Implementing Best Practices (IBP) and Knowledge for Health (K4Health) Project
Knowledge Management Working Group (KM WG) Meeting
Theme: “Advancing Measurement and Learning”
JHU∙CCP, Baltimore, MD
October 11, 2011
Meeting Minutes
The goals of this meeting were to:
1) Review the KM WG’s progress in the year since its inception
2) Discuss the theme of “Advancing Measurement and Learning”
3) Identify priority topics and next steps for the coming year
Two renowned KM experts – Jay Liebowitz and Stacey Young – joined the meeting to present
their work, share their vision of KM, and contribute to the development of new ideas and KM
approaches.
Attendee list
*Alberto Andretta, ChildFund International
Zachary Baquet, USAID/BFS
Piers Bocock, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
*Erin Broekhuysen, JSI
Natalie Campbell, MSH
Daniel Cothran, JSI
*Peggy D’Adamo, USAID
Willow Gerber, MSH
*Sarah Harlan, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
Kate Howell, URC
Bill Lester, NPOKI
Jay Liebowitz, UMUC
*Patricia Mantey, FHI 360
Elsie Mwaniki, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
*Angela Nash Mercado, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
Theresa Norton, Jhpiego
Saori Ohkubo, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
Simone Parrish, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
Suzanne Rainey, Forum One
*Laura Raney, FHI 360
Sally Salisbury, Consultant
Rebecca Shore, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
Loren Sollenberger, Insight Corp
Kate Stence, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
*Tara Sullivan, JHU∙CCP/K4Health
Linda Tawfik, Knowledge Management Services
Sarah Weber, CRS
Stacey Young, USAID
* Asterisk indicates participation in the KM Advisory Committee
We also had a number of participants join the meeting via phone/GoToMeeting.
Welcome and Overview
10:30-11:00
Presenters:
Piers Bocock, JHU∙CCP, pbocock@jhuccp.org
Tara Sullivan, JHU∙CCP, tsulliva@jhuccp.org
Piers Bocock welcomed participants to the JHU∙CCP office. He congratulated the group on its
progress during its first year—it had been 365 days since the group’s first meeting—and asked:
What’s next for the KM WG?
1
Tara Sullivan reviewed the KM WG’s purpose, and gave an overview of the current status of its
deliverables.
 There have been a number of successes in the past year:
o The KM for Health and Development eToolkit has been completed and launched
o The WG documented the KM business case and collected related resources in
the toolkit.
o The KM M&E logic model has been completed
 Areas that will need more work in the coming year:
o The KM toolkit has some gaps (i.e., KM success stories).
o The issue of KM strategy needs to be discussed more.
o The logic model will be used as the foundation for the revision of the M&E guide
for information products.
 The WG is currently chaired by JHU∙CCP, but the chair will rotate each year.
Fostering Research & Scholarship at UMUC
11:00-11:45
Presenter:
Dr. Jay Liebowitz, Orkland Endowed Chair in Management & Technology,
University of Maryland University College, JLiebowitz@umuc.edu
Dr. Liebowitz shared some of his tools and methods for measuring KM, and discussed his work
fostering knowledge sharing at UMUC.
General thoughts
 The KM terms we are using may be new, but the KM field itself is not new.
 It is crucial to look at informal networks to supplement the formal, hierarchical structures
in organizations. The informal world isn’t as well understood, so it is important to use
social and network analyses to map connections.
Knowledge retention and long-term planning
 Dr. Liebowitz shared results of some recent KM literature, and stressed the need for
knowledge retention (KR), which should be a part of all knowledge sharing strategies.
 A recent study found that ~80% of respondents had no formal KR strategy in place. This
study focused on non-profit & government organizations, but the same is true in the
business world.
 KM should go hand-in-hand with succession development and long-term planning.
 A tool for assessing KM maturity was developed by Liebowitz and others; it scores how
well KM systems are working. Most organizations score ~2-3 (on a scale of 0-5).
4 pillars of a human capital strategy
 Knowledge Management
 Competency Management
 Performance Management
 Change Management
Tenets for Knowledge Sharing/KM success
 Have a recognition/reward structure in place.
2




Explain the benefits of knowledge sharing to others.
Share failures as well as successes – with creativity comes failure.
o Dr. Liebowitz suggested have a “Failure Award” to encourage sharing
challenges, and embedding “lessons learned” into overall reporting requirements.
Knowledge sharing should be incorporated into everyone’s job.
Use appropriate technology (make sure the technology works for people, and not vice
versa).
Knowledge Sharing at UMUC
 They now have a digital repository for research materials – accessible by all affiliated
with the university.
 He works to nurture a culture of research and knowledge sharing – he puts together
talks on flash drives to create awareness of integrating better across programs,
departments, etc.
 UMUC hosts a “Share Fair” (in both face-to-face & virtual formats) – includes
presentations and awards for research.
 New grant money to foster research and publications of junior faculty members.
KM Measurement & Metrics
 It is easier to measure systems or process outcomes, but what we really want are the
outcome measures.
 Metrics need to be mapped back to the mission and strategic goals/objectives of the
organization.
 You can’t always trust numbers. Anecdotal evidence is often just as useful for measuring
KM impact.
 Innovation often comes from “weak ties” – the knowledge generated outside one’s own
field – so you can look at measuring joint research presentation, collaboration, etc.
 It is crucial to share lessons learned in formal (including published materials) & informal
venues.
Dr. Liebowitz closed by stressing that knowledge retention should be addressed by senior
leadership and organizational management teams. We need to improve our methodologies,
tools, and metrics for KM. It is important to apply ideas from other disciplines (for example,
social network analysis, which arose from sociology & education) and to focus on an
integrated, systems-based approach to KM.
Questions and discussion from the group followed Dr. Liebowitz’s presentation:
 One participant asked Dr. Liebowitz to name some compelling reasons/ways to sell
KM within an organization. He responded that a business case is important, in order to
show others KM’s value. It is also crucial to have a senior-level KM champion, and to
ensure that the KM strategy is aligned with the overall goals of the organization. The
most important reason to argue for KM is to create new products/services: Through
cross-collaboration, we will innovate. Also, KM leads to memory-building for the
institution, along with adaptability and agility.
 The group discussed where KM’s “home” should be within the organization. Dr.
Liebowitz said that there is not one set “home” for KM – there may be a need for an
interdisciplinary KM WG within an organization. Sometimes, the best place for a KM
group to sit is under the VP for Strategy – this allows KM to take on a strategic role in the
organization.
3





The group discussed KM/KS in the context of USAID (which Stacey Young addressed
later in the WG meeting).
o USAID is emphasizing evidence-based development more than in the past, and
is re-engineering work processes to incorporate evidence-based initiatives into
the design of programs. USAID is rebuilding their internal capacity (traditionally,
technical strength has resided more with partners than internally).
o KM needs to be holistic. While making the business case for KM, one should talk
about the objectives first and then talk about how KM can support those
objectives.
o Another participant stressed that one of the main drivers for KM is the fear that
money is being wasted w/ duplication of effort. USAID is also decentralized, with
bureaus & missions doing their own thing. We need to ensure that all sectors
communicate better.
Another participant asked Dr. Liebowitz: How do we go about being more innovative,
and how do we encourage people to share knowledge rather than hold onto it? He
responded by stressing the importance of trust within an organization – this crucial for
knowledge sharing. He recommended the book “Mastering Organizational Knowledge
Flow” – a good resource for sharing knowledge within an organization.
Someone asked if there are ever instances where KS actually may be inefficient? Dr.
Liebowitz said that knowledge is a capital asset, and you need to have a team approach
to looking at KM and to have the right provisions in place if certain knowledge cannot or
should not be shared outside the organization. Certain password-protected technology
settings can be applied, so organizational knowledge does not get out. He also
recommended a book by G Schiuma, which discusses KM from an organizational capital
standpoint.
One WG member stated asked for tips on collecting data, as the metrics seem laborintensive. He responded that tools and techniques need to be in place before collecting
metrics. Also, INSNA.org has software, pubs, & techniques for collecting metrics. It
doesn’t require as much people power as you think – you just need the right ways &
methods in place to gather & collect data. Taking time to set up the systems is important.
Dr. Liebowitz discussed ways to get people to admit failures. In one organization, he
started a journal called “Failures & Lessons Learned in IT Management,” which included
bittersweet stories or outright failures. A safe environment needs to be created in order
for others to share. Pseudonyms can be used. Part of this is an education issue, but it’s
finally up to senior leadership to create the environment to test these innovations and
create a comfortable space for sharing both failures and successes.
USAID’s KM Strategy: Process, Progress, Perspectives
12:15-1:00
Presenter:
Stacey Young, PhD, Senior Knowledge Management Advisor, Bureau for Policy,
Planning and Learning, Office of Learning, Evaluation and Research, USAID
USAID, styoung@usaid.gov
Stacey began by sharing some background:
 USAID’s vision behind the KM strategy: To “increase USAID’s aid effectiveness by
improving the quality of its programs and extending its influence through
leveraging knowledge and evidence, infusing learning throughout technical activities,
4



and catalyzing learning among USAID staff, partners, and broader practitioner
communities.”
USAID sees the limitation of what they can do w/ their resources without adequate KM.
A focus on KM & learning improves development practice across the board, and can
lead to a much greater impact.
USAID is now working on developing on their KM strategy, and is looking for input from
others who work in KM.
She defined a “learning organization” as one that can: coordinate & collaborate, learn, and
adapt. (C, L, and A)
 Coordinate & Collaborate: USAID is looking to improve collaboration among – and with
– partners. Collaborating with country-level stakeholders needs to be more systematic. It
is important be strategic about when & how collaboration occurs.
 Learning: USAID needs to fill knowledge gaps, test hypotheses, learn from others’
experiences, and transfer knowledge to others. USAID needs to improve the system of
bringing in knowledge from other places (specifically the country level). They need to
identify “game changing conditions” – things that could have a huge influence on
USAID’s work.
 Adapt: USAID needs to be able to adapt as they go but still stay on track. Evaluation
creates a learning loop that is significant and rigorous. It is important to enable an
iterative approach to evaluation, but to still be able to complete this in a tight timeframe.
She stressed that an organization must start by looking at their objectives, and then determine
how KM&L can support that objective.
Enabling conditions can help with the implementation of the KM strategy. These include
champions, clear objectives, technology, clear roles and responsibilities, resources, incentives
(hard and soft), and a high-level support.
Stacey presented two possible KM approaches:
 The first started with countries, brought in missions, then brought in support (via TA,
coaching, tools, techniques, evaluation support, technology & systems, performance
management). In this model, everything would happen at the country level.
 The second approach (due to financial cuts, etc.) would embed knowledge and learning
within all reforms, and would include language on learning in all of the evaluation policies
for programs, etc. This model would support and reward existing successful/promising
efforts, and provide examples and models for those who want to invest in K&L.
USAID KM/L Strategy deliverables:
• Actual strategy document
• Rollout/communication/change management plan
• Learning lab for implementation support
• Continuous feedback system
She solicited feedback and asked the WG what they would like to see in a KM strategy. She
asked how the strategy should be informed by: existing K repositories, K-sharing processes,
platform, & tools. She acknowledged that having a strategy is not enough – sharing it and
providing support as it is rolled out is equally important.
Questions and discussion from the group followed Stacey Young’s presentation:
5






One participant asked about the relationship of KM & project management, and the
need to have key staff become project managers in addition to their ongoing jobs.
Stacey answered that learning needs to be integrated into the program cycle. She said
that USAID has integrated language on learning into the program guide (and the
evaluation step). There is an interim step, though – implementation – and we need to
articulate K&L into that step.
Another member said that it seems that integrating KM into SOPs would productive, as
KM for KM’s sake won’t go very far in a limited funding environment. If KM is presented
as optional, there may be pockets of innovative people, but it may be difficult to
implement organization-wide unless KM&L is integrated into project management.
One member recommended that Stacey look at the decision-making guides for FP – to
encourage investment in evidence-based, high-impact strategies.
Several members of the KM WG are comparing KM-related job descriptions, as a
way to discuss roles & responsibilities.
The group discussed what types of indicators could go into RFPs. Someone
suggested having a model and a set of indicators that explains how knowledge feeds
into results –including outputs and outcomes. This could help explain USAID’s
expectations across all the development areas, and would help USAID CAs know what
they needed to report.
We discussed the need for adaptation/flexibility, and how that may conflict with the
need to collect baseline & endline data. There may be a fear that we cannot adapt if
we’ve already collected baseline data. One group member recommended having some
static indicators, and then others that can be added or changed. Another participant
recommended having static indicators and then backing these data up with qualitative
results.
Areas for KM WG to pursue this year
1:15-1:30
Led by Laura Raney, FHI 360, lraney@fhi360.org
Laura reviewed the KM WG outputs in the past year:
 15 individuals from 10 organizations developed “Making the Case for KM.”
 12 different organizations contributed to the KM for Health and Development Toolkit.
 An Advisory Committee has been formed.
 A KM panel for the Intl FP Conf in Dakar has been accepted.
The following items were added to the KM WG “wish list” for this coming year:
 Clarify roles & responsibilities for KM
 Perpetuate learning about the field of KM – create learning opportunities to build the
capacity in PH programs to incorporate KM strategy
 Ensuring representation at high-level meetings and conferences
 KM Advocacy
 Research agenda
 Knowledge retention
6








Project management – how to make KM mechanisms part of everyday work and develop
practical working solutions
M&E – continuing this past year’s conversations and also: gathering data, using metrics,
showing that KM has impact
Showing that participating in virtual discussions/listservs actually has an impact on
programs
Combining efforts for research (e.g., combining NA with other similar efforts)
Reaching out beyond this arena – maybe w/ World Bank or others?
What can we learn from our BCC colleagues who are involved in messaging?
A list of “quick win” projects – some things you could do w/ immediate payback, and help
to get buy-in within the organization?
Case studies to document how KM can help turn innovations into reality (related to
scale-up)
Knowledge Café
1:30-2:30
Based on the KM WG “wish list,” the group decided upon the following as topics for the
Knowledge Café:
1. KM strategy (continuing the discussion from Stacey Young’s presentation – discussion
notes will be shared with her)
2. Research agenda
3. KM advocacy
4. KM integration – “Quick Wins”
5. KM success stories
Participants visited three of the five tables during the hour-long Knowledge Café. Facilitators
stayed at the same table the whole time, and recorded notes from all three group discussions.
Knowledge Café report back
2:30-2:45
Knowledge Café tables were facilitated by Theresa Norton, Saori Ohkubo, Daniel Cothran,
Alberto Andretta, and Sarah Harlan.
KM Advocacy (facilitator: Theresa Norton)
 We should perpetuate learning about KM through our advocacy work.
 We should focus on how we can be represented in all important conferences, meetings,
presentation opportunities.
 We need more productive engagement in KM.
 There is a need for KM media and advocacy products kit (they should be label free –
with an inter-agency KM WG brand).
7



We could also produce: a 1-2 page brief; KM eLearning info; mini-blog entries; mini
stories/case studies; webinars, a Facebook page; and conference presentations
(especially non-KM conferences).
In all of our products, we need to make sure we are using the right language to ensure
champions’ support and participation.
We can look at SBCC projects and see what we can learn from their work.
Research Agenda (facilitator: Saori Ohkubo)
 It is important to have our own agenda and test KM hypotheses. We need to show the
impact of KM (i.e., that investing in KM can improve outcomes).
 We can also measure/prove impact and success from participating virtual KM sharing,
CoP, leadership programs.
 Knowledge retention is a key area we should consider researching.
 We should be documenting the ways that KM can implementation and scale-up of
programs.
 We should also learn from SBCC colleagues about messaging.
 This topic goes hand in hand with the existing KM M&E task force.
KM Strategy (facilitator: Alberto Andretta)
Elements/ideas provided by the two presenters that we found useful in our own thinking
around KM&L development strategy
 Larger architecture (i.e., KM&L to serve the organization’s development goals)
coupled with building block (i.e., KM&L with PM; KM&L as integral part of project
design).
 KM&L Strategy must be supported by internal and external capacity development.
 The importance of considering the location where KM&L resides within a given
organization. And how that reconciles with an often highly decentralized setting.
 KM&L as a strategic objective (with indicators and budget line) in project/program
design.
 Need of constant support from senior management.
Ideas/perspectives to consider in developing a KM&L strategy
 KM&L strategy needs to facilitate the identification of various knowledge
users/contributors. For instance, the field remains as a privileged space for
innovative knowledge and solutions.
 Accordingly, there seems to be a strong need for upward, horizontal, vertical
information flows.  The idea/metaphor of knowledge personas emerged in the
conversation to remind us of the traits of the actual users of and contributors to the
shared knowledge base.
 There is/will be a need to deeply understand the AID’s KM&L framework and
strategy so that each individual proposal (and implementing agency) can speak to
the larger shared knowledge base.
 The agencies represented in the K4Health consortium will collate, analyze and offer
a set of roles and responsibilities around KM&L as defined in existing RFAs.
 Learning-centered project design: this is a topic to be explored and tested. In
essence, the idea is that project design and actual implementation should be done
by facilitating development of local capacities. KM&L then becomes a precondition
and a driver for implementation…and not “just” one among other objectives in a
project design.
8
Possible KM&L Strategy WG deliverables in the coming year
 List of possible/tested KM&L indicators to include in project design.
 Explore and test learning-centered development paradigm.
 Lessons learned from agencies represented.
 Could USAID co-fund some initiative of KM&L WG that could result in concrete
contributions to AID’s framework/strategy?
KM Integration & “Quick Wins” (facilitator: Daniel Cothran)
 How quick is a “quick win”? Much of what we want to do with KM may take some time.
Also, things go in waves and we have a need to focus on sustainability in crafting these
“wins” – focusing on areas that are working already.
 Quick wins should focus on: sustainability, incentives, culture, and what already works.
 We should work more on integrating within project management.
 We also need a common definition of KM, and to have KM integrated within programs
(can be included in RFAs).
 Specific ideas:
o Develop a “who’s who” or expert locator, and searchable shared directories of
those working in KM.
o Hold a seminar series.
o Identify and work with IT champions.
o Identify potential partners whom we have not tapped into and reach out – E.g.,
World Bank, universities, etc.
KM Success Stories (facilitator: Sarah Harlan)
 The term “success story” may be limiting – group members recommended using “case
study,” “learning story,” or “KM story.”
 We can develop criteria for writing these stories, working closely with the M&E/research
task force. How do we attribute success to KM specifically? To answer this question, we
will need to systematize and measure KM programs to attribute a program’s success (or
failure) to KM activities.
 We can use different vehicles and formats for these stories.
o We can use pre-existing sites to distribute them; we do not need to create a new
platform. (Most will go on the KM Toolkit.)
o We may need a marketing expert to help with the format and dissemination of
these stories. We can use a variety of formats, including: video, photos with
descriptive captions, longer narratives, and shorter vignettes.
 We can develop guidelines and templates for writing up these case studies.
 Where do we look for these stories? We should look at who is implementing KM
activities – and then look for “bright spots.” We can then trace back to determine how
these “bright spots” got that way.
 We should focus on who would use the success story (i.e., why we should capture them)
– if we focus on the end user of materials or KM programs, we can then determine what
the KM process was that led to the individual using a product or method.
After the knowledge café facilitators reported back to the group, the larger group decided on the
KM WG’s priority focus areas for the coming year:
 Research Agenda – We discussed the importance of testing hypotheses and
demonstrating the impact of KM approaches, with the ultimate goal of improving
outcomes. This topic will be incorporated into the existing M&E task force, led by Saori
Ohkubo (JHU∙CCP) and Tara Sullivan (JHU∙CCP).
9



Strategy – The group agreed that defining roles and responsibilities for KM will be
crucial as we move forward. This will be a new task force, and will be led by Alberto
Andretta (ChildFund International). Alberto will also connect with Stacey and share the
group’s ideas with her.
Case Studies – Documenting both successes and challenges will promote learning
among others implementing KM activities. This will be a new task force, and will be led
by Sarah Harlan (JHU∙CCP).
Advocacy– The group talked about the need to promote KM at conferences and events.
A task force to develop a panel submission for the upcoming International
Communication Association Conference will be formed – led by Angela Nash-Mercado
(JHU∙CCP).
Closing Remarks and Next Steps
Peggy D’Adamo of USAID made some brief closing remarks. She talked about the
importance of building evidence of KM to show impact, cost-effectiveness, or both.
Tara Sullivan summarized the next steps for the KM WG:
 We will have a teleconference the topic of acknowledging contributions – and to respond
to a draft document developed by Erin Broekhuysen. This was on the meeting agenda,
but we ran out of time.
 Three new task forces will be started—Strategy, Case Studies, and Advocacy—and
leaders will begin to recruit group members. The “research agenda” discussion will be
rolled into the existing M&E task force, and the “integration and quick wins” discussion
will be incorporated into the new strategy task force.
10