Knowledge Audit: Findings from the Energy Secto
Knowledge and Process Management
Volume 21 Number 4 pp 270– XXXXXXXXXX)
Published online 22 May 2014 in Wiley Online Li
ary
(www.wileyonlineli
ary.com) DOI: XXXXXXXXXX/kpm.1435
■ Case Study
Knowledge Audit: Findings from the
Energy Secto
Gillian Ragsdell1*, Steve Probets2, Ghosia Ahmed1 and Ian Mu
ay2
1 Loughborough University, School of Business and Economics, Loughborough, UK
2Loughborough University, Computer Science, Loughborough, UK
*Co
Scho
Loug
E-ma
Cop
Knowledge audits assist organisations in understanding what knowledge is needed, available and used for thei
cu
ent activities. They also identify knowledge gaps that might limit the organisation’s activities. An iterative cycle
of knowledge audits takes account of the organisation’s changing environment and triggers informed interventions.
This paper reports the findings of the first knowledge audit in an organisation that
ings together public bodies and
private organisations with the aim of maximising the collective knowledge of its diverse membership to address a
national research agenda.
The audit collected qualitative data from interviews with employees from four departments. Interviewees were
asked about their roles, procedures and knowledge needs; their department’s knowledge requirements; and
about knowledge interfaces with external partners. Views about the culture and structure of the organisation
were also sought.
Results were analysed at a departmental level to form two knowledge maps per department—one each for internal
and external knowledge flows. Analysis of the maps and interview transcripts surfaced strengths and weaknesses
of each department’s knowledge activities. Next, a cross-department comparison highlighted best practices and
company-wide opportunities for enhancing knowledge management.
Resulting recommendations were to:
• Develop a holistic approach to knowledge sharing
• Nurture organisational culture
• Clarify the strategic message
• Improve the organisation of information
• Improve the availability of staff
• Develop interdepartmental communication
• Commission future knowledge audits
In addition to reporting the outcomes and outputs of the audit, the paper also shares reflections on the process.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
INTRODUCTION
Knowledge audits are important processes through
which organisations can understandwhat knowledge
is needed, available and used for their cu
ent activi-
ties. They can also identifywhat knowledge ismissing
and how this omission restricts organisational activi-
ties. Hence, knowledge audits can help to identify ini-
tiatives to improve the knowledgemanagement (KM)
processes of an organisation and, in turn, improve
espondence to: Gillian Ragsdell, Loughborough University,
ol of Business and Economics, Richard Mo
is Building,
hborough University, Loughborough, Leics, LE11 3TU, UK.
il: XXXXXXXXXX
yright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
efficiency and effectiveness. An iterative cycle of
knowledge audits allows for the organisation’s chang-
ing environment to be taken into account and for ap-
propriate modifications to be made to its knowledge
ase. Despite the importance of knowledge audits, lit-
erature relating to their undertaking is sparse.
This paper addresses the scarcity of such litera-
ture and reports some of the findings of the first
knowledge audit commissioned by an organisation
that
ings together public bodies and private
organisations with the aim of maximising the
collective knowledge, expertise and experience of
its diverse membership to address a nationally
ecognised research agenda.
Knowledge Audit 271
KNOWLEDGE AUDITS—AN
INTRODUCTION
Debenham and Clark (1994:201) described a knowl-
edge audit as ‘a well-defined, highly technical,
structured report containing an overall, high-level
description of a restricted section of an organisa-
tion’s knowledge resource and a description of
identified individual “chunks” of knowledge in that
section’. In more recent times, there has been less
emphasis on the output of knowledge audits and a
stronger emphasis on the related activities. The
dynamic nature of knowledge audits has been
ecognised along with the benefits of following such
a process. According to Levy et al. (2010:114),
knowledge audits are deemed as the ‘first critical
step for implementing KM practices in organisa-
tions’. This is a view that is supported by Liebowitz
et al XXXXXXXXXXwho acknowledge a knowledge audit as
the first stage of an organisation’s KM strategy,
where its purpose is to lay a concrete foundation
(Choy et al., 2004) and enable evaluation of all areas
of KM processes (Biloslavo and Trnavčevič, 2007).
Burnett et al XXXXXXXXXXsuggest that a knowledge audit
can help organisations to determine and illustrate
the knowledge they possess, where this knowledge
esides and how it flows through the organisation.
Furthermore, the knowledge audit allows mapping
and proactive transference of organisational knowl-
edge (Mearns and Du Toit, 2008), and according to
Biloslavo and Trnavčevič (2007), the results of the
audit enable an organisation to identify the intrinsic
strengths and weaknesses of its KM processes and
give the ability to unveil and exchange best prac-
tices between different parts of the organisation.
Knowledge audits—methods and techniques
Several approaches have been taken to conduct
knowledge audits; a variety of methods and tech-
niques have been used in organisations.
Questions
Firstly, the types of questions that are typically
asked during knowledge audits could be put into
two categories: (i) identifying the knowledge that
cu
ently exists and (ii) identifying the knowledge
that is missing (Liebowitz et al., 2000; Dattero and
Galup, XXXXXXXXXXIn addition, some studies have also
designed certain knowledge audit questions around
subjects such as individual characteristics of the
participant, effectiveness of KM processes (Biloslavo
and Trnavčevič, 2007), KM implementation prob-
lems, organisational culture (Gourova et al., 2009),
tacit perceptions and cultural ba
iers (Levy et al.,
2010), general ba
iers and problems (Burnett et al.,
2004), and the degree of knowledge sharing interest
in participants (Perez-Soltero et al., XXXXXXXXXXHowever,
a more common theme that has guided knowledge
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
audit questions is the use of information technology
systems and communication tools to support KM
activities (e.g. Debenham and Clark, 1994; Bontis
et al., 2003; Reinhardt, 2003; Gourova et al., 2009).
Questionnaires and interviews
The use of questionnaires is a common method of
acquiring data in a knowledge audit, often used in
the preliminary phase or as part of multiple tools
(Hylton, 2002; Burnett et al., 2004; Choy et al., 2004).
However, questionnaires have also been used as
the primary tool for data collection (e.g. Liebowitz
et al., XXXXXXXXXXAlthough questionnaires can be a useful
tool in knowledge audits for collecting structured o
semi-structured data, they can have limitations in
terms of the quality, depth and context of qualitative
esponses. Therefore, Hylton (2002:7) argues that
interviews are an essential part of a knowledge
audit ‘to gain a deeper and more qualified insight
into the true and objective KM position of the
company’. Furthermore, the use of semi-structured
interviews is an effective tool for finding KM needs
and opportunities, whereas open-ended interviews
offer further opportunities to gain insights and
understanding of participants’ perceptions (Gourova
et al., XXXXXXXXXXVarious knowledge audits such as
those discussed by Levy et al. (2010), Mearns and
Du Toit (2008), Burnett et al XXXXXXXXXXand Choy
et al XXXXXXXXXXhave employed either semi-structured
or structured interviews to acquire detailed responses
from participants.
Maps
The central activity of a knowledge audit is often
the creation of a knowledge map that shows the
‘knowledge stock’ (Dattero and Galup, 2007: 216).
According to Wexler (2001: 250), a knowledge map
is a graphically presented communication channel
that provides excellent means to ‘capture and share
explicit knowledge’. Knowledge maps have been
adopted in various knowledge audit studies: Fo
example, Bontis et al XXXXXXXXXXdepicted the flows of
codified knowledge via e-mails, Choy et al. (2004)
combined knowledge maps with social network
analysis to display knowledge exchange between
individuals, and Burnett et al XXXXXXXXXXproduced
individual knowledge maps per participant that
depicted knowledge flows, sources and bottlenecks.
CASE STUDY ORGANISATION
The case study organisation is a public–private
partnership between industry and the UK Govern-
ment that
ings together the collective knowledge,
expertise and experience of its diverse membership
to address future energy challenges. More specifi-
cally, the organisation is working towards the UK
Government’s long-term energy emission reduction
targets. With these targets in mind, the organisation
Know. Process Mgmt. 21, 270– XXXXXXXXXX)
DOI: XXXXXXXXXX/kpm
272 G. Ragsdell et al.
initiates and supports projects that accelerate the
development of affordable, secure and sustainable
technologies. It has made investments in projects
in a range of energy sector innovation activities that
idge the gap between laboratory-scale research
and developments and commercial deployment of
large-scale engineering projects. By working with a
ange of national and international partners—
multi-national companies, small and medium enter-
prises, universities and research organisations—the
organisation is able to create project teams at the
cutting edge of science, technology and engineering.
Integral to the success of its projects is the high
cali
e of expertise and knowledge of its project
partners; thus, the organisation is highly knowledge
intensive. The organisation had recognised the
potential of effective KM practices to improve
efficiency across the organisation. Hence, KM was
high on its strategic agenda, and the organisation
has been very proactive in this respect. In fact, the
development of a KM strategy was already under-
way when the authors were invited to undertake a
knowledge audit therein.
KNOWLEDGE AUDIT DESIGN
The objectives of the knowledge audit were agreed
as follows:
• Map critical knowledge flows (both tacit and
explicit) throughout the organisation.
• Determinewhat knowledge assets are most impor-
tant in supporting specific organisational activities.
• Identify any knowledge gaps and bottlenecks.
The audit was to be completed within 2months,
and the budget allowed for one full-time research
assistant to work on the audit with some input from
a small team of academics. An interpretivist para-
digm was adopted for the knowledge audit, and
semi-structured interviews were chosen as the pri-
mary data collection tools.
Interviews
An interview schedule was designed to facilitate
the collection of data and information from
selected participants, focusing on the identification
of knowledge inputs and outputs and the mecha-
nisms for sharing knowledge between both internal
and external stakeholders. The questions were
designed to capture knowledge that could be ana-
lysed and presented as knowledge maps outlining
the knowledge flows between stakeholders and the
formal and informal systems by which knowledge
is transfe
ed.
The interview schedule comprised of 23 questions
that were a
anged in four sections. These fou
sections concerned the following: (i) knowledge
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
equired to perform the participant’s own tasks;
(ii) the participant’s view of the knowledge and
information handling procedures required for the
participant’s department to fulfil their role; (iii) per-
ceptions about the role of the organisation as a
whole; and (iv) questions about the organisational
culture. The questions were a mixture of open and
closed questions and aimed to elicit individuals’
personal perspectives on various aspects of knowl-
edge within the organisation.
Participants
An organisational chart was used to determine an
appropriate set of participants; 12 participants
were selected so as to best represent the fou
main departments within the organisation. Partici-
pant selection was based on the size of depart-
ment, the individual’s