications of cost-benefit Consideration of internal/external customer-supplier effects

14. MJS Associates / KM World 2k14 6. “Environmental” Considerations Special considerations that effect whether certain information is included or excluded for consideration An effort is made to insure that processes are “transferable” in different organizational settings Examples of environmental items: Organization size, structure, global diversity Regulatory environment Market position Union presence Profit / non-profit status Public vs. private Supply chain factors Customer relationships Competitors Technology use and applications