Knowledge Audit: Findings from the Energy Sector Knowledge and Process Management Volume 21 Number 4 pp 270–279 (2014) Published online 22 May 2014 in Wiley Online Library (www.wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/kpm.1435 ■ Case Study Knowledge Audit: Findings from the Energy Sector Gillian Ragsdell1*, Steve Probets2, Ghosia Ahmed1 and Ian Murray2 1 Loughborough University, School of Business and Economics, Loughborough, UK 2Loughborough University, Computer Science, Loughborough, UK *Cor Scho Loug E-ma Cop Knowledge audits assist organisations in understanding what knowledge is needed, available and used for their current 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 brings 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 current 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 respondence to: Gillian Ragsdell, Loughborough University, ol of Business and Economics, Richard Morris Building, hborough University, Loughborough, Leics, LE11 3TU, UK. il: g.ragsdell@lboro.ac.uk 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 base. 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 brings 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 recognised 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 recognised 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. (2000) who 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. (2004) suggest that a knowledge audit can help organisations to determine and illustrate the knowledge they possess, where this knowledge resides 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 currently exists and (ii) identifying the knowledge that is missing (Liebowitz et al., 2000; Dattero and Galup, 2007). In 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 barriers (Levy et al., 2010), general barriers and problems (Burnett et al., 2004), and the degree of knowledge sharing interest in participants (Perez-Soltero et al., 2006). However, 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., 2000). Although questionnaires can be a useful tool in knowledge audits for collecting structured or semi-structured data, they can have limitations in terms of the quality, depth and context of qualitative responses. 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., 2009). Various knowledge audits such as those discussed by Levy et al. (2010), Mearns and Du Toit (2008), Burnett et al. (2004) and Choy et al. (2004) have 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: For example, Bontis et al. (2003) depicted 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. (2004) produced 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 brings 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, 270–279 (2014) DOI: 10.1002/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 bridge the gap between laboratory-scale research and developments and commercial deployment of large-scale engineering projects. By working with a range 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 calibre 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 transferred. The interview schedule comprised of 23 questions that were arranged in four sections. These four sections concerned the following: (i) knowledge Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. required 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 four main departments within the organisation. Partici- pant selection was based on the size of depart- ment, the individual’s