Developing a Knowledge Management Strategy 111Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without writtenAlthough Adkins had been able to continue the AFKM efforts, he knew the conflict
with the IT organization, regarding LiveLink® and other information system issues, was
not going away. Since both organizations claimed a role in providing and establishing
KM systems, disputes would be ongoing. While Adkins and his Team had a wealth of
KM knowledge and system development expertise, the IT organization was still the
authorized policy maker. If conflicts continued, the AFKM program and system risked
being changed, dismantled, or simply “taken over.” This, too, was something that
weighed heavily on Adkins’ mind.
Funding Cuts
It was Adkins’ understanding that a $600,000 budget cut was in the offing for 2001.
Such a cut would force him to make hard choices that would affect the AFKM program’s
future. In practical terms, the budget cut would require Adkins to let go of six AFKM
System Development Team contractor personnel. If cuts did come to pass, he knew he
would have to reassess, reprioritize, and reorganize the current AFKM system develop-
ment workload distribution.
Adkins was also worried about the impact on AFKM system customers. From its
inception, the AFKM program had attempted to serve a wide range of customers.
Whether it was supporting DoD-wide efforts such as Deskbook, AFMC internal efforts
such as the Help Center, or outside command efforts such as the Engineering and
Technical Services CoP for Air Combat Command, the AFKM System Development Team
had eagerly built new applications. While some of the projects had been fully funded by
the requesting customers, many had been accomplished on an as-can-pay basis or
without funding support at all. Adkins knew that without AFKM program funding
assistance, some customers would never be able to get their KM efforts off the ground.
With the budget cuts looming, customer support practices would have to be reevaluated
as well.
AFKM System Usage Concerns
Despite rave reviews about the usefulness of the AFKM system from customers,
Adkins was disturbed by low use, or “hit” rates. Simple system access metrics showed
that, although use continued to rise, it was only a small portion of what it could or should
be. To counter this phenomenon, Adkins and the AFKM System Development Team
attempted to improve awareness with a series of road shows. They traveled to many
AFMC bases to market the AFKM system’s many capabilities. While this effort had
increased usage somewhat, overall AFKM usage was still low. From a macro view,
Adkins understood that KM and the AFKM system tools were still in their infancy.
However, the low usage statistics did not help the AFKM System Development Team
justify the benefit or the budget. Adkins was glad that his superiors had supported the
Team’s efforts on intuition and common sense; however, he also understood that he
could be asked at any time to measure the true impact and return on investment.
Remarking about the necessity of good metrics, Adkins said, “we had a budget drill not
too long ago where I lost a little bit of money and some people... that reinforced the fact
that I needed better metrics.” In preparation of such requests, Adkins needed to seriously
consider how he could improve results.