Monitoring and Evaluation of Knowledge Management Simon Hearn

Monitoring and Evaluation of Knowledge Management Simon Hearn, ODI, s. hearn@odi. org. uk Ewen Le. Borgne, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, leborgne@Irc. nl Valerie Brown, Australia National University, valeriebrown@ozemail. com. au

Overview Our journey so far: Definitions, challenges and signposts Interlude: Multiple knowledges Where are we heading next with this?

“It is, in fact, nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry. ” - Albert Einstein

Definitions “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less”

Monitoring and evaluation • OECD definitions: – Evaluation: The systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. – Monitoring: A continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives (abridged)

Monitoring and evaluation • OK, but. . . Any definition must recognise: – M&E as universal functions, not specialised roles – Presence of different worldviews – Validity of evidence from different knowledge domains* – The ethical basis for the desired social change – The importance of the unexpected and the intangible

Knowledge • • • Objective and subjective Individual and society Facts and values Tacit and implcit E. g. Western scientific conception of knowledge as ‘justified true belief’ vs African concept of Ubuntu

Development • Often conceptualised as a service industry • Delivery of even basic services (roads, sanitation. . ) requires an understanding of the social, political and economic contexts • Thus, development is more like a knowledge industry (Powell 2006) • But development is more than donor aid and we must recognise civic-driven change also

Challenges

Challenges in M&E of KM 4 D 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. KM 4 D does not as yet have a well grounded theory Knowledge for development practice is still young KM 4 D goes beyond what is labeled ‘KM’ Competing ontological and epistemological perspectives (and related knowledge systems) Existing reporting frameworks are designed for a service industry rather than a knowledge industry There can be no simple cause-effect relationship KM initiatives often lack explicit linkages to individual, specialist, organisational or social results Knowledge is not static Lack of methods for interpreting intangibles

Signposts

1. KM ripple model Performance improvement Changed practices Knowledge capital Knowledge processenhancing activities Hulsebosch et al (2009)

2. The KM Framework Talisayon (2009)

Need a better understanding of what intangibles are Cognitive Factors Structural Capital Relationship Capital Tangible Assets Motivational Factors Human Capital Value creation through intangibles Based on Talisayon (2009)

Need a better understanding of knowledge transitions SECI Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

Need a better understanding of how knowledge is put to use Knowledge to action cycle Graham et al (2001)

Need a better understanding of organisational factors affecting knowledge use The RAPID Framework for Knowledge Strategies Ramalingam (2005)

We need to understand the level of complexity Cynefin framework Snowden (2002)

Summary: a range of perspectives • Ontological: What world-views are reflected in the initiative and how do we recognise them? • Epistemological: What are the knowledge domains contributing to M&E and how do they relate? • Socio-political: Who has a stake in the monitoring process and who has power? How can we monitor these interdependent relationships? • Methodological: How to choose tools and approaches relevant to the parties and processes involved? • Operational: How do we organise M&E activities according to each of the knowledge domains?

Your reflections? • Do you identify with these signposts? • What signposts do you use? • How do you see these models supporting your work?

Multiple knowledges: M&E as multiple partners

Whole-of-community M&E · INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENT · COMMUNITY INTERESTS · SPECIALISED ADVICE · ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT · HOLISTIC SOLUTIONS

Multiple knowledges (Brown 2008) · INDIVIDUAL KNOWLEDGE Personal lived experience · LOCAL KNOWLEDGE Shared community event · SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE Environment, Health, Finance…, · STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE Organisational structure, aims · HOLISTIC KNOWLEDGE. Focus, vision

Rejected knowledges · INDIVIDUAL KNOWLEDGE Biased · LOCAL KNOWLEDGE Anecdote · SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE Jargon · STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE Self-serving · HOLISTIC KNOWLEDGE. Airy-fairy

Collective knowledge as a nested set Individual knowledge Local knowledge Specialist knowledge Organisational knowledge Holistic knowledge A collaborative system 25

Port Pirie: small town with the biggest lead smelter in the world KNOWLEDGES STRUCTURE CONDITIONS Children diagnosed with lead INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY People long resigned to risk SPECIALIST Health Centre stays aloof ORGANISATION Mine muzzles council HOLISTIC FOCUS Fear for future livelihood 26

New alliances in Port Pirie INDIVIDUAL Parent, grandparent COMMUNITY Outrage, political action SPECIALISTS Technical skills, advocacy ORGANISATIONAL good HOLISTIC Public/private Children’s wellbeing 27

M&E as collective learning - multiple interests - multiple knowledges - collaborative action

Next steps: - The IKM-E approach - Emergent questions on the horizon

Our approach: Multi-evidence based? Each knowledge community uses different M&E criteria, evidence bases, databases for judgments. . . • Individuals (experiences) • Communities (observations) • Experts (practitioner stories) • Organisations (monitoring reports as stated) • Holistic thinkers (ideas, forecasts)

Our approach: Purposes of conducting M&E • • • Financial accountability Operational improvement Strategic readjustment Capacity strengthening Contextual understanding Deepening understanding (research) Self-auditing Advocacy Sensitisation (From I. Guijt’s Ph. D thesis ‘seeking surprise’)

Our approach: KM as collective learning Ideals Key to nested knowledge cultures: · Individual · (Local) Community · Specialised · Organisational (strategic) · Holistic What should be? Describe Develop Actions What can be? Initiative Facts What is? Design Do Ideas What could be?

Our approach: critical questioning • A series of questions at each step of the way – Overall, a sound questioning practice – And specifically, a guideline to tailor one’s approach: • • What questions to address? Who to involve, in what function? What tools and methods to choose? What lessons to draw from the approach?

Our approach: A nested iterative inquiry

Emergent questions on the horizon • How would our approach work in practice? • Specific methods and metrics to go ‘light’ • Particularly complexity-focused approaches • Power vs. collective?

What now?

IKM-E + KMIC = IKMEKMIC? • Avoiding overlaps. . . – Connecting KMIC and IKM (blogs. . . ) – Organising another webinar? – Identifying different models / approaches? • Having creative leaps. . . – Reviewing the IKM papers? – Expanding parts of this paper? – Testing the IKM-E framework (later)?

Additional resources • IKM-Emergent website: http: //wiki. ikmemergent. net • The giraffe, Working group 3 blog • Working paper 3: ‘Monitoring and Evaluation in Knowledge Management for Development‘ http: //su. pr/5 rqp 8 c • Background paper: ‘Monitoring and evaluating knowledge management strategies’ http: //su. pr/28 Q 9 Yu

Thank you!