CG TRADOC Directive Independent Study of Knowledge and

CG TRADOC Directive Independent Study of Knowledge and Information Management in the Generating Force Final Report – Dec 17 MG (R) Chuck Thomas chuck. thomas@baesystems. com 571 -239 -8789 Andrew Muras andrew. muras@baesystems. com 817 -481 -2997 1

Study Overview • Independent study of Information & Knowledge Management practices that impact the level of efficiency and effectiveness with which TRADOC captures, filters, codifies, stores and distributes knowledge • Focus on concept/process solutions versus IT/system solutions • 180 day timeframe for initial findings • 16/17 Associated Tasks • Formal outbrief to CG & documented study results & recommendations 2

Study Goals: Problem Statement TRADOC does not have a formal (standardized) IM/KM process that identifies, validates and incorporates information into existing TRADOC doctrine, education and training and operational feedback processes. This results in diminished control of available information through a formal vetting process designed to provide required knowledge to the right people, at the right levels, with the right content and at the right time. Formal process should permit operating force input to: Doctrine/TTP development Formal training development entry points - Rapid vetting, then fast return to operating force 3 - -

Overall study status & schedule June 20 • Project Reporting Aug 20 Sept 24 Nov 9 Dec 17 Lean Final Event Status Rpt Brief Status Rpt Results Document and analyze current US Army/TRADOC Knowledge development and movement of information Cost Drivers, Root Cause Analysis, Leaning techniques Kickof f • Current State Analysis • Alternatives Development Discussions and comments with TRADOC and non-TRADOC components • Vetting Findings documented, recommended solutions and roadmap to change • Final Report & Recommendations Month Written Report 1 2 3 4 5 6 • Extensive data gathering through site visits and conference calls • Conducted multiple process analysis and KM events • Conducted multiple surveys of Soldiers • Coordinated initial results with other TRADOC personnel 4

Deliverables • Final Report 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Executive Summary Process Analysis Knowledge Management IT Systems Task Directive recommendations Change Management Plan Narrative Survey Results • Sharepoint Site Data Repository • IPR Briefing Results 5

Components of Knowledge Management Content People Ø Ø ØProject management manuals ØStandard project procedures ØProject activity models ØChecklists ØSpecifications ØExpert identification Ø Forming Communities of Practice ØProposals Ø Collaboration process ØLessons learned Ø Shared standards ØRisk assessments Ø Common taxonomy ØProject profiles ØCareer path guidance Ø Survey, census, requirements analysis Ø Metrics and reporting ØSoftware help ØExecution strategies Ø Cross-organizational integration Ø Feedback loop Process Knowledge managers Formal Communities of Practice Training and communications Measurement and reward systems Knowledge sharing culture Technology Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø Collaboration Expertise database Workflow & project management Repositories Content management Learning Portals Search engines & locators Document management Problem resolution systems 6

Findings - People • Many stovepipes exist across TRADOC’s organization, systems and operations – The organizational structure and stovepipe culture do not support effective collaborative teaming and knowledge flow. – Significant overlap in KM activities between groups within TRADOC – Exacerbated by reorganization and personnel cuts Soldiers actively engage in sharing and searching Observations, Insights, Lessons (OIL) content - 51% of Soldiers actively share their OIL content - 28% of Soldiers actively search for OIL content • KM roles and organizations (e. g. , CKOs) exist at some Directorates and Proponents and are doing effective KM work – Most are defined differently – Sometimes coordinate based on common need, but usually “do their own thing. ” • Accountability to policies and regulations is inconsistent • Current Army knowledge strategy is mostly IM focused – The one item that is KM only considers people, not process or content – The primary regulation on KM is TR 25 -1, Information Resources Management • No continuous process for developing thought leaders 7

Findings - Process • Cross-functional processes lack discipline – Multiple and unregulated entry points – Components of cross-functional processes operate independently – No systemic prioritization, existing hierarchy results in slow response to operating force – Limited measures of performance • Inconsistent application of KM tools/approaches – KM best practices exist across TRADOC, but are not replicated Primary factor that would encourage Soldiers to contribute more OIL is increased confidence in the vetting process - 40% of repositories surveyed do not vet OIL content - 20% of repositories never review content for additional vetting after it is in the system – Multiple approaches/systems used, often duplicative and with different technologies that create potential confusion – No common guiding roadmap for a balanced and blended application of KM – A consistent/standard Network/Community of Practice approach has not been adopted • TRADOC has not leveraged benchmarking and measurements to evaluate KM progress beyond typical IM measures • History of non-implementation of process change initiatives – TRADOC Process architecture eliminated due to non-use – Multiple mapping results dating to 2005 filed away for safekeeping 8

Findings - Content • Conflicting views (definitions, development processes, uses) of Doctrine/TTP/Best Practices/Lessons Learned/Observations – Use of these terms is inconsistent, leading to potential confusion among users about who and where they should go to share or gather knowledge Only 4% of OIL content is currently documented in an Internet-based resource - 60% of repositories do not tag data with metatags - 90% of repositories have a targeted audience (45% branch-specific, 45% function-specific) • The Army (and TRADOC) has not defined a common taxonomy for knowledge and content with associated accountability and business rules guiding knowledge transformation and flow – No systematic process to quickly and efficiently extract “knowledge nuggets” from diverse sources of content – Opportunities exist to leverage Networks/Communities to filter and escalate potential “knowledge nuggets” – Many disparate initiatives underway addressing some aspects of taxonomy • Disconnects between operating force requirements and TRADOC products/services; limited field ‘touch’ points 9

Findings - Technology • Disparate systems and repositories Limited current search capability: - 90% of repositories support search yet 48% of Soldiers rated an effective search function as the number one knowledge sharing constraint – Not linked; lack of interoperability – Duplication of data – Diverse technologies • Operating force has difficulties accessing lessons learned, best practices, TTP, etc. – Lack of awareness of available resources - 47% of Soldiers would like to search more but do not have enough time (26%) or feel the process is very difficult (21%) – Deployed operating force has limited access Soldiers rated email (21%) as both the most effective and most commonly used nonverbal method for exchanging OIL – Best Lessons Learned database is CALL; but it uses older technology and is primarily accessed through formal RFI…too slow & often irrelevant Top 30% repositories account for 70% of Soldiers sharing and searching for OIL content – Difficult to know where to locate appropriate content • Lack of sophisticated search capability – Contextual criteria – Cross-domain/enterprise-wide – Search is primarily localized to individual repositories requiring multiple searches 10

Recommendations - People • Establish an overarching KM strategy & governance structure. – – Delineate a knowledge vision and roadmap to achieve integrated KM competency Institute KM maturity assessment with performance metrics to track capability & improvement • Establish CKO at HQ, TRADOC with accountability for driving TRADOC KM strategy — CKO to facilitate a virtual team of knowledge management officers that represent each TRADOC organization and proponents to implement KM initiatives — Authority to enforce interoperability of systems and technologies • Consolidate all doctrine development (doctrine writer SMEs and document production) at a single site, CAC/CADD • Develop a coordinated change management process that includes establishing a core group of change management individuals to provide subject matter expertise. • Define a formal officer career-long educational process which incorporates knowledge management, writing and critical thinking skills throughout the typical career – draft a CSA Directive. 11

Recommendations - Process • Adopt a Cross-functional Team Approach as the Vehicle for all Implementation Efforts – – – Codified in a detailed process guide Taps TRADOCs personnel resources Direct senior leadership involvement Implement applicable performance measures Involves all stakeholders, with primary user as team leader • Use cross-functional SMEs for developing Doctrine and TTP based on best practice procedures identified at ALSA and Air Warfare Center. • Ensure ownership and accountability for proponent relevant information (Doctrine, TTP, LL, info sharing, etc. ) resides at each COE 12 CAC D T COEs B O

Recommendations - Content • Define a content hierarchy for organizational knowledge – – – Basic levels: Tier 1 Doctrine/TTP, Tier 2 Doctrine/TTP, Best Practices, Observations based on cycle time, operational needs and level of vetting (i. e. , form follows function) Define knowledge and content types including ownership, quality and risk of use, cycle time and guidelines for application. Develop rules formalizing content from informal sources (blogs, discussion threads, emails, etc. ) up to unit or army approved standard practices Transition knowledge flow from relationship based to process based (i. e. , structured and systematic). Accept and codify definitions from the 10 -14 Sept mapping event, or charter a team to standardize and codify key definitions • Re-think form & dissemination of publications to meet current user needs – – – Hierarchy of Tier 1 and 2 Consolidate/reduce total number of manuals Quick vetting for rapid response of observations/LL/BP: COE as vetting authority; interoperable systems/single interface Migrate to electronic/living documents, e. g. , OBP, with updating of specific content areas User-friendly content: IPOD, checklists, fold-outs, other evolving technology Manage information as living documents (TTP/Best Practices/ Observations in particular); electronic distribution of documents as primary; print only on demand. 13

Recommendations - Technology • Use an on-line Clearinghouse to collect, analyze and disseminate observations/OIL – Pilot “cc email” project with narrative data mining tools – Define relationship between current forums/communities and on-line collection tools • Establish and implement a roadmap for interoperability of systems and repositories – Migrate to standard classification of data and make visible to global search – One-stop shop for central point of access; with enhancements, AKO is a logical solution • Establish and implement a plan to provide and access TRADOC content. – For the interim, tools are currently available to help mitigate the lack of connectivity for the deployed Soldier, e. g. , PDA’s. – The ideal solution (web-based access) will only be in place when the Army is in position to provide hi-speed, secure on-line/on-demand access across the operational theater. 14

Phase I Priorities 1. 2. Develop a coordinated change management process which includes establishing a core group of change management individuals to provide subject matter expertise. a) Adopt a cross-functional team approach as the vehicle for all implementation efforts 3. Establish an overarching KM strategy & governance structure. 4. Define a content hierarchy a) Use cross-functional SMEs for developing Doctrine and TTP based on best practice procedures identified at ALSA and Air Warfare Center. c) d) 5. Consolidate all doctrine development (doctrine writer SMEs & document production) at a single site, CAC. b) Phase III Establish CKO at HQ, TRADOC with accountability for driving TRADOC KM strategy Re-think form & dissemination of publications to meet current user needs Ensure ownership and accountability for proponent relevant information (Doctrine, TTP, LL, info sharing, etc. ) resides at each COE Establish and implement a plan to provide and access TRADOC content. a) Use on-line Clearinghouse to collect, analyze and disseminate observations/OIL 6. Establish and implement a roadmap for interoperability of systems and repositories 7. Define a formal officer career-long educational process which incorporates knowledge management, writing and critical thinking skills throughout the typical career 15

Phase I Action Plan Action Milestone 1. Generate memorandum creating TRADOC Knowledge Program Office; Define CKO as the lead for this office ; Develop roles, responsibilities and authorities of the CKO 15 Jan 2. Recruit to fill CKO position 15 Jan 3. Establish personnel requirement for Knowledge office at HQ, TRADOC and recruit to fill it 30 Jan 4. CG identify a Staff agency (CPG? ) to review and finalize the Process Guide for signature 1 Feb 5. Establish initial Change Management capability: government and contracted resources 1 Feb 6. Build an initial set of achievable goals for the CKO and Knowledge Office 15 Feb 7. Charter two teams for addressing KM priorities: (1) KM governance structure, (2) KM strategy 15 Feb 8. Establish Executive Council/Steering Group for team solution review 30 Feb 9. CG identify Staff agency to review existing Command projects and establish priorities 30 Mar 10. Charter initial teams to begin addressing other priorities 15 Apr 16

Change Management Network An integrating mechanism between the formal structure, the project structure, and the governance structure FORMAL STRUCTURE Proposed Messages and Actions PROJECT STRUCTURE CKO CM STRUCTURE Proj 2 Proj 3 Sponsor Team Leader FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS Proj 1 Team Leader Change Agent CKO Team Members Delivered Messages and Actions Change Agents Sponsor s Delivered Messages and Actions GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE Delivered Messages and Actions Executive Council Executive Steering Group Change Mgmt Panel 17 Proposed Messages and Actions