First Cousins Once Removed: KM and EPS by Andy Zolper

First Cousins Once Removed:
Knowledge Management and Performance Support
by Andy Zolper
Sterling Resources, Inc.

Overview

Knowledge management ("KM") and Electronic Performance Support ("EPS") are disciplines separated by outlook but united by objective. Each desires to provide useful knowledge to employees in order to effect business improvement. Practitioners of EPS view it as a new manifestation of training; a better and different approach to the challenges historically faced by corporate training professionals. KM, on the other hand, has evolved from business improvement movements; its practitioners view it as an outgrowth of evolving "new economy" business strategies. Today, several years into the maturation of both disciplines, one cannot help but notice the common aims, challenges, opportunities, and obstacles shared between the two.

While many of us have seen the similarities, it is difficult to grasp the relationship between the two. Are they the same thing? Mutually exclusive? Complementary? This paper will seek to describe a framework in which KM and PS act as agents of support to employees faced with the need to complete business tasks. Within this framework, KM and EPS join Human Performance Support ("HPS") and Internalized Knowledge ("IK") as components of a theoretical "Blended Knowledge Delivery Model".

Framework Definitions

One of the challenges of shaping an explanation such as this is creating a common language with which to explain. The concept of a "Blended Knowledge Delivery Model," or BKD Model, is an attempt at describing an umbrella term encompassing the worlds of KM, EPS, HPS, and IK. The objective of the BKD Model is simpler than its title - - it is to provide the knowledge needed for employees to perform their job satisfactorily. For the purposes of this paper, I am defining the these terms as follows:

Knowledge Management (KM): the practice of collecting disparate forms of existing, quantified knowledge and attempting to provide electronic and easily searchable access to it. This can include intranets, knowledge bases, electronic bulletin boards, newsgroups, and other "knowledge pooling" techniques. Note that I am not describing the process(es) surrounding this practice nor any theoretical implication of what KM should be. Knowledge pooling is the current approach to KM throughout the vast majority of corporate America.

Electronic Performance Support (EPS): the practice of providing task-specific knowledge to employees at the employees’ moment of need. Most, but not all, EPS practitioners would espouse a belief that this knowledge is delivered with the primary intent of effecting satisfactory performance, with learning a secondary concern. From my perspective as an EPS practitioner, EPS is distinguished from KM because EPS content is organized and structured in advance. KM is an effort aimed at providing an employee effective tools to aid the employee in organizing and distilling applicable knowledge from a broader body of available knowledge. Alternatively, EPS is an effort aimed at providing an employee with previously organized and distilled knowledge via an effective delivery tool.

Human Performance Support (HPS): the practice of providing appropriate knowledge to employees via a mentor, supervisor, subject matter expert, staff member, aide, consultant or other appropriate role. Because of the breadth of possible roles, I distinguish it here from KM, especially given the form most KM takes today. HPS is not intended to encompass casual information but rather deliberate knowledge-sharing relationships, mostly formal in nature.

Internalized Knowledge (IK): Frequently referred to as "tacit" knowledge, this term is meant to represent the knowledge each employee has retained and internalized. An important notion in the BKD model is the understanding that IK is a critical component of employee performance.

The BKD Model

The BKD Model integrates the four knowledge delivery mechanisms into one comprehensive view. The driver of the model is the complexity of the task faced by an employee. This task-centric outlook draws from the theory and practical experience of EPS. However, the model does not imply that EPS is the preferred knowledge delivery mechanism. Instead, the model demonstrates selecting the most efficient means of knowledge delivery for a given situation. Efficiency, in this case, is a function of how easily knowledge can be delivered balanced by how useful the knowledge is once delivered. My use of ‘efficiency’ implies that the priority is completing the task with the best possible outcome. So, two delivery mechanisms being equal in usefulness would lean towards the one most easily delivered. However, if one delivery mechanism cannot deliver knowledge useful within a given context, its ease of delivery is moot. This concept of priority of outcome is central to the model.

Secondly, the model assumes a directly proportional relationship between the complexity of a task and the knowledge required for completing the task. There are no highly complex tasks that require little knowledge to complete, or relatively simple tasks that require a high component of knowledge to finish. These tasks, should they exist, lie outside of this model.

The model relies on the following analysis to determine the appropriate knowledge delivery mechanisms for a specific task:

What knowledge does the employee have to internalize before attempting the task in order to produce acceptable quality, customer service, interpersonal behavior, and employee satisfaction? This "human element" represents a baseline of knowledge required of the employee regardless of any other form of knowledge delivery available.
Can we capture ahead of time the correct course of action required to complete the task? The degree to which we can indicates the degree to which we can successfully use EPS for knowledge delivery.
If we cannot capture the entire correct course of action ahead of time, do we have a knowledge pool available describing a sufficient number of similar tasks occurring within the organization (possibly a larger community of interest)? The degree to which we do indicates the possibility of employing KM for knowledge delivery.
If we don’t have an appropriate knowledge pool available, what individuals should be providing their own IK to assist in the completion of the task? This indicates the degree to which we need to rely on HPS for knowledge delivery.
If the IK of other individuals is not available or not sufficient to assist in the satisfactory completion of the task, what IK does the employee completing the task need?

My use of this analysis process yields a generic model that is depicted in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1

This view of the BKD model is divided into three zones, each depicted as a square. Each square has specific characteristics, and corresponding knowledge delivery suggestions.

Zone 1 - - Lower Left.

Zone 1 represents tasks with the lowest level of complexity. The defining characteristic of this square is the high degree to which we can quantify ahead of time what the correct course of action is to complete the task. This zone is dominated by the appropriateness of EPS. High quality, low error rates, standardized processes, efficient work flows can all be realized by determining ahead of time the most appropriate course of action for completing tasks. Knowledge management is used little if at all; although there could be a very large knowledge pool about any one task, KM (i.e. each user searching the knowledge pool) will have a lower success rate in generating the most satisfactory performance of the task compared to EPS. HPS is not indicated at all; it would be a poor utilization of resources. Although designated as "Low," IK should not be overlooked. A certain baseline of IK is necessary even in the simplest of tasks.

Zone 2 - - The Center Square

Zone 2 is the territory of KM. We have many tasks occurring that are similar in nature, but the tasks in this zone are sufficiently complex that a high degree of uniqueness surrounds each one. The uniqueness blocks our ability to quantify completely the most appropriate course of action ahead of time, thus EPS is part but not the lynchpin of the knowledge delivery. While giving some knowledge support via EPS, we rely on the employee to mine the available knowledge pool of similar previous task knowledge in order to craft an appropriate course of action. IK demands are also raised; in addition to the baseline knowledge needed additional IK is required to synthesize the knowledge pooling efforts of KM. Finally, limited HPS is introduced to provide insight into aspects of the task that are not readily apparent through KM efforts.

Zone 3 - - Upper Right

Zone 3 is the domain of IK and HPS. The reasoning is straightforward: we are far removed from the ability to quantify a course of action ahead of time - - EPS is not introduced at all. KM may have some knowledge to offer, but the burden is carried by the IK of the individual faced with the task coupled with the IK of individuals available to assist.

This model suggests a methodology for performance/knowledge management planning. By plotting the complexity of job tasks assigned to a particular job function, an illuminating picture of a job function’s knowledge support requirements becomes evident. The scatter diagram resulting from this effort would enable practitioners, EPS and KM alike, to grasp the breadth of a job function’s complexity and to see the various knowledge delivery mechanism types that should be brought to bear for employees.

The Missing Dimensions

Employee performance is as complex an issue as human nature. To be truly aware of all the dimensions impacting employee performance, we must attempt to synthesize a view even broader than that which I have described above. Employee motivation, compensation issues, work/family balance, processes ownership and other similarly intricate issues all impact employee performance. We should not forget that our efforts in EPS and KM are only a parcel in a larger landscape.

Conclusion

The BKD model is meant to crystallize our view of the overlapping disciplines of KM and EPS. We know intuitively that the overlap exists; the BKD gives form and function to that intuition. KM and EPS, together with IK and HPS, each has a role to play in our struggle to improve the performance of people in the workplace. The ideal solution is one in which the vast innate abilities of employees are complemented by our efforts, not complicated or confused. A blended solution, as represented by the BKD model, is just such an approach.

ANDY ZOLPER leads the Technology Solutions Group of Sterling Resources. For the past 12 years, he has managed highly skilled teams in information technology and telecommunications applications. Under his direction, Sterling Resources has designed and developed cost effective computer based training (CBT) and electronic performance support systems (EPSS) for hundreds of clients. He has been published and is a frequent speaker on the role of electronic performance support systems in the banking industry. He is also an experienced instructor in managerial and leadership skills, as well as application software.