Disaggregating Samples of Assessments

From KM4DevWiki

Back to Main Page on KM Benchmarking

Several participants have made the experience that there is special value in disaggregating the sample of people participating in the survey.

Benchmarking can basically happen in three ways:

1. Doing the same survey with different organisations and comparing results, which eventually lead to a "competitive" benchmarking
2. Doing the same survey at two or more instances over time (time line study) and assess the dynamics and change over time
3. Disaggregating the sample into different sub-groups along defined criteria

Based on a few experiences, we have explored several dimensions of disaggregation (refering to the last of the options):

• Seniority: disaggregate the sample on the basis of number of years working with an institution: people working for a short time only do have other needs and therefore perceive KM differently than people who are working with the institution for years. People who are with an institution for a long time do have their own informal know-how, networks and connections and therefore don't depend on any institutional (let alone formal) systems of KM. Newcomers however welcome any supporting mean to fill their gaps and vacuum.
  Specific comments:
  • Annette: was observing interns in the ILO having and cultivating an entirely different culture of sharing, of solidarity; this is based on a different "culture" in general terms, but also different needs of finding their ways through an organisation which is new to them.
  • Amanda: she has done this and has observed a sort of "threshold" of people after two years - the hypothesis is they start adapting to the organisational culture after that time.
  • Michael: the seniority dimension can also express a dimension of power and status: senior staff can be more defensive because of being afraid of loosing status and influence through "competing" systems of accessing experience and expertise outside of the naturally grown systems and structures of informally knowing your way round.
• Gender: nobody has observed any significant effect along this dimension.
• Field - Head Quarter: this dimension shows strong effects: people at the HQ seem to be much more negative and critical towards KM. This could be explainable by the "wealth" of information and knowledge sharing opportunities. While people in central places seem to be not only well served, but rather flooded, they tend to be more defensive, whereas people in the field seem to rather "underserved" and therefore more welcoming and open.
• Language: Especially within internationally operating organisations, language is a major issue. Especially francophone and hispanophone people are felt left behind in settings where the dominant language is English. Even if there are many ways and channels to exchange and share knowledge, if this all is happening in just one language, people of other languages may not only feel detached, but even discriminated. The effect is an even aggravating one.
  • Crossing the dimensions of 'Field - Head Office' and 'Language': it may be worth distinguishing the two dimensions simultaneously. People at the Head Office may be more used to a multilingual working environment and therefore may be able to cope better with it. However, people in the field working in a monolingual context may experience the effect mentioned above even more. In that sense, looking only at 'language' without distinguishing the field - HO dimension could water down the effect.
• Working Function: Several persons have made the experience that distinguishing the sample according to working functions (ie. administrative staff, technical/professional staff, (senior) management, consultants, ...) is very relevant. Eg. administrative staff often feels undervalued. They often have a tremendous knowledge, experience and especially an overview, which often is not solicited by an organisation, which can lead to frustration on one side, but also on the experience of performance below optimum.
• Educational Background: this was a disputed dimension. It may happen, that people do feel they are underestimated, which could lead to an impression of under-performance.