OpenAIR@RGU
The Open Access Institutional Repository
at Robert Gordon University
http://openair.rgu.ac.uk
This is an author produced version of a paper published in
Knowledge and Process Management (ISSN 1099-1441)
This version may not include final proof corrections and does not include
published layout or pagination.
Citation Details
Citation for the version of the work held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’:
BURNETT, S., WILLIAMS, D. and GRINNALL, A., 2013. The strategic
role of knowledge auditing and mapping: an organisational case
study. Available from OpenAIR@RGU
. [online]. Available from:
http://openair.rgu.ac.uk
Citation for the publisher’s version:
BURNETT, S., WILLIAMS, D. and GRINNALL, A., 2013. The strategic
role of knowledge auditing and mapping: an organisational case
study. Knowledge and Process Management, 20 (3), pp. 161-176.
Copyright
Items in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’, Robert Gordon University Open Access Institutional Repository,
are protected by copyright and intellectual property law. If you believe that any material
held in ‘OpenAIR@RGU’ infringes copyright, please contact openair-help@rgu.ac.uk
with
details. The item will be removed from the repository while the claim is investigated.
file:///S|/Library/OpenAIR%20(SS)/Authors/andy%20grinnall/Grinnall%20KPM%20set%20text.txt[20/08/2015 12:40:07]
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: BURNETT, S., WILLIAMS, D. and GRINNALL, A., 2013.
The strategic role of knowledge auditing and mapping: an organisational case study. Knowledge and Process
Management, 20 (3), pp. 161-176, which has been published in final form at http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.1416. This
article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
1
The Strategic Role of Knowledge Auditing and Mapping: An
Organisational Case Study
Simon Burnett*, Dorothy Williams and Andy Grinnall
Research Institute for Management, Governance and Society (IMaGeS),
Robert Gordon University, Aberdeen, UK
*Correspondence to: Professor Simon Burnett, IMaGeS, Robert Gordon University,
Aberdeen, UK. E-mail: s.burnett@rgu.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the results of research which aimed to evaluate the current position of the
knowledge management (KM) capabilities of a multi-national energy services company. This
was achieved through the development and application of three methodological ‘tools’
designed to facilitate the collation of relevant data upon which the KM strategy would be
based. These were: a Knowledge Process Audit to develop an understanding of how
employees viewed current knowledge-based practices within the organisation; a Knowledge
Inventory and Map to identify and list tacit and explicit knowledge assets within the
organisation; and a Knowledge Needs Analysis to determine the types and forms of
knowledge assets required or desired by members of staff to perform their roles more
effectively.
While a number of strategic approaches to knowledge management have been posited, there
has been a general lack of material describing the development and use of methodologies
which may be used as a basis for KM strategies. This research emphasises the need for and
use of a rigorous approach to the collation and application of relevant data on which to
develop a suitable strategy.
Practical implications are provided in the form of key findings for the research, including the
importance of internal tacit knowledge; consultation of external sources only after internal
searches have failed; difficulty of new integration of employees; lack of knowledge sharing at
a wider level. Methodological implications for the development and application of knowledge
audit and mapping tools are also presented.
BACKGROUND
As understanding of the benefits and limitations of knowledge management (KM) within
organisational contexts continues to develop, so too does the development and application of
tools and techniques used to support various aspects of KM. A critical antecedent to
implementation is to develop an understanding of the current KM context though the use of
approaches such as knowledge audits and maps (BSI, 2001).
Over the last twenty years, the knowledge audit and map have been acknowledged as
important processes in determining and illustrating the knowledge held within an
organization. Indeed, the knowledge audit is widely recognised as the first ‘critical’ stage of
2
introducing KM into the workplace (Liebowitz et al., 2000; Hylton, 2002; Perez-Soltero et
al., 2006a): ‘…through an audit, organisations can identify and evaluate all information
resources and workflows and determine user requirements, which will vary widely from wide
access (e.g. policies and procedures) to extremely limited access (e.g. payroll information)’
(BSI, 2001). Knowledge maps are visualisations of knowledge embedded within the people,
systems and documentation of an organisation. Vail (1999) defines knowledge mapping as
‘the process of associating items of information or knowledge, preferably visually, in such a
way that the mapping itself creates additional knowledge. The mapping process often creates
intellectual capital value through the creation of new knowledge from discovering previously
unknown relationships or gaps in expected ones’ (Vail, 1999, p. 5). The map shows what tacit
and explicit knowledge exists, where this can be found and how this knowledge moves
around the organisation from where it is to where it is needed.
A knowledge audit provides an understanding of the types of knowledge and knowledge
processes which exist in a specific context (such as an organisation). This may include the
location of the knowledge, how it flows through an organisation as well as identifying any
gaps between required and existing knowledge (Levantakis et al., 2008; Bright, 2007).
Implementing this type of organizational ‘health-check’ allows for the evaluation and
identification of the most appropriate initiatives and approaches required to improve the
management of knowledge (Liebowitz et al., 2000).
RATIONALE
Prior to the 21
st
Century very little attention within the field of KM was given to knowledge
auditing and mapping. Despite recognition of their importance (Liebowitz et al., 2000;
Koulopoulos and Frappaolo, 2000) the lack of literature relating to the practicalities of
undertaking a knowledge audit may have acted to discouraged implementation attempts and
may even had an impact on their success (Burnett et al., 2004). To build on the lack of
empirical evidence, a number of methodologies based on KM practice and research emerged
in the early 2000s (e.g. Skyrme, 2002; Liebowitz et al., 2000; Lauer and Tanniru, 2001;
Hylton, 2002; Burnett et al., 2004; Choy et al., 2004). While differences between the models
exist, these approaches broadly focus on a number of key elements: the identification of
knowledge needs (through questionnaires and interviews); the discovery of the types of
knowledge present and their locations; how knowledge is maintained and stored; its use and
relevance; how it moves within a specific context; the construction of a knowledge map and
the development of a final report (Perez-Soltero et al., 2006a). Aspects of these original
models have subsequently been used by other researchers and practitioners to develop further
knowledge audit frameworks to suit different contexts and environments (Schwikkard and du
Toit, 2004). Consequently these frameworks (including those developed by Liebowitz et al.,
2000 and Burnett et al., 2004) are still being used today to inform the execution of knowledge
audits (Huck et al., 2011).
Based on several of these original models, Levantakis et al. (2008) developed new concepts
incorporating knowledge strategy development and social network analysis to produce a high
level method. Five ‘donators’ were selected, including the model devised by Burnett et al.
(2004) and these were compared with the super method process, defined by Hong et al.
(1993) as the smallest common denominator of activities addressing existing knowledge audit
methods. This analysis disclosed limitations of each of the five donators. For example,
3
Levantakis et al. (2008) suggest that the approach by Burnett et al. (2004) focuses less on the
in-depth investigation and more on evaluating the data but consequently could be used to
further develop existing models. Xiao et al. (2010) also consider existing models to produce
an integrated framework with emphasis on the core knowledge audit processes.
The focus of knowledge auditing has also moved towards improving the representation of
findings through social network analysis, taxonomies and onotologies (Sharma et al., 2010,
Perez-Soltero et al., 2006b, Eppler, 2009), using a balanced scorecard method (Iazzalino and
Pietrantino, 2005) highlighting the importance of culture and other organisational factors
(Levy et al., 2009), consideration of core processes (Perez-Soltero et al., 2006a), and the
importance of knowledge inventory analysis (Levy et al., 2009, Perez-Soltero et al., 2007,
Levantakis et al., 2008, Bright, 2007, Cheung et al., 2007).
Levy et al. (2009) criticised the models developed in the first part of the 21
st
Century for not
including a KM infrastructure audit whereby the culture, knowledge processes and IT within
the organisation are assessed. By integrating methods from the fields of both knowledge
auditing and system modelling, Levy et al. (2009) believe their framework is able to identify
issues, opportunities and impacts of knowledge assets, their format and location in relation to
business processes. The authors indicate that this, as opposed to the focus on either social or
technical aspects as employed by previous models, aims to build the KM infrastructure of
culture, knowledge processes and IT. However, it must be noted this methodology was also
developed by analysing five frameworks informed by the original methodologies (Bright,
2007; Iazzolino and Pietrantino, 2005; Handzic et al., 2008, Levantakis et al., 2008, and
Perez-Soltero et al., 2006a).
Investigations into knowledge audit methodology focusing on core organisational processes
have been carried out by Perez-Soltero et al. (2006a, 2007). Perez-Soltero et al.(2007)
suggest that the majority of these original models failed to consider the core processes of a
particular organisation rather, auditing everything whether important or not. Their model
therefore focuses on the knowledge that is contained within the core processes ensuring the
existence of key knowledge critical to the success of the organisation. Moreover, despite
their critique of the model developed and applied by Burnett et al. (2004), Perez-Soltero et al.
(2007) do, however, acknowledge that it would be possible to employ this model when
planning to measure knowledge processes within certain core processes.
As such, this research aims to revisit the work conducted by Burnett et al. (2004) in order to
examine how it may be usefully developed further through the incorporation of ensuing
developments in the field (such as those noted above) with a view to continuing the
development of knowledge auditing and mapping approaches. This paper examines the
application of these approaches within the context of an organisational case study in order to
address two research questions:
• Where is the organisation currently, in terms of (formally and informally) managing
organisational knowledge?
• What is the appropriate direction for the organisation in relation to KM?
The subsequent sections of this paper describe in detail: the process undertaken; the reasons
why this process was employed; and what the results indicated, for each approach and stage
illustrated above.
