94 Zyngier, Burstein, and McKay
Copyright © 2005, Idea Group Inc. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written
- The understanding and control of explicit knowledge came from library, information
management and document workers who had previously been working in this field. - The contribution of information architecture through the Information Technology
and Systems department was a headquarters-based concern. The importance of the
active involvement of the Information Technology and Systems department was
particularly pertinent in the context of need for STDO KM conformity to an
enterprise-wide architecture within the STDO where it must comply with the
architecture of its parent organization, the Department of “Operations.” - Further, these elements required financial resources to develop an overall IMKM
design and plan to create the delivery of an electronic library service, to improve
the intranet, and to develop a knowledge improvement program. Governance was
the mechanism that could implement authority over the IMKM plan and provide
the framework to ensure delivery of expected benefits in an authorized and
regulated manner.
Mechanisms were also needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy.
Informants indicated that the need for governance was recognized and triggered from two
directions:
- The “issue came up of ‘do these people need money?’ Well suddenly that forces
you to think about policy” (Informant 1). This indicates an awareness and
responsibility for the concern that if money is being spent by the organization, then
governance of expenditure is required. As acknowledged earlier, the Australian
Public Service was operating within a new context of governance and accountabil-
ity that in particular focused on authorized, regulated, and effective use of public
monies. - STDO’s own research found that the issue of governance to ensure fiscal and
managerial accountability emerged as the underlying factor inhibiting most of the
cultural and infrastructure management of a KM strategy. “In particular, divided
management responsibility and an attitude of ‘it’s someone else’s problem’ were
a common theme” (Informant 3).
Of particular interest is the juxtaposition of accountability and divided management
responsibility as shown in these two statements. It can be concluded that the structure
of governance of the KM strategy evolved due to external forces and from the insight
and leadership shown. The IMKM Governing Board was formed with key stakeholders
who represented the interests of multiple areas of management and of the interests of the
researchers in the organization. This composition of the board was felt to give real
opportunity for issues to be resolved. “It meant that for the first time ever [they] weren’t
coming together to argue about who should get what money. They weren’t coming
together to see who should get the lead of what program. They were coming together to
work at strategic objectives. One of which was knowledge management. So it was treated
as being part of a whole rather than being a sideline. Because they were all working on
a range of items we were very careful not to fragment the technology planning from the
people initiatives, from the various areas. And although they were people with interest
they weren’t necessarily the people who had ownership of that process. And that sort
of reinforced the many people interested but a particular person was the owner of
changing the process” (Informant 1).