Monitoring and Evaluation of Knowledge Management

Simon Hearn, ODI, s.hearn@odi.org.uk

Ewen LeBorgne, IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre, leborgne@Irc.nl

Valerie Brown, Australia National University, valeriebrown@ozemail.com.au

Overview

“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 KM4D1. KM4D does not as yet have a well grounded theory2. Knowledge for development practice is still young3. KM4D goes beyond what is labeled ‘KM’4. Competing ontological and epistemological perspectives

(and related knowledge systems)5. Existing reporting frameworks are designed for a service

industry rather than a knowledge industry6. There can be no simple cause-effect relationship7. KM initiatives often lack explicit linkages to individual,

specialist, organisational or social results8. Knowledge is not static9. Lack of methods for interpreting intangibles

Signposts

1. KM ripple model

Performance improvement

Changed practices

Knowledge capital

Knowledge process-

enhancing activities

Hulsebosch et al (2009)

2. The KM Framework

Talisayon (2009)

Need a better understanding of what intangibles are

Human Capital

Structural Capital

Relationship Capital

Tangible AssetsM

otivational Factors

Cognitive Factors

Based on Talisayon (2009)

Value creation through intangibles

Need a better understanding of knowledge transitions

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)

SECI

Need a better understanding of how knowledge is put to use

Graham et al (2001)

Knowledge to action cycle

Need a better understanding of organisational factors affecting knowledge use

Ramalingam (2005)

The RAPID Framework for Knowledge Strategies

We need to understand the level of complexity

Snowden (2002)

Cynefin framework

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

HOLISTIC SOLUTIONS

SPECIALISED ADVICE

ORGANISATIONAL SUPPORT

COMMUNITY INTERESTS

INDIVIDUAL COMMITMENT

Multiple knowledges (Brown 2008)

HOLISTIC KNOWLEDGE Focus, vision.

SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE Environment, Health, Finance…,

STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE

Organisational structure, aims

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE Shared community event

INDIVIDUAL KNOWLEDGE Personal lived experience

Rejected knowledges

HOLISTIC KNOWLEDGE

Airy-fairy.

SPECIALISED KNOWLEDGE Jargon

STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE

Self-serving

LOCAL KNOWLEDGE

Anecdote

INDIVIDUAL KNOWLEDGE Biased

25

Local knowledgeLocal knowledge

Holistic knowledge Holistic knowledge

Individual knowledgeIndividual knowledge

Collective knowledge as a nested set

A collaborative systemA collaborative system

Specialist knowledgeSpecialist knowledge

Organisational knowledge

26

Port Pirie: small town with the biggest lead smelter in the world

COMMUNITY

SPECIALISTSPECIALIST

ORGANISATIONORGANISATION

HOLISTIC FOCUSHOLISTIC FOCUS

People long resigned to risk People long resigned to risk

Health Centre stays aloof Health Centre stays aloof

Mine muzzles council Mine muzzles council

INDIVIDUAL Children diagnosed with lead Children diagnosed with lead

KNOWLEDGES STRUCTURE KNOWLEDGES STRUCTURE CONDITIONSCONDITIONS

Fear for future livelihood

27

New alliances in Port Pirie

COMMUNITY COMMUNITY

SPECIALISTSSPECIALISTS

ORGANISATIONALORGANISATIONAL

HOLISTICHOLISTIC

Outrage, political actionOutrage, political action

Technical skills, advocacyTechnical skills, advocacy

Public/private goodPublic/private good

Children’s well-beingChildren’s well-being

INDIVIDUALNDIVIDUAL Parent, grandparentParent, grandparent

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 PhD thesis ‘seeking surprise’)

Our approach: KM as collective learning

Describe

DesignDo

Develop

Initiative

Key to nested knowledge cultures:

Individual (Local) Community Specialised Organisational (strategic) Holistic

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?

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/5rqp8c

• Background paper: ‘Monitoring and evaluating knowledge management strategies’ http://su.pr/28Q9Yu

Thank you!