CHEVRON—ContinuedThe shift toward k

CHEVRON—Continued
The shift toward knowledge-driven business models has created a strong
need for knowledge management metrics. The literature has only recently
begun to explore the cost of KM, with little empirical data showing true organizational
costs (Harvey and Lusch, 1999). Three popular approaches—benchmarking,
the balanced scorecard method, and the house of quality—are
presented next.
The Benchmarking Method
Benchmarking is the search for industrywide best practices that lead to superior
performance. It usually consists of a study of similar companies to determine
how things are done best in order to adapt these methods for their own
use. This technique is best summed up by the Hindu proverb: “know the best
to become the best.”
Benchmarking as a tactical planning tool originated with Xerox Business
Systems in the late 1970s. At that time, Japanese affiliates were selling betterquality
copiers for less than the manufacturing costs of similar products in the
United States; Xerox wanted to know why as well as whether or not they could
emulate them. Similarly, one of the first experiments in benchmarking was in
the production logistics area (warehousing, picking, packing, and shipping)
when Xerox Business Services benchmarked with L. L. Bean, a clothing manufacturer,
which had one of the best logistics operations in the world.
Benchmarking is a fairly straightforward KM metric that often represents
a good starting point. There are two general types of benchmarking: internal
benchmarking, which involves comparisons against other units within the
same organization or a comparison of a single unit over different time
periods; and external benchmarking, which involves a comparison with other
companies.
In addition, Spendolini (1992) describes three different types of benchmarking:
272 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
Chevron’s best practice culture extends to the evaluation of employees for
salary purposes. An individual’s evaluation is based on individual growth
and team performance. Those who practice the sharing of knowledge are
more likely to be the ones rising up the organizational ladder. Staff who are
not ingrained with the culture probably will either not know who to share
information with, or not share their information because they do not feel it
is of value to anyone. It is establishing that culture—and most important,
doing it for business needs—that is the difference between those who practice
knowledge management and those who just talk about it. Best practice
sharing has helped Chevron cut annual operating costs by $1.8 billion,
reduce cost structure by $400 million, reduce debt by $2.3 billion in two
years, cut capital cost of projects by 15% since 1991, and improve employee
safety performance by 50%.
1. Industry Group Measurements: the measurement of various facets of
your operation and comparing these to similar measurements. Often the
measures have little to do with productivity, customer satisfaction, or
“best practice.” Many industry groups publish comparative data either
privately (for members of the group or service only) or publicly, or both.
The Institute of Internal Auditors’ GAIN (Global Audit Information
Network) provides this kind of data privately to subscribers. The Institute
also publishes biannual salary surveys and occasionally special
studies of external audit fees and research on effective audit departments
(“best practices”).
2. Best Practice Studies: studies and lists of what works best. These are
useful to benchmarking research, but they are not useful as metrics.
What works best for an entity in its specific environment may not
work the same way in another environment. These studies can be useful
simulators, but they are not benchmarks per se. There are books,
consultants, and public accounting firms that report internal audit
“best practices” gathered from research and consulting practice. The IIA
published a book for audit committees that was a study of best
practices.
3. Cooperative Benchmarking: the measurement of key production functions
of inputs, outputs, and outcomes with the aim of improving them.
In internal audit, we would study, for example, comparisons of costs
per audit hour, time elapsed to distribute final report, and percentage
of recommendations accepted. Cooperative benchmarking is performed
with the assistance of the entity being studied (the benchmark
“partner”). Often the entity selected as a benchmark is one that has
“best practices” in the area of interest or has won a major national or
international quality award. Internal audit departments are increasingly
interested in this method. A version of cooperative benchmarking is
collaborative benchmarking. In the collaborative method, both entities
study each other and work together to improve. Some audit departments
are now doing this.
4. Competitive Benchmarking: the study and measurement of a competitor
without its cooperation for the purposes of process or product
quality improvement. The latter is called reverse engineering. A version
of competitive benchmarking is the commisioning of a third party to
study a group of competitors and share the results with all. The thirdparty
consultant is the only one who knows what data belong to which
entity. (You obviously know your own, but not necessarily anyone
else’s.)
In the long term, this approach lacks sufficient value and flexibility, which
leads to other measurement tools and techniques eventually being brought in
to measure the effectiveness of KM. Benchmarking is essentially a comparison
that is undertaken with key leaders in the industry in order to identify any best
practices that the company can emulate in order to improve its own organizational
effectiveness. This technique was pioneered by Carla O’Dell at the
American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC, http://www.apqc.org).
KM STRATEGY AND METRICS 273
Benchmarking is a good way of avoiding reinventing the wheel by looking at
what has worked and what has not worked for other companies operating in
comparable environments or industrial sectors.
The benefits of benchmarking are not limited to improvements in process or
the promotion of reuse. Tiwana (2000) lists the following potential benefits:
1. Overall productivity of knowledge investments.
2. Service quality.
3. Customer satisfaction and the operational level of customer service.
4. Time to market in relation to other competitors.
5. Costs, profits, and margins.
6. Distribution.
7. Relationships and relationship management.
Benchmarking can help an organization evolve to higher maturity levels,
whereby it becomes a learning organization by identifying where it stands with
respect to KM in relation to the competition.
Accenture (formerly Arthur Andersen) developed a Knowledge Management
Assessment Tool (KMAT) that is essentially a benchmarking questionnaire
where responses by a given company can be easily compared against industry
standards in order to come up with a relative standing or ranking for the
company on specific indicators. The KMAT was developed by the American
Productivity and Quality Center and Arthur Andersen in 1995 to help organizations
self-assess where their strengths and opportunities lie in managing
knowledge. The tool is divided into five sections: the KM process; leadership;
culture; technology; and measurement. A subset of the items and information
in the KMAT, with a simplified scoring system, is available at (http://www.
kwork.org/White%20Papers/KMAT_BOK_DOC.pdf).
The first step in benchmarking is to compile the short list of companies that
you will be comparing. Recent trends toward globalization indicate that international
companies should not be automatically excluded from your short list.
In the end, it is a fairly subjective decision as to which companies and which
criteria you will be benchmarking against. Some typical targets include innovation
metrics (how fast are new products being developed? How much is
invested in R&D?), customer loyalty, KM integration, leveraging of IT, and
quality management.
Tiwana (2000) adapted Spendolini’s (1992) key benchmarking steps in order
to arrive at a better fit with KM. These key steps can be summarized as:
1. Determine what to benchmark: which knowledge processes, products,
services? Why? With what scope?
2. Form a benchmarking team.
3. Select a benchmarking short list—which companies will you be benchmarking
against?
4. Collect and analyze data.
5. Determine what changes should be made as a result of the metrics
obtained.
274 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
6. Repeat when an appropriate amount of time has lapsed to measure

Results (Indonesian) 1:

CHEVRON — terusPergeseran menuju model bisnis berbasis pengetahuan telah menciptakan yang kuatmemerlukan pengetahuan manajemen metrik. Literatur telah sajamulai menjelajahi biaya KM, dengan sedikit data empiris yang menampilkan benar organisasibiaya (Harvey dan Lusch, 1999). Tiga pendekatan populer — pembandingan,metode balanced scorecard, dan rumah kualitas — yangdisajikan berikutnya.Metode pembandinganPembandingan adalah mencari peride praktek-praktek terbaik yang mengakibatkan superiorkinerja. Biasanya terdiri dari sebuah studi serupa perusahaan untuk menentukanbagaimana hal-hal yang dilakukan terbaik untuk mengadaptasi metode ini untuk mereka sendiriGunakan. Teknik ini adalah yang terbaik diringkaskan oleh Hindu pepatah: "tahu yang terbaikuntuk menjadi yang terbaik."Pembandingan sebagai alat perencanaan taktis yang berasal dari Xerox bisnisSistem di akhir 1970an. Pada waktu itu, Jepang afiliasi menjual betterqualityMesin Fotokopi untuk kurang dari biaya produksi dari produk serupa diAmerika Serikat; Xerox ingin tahu mengapa serta apakah atau tidak mereka bisameniru mereka. Demikian pula, salah satu percobaan pertama dalam pembandingan adalaharea logistik produksi (pergudangan, memetik, pengepakan dan pengiriman)Kapan layanan bisnis Xerox benchmarked dengan L. L. Bean, produsen pakaian,yang memiliki salah satu operasi logistik yang terbaik di dunia.Pembandingan adalah metrik KM yang cukup sederhana yang sering mewakilia good starting point. There are two general types of benchmarking: internalbenchmarking, which involves comparisons against other units within thesame organization or a comparison of a single unit over different timeperiods; and external benchmarking, which involves a comparison with othercompanies.In addition, Spendolini (1992) describes three different types of benchmarking:272 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THEORY AND PRACTICEChevron’s best practice culture extends to the evaluation of employees forsalary purposes. An individual’s evaluation is based on individual growthand team performance. Those who practice the sharing of knowledge aremore likely to be the ones rising up the organizational ladder. Staff who arenot ingrained with the culture probably will either not know who to shareinformation with, or not share their information because they do not feel itis of value to anyone. It is establishing that culture—and most important,doing it for business needs—that is the difference between those who practiceknowledge management and those who just talk about it. Best practicesharing has helped Chevron cut annual operating costs by $1.8 billion,reduce cost structure by $400 million, reduce debt by $2.3 billion in twoyears, cut capital cost of projects by 15% since 1991, and improve employeesafety performance by 50%.1. Industry Group Measurements: the measurement of various facets ofyour operation and comparing these to similar measurements. Often themeasures have little to do with productivity, customer satisfaction, or“best practice.” Many industry groups publish comparative data eitherprivately (for members of the group or service only) or publicly, or both.The Institute of Internal Auditors’ GAIN (Global Audit InformationNetwork) provides this kind of data privately to subscribers. The Institutealso publishes biannual salary surveys and occasionally specialstudies of external audit fees and research on effective audit departments(“best practices”).2. Best Practice Studies: studies and lists of what works best. These areuseful to benchmarking research, but they are not useful as metrics.What works best for an entity in its specific environment may notwork the same way in another environment. These studies can be usefulsimulators, but they are not benchmarks per se. There are books,consultants, and public accounting firms that report internal audit“best practices” gathered from research and consulting practice. The IIApublished a book for audit committees that was a study of bestpractices.3. Cooperative Benchmarking: the measurement of key production functionsof inputs, outputs, and outcomes with the aim of improving them.In internal audit, we would study, for example, comparisons of costsper audit hour, time elapsed to distribute final report, and percentageof recommendations accepted. Cooperative benchmarking is performedwith the assistance of the entity being studied (the benchmark“partner”). Often the entity selected as a benchmark is one that has“best practices” in the area of interest or has won a major national orinternational quality award. Internal audit departments are increasinglyinterested in this method. A version of cooperative benchmarking iscollaborative benchmarking. In the collaborative method, both entitiesstudy each other and work together to improve. Some audit departmentsare now doing this.4. Competitive Benchmarking: the study and measurement of a competitorwithout its cooperation for the purposes of process or productquality improvement. The latter is called reverse engineering. A versionof competitive benchmarking is the commisioning of a third party tostudy a group of competitors and share the results with all. The thirdpartyconsultant is the only one who knows what data belong to whichentity. (You obviously know your own, but not necessarily anyoneelse’s.)In the long term, this approach lacks sufficient value and flexibility, whichleads to other measurement tools and techniques eventually being brought into measure the effectiveness of KM. Benchmarking is essentially a comparisonthat is undertaken with key leaders in the industry in order to identify any bestpractices that the company can emulate in order to improve its own organizationaleffectiveness. This technique was pioneered by Carla O’Dell at theAmerican Productivity and Quality Center (APQC, http://www.apqc.org).KM STRATEGY AND METRICS 273Benchmarking is a good way of avoiding reinventing the wheel by looking atwhat has worked and what has not worked for other companies operating incomparable environments or industrial sectors.The benefits of benchmarking are not limited to improvements in process orthe promotion of reuse. Tiwana (2000) lists the following potential benefits:1. Overall productivity of knowledge investments.2. Service quality.3. Customer satisfaction and the operational level of customer service.4. Time to market in relation to other competitors.5. Costs, profits, and margins.6. Distribution.7. Relationships and relationship management.Benchmarking can help an organization evolve to higher maturity levels,whereby it becomes a learning organization by identifying where it stands withrespect to KM in relation to the competition.Accenture (formerly Arthur Andersen) developed a Knowledge ManagementAssessment Tool (KMAT) that is essentially a benchmarking questionnairewhere responses by a given company can be easily compared against industrystandards in order to come up with a relative standing or ranking for thecompany on specific indicators. The KMAT was developed by the AmericanProductivity and Quality Center and Arthur Andersen in 1995 to help organizationsself-assess where their strengths and opportunities lie in managing
knowledge. The tool is divided into five sections: the KM process; leadership;
culture; technology; and measurement. A subset of the items and information
in the KMAT, with a simplified scoring system, is available at (http://www.
kwork.org/White%20Papers/KMAT_BOK_DOC.pdf).
The first step in benchmarking is to compile the short list of companies that
you will be comparing. Recent trends toward globalization indicate that international
companies should not be automatically excluded from your short list.
In the end, it is a fairly subjective decision as to which companies and which
criteria you will be benchmarking against. Some typical targets include innovation
metrics (how fast are new products being developed? How much is
invested in R&D?), customer loyalty, KM integration, leveraging of IT, and
quality management.
Tiwana (2000) adapted Spendolini’s (1992) key benchmarking steps in order
to arrive at a better fit with KM. These key steps can be summarized as:
1. Determine what to benchmark: which knowledge processes, products,
services? Why? With what scope?
2. Form a benchmarking team.
3. Select a benchmarking short list—which companies will you be benchmarking
against?
4. Collect and analyze data.
5. Determine what changes should be made as a result of the metrics
obtained.
274 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN THEORY AND PRACTICE
6. Repeat when an appropriate amount of time has lapsed to measure

Results (Indonesian) 2:

CHEVRON-Lanjutan
Pergeseran ke arah model bisnis berbasis pengetahuan telah menciptakan kuat
kebutuhan untuk metrik manajemen pengetahuan. Literatur hanya baru-baru ini
mulai mengeksplorasi biaya KM, dengan sedikit data empiris yang menunjukkan organisasi yang benar
biaya (Harvey dan Lusch, 1999). Tiga pendekatan-benchmarking populer,
metode balanced scorecard, dan rumah berkualitas yang
disajikan berikutnya.
The Pembandingan Metode
Benchmarking adalah mencari industrywide praktik terbaik yang mengarah ke superior
kinerja. Biasanya terdiri dari studi perusahaan sejenis untuk menentukan
bagaimana hal tersebut dilakukan terbaik untuk beradaptasi metode ini untuk mereka sendiri
digunakan. Teknik ini terbaik disimpulkan oleh pepatah Hindu: "tahu yang terbaik
untuk menjadi yang terbaik. "
Benchmarking sebagai alat perencanaan taktis berasal Xerox Bisnis
Systems di akhir 1970-an. Pada saat itu, afiliasi Jepang menjual betterquality
mesin fotokopi kurang dari biaya pembuatan produk sejenis di
Amerika Serikat; Xerox ingin tahu mengapa serta apakah mereka bisa
meniru mereka. Demikian pula, salah satu eksperimen pertama dalam benchmarking berada di
daerah logistik produksi (pergudangan, memilih, pengepakan, dan pengiriman)
ketika Xerox Layanan Bisnis mengacu dengan LL Bean, produsen pakaian,
yang memiliki salah satu operasi logistik terbaik di dunia.
Benchmarking adalah metrik KM cukup sederhana yang sering merupakan
titik awal yang baik. Ada dua jenis umum benchmarking: internal yang
benchmarking, yang melibatkan perbandingan terhadap unit lain dalam
organisasi yang sama atau perbandingan satu unit dari waktu ke waktu yang berbeda
periode; dan benchmarking eksternal, yang melibatkan perbandingan dengan lainnya
. perusahaan
Selain itu, Spendolini (1992) menjelaskan tiga jenis benchmarking:
272 MANAJEMEN PENGETAHUAN DALAM TEORI DAN PRAKTIK
budaya praktik terbaik Chevron meluas ke evaluasi karyawan untuk
keperluan gaji. Evaluasi individu didasarkan pada pertumbuhan individu
dan kinerja tim. Mereka yang berlatih berbagi pengetahuan yang
lebih mungkin untuk menjadi orang-orang naik tangga organisasi. Staf yang
tidak tertanam dengan budaya mungkin akan baik tidak tahu siapa yang harus berbagi
informasi dengan, atau tidak berbagi informasi mereka karena mereka tidak merasa itu
adalah nilai kepada siapa pun. Hal ini menetapkan bahwa budaya-dan yang paling penting,
melakukannya untuk kebutuhan bisnis-yang merupakan perbedaan antara orang yang melakukan
manajemen pengetahuan dan mereka yang hanya berbicara tentang hal itu. Praktik terbaik
berbagi telah membantu Chevron memotong biaya operasional tahunan sebesar $ 1,8 milliar
mengurangi struktur biaya sebesar $ 400 juta, mengurangi utang sebesar $ 2,3 miliar pada dua
tahun, memotong biaya modal proyek sebesar 15% sejak tahun 1991, dan meningkatkan karyawan
kinerja keselamatan dengan 50%.
1. Pengukuran Industry Group: pengukuran berbagai aspek
operasi dan membandingkan ini untuk pengukuran yang sama. Seringkali
tindakan memiliki sedikit hubungannya dengan produktivitas, kepuasan pelanggan, atau
"praktek terbaik." Banyak kelompok industri mempublikasikan data pembanding baik
secara pribadi (untuk anggota kelompok atau jasa saja) atau umum, atau keduanya.
The Institute of Internal Auditors 'GAIN (Global Audit Information
Network) menyediakan jenis data pribadi kepada pelanggan. The Institute
juga menerbitkan survei gaji dua tahunan dan kadang-kadang khusus
studi biaya audit eksternal dan penelitian tentang departemen audit yang efektif
("best practices").
2. Terbaik Studi Practice: studi dan daftar apa yang terbaik. Ini
berguna untuk pembandingan penelitian, tetapi mereka tidak berguna sebagai metrik.
Apa yang terbaik untuk sebuah entitas dalam lingkungan yang spesifik mungkin tidak
bekerja dengan cara yang sama di lingkungan lain. Studi-studi ini dapat berguna
simulator, tetapi mereka tidak benchmark per se. Ada buku,
konsultan, dan kantor akuntan publik yang melaporkan audit internal
"praktik terbaik" yang dikumpulkan dari penelitian dan konsultasi praktek. The IIA
menerbitkan sebuah buku untuk komite audit yang merupakan studi terbaik
praktek.
3. Koperasi Benchmarking: pengukuran fungsi produksi kunci
. input, output, dan hasil dengan tujuan untuk meningkatkan mereka
Dalam audit internal, kita akan belajar, misalnya, perbandingan biaya
per jam audit, waktu berlalu untuk mendistribusikan laporan akhir, dan persentase
rekomendasi diterima. Benchmarking koperasi dilakukan
dengan bantuan entitas yang sedang dipelajari (benchmark
"partner"). Seringkali entitas yang dipilih sebagai patokan adalah salah satu yang memiliki
"best practices" dalam area of interest atau telah memenangkan nasional atau besar
penghargaan kualitas internasional. Departemen audit internal semakin
tertarik dengan metode ini. Sebuah versi benchmarking koperasi
pembandingan kolaboratif. Dalam metode kolaboratif, kedua entitas
mempelajari satu sama lain dan bekerja sama untuk meningkatkan. Beberapa departemen Audit
sekarang melakukan hal ini.
4. Benchmarking Kompetitif: studi dan pengukuran pesaing
tanpa kerjasama untuk keperluan proses atau produk
peningkatan kualitas. Yang terakhir disebut reverse engineering. Sebuah versi
benchmarking kompetitif adalah komisioning dari pihak ketiga untuk
mempelajari sekelompok pesaing dan berbagi hasil dengan semua. The thirdparty
konsultan adalah satu-satunya yang tahu apa yang Data milik yang
entitas. (Anda jelas tahu sendiri, tetapi belum tentu orang
lain.)
Dalam jangka panjang, pendekatan ini tidak memiliki nilai yang memadai dan fleksibilitas, yang
mengarah ke alat pengukuran lainnya dan teknik akhirnya dibawa di
untuk mengukur efektivitas KM. Benchmarking pada dasarnya adalah perbandingan
yang dilakukan dengan para pemimpin kunci dalam industri untuk mengidentifikasi terbaik
praktek bahwa perusahaan dapat meniru dalam rangka meningkatkan organisasi sendiri
efektivitas. Teknik ini dipelopori oleh Carla O'Dell di
Amerika Produktivitas dan Mutu Pusat (APQC, http://www.apqc.org).
KM STRATEGI DAN Metrik 273
Benchmarking adalah cara yang baik untuk menghindari menciptakan kembali roda dengan melihat
apa yang telah bekerja dan apa yang tidak bekerja untuk perusahaan lain yang beroperasi di
lingkungan sebanding atau sektor industri.
Manfaat benchmarking tidak terbatas pada perbaikan dalam proses atau
promosi reuse. Tiwana (2000) daftar potensi manfaat sebagai berikut:
1. Keseluruhan produktivitas investasi pengetahuan.
2. Kualitas layanan.
3. Kepuasan pelanggan dan tingkat operasional layanan pelanggan.
4. Waktu ke pasar dalam kaitannya dengan pesaing lain.
5. Biaya, laba, dan margin.
6. Distribusi.
7. Hubungan dan manajemen hubungan.
Benchmarking dapat membantu organisasi berkembang ke tingkat yang lebih tinggi jatuh tempo,
dimana itu menjadi organisasi belajar dengan mengidentifikasi di mana ia berdiri dengan
sehubungan dengan KM dalam kaitannya dengan kompetisi.
Accenture (sebelumnya Arthur Andersen) mengembangkan Manajemen Pengetahuan
Assessment Tool ( KMAT) yang pada dasarnya adalah sebuah kuesioner benchmarking
di mana respon oleh suatu perusahaan dapat dengan mudah dibandingkan dengan industri
standar untuk datang dengan berdiri relatif atau peringkat untuk
perusahaan pada indikator tertentu. The KMAT dikembangkan oleh Amerika
Produktivitas dan Mutu Center dan Arthur Andersen pada tahun 1995 untuk membantu organisasi
menilai sendiri mana kekuatan dan peluang mereka berbaring dalam mengelola
pengetahuan. Alat ini dibagi menjadi lima bagian: proses KM; kepemimpinan;
budaya; teknologi; dan pengukuran. Sebuah subset dari item dan informasi
di KMAT, dengan sistem penilaian disederhanakan, tersedia di (http: // www.
. kwork.org/White%20Papers/KMAT_BOK_DOC.pdf)
Langkah pertama dalam benchmarking adalah untuk mengkompilasi pendek daftar perusahaan yang
Anda akan membandingkan. Tren terbaru terhadap globalisasi menunjukkan bahwa internasional
perusahaan tidak boleh secara otomatis dikeluarkan dari daftar pendek Anda.
Pada akhirnya, itu adalah keputusan yang cukup subjektif untuk yang perusahaan dan mana
kriteria yang Anda akan pembandingan terhadap. Beberapa target khas meliputi inovasi
metrik (seberapa cepat adalah produk baru yang dikembangkan? Berapa
diinvestasikan dalam R & D?), loyalitas pelanggan, integrasi KM, leveraging TI, dan
manajemen mutu.
Tiwana (2000) diadaptasi (1992) langkah-langkah pembandingan kunci Spendolini itu dalam rangka
untuk sampai pada lebih cocok dengan KM. Langkah-langkah kunci dapat diringkas sebagai:
1. Tentukan apa yang harus patokan: mana pengetahuan proses, produk,
jasa? Mengapa? Dengan apa lingkup?
2. Membentuk tim benchmarking.
3. Pilih pembandingan daftar-yang pendek perusahaan yang akan Anda pembandingan
terhadap?
4. Mengumpulkan dan menganalisis data.
5. Menentukan perubahan apa yang harus dilakukan sebagai hasil dari metrik
yang diperoleh.
MANAJEMEN 274 PENGETAHUAN DALAM TEORI DAN PRAKTEK
6. Ulangi bila jumlah yang tepat waktu telah berakhir untuk mengukur